Ask a Dutchman!

Kaiserguard said:
I don't know whether we traded that much with Poland-Lithuania or Russia, but we sure as hell traded alot of stuff from the Baltics, particularly from what is today's Estonia and Latvia. Mostly grain and wood, if I'm not mistaken. This Dutch-Baltic trade is almost as old as Dutch statehood, perhaps even older.
Takhisis said:
Well, I think that's because planting cash crops and doing cheese etc. with added value and then buying grain can be more profitable than growing basic foodstuffs yourself. Do you have any stats for that?

Gdańsk (Danzig) was the main commercial seaport of Poland in period 1466 - 1795 (before 1466 - when Poland had no direct access to the Baltic Sea since Danzig was part of the Teutonic Order's Monastic State, Poland's main commercial seaport was Stettin aka Szczecin, which was part of the Duchy of Szczecin, ruled by dukes from Piast dynasty who were generally friendly towards Poland, while the Teutonic Order was often conflicted with Poland).

Polish export goods were being floated by rafts and boats to Gdańsk (and a few other ports) and from there exported via the Baltic Sea.

Types of river boats most frequently used in Vistula trade were komięga:

komiega%20fragment%20ryciny.jpg


And szkuta:

szkuta%20.jpg


Basin of the Vistula river - almost all of sea export from this area and of sea import to this area was being handled by the seaport in Gdańsk:

dorzecze-wisly.jpg


Some statistics on trade via the port of Gdańsk:

Number of ships loaded with trade goods calling at the Gdańsk port annually:

1474 - 400
1576 - 700 (274 German, 252 Dutch, 77 Swedish, 58 Finnish & Livonian, 31 French, 19 English & Scottish, 8 Norwegian and 4 Danish)

In further years sometimes 200 ships a da were calling at the Gdańsk port.

Now number of ships with trade goods sailing out of the port of Gdańsk annually:

1430 - 40
1490 - 720

In 1575 in total 1064 trade ships loaded with goods crossed the Oresund strait while sailing from East to West (from the Baltic Sea to the North Sea), of them 945 sailed out of Gdańsk - and this included 516 Dutch, 254 Frisian, 73 English, 58 Scottish and 38 Danish ships.

Polish export of grain via Gdańsk:

1470 - 5,000 tons
1490 - 21,000 tons
1530 - 22,400 tons
1557 - 89,000 tons
1583 - 138,000 tons

In 1583 there was a major famine in Western Europe and as many as 2229 ships entered the Gdansk port that year.

By the end of the 15th century - ca. 22,000 tons annually
In the middle of the 16th century - ca. 110,000 tons annually

The absolute peak of the Polish export of grain was in 1618.

During 1618 in total 1867 ships loaded just with grain exported 282,000 tons of grain.

1634 - 157,000 tons
1650 - 190,530 tons

Poland (and partially also Lithuania - but figures for export via Gdańsk are only for Polish grain, because Gdańsk was the main export center for the Vistula basin) was exporting grain not only to the Netherlands, but also to Spain, Portugal and Italy.

There were some periods during the 16th and 17th centuries, when 2/3 of entire Baltic trade was Danzig trade (so mainly Poland's exports and imports).

The city of Gdańsk itself had a considerable trade fleet, which numbered:

1544 - 50 ships
1568 - 150 ships
1583 - 60 ships
1694 - 64 ships

Gdańsk in the 16th century was also an important center of shipbuilding. Gdańsk was exporting ships to England, Holland, Genoa and Venice.

Even though apart from Gdańsk, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had also other commercial seaports - Elbląg, Puck, Libawa and Riga (Riga was responsible for Lithuanian trade) - their revenues combined were only 1/5 of the value of revenues of Gdańsk / Danzig.

In 1579 in total 340 ships sailed out of Elbląg and 725 out of Konigsberg.

Poland from Elbląg (Elbing), Puck, Libawa and Ryga (Riga), Poland was also using the Królewiec (Konigsberg) commercial seaport for her trade, since Ducal Prussia was a Polish vassal state.

