So, who knows the most important happening in Dutch history?

Is it the one to liberate Holland from Spanish rule? Being very unsure, I didn't put in my vote.

I once did a very detailed paper on the 30 Years War that touched on some aspects of the Dutch Revolt, and as well one of my favorite books on the American Revolution is Barbara Tuchman's The First Salute, which explores the European dimension of the American war. She extensively explores the Dutch connections (with John Adams in Amsterdam) that led up to yet another Anglo-Dutch war. To do so, Tuchman delves extensively into the history of the Dutch War for Independence, and how this generated a sympathy in the Netherlands for the American colonies' plight.

Indeed, the book's title refers to the Dutch island-colony of St. Estatus, whose governor was the first foreign "sovereign" to recognize the indepenence of the United States by officially saluting a ship that entered his harbor that was flying the American flag in 1777. St. Estatus, until it was captured by the Brits, was the major supply depot for weapons, uniforms, black powder and certain food stuffs for the American rebels.

I found it very odd that I knew more about this period than most Dutch people I met while I lived there. I'm no expert, but am familiar with what happened, and what followed as a result. The students seemed uninterested in their own history...

I prefer the tile sobriquet William the Silent to William of Orange (keep this in mind). :D

"One does not have to be succesful to carry on"

Vrylakas, where do you think the Americans got a great part of their Declaration of Independence from? Right! From our declaration of independence!

Willem van Oranje (=William of Orange) was called 'the Silent' because of his protestive silence during a dinner (or something) where Spanish king Filip II was offending and insulting the Dutch people and the protestants badly. See, our national hero was very loyal to king Charles V, but wasn't to Filip II and his politics.

Willemvanoranje wrote:Vrylakas, where do you think the Americans got a great part of their Declaration of Independence from? Right! From our declaration of independence!

Hmmmm, there certainly was much inspiration of spirit from the Dutch example in the American document, but Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et al were heavily influenced by the ideas of the 18th century Enlightenment, especially the French. The American Declaration of Independence was dripping with Enlightenment ideas. The American Constitution, written more than a decade later, was in turn influenced by English rationalists (Locke, etc.) and their study of the ancient Roman republic.

The Americans were deeply impressed by the Dutch success in overthrowing an imperial rule (Spanish-Habsburg) and even moreso by the brief Dutch experiment of not having a ruling monarch (Stadthouder), but the Declaration of Independence had more to do with the Philosophes than Willem II. As well, another area the Americans saw a kindred spirit in the Dutch was that both peoples were heavily dependent on overseas trade; they were both merchant peoples. Their need to protect and expand trade was something the aristocratic monarchies around Europe could little understand.

Oh - and all those huge Dutch loans to the American rebels and the United States in the first years of its existence also helped... :love: :D

Ok, let me get something straight:

Dutch Independence War: 1568-1648
American I.W.: 1776
French I.W.: 1789

The French were inspired by the Americans, that's for sure.

Now in the Dutch declaration (which was more of a list of demands to the ruler of the Netherlands, Marharetha of Parma) there is demanded things that are in every western country's constitution now. For example freedom of speach, freedom of religion and freedom of opinion. Most of this constitutional things, were first written on paper in a kind of declaration by the Dutch. Now ofcourse the ideas excisted much longer, as you say in minds of philosophers and their followers, but research done a while ago proved that the Dutch declaration was a pretty large influence.

Willemvanoranje wrote:Dutch Independence War: 1568-1648
American I.W.: 1776
French I.W.: 1789

You've misunderstood me. In my last post I was talking about the French philosophes like Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, etc. who throughout the 18th century tried to develop through reason the perfect form of human government - not the French Revolution. Philosophe was a general term used to refer to these French Enlightenment writers at the time; it is not a general term for philosophers. They did not all agree and their ideas changed as time went on (some worshipped Friedrich die Grosse, others Yekaterina Vyelikaya of Russia, others still Poniatowski's Poland...), but their quest for a government based on reason caught the American imagination. I was not referring to the French Revolution itself which took place 6 years after the American and while at first very popular in the U.S., soon horrified Americans as an exhibit of how badly a popular revolt can go wrong.

Now in the Dutch declaration (which was more of a list of demands to the ruler of the Netherlands, Marharetha of Parma) there is demanded things that are in every western country's constitution now. For example freedom of speach, freedom of religion and freedom of opinion. Most of this constitutional things, were first written on paper in a kind of declaration by the Dutch. Now ofcourse the ideas excisted much longer, as you say in minds of philosophers and their followers, but research done a while ago proved that the Dutch declaration was a pretty large influence.

You've got some confusion here. The American Declaration of Independence, which was drafted on 2. July 1776 (but because signing started two days later Americans celebrate 4. July as a national holiday) simply lays out the arguments as to why the Americans believed they had every right to separate from Britain. It makes no mention of freedoms. Again, as I said before, it is a very Enlightenment document; it basically calls all men equal and says that only a rational government can govern, then goes on to declare the British monarch an irrational government.

The United States Constitution, which was adopted by the new country a decade later in 1787 (the American Revolution ended in 1783), is the document that actually creates the U.S. government system. There were two groups who fought each other (politically) during the creation of the Constitution; those who believed there should be a strong central government (the Federalists) and those who wanted strong state governments (the Anti-Federalists). They argued very loudly in the press, and wrote many books and pamphlets with their beliefs. This means that we have LOTS of information about them, and indeed every American History student has to read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers (collections of their writings). We know what books and authors they were reading, we know exactly where they got their inspirations from because they tell us. They were reading two kinds of authors: The English rationalists (John Locke especially, but not exclusively) and Roman authors from the late Republic and the early Empire (Cicero, Seneca, etc. because they wanted to understand why the Roman Republic failed.)

