I recently read the adventurous life of Jean Bart from the borderland of Dunkirk that was in French hands by the many wars of Louis XVI. It came from the Spanish Netherlands by a treaty in 1662, itself left over from the former Low Countries with the split off of the Dutch Republic after the Eighty Years' War, concluded in 1648 by the Peace of Westphalia.
I put the life of Jean Bart on the background of a Europe nearly constantly at war. Here the period of 1652-1714.
Starting with the first Anglo-Dutch war up to the end of the War of Spanish Succession.

It is a French survey, but after my reading of some two days of other sources, it is in my opinion a fair survey and not coloured by French bias.

https://www.connexionfrance.com/Mag/Culture/State-backed-French-pirate-who-became-royal-favourite
About the source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Connexion

Starting the read I was immediately struck by the following as I wanted to comment on "de Ruyter" as from Chatham fame...

From the site:
In 1666, France and the ‘Provinces-Unies’ (part of what is now Holland) were allied against England and it was natural that Dutch-speaking Jean Bart should enlist as a sailor on the Dutch vessel ‘Sept Provinces’ under the command of Michiel de Ruyter to fight the English.

Perhaps some British readers can't imagine the Dutch allied with the French against the English, but yes as mentioned above by the treaty of 1662 Louis was allied to the Dutch as for defence in case one of the two was agressed (it sounds all very familiar)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Dutch_War
Louis XIV however was very reluctant to have a war against the English together with the Dutch Republic as he had other aims in the Spanish Netherlands.
And he was also the uncle of the Dutch William, the future William III of Britain. And although William and the Dutch Orangists didn't openly were at war with the Republicans of de Witt, now the ruling Republican party without "stadholder", a leading function in the Dutch Republic that traditionally was for one of the house of Orange. (it would later end in the murder of the brothers de Witt). 
So in that second Anglo-Dutch war there was a link between Charles II (and "his" men) and the party of the Dutch William (the Orangists) and in that way both Louis XIV and Charles II dragged their feet...

It was the "voorbode" (forebode, precursor?) of the Nine years' war and the later War of Spanish Succession, which gradually deminished in my opinion the power of the monarchs in favour of parliament, prime ministers and indeed many times the power of economical related background "people".

But back to Jean Bart 1966 and de Ruyter of Chatham fame...
https://new.medway.gov.uk/news-and-events/bom/the-battle-and-its-legacy

As I read during the last two days about the Medway episode it depends on what source you read...for instance an English source...the tears come into your eyes, if you read about first the plague and then next year the Great London Fire and then that famous disaster of the fleet...1669...or a Dutch source: the hero de Ruyter...
But here some more "neutral" survey   ...from an American if I understqnd it well...and it gives an excellent review in my opinion of all what I read during the last two days...for instance the urban population of the Dutch Republic equal with Britain, although the population of that kingdom was five times higher!


PS: to be continued with the life of Jean Bart as a privateer and his role in the Nine Years War...
And yes a "privateer" with a "letter of marque" and not a "freebooter" ("kaper" and "vrijbuiter" in Dutch)
https://www.boatsnews.com/story/24823/freebooter-or-privateer-what-are-the-differences

PS: edited today the title of my thread, while it not completely covered the period of wars in Europe that I wanted to comment

As I saw Nielsen on board this afternoon I recalled to have seen even Denmark in a coalition against France.
Seeking it back I see now that it was during the War of Spanish Succession:
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2015/11/15/the-duke-of-marlborough-unleashed-at-the-battle-of-ramillies/
From the link:
In his will, Charles II had declared Philip of Anjou as his rightful heir. Thus on November 1, 1700, Philip was proclaimed Philip V and ascended the throne of Spain. England and Holland immediately prepared for war, as did Austria, because Leopold still maintained his claim over the Spanish Netherlands. By September 1701, the Grand Alliance against France had been formed. The Alliance consisted of Austria, England, Holland, Brandenburg-Prussia, Denmark, most of the German states, and later Portugal and eventually Savoy, which changed sides during the conflict. France’s allies were Spain, Mantua, Cologne, and later Bavaria.

Strictly seen it falls outside the time frame of the privateer career of Jean Bart. But as I see personnaly the War of Spanish Succession as a continuation! of the Nine Year's War I will comment it as the aftermath of the Nine Years' War.

And I seem to be not alone if I interpret it well...I came to this book with the sentence of continuation between the two wars on Google...
https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/ebk01:3710000001033191#reference-details
From the link:
This book aims to reinterpret current perceptions of the Dutch Forty Years War (1672-1713), usually regarded as a struggle against the expansionism of Louis XIV, birthing the European balance of power. Particular attention is given to recent international relations theory, through the examination of popular and official documents, as well as political and diplomatic correspondence. While focusing on the emergence and appropriation of Universal Monarchy and Balance of Power discourses, this book also provides counter discourses, allowing readers to explore the lively domestic debate on foreign policy along partisan lines.

And about: David Onnekink
https://www.uu.nl/staff/DMLOnnekink/Profile

I read in the same article that I mentioned before:
https://www.connexionfrance.com/Mag/Culture/State-backed-French-pirate-who-became-royal-favourite
"By 11, Jean Bart had also gone to sea, as a cabin boy on a smuggling vessel under the command of Jérôme Valbué."

