I only recently discovered your channel, but I've been roaring through the video backlog and have almost caught up :) Amazing work! Two questions, one of which is (I imagine) fairly short: What are the little 'wings' or 'bumpers' on the stern of certain destroyers or cruisers? Seen here on USS Fletcher: www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0544522.jpg. I imagine they are to facilitate mooring, but I honestly have no idea. As a World of Warships player, what are your thoughts on the appropriateness of the various ship lines' 'gimmicks' (e.g. US ships having longer-lasting DCP, British ships having insane heals, German ships having turtleback/secondaries/long-range hydro, etc), and which ships currently in the game do you think have the most and least historically accurate performance (as far as can be judged within the constraints of the game)?
Were there any significant changes to British or Dutch tactics, doctorine or ship design as a result of the battle on the medway? i can imagine if both sides were suprised at it's effectiveness there would be new develpments as a result. Love your videos! keep up the amazing work!
Can I ask a question about metal recycling... When RN ships were de commissioned (say from 1900 to the 1940's) was the metal recycled for other RN uses or was the steel sold for general scrap? It would seem that if the navy was expanding that any steel recovered from ships would have to be recycled or was fresh steel used in The construction of new ships?
The funniest part is how kind the Dutch went about this. They left the civilians unbothered, didn't plunder the villages and gave the English sailors who didn't stand in their way free passage ashore. They we're just there to burn the fleet, and that's it. The English themselves actually started to plunder the villages, which absolutely horrified the Dutch sailors, who didn't understand why they would do this to their own countrymen.
There was already a strong idea of the English and Dutch needing each other as allies against the French by that time. They were quite natural allies, both being protestant nations threatened by Catholic powers like France and Spain. And France was already gearing up to be trouble for them both. The Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th century was much more about sea-trade hegemony than actually destroying each other. The Dutch also did not destroy the Chatham dockyards, leaving the English ability to rebuild and repair their fleet completely intact. I don't think that was a mistake or oversight by the Dutch. They weren't stupid. They very intentionally left those facilities intact as to not completely destroy the English naval power in the mid to long term. They needed to cripple the English fleet in the short term to force a favourable negotiation position.
Samuel L. Jackson voicing the Dutch admiral. That has got to be different. The word f*ck is said to be of Dutch origin so its use would be quite plausible to have Mr Jackson doing the voice. What's the Dutch for mother? 😊👍
@@rudolfpeterudo3100 No. The Dutch word for 'mother' is 'moeder'. It's pronounced 'mooder'. Two syllables. But there is no literal equivalent for 'motherf*cker'. The Dutch would probably use 'klootzak' (pronounced 'cloatsack'). (Keep in mind that that is modern Dutch. The language hasn't changed as much as English over the years, but they did use different infective back in the day.
@@ajvanmarle But Klootzak is usually inferred for the male of the species. The last time I was in Nederland full time would have been in 1956. So I suppose things would have changed including language usage.
@AudieHolland, Boy oh boy, hard to believe someone's still so sour after 300+ years Ignoring the fact that the Dutch basically bankrupted the English...
Why do you think Dutch flagships have usually been called "De Ruyter" for the past 300 years? He's had 14 ships named after him since. The latest is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_De_Ruyter_(F804) Johan de Witt and others also played an important role in this story though, the Dutch Republic was a complicated affair and not really a coherent nation and certainly not a centrally ruled monarchy. Despite that, it was really successful.
@@stewartellinson8846 he was better than Nelson. Nelson had the best ships, many ships and excellent sailors, at least compared to the French and Spanish. Michiel de Ruyter won against the odds, with less ships, smaller ships, and only backed by better sailors than the English had. And he innovated the Dutch navy.
@@qwertyuiopzxcfgh Good point. Both admirals fall roughly in the same time period too - De Ruyter lived about half a century later than Yi. However, what possibly sets Yi apart is the fact that he not only was outgunned, but also heavily inpopular with his own government due to his incorruptibility and leading a branch of the military that was completely ignored in terms of funding. De Ruyter was outgunned, but still funded quite reasonably, and held pretty good connections with the De Witte brothers. Nevertheless, I hold De Ruyter in great esteem. His tenacious defense of the seas was one of the few things what kept The Netherlands alive in a time when its economic position was envied by multiple other states. Where Yi fought terrible odds, De Ruyter faced bad odds multiple wars, each time seemingly worse.
The dutch wars of the 17th century could fill an entire series. In fact, the wars during the Age of Sail could fill a channel worth of content! Centuries and hundreds of battles, they dwarf the modern age considerably
Unfortunately a lot less interesting when it comes to technical developments in shipbuilding and doctrine. I might just be ignorant to the topic, but to me it seems like more happened to revolutionize naval warfare every 30 years since 1850, than between 1600 and 1850. You go from the first Ironclads (~1850) to the first Pre-Dreadnoughts (~1890) to the Dreadnoughts and Super-Dreadnoughts (~1910) to the Fast Battleship and Aircraft Carrier (~1940) to nuclear propulsion and missiles becoming the main armament (~1960) to lasers, railguns and fully unmanned systems (~1990+). Ships of the modern age had significantly shorter shelf-lives.
@@Tepid24 Agreed. The key change, it seems to me, was steam and then subsequently internal combustion power. The old full on sailing ships were wonderful machines but in the end relied on what muscle, bone and sinew could accomplish, however that might be augmented with tackles, purchases, windlasses or what have you. The methods to get the most out of human muscle power had been perfected around the early 1600s, as you mention, and whatever gains were made after that came in very small increments. Power from fossil fuels changed all that in a stroke.
@@Tepid24 Well they were making ships by hand at the time, 1 above and 1 below cutting the trees into planks. The Dutch revolutionized by using windmills to build the ships. Pretty smart tech actually for the time. Hence first automization. Also as many trading ships were lost at sea and this was a big financial hit, stocks were invented to lessen the blow. Giving the Dutch superior finances. Additionally windmills were used to create more land which would be used for farming, this to reduce dependence on foreign powers. De Wit / de Ruyter basically also created the first marine corps, highly trained sea soldiers that could be deployed anywhere. So I would say it was a very interesting period with much innovation actually.
I wrote about the Anglo-Dutch wars for Honors English 38 years ago. You're correct that there's tons of information... My paper was more than double the length of any other that was presented. But the observations about naval technology are fairly well taken... A lot of the history is political and economic in nature, although the relative ascendancy and desecendancy of the nations is very interesting....
@Darshan You win. Mind you, Dutch -England wars ended in 2-3 too. Hooray. But to be proud of the biggest empire? One that killed millions, ended up creating borders that still create havoc around the world? Perhaps this raid can be admired as a case of military genius.
@@KootFloris There was also this little incident that happened in 1688, the Glorieuze Overtocht when the Dutch took over control of England. No wonder the British Empire only started to succeed after that little friendly intervention. Dutch Armada and army in England: 'No more installing Catholic kings and flirting with the French, you hear? Bad English cousins.'
I didn't realize the Dutch were so consistently outgunned during the Anglo-Dutch war. That really puts a lot of de Ruyter's, at first glance, rather indecisive victories into perspective. De Ruyter did not have the advantage in gunnery skills or even a relative parity of ship strength that Nelson enjoyed and he couldn't play keep-away from the enemy fleet while whittling them down with vastly superior long range fire like Yi Sun-Sin.
One trait I’ve noticed from De Ruyter, Nelson and Yi is that all three of them were very aggressive about forcing an engagement at the tactical level if they felt (usually correctly) that they had the upper hand for whatever reason. De Ruyter was willing to organize an attack on the Medway anchorage or to use ship handling and numbers to overwhelm more capable British units, we all know how aggressive Nelson was, and while Yi picked and chose his battles at the strategic level to preserve his forces (for much the same reason Jellicoe would do in WWI) he was anything but gun-shy once he sensed that he could force a battle on favourable terms.
Fun times, fun times... Most of the earlier ships were actually hired from merchants, and as such commanded by her own captain, who was understandably reluctants to put their ships in harms way. The story of the Dutch navy is interresting in and of itself. As about half the (then) states were land locked and as such an army rather then a fleet and the other half had different priorities regarding the way a possible unified navy would work, Amsterdam and Holland wanted trade protection, Zeeland protection of their fishing fleet. It took a while to form. Marines were introduced late because using (land) soldiers worked fine and was cheaper. "kost dat?" (costing what?") is a good summation of it.
Incidentally, the naval rank "Schout bij Nacht" (English equivalent: Rear Admiral) was also created by the Dutch fleet being mostly made of independent armed merchantmen. Because, being independent as they were, these armed merchantmen had a habit of sneaking off during the night before the battle. The "Schout bij Nacht" (Admiral for the Night) was there to make sure there were no stragglers or deserters, which is why he was sailing at the rear (hence: Rear Admiral).
From memory; at that point the smaller merchantmen (with lesser canons) were largely replaced with much bigger ships of war with more and better canons.
Don’t sell yourselves short. There was a time when the Dutch were definitely a strong regional power in Europe (and practically invented the concept of a Megacorporation), but once the UK and other European powers knocked them down a few pegs they never really recovered, and would stagnate until World War II destroyed what remained of their colonial empire for all intents and purposes.
@@DarkDutch007 Yes, but for some the decline was much more drastic than others. For the Dutch, the only major colony they had left was Indonesia, whereas if you look at the UK, and France, they lost virtually all of their overseas holdings over the next couple of decades, partly due to international pressure.
A big advantage the Dutch had is that they already in the 16th century invented the windmill saw. This way we could build ships 4x faster than anyone else and also half the cost. The English only started building ships this way after 1750s
Ironically once Charles II was dead and his brother James chased off we ended up with the Dutch William of Orange as king. One of Britains better periods of history.
@@davidwright7193 Oliver Cromwell FORBADE amusement, as part of his puritanical campaign. He FORBADE women actresses and plays that weren't religious. He FORBADE colorful clothing. He FORBADE dissecting in medical schools, as well as any form of medical operation necessitating the cutting of flesh! He returned England to a ghost of its former self, and under his "protectorate", England seemed to dip back into a dark age of obscurantism and theological dogmatic tyrany... SO DON'T EVEN DARE SAY HE WAS EVEN A MILDLY ACCEPTABLE HEAD OF STATE!!! XD
@@davidwright7193 Charles II had a very strong passion for both sailing and the navy. He was also quite a competent designer andsailor of racing yachts. His brother, later James II, also proved himself a fearless and competent naval commander; again with a strong passion for the navy and the well-being of his sailors. His fleeing England was quite out of character.
andrew norrie The grand old Duke of York, he had 10,000 men but not for very long. A man known to his friends as James the Shit, and that is from contemporary sources, didn’t do very much very well. In fact he was so shit not even the Tories could support him. That he was marginally less shit that James the fool or Charles the headless. There was a good reason for importing a bunch of Germans after James the Shit’s eldest daughters died.
These guys were not in to kill themselves for some kind of god-emperor. They were just pretty bold and tried to jumped off before impact. Anything else would to be considered as very un-christian, and also very stupid. The fame afterwards paid for many drinks and women - why should you like to miss that?
Love these sail videos! What a bold maneuver! Always a fan of the British Navy but they surely got bested on this one. Amazing how the Dutch maneuvered these lumbering ships in such tight confines. Seamanship at their finest!
And all while the pride of England's Navy was burning or sinking in The Medway, the English king was partying at one of his Royal estates outside of London.
Damn good to see this raid covered. I was born and raised around a mile from Upnor castle so this is a pretty important event for the people where I'm from
Maar het was wel een gevecht om te overleven in een wereld waar de grootste natie s de dienst uit maakten. Dat maakt het weer persoonlijk. En .. de " nederlanden" vochten een oorlog op twee fronten.. Frankrijk en Engeland.. en een vernederd Spanje/ Habsburg .
Fascinating as ever and good to see you're dealing with the Anglo-dutch wars which are very interesting in themselves. Pepys provides a good account of the raid, the run up and it's aftermath, being a key naval administrator of the time. His diary is always worth a browse through.
So two ships named "Royal Oak" were in shallow waters when they were destroyed by an ennemy they never thought would attack them where they were stationed. I hope they didn't name another ship or submarine "Royal Oak" because I would be concerned for the safety on those onboard every time it's in port...
I'm concerned that after naming six different ships _Invincible_ and losing four of them with gargantuan loss of life most times, the British decided to name a _seventh_ one. You'd think they could recognize when Neptune has decided to make a point about arrogance.
Strange to think that only 2 ships have been named after van Ghent and many more after de Ruyter. But van Ghent is immortalised as the training barracks of the Korps Mariniers here in Rotterdam are named after him as he was the first commanding officer of what later became the Korps Mariniers.
You forget that we also have consistently been naming warships "Jan van Speijk." Who was he? Well, non-Dutch folks: Jan van Speijk was a famous Dutch suicide bomber.
And of course we also, however briefly, had an AIRCRAFT CARRIER named Karel Doorman. Famous for fighting the Japanese invasion force in the Java Sea, going under with his ship while the Japanese sank pretty much the entire Allied naval squadron. The invasion of the Dutch East Indies was delayed by a whole day. Seriously this had nothing to do with the fighting spirit of the Dutch, American, British and Australian vessels as it had to do with the superior Japanese Imperial Navy. I always thought "Doorman" to be a typical Dutch name ('thorn-man') but any English native speaker may recognize that the name is actually English!
@@AudieHolland I disagree about the fighting spirit part. American destroyers running away during battle without being ordered so. That is something you should NEVER do. Yes, the Japanese outgunned the ABDA fleet, but fleeing won't help either. Completely the opposite compared to the destroyers of Taffy 3, which would've been wiped out if thóse destroyers fled the battle. As for Van Speijk, in fact our king of the time decided there shall be a vessel named after him at all times. That can be interesting, considering the current HNLMS Van Speijk is due for replacement, and I've read something about plans for combined Dutch-Belgian crews on the replacement frigates (imagine serving as a Belgian on a vessel named after someone who blew his ship to avoid falling it in Belgian hands).