The Federalists won most of the initial arguments and the Constitution today reflects their victory; the U.S. has a strong central government with clearly distinguished branches. The Anti-Federalists were not completely defeated, however; besides many "checks and balances" they put in the Constitution, they also added (after it was all created) 10 additions that listed the rights of everyone besides the Federal government (individuals and states). Americans call this the Bill of Rights. THIS is where you find the Freedom of Expression, the Freedom of religion, the Right to free assembly, rights against unlawful search & seizure, etc. etc. etc.

I suspect that while the Americans were reading English and Roman authors, they may have been indirectly influenced by the Dutch because the English authors may have been reading the Dutch declaration of independence, or been impressed by it. This I do not know. It does indeed seem the Dutch may have been the first to articulate these ideas in Europe.

Allright, you seem a 'documented' man to me. Your sources are probably more reliable, 'cuase everything I've siad came straight from what I remember of school and newspaper. I'm sure there was influence though.

Ok Willem van Oranje I have a question for you:
what was the first city to be liberated from the Spanish??? TIP: It was on the first of april

I myself live right next to it (2 km)

P.S. You go there on the april 1, big fun.

Hurray Hurray You guys must have done ok on school ;) :p

Iam really impressed by Vrylakas that you know so much about dutch history, because you know more about my lands history that me, and Iam dutch :rolleyes:

To be excact I only know about Gouda and the guy in the bookcase :-) (and that I saw on a tv show about good old willem)
And I dont mean the Uncle Willem Show. [dance] [dance] :bday:

Maby you could tell me in how many parts our national song is made up? Just for fun, lets see if you know that.

Let's guess "Den brielle" did I got it, heu heu please tell me!!!

Dat is helemaal goed, the answer is correct

Hurrah:goodjob: :) ;) :beer: [party] [dance]

My knowledge of the Dutch Independence War is almost nil, so I have been reading this thread with interest.

I do know a little about the Dutch and Belgian fight against the Nazis in 1940. From every account I have seen, they both fought tooth and nail against overwhelming odds, frustrating the Germans all the way. Unlike Lefty's favorite country (that surrendered! :D ).

Thanks for the read.:smoke: joespaniel

Sorry I didn't answer the question yet. It's right: back then it was called Brielle, now it's called Den Briel.

Hey, you know, that's not such a bad idea. I could start a thread about the Dutch in WW II. ;)

Originally posted by joespaniel
My knowledge of the Dutch Independence War is almost nil, so I have been reading this thread with interest.

I do know a little about the Dutch and Belgian fight against the Nazis in 1940. From every account I have seen, they both fought tooth and nail against overwhelming odds, frustrating the Germans all the way. Unlike Lefty's favorite country (that surrendered! :D ).

Thanks for the read.:smoke: joespaniel

Yeah dont forget "Rotterdam" our mariniers hold the germans off for more than a few days, (they were the last fighting force in Holland) and when the major of Rotterdam capitulated Rotterdam was bombed still by Hitler to make a exsample to the other fighting cities. My grand parents told me they lived in the centre of Rotterdam when the bombs were dropped, the whole centre was burning and the day after the bombing the had to flee in side of their house because of some wild lions roaming the city. They escaped form the zoo who was bombed to by the Germans.

Originally posted by VanOranje


Yeah dont forget "Rotterdam" our mariniers hold the germans off for more than a few days, (they were the last fighting force in Holland) and when the major of Rotterdam capitulated Rotterdam was bombed still by Hitler to make a exsample to the other fighting cities. My grand parents told me they lived in the centre of Rotterdam when the bombs were dropped, the whole centre was burning and the day after the bombing the had to flee in side of their house because of some wild lions roaming the city. They escaped form the zoo who was bombed to by the Germans.

Hmmm....well. Here's what happened more exactly: The Germans advanced very quickly the first day, but were stopped at the so called 'Grebbenlinie' and at the 'Afsluitdijk'. The Aflsuitdijk is a 32km long dike from North-Holland to Friesland. It only has a few small bunkers, but because the passage is so small, the Germans were stopped there. The Grebbenlinie was more easy to take, but the men fighting there wereso motivated that they were so strong the Germans couldn't advance as well.
The plan was to take the Moerdijk-bridges, Rotterdam airport, and the palace of the queen in The Hague with paratroopers under Kurt Student. At first the Germans succeeded, all the objectives. But the 1st Marines corps took back Rotterdam airport and captured about 100 Germans and Von Sponeck's troops that had to capture the Dutch Queen Wilhelmina in The Hague came too late: she already had departured to England by a destroyer.

All this and the fact that the Germans were stuck, made Hitler and his generals so mad that they came with an ultimatum. If Holland wouldn't capitulate within x hours, Rotterdam would be bombed. If they didn't capitulate then, more cities (Amsterdam, Utrecht) would follow. A few minutes before the deadline, the Dutch capitulated, but the Germans didn't told their 100 Heinkel He-111 bombers to come back to the German airbae where they came from. Almost 1000 deads, 30.000 people lost their homes, the entire center destroyed. That was the result of May 14th 1940.

well i didnt know that and i am belgian:rolleyes:

I wrote an undergraduate dissertation on the military revolution and the Dutch Revolt ("which one?" I hear you all ask).

The Dutch have some very interesting fortifications.

:lol: This is great! Some old thread from october revived! Yep, we got a whole bunch of forts.....most of them as part of the Waterlinie.

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
Ok, let me get something straight:

Dutch Independence War: 1568-1648
American I.W.: 1776
French I.W.: 1789

The French were inspired by the Americans, that's for sure.