And that was then in 1661. So I started to doubt about the Dunkirk of that time being French as I thought that it was in that time part of the Spanish Netherlands...
And I was even more confused, when I read about the joke of 25 June 1658 when Dunkirk in the morning was Spanish, at noon French and in the evening English...
Really a headache for geographers of that time to register state borders ...
And to make you a bit enlightened with all those rapid changes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Dunes_(1658)
Following his victory, Turenne took Dunkirk and advanced, capturing a series of towns and fortresses including Furnes, Dixmunde, Gravelines, Ypres and Oudenarde.^[30] The victory at the Battle of the Dunes and its consequences would lead to the end of ten years of war with the signing of Treaty of the Pyrenees. By this treaty France gained Roussillon and Perpignan, Thionville, Montmédy and other parts of Luxembourg, Artois and towns in Flanders, including Arras, Béthune and Gravelines, and a new border with Spain was fixed at the Pyrenees.^[31] The 1659 treaty also required the Spanish king to recognise and confirm all French gains in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.^[31]
The defeat of the Spanish relief force and the taking of Dunkirk ended the immediate prospect of a Royalist expedition to England. Dunkirk surrendered to French forces ten days after the battle on 24 June, and Cardinal Mazarin honoured the terms of the treaty with Oliver Cromwell and handed the port over to the Commonwealth.^[29] The campaign of the English contingent in Flanders did not end with the battle of the Dunes and the capture of Dunkirk. Part of the English contingent was left to garrison Dunkirk and Mardyke under the command of Sir William Lockhart, while the rest, under Sir Thomas Morgan, continued to serve with Turenne's army in the field.
While the French received all of Artois, England had eliminated the greatest Spanish privateering base^[32] with the result that merchant shipping losses were much reduced.^[33] Cromwell died two months after the battle and was succeeded by his son's protectorship, which ended nine months later, and the Commonwealth fell into confusion, whereupon Charles II returned to the throne in May 1660. Charles would sell Dunkirk back to the French in 1662 for £320,000. ^[34]

So my conclusion is that Jean Bart served then the English of Cromwell during the four years with Jérôme Valbué? 
And so it was only while Dunkirk now again French while sold to the French by Charles II for £ 320,000 and because of the alliance of France with the Dutch Republic that Jean Bart served with the Dutch admiral de Ruyter???
As the author of the article Samantha Davis says (the Potter actress?)...
"In 1666, France and the ‘Provinces-Unies’ (part of what is now Holland) were allied against England and it was natural that Dutch-speaking Jean Bart should enlist as a sailor on the Dutch vessel ‘Sept Provinces’ under the command of Michiel de Ruyter to fight the English."

PaulRyckier wrote:

By 11, Jean Bart had also gone to sea, as a cabin boy on a smuggling vessel under the command of Jérôme Valbué." ... And that was then in 1661 ... So my conclusion is that Jean Bart served then the English of Cromwell during the four years with Jérôme Valbué?   

I trust your smiley is ironic. Jérôme Valbué was by all accounts a notoriously brutal, although competent, smuggler, originally from Picardy, who smuggled Dutch goods from Vlissingen (which had been in the Seven Provinces since 1616 when England had withdrawn its garrison) to England and Ireland. The British Commonwealth's Navigation Act of 1651 distinguished between goods imported from European countries, which could be brought in either English ships or ships of the country of origin, and goods brought from Asia, Africa, or America, which could travel to England, Ireland, or any English colony, only in ships from England or the particular colony. It was therefore aimed principally against the Netherlands, England’s greatest commercial rivals, by restricting the importation other than by English ships, of commodities from Dutch overseas colonies: sugar, rice, molasses, tobacco, spices, indigo etc.

Frankly I doubt Valbué had loyalty to anyone other than himself. Jean Bart stayed with him for several years but being only an adolescent cabin boy his loyalties would likely have been entirely to Valbué. In 1666 Valbué was described as being a "pilote royale" operating out of the French port of Calais, but by then Jean Bart had also moved on, as had international relations between England, France, Spain and the Netherlands.

PaulRyckier wrote:

"In 1666, France and the ‘Provinces-Unies’ (part of what is now Holland) were allied against England and it was natural that Dutch-speaking Jean Bart should enlist as a sailor on the Dutch vessel ‘Sept Provinces’ under the command of Michiel de Ruyter to fight the English."

It is also likely that Bart, doubtless wanting to progress his career and see some action, chose to enlist into the Dutch navy rather than the French because Louis XIV was not at all keen on war against the English. Although the Franco-Dutch treaty had been signed in 1662, Louis considered an Anglo-Dutch war likely to obstruct his plans to acquire Habsburg territory in the Spanish Netherlands. In the summer of 1664 Louis had attempted to avert the threatened Anglo-Dutch war or, failing that, to confine it to Africa and America, but in the end his efforts to mediate an agreement failed and the war started in March 1665. However even as the war began Louis attempted to evade his obligation to the Dutch by strengthening the French embassy in London to begin negotiations for a settlement of the Anglo-Dutch conflict. The greater part of the French fleet was in the Mediterranean and though Louis ordered it into the Atlantic to join with French squadrons already there, when they finally arrived and the combined fleet was of a size to be effective, the war was essentially over.

