So with an heir born in say, April or May, York could remain in charge of the Fleet instead of Monck. Could York be enough to make the Four days' battle less of a disaster? Or pull a real victory out of the St. James' day battle? Combining this with Admiral de Ruyter's death would this help or no?
WI: English Victory in the 2nd Anglo-Dutch war?
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
So with an heir born in say, April or May, York could remain in charge of the Fleet instead of Monck. Could York be enough to make the Four days' battle less of a disaster? Or pull a real victory out of the St. James' day battle? Combining this with Admiral de Ruyter's death would this help or no?
I reckon anybody other than Monck could make the Four Days a better result ( except maybe Rupert, who would either make it an extraordinary British triumph, or a complete disaster) . I think the combination of Rupert and York was rather a good one. They complemented each other
Taking out de Ruyter has to help.
Taking out de Ruyter has to help.
That's what I was thinking as well. With an Heir born, there's no reason to keep York at home, thus allowing him to remain in command of the Fleet. Now killing off de Ruyter is a bit more challenging, but not impossible. After all, in OTL he died in battle, so its not unheard off. I'll have to look for a suitable time for him to be killed, maybe while he's in the Caribbean, Africa or the Colonies. Or maybe a storm sinks his ship while returning to Europe. Hell he was almost killed in the St. James's day battle (though I think it would be better for him to die earlier).
A bit off topic, but I was thinking of incorporating Charles II's plan for rebuilding London into my TL as well. Is there anyway it could be accepted? I was thinking that with an heir and a victory in the Dutch war, the King would have more political capital to get it implemented.
Razgriz 2K9
Banned
How and in what way exactly is he going to rebuild London after the Second Anglo-Dutch War.
I'll have to re-read the exact details, but essentially he was planning on making London similar to the Paris of Napoleon III, with numerous open markets, various roads straightened, various company buildings rebuilt on the water front, things like that. The biography I have suggests that this London would vie with the Paris of Napoleon III.
I thought that was after the Great Fire ? Problem then, was that nobody was willing/able to wait for years while it was all designed, and there was no money for it anyway ( do you sense a common Stuart theme there!) . So everyone just threw up replacement buildings (shacks first then proper buildings) where the old ones were.
I don't think any extra political clout was needed, everyone thought it was a good idea, but nobody wanted to wait around for it
I don't think any extra political clout was needed, everyone thought it was a good idea, but nobody wanted to wait around for it
Last edited:
Y'know, this idea is really evil, but it's actually quite possible.
Plague broke out in the Netherlands in 1664, just as the Dutch fleet would have been setting out. Plague is carried by rats, and ships are usually infested with rats. If plague broke out on the Dutch fleet, killing de Ruyter, and crippling the fleet fighting strength, it would be a pushover for the English.
Then next year , when plague hit London, everyone would blame the Dutch, instead of the Papists.
EDIT. This (plague on ships) was apparently very common in real life. That's how the plague jumped from Amsterdam to London. And the Great plague of 588 was started by a plague ridden ship from Spain that put into Marseilles.
Plague broke out in the Netherlands in 1664, just as the Dutch fleet would have been setting out. Plague is carried by rats, and ships are usually infested with rats. If plague broke out on the Dutch fleet, killing de Ruyter, and crippling the fleet fighting strength, it would be a pushover for the English.
Then next year , when plague hit London, everyone would blame the Dutch, instead of the Papists.
EDIT. This (plague on ships) was apparently very common in real life. That's how the plague jumped from Amsterdam to London. And the Great plague of 588 was started by a plague ridden ship from Spain that put into Marseilles.
Last edited:
Actually, the reason it didn't go threw was because the Companies said the act didn't give them sufficient power to compensate the owners of the required land (so once again it goes back to money!). So maybe Parliament votes to give the companies the power they need to do so.
Your right, that idea is evil, but I like it
! It could work. So maybe the plague breaks out a bit earlier or the Fleet's departure is delayed, thus carrying the plague onto to the Dutch Fleet. I'll have to seriously think about this.the timing is fairly fluid. some sources say 1663 some 1664 and the rats would have had it a few months before people started dying.
