Talk:Dutch–Portuguese War

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NHarmonicPun (article contribs).

Thanks

Thanks CmdrObot, any corrections are appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelNS (talk • contribs)

Intro

The article needs an introduction... --HJV 02:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

This is a propaganda tract, not a historical article. Beyond indonesia, dutch attempts to take over portuguese posessions were a failure.--Bistor92 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bistor92, I believe the sentence you mention is the following: "In all, and also because the Dutch were kept busy with their expansion in Indonesia, the conquests made at the expense of the Portuguese were modest: some Indonesian possessions and a few cities and fortresses in the Arabian sea." This is not propaganda! This only intends to explain that as strong as the Dutch were, they did not quickly or easily overcome the Portuguese India State forces! In fact, with the exception of Malaca, the main Portuguese cities such as Ormuz, Goa, Bombay and Macau remained in Portuguese possession... Further ahead I explain how successful the Dutch campaign was nonetheless: "The most important blow to the Portuguese east empire and the culmination of the war would be the conquest of Malacca in 1641 (...)" MiguelNS

I agree with you. But the article seems pro-dutch to me.--Bistor92 05:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it seems pro-Dutch then I can only say thank you for acknowledging my objectivity. I should add that it is intended to be impartial. But of course any further contributions will be appreciated. MiguelNS

Ahah. What a joke. This article might be better named as "the overseas dutch adventures". It is tottaly written under a Dutch perspective, scarce on America's and Africa's conflicts, and omits the fact that between 1580-1640 Portugal was under Spanish rule, which deprived Portugal from resources to maintain and defend its possessions. Who cares any way. Wikimerdia at its best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.65.156 (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

"an armed conflict involving Dutch forces, in the form of the Dutch East India Company and the Dutch West India Company, against the Portuguese Empire. Beginning in 1588, the conflict primarily involved the Dutch companies invading Portuguese colonies in the Americas, Africa, India and the Far East." The Dutch companies were founded in 1602 and 1621, so for those first fourteen years, who was fighting on behalf of the United Provinces? This introduction needs to be reworded. JesseRafe 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean Jesse. But when I say that the Dutch companies waged war on the Portuguese possessions since 1588, what I mean is that since the Spanish Armada, the Dutch fleet (which was largely private even if not initially in the form of the VOC and WIC) had been fighting the Portuguese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelNS (talk • contribs)

factual error?

"The Dutch were hopeful of some degree of success, since in 1588 the English, with Dutch aid, had been able to defeat the Spanish Armada and with it the backbone of the Iberian fleet — the oceangoing galleons and naus used in support of trade in West Indies silver and Indian spices.1"

To my knowledge the Spanish Armada mainly consisted of its mediterran units and only very few oceangoing vcessels. No parts of the High Seas Fleet were recalled for the invasion so that at the battle only 12 Spanish galeons were present in battle. So as the mainstay of the Spanish fleets were always busy on the tradelanes and never invested in this military endevour the backbone of their tradefleets actual were not seriously affected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangalore (talk • contribs)

Well Mangalore, in fact the Spanish navy at the time had plenty of ocean going galleons (especially after the anexation of Portugal).It is true that a great portion of the fleet was made up of mediterranean galleys, but remember Castile, Navarra and Portugal had many ocean-going vessels.There were certainly more than 12 galleons present in 1588! In the occupation of Azores alone, around 10 were used !!!...The problems of the "felicissima" derived rather from an excess of tonage, poor planing (wrong munitions for wide variety of cannons) and bad leadership.MiguelNS

Fair use rationale for Image:Cochinel.gif

Image:Cochinel.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken backbone?

Who says the defeat of the Spanish Armada broke the naval backbone of the Iberian powers? Not even the article cited makes such a claim. How many of the Armada's ships were Portuguese - and more importantly how many were lost? Was Portugal so deficient in resources that it couldn't make those losses up in the period 1589-1602, the period before this war really began. By the way, what year did the Dutch manage to monopolise trade with Japan? It would be also interesting to have a few hints as how and why they were able to exclude the Portuguese.