Now in the Dutch declaration (which was more of a list of demands to the ruler of the Netherlands, Marharetha of Parma) there is demanded things that are in every western country's constitution now. For example freedom of speach, freedom of religion and freedom of opinion. Most of this constitutional things, were first written on paper in a kind of declaration by the Dutch. Now ofcourse the ideas excisted much longer, as you say in minds of philosophers and their followers, but research done a while ago proved that the Dutch declaration was a pretty large influence.

On paper, yes, but not first written. The Iroquois constitution, recorded on wampum belts (as well as memorized), inspired the European philosophers and predates the Dutch 'declaration'.

:lol: I was only waiting for something like this to happen..... But I don't know how assumable it is that the Dutch were inspired by the Irqoqois......can you tell me more?

The Dutch and the Iroquois were main trading partners in the 17th century. One might even say they propelled each other into their Golden Age. Dutch muskets helped the Iroquois to extend their empire, while the agricultural advances of the Iroquois allowed the Dutch to do with a much lower percentage of field workers than its rivals - as a result they had a merchant class of 30%, while other European nations had only 10% until they finally caught up.
So it is not surprising that they also took notice of each other's way of life. And if you take a good look, you see that they already agreed on many things to begin with (free religion, women's rights, acceptance of refugees) that were lacking in the views of many of their contemporaries.
They also mixed; Dutch were married/adopted into Iroquois tribes and vice versa, like the half-Dutch Mohawk chief Canaqueese (Jan Smits); Cornplanter was also known as Jan Abeel. Quite a few Iroquois today have names of Dutch origin and are (almost) white-skinned.

But all over Europe there was a great interest in the Iroquois way of life, leading to a huge movement advocating naturalism. Every major philosopher of the 17th century (and beyond, including Friedrich Engels) devoted chapters to the Iroquois.
Locke, who was mentioned in this thread, was no exception.

Originally posted by Ribannah
The Dutch and the Iroquois were main trading partners in the 17th century.


nope, they weren't. They barely traded anyhting.


Originally posted by Ribannah

One might even say they propelled each other into their Golden Age. Dutch muskets helped the Iroquois to extend their empire, while the agricultural advances of the Iroquois allowed the Dutch to do with a much lower percentage of field workers than its rivals - as a result they had a merchant class of 30%, while other European nations had only 10% until they finally caught up.

First of all, the Dutch Golden Age was already starting middle 1500's and that's because of weapon trade with European states and the trade with the Eastsea and Mediterranean. Second, the Iroquois only traded with the dutch in Connecticut and I'm positive the Dutch didn't have 30% merchantman because they learned agricultural techniques from the Iroquois (if it was 30% at all).

Originally posted by Ribannah

They also mixed; Dutch were married/adopted into Iroquois tribes and vice versa, like the half-Dutch Mohawk chief Canaqueese (Jan Smits); Cornplanter was also known as Jan Abeel. Quite a few Iroquois today have names of Dutch origin and are (almost) white-skinned.

Weren't English and Spanish adopted too? And more? They had most contact with Iroquois (and French of course). Can you give me examples of those Dutch names?

Originally posted by Ribannah
But all over Europe there was a great interest in the Iroquois way of life, leading to a huge movement advocating naturalism. Every major philosopher of the 17th century (and beyond, including Friedrich Engels) devoted chapters to the Iroquois.
Locke, who was mentioned in this thread, was no exception.

Great interest? The Europeans didn't even care about the Iroquois. All they cared about was their riches and their land...trust me. And there just might've been early-hippies back then....1 or 2.....but nobody listened to them. They ended up being burned as wiches, so....

willemvanoranje, you may have unwittingly opened a can of worms... :rolleyes: :lol:

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
[B]
nope, they weren't. They barely traded anyhting.
Try furs (beaver, otter, bukskin etc.) and tobacco, to name just two products. The Iroquois had the largest hunting grounds and the finest assortment of cultivated tobacco plants. The name Iroquois (ierokwa) literally means "they who smoke" or, more freely translated, the Tobacco Nation. Do you really think the Dutch asked nothing in return for thousands and thousands of muskets?

First of all, the Dutch Golden Age was already starting middle 1500's
That's a new one to me. It is generally accepted that the Dutch Golden Age started in 1602 with the VOC.

The Iroquois only traded with the dutch in Connecticut
Trade between Dutch and Iroquois started along the Hudson and Mohawk rivers in the state of New York, where you can still find such towns as Stuyvesant and Amsterdam.

and I'm positive the Dutch didn't have 30% merchantman because they learned agricultural techniques from the Iroquois (if it was 30% at all).
Better be educated than positive by prejudice. The Iroquois invented the system they called "the Three Sisters", ie maximizing soil fertility by interplanting. The Dutch adapted this to their environment and began to alternate crops, for a likewise higher agricultural productivity. This gave them a huge lead on their rivals and the opportunity to build a merchant fleet that was more than a match for those of much larger European countries. Almost a century later, England was the first rival to modernize its agriculture along the same lines. Spain, on the other hand, never did until this day, which explains why they could not keep up.

Weren't English and Spanish adopted too? And more? They had most contact with Iroquois (and French of course).
The French were the first European civ to make contact with the Iroquois (the Cartier expedition of 1535). However, they were often at war with the Iroquois, while the Dutch and Iroquois were always allies. The English arrived later but they too, were never as close with the Iroquois as the Dutch. Quite a few English captives were adopted though. Female English captives often refused to leave in cases when they were 'liberated', because they had a much better life among the Iroquois.

Can you give me examples of those Dutch names?
I already did.

Great interest? The Europeans didn't even care about the Iroquois. All they cared about was their riches and their land...trust me.
Better not. Read the work of Locke and Rousseau, despite their faults, Montaigne and others (even Thomas More is already interesting although at the time of Utopia the Iroquois had not yet been contacted).
No attempt to conquer Iroquois lands was ever made by any European civ. The 'riches' they possessed consisted of their wisdom, which they shared freely with their new neighbours, and the products of their labour, which they traded.