Jean Bart probably realised that all the key naval action was going to be between the English and Dutch fleets, hence his decision to serve under de Ruyter. At that point in time, had Jean Bart opted to become a French sailor instead of Dutch, he'd likely have seen no action at all. As it was when in 1672 Louis XIV, now allied with England, declared war on the Netherlands, Bart was a sufficiently experienced officer to be given his first naval command, the French warship 'le Roi David'.

Meles meles wrote:

PaulRyckier wrote:

By 11, Jean Bart had also gone to sea, as a cabin boy on a smuggling vessel under the command of Jérôme Valbué." ... And that was then in 1661 ... So my conclusion is that Jean Bart served then the English of Cromwell during the four years with Jérôme Valbué?   

I trust your smiley is ironic. Jérôme Valbué was by all accounts a notoriously brutal, although competent, smuggler, originally from Picardy, who smuggled Dutch goods from Vlissingen (which had been in the Seven Provinces since 1616 when England had withdrawn its garrison) to England and Ireland. 

MM, "a notoriously brutal, although competent, smuggler"...
Of course you are right, but weren't they all of that "allooi" (in Dutch we use it as kind, sort cfr: "alloy" in English in metallurgy)
In fact it were all pirates, freebooters, who had received a letter of marque from a monarch to seek for booty for that monarch with a percentage for them and in the meantime serving that monarch for his political aims...in my opinion...


And many times these freebooters could gain substantial political goals for that monarch (or in the Dutch Republic case "stadtholder" (as William the Silent)
In fact with the conquest of "den Briel" the Dutch "privateers" (freebooters) acting from English harbours (and forbidden from Elisabeth I) had to seek for another harbour and found Den Briel at one of the arms of the Rhine estuarium near Rotterdam.
And so they were in fact the starting point for the later Dutch Republic...and if one thinks about it all thanks to Elisabeth I 

MM, in fact was my smiley for Jean Bart: "And that was then in 1661 ... So my conclusion is that Jean Bart served then the English of Cromwell" 


Reading today in a Belgian newspaper about Jaqueline de Bavière
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline,_Countess_of_Hainaut

as about the start of the Low Countries in Burgundy, the Seventeen Provinces by Philip the Good, I was struck again about the close relations between the countries around the Atlantic: England, the Low Countries, France and Spain...Austria was still at the outskirts in my opinion, only coming in with Maximilian's marriage politics:
"„Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube / Nam quae Mars aliis, dat tibi regna Venus.“ (Let others wage war, but thou, O happy Austria, marry; for those kingdoms which Mars gives to others, Venus gives to thee.).

And for instance as a Jean Bart you could during your life, live, and in the Spanish Netherlands, and in England, and in France

So in my opinion the core of Europe was in that time around the Atlantic: England, France, the Low Countries, Spain, Portugal, and later Sweden, Denmark...?

Meles meles wrote:

Jean Bart probably realised that all the key naval action was going to be between the English and Dutch fleets, hence his decision to serve under de Ruyter. At that point in time, had Jean Bart opted to become a French sailor instead of Dutch, he'd likely have seen no action at all. As it was when in 1672 Louis XIV, now allied with England, declared war on the Netherlands, Bart was a sufficiently experienced officer to be given his first naval command, the French warship 'le Roi David'.

 
MM, yes the Dutch "rampjaar" (disaster year) of 1672:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War
And yes as you said: " As it was when in 1672 Louis XIV, now allied with England, declared war on the Netherlands"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Dutch_War

And yes that tricky Charles II (from the wiki):
"In the 1670 Secret Treaty of Dover, Charles II of England agreed to support an attack by Louis XIV of France on the Dutch Republic. By doing so, Louis hoped to gain control of the Spanish Netherlands, while Charles sought to restore the damage to his prestige caused by the 1667 Raid on the Medway. Under the treaty, Charles also received secret payments which he hoped would make him financially independent of Parliament."

And as I already said after all these wars there was a decline of the monarch's power in favour of Parliament leading to a more decision making entry in politics of the country...as the entry later of William III (perhaps already prepared in the Dutch Republic for reckoning with the "Staten Generaal") and perhaps the same in France after the trio of Louis' leading with Louis XVI among others to the French Revolution?

PaulRyckier wrote:

MM, in fact was my smiley for Jean Bart: "And that was then in 1661 ... So my conclusion is that Jean Bart served then the English of Cromwell" 

But he didn't, Jean Bart never served England's interests. However (unless you are saying it "tongue-in-cheek") I think you might have misunderstood me, or I you.