Dear Anonymous

I say the defeat of the Spanish Armada broke the backbone of the Iberian nations, because it did! I won't go to too much length here, because the article does not concern one battle but an entire war spawning for decades. Just look at it this way, never again was the Iberian Monarchy able to muster a similar fighting force, and many of the crucial ocean going galleons were lost.

About a forth or fifth of the armada's ships were Portuguese, but most importantly almost half of the galleons were Portuguese.

That's a good question, I don't know whether Portugal tried to make up for its losses..

The best date I've got for you is 1639. Spain and Portugal were expelled, only the Dutch remained.

The how and why are well known, but not relevant for this article...

MiguelNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.147.192 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there's the answer. Let us say a quarter of the 130 Armada ships, roughly 32 ships, were Portuguese. You say that half the galleons were Portuguese, so that makes 11 galleons of the Armada's 22. If half the 32 Portuguese ships were lost, then Portugal lost 16 ships. I believe most of the galleons returned home, but let's say, for arguments sake, that 6 of the Portuguese galleons (and none of the Spanish) were lost. This means Portugal lost 6 galleons and 10 other merchant vessels, for a total of 16. One would expect a sea-borne empire to make up such losses in the following 12 years. The fact that Portugal was able to sustain its fight for its territories overseas against the Dutch decades later shows that its "naval backbone" was far from "broken".

Who won in Africa

While it is quite clear the Portuguese were the victors in America, and the Dutch in Asia, who won in Africa? It currently says the Portuguese did, probably because of their success in Angola but the Dutch captured the Portuguese forts on the Gold Coast and would hold onto them until 1872. Wouldn't it be a draw then? Thoughts?-Kieran4 (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Source needed

A source is needed that talks about one single long Luso-Dutch war spanning colonies in South America, Africa and Asia. As yet I have not been able to find one. This page is OR/SYNTH without one. Srnec (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch–Portuguese War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927060952/http://www.newberry.org/smith/slidesets/ss06.html to http://www.newberry.org/smith/slidesets/ss06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Motives

The article says that the main motive is financing the Dutch revolt. It doen not gave any sources and I think this motives is anachronistis and incorrect. The Dutch trading companies were founded with the explicit goal of making profit for the shareholders and harming the enemy. This is not the same as making a profit for the state with an eye on the finance of the revolt. Scafloc (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Scafloc (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch–Portuguese War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205191440/http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/361/36100506.pdf to http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/361/36100506.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Sugar war" section contains irrelevant information

The "Sugar war" section says "In 1621 the Geoctroyeerde Westindische Compagnie (Authorised West India Company or WIC) was created to take control of the sugar trade and colonise America (the New Netherland project). The Company benefited from a large investment in capital, drawing on the enthusiasm of the best financiers and capitalists of the Republic, such as Isaac de Pinto, by origin a Portuguese Jew. " Why is Isaac de Pinto mentioned if he's born 100 years after the creation of the company and decades after the Sugar war was over? He has nothing to do with the war whatsoever.

Santa Catarina

The description of the Santa Catarina under 'Casus belli' is at variance with the page linked to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catarina_(ship)

Here, it says that the SC was a galleon and that the sale proceeds doubled the VOC's capital. There, it's a carrack and the sale proceeds increased the VOC's capital by 50%. This should be made consistent.

(I don't know what's correct either way.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.176.136 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone add an "Aftermath" headline

That would be nice

Ygglow (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

VOC and WOC arent military forces?

They aren't military forces, they are traders coming for those sweet sweet spices (and murdering lots of Indians and Americans (as in the 2 continents)). We were brutal, but anyways, the most military thing the VOC and WOC did was fight... Against slaves... Anyways, please continue this conversation, I will probably not return as I'm not a chad and go conversate on Wikipedia daily. Farwell great people! 82.169.236.182 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Several expeditions such as the one to chile in 1643 consisted of separate wic United Province and voc units with different commanders under an overall commander I would say that makes them in the same vain of the enterprising Wallenstein of the same period. A private man/organization making war for profit more than expansion. Joeykev (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Start and end dates

The Casus belli of the conflict was in 1603 and the peace treaty in 1661. It is true that conflict took place beyond those dates, but shouldn't we use the "official" dates instead of 1598-1663? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Result

@DavidDjikgraaf

I find the result to be biased as for anyone that would first look at the infobox, they would instantly assume it was a Dutch victory as the infobox seems to just state disestablishment of many Portuguese colonies. In reality, there were Dutch victories in some places, Portuguese victories in others and English victories as well.