And there just might've been early-hippies back then....1 or 2.....but nobody listened to them. They ended up being burned as wiches, so....
No 'witches' were burnt by the Dutch after they made contact with the Iroquois. The Spanish, on the other hand, never established formal relations (after all, they only had a few Jesuit priests in the area - most of the Jesuits were French), and continued their Inquisition for another couple of centuries.

Originally posted by Ribannah
The Iroquois had ... the finest assortment of cultivated tobacco plants. ...

Better be educated than positive by prejudice. The Iroquois invented the system they called "the Three Sisters", ie maximizing soil fertility by interplanting.
WRONG and WRONG. :p

The Iroquois had a variety of tobacco, the only one that grows that far north. Any other types would have arrived from trade with distant southern neighbors, such as the Choctaw or Cherokee.

The "3 sisters" ag system is also an import from the south. Of the 3 (maize, beans, squash), only squash is even native to north america. This ag system spread from mexico throughout north america. The Iroquois had absolutely no part in the development of this system of agriculture, and were likely one of the later peoples to even adopt it. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Ribannah
The Spanish, on the other hand, ...
You seem to find it extremely difficult to post about anything without making disparaging remarks about the spanish...

Originally posted by Ribannah
The name Iroquois (ierokwa) literally means "they who smoke" or, more freely translated, the Tobacco Nation.
WRONG again!

It literally means "rattlesnakes" in Algonquin (Huron). The Huron word is "iroqu", which the french gallicized. The Iroquois called themselves "Haudenosaunee", which means "people of the long house."

Nice try, tho, rather creative. :goodjob:

Originally posted by Ribannah
On paper, yes, but not first written. The Iroquois constitution, recorded on wampum belts (as well as memorized)
and again!

Wampum belts have symbology, much like the european royalty had standards. Each picture or element had a meaning, but this was not used by any eastern woodland peoples as writing. All had quite thoroughly developed oral traditions. The pictographs of wampum and other art do tell stories, but with the symbology of myth - not used for a constitution or contract.

Edit: In fairness, they could be used for contract. In the sense of "we wear these belts to symbolize our bond" - still a far cry from calling it a constitution, tho.

Originally posted by Ribannah
...The English arrived later but they too, were never as close with the Iroquois as the Dutch.
Rather subjective statement, really, considering that the French, English, and Dutch parried the Huron and Iroquois in political manouvers.

So what if many Iroquois have dutch names? Many have english names, too. Most that interacted with whites were given arbitrary euro names because the euros couldn't deal with the indian names. This had only to do with interaction, not necessarily intermarriage.

I see this silliness reached here from Apolyton.

Please keep it civil, the young lady especially.

Negative Comments about the Spanish and others will NOT be tolerated.

Ignore this at your own risk, but remember, this isn't Apolyton, MY rules apply here, not poly's, and rule number one is:

THOU SHALL NOT TROLL.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I see this silliness reached here from Apolyton.

Please keep it civil, the young lady especially.

Negative Comments about the Spanish and others will NOT be tolerated.

Ignore this at your own risk, but remember, this isn't Apolyton, MY rules apply here, not poly's, and rule number one is:

THOU SHALL NOT TROLL.

I don't see any negative comment about the Spanish, so please clarify. I do see plenty of negative comments about the Iroquois (rattlesnakes??) on these forums. Why the double standard?

Sodak, I'm not going to dignify your bullying with a reply. Go sit in a corner.

Spain, on the other hand, never did until this day, which explains why they could not keep up.

This kind of thing.

A pointless attack on Spain.

I'm well aware of your love affair with the Iroquios, and your maniacal hatred of all things spanish, so you won't be continuing your little war here, as I also happen to be a professional historian, so I know the truth.

Do not pull my chain again, comprende?

I'm not at war, but apparently you are. Please take your own request to heart and stay civilized, instead of accusing people of maniacal hatred. What kind of a mod are you?
I have several Spanish friends and most certainly do not hate the Spanish. The sentence you quote is not an attack on Spain. It is part of the explanation of the Dutch Golden Age, which is the topic of this thread. My intent was to stress the importance of agriculture, an aspect of civilization that was much underrated by Firaxis (no agricultural trait!!). Had the Spanish learned the art of interplanting in Mexico, instead of the Dutch in the NE woodlands, the Dutch might have remained under Habsburg rule for quite a while. Begrijp je?

The kind of mod that's going to ban you if you back talk again.
I happen to be a regular at apolyton under another name, so don't try it, I know all about it, and don't answer again.
Understand?

With your twisted set of values, I would take that as a compliment.

What's the deal with you and the Iroquois anyway? Believe me, almost every relation between the Dutch and Iro's comes from Dutch greed. The Dutch didn't like foreigners for who they were, but for what they had. They fooled everyone (ok, not everyone) and apparently still do a good job. Never heard the stories of what they did in China, just to get some trade goods? They would bark like dogs, eat grass, run around naked... See how desperate they were? How greedy? Fact is that the Iro's were a lot easier....and the Dutch only Allied because they realized they didn't have a chance up there, but at least wanted to give the Brits the hardest time possible...and of course make a lot of money (or furs/tobacco)

The strange thing was one of the latter Willam the Oranges (was it the third) became King of England.

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
[B]Believe me, almost every relation between the Dutch and Iro's comes from Dutch greed.

Of course. There was nothing 'noble' about it. Greed was the number one motivation for all the European civs in the age of colonization. I wager that all empires in human history were based on greed.
Exchanging knowledge was simply part of the (mutual) profit. However, it came in one package with a different view on life, at a time when people were susceptible to new ideas. A hundred years earlier the impact would have been much smaller.

