A discussion forum for history enthusiasts everywhere
 
HomeHome  Recent ActivityRecent Activity  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  SearchSearch  

Share | 
 

 Real seapower states make only war to save their trade?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4226
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? Empty
PostSubject: Real seapower states make only war to save their trade?   Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? EmptyMon 23 Mar 2020, 19:09

I mentioned in the Daily Diaries forum to LiR that I read during vacation:

Seapower States. Maritime Culture, Continental Empires and the Conflict That Made the Modern World.
https://www.amazon.com/Seapower-States-Maritime-Continental-Conflict/dp/0300230044
by Andrew Lambert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lambert
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/29/book-review-seapower-states-by-andrew-lambert/

I was very interested in the book and learnt a lot, but still have as usual some critical questions. I hope nordmann will join me and put his masterly knowledge behind my attempt to understand the book.

As I understand it Andrew Lambert makes a difference between real seapowers and landward looking powers with an hegemonic nearly dictatorial guiding looking for continental empires.

So the five real seapowers he describes are Athens, Carthago, Venice, the Dutch Republic and England.

Athens declined, again as I understand it, when it sought for territorial hegemony forgetting its trade protection as its first priority?

Carthago was a real seapower, with all the cultural characterisitic, that Andrew Lambert sees as different from Rome etc, the landpowers, even if they had a big fleet.

Venice had the same characteristics as the two before and declined only while it as a relative small power against the combination of the landpowers. Up to then it was able to make a judged alliance once with one and once with another to play the several against each other.
Some forebode of the English policy on the continent? Or was that just keeping the balance of power on the continent?

And yes I recognize in Venice also the history of the Dutch Republic, the fourth example in the book.
I discussed with LiR the brutal murder (Temperance if you speak about the picture you just mentioned) The brothers DeWitt were really mutilated by the mobs.
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-A-15

Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? XpXPLkC2KrVlXRetoHj5rfkUYGFE1gMGHtGQviGzFRyZ_3ZSdHu4cKDT6dNzb2dhzqQ0LRHdltoX3T3LGE7ffywXmw=s0

But as I perhaps already explained to LiR it was the last stage and hardly needed by the Stadholder William (the later William III of Britain (or was it still England, Vizzer?))

It was the end of the struggle between the Orange dynasty looking for an old fashioned king related power and the stadtholderless period of DeWitt...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Stadtholderless_period

And as I understand it that is the core of the Andrew Lambert thesis:
A real "seapower" has another more liberal structure based on capitalism and merchant's class, where the priority is trade and the gaining of money and protecting the trade routes to keep the trade going and not interested in territorial landgrab.

As Venice, it was the victim of the big landpowers. The greedy Louis XIV, who was not content with that merchant nation, that damaged his own mercantile Colbert trade. In the "year of disaster" of 1672, the Republic was confronted with the agression of the Louis XIV France. With its long landborder and its small land army it was not withstand to the big French armies. and that was the chance for the future King William III of England to play his role and come on the foreground supported by the rather moblike Orangists against the proponents of the seapower and the undogmatic Republic: the brothers DeWitt.
And indeed they had I think underestimated the Louis XIV with a complete other cultural view and neglected the land army. The question is, could they have done both? Seemingly well, as the future William III did it, with creating the new model Dutch army.
I remember from the discussions with Tim of Aclea that to be honest William III had indeed a lot of merits, perhaps not that much for Holland anymore after 1688, as he preferred to act for England. But nevertheless on the period before he was the leading figurehead to protect the Republic.

I will in an apart message comment the fifth seapower England and the in my eyes controversial comments of Andrew Lambert about the role of the US in the decline of Britain. (again if I understood it well. I will reread the chapter).

Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
Green George
Consulatus
Green George

Posts : 381
Join date : 2018-10-19

Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? Empty
PostSubject: Re: Real seapower states make only war to save their trade?   Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? EmptyMon 23 Mar 2020, 21:47

Paul : I suggest that real seapowers also seek to prevent rivals controlling the choke points their tade passes through, and perhaps those places that threaten their trade ()and their ports). It was long a tenet of British (and earlier of English) policy that no hostile power should be allowed to hold the Scheldt estuary. My own suspicion is that rather than "protecting gallant little Belgium" was the main rationale for entering WWI.
Back to top Go down
Meles meles
Censura
Meles meles

Posts : 4157
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? Empty
PostSubject: Re: Real seapower states make only war to save their trade?   Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? EmptyTue 24 Mar 2020, 10:12

And further to George's comment above, it could well be argued that British support for the actual creation of the Belgian state in the first place (in 1831) was also in direct pursuance of this same policy. Belgium on its creation was made a non-aligned state - non-aligned that is other than with Britain, since Belgium's first king, Leopold I, had been a British citizen and originally married to Princess Charlotte, second in line to the British throne after her father the Prince Regent. The formation of Belgium thereby created a British-aligned buffer between France and the Netherlands - thereby blocking any territorial aims those two states might have had over the region - whilst at the same time setting them against each other in their hopes and desires.
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4226
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? Empty
PostSubject: Re: Real seapower states make only war to save their trade?   Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? EmptyTue 24 Mar 2020, 15:56

@Green George wrote:
Paul : I suggest that real seapowers also seek to prevent rivals controlling the choke points their tade passes through, and perhaps those places that threaten their trade ()and their ports). It was long a tenet of British (and earlier of English) policy that no hostile power should be allowed to hold the Scheldt estuary. My own suspicion is that rather than "protecting gallant little Belgium" was the main rationale for entering WWI.
 
Of course every seapower do that in the same way , even the Phoenicians did it, as example Carthago.

https://www.the-map-as-history.com/European-colonization-19th-20th-centuries/British-Empire-construction

And yes the opening of the Scheldt after the seccession of Belgium from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, was quite a dispute for the great powers, where Britain of course played the main role, especially against France and yes a lot of years later again against the German Empire.
The discussion about the toll from Belgium to the Netherlands, was also an item on which the English wanted to keep a close eye.
See from page 251 on:
http://www.vliz.be/nl/open-marien-archief?module=ref&refid=200920&printversion=1&dropIMIStitle=1
 
I see that on the map of the "chokepoints" of the British Empire Antwerp  is not mentioned, but I think in the short youtube, it are more the "colonial" chokepoints that are pointed too. Antwerp was also important for Britain" but Belgium was part of "civilized" countries and in the Sixties (19th C) Belgium was the fourth most powerfull economy of the world. Perhaps had the Brits let it to the French it owuld have been worser? Wink
 
I am perhaps now precomment my next message that I promised. But I think Andrew Lambert is too old-fashioned, when he calls China (if I understood it well?) not a seapower or whatever, as I think that the "connotation" of seapower is passed in the nowadays world.
China has all the characteristics of the former British empire with its maritime strongpoints allover the world and indeed his "silk route" overland. But in my opinion in a world of global trading, the oceans are also "territory" (for instance with the 200 miles zone"). And so China is again the empire of the Middle in the global "territory" "surface" of the world as is the US, Japan, or Bresil or India. or Europe if it once! united...

https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/083964-021-A/le-dessous-des-cartes-mer-de-chine-bataille-navale/
I see each week this interesting quarter of an hour on ARTE.

Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4226
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? Empty
PostSubject: Re: Real seapower states make only war to save their trade?   Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? EmptyTue 24 Mar 2020, 20:02

@Meles meles wrote:
And further to George's comment above, it could well be argued that British support for the actual creation of the Belgian state in the first place (in 1831) was also in direct pursuance of this same policy. Belgium on its creation was made a non-aligned state - non-aligned that is other than with Britain, since Belgium's first king, Leopold I, had been a British citizen and originally married to Princess Charlotte, second in line to the British throne after her father the Prince Regent. The formation of Belgium thereby created a British-aligned buffer between France and the Netherlands - thereby blocking any territorial aims those two states might have had over the region - whilst at the same time setting them against each other in their hopes and desires.
 