Lithuania - apart from Riga - was also using Klaipeda (Memel) for her trade.

Some goods from Poland were also being exported / imported to Poland via Riga and Klaipeda.

===================================================

Dutch trade fleet was the most important trade fleet on the Baltic Sea in the late 16th and the early 17th centuries.

On the western direction of sailing, Dutch ships were between 56,9% and 74% of the movement via the Oresund in the late 16th and early 17th century (Polish trade fleet - i.e. mostly Gdańsk / Danzig trade fleet - was between 10% and 2% of the movement via the Oresund at that time).

One particular Dutch city which was especially seriously involved in the import of Polish grain and wood, was Antwerp and its trade fleet.

====================================================

Grain trade was very profitable for the city of Gdańsk, for Polish nobility and for some inhabitants of Polish cities and towns in the Vistula basin.

In years 1537 - 1576 around 65% of entire Vistula grain trade was being carried on by nobility while 35% by townsmen. Later the proportion of grain carried on by nobility increased, since more members of Medium Nobility / Gentry started to be involved in grain business.

Around 73% of agricultural export goods floated via Vistula to Gdańsk was property of nobility, 20% property of townsmen and 7% property of peasants.

Trade carried on by nobility was free from taxes and customs duties.

When arriving at Gdańsk, Polish merchants (whether nobles or townsmen) had to sell their grain to local merchants, as citizens of Gdańsk had a privilege of exclusive trade within the boundaries of their city. So arriving merchants from the rest of Poland had to stop before the city walls and sell their goods to locals.

During the reign of king Casimir Jagiellonczyk merchants from Gdansk were paying 80 zlotys for each łaszt of wheat (in fact 90 zlotys - but of this amount 10 zlotys were being deducted as a warehouse rent) and then selling each łaszt abroad for 140 zlotys - which means their profit was 75%.

Łaszt was a unit of volume used in Poland at that time. One łaszt of wheat = 2400 kg while one łaszt of rye = 2190 kg - statistics on grain trade / grain export in the 16th - 18th centuries are given in łaszts, so I had to convert all numbers to tons (see above). While converting I assumed that one łaszt = 2,19 tons because I suppose that mostly rye was exported, since Poland produced more rye than wheat. One łaszt of barley = 1780 kg and of oat = 1440 kg.

One łaszt = 60 korcy (singular: korzec).
 
When it comes to Polish 16th - 17th century export to Holland / Western Europe - apart from grain, Poland exported there also:

- flax (up to 3,000 łaszts annually)
- linen canvas (used mainly for producing sails)
- ropes (mostly hempen ropes)
- wood
- tar
- iron
- gunpowder
- armours
- sabers
- pikes
- cannonballs *
- tow
- cloth (mostly produced in Greater Poland and Silesia)
- woodstaves (used mostly for producing barrels)
- Polish salt (mostly extracted in salt mines in Lesser Poland)

* And nowadays we export to Holland mostly polandballs, as far as I noticed on this forum.

======================================

And my sources for all data provided in this post and in previous post, were mainly:

Books:

"Dzieje Polski nad Bałtykiem",
"Atlas Historyczny Polski",
"Polska XVII wieku. Państwo, Społeczeństwo, Kultura"

Websites:

http://cpx.republika.pl/handel.htm#Eksport
http://cpx.republika.pl/rosliny.htm
http://www.wiatrak.nl/13287/holenderska-matka-handlu-i-ostatni-polski-flisak

And some other paperbook and online sources.

=============================================

When it comes to Russian grain:

The main seaport via which Russia exported grain to Western Europe (especially after Poland lost its importance in Baltic trade) was Arkhangelsk.
 
What's the best thing about being a Dutchman?

What's the worst thing about being a Dutchman?

We severely lack subtlety. Though that's not always a bad thing either (since this gave the world Paul Verhoeven movies).

I'm going to agree with this ^^.