Fact is that the Iro's were a lot easier....
They sure were. The Iroquois immediately saw the enormous opportunities that trade with the Europeans would give them.
If the Europeans hadn't crossed the ocean, the Iroquois might never have had the chance to build a large empire and we might never have heard of them (something weird with this statement ;)).

Note that the French, not the English, were the original competitors of the Dutch in the area. Later, the Danish and the Swedes also tried to get a piece of the pie.

Originally posted by kobayashi
The strange thing was one of the latter Willam the Oranges (was it the third) became King of England.

Stadholder Willem III that is indeed (not to be confused with king Willem III, who would've been stadholder Willem VIII)

Originally posted by RibannahNote that the French, not the English, were the original competitors of the Dutch in the area. Later, the Danish and the Swedes also tried to get a piece of the pie.

yep...but we kicked the Swedes out of there

Originally posted by Ribannah
Sodak, I'm not going to dignify your bullying with a reply. Go sit in a corner.
:rolleyes:
I believe what I did was point out that all the "facts" you stated were false. If you post false statements, expect to get corrected. If you can't tolerate being shown that you were wrong on so many counts, take care to learn about what you post. You just might be read by somebody who knows more about the topic than you do.

OK then, I am willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean any disrespect. But I would appreciate it if you would be more careful in the future, because that's how you came across - like intending disrespect, that is.

So please don't say things like "all your facts are WRONG".
Just say what you think is right, and then it's my or someone else's turn again to either support you or go against your point of view., so that we can enlighten each other. If I said anything that in some way irritated you and induced your tone of voice, this was not my intention, and I apologize.

Now let's see ....

The Three Sisters system of interplanting.
As far as I know, neither the Aztecs, nor the Anasazi, nor the Adena (moundbuilders) had any of the sort. Instead, the knowledge went from north to south with the Cherokee (an early offshoot of the Iroquois) and the Navaho (who only used it sparsely). That is not to say that the southern tribes like the Hopi were backward in agriculture. But their environment called for other inventions, in the field of irrigation to be exact.

English/Dutch and the Iroquois. I see no disagreement.

Wampum Belts
All the Iroquois laws, as well as important treaties and other events were recorded on wampum belts. In addition, messengers used pictographs on less durable surfaces. The extensive mythology of the Iroquois was as a rule not recorded in writing, although there seem to exist one or two exceptions.
The Iroquois were certainly not unique with regard to their script. Many of the northern Amerind tribes had a similar kind of script and used it for official business. But they usually used hide instead of wampum.

The name Iroquois.
I'm afraid that you're a victim of age-old French propaganda. Calling a people 'rattlesnakes' is degrading in the eyes of Europeans, but the natives thought highly of the rattlesnake, so it makes no sense that the Iroquois' enemies would honor them thus, let alone that the Iroquois would not object to being called Iroquois if it wasn't fitting (and they don't). Calling them rattlesnakes simply doesn't make sense.
Note further that the Dutch word for 'to smoke' is derived from the word 'ierokwa': 'roken'. Pipes/tobacco etc. are also called 'rookwaar'.
As a final point, if the Huron (who weren't Algonquin, btw, but Iroquoian) word 'iroqu' were to be gallicized, it would become 'Irocus', not 'Iroquois'.

While the Iroquois do call themselves the Haudenosaunee, they did on occasion refer to themselves as the Tobacco Nation, too, even before the French got to know them.

The Spanish.
As addressed elsewhere, highly relevant to explain how such a small people as the Dutch could become a world power.

Originally posted by Ribannah
OK then, I am willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean any disrespect. But I would appreciate it if you would be more careful in the future, because that's how you came across - like intending disrespect, that is.
Fair enough!

Originally posted by Ribannah
The [b]Three Sisters system of interplanting.
As far as I know, neither the Aztecs, nor the Anasazi, nor the Adena (moundbuilders) had any of the sort. Instead, the knowledge went from north to south with the Cherokee (an early offshoot of the Iroquois) and the Navaho (who only used it sparsely). That is not to say that the southern tribes like the Hopi were backward in agriculture. But their environment called for other inventions, in the field of irrigation to be exact.
Afraid not. Maize is a plant from mexico, most american bean varieties were domesticated from mexico to south america. This system was developed in mexico (pre-Aztec, but they farmed this way, too), later spreading to the north, as far as Canada. But the plants and the ag system both came from the south.

This triad is actually the staple of Hopi ag - their environment led them to develop hardier strains, but the same triad is grown. The Cherokee can't fairly be called an offshoot of the Iroquois - part of the same culture grouping, but no evidence or claims by either side to be of the same origins.

Originally posted by Ribannah
The name Iroquois.
I'm afraid that you're a victim of age-old French propaganda. Calling a people 'rattlesnakes' is degrading in the eyes of Europeans, but the natives thought highly of the rattlesnake, ... Calling them rattlesnakes simply doesn't make sense.
:confused: Who told you this? It is an insult, thru and thru. It is the same as the name Sioux, given to the Dakota by unfriendly neighbors. It is not at all a term of respect! On a related note, the Iroquois called their northern neighbors "adirondack", meaning "they eat trees." Equally demeaning. It's not propoganda, it's linguistic and social fact. Calling someone a snake is an insult in indian circles, too. I don't know how many indians you interact with in the Netherlands, but it's surely fewer than I grew up with. (Ever seen 'Dances with Wolves' or 'Thunderheart'? That's where I am from.)
Originally posted by Ribannah
Pipes/tobacco etc. are also called 'rookwaar'.
Ja, dat weet ik al. :smoke:
Originally posted by Ribannah
...word 'iroqu' were to be gallicized, it would become 'Irocus', not 'Iroquois'.
Gallicized refers to french, not latin... In other words, a french spelling of how the word was pronounced.