@@rijkemans5114 Ah well, the tactical situation that early in the war was entirely different. The Japanese were masters at night fighting and with the limited radar systems implemented at that time, the Japanese were at a distinct advantage. During the Coral Sea Battle, the American cruisers were caught by surprise by the Japanese Long Lance torpedoes. During the various naval battles around Guadalcanal, the American main force was forced to abandon their Marines on the island and they were left to survive on half rations or worse untill the tide turned. During the Battle off Samar, which you refer to, the Japanese navy had long lost their image of invincibility. I won't judge those American destroyers abandoning the battle because I don't think it would have made any difference. And realistically, what could one expect from a mish mash of American, Australian British and Dutch warships that probably hadn't trained all that much in that improvised force together? As to the future Royal Dutch Navy vessel "Van Speijk," there's an easy way out. I don't think the type of ship was specified so any official Dutch Navy ship would do. It doesn't neccessarily have to be a frigate again.
This should be a Series! :) "Grand Theft Warship: The Raid on the Medway" "Grand Theft Warship: Copenhagen" "Grand Theft Warship: Scapa Flow" "Grand Theft Warship: Bikini Bottom"
Love this. I am Dutch and grew up with these stories. It is nice to hear the british point if view. In our stories the chain across the theems was breached bij a ship specially assaignt and equipped for this task. Thank you, and keep up the good work
Thank you for this video. It's interesting how countries can be enemies at a certain time and centuries later, they become allies. On behalf of my forefathers, I forgive you for any losses we may have suffered, and I ask you forgiveness for any pain and grief we caused you. Also I am very happy you have helped us during WO2.
Year 2011: Dear Dutch, 'Our Queen has her diamond jubelee next year and we were wondering if we could please borrow our own property that you stole from us all these years ago. We promise to return it as soon the jubelee ends.'
ah the americans and their magical ancestors. the vast majority of europeans going to the new world were utterly unimportant peasants or religious nutters, it's funny how you never come across any americans descending from that 99%, nope, it always has to be something "special". Witts isn't the same de Witt, but hey, keep on inventing your own history.
@@lebell79 I don't know why you are such a prk .. I'm Scottish not American. .. you dozy wkr... One of my ancestors was a marine on a RN ship of the line and he can be found through public records online.. what a joke you are.. a hol e.... another was the grand pensioner of holland. Again well documented.. another relative is a retired RAF group captain.. again online records.. another a British army general in ww2 .. again on line records. .. I don't know what your game is boyo.. but in the highlands we don't take kindly to people insulting our heritage.. our relatives or our word... in future if you have nothing constructive to say just f the heck off..
@@DarkDutch007 dying is dying... he is remembered as being an excellent statesman and mathematician... my line have done a lot of dying for a lot of causes.. I am sure we have caused a lot of others to do the dying thing as well.. better to go down hard than live on your belly... most people have plenty of relatives to avenge them
I'm surprised nobody heard the Dutch coming with their wooden shoes clanging on the decks. In all seriousness, great work! There used to be a docu-drama up on YT about the second Anglo-Dutch war (complete with a wonderfully pompous actor playing Charles II), but unfortunately it seems to have been taken down.
Admiral De Ruyter probably had ordered them to wear socks over their clogs ^_^. It is a trick he used when he was just a lowly merchant captain. When his ship became under attack by Barbary pirates he ordered his men to grease the deck with butter from their cargo holds and wear socks over their shoes. When the pirates boarded the ship they constantly lost their footing on the slippery deck and were turned into mincemeat by the Dutch sailors that didn't slip because of the socks.
History shortcut: if the name of the admiral in charge is also the name of a warship a few centuries later then whatever operation they’re commanding most likely succeeded.
Pepys is the fellow to cover this period, from his unique position as Clerk of the Acts, of the Navy Board. He did much to organise the Royal Navy. From surviving the operation for the removal of a stone, great plague, the great fire of London, Dutch wars, he was at its centre. Intrigues at court, Pepys flattered himself, that he knew how to take bribes without becoming corrupt.. A strong sexual appetite, and heartfelt remorse afterwards, His honestly in the diary is compelling.
@@neutralobserver3423 have you read the translation by Latham and Matthews, it includes a lot of material that was omitted from earlier (censored?) editions.?
Yeah, there's a lot to Anglo-Dutch history. The Dutch had a trading company in India as well as the colony of Indonesia. The Cape of Good Hope - was Dutch - which is where all the Boer's come from. And - that story about some guys buying the island of Manhattan from the Indians for $24 in beads ... those guys were Dutch and it was New Amsterdam then - not yet New York. .
You forgot to mention the greatest irony of this war for the English. This being that the Dutch prince William III of Orange would later be handed the English crown only because he was the Protestant nephew of Charles II.
@@Raadpensionaris It's the "Glorious Revolution" because it was bloodless. Hell, Parliament offered William and Mary the crown despite the fact that their Republic had actively been at war with England for twenty years. The Dutch didn't possess the means to take anything by force at that time.
@@patrickaalfs9584 Parliament didn't offer William the crown. The opposite actually. William was "invited" by 7 members of parliament, not parlement itself, to safeguard protestant liberties. Not to become king. He also arranged that invitation himself and preparations were well under way when he got it. The Dutch set this whole thing in motion. And not the means? How? The operation proved that they had the means. The Royal Navy tried to halt the massive Dutch invasion fleet but were powerless to do anything. The Royal Navy simply wasn't strong enough. The Dutch army that landed in England also outmatched the English Royal Army in every possible way. It was a well trained modern veteran force that faced an inexperienced outdated force. James didn't have any illusions about winning and fled. After that London and it surrounding erea was occupied by Dutch forces for 18 months. Then William had to pressure and threaten parliament to make him king before they did so.
@@Raadpensionaris For the sake of full disclosure, It's been a "minute" since I darkened the halls of my University's history department (although my thesis work pertained to Anglo-Dutch relations during their wars) I also acknowledge that that was an American university, who in the aggregate are historically not known for our scholarship in modern Euro history. (Any Euro history for that matter) Since I'm not willing to wikipedia myself insane for the sake of argument, I humbly differ to anyone with such an epicly Dutch handle as "van Nassau-Ouwerkerk." Having said that, I would have thought that by 1688, the Netherlands were well on their way to decline. Hadn't the deWitt brothers already met their demise? I know the English was no European power house and the had problems financing any war they couldn't win in two years. The Royal Army was practically nonexistent out of financial necessity. They were disbanded unneeded to avoid another financial obligation for the crown. The conscripts could always be impressed again if needed, which happened relatively often. I'm pretty sure that most historical scholarship (at least what I remember) tends toward the Royal offer tendered to the Protestant William and Mary being popular throughout the English kingdom. I question your assertion that the offer had only seven parliamentary endorsements because I know the same Parliament passed the legislation to prohibit "Popists" from ever occupying the royal throne. By the way, William was not a "king" because the crown was obtained via Mary's Royal patent. Even though I have, on occasion, referred to the Netherlands as the "oxymorons" of Europe, Often to my own detriment, I'm decidedly pro-Dutch by nature and am an unapologetic "deRuyter" fanboy. But I understand military logistics enough to know that the Dutch State at her strongest did not possess the capacity or material resources to invade, occupy and replace English leadership without having her popular support. Which I believe is what you're asserting. Yes, the raid on Chatham was "a thing," but almost thirty years earlier and was a temporary occupation if that. If the Dutch were still a Republic in 1688, being effectively a confederation. It lacked the centralized authority to properly command a hostile invasion. The Dutch navy wasn't even one singular organization. It was five separate naves controlled by five independent Admiralty Colleges which seldom found unity of purpose. One of which DIDN'T SPEAK DUTCH. If the Stadtholder/Orangists ruled the Netherlands in 88, the Republican populous cities were naturally inclined to oppose Orangist rule also a bain of disunity. So, I guess I disagree adamantly with you're assertion. Me and the consensus in academia and whichever historical scholars termed the occasion as "Glorious."
@@patrickaalfs9584 Well great to see you actually know a lot about Dutch history. I would still like to offer some counter views. Well, yes the Dutch had reached their power peak some years previous but I think you put to much weight to that demise. The Dutch Republic was still very strong as proven by the fact that they possessed the 2nd largest army in Europe from 1689 till 1713. The Dutch would only lose their major power status in the 1750s. The demise of the Republic thus didn't happen suddenly after 1672 but took a while. In 1688 the Dutch Republic was still very capable to finance such an operation. And I am not arguing that their wasn't major support for William when he landed. He had masterfully misled them with propaganda. Few wanted a Dutchman as king. When his real intentions became clear and he occupied London a lot of people became to oppose him actually. Jonathan Israel says that it is probable that most Englishmen opposed the "Glorious Revolution". And even if it was innitialy popular he still relied entirely on his Dutch force to take control of the country. English military support was very small before the outcome was clear. Also, even if more people in parliament endorsed the invitation it still wasn't the institution of parliament that invited William. Certainly not to be king anyway because he had to force them to make him king. I also seriously doubt that you are speaking for the academic consensus. Maybe the one of the 19th century. I don't know a modern historian that would call it "Glorious". Maybe you can direct me to such a person tho
The British defenders on the Medway actually made a good stand from the Upnor fort and the Chatham dockyard. However the Crown had not bothered to pay them for months, so their morale was hardly fighting fit. The chains protecting the Medway Anchorage were also rusty, too weak and easily breached by the Dutch ships. A salutary day indeed for Charles's navy.
The Dutch were hiring British sailors who happily served on Dutch ships because they were paid in cash instead of IOU's that inn keepers might not accept as money.
Love these videos. I am certainly more of a airplane person and know very little about naval History. But these are so interesting and educational. Helps with keeping Navy realitves on their toes.....
Being Dutch this is a quite well known tale to me, but enjoyable none the less. Still it is amazing to consider how this tiny spec truly was a super power at some point and while most of that is long gone, key things still remain as can be seen on our focus on trade and the desire to keep it safe. Really we can be a buggersome lot if you poke us just a bit to hard, but overall we just like to be left alone and be as normal as we can be, cause that is already crazy enough.
Don't think us Dutch are a minor player nowadays; what we lack in military force, we still retain in economic power. Although many of the US are worried about Chinese investments in the US, it is actually us Dutch that are the largest foreign investor in the US economy.
@@roykliffen9674 Those reminds me of one of my favorite lines for the Drew Carey Show, back in the day, in an episode where they find out that a Dutch company is buying their company. Something along the lines of "Oh sure, everyone thinks it is the English or Japanese buying up everything, but in reality, it is the sneaky Dutch." Was a good Dutch pride moment, hearing that line =)
Was Holland really a 'tiny spec' back then? This is during the Dutch Republic's golden age and it was allied in the war with both Louis XIV's France and Denmark.
@@ElGrandoCaymano not really. the dutch republic had the largest merchant fleet in the world during the 17th century and iirc the highest gdp per capita. it was an economic superpower. while not militarily as strong as france, spain, or the ottomans(lets be honest who was at that time) they where no pushovers either.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video, being from Chatham, and having grown up within sight of where this all would have taken place!!! However, "Fort Upnor", or Upnor Castle as I was taught, was made under Queen Elizabeth the first, thus preceding all of these events... It was ideally placed to fire at raiders at a convenient bend in the Mudway, and was stocked with powder and rounds at all times, serving as a secondary magasine for the dockyard. It had at least four cannon. With all of this, I'm surprised it didn't seem to come up in your video, and didn't seem to have any major role in the events taking place under the nose of its gun barrels... Anyway, keep 'em coming! Looking forward to the next!!!
Someone should make a animation that goes over what you are talking about.I think it would make your videos 500% better. But that is my opinion.P.S. Love your videos you teach me more than what I learn in school.
Thanks Drach The lesson is: Don't lay up your fleet to save money until AFTER you have the peace treaty signed. And leave enough ships in commission to at least defend yourself.
When there is no money to pay the army and navy it may be better to let them go home rather than being an angry armed hungry rebellious mass that may be an instrument of regime change. It worked out well...for the Dutch.
A small criticism: The story of the tulip bubble and subsequent crash is almost certainly untrue. It is based on the book 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' by MacKay, but that book was written two centuries later. There is actually very little evidence that there was a significant economic crash. Some investors may have gone bankrupt, but that was a common occurrence. Certainly, Dutch economic growth continued unabated to the point that this period is commonly referred to as the Dutch 'Golden Age'.
I'm not sure if we can say that it was the only time a naval loss caused the England/UK to loose a war. I would say the strategic loss (although tactical draw) off the Virginia Capes played a large part in the loss of "the colonies"
Actually a tactic used by the French and Spanish against English warships in many of their conflicts. All fire ships required to work was a good breeze and a ship that would burn. It could cause great panic and fear in an enemy navy.
@@davids9520 And a ship that could burn considering the amount of wood and cloth already present on most ships pretty much any ship + a bunch of other cheap, disposable burning materials. Fire ships have probably been in use for as long as there have been ships, they were certainly in use in the ancient world as well.
That was very interesting... The early modern period of naval warfare is oftentimes underrepresented (actually Sandroman History has a great early modern warfare channel). That was a refreshing look at a vital time period that you never seem to hear about. I’d like to see much more on naval warfare ranging from the late Middle Ages on into the early modern period.
i always wanted to know more about the raid even before watching this i am sure that this will give me some of the infomation i wanted your videos haven't let me down yet and i don't think they will start anytime soon
shame that De Ruyter would later be send to fight in the Mediterranean with a fleet of only 12 ships. the "Admiralen" class had a "De Ruyter" in it but the name would later be given to the new Cruiser that fought and sank in the battle of the Java Sea. there is a good movie about the life of Admiraal De Ruyter
@@aitorbleda8267 It is mostly in Dutch, but the parts for the English are, well, in English. It does take more than a few liberties with history, though. The king is pretty white-washed, and while it is made to seem that De Ruyter was sent off on a suicide mission, that wasn't the case, as his Dutch fleet fought alongside a Spanish fleet against the French. The movie conveniently ignores the Spanish, making it seem like it was a doomed, single fight against impossible odds, rather than two fights with only a slight advantage in numbers for the French.