In fact , plague breaking out in a port would probably be a very good incentive to get a fleet out to sea ASAP. Pity if it was already infected
In fact , plague breaking out in a port would probably be a very good incentive to get a fleet out to sea ASAP. Pity if it was already infected
York and Rupert combo was used by me in my ongoing Stuart TL (once again, because of changes in succession line) to get slightly better that OTL outcome for Second War (winning Four Days Battle) and better one for Third one, and I agree, that's the best England had to offer by then. Though that's my fangirlism of Rupert speaking, but York, while being highly incompetent king, was a really competent admiral.
And plague idea is really interesting... evil, but interesting.
Last edited:
Bump for interest.
Although I would definitely like to hear about a win for the English, I have to wonder if random occurrences ( like a strong storm, or a plague break-out ) are tolerated or hated on the forums. That being said, I agree that a sudden case of the plague would be a wonderful event to change the course of war.
And having the dutch naval and political head could also be a wonderful coincidence, but I believe that both the plague and double-kill would require some divine intervention.
Although I would definitely like to hear about a win for the English, I have to wonder if random occurrences ( like a strong storm, or a plague break-out ) are tolerated or hated on the forums. That being said, I agree that a sudden case of the plague would be a wonderful event to change the course of war.
And having the dutch naval and political head could also be a wonderful coincidence, but I believe that both the plague and double-kill would require some divine intervention.
Yeah I think a double kill would be unrealistic, but an outbreak of the plague on the Dutch fleet isn't. After all, there was apparently an outbreak of plague in the Netherlands in 1664, and the Great Plague of London in 1665 and 1666, so its happens. Getting it on the fleet wouldn't be impossible.
Wikipedia says
referencing from Appleby, Andrew B. (1980). "The Disappearance of Plague: A Continuing Puzzle". The Economic History Review 33 (2)
The Dutch, like the English, regularly pressed seamen from their merchant ships into their warships. So it's transmission would be very possible
referencing from Appleby, Andrew B. (1980). "The Disappearance of Plague: A Continuing Puzzle". The Economic History Review 33 (2)
The Dutch, like the English, regularly pressed seamen from their merchant ships into their warships. So it's transmission would be very possible
Would a second outbreak, in mid to late '66, be possible? Maybe the plague is carried by a merchant ship, which arrives in the Netherlands around this time?
You mean in England. Definitely. The outbreak of 1665 continued right through till the Great Fire in '66. Outlying areas of England, even later.
And plague was notorious for dying down and then flaring up again. A re-outbreak in 1666 , before the Fire would be pretty near OTL, just a difference in virulence.
After the Fire, hard to say, the fire cooked off most of the rats that were the vector, it would take a few years for them to re-establish.
And plague was notorious for dying down and then flaring up again. A re-outbreak in 1666 , before the Fire would be pretty near OTL, just a difference in virulence.
After the Fire, hard to say, the fire cooked off most of the rats that were the vector, it would take a few years for them to re-establish.
Actually I meant in the Netherlands. This is the order of things I've came up with so far. First, England wins a decisive victory in the Four Days battle, with Admiral de Ruyter being KIA, and a follow up victory at the St James' day battle. Then, when the Dutch Fleet returns to port the plague breaks out, thus completely crippling the Dutch Fleet and grounding it completely. I was thinking a merchant ship arrives a few weeks/days before the fleet returns for repairs, carrying the plague (or an equivalent fast spreading/acting disease) and it spreads throughout the port and returning Fleet (as to the port itself, not my strong suit. I would say either Amsterdam or The Hague). I have a bunch of other parts planned out but this is the main initial chapters.
Or , just the plague breaks out again. Very common. Didn't happen in London, because of the Fire, but other places it did.
Initial epidemic kills off lots of people. Survivors have immunity. Then, because of the deaths, people from outside the area tend to move into it (opportunities, jobs and so on). The rats are still around, so you get a second outbreak. Not as bad, maybe. Remember, the plague had been endemic in the Netherlands since 1599, so an extra year is neither here nor there.
The fleet returning, would be manned by people who (presumably) weren't immune . So they would be very likely candidates for a second outbreak - could even trigger it.