As for the wampum belts, I still say they do not apply to how you try to portray them. Telling a story or recording an agreement in (practical) art is still a far cry from claiming they were the first to write down their constitution. Whether or not the 5 nations inspired europeans, I won't argue - but to say the Iroquois had a written constitution is a real stretch.

The philosophers, iirc, were not concerned with the Iroquois specifically. The concept of naturalism and 'the noble savage' may have been inspired in small part by them, but I don't recall reading about them by name.

eeer.....like in english, the word 'rook' (smoke) is also used for what comes from burning wood.....the word already excisted. Besides that, in German the word is rauchen.....very similar. And the dutch word for Iroquois is Irokezen......doesn't sound the same, believe me.

you know, that dutch constitution was made before the Dutch really were active in trading in larger areas of the world, before they started building colonies around the world, in the late 16th century....

My last comment on the origin of the name: Even if 'roken' did come from 'iroqu', it by no means implies that the dutch borrowed a meaning. That is, they could very well have borrowed a syllable, but there is no reason to think they would have taken the meaning along with it. The root, 'iroqu', is the root, no matter what the dutch may have later done with the word.

Also, more examples show it was quite common for tribe names (as given by neighbors) to be insults or at least degrading:
Sioux, Iroqu, and Adirondack, already explained above.
Cherokee - suspected to be Choctaw for 'cave people'
Apache - zuni word for 'enemy'
Maliseet - micmac for 'slow tongues' or 'broken talkers'
Cheyenne - french 'chien' (ritual dog eating)

Many names were also neutral or good:
Papago - 'bean eaters'
Aleut - 'islanders'
Eskimo - 'those who eat their food raw'
Karok and Yurok - 'upstream' and 'downstream'
Micmac - 'allies'
Passamaquoddy - 'plenty of fish'

Originally posted by Sodak
Maize is a plant from mexico, most american bean varieties were domesticated from mexico to south america.
Not sure of the exact origin, but it's true that corn and beans had been cultivated long before the Iroquois had agriculture.

This system was developed in mexico (pre-Aztec, but they farmed this way, too), later spreading to the north, as far as Canada.
Could you give a source, because this is he first time I hear this.
I have seen Hopi agriculture of today, no trace of interplanting there. I'd be just as happy if convinced otherwise, but so far I have a few hundred sources that link the Three Sisters to the Iroquois and only the Iroquois (except for the Cherokee and Navaho as mentioned). I estimate that they must have had this system form around 1100 AD.

With regard to naming neighbours, "they eat trees", is a description, falling into the same category as "thicket clearers" (Alabama), or even "man-eaters" (Mohawk), or, for that matter, "paleface". None of these are insults, nor are any of the examples you gave.
Rattlesnake is not a description of the Haudenosaunee, no matter how you look at it, there is simply no point. Also calling them Bear people (which has been claimed by some as the origin of the word Iroquois, but the word for bear is more different from Iroquois than iroqu) would be strange since they had 8 clans, not just one. But calling them "they who smoke" is an obvious thing to do so I'm believing the linguists here. Note that snakes are referred to as 'they who seek warmth', which explains why the words are so close and why a (deliberate) mistake is easy to make.
(Btw I wouldn't be surprised if snake were indeed an insult now among many Amerinds, too, after several centuries of European influence.)
In the case of the Sioux, it's Dakota that is the nickname, meaning 'friends' or 'allies'.

Edit: There is another reason why the French didn't want to refer to the Iroquois as the Tobacco Nation. This was because they had already reserved that name (Gens du Petun) for the Tionontati, neighbours of the Iroquois until chased away.

Gallicized refers to french, not latin... In other words, a french spelling of how the word was pronounced.
Irocus (plural!) is pronounced differently in French, but it's still what the word would have been IMHO.

As for the wampum belts, I still say they do not apply to how you try to portray them. Telling a story or recording an agreement in (practical) art is still a far cry from claiming they were the first to write down their constitution. Whether or not the 5 nations inspired europeans, I won't argue - but to say the Iroquois had a written constitution is a real stretch.
A wampum reader can reproduce the meaning of a wampum belt, which is what writing is all about - primitive or not.

The concept of naturalism and 'the noble savage' may have been inspired in small part by them, but I don't recall reading about them by name.
Well, it doesn't really matter whether everybody could name the exact origin of the idea (and of course the Iroquois weren't the only ones to inspire the European philosophers), but I think you should check again.

Originally posted by Ribannah
Rattlesnake is not a description of the Haudenosaunee, no matter how you look at it, there is simply no point. Also calling them Bear people ... would be strange since they had 8 clans, not just one. But calling them "they who smoke" is an obvious thing to do so I'm believing the linguists here.
In other words, because you don't see why they might have called the neighbors that, it makes no sense. Terrible logic. To an indian it makes very good sense. BTW, I have a degree in linguistics, so does that mean you believe me, too? :lol: If you imply that Sioux was not an insulting nickname, you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

You state that calling people snakes is an insult today because of white influence (complete hooey) - yet cite modern Hopi ag as an argument for them not depending on maize, beans, and squash historically. How convenient that time is appropriate for your arguments and not mine.

Are Algonquin words pluralized with -s? No, so I assume you mean the french pluralized it? Regardless, you still have it backwards - If iroquois did not originate as a european word (and you argue, too, that the euros borrowed it), then what difference does it make what the euros did with the meaning of any decendant words? None.