Great video! Admiral de Ruyter for the first time used the newly established marines as fleet infantry. The de Witt brothers were lynched later on by the people who no doubt were stirred up to this by the prince of Orange. The Witt under torture in the gevanenenpoort The Hague which still can be visited hadn't admitted guilt so couldn't be brought to death legally. Lateron the Ruyter no doubt knowing he would be next accepted his fate akin marshall Ney instead of fleeing seeking nigh certain death commanding a derrilickt fleet against the Spanish. After dying in battle the Spanish stoped fighting as an homage to the Ruyter. 18:34
*Wrong.* Second Anglo-Dutch War (4 March 1665 - 31 July 1667). And he was not king of the Netherlands. Although he did become King of England, Scotland and Ireland.
Interesting side effect. Due too this battle, the bargaining power shifted in regard to the handover of American Colonies to the English. This made it possible for New-Amsterdam to retain its charters of free trade, Religious liberties and land ownerships. So when the Declaration of independence and Constitution were drafted, they copy-pasted a lot of the old New-Amsterdam/New-York stuff into it.
@@rogernicholls2079 the 'Stadhouderloze periode' is a period where the Dutch Republic did not have a single head of state, as William of Orange, considered the first head of state, was asassinated and the Republic was not yet quite ready to accept Monarchy. as such, the rule of the Seven United Provinces, as the Republic was also known, fell to a committee and was known as the 'Stadhouderloze periode'.
A Stadtholder (English spelling) was literally a place (Stad) holder (houder). OR: a Lieu (place) tenant (holder). What is a Lieutenant? A replacement for the Captain should he be incapicitated, wounded or dead. A Dutch Stadtholder was a Lieutenant of the (Spanish) crown. Which is why we seceded from Spain although keeping our title of Stadtholder while also maintaining we have always honoured the king (of SPAIN) and claiming we are of German blood (Willem van Nassau was a German count, appointed Stadtholder for some Dutch states for the Spanish crown with also land possessions in Brabant (currently Noord Brabant and part of the United States of the Netherlands!)
@@Erik-ou3tl No, it is you who are wrong... About a great many things. The old Dutch "Provincieën" were former independent states, completely different from today's "Provincies" which are mere boundaries of local government. Never noticed the difference between "Holland" then and "Noord Holland" and "Zuid Holland" today? HOLLAND - Gouden Eeuw (and of course Zeeland grumble grumble) Noord-Holland, or Zuid-Holland, for that matter? "HUH?" Just to spread chaos among visiting tourists. Capital of HOLLAND: Amsterdam. Provincial Capital of Noord-Holland: Haarlem.
Having had his West India Company ship destroyed, our ancestor was second in command of a frigate at Medway. Prize money? So my relatives maintain....... This is so cool. Thanks!
Drachininfel, another excellent documentary, chapeaux! I cannot resist to ask however if it was pure coincidence to show a map in 01:20 naming the lowlands in German language 😁
I think this is the first time I have heard a British " historian' not down playing this Dutch victory. last time I heard an official British historian adress this subject he said something like: pfft not a big deal, it is all exagerated. Nationalism at its finest.
Do you have any citation of these so-called "historians" which you hear down play it you or are you simply trolling? Frank Fox wrote about the defeat in his 1996 book as later did PF Rogers in the recent 'Dutch in the Medway' (2017). It's also discussed quite detrimentally in both Command of the Ocean and Empire of the Deep, so you may need to broaden your knowledge of official British historians and their works.
Maby "the royal Charles the third ".. would be a fitting name for the not so royal yacht bojo want to build... in the Netherlands/ Germany. So mutch sofrnty!
Here's a couple of links to full color pictures of the HMS Sovereign of the Seas. One of them looks like it's from a Korean wiki, but the picture is very good. Drach, your going to have to explain how ships of that era were gilded and how much expense all this decoration added to the total cost of the ship. namu.wiki/w/%EC%A0%84%EC%97%B4%ED%95%A8 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sovereign_of_the_Seas#/media/File:Heck_Sovereign_of_the_seas.jpg
As Drachinifel mentioned the Dutch suffered not under their smaller ships, but in their lack of discipline which Blake introduced in the british navy. Each of the 7 dutch provincies had an own admiralty, a miserable federal structure. And the tactic to board those heavier british ships was only possible, when the Dutch gained a luv-position by easterly winds, a rare case. The Brits got their revenge for the Medway desaster, when de Ruyter fought in the battle of Augusta a second time in 1676, with his combined fleet of dutch and spanish ships against the French admiral Duquesne. The Spaniards did not followed de Ruyter's signal for close attack, so de Ruyter's squadron came under superiour attack by the French, and de Ruyter was mortally wounded. He was the greatest seaman of his time.
Actually it was five admiralties. 1) Amsterdam, 2) Rotterdam (or the Maze), 3) Zeeland, 4) Friesland, and 5) Noorderquartier (or West Friesland). However, the Confederate fleet had a single admiral in control. DeRuyter ensured that signals and orders were codified after the death of Obdam, so it really was not nearly so big of a concern after Lowestoft. The commentary in the video makes it out to be far worse than it was. Just look at the orderly retreat from Lowestoft under Evertsen.
@@LordInter New Amsterdam was taken by papist King Charles II, than named New York because King Charles II was the Duke of York. This Anglo-Dutch war was a part of general Catholic inquisition. Both British and Dutch should be ashamed, that they where agitated to fight it, by Vatican intelligence. King Charles II's father was beheaded by Oliver Cromwell, so he hated protestants with a passion, he was a fanatic agent of Rome.
Miichiel de Ruyter: "Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have fucked with? That's me.". Clint Eastwoord couldn't have said it better. Or wait...
The Medway Council, commemorating the 350th anniversary of the Raid on the Medway, created this rather decent production in 2017: *The Medway in Flames*
2/3th of the British fleet was abroad as well. With the majority of the biggest warships being in the Caribbean at that moment. Oh, oh oh, don't forget the Dutch using the captured ships as target practice when they returned home as a promotion to the Dutch people to show they won. Also you seem to be unknown with the fact that this is the first time ever the Dutch Marines (specially set up for this raid by Admiral Michiel de Ruyter) were deployed in raids. These marines were put on land to attack from the flanks in raids. Hit and run tactics mostly. This to cause even more panic in the British ranks and under the British civilians. This not just for the night, but they raided for a few days before being picked up again by Dutch warships waiting for them.
Immense riches from the Dutch East India Company and the tulip trade? You forgot the clog industry in your list of incorrect clichees. Actually, talking about Dutch clichees, at any point in Dutch history the herring trade was bigger than the Dutch East India Company and both were dwarfed by the Baltic Sea trade alone, not to mention the North Sea trade and the Mediterranean. Around 1650 the Dutch merchants shipped more than half of all goods in Europe. Wheat, cloth, wine, beer, paint, anything. How much nutmeg and cinamon did you think Europeans consumed at that time compared to wheat? The Dutch East India company is historically important because it globalized the independence war with Spain and Portugal and it was the first stock company ever, not because of it's economic importance for the Dutch Republic. Riches were immense indeed, which allowed for a tulip mania, not the other way around of course, tulips and speculation were for fun. The burst of the bubble had no significant effect on the economy. I quess your expertise is in naval warfare, but the little background information should be correct and make sense anyway.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Most forests in Europe have been replanted and don't have the same biodiversity or ecological value as the few remaining old-growth forests.
Although Johan de Witt was indeed the driving force of the building of the Dutch 'New Navy' after the first Anglo-Dutch war, he was never on board of a ship in battle, or 'in command' of the fleet in a sea-battle. He was a politcian, and much needed at home to unite the quarrelsome seven provinces and to conduct diplomatic negociations with France, Spain and the German states. However, and here the confusion most likely started: he did sent his brother Cornelis de Witt as a 'deputy-at-sea' with the fleet. Cornelis - also a civilian - acted as a representative of the dutch States-General to keep the admirals in check and actually did took some important decisions during the Medway Raid. His portrait is shown in this video at 17:05. Both Johan and Cornelis were killed by an enraged mob in 1672 when a war with France almost brought the Dutch Republic to its knees.
It is like in Sea Dogs: You put all your points into boarding, enter the enemy first class ship. Then win the fight with ease youst to find out that you cant efficiently move it with 55 men and no sailing skill :)
A nice feature to add would be picture credits, insofar as artwork is concerned. The picture shown at 5:25 is from one of the Van Del Weldes, is it not?
Masterful minimization. Ten corrections and comments follow: 1) British was not used until 1707 and the Act of Union. The correct term is English during this time. 2) HMS was not used as an RN designation until the mid 18th century. 3) You failed to mentioned that 30 additional English warships were scuttled upriver by the English themselves in fear that the Dutch would continue their "raid" upriver. 4) You mentioned that three of the largest English ships had been destroyed and the Sovereign was saved by not being present - with a tone - as if the destruction/capture of four major ships were a minor thing, However, you failed to recognize that during the preceding Four Days Fight of 1666 numerous other major English capital ships (10 total) were destroyed or captured to include the Prince Royal(burned), and the great old Swiftsure. Only the Sovereign and Rainbow were the single remaining Pett masterpieces - the massive old "Great Ships" left to survive the war. 5) Line ahead tactics were hardly "newfangled" by the 2nd Dutch war. I've seen this bad undocumented commentary numerous times and do not understand how professional historians can make such a horrible mistake. One simply needs to study English General at Sea Robert Blake and his own commentary about first observing line ahead tactics as a neutral observer during Tromp's great victory over the Spanish at the Battle of the Downs in 1639. 6) Your observations about disorganized command and control because of the five separate Dutch admiralties can only be said of Lowestoft. DeRuyter reorganized the fleet and codified signaling after he returned from his damaging punitive expedition to the English Caribbean colonies and took command of the Confederate Dutch Fleet after Obdam's death. His control of the action in all of the subsequent battles was masterful - and even looked upon in awe by the English commanders at the only other Dutch loss of the war - The Saint James Day Fight - where DeRuyter and the Dutch fleet retired in good order. 7) Your commentary about un-crewed ships is somewhat inaccurate and unfair to the brave Englishmen who gave their lives defending those ships. There were some very fierce and nasty fights - a regiment of Scot's Foot dying to the last man resisting Thomas Tobias' attack on the Royal Charles. 8) The money you mentioned that was raised to rebuild the English fleet largely came in the way of Dutch bank loans - ironic. 9) The loss of the largely empty middling sized merchant ships at Terschelling (known infamously as "Holmes' Bonfire") was a medium level disaster at best. According to Lord Clarendon's own report to the King in 1660, the Dutch had in excess of 25,000 merchantmen globally with the English trailing badly with between 3 and 4 thousand. English privateers were very successful during the war - (largely because there were so many Dutch merchant ships to go after), but their successes were not even close to the immense damage and depredations upon English shipping by Dutch privateers. The Dutch had destroyed and captured the Virginia and Maryland tobacco fleet on their first raid of Cheasapeake Bay. They had captured most of the Returning English Levant/Mediterranean trading fleet and many of the grain convoys as well. DeRuyter's raid in the Caribbean had been very destructive against sugar imports - taking a great many prize ships. This was absolutely disastrous for the English economy. The English had attempted to take returning VOC (Dutch East India Company) fleets twice with one major defeat inflicted on the English Navy in the process at the Battle of Bergen. In addition, Sir Robert Holmes also failed to take the Dutch Levant Smyrna fleet as well which was the action that started the war to begin with. England totally lost the commerce war/ privateering war which Charles badly needed to win - anticipating the captures of those fleets as the means for continuing the war. 10) Some additional details really shed needed light onto historical topic videos like this. The purpose is to educate. Facts are important. Otherwise they are just mediocre unexceptional summaries among hundreds similar. Thanks for reading. MK/ ARS
Hello, and thanks for the extensive post, please allow me to respond. :) 1) I used British since, although the Act of Union was some ways off, the King was in charge of England and Scotland, with Scottish men and officers in his service, so the realm was effectively 'British' at that point. 2) The abbreviation HMS was used later, but in the period of the Medway Raid ships were already referred to as "His Majesties Ship" in full, the abbreviation is just helpful in shortening references. 3) I did mention the deliberate sinking of many RN warships to prevent their capture. 4) I specifically mentioned the losses of other major RN ships at the Four Days Battle etc in the early part of the video. I also noted that the losses and the remaining small force of large ships was a major problem and tipped the war in favour of the Dutch. 5) Line ahead had been used by ships going back to 1500 in places, however, use of the tactic was sporadic and actual effective use of the tactic along with ships designed to exploit it's advantages was still a new and untested thing by the time of the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War. 6) I specifically noted that after the disaster of disorganised and fractious command in the Dutch forces was recognised, they were quick to get their act together and act much more effectively. 7) Whilst there was heroic defence in places, including some rushed crews, the simple fact is that many ships were 'in ordinary' and uncrewed, or practically so. 8) Indeed bit out of the detailed scope of the video :) 9) The Dutch reaction to the loss of the merchant fleet, it's cargo and warehouses was significant, it collapsed the Dutch stock market and caused riots, whilst the Dutch had many ships, the fleet lost represented a significant number of the larger ocean going merchant's as opposed to the much more numerous coastal traders that made up the majority of the Dutch trade fleet. I don't think this raid can be dismissed as a medium scale event, not least because the Dutch themselves at the highest levels considered it a very heavy blow. 10) The idea of the channel isn't to give every single detail of every single aspect of the subject being covered, otherwise each video would be twenty hours long or more. The idea is to give a relatively detailed overview which informs those who would like simply to know roughly what happened, and to inspire others to look in more detail at the finer points of the history surrounding the event. :)