As outsider I'm going to say "the food" :mischief:.
(isn't *that* bad though)
 
If I ever visit the Netherlands how should I go about seducing one of the local women?

The ones behind the windows with red curtains can simply be paid, if you have the cash. Other women should be approached as if they were men, in the hopes of getting their telephone number at the end of the conversation. If you are in a bar (not a cafe!) you can also touch them once a conversation is up and running, and kiss them once you touched them often enough and ask yourself whether you should kiss them or not. The rest is history.

Domen said:
One particular Dutch city which was especially seriously involved in the import of Polish grain and wood, was Antwerp and its trade fleet.

Only you and Geert Wilders believe Antwerp is in the Netherlands, and not in Belgium, as most other persons do.
 
Actually, Belgium decided to get rid of us and it took us 9 years to accept that fact. (Belgian revolt 1830, peace treaty signed 1839.)

I'm going to disagree with my fellow Dutchman and say that the best thing is the marijuana

Well, weed isn't Dutch and whether it's a good thing is debatable.

If I ever visit the Netherlands how should I go about seducing one of the local women?

If I knew I'd tell you. ;)

@Domen: Feel free to start Ask a Polandman! thread.
 
Can you tell me some information about the Belgian revolt?
 
We are open-minded, safe for some die-hard reformed Christians in the Bible Belt, and die-hard Muslims among Turks and Moroccans. I think we resemble Canadians in some ways, which is why Dutch people tend to like Canada.
Safe, or save? ;)
dutchfire said:
We severely lack subtlety. Though that's not always a bad thing either (since this gave the world Paul Verhoeven movies).
And this is because…
The English do have worse food, yes.
Yes, but everyone knows that.
If I ever visit the Netherlands how should I go about seducing one of the local women?
This post highlighted because Perf gets post #666.
 
And this is because…
I don't know, but it's an interesting question.
Without a doubt it has some origin in history. Maybe because of the Calvinistic nature?
Maybe because of the frugal inclination? Or that lying is bad (including white lies)?

Or maybe it has something with the seafaring or mercantile history?
Maybe the fact that the Netherlands never really had an aristocracy (being a merchant's Republic) and as such courtly manners haven't really spread into the population?

I don't know.
 
Can you tell me some information about the Belgian revolt?

My own summary, as I remember it from history classes and from a couple of books that I have read since:

The United Kingdom of the Netherlands was an artifically created country. There are many historic links dating back to the Burgundic period, but the two regions had been growing apart ever since the revolt aganst the Spanish in the 16th century. In 1815, the french-speaking and catholic ruling class (bourgeoisie) of the formerly Austrian Southern Netherlands didn't like the idea of being ruled by a Dutch speaking protestant from the North at all. The constitution of the new country did not get a majority in the parliament, and was only enacted through some inventive "Dutch arithmetics". King William's government was also dominated by Northerners, even though the South had a bigger population at that time.

There were also major economic differences. The North was still mainly trading-oriented, while the South was getting more and more industrialised, following the example of Great-Britain. The northern ports also didn't really like the idea of a possible revival of the port of Antwerp.

The revolution itself was sparked by a performance of the romantic-nationalistic opera "The Mute Girl of Portici" in Brussels. It lead to riots in the city, also inspired by the revolution of 1830 in Paris. The Prince of Orange (son ofKing William) did not succeed in surpressing the riots. After some time, the rioters in Brussels received support from other cities, and they also formed a "temporary government".

Initially the five "great powers" that had established the United Kingdom of the Netherlands were not so happy with this new situation, but they soon realised that trying to resolve the issues between North and South were futile, and they stopped all support to King William in his attempts to reconquer the southern part of his kingdom. In 1831, King William did one last attempt, but the "10 days campaign" came to an end when a French army showed up in support of the new Belgian government.

Only in 1839 did William finally accept the "Treaty of London". Certain areas were returned from Belgium to The Netherlands: the Eastern part of the Province of Limburg (east of the river Meuse + the city of Maastricht) and the south bank of the Scheldt-estuary (known as Zeeuws-Vlaanderen); the Eastern part of Luxemburg became the independent Grand-Duchy, directly ruled by William of Orange.