Maize beans squash - iirc, Sauer's classic "Agricultural Origins and Dispersals" gives a summary and cites some still-respected references. Archaeology in mexico and the southwest US finds that variants of this system were in place long before 1100ad, your estimate of when the iroquois began using it. You seem to be trying to imply some relevant scientific background here. Or is that another smoke screen?

A wampum reader can interpret the story represented by the art of a belt. A form of abstract writing, but much cultural meaning is needed to understand the symbology. How primitive it is is not the issue - that it requires extensive interpretation - as opposed to the writing/glyphs/symbols actually carrying the information needed to interpret it is what matters. Wampum symbols do not.

As for the philosophers, you claimed that they referred to the iroquois! Now you shift your stance a bit - well, not by name, but they were inspired by them and others, hem, haw... You once again resort to shifting your stance - something we've seen you do many times before. I'm not going to chase your arguments around in circles. If you feel the need to have the last word, be my guest.

Originally posted by Ribannah
...so far I have a few hundred sources that link the Three Sisters to the Iroquois and only the Iroquois
I wondered why you kept beating this drum, then it occured to me - ...that link to... - if you do an internet search on the three sisters, you get iroquois links. Why? Because the term comes from the iroquois! [Sodak slaps own forehead] As cool as the internet is, it's still no replacement for a good university library.

Does THIS (http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmnh/exhibits/north-south-east-west/iroquois/) site look familiar? I'm done with this topic.

Originally posted by Sodak
I'm done with this topic.

Figures.
Pathetic reasoning, no social skills.
We will leave you behind, then.

Originally posted by Ribannah
Pathetic reasoning
Coming from you, this is a real compliment. Thanks! :p
:lol: :lol: :lol:

* Shrugs. *
At least you have a sense of humor that I can appreciate. :goodjob:

.....

Now, let's summarize what we have and try to get back on topic.

From the Iroquois the Dutch gained:
- confirmation and strengthening of social values;
- an example of a constitution / confederacy that would work in The Netherlands;
- new products (fur, tobacco, dye, medicinal drugs, several foodcrops) and a market to trade for them;
- a productive agricultural method (polyculture) that could easily be applied at home (in contrast to mountain & desert irrigation, Teotihuacan hydroponics, Arawak slash & burn and Tiahuanaco freeze-drying).
To these one might add developments in urban planning (grid design) and knowledge in the field of medicine (including pharmacy and psychotherapy, again I guess with more impact than Aztec obsidian surgical instruments).

This allowed for a more efficient and healthier society, as well as a larger non-agricultural sector (merchant class specifically).

But there were other factors that helped the Dutch to gain independence from the Spanish Habsburgs and prosper, such as the trek of the Flemish, merchant tradition (Hanze cities), discoveries in engineering, and contact with other parts of the world than just the Iroquois empire. And there must be a lot more that I didn't think of.

It would be nice to read some thoughts on these other factors, and about how everything came together for the Dutch. :)

Of course the trek of Flemish (actually, mostly Jewish and Muslim traders) from Antwerp, which was under influence of the inquisition, to the religious free Amsterdam was a major factor. Without it, the Golden Age wouldn't have been a golden age.

I forgot to mention the great land reclamation projects by which the Dutch increased their territory considerably, all of it fertile soil.

Originally posted by Ribannah
I forgot to mention the great land reclamation projects by which the Dutch increased their territory considerably, all of it fertile soil.

As far as I know, these reclamation projects were started in the 18th century, while the overseas project were less profitable, to give the rich merchants another way to invest their money they earned in the last (17th) century, the 'Dutch Golden Age'.
Thus they were not a reason, but a consequence of the Golden Age.

Originally posted by Michiel de Ruyter


As far as I know, these reclamation projects were started in the 18th century, while the overseas project were less profitable, to give the rich merchants another way to invest their money they earned in the last (17th) century, the 'Dutch Golden Age'.
Thus they were not a reason, but a consequence of the Golden Age.

There was already land reclamation in the Netherlands in the 11th century. The development of the Windmill in the 15th century was a breakthrough that made poldering easier.

The polders of North Holland were reclaimed in the 17th century I think.

Ofcourse there was land reclamation in the Middle Ages, but that was on a much smaller scale (exception being the "Middelzee", a stretch of water trough Friesland), the larger polders in North-Holland (Purmer, Beemster) were reclaimed in the 18th century and, the largest of them, the Haarlemmermeer only in the 19th century.

Originally posted by Michiel de Ruyter
The larger polders in North-Holland (Purmer, Beemster) were reclaimed in the 18th century

The Beemster was reclaimed in 1612, the Purmer in 1622, the Wormer in 1626 and the Schermer in 1635.

Ribannah wrote:

Greed was the number one motivation for all the European civs in the age of colonization. I wager that all empires in human history were based on greed.

This is a gross over-simplification. The motivations for Europeans in the Age of Colonization were legion. It's a bit dangerous to look backward and impose modern (i.e., anti-colonization) views on people who held different views.

If the Europeans hadn't crossed the ocean, the Iroquois might never have had the chance to build a large empire and we might never have heard of them.

The Iroquois were already making their power felt as far as Ohio and even the Carolinas before the Europeans came. The Dutch and English armed them with modern firearms, but the power of the Confederacy was never contingent on the Europeans. They never built an empire in the sense that a Eurasian would recognize; they were expanding for hunting grounds and (after the Europeans came) for access to tradable resources.