@@Drachinifel Thanks for the reply. Unexpected and Refreshing! As to item 1 and 2 - I fully understand WHY you did it - I was simply making a correction because your usage is not considered correct for historical writing or commentary for this period. 3) You mentioned the 14 at the outset, just not the additional 30 up river. This was considered a major scandal at the time and the blame game was huge. Albemarle tried to blame Admiral Spragge and indeed Spragge was made a scapegoat even though he valiantly stayed at his post and directed counter efforts at Sheerness and Upnor castle throughout the battle. You mentioned the desertions - this is no surprise considering that Van Ghent landed 800 highly trained elite Dutch Marines. Another interesting note is that the Marines during their depredations were forbidden from rape or plundering homes - something that cannot be said of the deserting English who did horrible things to their own countrymen. 4) I must have missed that. I will have another listen. 5) I respectfully disagree. Tromp had consistently used the tactic during the last decades of the 80 Years War - simply look at tactical after action reviews of the battles and the formations to see this plainly. In addition and more importantly, General at Sea Blake had already codified the tactic during the First Anglo-Dutch War in his very famous 1653 "Sailing instructions" and "Fighting Instructions" of which line ahead tactics were core to his ideas. This was the first set of written manuals with accompanying signals required to be read and followed by flag officers and captains in the RN. Look at the Battle of Portland or Dungeoness to see these tactics used extensively by both sides during the First Dutch War. 6) Perhaps I am mistaken. I thought I heard you refer to it two or three times in reference to poking holes in Dutch command and control/organization. 7) There was no such thing as the term "In Ordinary" in the 1660s. This term didn't come into use until the next century. "Layed up" is the correct term for this time and it did not involve dismantling the guns and rigging as is the case with "In Ordinary". The ships could be put back into fighting trim in very short order. If you read Barlowe's famous contemporary journal he shows illustrations of the ships in rows and mentions that many stayed aboard at half pay whilst fighting men of action would find another ship. 9) I have heard this mention of the Amsterdam Exchange crashing before - but think it is false. In all my years of reading and researching I have never been able to find proof of this. Jonathan Israel in his landmark work barely gives Terschelling a mention but does say it was a disaster. Simon Schama and Masselman also don't mention it in their extremely comprehensive works on the history of the Dutch Republic and Trade. The late great Lisa Gardine also briefly covers Holmes' Bonfire and the report back to Pepys and his hatred of Holmes - but yet again makes no mention of financial distress or a "stock market crash". The illustrious Dutch historian Dr. Jaap Bruijn covered the Terschelling raid in some detail in a couple of his works but makes NO mention of the Stock Exchange crashing. Please provide a credible source for this information. Even in essays on the Amsterdam Exchange and other panics or bubbles bursting, there is never a mention of this "crash". The Amsterdam Exchange was incredibly robust and even in the worst year of Dutch history - 1672 - the "Rampjaar"(year of troubles) it didn't crash. Yes it was a "disaster" - THAT YEAR - and the Republic recovered extremely quickly from it - especially considering most of the merchantmen were privately owned. I will tell you that the Dutch wasted no time in making Terschelling a major call to arms as a propaganda instrument and made it out themselves to be a far greater injury than it actually was. I will say it again - Clarendon's own report to King Charles in 1660 stated that the Dutch had between 20 to 25 thousand merchantmen globally. 150 is less than one percent of that. Just take a look at the well documented inventory from the VOC fleet at Bergen that Teddiman tried to capture. It vastly outstripped the worth of the Vlieland ships by hundreds of times. If that fleet had been taken at Bergen - TRULY THAT would have been a great disaster for the Dutch and would have kept the English war effort going for another year or two. 10) I understand what you are trying to do. The only reason I commented is that it seemed that your tone was one of a pro-English biased defensive minimization of the Dutch attack. This is so often the case and I just don't fully understand why. I wished only to provide some additional substance to balance the scales as I too often see a blatant sense of British pride in so much historical commentary that seems to omit or minimize unsavory facts that don't go along with the patriotic narrative. I love English/British history as much as any other nation. In fact it has always held a deep fascination for me. I've read Pepys' diaries and every commentary on the Stuarts I could find. Even with my great love of British history I maintain a strict objectivity to the facts.
@@Drachinifel Seems my reply is invisible so I will attempt a second time: Thanks for the reply. Unexpected and Refreshing! As to item 1 and 2 - I fully understand WHY you did it - I was simply making a correction because your usage is not considered correct for historical writing or commentary for this period. 3) You mentioned the 14 at the outset, just not the additional 30 up river. This was considered a major scandal at the time and the blame game was huge. Albemarle tried to blame Admiral Spragge and indeed Spragge was made a scapegoat even though he valiantly stayed at his post and directed counter efforts at Sheerness and Upnor castle throughout the battle. You mentioned the desertions - this is no surprise considering that Van Ghent landed 800 highly trained elite Dutch Marines. Another interesting note is that the Marines during their depredations were forbidden from rape or plundering homes - something that cannot be said of the deserting English who did horrible things to their own countrymen. 4) I must have missed that. I will have another listen. 5) I respectfully disagree. Tromp had consistently used the tactic during the last decades of the 80 Years War - simply look at tactical after action reviews of the battles and the formations to see this plainly. In addition and more importantly, General at Sea Blake had already codified the tactic during the First Anglo-Dutch War in his very famous 1653 "Sailing instructions" and "Fighting Instructions" of which line ahead tactics were core to his ideas. This was the first set of written manuals with accompanying signals required to be read and followed by flag officers and captains in the RN. Look at the Battle of Portland or Dungeoness to see these tactics used extensively by both sides during the First Dutch War. 6) Perhaps I am mistaken. I thought I heard you refer to it two or three times in reference to poking holes in Dutch command and control/organization. 7) There was no such thing as the term "In Ordinary" in the 1660s. This term didn't come into use until the next century. "Layed up" is the correct term for this time and it did not involve dismantling the guns and rigging as is the case with "In Ordinary". The ships could be put back into fighting trim in very short order. If you read Barlowe's famous contemporary journal he shows illustrations of the ships in rows and mentions that many stayed aboard at half pay whilst fighting men of action would find another ship. 9) I have heard this mention of the Amsterdam Exchange crashing before - but think it is false. In all my years of reading and researching I have never been able to find proof of this. Jonathan Israel in his landmark work barely gives Terschelling a mention but does say it was a disaster. Simon Schama and Masselman also don't mention it in their extremely comprehensive works on the history of the Dutch Republic and Trade. The late great Lisa Gardine also briefly covers Holmes' Bonfire and the report back to Pepys and his hatred of Holmes - but yet again makes no mention of financial distress or a "stock market crash". The illustrious Dutch historian Dr. Jaap Bruijn covered the Terschelling raid in some detail in a couple of his works but makes NO mention of the Stock Exchange crashing. Please provide a credible source for this information. Even in essays on the Amsterdam Exchange and other panics or bubbles bursting, there is never a mention of this "crash". The Amsterdam Exchange was incredibly robust and even in the worst year of Dutch history - 1672 - the "Rampjaar"(year of troubles) it didn't crash. Yes it was a "disaster" - THAT YEAR - and the Republic recovered extremely quickly from it - especially considering most of the merchantmen were privately owned. I will tell you that the Dutch wasted no time in making Terschelling a major call to arms as a propaganda instrument and made it out themselves to be a far greater injury than it actually was. I will say it again - Clarendon's own report to King Charles in 1660 stated that the Dutch had between 20 to 25 thousand merchantmen globally. 150 is less than one percent of that. Just take a look at the well documented inventory from the VOC fleet at Bergen that Teddiman tried to capture. It vastly outstripped the worth of the Vlieland ships by hundreds of times. If that fleet had been taken at Bergen - TRULY THAT would have been a great disaster for the Dutch and would have kept the English war effort going for another year or two. 10) I understand what you are trying to do. The only reason I commented is that it seemed that your tone was one of a pro-English biased defensive minimization of the Dutch attack. This is so often the case and I just don't fully understand why. I wished only to provide some additional substance to balance the scales as I too often see a blatant sense of British pride in so much historical commentary that seems to omit or minimize unsavory facts that don't go along with the patriotic narrative. I love English/British history as much as any other nation. In fact it has always held a deep fascination for me. I've read Pepys' diaries and every commentary on the Stuarts I could find. Even with my great love of British history I maintain a strict objectivity to the facts.
Pinned post for Q&A :)
I only recently discovered your channel, but I've been roaring through the video backlog and have almost caught up :) Amazing work!
Two questions, one of which is (I imagine) fairly short:
What are the little 'wings' or 'bumpers' on the stern of certain destroyers or cruisers? Seen here on USS Fletcher: www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0544522.jpg. I imagine they are to facilitate mooring, but I honestly have no idea.
As a World of Warships player, what are your thoughts on the appropriateness of the various ship lines' 'gimmicks' (e.g. US ships having longer-lasting DCP, British ships having insane heals, German ships having turtleback/secondaries/long-range hydro, etc), and which ships currently in the game do you think have the most and least historically accurate performance (as far as can be judged within the constraints of the game)?
Were there any significant changes to British or Dutch tactics, doctorine or ship design as a result of the battle on the medway? i can imagine if both sides were suprised at it's effectiveness there would be new develpments as a result.
Love your videos! keep up the amazing work!
What do you think about Sabaton’s new song Bismarck?
Can I ask a question about metal recycling... When RN ships were de commissioned (say from 1900 to the 1940's) was the metal recycled for other RN uses or was the steel sold for general scrap? It would seem that if the navy was expanding that any steel recovered from ships would have to be recycled or was fresh steel used in The construction of new ships?
Can you possibly talk about the Royal Navy and their ‘Copenhagenisation’ of the Danish fleet during the Napoleonic wars?
The funniest part is how kind the Dutch went about this. They left the civilians unbothered, didn't plunder the villages and gave the English sailors who didn't stand in their way free passage ashore. They we're just there to burn the fleet, and that's it. The English themselves actually started to plunder the villages, which absolutely horrified the Dutch sailors, who didn't understand why they would do this to their own countrymen.
Just British normaltrash being British normaltrash 😂
Apparently they acted such as to show moral superiority to what the English did earlier when raiding the Vlie estuary (Holmes’s Bonfire)
To be fair, the Dutch often fought quite fair
There was already a strong idea of the English and Dutch needing each other as allies against the French by that time. They were quite natural allies, both being protestant nations threatened by Catholic powers like France and Spain. And France was already gearing up to be trouble for them both. The Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th century was much more about sea-trade hegemony than actually destroying each other. The Dutch also did not destroy the Chatham dockyards, leaving the English ability to rebuild and repair their fleet completely intact.
I don't think that was a mistake or oversight by the Dutch. They weren't stupid. They very intentionally left those facilities intact as to not completely destroy the English naval power in the mid to long term. They needed to cripple the English fleet in the short term to force a favourable negotiation position.
Grand Theft Warship... you have my attention
I hope the old boy TM'd that
Samuel L. Jackson voicing the Dutch admiral. That has got to be different. The word f*ck is said to be of Dutch origin so its use would be quite plausible to have Mr Jackson doing the voice. What's the Dutch for mother? 😊👍
@@rudolfpeterudo3100 Thanks, Rudolf. 👍😊
@@rudolfpeterudo3100 No. The Dutch word for 'mother' is 'moeder'. It's pronounced 'mooder'. Two syllables. But there is no literal equivalent for 'motherf*cker'. The Dutch would probably use 'klootzak' (pronounced 'cloatsack'). (Keep in mind that that is modern Dutch. The language hasn't changed as much as English over the years, but they did use different infective back in the day.
@@ajvanmarle But Klootzak is usually inferred for the male of the species. The last time I was in Nederland full time would have been in 1956. So I suppose things would have changed including language usage.
Dutch admiral: what do we do with this giant warship we stole from the english?
Other dutch admiral: Let's hang it on the wall
Turn it into a tourist attraction!
Ah, better scrap it for its timber. We can't afford to maintain it anyway.
The Dutch missed to conquer the Isle of Wight, so they could have used british warships at the Solent anchorage.
Thems returned some piece of the spiegel back in 2012.
@AudieHolland,
Boy oh boy, hard to believe someone's still so sour after 300+ years
Ignoring the fact that the Dutch basically bankrupted the English...
Micheal de Ruyter honestly deserves more recognition in naval history, if only for the insanity shown on this raid.
In Dutch naval history he's the equivalent of Nelson - and in Dutch terms, seen as such.
Why do you think Dutch flagships have usually been called "De Ruyter" for the past 300 years?
He's had 14 ships named after him since. The latest is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_De_Ruyter_(F804)
Johan de Witt and others also played an important role in this story though, the Dutch Republic was a complicated affair and not really a coherent nation and certainly not a centrally ruled monarchy. Despite that, it was really successful.
@@stewartellinson8846 he was better than Nelson. Nelson had the best ships, many ships and excellent sailors, at least compared to the French and Spanish.
Michiel de Ruyter won against the odds, with less ships, smaller ships, and only backed by better sailors than the English had. And he innovated the Dutch navy.
@@jjakjjak5231 The only decent comparison I've seen is with admiral Yi Sun-sin.
@@qwertyuiopzxcfgh Good point. Both admirals fall roughly in the same time period too - De Ruyter lived about half a century later than Yi. However, what possibly sets Yi apart is the fact that he not only was outgunned, but also heavily inpopular with his own government due to his incorruptibility and leading a branch of the military that was completely ignored in terms of funding. De Ruyter was outgunned, but still funded quite reasonably, and held pretty good connections with the De Witte brothers.
Nevertheless, I hold De Ruyter in great esteem. His tenacious defense of the seas was one of the few things what kept The Netherlands alive in a time when its economic position was envied by multiple other states. Where Yi fought terrible odds, De Ruyter faced bad odds multiple wars, each time seemingly worse.