Initial epidemic kills off lots of people. Survivors have immunity. Then, because of the deaths, people from outside the area tend to move into it (opportunities, jobs and so on). The rats are still around, so you get a second outbreak. Not as bad, maybe. Remember, the plague had been endemic in the Netherlands since 1599, so an extra year is neither here nor there.
The fleet returning, would be manned by people who (presumably) weren't immune . So they would be very likely candidates for a second outbreak - could even trigger it.
I was hoping to use a combo of all three (a major defeat, the death of the admiral, and the outbreak of plague) as I was angling for an early restoration of William III of Orange. Since his OTL restoration was preceded by major military defeats, I thought the same could happen here.
I was also considering the possibility of an Anglo-Spanish invasion of the Netherlands, or at least the threat of one, to force the Dutch to the negotiating table, and as a way to expand the English Army. OTL James was able to expand the army because of the Monmouth rebellion, so here I was thinking of an invasion of the Netherlands as a pretext for Charles' own expansion.
As for the Spanish, they would be in the best position to help, with the Army of Flanders in the Spanish Netherlands. Plus I feel the Spanish would love a chance to get an easy victory over the Dutch. Not to mention it would scare Louis XIV into using his influence to get the Dutch to make peace, both because of the possibility of an Anglo-Spanish Alliance, but also because of a possible Spanish Military buildup in the Netherlands, which would make his plans of conquering that particular Region much harder.
What do you think?
The triple whammy should be pretty effective.
Especially since that combination would also cause quite significant long term economic problems. Probably the VoC goes bankrupt, and the whole Dutch East India empire falls apart.
But an invasion might have some issues. Firstly, England is (was OTL anyway) pretty occupied herself, what with the Great Plague, followed by the Great Fire. And, if there is a really bad outbreak of plague in the Netherlands, is anyone really going to want to invade ? Most people would be trying to get away, not the reverse. However, if 'invasion' means seizing the key Dutch fortresses , then that should be very doable.
The Spanish might very possibly want to send troops, to enforce a cordon sanitaire, to keep infected people escaping out of Netherlands into Flanders. And the Bishop of Munster has already invaded (though I've never been clear why - maybe he just liked invading places) . I really think that after that triple whammy (especially if the 1666 re-outbreak is really severe), the Dutch won't need any encouragement to the negotiating table. They're not in a position to argue,.
As to William as Stadtholder, that seems quite feasible. In times of national disaster , people aren't all that rational. They'll likely blame "the government" (ie de Witt) for not doing enough - or doing too much . And religious tempers being what they were, someone will probably declare that it is all the Judgement of God against a sinful people. Obviously, God hates the present government. William, as the alternative , should be a shoe-in. Just one point, though, William in 1666 is only 16 years old.
If the plague was bad, really bad, which it could well be, William's guardians might well want to send him away somewhere safe- like England, where his guardian , King Charles, lives, maybe ?
What are the war aims, though, and the possible alliances.
England wants to cripple Dutch mercantile power. Done.
Charles wants some glorious victories, to make people happy. Done. And an excuse to build up an army.
Spain wants the Dutch crushed (and probably, if possible, re-annexed).
France wants Flanders.
At this stage, there is no legal restraint on Charles having as big an army as he can afford. Afford being the operative word. If Parliament won't give him money, maybe either Spain or France will, in exchange for his alliance? He could probably go in on either side, neither country was popular with the English people.
Extreme case, the Dutch Republic could end up dismembered, and partitioned out. England had always wanted a replacement for Calais- hence why Charles selling Dunkirk was so very unpopular. Maybe now, he takes it back ? In exchange, Louis takes Flanders (not Antwerp, though)
Especially since that combination would also cause quite significant long term economic problems. Probably the VoC goes bankrupt, and the whole Dutch East India empire falls apart.
But an invasion might have some issues. Firstly, England is (was OTL anyway) pretty occupied herself, what with the Great Plague, followed by the Great Fire. And, if there is a really bad outbreak of plague in the Netherlands, is anyone really going to want to invade ? Most people would be trying to get away, not the reverse. However, if 'invasion' means seizing the key Dutch fortresses , then that should be very doable.