The Dutch relationship with the Iroquois is linked to the Dutch East India Company's expansion into (modern) western New York, which brought them into direct conflict with the French. The Great Lakes formed a part of a larger trade and transport network in the 17th and 18th centuries that stretched down the St. Lawrence River through the Great Lakes (portaging past Niagara Falls) and either southward into the Ohio River system or westward directly to the Mississippi. Neither the French nor the Dutch succeeded in transplanting many colonists to this region, so both relied heavily on local Indian allies (i.e., the Algonquins and the Iroquois, respectively) for their proxy wars. Though the Iroquois initially gained the upper hand in these conflicts, the French were able to muscle into the region after 1664 until some decades later when the English started showing up in sizable numbers. The Seven Years War obviously permanently changed the balance. Still, the U.S. felt compelled in the 1820s to subvert this centuries-old transport route by building the Erie Canal, which routed traffic up the Hudson and the Mohawk rivers, then across New York state directly to Lake Erie at Buffalo. (My last apartment in Buffalo was next to the canal.) The U.S. and Canada reversed this route again in the 1960s, reverting to the traditional one with the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway project.

Sodak wrote:

Also, more examples show it was quite common for tribe names (as given by neighbors) to be insults or at least degrading:

This is a common linguistic phenomenon. In Europe, the first foreign peoples the Slavs met in their invasion of Europe in the 6th and 7th centuries were the Germanics, and the Slavs derisively refered to them as Niemcy, (Niemiec) "Those Who Cannot Speak". This still sticks today; Poles, Russians, Czechs and Serbs all refer to modern Germans by variations of this term. When the Hungarians showed up in the late 9th century, the Danubian Basin was filled with Avars and Slavs. The Hungarians derived most of the names they use to refer to their neighbors from these groups, so the modern Hungarian term for a German is "Német", obviously borrowed from the Slavic term. (Also, in modern Hungarian the term for a mute person is "nema", also derived from this term.)

To Germans on the List: So sorry if you've just learned how the Slavs have been refering to you for the past two millenia. At least it wasn't something like "rattlesnake"... ;)

(And I hope everyone understands that I'm kidding there.)

Ribannah wrote:

While the Iroquois do call themselves the Haudenosaunee, they did on occasion refer to themselves as the Tobacco Nation, too, even before the French got to know them.

The tobacco must have been "imported". Upstate New York's winters generally begin in late October/early November (though the last several have been quite wimpy) and last well into March, with snows in April not unusual. The temperature can easily hover around 0-20 degrees fahrenheit (-18 to -5 degrees centigrade) for much of December, January and February. Snowfall is uneven but the region is susceptible to powerful bands of snowstorms caused by Canadian winds blowing across 4 of the Great Lakes (called "Lake Effects") that have been known to dump as much as 6 feet (1.8 meters) of snow in a couple days. In the 17th century the Northern Hemisphere was dealing with the lingering effects of the "Little Ice Age", so the region's winters were probably dramatically worse and longer. Tobacco is a plant that needs lots of sun, lots of heat, and lots of humidity - in other words, a warmer temperate or subtropical climate. All of these things are in very short supply in Upstate New York, so if the Iroquois were attempting to grow tobacco themselves there clearly must have been a severe quality deficit. Maybe that's why they are so actively involved with cigarette smuggling nowadays across the Canadian-American border...

Originally posted by Vrylakas
In Europe, the first foreign peoples the Slavs met in their invasion of Europe in the 6th and 7th centuries were the Germanics, and the Slavs derisively refered to them as Niemcy, (Niemiec) "Those Who Cannot Speak".
Yes, I know. But it's a description again, one that makes sense from neighbours with a totally different tongue. Tobacco people describes the Iroquois, rattlesnakes doesn't. So with the words being almost the same, the one that makes sense (and is closest, too), well, makes sense.

The power of the Confederacy was never contingent on the Europeans. They never built an empire in the sense that a Eurasian would recognize.
I can't see why not. Everyone, including the colonists, knew whereabouts Iroquois territory started and where it ended. National borders with customs, signs and fences are a very recent development.
Typical for the Iroquois was that they didn't really LIVE in the newly gained territory, because they lived where their crops grew.
But that's not unique either (for instance, Russia claims the entire Taiga).


The tobacco must have been "imported". Upstate New York's winters generally begin in late October/early November (though the last several have been quite wimpy) and last well into March, with snows in April not unusual. The temperature can easily hover around 0-20 degrees fahrenheit (-18 to -5 degrees centigrade) for much of December, January and February.
There are many varieties of Tobacco, some are better suited to a less than subtropical climate than others. Tobacco was even cultivated in Canada. In The Netherlands, also a lot further north, tobacco was grown on the Veluwe.

http://www.enscseeds.org/nativeseed/

Originally posted by Ribannah
Tobacco people describes the Iroquois, rattlesnakes doesn't.
You just don't get it, do you? Hostile neighbors do not give negative names to others to accurately describe them with a neutral term. They do not name them after one of their clan totems. They often name them with an insult.

You do not seem to be aware that referring to someone as a snake is a way to call them either evil or untrustworthy. This is common in many languages/cultures, including english - which you seem to understand rather well. If a people has a neighbor with whom they share ill relations, this name makes perfect sense. What part of this obvious explanation escapes you?

Or is it just that you must be right? :rolleyes:

First of all, I am right.
Not that it's anything I want to take credit for. You could have found it by yourself had you made the effort.

Second, I understand perfectly what you mean, but it's simply not true. People don't call neighbours something AT RANDOM. That is what YOU don't seem to grasp.
Whether with evil intent or not, it's always something that their buddies can understand: "Oh, you mean THOSE guys." Else the term simply won't stick. But feel free to look for a counter-example. So far I haven't seen any, nor have you offered anything else to support your claim.

"Rattlesnakes" just doesn't fulfill the premise. Nobody would understand that it would mean the Haudenosaunee and not the Delaware, the Algonquin or the Dutch.
"They who smoke" does, because that's what they did with great enthusiasm, compared to the Hurons.
Oh, and the name Iroquois was given to the Haudenosaunee long before they were at war with the Hurons.