In 1661 Dunkerque temporarily came under English control but I doubt its citizens, whether they were French-speaking or Dutch-speaking, would have ever considered themselves English. At the time Jean Bart was working as junior crewman on a smuggler's (Valbué's) ship, routinely carrying contraband goods direct from the Netherlands into England and Ireland, in direct contravention of Cromwell's Navigation Act of 1651, and which had recently been renenacted in 1660 following Charles II's restoration. As far as the English authorities were concerned Bart was simply a criminal and if he and his fellow crewmen had been caught, their vessel and its cargo would have been confiscated and they all might well have been hanged, either just for smuggling or indeed possibly for treason. The smuggling that Bart, Valbué and others (of whatever nationality), did, was not of a few luxury items hidden away to avoid import taxes, but was rather about shipping whole illegal cargoes in contravention of laws that were partly to penalise Dutch merchantile trade but were more specifically to support English merchant shipping so that it could function as a military reserve for the Royal Navy in time of war. Accordingly such smuggling was not just against trading laws but was seen as acting against the security of the state.

That in 1660 Cromwell's Commonwealth was replaced by Charles II's monarchy is irrelevant as the Navigation Act continued to apply, reaffirmed and unchanged (if anything the laws were tightened up) through the reigns of catholic James II, protestant and pro Dutch William and Mary, and then into the beginning of the 18th century under Queen Anne, simply because the Act served to bolster English merchantile trade. As I say, in the 1660s, at least to English eyes, Jean Bart was simply a criminal, possibly a treasonous one. Later he was seen as a successful commander in foreign employ, but one who certainly had no love for England: et vice versa.

Meles meles wrote:

In 1661 Dunkerque temporarily came under English control but I doubt its citizens, whether they were French-speaking or Dutch-speaking, would have ever considered themselves English.

This was in much the same way as the inhabitants of the Spanish Netherlands and later the Austrian Netherlands didn't consider themselves to be Spanish or Austrian. That said - there had been some in Cromwell's council of state such as Hugh Peters and Thomas Scott who had envisaged Dunkirk as being the new Calais and had hoped to extend English puritan influence in the Low Countries from there. In their view the creation of an 'English Netherlands' or a 'British Netherlands' would have dealt a permanent blow to both Spain and the Dutch republic, particularly considering that prince Charles was supported, resident and still active there. Peters and Scott were both deemed regicides by Charles and consequently they considered conflict with him to be literally to the death. And indeed this proved to be the case as they were both hanged drawn and quartered following the Restoration in 1660.

Any dream of an 'English Netherlands' to replace the Spanish Netherlands, however, was just that with Cromwell overruling any such project much preferring his Western Design in the New World. Consequently it would be Jamaica which became permanently English while Dunkirk would be offloaded at the earliest opportunity.

Meles meles wrote:

PaulRyckier wrote:

MM, in fact was my smiley for Jean Bart: "And that was then in 1661 ... So my conclusion is that Jean Bart served then the English of Cromwell" 

But he didn't, Jean Bart never served England's interests. However (unless you are saying it "tongue-in-cheek") I think you might have misunderstood me, or I you.

 
Yes MM it was a bit "tongue-in-cheek", only to emphasize that you as privateer could have many consecutive masters and in fact it didn't matter for Jean Bart if Dunkirk was Spanish, French or English as in my opinion the privateer as the freebooter and their crew worked only for the booty. As I understood it, their counterparts on the official "His Majesty's Ship" were many times "recruted" in the British harbours against their will (so I learned in English novels)? And as such they were less motivated than their "buccaneer" equivalents? I will check it, but it seems that the same methods weren't used in the Dutch fleet and that they  subscribed on free will and for the money, as it was much higher than in the British fleet or later the French fleet?

Paul, I am very gratified to realise that your remarks were indeed said "tongue-in-cheek" and accordingly you did really understand ... and so I apologise for doubting your understanding of English.

Vizzer wrote:

Meles meles wrote:

In 1661 Dunkerque temporarily came under English control but I doubt its citizens, whether they were French-speaking or Dutch-speaking, would have ever considered themselves English.

This was in much the same way as the inhabitants of the Spanish Netherlands and later the Austrian Netherlands didn't consider themselves to be Spanish or Austrian. That said - there had been some in Cromwell's council of state such as Hugh Peters and Thomas Scott who had envisaged Dunkirk as being the new Calais and had hoped to extend English puritan influence in the Low Countries from there. In their view the creation of an 'English Netherlands' or a 'British Netherlands' would have dealt a permanent blow to both Spain and the Dutch republic, particularly considering that prince Charles was supported, resident and still active there. Peters and Scott were both deemed regicides by Charles and consequently they considered conflict with him to be literally to the death. And indeed this proved to be the case as they were both hanged drawn and quartered following the Restoration in 1660.

Any dream of an 'English Netherlands' to replace the Spanish Netherlands, however, was just that with Cromwell overruling any such project much preferring his Western Design in the New World. Consequently it would be Jamaica which became permanently English while Dunkirk would be offloaded at the earliest opportunity.

Yes Vizzer, you are right, as also with your example of the Spanish Netherlands and later the Austrian Netherlands.
The inhabitants considered still themselves as the Southern Netherlands after the split off due to the Eighty Years' War of the Dutch Republic (the Seven Provinces from the earlier 17 ones)

And even as I had some controversial discussions on a French messageboard "Belgium only born in 1831", these Southern Netherlands grew to unity from that time on in my opinion.
As in the Austrian Netherlands, the Ostend Company in Ostend was an alternative for the closing of the Scheldt by the Republic and making Antwerp redundant. And it was seen by the whole Southern Netherlands as beneficial for "their" country. But due to economic and political opposition from competing countries it became abolished.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ostend-Company

As I see it now and indeed as MM said, Jean Bart was only a jumped-up freebooter in the service of Louis XIV with a letter of marque, but, although he was many times useful in the wider playing field of the king, he was never a key player in that game.