As for the guidelines you linked, which ones? I cannot find them in the history of the article whatsoever for some reason. I don't get how the infobox I put up is against wikipedia guidelines as in an infobox, you summarise and give the key facts of the article. Considering this might be the only thing someone decides to check, shouldn't it be neutral instead of seeming like it was a complete Dutch victory? Setergh (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraaf didn't tag for some odd reason, woops Setergh (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Setergh Here you can see the guidelines regarding the result parameter: Template:Infobox military conflict.

As for if I think that it is misleading; no I don't think so. The Portuguese Empire indeed retained some of its colonies, but there were no offensive territorial victories. They just retained or recaptured what had already been theirs. The Dutch captured Portuguese territory, not the other way around. Dutch fleets blockaded the Portuguese coast, not the other way around. Stating something like "Portuguese victory in Brazil" also omits the fact that they had to pay an indemnity for the recapture.

Like with all the Anglo-Dutch Wars, Franco-Dutch War, Nine Years' War etc it is best to link to the treaty and mention what the territorial changes were. In cases were the result is debated it allows readers to make their own mind up.

And the lede already explains that the Portuguese retained Brazil, Angola and Mozambique despite Dutch attacks. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

1. I still feel like I've used the infobox correctly and what I added back to it doesn't break guidelines nor cause problems.
2. The infobox is the most important part of a wikipage when it comes to a war or battle. Many people will just read from the infobox and nothing else. I'd say it's necessary to include these major points in the infobox, as the infobox has a ton of power when it comes to someone's perspective on an armed conflict
3. I don't like how those pages do it. If you're looking at the infobox, you want to get the result told to you, not for the result to link you to another page where you can sort of try and figure out the result yourself. Not everyone wants to read the treaty that happened after the war, many just want to know who accomplished what or who won.
4. Yeah, this is true, and I'm glad it does but once again many might not decide to read it and it would be perfectly fine to be in the infobox as well.

Setergh (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

1. I disagree. It stresses to keep things simple and also says: "Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Anyway, let's see what other people have to say about it.

2 and 3. I understand that people want to get an easy answer to the result question, but history isn't always easy. In cases were the winner of a war is disputed, linking people to the aftermath or the treaty is better than giving people a possibly misleading but easy answer.

If we actually were to go by your prefered method it would have to look closer to something like this though.

• Portugal retains Brazil, Mozambique, and Angola and several tradingposts in Asia
• The Dutch Republic replaces Portugal in Malacca, Ceylon, the Malabar Coast, the Moluccas, the Gold Coast and several other trading posts in Asia.
• Portugal pays an indemnity of eight million guilders for Dutch losses in Brazil.
• The Dutch Republic replaces Portugal as the dominant European power in Asia.

This tells people more about what the result of the war was than simply saying: "Dutch victory here", "Portuguese victory here". DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think your possible replacing of it could be fine.

Problem is, I don't particularly know how this war actually went. I only know a few of the basics, but I'm not Portuguese nor Dutch and don't particularly interest myself in this war. I only wanted to change it because I didn't like how it seemed biased to me.

I feel like it would be better if others decided as well, especially because they'll probably have more knowledge to add to it. Thank you, Setergh (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that putting the territories that Portugal retained and those that it lost would be a good solution. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Why? We do that almost nowhere on wikipedia. In those infobox parameters we generally state what the conflict changed, not what stayed the same. Why would we make an exception for Portugal in the Dutch-Portuguese War? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that the solution you provided?

• Portugal retains Brazil, Mozambique, and Angola and several tradingposts in Asia
• The Dutch Republic replaces Portugal in Malacca, Ceylon, the Malabar Coast, the Moluccas, the Gold Coast and several other trading posts in Asia.
• Portugal pays an indemnity of eight million guilders for Dutch losses in Brazil.
• The Dutch Republic replaces Portugal as the dominant European power in Asia.