Indeed MM, Britain was on every moment anxious for the influence of France, even if Napoleon had lost the Waterloo battle and be defeated after his 100 days.

It seems as I read it that many Englishman afterwards had still high esteem for him. After all it hadn't been a Hitler. And, and that is perhaps also a prove of what Andrew Lambert calls a seapower, Britain did need  but rest on the continent. If France was contained,still a big power even after the defeat, it would be quiet on the European front.
 
I still wonder, why none of the great powers saw the danger of the Prussian kingdom? Half of the population of the later Kaiserreich of 1871 and militaristic.
With the unification it was nearly only Prussia, which started via Wilhelm II the way to WWI.

And yes the Brits were right. Continuously that defeated France was lurking in the diplomatic arena via the talented and sly Talleyrand to gain again a bit of the former glory. Even the new poor little Belgium was the victim of all that. If it wasn't due to Britain, which as I said was rightly afraid of France.

First the sly Talleyrand  attempted to lurr the great powers into a division of the new Belgium, with some fat chunks for both Britain and Prussia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talleyrand_partition_plan_for_Belgium

And yes that's the tricky wikipedia
"Consequences:
The Talleyrand plan was rejected by European powers, who ultimately approved a unified Belgian state. However, the Talleyrand plan was one of several ideas exploring the concept of partitioning Belgium, which is considered by some as simply a "buffer state" between France and other European nations. Modern proposals include the specific separation of the areas inhabited mainly by French-speakers (Walloons) from those inhabited mainly by (Flemish) Dutch-speakers; but one difficulty in this proposal is that francophone Brussels lies within Flanders, not Wallonia."
 
I see that it is written in American English, but perhaps it can be written by an Englishman writing for an American public?
And yes there is nowadays, you don't believe it, an association for the independence of Wallonia with which I had already trouble. "groupuscules" (I hope that the interested one don' t read my prose  Wink )  as those for a ratachemment with France (here in the Flemish region, we have also such "groupuscules" as the movement for the incorporation of French-Flanders (now in France and in the time "picked" by Louis XIV  Wink  )
So far for the above paragraph of the wiki  Wink   ...



And yes, once our little Belgium secured by Britain, that francophile Belgian Congress asked for a French duke, the son of the French king. Again Britain had to interfere.

https://www.beyond-history.com/en/english-beyond-history-blog/article/2017/07/21/why-a-german-became-the-first-king-of-the-belgians/


"Afterwards the son of the new French king Louis-Philippe I, Louis, Duke of Nemours, was considered but wouldn’t do either. Great Britain as well as the Belgian prime minister were against it, because they feared that France might take over Belgium."
The Brits pressed Louis, Duke of Nemours...

"A much better fit was Leopold, prince of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (from 1826 onwards prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) who was born in Coburg on 16 December 1790. The widower of the British heiress to the throne had family as well as friendly contacts not only to Great Britain but also Russia and France. Furthermore, as a protestant he was able to act as a counterbalance to the Catholic Church. He was asked to be King of Greece in 1830, but declined in favor of the Belgian crown."

Yes that Léopold! Prince of Saxe Coburg Gotha. That pragmatic and turning coats if it fitted, perhaps an example avant-la lettre of the later Belgium.
Colourful figurehead...
In the circle of Napoléon, Courted Napoléon's sister and when Napoléon was not pleased, he had some family linked I think to Russia, while he then fought with the Russians against Napoléon. Uncle of Queen Victoria, after the death of the future queen, his wife, he was a bit of a nuissance for the Brits there in London. And costed a lot of money to the British taxpayer and at the end he got a bit in the way of the British Court. They proposed him first Greece, but the clever Léopold was, when they proposed it, of course more seduced by the potential of Belgium (then making a take off) with that other "kazakkendraaier" (turncoat?) the British Cockerill, first for his profits with Napoleon, then seamless in 1815 with the new king William and after 1830 in Verviers turning to the new Belgian government.

MM, of course this is an aside, but I think nordmann is already used to it. And you started  Wink Wink or was it GG  Wink ...