In fact in my opinion was Louis XIV (1638-1714) the key player in the Europe of the time period I mentioned (1652-1714). But as I now make up the balance of his reign, as he said in the service of France, and after all the wars and all the deaths, what had he achieved for the territorial expansion of "his" France and for the border security?
From the wiki:



I am not sure if these borderchanges were that crucial for the security of France, as for instance the corridor of nowadays Artois and the nowadays Belgium, a corridor in the North of Belgium of a plain leading to the open country of the later emerging German Empire, but also vice versa?

And thanks to his interferences with Charles II and later his brother James II he was among others the cause that William of Orange could lead a coalition against him and even in 1688 succeeded in the Glorius Revolution...

And from now on would the Dutch Republic as attachment of the UK, only play a minor role in the world and even go into decline? And the UK would emerge as the worldleader up to the intermezzo of Napoleon and after his defeat, play even a bigger role in the world of the 19th century?

PaulRyckier wrote:

As I see it now and indeed as MM said, Jean Bart was only a jumped-up freebooter in the service of Louis XIV with a letter of marque, but, although he was many times useful in the wider playing field of the king, he was never a key player in that game.

Maybe so, but he has always been well regarded in the French Navy with numerous warships from the late 18th century onwards being named after him, such as the last French battleship, le Jean Bart, launched in 1940 and here passing through the Suez Canal after the war:



... or the current holder of the name, an anti-aircraft frigate, soon to be sold to the Greek Navy:



In this regard Jean Bart is similar to another French privateer, Robert Surcouf of Saint-Malo, who was very successful against British ships during the Napoleonic Wars and who also has had several warships named after him, such as the huge WW2 submarine, Surcouf:



... and the current holder of the name, a thoroughly modern a La Fayette–class frigate:



Also, knowing that you, Paul, were interested in the building of the replica full-rigged, 32-gun Napoleonic frigate, l'Hermione (I seem to recall you'd visited the shipyard during her construction) you might be interested that there is a project to build a replica of a 1670, 84-gun, ship-of-the-line, to be named Jean Bart, but I don't know how far things have progressed.

However I'm digressing from European wars of the late 17th century.

Meles meles wrote:

In this regard Jean Bart is similar to another French privateer, Robert Surcouf of Saint-Malo, who was very successful against British ships during the Napoleonic Wars and who also has had several warships named after him, such as the huge WW2 submarine, Surcouf:

The story of the submarine Surcouf is a gripping one. The largest submarine in the world when built, it was poo-pooed by know-alls in the higher echelons of the UK navy who believed that submarines (if needed at all) should be mini. These were the same know-alls who were also contemptuous of aircraft carriers and their potential.
 
It was telling, for example, that in the summer of 1940 when Surcouf was scheduled for ‘refit’ at Devonport, the shipyard workers found that they had very little to do and that the boat’s fittings were generally superior to anything they were used to working with in the Royal Navy. This was later confirmed when a British officer was put on board as liaison and who enviously reported back on the salubrious living conditions afforded those onboard.

Surcouf’s arrival in Plymouth, however, had sadly resulted in bloodshed with 3 British casualties and 1 French casualty being sustained when Royal Naval forces boarded the boat. This ironically contrasted with Surcouf’s later participation in the bloodless coup on St Pierre & Miquelon, whereby Gaullist forces took over the islands from the Pétainist administration there on Christmas Eve 1941. This occurreed only 3 weeks after America had entered the war following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Whereas Hawaii was 5,000 miles away from Washington DC in the Pacific Ocean, St Pierre & Miquelon (off the south coast of Newfoundland) was only 500 miles from the United States’ Atlantic seaboard. This was deemed too close for comfort by some in the American government and prompted a bizarre diplomatic spat in which the American secretary of state Cordell Hull issued a formal complaint to the Free French leader Charles de Gaulle on the grounds that the United States had concluded an agreement with the Vichy French leader Philippe Pétain that French territories in the Americas would remain neutral during the conflict.

This, however, would prove to be an academic point. Only 8 weeks later, Surcouf disappeared under mysterious circumstances off the coast of Panama.

Meles meles wrote:

PaulRyckier wrote:

As I see it now and indeed as MM said, Jean Bart was only a jumped-up freebooter in the service of Louis XIV with a letter of marque, but, although he was many times useful in the wider playing field of the king, he was never a key player in that game.

Maybe so, but he has always been well regarded in the French Navy with numerous warships from the late 18th century onwards being named after him...
...

Also, knowing that you were interested in the building of the replica full-rigged, 32-gun Napoleonic frigate, Hermione, you might be interested that there is a project to build a replica of a 1670, 84-gun, ship-of-the-line, to be named Jean Bart, but I don't know how far things have progressed.

However I'm digressing from European wars of the late 17th century.