‘Hippity hoppity the British flagship is now Dutch property’ -Michiel de Ruyter (I think)
that's not what you see everyday, seizing the British flagship
@@bagel4944 its english ship and this happened before the english rise to power in the mid 18th centurr
@@fuop8718 It still hurts. isn't it😄
@@mneoud Trust me the British won more wars against the Dutch than the other way round.
@@ChrisCrossClash congratulations
The dutch wars of the 17th century could fill an entire series. In fact, the wars during the Age of Sail could fill a channel worth of content! Centuries and hundreds of battles, they dwarf the modern age considerably
Indeed. Easy to do when you have 200 years to perfect and use the same tactics.
Unfortunately a lot less interesting when it comes to technical developments in shipbuilding and doctrine. I might just be ignorant to the topic, but to me it seems like more happened to revolutionize naval warfare every 30 years since 1850, than between 1600 and 1850. You go from the first Ironclads (~1850) to the first Pre-Dreadnoughts (~1890) to the Dreadnoughts and Super-Dreadnoughts (~1910) to the Fast Battleship and Aircraft Carrier (~1940) to nuclear propulsion and missiles becoming the main armament (~1960) to lasers, railguns and fully unmanned systems (~1990+).
Ships of the modern age had significantly shorter shelf-lives.
@@Tepid24 Agreed. The key change, it seems to me, was steam and then subsequently internal combustion power. The old full on sailing ships were wonderful machines but in the end relied on what muscle, bone and sinew could accomplish, however that might be augmented with tackles, purchases, windlasses or what have you. The methods to get the most out of human muscle power had been perfected around the early 1600s, as you mention, and whatever gains were made after that came in very small increments. Power from fossil fuels changed all that in a stroke.
@@Tepid24
Well they were making ships by hand at the time, 1 above and 1 below cutting the trees into planks. The Dutch revolutionized by using windmills to build the ships. Pretty smart tech actually for the time. Hence first automization. Also as many trading ships were lost at sea and this was a big financial hit, stocks were invented to lessen the blow. Giving the Dutch superior finances. Additionally windmills were used to create more land which would be used for farming, this to reduce dependence on foreign powers.
De Wit / de Ruyter basically also created the first marine corps, highly trained sea soldiers that could be deployed anywhere.
So I would say it was a very interesting period with much innovation actually.
I wrote about the Anglo-Dutch wars for Honors English 38 years ago. You're correct that there's tons of information... My paper was more than double the length of any other that was presented. But the observations about naval technology are fairly well taken... A lot of the history is political and economic in nature, although the relative ascendancy and desecendancy of the nations is very interesting....
"When the British ships were at anchor and uncrewed the Dutch enjoyed a hefty advantage" well I would be really worried if they were still weaker.
AHA, your uncrewed, anchored Men o' War are no match for our Dutch naval squadron guided by bribed English pilots!
actually the Dutch warships though smaller did have larger guns which made them mor eformidable then suggested in this video
Imagine how stupid it was, have a poor defense and having no crew nearby these ships, while these ships where the best from the English fleet.
@Darshan You win. Mind you, Dutch -England wars ended in 2-3 too. Hooray. But to be proud of the biggest empire? One that killed millions, ended up creating borders that still create havoc around the world? Perhaps this raid can be admired as a case of military genius.
@@KootFloris There was also this little incident that happened in 1688, the Glorieuze Overtocht when the Dutch took over control of England.
No wonder the British Empire only started to succeed after that little friendly intervention.
Dutch Armada and army in England: 'No more installing Catholic kings and flirting with the French, you hear? Bad English cousins.'
I didn't realize the Dutch were so consistently outgunned during the Anglo-Dutch war. That really puts a lot of de Ruyter's, at first glance, rather indecisive victories into perspective. De Ruyter did not have the advantage in gunnery skills or even a relative parity of ship strength that Nelson enjoyed and he couldn't play keep-away from the enemy fleet while whittling them down with vastly superior long range fire like Yi Sun-Sin.
Definitely the right person at the right time.
One trait I’ve noticed from De Ruyter, Nelson and Yi is that all three of them were very aggressive about forcing an engagement at the tactical level if they felt (usually correctly) that they had the upper hand for whatever reason. De Ruyter was willing to organize an attack on the Medway anchorage or to use ship handling and numbers to overwhelm more capable British units, we all know how aggressive Nelson was, and while Yi picked and chose his battles at the strategic level to preserve his forces (for much the same reason Jellicoe would do in WWI) he was anything but gun-shy once he sensed that he could force a battle on favourable terms.
Fun times, fun times...
Most of the earlier ships were actually hired from merchants, and as such commanded by her own captain, who was understandably reluctants to put their ships in harms way.
The story of the Dutch navy is interresting in and of itself.
As about half the (then) states were land locked and as such an army rather then a fleet and the other half had different priorities regarding the way a possible unified navy would work, Amsterdam and Holland wanted trade protection, Zeeland protection of their fishing fleet. It took a while to form.
Marines were introduced late because using (land) soldiers worked fine and was cheaper.
"kost dat?" (costing what?") is a good summation of it.
Incidentally, the naval rank "Schout bij Nacht" (English equivalent: Rear Admiral) was also created by the Dutch fleet being mostly made of independent armed merchantmen.
Because, being independent as they were, these armed merchantmen had a habit of sneaking off during the night before the battle. The "Schout bij Nacht" (Admiral for the Night) was there to make sure there were no stragglers or deserters, which is why he was sailing at the rear (hence: Rear Admiral).
@@AudieHolland Interesting, I did not know that. I wondered about it dozens of times.
From memory; at that point the smaller merchantmen (with lesser canons) were largely replaced with much bigger ships of war with more and better canons.
"Hoeveel kost dat?" 😏 Is my guess at what you wanted to say. But yeah.
love those paintings of the Dutch Fleet in all his glory, gives me a feeling of we where something to be count for in these days
We were.
Not really... if ever.
Don’t sell yourselves short. There was a time when the Dutch were definitely a strong regional power in Europe (and practically invented the concept of a Megacorporation), but once the UK and other European powers knocked them down a few pegs they never really recovered, and would stagnate until World War II destroyed what remained of their colonial empire for all intents and purposes.
@@z3r0_35 many if not all european powers lost their colonies (soon) after WW2 had ended, even the ones on the victorious side.
@@DarkDutch007 Yes, but for some the decline was much more drastic than others. For the Dutch, the only major colony they had left was Indonesia, whereas if you look at the UK, and France, they lost virtually all of their overseas holdings over the next couple of decades, partly due to international pressure.
Anglo-Dutch War II: Revenge of the Tulips
Anglo-Dutch War II: Grand Theft Boogaloo
*Revenge of the Twolips. ;)
laughing while smokin a Tulp
@@waskozoids bad for your health ... go smoke some weeds
Anglo Dutch war ll:
Attack of the Marines.
I can almost see the headlines: Medway estuary clogged! Swamp people to blame!
The stern of the Royal Charles is still on display in the Dutch ‘Rijksmuseum’ in Amsterdam.
Somebody better get on making grand theft warship, then drach can charge royalties
You know, Sid Meier's Pirates! is rather overdue for a remake...
@@GaldirEonai I'd buy that game, would be awesome to see that game remade with modern hardware in mind
@@themadhammer3305 Assassin's Creed: Black Sails
@@themadhammer3305 yeah and the battle for the city will be updated to the hexagonal tile system of more modern civ games than the old square format
A big advantage the Dutch had is that they already in the 16th century invented the windmill saw. This way we could build ships 4x faster than anyone else and also half the cost. The English only started building ships this way after 1750s
Ironically once Charles II was dead and his brother James chased off we ended up with the Dutch William of Orange as king. One of Britains better periods of history.
I mean, it was all up hill after oliver cromwell technically.
Cromwell was a better head of state than either the mutton eating king and James the shit.
@@davidwright7193
Oliver Cromwell FORBADE amusement, as part of his puritanical campaign. He FORBADE women actresses and plays that weren't religious. He FORBADE colorful clothing.
He FORBADE dissecting in medical schools, as well as any form of medical operation necessitating the cutting of flesh!
He returned England to a ghost of its former self, and under his "protectorate", England seemed to dip back into a dark age of obscurantism and theological dogmatic tyrany...
SO DON'T EVEN DARE SAY HE WAS EVEN A MILDLY ACCEPTABLE HEAD OF STATE!!!
XD
@@davidwright7193 Charles II had a very strong passion for both sailing and the navy. He was also quite a competent designer andsailor of racing yachts.
His brother, later James II, also proved himself a fearless and competent naval commander; again with a strong passion for the navy and the well-being of his sailors. His fleeing England was quite out of character.
andrew norrie The grand old Duke of York, he had 10,000 men but not for very long. A man known to his friends as James the Shit, and that is from contemporary sources, didn’t do very much very well. In fact he was so shit not even the Tories could support him. That he was marginally less shit that James the fool or Charles the headless. There was a good reason for importing a bunch of Germans after James the Shit’s eldest daughters died.
Fire ships were usually old ships turned into a floating hulk of flammables, then turned loose on a leeward fleet at anchor. Sort of Tudor kamikazes.
These guys were not in to kill themselves for some kind of god-emperor. They were just pretty bold and tried to jumped off before impact. Anything else would to be considered as very un-christian, and also very stupid. The fame afterwards paid for many drinks and women - why should you like to miss that?
@@gerokron3412 No need to die as fire ships moved at a majestic pace. Just row away before impact. They were "Tudor Gentlemen Kamikazes."
* hulk of *inflammables*
Not necessarily some were special built for purpose. Dampiers "Roebuck" comes to mind was used in the battle of beachy head 1697?
Nothing really Tudor about it Chinese were using fire ships as far back as bc.
Love these sail videos! What a bold maneuver! Always a fan of the British Navy but they surely got bested on this one. Amazing how the Dutch maneuvered these lumbering ships in such tight confines. Seamanship at their finest!
Great quote! And great point about the pilots. Definitely a strange time in English history
And all while the pride of England's Navy was burning or sinking in The Medway, the English king was partying at one of his Royal estates outside of London.
@@AudieHolland and he would have done what exactly?
@@aaronstorey9712 Pissed himself.
Instead of getting pissed
British: *Burn 100 Dutch merchant ships in harbour*
De Ruyter: 'So, the nards are fair game?'
British: What?
Chatham: *WOOSH*
British: 'Oh bugger, we needed those..'
There was NO Britain at that time.
Damn good to see this raid covered. I was born and raised around a mile from Upnor castle so this is a pretty important event for the people where I'm from
After this exploit, Samuel Pepys diary quotes an English naval official: “By God,” says he, “I think the Devil sh*ts Dutchmen.”
Bwahahaha.......
All hands at the poop deck...
Bring your shi.. with you .
Fighting the French and the Spaniards was personal.
Infighting between the Dutch and the English was just business.
Maar het was wel een gevecht om te overleven in een wereld waar de grootste natie s de dienst uit maakten.
Dat maakt het weer persoonlijk.
En .. de " nederlanden" vochten een oorlog op twee fronten.. Frankrijk en Engeland.. en een vernederd Spanje/ Habsburg .
Fascinating as ever and good to see you're dealing with the Anglo-dutch wars which are very interesting in themselves. Pepys provides a good account of the raid, the run up and it's aftermath, being a key naval administrator of the time. His diary is always worth a browse through.
So two ships named "Royal Oak" were in shallow waters when they were destroyed by an ennemy they never thought would attack them where they were stationed.
I hope they didn't name another ship or submarine "Royal Oak" because I would be concerned for the safety on those onboard every time it's in port...
I'm concerned that after naming six different ships _Invincible_ and losing four of them with gargantuan loss of life most times, the British decided to name a _seventh_ one.
You'd think they could recognize when Neptune has decided to make a point about arrogance.
The new GTA expansion sounds great!
Strange to think that only 2 ships have been named after van Ghent and many more after de Ruyter. But van Ghent is immortalised as the training barracks of the Korps Mariniers here in Rotterdam are named after him as he was the first commanding officer of what later became the Korps Mariniers.
You forget that we also have consistently been naming warships "Jan van Speijk." Who was he? Well, non-Dutch folks:
Jan van Speijk was a famous Dutch suicide bomber.
@@AudieHolland Thank you, now I have to clean my keyboard.... :-p
And of course we also, however briefly, had an AIRCRAFT CARRIER named Karel Doorman. Famous for fighting the Japanese invasion force in the Java Sea, going under with his ship while the Japanese sank pretty much the entire Allied naval squadron. The invasion of the Dutch East Indies was delayed by a whole day.
Seriously this had nothing to do with the fighting spirit of the Dutch, American, British and Australian vessels as it had to do with the superior Japanese Imperial Navy.
I always thought "Doorman" to be a typical Dutch name ('thorn-man') but any English native speaker may recognize that the name is actually English!
@@AudieHolland I disagree about the fighting spirit part. American destroyers running away during battle without being ordered so. That is something you should NEVER do. Yes, the Japanese outgunned the ABDA fleet, but fleeing won't help either. Completely the opposite compared to the destroyers of Taffy 3, which would've been wiped out if thóse destroyers fled the battle.
As for Van Speijk, in fact our king of the time decided there shall be a vessel named after him at all times. That can be interesting, considering the current HNLMS Van Speijk is due for replacement, and I've read something about plans for combined Dutch-Belgian crews on the replacement frigates (imagine serving as a Belgian on a vessel named after someone who blew his ship to avoid falling it in Belgian hands).
@@rijkemans5114 Ah well, the tactical situation that early in the war was entirely different. The Japanese were masters at night fighting and with the limited radar systems implemented at that time, the Japanese were at a distinct advantage.
During the Coral Sea Battle, the American cruisers were caught by surprise by the Japanese Long Lance torpedoes. During the various naval battles around Guadalcanal, the American main force was forced to abandon their Marines on the island and they were left to survive on half rations or worse untill the tide turned.