After the revolution, the new country was ruled for several decades by a grand coalition of conservative catholics, and liberal members of the bourgeoise (which ahd become prominent due to the industrial revolution). The country adopted one of the most liberal constitutions in the world at that time (a consitutional monarchy with, for that time, a very limited power for the king), even though voring rights were limited to a very small minority of only the richest people in the country.

I own two interesting books that I have that include a section about the Belgian revolution, but I'm not sure if they have been translated in English:
- "A history of Belgium" ("Een geschiedenis van België") by Marc Reynebeau, which starts just before the Belgian revolution
- "Belgium, a history without country" ("België, een geschiedenis zonder land") by Rolf Falter, which goes much farther back, starting at the Roman era, and which also dicusses the evolution of the relations between the North and South through the middle ages.
 
Jan H, why did Belgium keep some Dutch-speaking territories then? Why didn't it just emrge with la France and leave the Dutch-speakers to fend by themselves and/or join with the Netherlands?
I don't know, but it's an interesting question.
Without a doubt it has some origin in history. Maybe because of the Calvinistic nature?
Maybe because of the frugal inclination? Or that lying is bad (including white lies)?

Or maybe it has something with the seafaring or mercantile history?
Maybe the fact that the Netherlands never really had an aristocracy (being a merchant's Republic) and as such courtly manners haven't really spread into the population?

I don't know.
Being merchants would've helped?
 
Jan H, why did Belgium keep some Dutch-speaking territories then? Why didn't it just emrge with la France and leave the Dutch-speakers to fend by themselves and/or join with the Netherlands?

That would ruin the whole idea of Belgium. It had nothing to do with ethnicity (the Flemish being to the Dutch as Norwegians are to Swedes and Azerbaijanis are to Turks), but with religion and economy: Belgium was Catholic and Industrialised. The (Northern) Netherlands was Calvinist and had an economy based on trade and agriculture.

However, today, these factors are no longer relevant, so your statements do carry a sense of truth. The secularisation has destroyed any religious motives for a clear cut religious dimension of the Belgian identity, and globalization has likewise made the economic differences between Belgium and the Netherlands irrelevant too. This is why Flemish nationalism is now a notable political current in Belgian politics, since Belgian identity lacks the significance it once had. Walloons generally support a continued Belgian union, but many Flemish people oppose it, popularly viewing the Belgian state as an extortion mechanism for the Walloons.
 
Walloons generally support a continued Belgian union, but many Flemish people oppose it, popularly viewing the Belgian state as an extortion mechanism for the Walloons.

While it is true that Wallonie generally supports the union, that goes true for most Flemish people as well; Flemish "nationalist" are a minority at best. And the motives you are giving for that supposed lack of support are rather outdated, as they refer to a time when government and language were French/Walloon.
 
Jan H, why did Belgium keep some Dutch-speaking territories then? Why didn't it just emrge with la France and leave the Dutch-speakers to fend by themselves and/or join with the Netherlands?
In the North of Belgium, only the ruling elite (the "bourgeoisie") was French speaking. Even Brussels was still almost entirely dutch speaking at that time.

There was certainly no great desire to merge with France. The Southern Netherlands had been semi-independent for centuries (as part of Spain and Austria). For most of that period, France was the biggest threat (gradually eating away territory in the South, especially during Louis XIV's reign).

Besides that, the UK and Prussia would never have accepted a (re)-annexation of the Southern Netherlands by France, because the whole idea of the Congress of Vienna, after the defeat of Napoleon, had been that there should be an independent buffer state to the north of France... That's also why the UK guaranteed the independence of the new Belgian kingdom (and you know what that lead to in 1914...)
 
So how did the Southern Netherlands become Frenchified then? Education? French immigration?

Also, it looks as if the creation of Belgium was yet another example of Britain's complete inability to understand them foreign parts beyond the Channel.
 
Back
Top Bottom