Thanks MM for the links in relation with Jean Bart and the French Navy...and yes the French aren't perhaps worser than the rest of the countries I visited in relation with jingoism...only the "Belgians" with their short history of nearly two centuries have perhaps less of that jingoism...while you have always that Germanic- Romance language border overthere ...yes I know, Switzerland, but there you have the cantons...perhaps in Belgium: four "cantons": a Dutch speaking, a French speaking, a German speaking and a bilingual Brussels DC and at the same time Brussels, capital of Europe ...
But yes now, disgressing from European wars of the late 17th century

And yes the "Hermione" with which Lafayette helped the colonists during the American revolution...it was one of the very highlights of my many journeys...
https://www.amazon.com/Hermione-Lafayettes-Warship-American-Revolution/dp/2916231358
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2aygtw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdTLOpGH8yA

Rochefort is also an interesting city as for instance the making of ropes in the royal...
Gravelines and Dunkerque is not that far, but I am not sure when the "Jean Bart" will be finished...if started in 2002...
https://espacetourville.com/
but they have a restaurant...
Thanks nevertheless, MM, while with all that Jean Bart stuff at Dunkirk I planned a visit when France is open again...
Kind regards from Paul.

Vizzer wrote:

 
Surcouf’s arrival in Plymouth, however, had sadly resulted in bloodshed with 3 British casualties and 1 French casualty being sustained when Royal Naval forces boarded the boat. This ironically contrasted with Surcouf’s later participation in the bloodless coup on St Pierre & Miquelon, whereby Gaullist forces took over the islands from the Pétainist administration there on Christmas Eve 1941. This occurreed only 3 weeks after America had entered the war following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Whereas Hawaii was 5,000 miles away from Washington DC in the Pacific Ocean, St Pierre & Miquelon (off the south coast of Newfoundland) was only 500 miles from the United States’ Atlantic seaboard. This was deemed too close for comfort by some in the American government and prompted a bizarre diplomatic spat in which the American secretary of state Cordell Hull issued a formal complaint to the Free French leader Charles de Gaulle on the grounds that the United States had concluded an agreement with the Vichy French leader Philippe Pétain that French territories in the Americas would remain neutral during the conflict.

This, however, would prove to be an academic point. Only 8 weeks later, Surcouf disappeared under mysterious circumstances off the coast of Panama.

 
Vizzer, thank you for the story of the "Surcouf".
And I learned already from fishermen in Heist/Blankenberge that for instance after done three times the crossing of the Channel with British sailors during the Dunkirk evacuation that they were still held for some days in a British harbour to be sure that they were no spions...and now I learned about the "Surcouf" that I knew that it escaped to the British waters, but not that there were  deaths during the surrender...I just checked it in full...
And yes St Pierre and Micquelon I have researched in depth for a French forum...but I didn't know about the Surcouf...
Kind regards, Paul.

PaulRyckier wrote:

In fact in my opinion was Louis XIV (1638-1714) the key player in the Europe of the time period I mentioned (1652-1714). But as I now make up the balance of his reign, as he said in the service of France, and after all the wars and all the deaths, what had he achieved for the territorial expansion of "his" France and for the border security?
From the wiki:



I am not sure if these border changes were that crucial for the security of France, as for instance the corridor of nowadays Artois and the nowadays Belgium, a corridor in the North of Belgium of a plain leading to the open country of the later emerging German Empire, but also vice versa?

These territorial acquisitions were not that significant in themselves but I see them as all part of France's long-term aim: to establish full control within France's "natural defensive borders". This was a concept often referred to by the Republican Government after the 1789 Revolution, but it had been influencing French foreign policy since before Louis XIV.

With the independent Duchy of Brittany's unification with the French crown in 1532, and English surrender of Calais to France in 1558, the country had secured the entire western boundary along defensible coastline, all the way from the Channel to the Bay of Biscay. The southern Franco-Spanish frontier followed the defensible line of the Pyrénées mountain chain, except at the extreme south-eastern end where it followed the line of the lower Corbières hills to link to the Mediterranean coastline. No army had even invaded France across the high Pyrénées but France had been invaded several times through the passes of the south-eastern end of the Pyrénées. Hence Louis XIV's desire (accomplished by the 1659 Treaty of the Pyrénées) to gain possession of Perpignan and the Roussillon plain and so to establish the Franco-Spanish frontier along the Pyrénées mountains for its entire length: the few critical passes that control passage through the southern Pyrénées could then be readily fortified from the French side.

To the east the frontier with Italy similarly followed the line of the Maritime Alps and was already easily defensible: the acquisition of the small mountain territory Barcelonette just made that sector even more secure. The natural mountain frontier between France and Switzerland was impenetrable along the high Alpine bit, but further north it lay in the lower plains to the west of the Jura mountains, hence Louis's desire to obtain the territory of Franche-Comté around Besançon and so push the French border up to the line of the Jura mountains (and perhaps as a very long-sighted, dastardly French plan, to control Pricsilla's access to her favourite cheese). Continuing northwards it had long been expressed that the natural barrier of the river Rhine was the desirable frontier: hence Louis wanting to gain Strasbourg,which sits on the west bank of the Rhine and commands a major crossing over it into Germany. At the time Strasbourg was rather out on a limb and somewhat isolated from the rest of France by the Lorraine region, but I guess that Louis thought that, since a French Strasbourg was part of the ultimate plan, it should be acquired immediately and that consolidating its position by further territorial acquisitions could be done later (as happened when the Duchy of Lorraine was annexed Louis XV in 1766).