The Spanish might very possibly want to send troops, to enforce a cordon sanitaire, to keep infected people escaping out of Netherlands into Flanders. And the Bishop of Munster has already invaded (though I've never been clear why - maybe he just liked invading places) . I really think that after that triple whammy (especially if the 1666 re-outbreak is really severe), the Dutch won't need any encouragement to the negotiating table. They're not in a position to argue,.
As to William as Stadtholder, that seems quite feasible. In times of national disaster , people aren't all that rational. They'll likely blame "the government" (ie de Witt) for not doing enough - or doing too much . And religious tempers being what they were, someone will probably declare that it is all the Judgement of God against a sinful people. Obviously, God hates the present government. William, as the alternative , should be a shoe-in. Just one point, though, William in 1666 is only 16 years old.
If the plague was bad, really bad, which it could well be, William's guardians might well want to send him away somewhere safe- like England, where his guardian , King Charles, lives, maybe ?
What are the war aims, though, and the possible alliances.
England wants to cripple Dutch mercantile power. Done.
Charles wants some glorious victories, to make people happy. Done. And an excuse to build up an army.
Spain wants the Dutch crushed (and probably, if possible, re-annexed).
France wants Flanders.
At this stage, there is no legal restraint on Charles having as big an army as he can afford. Afford being the operative word. If Parliament won't give him money, maybe either Spain or France will, in exchange for his alliance? He could probably go in on either side, neither country was popular with the English people.
Extreme case, the Dutch Republic could end up dismembered, and partitioned out. England had always wanted a replacement for Calais- hence why Charles selling Dunkirk was so very unpopular. Maybe now, he takes it back ? In exchange, Louis takes Flanders (not Antwerp, though)
I'm glad to know that the bulk of my ideas are realistic
!I have about 5 1/2 pages of notes and it would suck if I had to through them out for being ASB.As to the projected invasion, I'm not sure if I'm gonna have it go through or not. I was thinking of having Charles pull a bait in switch, similar to what James II did. Convince Parliament that an invasion is necessary (perhaps to enforce a quarantine of Dutch ships, to raid its returned merchant ships or to get a better hand in negotiations) then raising new regiments and keeping them after the treaty is signed. Though who knows it that will go over well. Hell, thinking about it, maybe the Royal Navy could pull a reverse Raid on the Medway, seizing part of the Dutch navy or merchant fleet. Though that might not work with a plague about.
As to Spain, well Spain will have a very interesting role to play later, but for now I'm not sure if I want a full Anglo-Spanish Alliance or just the threat of one. After all, Charles mainly wanted an Alliance with King Louis. Hell the Triple Alliance was created to help encourage England and Charles II.
Which brings me to my next point. With the Dutch power severely curtailed and an ATL Triple alliance looking very unlikely, do you think France could get more of the Spanish Netherlands and possibly the Franche-Comte, in the War of Devolution? I was thinking that without a Triple alliance to constrain Louis XIV he could get a bigger share of Spanish territory.
As for William, thats similar to what I was thinking. Though I wonder if it would be better for de Wit to hold on a bit longer. Maybe William III's election as Stadtholder is part of the peace negotiations? Or Charles can refuse to negotiate unless his nephew is made Stadtholder (and Captain-General of course). The dutch would hardly be in a position to refuse. And in this way William would know he was placed in power mainly by the actions of his uncle. This might either lead to a more favorable view of England by William and the Orangists or a less favorable one, as the English would have inflicted a massive blow to Dutch power and prestige.
As to the VoC (the Dutch East India company I assume?), it would definitely be crippled. With the navy and merchant fleets grounded for the time being, their trade will no doubt decline rapidly, as happened during the third Anglo-Dutch war. I wonder what would happen to the Dutch colonies? I know New Netherland was seized, but would any other colony be up for grabs at the negotiating table? Dutch South Africa, African trade posts ( I know the English tried to take them during the war) Ceylon or even the Dutch east indies. I think most likely some Trading stations will be ceded and maybe Ceylon, depending on how things go.
Finally, as to dismemberment, unless Louis rapidly switches sides during the war I can't see it happening. Nor, realistically, can I see the third Dutch war breaking out at the same time as OTL. After all, that war happened because of the defeat in the Second war. Here England would have won a great victory and would no doubt be sated for the time being, thus no reason to attack the dutch again so soon.