The Brutal End Of Dutchman Johan de Witt, Who Was Torn Apart And Eaten By His Own People

[spanishspy]

The article curiously does not mention how this was likely a power play by William III, perhaps directly ordered by him.

[lordroel]

Oct 6, 2018 2:20:57 GMT spanishspy said:

The article curiously does not mention how this was likely a power play by William III, perhaps directly ordered by him.

A dark chapter for the Netherlands.

[stevep]

Oct 6, 2018 2:20:57 GMT spanishspy said:

The article curiously does not mention how this was likely a power play by William III, perhaps directly ordered by him.

  I have memories of reading about his rise and fall a while back although had largely forgotten about it until I read this.  Knew the death of the two brothers was violent but hadn't heard anything about cannibalism!

  Knew about the joint Anglo-French attack on the Dutch but thought they had held out fairly well, albeit being forced to retreat behind flooded lands and thought that William III was already in control.  Believe the famous line about dying in the last ditch comes from this period?

  If de Witt had been able to properly fund the army - possibly he couldn't without losing political support - and had done so then it would have big implications, both for the Netherlands and for England/Britain. 

  For the Dutch I have read that the costs of the wars with Louis XIV seriously drained their economy and this, coupled with the costs of maintaining fortifications in OTL Belgium to protect their southern flank was a major reason for their economic decline.  So possibly this might still have occurred but with a larger army earlier on, if the French invasion had been devastating the situation might have been better.  Not sure how de Witt's government would have felt about an alliance with Austria but that would have been important for survival in the following decades.  Also how an alliance with Britain might be handled during the same later conflicts.  [Expecting that the Nine Years War and Spanish Succession or equivalents are still likely to occur].

  For Britain if de Witt stays in power William III [as he was in Britain] would be in no position to challenge James II in 1688.  Charles II was already verging towards both Catholicism and absolutism in his last years, hence his potentially fatal alliance with Louis XIV in the attack on the Dutch.  In part because he got a subsidy from France that he hoped would make him independent of Parliament.  If the Netherlands had fallen as planned there would be a danger that Britain becomes basically a French satellite.  [Albeit probably racked by civil war and unrest.]  After Charles death his brother James, who was openly Catholic defeated the revolt by the Duke of Monmouth but lacked the support [outside Ireland] when William III came.  Without him at best Britain will have a much smaller role to play in the following conflicts, which could be bad for western Europe as Louis XIV might establish a lasting dominance over western Europe, especially if he was able as a result to ensure the unification of the French and Spanish empires.  The colossus may fall apart because of continued opposition but its likely to be very bloody and cause prolonged problems and if the combined empire does survive human rights and technological development is likely to suffer with the Netherlands pretty much destroyed and Britain at best marginarlised.  You might even see a prolonging/revival of the counter-reformation with new attacks against the remaining Protestant states.