Another option would be to put this result as a note next to "Treaty of The Hague". I just think that putting only the territories that Portugal lost can create confusion about how the conflict happened since there were also invasions in other Portuguese colonies and may make the reader think that it was a Dutch victory (as @Setergh explained). Maybe we should also put "Disestablishment of Dutch Brazil, Dutch Angola, (etc.)" RobertJohnson35 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't prefer that solution, I just gave an example of how it might look if we actually do that.

Maybe we should also put "Disestablishment of Dutch Brazil, Dutch Angola, (etc.)"

That is not a territorial change. Portugal had those territories before the war as well. If we include that we should also put "Establishment of Dutch Brazil, Dutch Angola, (etc.)" in the infobox to be consistent.

and may make the reader think that it was a Dutch victory

It was a Dutch victory almost any way you look at it. The Dutch took over the most important part of the Portuguese Empire, while the Portuguese just retained territory. They didn't capture territory from the Dutch that hadn't been theirs already and even had to pay an indemnity for the recapture of Brazil. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you are partly right, but I also think the outcome of this war is a bit more complex and there are already some editors who think the same. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove the territorial changes per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX but it was a good idea to put this problem on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to see what other editors think. Anyway, I don't have much knowledge on this topic to discuss whether there was a winner or not. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I made the editors of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history aware of the discussion here by the way. We could use some opinions of experienced editors DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• This dispute appears to be about whether we should report the result in the infobox per the current version or this version. Both would primarily give the result as the Treaty of The Hague. The latter would list a number of dot-points under the result parameter. The former would omit the dot-points but would detail the "disestablishment" of various Portuguese colonies under the territorial changes parameter. Please correct me if this does not summarise the dispute.

In the first instance, WP:RESULT specifically limits acceptable terms to be used against this parameter. As an analogue of the See Aftermath option, we might use, See Treaty of The Hague, where this is a link to that section of the article, where the views in sources as to the "result" (who won) are reviewed. However, a link to the article, Treaty of The Hague is not consistent with the guidance. I would also note that the section, Treaty of The Hague really doesn't provide such a review. The article lacks what we would consider to be an aftermath section.

WP:RESULT does not support the use of dot-points against this parameter. The guidance is quite specific on how to populate the parameter and this is consistent with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Less is usually better and we aren't trying to write the article in the infobox.

The territorial changes reported in the current version of the infobox are somewhat detailed and prose-like. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, this is unsuited to an infobox. Such detail is best reported in a section in the body of the article summarising the territorial changes (within an aftermath section?). As such, it would be appropriate to omit the territorial changes parameter. The TOC will direct the reader to this section. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE specifically instructs this.

In conclusion, while the current version is possibly closer to being consistent with P&G, it is still some way from this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Added Belligerents

This edit would add Spanish Empire (until 1640), Kingdom of Kandy and Sultanate of Johor to the infobox. The addition of Sultanate of Johor is not supported by the body of the article - ie it fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There is nothing in the article to tell us why Sultanate of Johor is there. The involvement of Kingdom of Kandy is nuanced. It was initially a Dutch ally but then fought both sides. The addition of Spain is also nuanced. Spain and Portugal were united as the Iberian Union until 1640. Per the lead: Portuguese resentment at Spain, which was perceived as having prioritized its own colonies and neglected the defense of the Portuguese, the weaker member of the union, was a major contributing factor to Portugal shaking off Spanish rule in the Portuguese Restoration War. We also have the Eighty Years' War (c.1566 - 1648) and the War of the Portuguese Succession (1580 - 1583) occurring during the period of this conflict. The key fact is that this was a war between the Portuguese and the Dutch. That other parties may have been involved, either directly or indirectly, at various times is detail and nuance for which the infobox is unsuited (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) and best left to prose - the lead and/or the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you forgot to notify the editor: @VidarVN RobertJohnson35 (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ping VidarVN. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

My mistake if the edit does not match the guidelines, but the Kandyans, Johorese and Spanish were important allies of the Dutch and vice versa, for example the Johorese contributed to Cornelis de Jonge's siege of Malacca in 1606 and also in 1641, and the Kandyans though it is true that they broke alliance but after a treaty signed between both in 1649 and the Kandyans would again fight on the Dutch side in 1652. VidarVN (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your revert VidarVN. I can see why you might want to add these but I trust that my explanation of the prevailing P&G explains why we shouldn't. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)