During the Battle off Samar, which you refer to, the Japanese navy had long lost their image of invincibility.
I won't judge those American destroyers abandoning the battle because I don't think it would have made any difference. And realistically, what could one expect from a mish mash of American, Australian British and Dutch warships that probably hadn't trained all that much in that improvised force together?
As to the future Royal Dutch Navy vessel "Van Speijk," there's an easy way out. I don't think the type of ship was specified so any official Dutch Navy ship would do. It doesn't neccessarily have to be a frigate again.
This should be a Series! :) "Grand Theft Warship: The Raid on the Medway" "Grand Theft Warship: Copenhagen" "Grand Theft Warship: Scapa Flow" "Grand Theft Warship: Bikini Bottom"
"Grand Theft Warship: Britain vs France during the Age of Sail"
@@randomguy-tg7ok "Grand Theft Warship: The First Punic War"
Love this. I am Dutch and grew up with these stories. It is nice to hear the british point if view. In our stories the chain across the theems was breached bij a ship specially assaignt and equipped for this task. Thank you, and keep up the good work
Michiel de Ruyter is (one of the) best admirals of all time. I would love more stories about him!
Google: “Michiel de Ruyter biography English” and you’ll find many books about him in English.
Thank you for this video. It's interesting how countries can be enemies at a certain time and centuries later, they become allies. On behalf of my forefathers, I forgive you for any losses we may have suffered, and I ask you forgiveness for any pain and grief we caused you. Also I am very happy you have helped us during WO2.
Year 2011: Dear Dutch,
'Our Queen has her diamond jubelee next year and we were wondering if we could please borrow our own property that you stole from us all these years ago.
We promise to return it as soon the jubelee ends.'
The Queen was probably gratefull the Dutch didn't removed her family from power.
@@randar1969 We did
@@VincentTwente And then reinstalled them
Just waiting for the president of Greece or Egypt to do the same...
@@Be-Es---___ Yes!
Fantastic work as always sir....your videos are some of the best on TH-cam. Thank you for all the work that you do.
This was a wild and crazy story. Thanks for showing this for others. Well Done!
My names Jan Witts... I smiled when I saw this... amusingly enough another of my ancestors was on the British side at Trafalgar ...
ah the americans and their magical ancestors.
the vast majority of europeans going to the new world were utterly unimportant peasants or religious nutters, it's funny how you never come across any americans descending from that 99%, nope, it always has to be something "special".
Witts isn't the same de Witt, but hey, keep on inventing your own history.
@@lebell79 I don't know why you are such a prk .. I'm Scottish not American. .. you dozy wkr...
One of my ancestors was a marine on a RN ship of the line and he can be found through public records online.. what a joke you are.. a hol e.... another was the grand pensioner of holland. Again well documented.. another relative is a retired RAF group captain.. again online records.. another a British army general in ww2 .. again on line records. .. I don't know what your game is boyo.. but in the highlands we don't take kindly to people insulting our heritage.. our relatives or our word... in future if you have nothing constructive to say just f the heck off..
@@blogsblogs2348 you may know or maybe not, but it did not end well for the brothers de Witt...
@@DarkDutch007 dying is dying... he is remembered as being an excellent statesman and mathematician... my line have done a lot of dying for a lot of causes.. I am sure we have caused a lot of others to do the dying thing as well.. better to go down hard than live on your belly... most people have plenty of relatives to avenge them
I'm surprised nobody heard the Dutch coming with their wooden shoes clanging on the decks.
In all seriousness, great work! There used to be a docu-drama up on YT about the second Anglo-Dutch war (complete with a wonderfully pompous actor playing Charles II), but unfortunately it seems to have been taken down.
Admiral De Ruyter probably had ordered them to wear socks over their clogs ^_^.
It is a trick he used when he was just a lowly merchant captain. When his ship became under attack by Barbary pirates he ordered his men to grease the deck with butter from their cargo holds and wear socks over their shoes. When the pirates boarded the ship they constantly lost their footing on the slippery deck and were turned into mincemeat by the Dutch sailors that didn't slip because of the socks.
History shortcut: if the name of the admiral in charge is also the name of a warship a few centuries later then whatever operation they’re commanding most likely succeeded.
Fascinating.I bet a video on how the ships were raised would be very interesting.
Pepys is the fellow to cover this period, from his unique position as Clerk of the Acts, of the Navy Board. He did much to organise the Royal Navy. From surviving the operation for the removal of a stone, great plague, the great fire of London, Dutch wars, he was at its centre.
Intrigues at court, Pepys flattered himself, that he knew how to take bribes without becoming corrupt.. A strong sexual appetite, and heartfelt remorse afterwards, His honestly in the diary is compelling.
well done.
a perfect summary.
Pepys was worth the money he got (openly and under the table). I wish the same could be said of all government officials/bureaucrats, then and now.
@@neutralobserver3423 have you read the translation by Latham and Matthews, it includes a lot of material that was omitted from earlier (censored?) editions.?
@@thatsme9875 I did not even know that such a translation existed. Thanks for the information!
Yeah, there's a lot to Anglo-Dutch history. The Dutch had a trading company in India as well as the colony of Indonesia. The Cape of Good Hope - was Dutch - which is where all the Boer's come from. And - that story about some guys buying the island of Manhattan from the Indians for $24 in beads ... those guys were Dutch and it was New Amsterdam then - not yet New York.
.
Ceylon was Dutch too by the way..
@@SideWalkAstronomyNetherlands Ah! Didn't know that. Thank you!
.
Renamed after The British beat the asses of the Dutch.
Fortunately we are good North Sea neighbours nowadays 🇳🇱❤️🇬🇧
well, we now have soccer to war it out in a somewhat friendly way ^^
@@AwoudeX no thanks.
Win or lose.. its always war.
You forgot to mention the greatest irony of this war for the English. This being that the Dutch prince William III of Orange would later be handed the English crown only because he was the Protestant nephew of Charles II.
Handed? He took it
@@Raadpensionaris It's the "Glorious Revolution" because it was bloodless. Hell, Parliament offered William and Mary the crown despite the fact that their Republic had actively been at war with England for twenty years. The Dutch didn't possess the means to take anything by force at that time.
@@patrickaalfs9584 Parliament didn't offer William the crown. The opposite actually.
William was "invited" by 7 members of parliament, not parlement itself, to safeguard protestant liberties. Not to become king. He also arranged that invitation himself and preparations were well under way when he got it. The Dutch set this whole thing in motion.
And not the means? How? The operation proved that they had the means. The Royal Navy tried to halt the massive Dutch invasion fleet but were powerless to do anything. The Royal Navy simply wasn't strong enough. The Dutch army that landed in England also outmatched the English Royal Army in every possible way. It was a well trained modern veteran force that faced an inexperienced outdated force. James didn't have any illusions about winning and fled.
After that London and it surrounding erea was occupied by Dutch forces for 18 months. Then William had to pressure and threaten parliament to make him king before they did so.
@@Raadpensionaris For the sake of full disclosure, It's been a "minute" since I darkened the halls of my University's history department (although my thesis work pertained to Anglo-Dutch relations during their wars) I also acknowledge that that was an American university, who in the aggregate are historically not known for our scholarship in modern Euro history. (Any Euro history for that matter) Since I'm not willing to wikipedia myself insane for the sake of argument, I humbly differ to anyone with such an epicly Dutch handle as "van Nassau-Ouwerkerk." Having said that, I would have thought that by 1688, the Netherlands were well on their way to decline. Hadn't the deWitt brothers already met their demise? I know the English was no European power house and the had problems financing any war they couldn't win in two years. The Royal Army was practically nonexistent out of financial necessity. They were disbanded unneeded to avoid another financial obligation for the crown. The conscripts could always be impressed again if needed, which happened relatively often. I'm pretty sure that most historical scholarship (at least what I remember) tends toward the Royal offer tendered to the Protestant William and Mary being popular throughout the English kingdom. I question your assertion that the offer had only seven parliamentary endorsements because I know the same Parliament passed the legislation to prohibit "Popists" from ever occupying the royal throne. By the way, William was not a "king" because the crown was obtained via Mary's Royal patent. Even though I have, on occasion, referred to the Netherlands as the "oxymorons" of Europe, Often to my own detriment, I'm decidedly pro-Dutch by nature and am an unapologetic "deRuyter" fanboy. But I understand military logistics enough to know that the Dutch State at her strongest did not possess the capacity or material resources to invade, occupy and replace English leadership without having her popular support. Which I believe is what you're asserting. Yes, the raid on Chatham was "a thing," but almost thirty years earlier and was a temporary occupation if that. If the Dutch were still a Republic in 1688, being effectively a confederation. It lacked the centralized authority to properly command a hostile invasion. The Dutch navy wasn't even one singular organization. It was five separate naves controlled by five independent Admiralty Colleges which seldom found unity of purpose. One of which DIDN'T SPEAK DUTCH. If the Stadtholder/Orangists ruled the Netherlands in 88, the Republican populous cities were naturally inclined to oppose Orangist rule also a bain of disunity. So, I guess I disagree adamantly with you're assertion. Me and the consensus in academia and whichever historical scholars termed the occasion as "Glorious."
@@patrickaalfs9584 Well great to see you actually know a lot about Dutch history. I would still like to offer some counter views.
Well, yes the Dutch had reached their power peak some years previous but I think you put to much weight to that demise. The Dutch Republic was still very strong as proven by the fact that they possessed the 2nd largest army in Europe from 1689 till 1713. The Dutch would only lose their major power status in the 1750s. The demise of the Republic thus didn't happen suddenly after 1672 but took a while. In 1688 the Dutch Republic was still very capable to finance such an operation.
And I am not arguing that their wasn't major support for William when he landed. He had masterfully misled them with propaganda. Few wanted a Dutchman as king. When his real intentions became clear and he occupied London a lot of people became to oppose him actually. Jonathan Israel says that it is probable that most Englishmen opposed the "Glorious Revolution". And even if it was innitialy popular he still relied entirely on his Dutch force to take control of the country. English military support was very small before the outcome was clear.
Also, even if more people in parliament endorsed the invitation it still wasn't the institution of parliament that invited William. Certainly not to be king anyway because he had to force them to make him king.
I also seriously doubt that you are speaking for the academic consensus. Maybe the one of the 19th century. I don't know a modern historian that would call it "Glorious". Maybe you can direct me to such a person tho
The British defenders on the Medway actually made a good stand from the Upnor fort and the Chatham dockyard. However the Crown had not bothered to pay them for months, so their morale was hardly fighting fit. The chains protecting the Medway Anchorage were also rusty, too weak and easily breached by the Dutch ships. A salutary day indeed for Charles's navy.
The Dutch were hiring British sailors who happily served on Dutch ships because they were paid in cash instead of IOU's that inn keepers might not accept as money.
Very enjoyable video, it is good for once to find the rare story of a British naval humiliation.
*Laughs in USS Constitution*
That was awesome! So well made with great dose of humor and right amount of facts and numbers ;)
Love these videos.
I am certainly more of a airplane person and know very little about naval History. But these are so interesting and educational.
Helps with keeping Navy realitves on their toes.....
Thanks a lot for your work here. Especially enjoyable on account of your rather dry humour.
Being Dutch this is a quite well known tale to me, but enjoyable none the less. Still it is amazing to consider how this tiny spec truly was a super power at some point and while most of that is long gone, key things still remain as can be seen on our focus on trade and the desire to keep it safe.
Really we can be a buggersome lot if you poke us just a bit to hard, but overall we just like to be left alone and be as normal as we can be, cause that is already crazy enough.
Don't think us Dutch are a minor player nowadays; what we lack in military force, we still retain in economic power. Although many of the US are worried about Chinese investments in the US, it is actually us Dutch that are the largest foreign investor in the US economy.
@@roykliffen9674 Those reminds me of one of my favorite lines for the Drew Carey Show, back in the day, in an episode where they find out that a Dutch company is buying their company. Something along the lines of "Oh sure, everyone thinks it is the English or Japanese buying up everything, but in reality, it is the sneaky Dutch." Was a good Dutch pride moment, hearing that line =)
Was Holland really a 'tiny spec' back then? This is during the Dutch Republic's golden age and it was allied in the war with both Louis XIV's France and Denmark.
@@ElGrandoCaymano not really. the dutch republic had the largest merchant fleet in the world during the 17th century and iirc the highest gdp per capita. it was an economic superpower. while not militarily as strong as france, spain, or the ottomans(lets be honest who was at that time) they where no pushovers either.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video, being from Chatham, and having grown up within sight of where this all would have taken place!!!
However, "Fort Upnor", or Upnor Castle as I was taught, was made under Queen Elizabeth the first, thus preceding all of these events... It was ideally placed to fire at raiders at a convenient bend in the Mudway, and was stocked with powder and rounds at all times, serving as a secondary magasine for the dockyard. It had at least four cannon.
With all of this, I'm surprised it didn't seem to come up in your video, and didn't seem to have any major role in the events taking place under the nose of its gun barrels...
Anyway, keep 'em coming! Looking forward to the next!!!
Someone should make a animation that goes over what you are talking about.I think it would make your videos 500% better. But that is my opinion.P.S. Love your videos you teach me more than what I learn in school.
Thanks Drach
The lesson is: Don't lay up your fleet to save money until AFTER you have the peace treaty signed.
And leave enough ships in commission to at least defend yourself.
When there is no money to pay the army and navy it may be better to let them go home rather than being an angry armed hungry rebellious mass that may be an instrument of regime change. It worked out well...for the Dutch.
@@billbolton well, the argument could be made that because no revolution broke out, same for the English.
@@AwoudeX good point.
A small criticism: The story of the tulip bubble and subsequent crash is almost certainly untrue. It is based on the book 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' by MacKay, but that book was written two centuries later. There is actually very little evidence that there was a significant economic crash. Some investors may have gone bankrupt, but that was a common occurrence. Certainly, Dutch economic growth continued unabated to the point that this period is commonly referred to as the Dutch 'Golden Age'.
