Talk:Treaty of Utrecht
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on April 11, 2008, April 11, 2009, and April 11, 2010.|
Balance of Power
It says in the article that the concept of Balance of Power first appeared in the Treaty of Utrecht, but this is not the case. The concept is first mentioned in Daniel Defoe's April 19, 1709 Review. I don't feel as though I should be the one to change the article as I'm not even a registered user, but I thought that I should point this out and that someone with more experience in these matters should go about it.
The Balance of Power was actually first mentioned in 1701 by Charles Davenant in his "Essays on the Balance of Power"
- In studies of International Relations, the Treaty of Utrecht is usually mentioned as significant because it was seen afterwards as an important precedent establishing the importance of the balance of power, a paradigm that would continue to be explicitly important for several centuries and arguably remains so today. I have not seen it claimed that it is in any way the 'first mention' of the balance of power, and the article should be changed to reflect that, as it appears prior mentions have been found. 22.214.171.124 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added these assertions to the article with my recent edits and have removed the tag. Ordinarily a tag is added in an article after discussion has failed, not at the outset. --Wetman 07:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
All these claims are just plain incorrect, neither Davenant nor Defoe invented the idea of the balance of power or introduced it to England for the first time. The notion has its origins in Italy and was most likely first introduced to England via the translation of a history book of the Florentine historian Guicciardini in the late 16th century. For the details, see here Vagt, Alfred, "The Balance of Power: Growth of an Idea," World Politics. Vol. I, No. 1, October. 1948 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I read that the treaty left Spain out of the whale and cod fisheries off Newfoundland. When Spanish mariners returned in the 1920s, they had to learn from the Bretons. --Error 01:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
De vous, chez vous, sans vous / Dutch influence
The last paragraph says that the importance and influence of the treaty for the Dutch was small. This seems incorrect to me. For the Dutch, the influence was huge: it marked the end of the era in which the Dutch were the rulers of the oceans. The proverbial saying De vous, chez vous, sans vous is rather explained by the fact that the Dutch, as many other powers, could do nothing else than agree to what the British and the French had agreed. I, not being a registered user, neither being a historian, neither being a native English speaker, suppose that someone changes the last paragraph to something like the following:
The Dutch, not willing to be ruled out by an arrangement between England and France, accepted the French proposal to negotiate in Utrecht, but the negotiations proved to be a fait accompli anyway, which led to the proverbial saying De vous, chez vous, sans vous, meaning: about you, in your surroundings, but without you.----188.8.131.52 15:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how this section is relevant to the article.
- A completely recast paragraph concerning Dutch desires (the fortifications in the south are the ones I'm aware of) and the results for the Dutch in the final Treaty would be a much-to-be- desired contribution from you. --Wetman 07:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
treaty vs. treaties
- It's illogical to say that a treaty "was a series". A writer must decide what relation the treaty bears to the series: it embodied a series, it epitomized a series, it included a series— if it was itself something other than the sum of the series. I opted for "comprised a series" as the most colorless choice. In the aggregate, such small matters keep the picture sharp. --Wetman 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thomas Wentworth, Lord Strafford has been stricken by someone from the list of commissioners for the British. I believe this was an error and am returning his name: see article Wentworth Castle; Strafford was even hauled before a committee of Parliament for his part in the treaty, which the Whigs considered not advantageous enough. --Wetman (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone replace this word with the proper English word. I'm not sure what the proper replacement for this word would be, as I cannot find a definition for it. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Negotiations paragraph it says: '...but the Emperor refused to do so until he was assured that these preliminaries were not binding.' In writing in this manner, it seemed to me, an Emperor or some Empire was already mentioned previously. Yet there is no mention of either. I looked at the wiki pages of the 'Participants', but again found no emperor. It wasn't until I read the page about the War itself, that I was able to discern that it must have been a Holy Roman Emperor. But still, I wasn't sure who, so after searching through the Holy Roman Empire and Holy Roman Emperors page, I was able to determine that it must have been Charles VI, as it happened during his reign. Upon returning to this page, and in the following section Charles VI is finally mentioned. In short: perhaps it would be clearer to clarify which emperor it is. Vince (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be interesting if the Treaty text was included in the article. See: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/utrecht.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)