Kind regards from Paul.
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4226
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? Empty
PostSubject: Re: Real seapower states make only war to save their trade?   Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? EmptyFri 27 Mar 2020, 18:50

And further to the fifth example of seapower from the book of Andrew Lambert...

My take and it can differ from what Andrew meant...

5: England

Start: Henry VIII free from the European system and the Catholic Church power above that system.
Henry got money from the confiscation of the abbeys and all that...
A new class of merchants based on maritime trade and sollicitors emerged linked to him for fear to lose their status, if the European based Catholic elite came again in power.
And that gave birth to a seapower culture.

During the Elizabeth time there was conflict between the City, which had to provide for the protective marine and the more autocratic Elizabeth. 
Perhaps one can make a comparison with the Dutch Republic between the Orangist Protestant mob and the more universal minded and less dogmatic merchants' class?
See the book of "Wout Troost" "William III
https://www.amazon.com/William-III-Stadholder-King-Political-Biography/dp/0754650715

Under Cromwell the City funded the marine, but asked in return the protection for its merchants on sea.
And from Charled II up to Jacobus II there was a struggle between the monarch and the parliament.  And behind that parliament the City and the merchants, which didn't want to give in if the seatrade was not protected.
With the Dutch William III it changed, as he was perhaps already accustomed to that kind of circumstances as he was used to it in the Dutch Republic.
And so had William III the money and the fleet to fight the absolutist king Louis XIV.  And he transferred a lot of knowledge from Amsterdam to London.
See the book of "Lisa Jardine" "Going Dutch"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Jardine
https://www.amazon.com/Going-Dutch-England-Plundered-Hollands/dp/0060774096

I still think that if the brothers De Witt had lived in Britain with its insular character and not open to invasion as Holland on its landborders on nearly each side and with a bit of bigger population as Britain, it would haven't had the year of disaster of 1672,
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/rijksstudio/timeline-dutch-history/1672-disaster-year
they wouldn't have been vilifiled by the Orangist press.
If you see that even the continental French empire of Napoléon, couldn't bring the British seapower on its knees...

Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
PaulRyckier

Posts : 4226
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? Empty
PostSubject: Re: Real seapower states make only war to save their trade?   Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? EmptyMon 30 Mar 2020, 15:58

Further on V: England.

The US was not the same as the UK seapower country. Their model of the politicians was more fuelled by the example of the Roman Republic and an immaginated Republican France and after 1871 by the German Empire even culturally and qua organisation.

But in England, was the upcoming more common based democracy, not that much interested in the seapower and their profits, as the City was before, together with the new elite, born from merchants and smootly introduced to a new kind of aristocratic oligarchy.
And yes the power that were tried to promote the myth of the seapower among the common plebs and even some of the elite too and influence them by all kind of cultural propaganda.

From the point of view of seapower strategy it was a mlstake to intervene too much in continental conflicts And before WWI they never did it, as even with Napoleon's Continental System against a military superpower.
And now as they did it and at the end won, it was nevertheless a blow to their global seapower. And contrary to the Dutch seapower they lost their position not to another seapower as the Dutch to the English, but to another "continentall" power that the US was.

So far thinking along the same line as the author (my description is my own and don't fit always exactly the author's book), but now I am further a bit confused as it is all now new to me.

What Andrew says:
The culprit was Wilson, trying to frame the naval power of Britain at the Paris Peace Conference. Wilson had the German "militarism" broken and would now break the British "navalism"...
But Lloyd George reacted and Wilson gave in...hence the League of Nations to not let lose Wilson face...
And to be sure the 1922 Washington naval treaty to avoid a worldwide competition.

But then I am even more confused, as Andrew goes further in the Thirties in the vein as if the US was on the way to try to break the power of the last seapower???

Will comment that in a further message and hope that every member of the band here will pull for once at the same string...

Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? Empty
PostSubject: Re: Real seapower states make only war to save their trade?   Real seapower states make only war to save their trade? Empty

Back to top Go down
 

Real seapower states make only war to save their trade?

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Res Historica History Forum :: The history of people ... :: War and Conflict-