The title of the video cracked me up. That's what I'll be using to refer to the Raid on the Medway from now on.
I'm not sure if we can say that it was the only time a naval loss caused the England/UK to loose a war. I would say the strategic loss (although tactical draw) off the Virginia Capes played a large part in the loss of "the colonies"
.... that's a rather big hit!!!.... The way he says it brings a smile on my face ;)
Thanks for the map of the Medway, as I had never know exactly how that area was. Keep up the good work !
Burning ships?
Sounds like something Feanor would do...
Actually a tactic used by the French and Spanish against English warships in many of their conflicts. All fire ships required to work was a good breeze and a ship that would burn. It could cause great panic and fear in an enemy navy.
@@davids9520 And a ship that could burn considering the amount of wood and cloth already present on most ships pretty much any ship + a bunch of other cheap, disposable burning materials. Fire ships have probably been in use for as long as there have been ships, they were certainly in use in the ancient world as well.
More like Riva Iron Grip.
Fire ships were used against the Armada...
Ahh I see you're a man of culture as well
Absolute madlads
Royal Charles puts a new meaning to War Trophy. Stealing it and only using her as a tourist attraction..
That was very interesting... The early modern period of naval warfare is oftentimes underrepresented (actually Sandroman History has a great early modern warfare channel). That was a refreshing look at a vital time period that you never seem to hear about. I’d like to see much more on naval warfare ranging from the late Middle Ages on into the early modern period.
no risk it no biscuit, this was an excellent raid.
i always wanted to know more about the raid even before watching this i am sure that this will give me some of the infomation i wanted your videos haven't let me down yet and i don't think they will start anytime soon
shame that De Ruyter would later be send to fight in the Mediterranean with a fleet of only 12 ships.
the "Admiralen" class had a "De Ruyter" in it but the name would later be given to the new Cruiser that fought and sank in the battle of the Java Sea.
there is a good movie about the life of Admiraal De Ruyter
As far as I know, it is in dutch only, so maybe you and I understand it, but not many of the viewers!
@@aitorbleda8267 it has english subtitles
@@aitorbleda8267 seen it on Netflix here in canada, i turned CC off :)
@@aitorbleda8267 It is mostly in Dutch, but the parts for the English are, well, in English. It does take more than a few liberties with history, though. The king is pretty white-washed, and while it is made to seem that De Ruyter was sent off on a suicide mission, that wasn't the case, as his Dutch fleet fought alongside a Spanish fleet against the French. The movie conveniently ignores the Spanish, making it seem like it was a doomed, single fight against impossible odds, rather than two fights with only a slight advantage in numbers for the French.
The Royal family's getting rid of there biggest threat.
The gebr de Witt.
And De Ruyter.
Great video!
Admiral de Ruyter for the first time used the newly established marines as fleet infantry.
The de Witt brothers were lynched later on by the people who no doubt were stirred up to this by the prince of Orange.
The Witt under torture in the gevanenenpoort The Hague which still can be visited hadn't admitted guilt so couldn't be brought to death legally.
Lateron the Ruyter no doubt knowing he would be next accepted his fate akin marshall Ney instead of fleeing seeking nigh certain death commanding a derrilickt fleet against the Spanish.
After dying in battle the Spanish stoped fighting as an homage to the Ruyter. 18:34
ALL YOU HAD TO DO IS END THE WAR ON OUR DAMN TERMS, CJ!!!
- William "Big Smoke" II , King of the Netherlands 1650
*Wrong.* Second Anglo-Dutch War (4 March 1665 - 31 July 1667).
And he was not king of the Netherlands. Although he did become King of England, Scotland and Ireland.
We were a Republic at that time, and only the tourists do the smoking, mostly English tourists even... i guess it helps them forget the losses..
de Ruyter@Medway: All your ships are belong us.
Interesting side effect. Due too this battle, the bargaining power shifted in regard to the handover of American Colonies to the English. This made it possible for New-Amsterdam to retain its charters of free trade, Religious liberties and land ownerships. So when the Declaration of independence and Constitution were drafted, they copy-pasted a lot of the old New-Amsterdam/New-York stuff into it.
Those Dutch were a sturdy bunch
Oh my, you can practically taste British saltiness over this event in the narrator's choice of words.
love all these sail ship vids
G E K O L O N I S E E R D
Hou op met die genante onzin
I like your exploration of earlier naval history than WWI & II
to quote History with Hilbert:
'WILLLHEEELLLMMMUUSSSSSS!!!!' ....even thought the raid was performed during the first Stadtholderless period.
What the fuck does that mean?
@@rogernicholls2079 the 'Stadhouderloze periode' is a period where the Dutch Republic did not have a single head of state, as William of Orange, considered the first head of state, was asassinated and the Republic was not yet quite ready to accept Monarchy. as such, the rule of the Seven United Provinces, as the Republic was also known, fell to a committee and was known as the 'Stadhouderloze periode'.
A Stadtholder (English spelling) was literally a place (Stad) holder (houder). OR: a Lieu (place) tenant (holder).
What is a Lieutenant? A replacement for the Captain should he be incapicitated, wounded or dead.
A Dutch Stadtholder was a Lieutenant of the (Spanish) crown.
Which is why we seceded from Spain although keeping our title of Stadtholder while also maintaining we have always honoured the king (of SPAIN) and claiming we are of German blood (Willem van Nassau was a German count, appointed Stadtholder for some Dutch states for the Spanish crown with also land possessions in Brabant (currently Noord Brabant and part of the United States of the Netherlands!)
@@AudieHolland United Provinces, mate. our provinces are not states like they would be known today.
@@Erik-ou3tl No, it is you who are wrong... About a great many things. The old Dutch "Provincieën" were former independent states, completely different from today's "Provincies" which are mere boundaries of local government.
Never noticed the difference between "Holland" then and "Noord Holland" and "Zuid Holland" today?
HOLLAND - Gouden Eeuw (and of course Zeeland grumble grumble)
Noord-Holland, or Zuid-Holland, for that matter? "HUH?" Just to spread chaos among visiting tourists.
Capital of HOLLAND: Amsterdam.
Provincial Capital of Noord-Holland: Haarlem.
TAKE WHAT YOU CAN BOYS, GIVE NOTHIN BACK!
Having had his West India Company ship destroyed, our ancestor was second in command of a frigate at Medway. Prize money? So my relatives maintain....... This is so cool. Thanks!
Drachininfel, another excellent documentary, chapeaux! I cannot resist to ask however if it was pure coincidence to show a map in 01:20 naming the lowlands in German language 😁
I think this is the first time I have heard a British " historian' not down playing this Dutch victory.
last time I heard an official British historian adress this subject he said something like: pfft not a big deal, it is all exagerated. Nationalism at its finest.
Do you have any citation of these so-called "historians" which you hear down play it you or are you simply trolling? Frank Fox wrote about the defeat in his 1996 book as later did PF Rogers in the recent 'Dutch in the Medway' (2017). It's also discussed quite detrimentally in both Command of the Ocean and Empire of the Deep, so you may need to broaden your knowledge of official British historians and their works.
Maby "the royal Charles the third "..
would be a fitting name for the not so royal yacht bojo want to build...
in the Netherlands/ Germany.
So mutch sofrnty!
Here's a couple of links to full color pictures of the HMS Sovereign of the Seas. One of them looks like it's from a Korean wiki, but the picture is very good. Drach, your going to have to explain how ships of that era were gilded and how much expense all this decoration added to the total cost of the ship.
namu.wiki/w/%EC%A0%84%EC%97%B4%ED%95%A8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sovereign_of_the_Seas#/media/File:Heck_Sovereign_of_the_seas.jpg
As Drachinifel mentioned the Dutch suffered not under their smaller ships, but in their lack of discipline which Blake introduced in the british navy. Each of the 7 dutch provincies had an own admiralty, a miserable federal structure. And the tactic to board those heavier british ships was only possible, when the Dutch gained a luv-position by easterly winds, a rare case. The Brits got their revenge for the Medway desaster, when de Ruyter fought in the battle of Augusta a second time in 1676, with his combined fleet of dutch and spanish ships against the French admiral Duquesne. The Spaniards did not followed de Ruyter's signal for close attack, so de Ruyter's squadron came under superiour attack by the French, and de Ruyter was mortally wounded. He was the greatest seaman of his time.
Actually it was five admiralties. 1) Amsterdam, 2) Rotterdam (or the Maze), 3) Zeeland, 4) Friesland, and 5) Noorderquartier (or West Friesland). However, the Confederate fleet had a single admiral in control. DeRuyter ensured that signals and orders were codified after the death of Obdam, so it really was not nearly so big of a concern after Lowestoft. The commentary in the video makes it out to be far worse than it was. Just look at the orderly retreat from Lowestoft under Evertsen.
And when De Ruijters body was sailed home, he was saluted at every port his body passed, including the enemy French ports.
@@modernknightone Ok 5 :-) it did change anything?
@@modernknightone When the situation under the command of De Ruijters became worse, then, because other Dutch flag-officers produced bullshit.
@@martijnb5887 better would have been to follow De Ruijter's signals during the battle.
I am of Dutch lineage. I did not know this story. I am now proud.
the British were given India by the Dutch and French for different reasons and the Dutch also founded New York, then Mew Amsterdam
@@LordInter "Mew?" Did you mean "Meow York!?"
@@LordInter New Amsterdam was taken by papist King Charles II, than named New York because King Charles II was the Duke of York.
This Anglo-Dutch war was a part of general Catholic inquisition. Both British and Dutch should be ashamed, that they where agitated to fight it, by Vatican intelligence. King Charles II's father was beheaded by Oliver Cromwell, so he hated protestants with a passion, he was a fanatic agent of Rome.
This is the main reason why I regret to never have joined the Dutch marines. IIRC "Chatham 1667" is the first of many battle honours on their banner.
Miichiel de Ruyter: "Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have fucked with? That's me.". Clint Eastwoord couldn't have said it better. Or wait...
The Medway Council, commemorating the 350th anniversary of the Raid on the Medway, created this rather decent production in 2017: *The Medway in Flames*
Very enlightening! Thank you very much
2/3th of the British fleet was abroad as well. With the majority of the biggest warships being in the Caribbean at that moment.
Oh, oh oh, don't forget the Dutch using the captured ships as target practice when they returned home as a promotion to the Dutch people to show they won.
Also you seem to be unknown with the fact that this is the first time ever the Dutch Marines (specially set up for this raid by Admiral Michiel de Ruyter) were deployed in raids. These marines were put on land to attack from the flanks in raids. Hit and run tactics mostly. This to cause even more panic in the British ranks and under the British civilians. This not just for the night, but they raided for a few days before being picked up again by Dutch warships waiting for them.
What a shockingly fair and balanced review from a Brit. (I guess I've been watching too much Lindybeige ;-) )
1:27 apparently as well as The act of Union not being a thing at this time Anglesay wasn't there yet either.
Immense riches from the Dutch East India Company and the tulip trade? You forgot the clog industry in your list of incorrect clichees. Actually, talking about Dutch clichees, at any point in Dutch history the herring trade was bigger than the Dutch East India Company and both were dwarfed by the Baltic Sea trade alone, not to mention the North Sea trade and the Mediterranean. Around 1650 the Dutch merchants shipped more than half of all goods in Europe. Wheat, cloth, wine, beer, paint, anything. How much nutmeg and cinamon did you think Europeans consumed at that time compared to wheat?
The Dutch East India company is historically important because it globalized the independence war with Spain and Portugal and it was the first stock company ever, not because of it's economic importance for the Dutch Republic. Riches were immense indeed, which allowed for a tulip mania, not the other way around of course, tulips and speculation were for fun. The burst of the bubble had no significant effect on the economy.
I quess your expertise is in naval warfare, but the little background information should be correct and make sense anyway.
Hear hear
Thank you for that ;)
Technical Innovations helped a lot. Like curing the herring on board.
Also perhaps the revenge motifs for what happened on Terschelling Island...?
This feel like Mers-el-Kébir except the of course with the British on the receiving end this time.
The French were neutral. The British had been at war with the Netherlands for years.
Are the Mesudiye and Asar-i Tevfik of the Ottoman Navy on the almighty list by any chance¿
(And as always, lovely work!)
Th first one is somewhere on the master list :)
No mention of Uppnor Castle and the makeshift gun battery's on the other side, that helped to stop the Dutch burning Chatham dockyard
The conclusion of the trilogy is always the best.
Well, there was also the fourth Anglo-Dutch war.
Windmills used as industrial sawmachines could produce wood voor rhe ships in a astonishing rapid way
With all this shipbuilding, are there any trees in England? Do old growth trees exist?
WALTERBROADDUS
Hardly any. There is a reason the open moorlands in northern UK exist- they are man-made, created by deforestation.
@@bkjeong4302 Yeah between shipbuilding, rifle making, and home builders. Most of Europe should be deforested after the last few centuries.
@@WALTERBROADDUS
Most forests in Europe have been replanted and don't have the same biodiversity or ecological value as the few remaining old-growth forests.
Although Johan de Witt was indeed the driving force of the building of the Dutch 'New Navy' after the first Anglo-Dutch war, he was never on board of a ship in battle, or 'in command' of the fleet in a sea-battle. He was a politcian, and much needed at home to unite the quarrelsome seven provinces and to conduct diplomatic negociations with France, Spain and the German states. However, and here the confusion most likely started: he did sent his brother Cornelis de Witt as a 'deputy-at-sea' with the fleet.
Cornelis - also a civilian - acted as a representative of the dutch States-General to keep the admirals in check and actually did took some important decisions during the Medway Raid. His portrait is shown in this video at 17:05.
Both Johan and Cornelis were killed by an enraged mob in 1672 when a war with France almost brought the Dutch Republic to its knees.
