Comments by "Lynott Parris" (@DenUitvreter) on "How The Netherlands Briefly Conquered England | Alternate History" video.

@alexh2947 The English ran, hid and defected. William invited himself and asked the lords to invite him to gain popular support. It was William's propaganda war more than anything, he was a show man. He paraded his massive fleet near the coast for everybody to see, his soldiers were under strict orders to behave well and never ever use the word invasion or conquest, he brought a regiment of black soldiers in whtite turbans to impress as a global empire. He himself rode a white horse (biblical symbolism) in shiny armour and held speaches on protestantism will promising religious tolerance. And he brought a printing press, just to make sure the message of liberation was even spread further. The Dutch Republic had already been a nation state for a century and had an 80-years war, not between kings but between the people of a republic and the Spanish Empire. The Dutch peope were extremely literate and the country extremely well connected by canals with tugboats, they had free press and printed more than half of Europe's books, they were highly experienced in propaganda. Papers, leaflets, satire, books, paintings, cartoons, songs, flags, battle reports, carrots, you name it. They used all that experience to prevent a catholic England that would pose another threat to the Dutch Republic and create a stable protestant ally much more lilke the Dutch Republic. And to great effect, helped by chauvinism and British propaganda in the centuries to follow, the British still believe what was Dutch propaganda.
14
@kamanashiskar9203 The UK went to rule the world because it took over most of what gave the Dutch such an advantage throughout the 17th century, modern capitalism (William founded the Bank of England), social mobility, all kinds freedoms and combined that with their medieval desire to rule which the Dutch never cared much for. With a population 4 times the size of the Dutch Republic the Dutch couldn't stay richer than the British and it was through money mostly that the small Dutch Republic could compete with far bigger countries. Nontheless, Napoleon got extremely lucky invading the Dutch Republic. Foreign invaders could take a lot of the country as they had done before, but Holland was protected by the Hollandic waterline, a system of inundation that would make wading armies sitting ducks and was too shallow for ships. Housing in the area had to be of wood so they could be burned down to clear the shooting lines. With Holland and Zeeland not taken, the navy would be able to retalliate and shipping would feed the people. There was an extreme cold and the Dutch couldn't keep up breaking the ice, so the French troops marched over the ice into Holland. So until the aircraft technology of WWII the Netherlands was pretty capable of not beeing taken, rather than defending all of it's borders. One the reasons it managed to stay neutral during WW1. But the Dutch Republic had been in decline since the 18th century and was left empoverished after Napoleon was beaten, the Dutch did more than half of all Europe's trade in the 17th century and had some pretty proto-industrialization, neither was going to last as a huge advantage because competitors catch up and couldn't be matched in size. The UK was calling the shots at that time with France beaten and Germany not unified. It was an ally but not really a good one. The Dutch gave the UK it's constitutional monarchy and the favor was returned by forcing an absolute king upon the Dutch. Luckily that was corrected within decades into a constitutional monarchy, but The Netherlands is still stuck with a royal house that is way too royal for it's republican past.
8
@kamanashiskar9203 Old fashioned kings with their divine right not but let's not forget that England was still stuck in the Middle Ages while the Dutch Republic was a modern capitalist nation with an appointed civil servant as leader no matter his heriditary title of prince, he wasn't prince of the Netherlands but of Orange in France. His Dutch title was that of the office of Stadtholder and that wasn't hereditary. He didn't have to accept Parliament rule, English soldiers weren't allowed near London and Dutch troops had it occupied and fully under control. With the constitutional monarchy he introduced England became a lot like the Dutch Republic in it's political structure. We should understand William's motives from that modern perspective. Not only had the Dutch Republic's survival been hanging by a thread only 15 years before, the future of protestantism and religious tolerance was at stake too. William was busy with far more important things than that alpha male king of the hill stuff and personal glory.
7
@mbos14 You should tell him it wasn't even a Dutch royal but he invaded England in the capacity of an appointed civil servant. Appearently the pride is older than the empire, since it prompted Stadtholder Willem III to go to such greath length and effort to not make it look like the invasion it was. Who knows how messy and unstable it would have gotten if he had been triumphant and gloating?
2
@mbos14 One could also wonder what the world would look like if the catholic absolute monarchs had succeeded in rooting out protestantism when the Dutch had failed. Or what would have become of France without a Dutch republic showing what a country could do very will without a king. A republic where the enlightenment philosophers could either work in freedom or have their books printed. The 17th century Dutch Republic probably influenced the 18th century more thant the 17th century.
1