The final segment of France's frontiers in the 17th century was the flat, low-lying, easily-traversed plains to the north-east between France and the Spanish Netherlands, the Seven Provinces and the northern German states. This was the route by which France had been invaded numerous times. Again I feel that the grand plan had been to eventually push the frontier up to the natural defensive line of the River Rhine, although this would require the acquisition of Flanders, Wallonia, Hainault and Brabant, ie all of what is now Belgium; the provinces of Limburg and Zeeland in the Netherlands; and numerous territories and cities in what are now the modern German states of Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westphalia. By the Treaty of the Pyrénées (1659) and the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (1668), Louis gained Flandres, Artois, Dunkerque, Lille, Arras, Béthune, Luxembourg and some other small territories; none hugely significant on their own, but all a step in the right direction towards the Rhine. But Louis XIV's successors never did gain control of all this territory and it only briefly fell under French control with Napoleon's conquests, which far over-spilled the original plan for a France secure within its natural boundaries, before it was all lost in 1815 and France was largely back within Louis XIV's borders. This 'failure' to ever push this northern frontier up to the banks of the Rhine thus leaving this sector the weakest link in France's defences, was clearly demonstrated by it being route by which France was successfully invaded in 1870, 1914 and 1940. France today sits secure within the "natural borders" established by Louis XIV, although still with the exception of this northern frontier which follows no natural defensive line. But as France and all its northern and eastern neighbours are now diplomatically aligned by membership of the EU I doubt this still matters.

MM, thank you so much for this reaction about France's "natural borders" and the many in depth surveys of the specific regions.
As about the open space at the end of the Pyrénées I didn't knew about.

And I think that you are right about the desire of the consecutive French kings for the Rhine river as a natural border. But with the coming of modern times even the Rhine and the Meuse weren't defensible borders anymore as we have seen in 1940 in the Belgian Ardennes. A bit as the medieval castles with the coming of the cannons and gunpowder. But all that territory of the former Middle Francia of the Treaty of Verdun (843) was always a difficulty between the Germanic Eastern side and the French western side and has not brought that much peace for the people of Alsace-Lorraine/Elssas-Lothringen.

I agree that Louis XIV gained the nowadays French Flanders, Artois and so on, but a defensible border in an open space with the weaponry of that time was not easy in my opinion. I don't know if it was therefore that Louis XV gave the Austrian Netherlands back to Austria after he had conquered completely the territory of the grosso modo nowadays Belgium? ...

Thanks again MM for the detailed survey and new insights that it brought to me. Kind regards, Paul.

PaulRyckier wrote:

I agree that Louis XIV gained the nowadays French Flanders, Artois and so on, but a defensible border in an open space with the weaponry of that time was not easy in my opinion. I don't know if it was therefore that Louis XV gave the Austrian Netherlands back to Austria after he had conquered completely the territory of the grosso modo nowadays Belgium? ...

 
MM, rethinking about my question that I was asking about the defensible open space of the Flemish coastal plain extending in the Low Countries and the German plain, I sought to answer my own question. And found now that Louis XV was not held by tactics and weaponry, but rather for political reasons and money problems nothing to do with "local" plains and all that in this war of Austrian Succession, really the emptieth European war, even extending allover the then known world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Austrian_Succession
And as in the War of Spanish succession the British were seeking for the balance of power on the European continent, when they in 1714 nearly changed sides as they preferred a Frenchman on the Spanish throne above an Austrian Habsburg, now did the same in the peace of Aachen in 1748 (hmm 100 years after the peace of Westphalia ?)



PS: I was happy to read once again the whole European struggle of that period. And saw now that the English even sided with the Russians on a moment and also with the upcoming Prussia. A forebode of the alliance against Napoleon at Waterloo?
And for the addicted one that I am it read all nearly as a novel   ...
Kind regards, Paul.

Regarding the situation of Roussillon, there are some interesting frontier fortifications that reflect the changes brought about by the 1659 Treaty of the Pyrénées.

Until the mid 17th century the County of Roussillon was part of the Kingdom of Aragon and so the old frontier between France and Aragon deviated northwards from the Pyrénées mountains to follow the Corbières hills as it approached the Mediterranean sea. The Corbières are not a high or wide mountain range but they are very rocky karst with little vegetation and almost no surface water. The coastal plain between these barren, inhospitable hills and the saltmarshes and lagoons bordering the sea is very narrow; mostly just a couple of kilometres wide. Nowadays, as in the past, all major traffic routes are squeezed into this narrow strip of land, so the A9 motorway and TGV rail line goes this way, as in antiquity did the Via Domitia. About 5km south of the old Franco/Aragonese frontier the narrow coastal plain opens up and all roads debouche onto the open Roussillon plain with Perpignan about 15kms away. Here, just as the way opens up, is the Chateau de Salses sitting like a cork in the neck of a bottle.