But in the end we became best friends,thank god for that!greetings from holland😊
It is like in Sea Dogs: You put all your points into boarding, enter the enemy first class ship. Then win the fight with ease youst to find out that you cant efficiently move it with 55 men and no sailing skill :)
Yes more Age of Sail content.
A nice feature to add would be picture credits, insofar as artwork is concerned. The picture shown at 5:25 is from one of the Van Del Weldes, is it not?
Masterful minimization. Ten corrections and comments follow:
1) British was not used until 1707 and the Act of Union. The correct term is English during this time.
2) HMS was not used as an RN designation until the mid 18th century.
3) You failed to mentioned that 30 additional English warships were scuttled upriver by the English themselves in fear that the Dutch would continue their "raid" upriver.
4) You mentioned that three of the largest English ships had been destroyed and the Sovereign was saved by not being present - with a tone - as if the destruction/capture of four major ships were a minor thing, However, you failed to recognize that during the preceding Four Days Fight of 1666 numerous other major English capital ships (10 total) were destroyed or captured to include the Prince Royal(burned), and the great old Swiftsure. Only the Sovereign and Rainbow were the single remaining Pett masterpieces - the massive old "Great Ships" left to survive the war.
5) Line ahead tactics were hardly "newfangled" by the 2nd Dutch war. I've seen this bad undocumented commentary numerous times and do not understand how professional historians can make such a horrible mistake. One simply needs to study English General at Sea Robert Blake and his own commentary about first observing line ahead tactics as a neutral observer during Tromp's great victory over the Spanish at the Battle of the Downs in 1639.
6) Your observations about disorganized command and control because of the five separate Dutch admiralties can only be said of Lowestoft. DeRuyter reorganized the fleet and codified signaling after he returned from his damaging punitive expedition to the English Caribbean colonies and took command of the Confederate Dutch Fleet after Obdam's death. His control of the action in all of the subsequent battles was masterful - and even looked upon in awe by the English commanders at the only other Dutch loss of the war - The Saint James Day Fight - where DeRuyter and the Dutch fleet retired in good order.
7) Your commentary about un-crewed ships is somewhat inaccurate and unfair to the brave Englishmen who gave their lives defending those ships. There were some very fierce and nasty fights - a regiment of Scot's Foot dying to the last man resisting Thomas Tobias' attack on the Royal Charles.
8) The money you mentioned that was raised to rebuild the English fleet largely came in the way of Dutch bank loans - ironic.
9) The loss of the largely empty middling sized merchant ships at Terschelling (known infamously as "Holmes' Bonfire") was a medium level disaster at best. According to Lord Clarendon's own report to the King in 1660, the Dutch had in excess of 25,000 merchantmen globally with the English trailing badly with between 3 and 4 thousand. English privateers were very successful during the war - (largely because there were so many Dutch merchant ships to go after), but their successes were not even close to the immense damage and depredations upon English shipping by Dutch privateers. The Dutch had destroyed and captured the Virginia and Maryland tobacco fleet on their first raid of Cheasapeake Bay. They had captured most of the Returning English Levant/Mediterranean trading fleet and many of the grain convoys as well. DeRuyter's raid in the Caribbean had been very destructive against sugar imports - taking a great many prize ships. This was absolutely disastrous for the English economy. The English had attempted to take returning VOC (Dutch East India Company) fleets twice with one major defeat inflicted on the English Navy in the process at the Battle of Bergen. In addition, Sir Robert Holmes also failed to take the Dutch Levant Smyrna fleet as well which was the action that started the war to begin with. England totally lost the commerce war/ privateering war which Charles badly needed to win - anticipating the captures of those fleets as the means for continuing the war.
10) Some additional details really shed needed light onto historical topic videos like this. The purpose is to educate. Facts are important. Otherwise they are just mediocre unexceptional summaries among hundreds similar.
Thanks for reading. MK/ ARS
Hello, and thanks for the extensive post, please allow me to respond. :)
1) I used British since, although the Act of Union was some ways off, the King was in charge of England and Scotland, with Scottish men and officers in his service, so the realm was effectively 'British' at that point.
2) The abbreviation HMS was used later, but in the period of the Medway Raid ships were already referred to as "His Majesties Ship" in full, the abbreviation is just helpful in shortening references.
3) I did mention the deliberate sinking of many RN warships to prevent their capture.
4) I specifically mentioned the losses of other major RN ships at the Four Days Battle etc in the early part of the video. I also noted that the losses and the remaining small force of large ships was a major problem and tipped the war in favour of the Dutch.
5) Line ahead had been used by ships going back to 1500 in places, however, use of the tactic was sporadic and actual effective use of the tactic along with ships designed to exploit it's advantages was still a new and untested thing by the time of the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War.
6) I specifically noted that after the disaster of disorganised and fractious command in the Dutch forces was recognised, they were quick to get their act together and act much more effectively.
7) Whilst there was heroic defence in places, including some rushed crews, the simple fact is that many ships were 'in ordinary' and uncrewed, or practically so.
8) Indeed bit out of the detailed scope of the video :)
9) The Dutch reaction to the loss of the merchant fleet, it's cargo and warehouses was significant, it collapsed the Dutch stock market and caused riots, whilst the Dutch had many ships, the fleet lost represented a significant number of the larger ocean going merchant's as opposed to the much more numerous coastal traders that made up the majority of the Dutch trade fleet. I don't think this raid can be dismissed as a medium scale event, not least because the Dutch themselves at the highest levels considered it a very heavy blow.
10) The idea of the channel isn't to give every single detail of every single aspect of the subject being covered, otherwise each video would be twenty hours long or more. The idea is to give a relatively detailed overview which informs those who would like simply to know roughly what happened, and to inspire others to look in more detail at the finer points of the history surrounding the event. :)
@@Drachinifel Thanks for the reply. Unexpected and Refreshing!
As to item 1 and 2 - I fully understand WHY you did it - I was simply making a correction because your usage is not considered correct for historical writing or commentary for this period.
3) You mentioned the 14 at the outset, just not the additional 30 up river. This was considered a major scandal at the time and the blame game was huge. Albemarle tried to blame Admiral Spragge and indeed Spragge was made a scapegoat even though he valiantly stayed at his post and directed counter efforts at Sheerness and Upnor castle throughout the battle. You mentioned the desertions - this is no surprise considering that Van Ghent landed 800 highly trained elite Dutch Marines. Another interesting note is that the Marines during their depredations were forbidden from rape or plundering homes - something that cannot be said of the deserting English who did horrible things to their own countrymen.
4) I must have missed that. I will have another listen.
5) I respectfully disagree. Tromp had consistently used the tactic during the last decades of the 80 Years War - simply look at tactical after action reviews of the battles and the formations to see this plainly. In addition and more importantly, General at Sea Blake had already codified the tactic during the First Anglo-Dutch War in his very famous 1653 "Sailing instructions" and "Fighting Instructions" of which line ahead tactics were core to his ideas. This was the first set of written manuals with accompanying signals required to be read and followed by flag officers and captains in the RN. Look at the Battle of Portland or Dungeoness to see these tactics used extensively by both sides during the First Dutch War.
6) Perhaps I am mistaken. I thought I heard you refer to it two or three times in reference to poking holes in Dutch command and control/organization.
7) There was no such thing as the term "In Ordinary" in the 1660s. This term didn't come into use until the next century. "Layed up" is the correct term for this time and it did not involve dismantling the guns and rigging as is the case with "In Ordinary". The ships could be put back into fighting trim in very short order. If you read Barlowe's famous contemporary journal he shows illustrations of the ships in rows and mentions that many stayed aboard at half pay whilst fighting men of action would find another ship.
9) I have heard this mention of the Amsterdam Exchange crashing before - but think it is false. In all my years of reading and researching I have never been able to find proof of this. Jonathan Israel in his landmark work barely gives Terschelling a mention but does say it was a disaster. Simon Schama and Masselman also don't mention it in their extremely comprehensive works on the history of the Dutch Republic and Trade. The late great Lisa Gardine also briefly covers Holmes' Bonfire and the report back to Pepys and his hatred of Holmes - but yet again makes no mention of financial distress or a "stock market crash". The illustrious Dutch historian Dr. Jaap Bruijn covered the Terschelling raid in some detail in a couple of his works but makes NO mention of the Stock Exchange crashing. Please provide a credible source for this information. Even in essays on the Amsterdam Exchange and other panics or bubbles bursting, there is never a mention of this "crash". The Amsterdam Exchange was incredibly robust and even in the worst year of Dutch history - 1672 - the "Rampjaar"(year of troubles) it didn't crash. Yes it was a "disaster" - THAT YEAR - and the Republic recovered extremely quickly from it - especially considering most of the merchantmen were privately owned. I will tell you that the Dutch wasted no time in making Terschelling a major call to arms as a propaganda instrument and made it out themselves to be a far greater injury than it actually was. I will say it again - Clarendon's own report to King Charles in 1660 stated that the Dutch had between 20 to 25 thousand merchantmen globally. 150 is less than one percent of that. Just take a look at the well documented inventory from the VOC fleet at Bergen that Teddiman tried to capture. It vastly outstripped the worth of the Vlieland ships by hundreds of times. If that fleet had been taken at Bergen - TRULY THAT would have been a great disaster for the Dutch and would have kept the English war effort going for another year or two.
10) I understand what you are trying to do. The only reason I commented is that it seemed that your tone was one of a pro-English biased defensive minimization of the Dutch attack. This is so often the case and I just don't fully understand why. I wished only to provide some additional substance to balance the scales as I too often see a blatant sense of British pride in so much historical commentary that seems to omit or minimize unsavory facts that don't go along with the patriotic narrative. I love English/British history as much as any other nation. In fact it has always held a deep fascination for me. I've read Pepys' diaries and every commentary on the Stuarts I could find. Even with my great love of British history I maintain a strict objectivity to the facts.
@@Drachinifel Seems my reply is invisible so I will attempt a second time: Thanks for the reply. Unexpected and Refreshing!
As to item 1 and 2 - I fully understand WHY you did it - I was simply making a correction because your usage is not considered correct for historical writing or commentary for this period.
3) You mentioned the 14 at the outset, just not the additional 30 up river. This was considered a major scandal at the time and the blame game was huge. Albemarle tried to blame Admiral Spragge and indeed Spragge was made a scapegoat even though he valiantly stayed at his post and directed counter efforts at Sheerness and Upnor castle throughout the battle. You mentioned the desertions - this is no surprise considering that Van Ghent landed 800 highly trained elite Dutch Marines. Another interesting note is that the Marines during their depredations were forbidden from rape or plundering homes - something that cannot be said of the deserting English who did horrible things to their own countrymen.
4) I must have missed that. I will have another listen.
5) I respectfully disagree. Tromp had consistently used the tactic during the last decades of the 80 Years War - simply look at tactical after action reviews of the battles and the formations to see this plainly. In addition and more importantly, General at Sea Blake had already codified the tactic during the First Anglo-Dutch War in his very famous 1653 "Sailing instructions" and "Fighting Instructions" of which line ahead tactics were core to his ideas. This was the first set of written manuals with accompanying signals required to be read and followed by flag officers and captains in the RN. Look at the Battle of Portland or Dungeoness to see these tactics used extensively by both sides during the First Dutch War.
6) Perhaps I am mistaken. I thought I heard you refer to it two or three times in reference to poking holes in Dutch command and control/organization.
7) There was no such thing as the term "In Ordinary" in the 1660s. This term didn't come into use until the next century. "Layed up" is the correct term for this time and it did not involve dismantling the guns and rigging as is the case with "In Ordinary". The ships could be put back into fighting trim in very short order. If you read Barlowe's famous contemporary journal he shows illustrations of the ships in rows and mentions that many stayed aboard at half pay whilst fighting men of action would find another ship.
9) I have heard this mention of the Amsterdam Exchange crashing before - but think it is false. In all my years of reading and researching I have never been able to find proof of this. Jonathan Israel in his landmark work barely gives Terschelling a mention but does say it was a disaster. Simon Schama and Masselman also don't mention it in their extremely comprehensive works on the history of the Dutch Republic and Trade. The late great Lisa Gardine also briefly covers Holmes' Bonfire and the report back to Pepys and his hatred of Holmes - but yet again makes no mention of financial distress or a "stock market crash". The illustrious Dutch historian Dr. Jaap Bruijn covered the Terschelling raid in some detail in a couple of his works but makes NO mention of the Stock Exchange crashing. Please provide a credible source for this information. Even in essays on the Amsterdam Exchange and other panics or bubbles bursting, there is never a mention of this "crash". The Amsterdam Exchange was incredibly robust and even in the worst year of Dutch history - 1672 - the "Rampjaar"(year of troubles) it didn't crash. Yes it was a "disaster" - THAT YEAR - and the Republic recovered extremely quickly from it - especially considering most of the merchantmen were privately owned. I will tell you that the Dutch wasted no time in making Terschelling a major call to arms as a propaganda instrument and made it out themselves to be a far greater injury than it actually was. I will say it again - Clarendon's own report to King Charles in 1660 stated that the Dutch had between 20 to 25 thousand merchantmen globally. 150 is less than one percent of that. Just take a look at the well documented inventory from the VOC fleet at Bergen that Teddiman tried to capture. It vastly outstripped the worth of the Vlieland ships by hundreds of times. If that fleet had been taken at Bergen - TRULY THAT would have been a great disaster for the Dutch and would have kept the English war effort going for another year or two.
10) I understand what you are trying to do. The only reason I commented is that it seemed that your tone was one of a pro-English biased defensive minimization of the Dutch attack. This is so often the case and I just don't fully understand why. I wished only to provide some additional substance to balance the scales as I too often see a blatant sense of British pride in so much historical commentary that seems to omit or minimize unsavory facts that don't go along with the patriotic narrative. I love English/British history as much as any other nation. In fact it has always held a deep fascination for me. I've read Pepys' diaries and every commentary on the Stuarts I could find. Even with my great love of British history I maintain a strict objectivity to the facts.