The Chateau de Salses from the A9 autoroute, looking towards the Salses lagoon about 1km away and with the seaside resort of Port-Bacarès in the distance on the narrow sandy spit that separates the lagoon from the Mediterranean Sea. The chateau, despite being on low-lying land adjacent to a salty lagoon, was built over a powerful freshwater spring, which amply provided for the garrison of hundreds of men and horses.

In 1469 Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella of Castile and so the two kingdoms became united forming the basis for a united Spain. Then in 1492 the two monarchs jointly completed the Reconquista with the fall of Granada, the last moorish possession. France's southern neighbour could now afford to be much more assertive and so Ferdinand ordered the construction of a fortress to defend this key route from France into Catalonia. The Chateau de Salses (Castell de Salses, in Catalan) was constructed between 1497 et 1503 by the Spanish architect Francisco Ramiro Lopes and was very advanced for its time.


The Chateau de Salses looking inland with the A9 autoroute passing close to the castle walls.

If anyone's interested in the innovative details of the fortress there's a lot of information here: Pyrénées Orientales Patrimonie - Chateau de Salses (in French) and I can thoroughly recommend a visit.

Anyway, moving on from the Chateau de Salses: with the 1659 Treaty of the Pyrénées, Roussillon was ceeded to France and the Franco-Spanish border was established as running along the Pyrénées for the entire length between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.



There was only one major route southwards from Perpignan into Spain and that was via a narrow, steep pass through the mountains at La Perthuis, with the road overlooked by a small castle, the castrum de Bellaguarda, originally constructed by Peter III, King of Aragon, in about 1280 (when Roussillon was independent of Aragon, being ruled by Peter's brother, James II, King of Majorca, who was allied with Philippe III of France against his brother). By the Treaty of the Pyrénées in 1659 the pass and castle were transferred to France along with the rest of Roussillon. In 1674 the castle was attacked and occupied by Spanish troops for several months and so Louis XIV, noting the fort's less than impregnable defences, promptly ordered his chief military engineer, Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban (1633-1707), to completely rebuild the fort. The work started in 1678 and was largely complete by 1686. The Forteresse de Bellegarde, largely unchanged today despite being continually garrisoned until the end of WW1, is a superb example of a 17th century bastion fortification or star fort and is again well worth a visit.


The Forteresse de Bellegarde with Spain beyond. The A9 autoroute is to the left and the new High Speed Rail line between Perpignan and Barcelona is the orangey streak at top-centre (the line passes through the mountains in an 8km long tunnel which goes almost directly under the fort).

The Perthuis/Bellegarde pass was always the main route between SE France and Spain, however there are a couple of other minor passes over the mountains at the heads of the Têt and Tech river valleys (see my map above). Accordingly Louis XIV ordered Vauban to construct defences here too, again in the same distinctive 'star fort' design.


The fort of Mont Louis.


The fortified town of Villefranche de Conflent in the Têt valley.


The fort above the town of Prats de Mollo at the end of the Tech valley.

Thank you so much MM for this fantastic survey. If I wasn't that old and with a partner that I have to negociate with, I would take the TGV Bruges-Avignon-Montpellier end this summer (after covid)...
I read it all, word for word.

Was now thinking where the border lays between nowedays France and nowedays Spain. And as an aside...many years ago at the factory a rather assertive young German technical adviser visiting reguralry our factory and with whom I had many times interesting conversations not always about our work, said once in the middle of the summer that he the next day would part for the Pyrénées for skiing. And as it was that exceptional, I am still sure that it was in Spain.
My question have you also ski resorts open in summertime at the French side of the Pyrénées?

Kind regards, Paul.

Louis XIV also had Vauban busy securing his newly acquired territories in the north and east. As in Roussillon, in the Jura mountains Vauban could utilise the already difficult terrain of the "natural border", such as at Besançon:



But as we've already discussed, in the north of France the land is generally flat and so Vauban - freed from the need to accommodate any steep slopes and cliffs - could fully express his defensive ideas, such at Gravelines and Lille:





PS: I think the ski season in the Pyrénées is usually from the beginning of December to about mid April, probably a bit shorter in the resorts towards the southern end. In general the resorts on the French, north-facing, side of the mountains probably stay open a bit longer than those in Spain.

Thanks for the Vauban fortifications as in the Jura Mountains and indeed in the flat land of the Low Countries Vauban had the free rein and could use his typical groundplan that you can recognize all over the world as from his style...

"such as Gravelines"...and due to the North sea flood of 1953 they built the "Delta Werken"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953
in defence not against the armies but against the sea (as in Grevelingen)



MM wrote:
"PS: I think the ski season in the Pyrénées is usually from the beginning of December to about mid April, probably a bit shorter in the resorts towards the southern end. In general the resorts on the French, north-facing, side of the mountains probably stay open a bit longer than those in Spain."

MM, perhaps it could have been a day in April too. I don't exactly remember, but here in Belgium it was quite hot and bright sun that day I think, and the sheer thinking that one could ski in Spain in that hot Spain of that date, was a big surprise for me...

Kind regards, Paul.