Talk:Dano-Dutch colonial conflict on the Gold Coast

Not sure if this should be called a war

There was no declaration of war and no peace treaty. And I haven't seen any English or Dutch historians call this the Dano-Dutch War either DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

This is, as i see it most definetly a war. I have not found any direct declaration of war, but acording to I Solkongens Skygge, by Lars Christensen, page 66, there were a treaty signed.

More concretely, Denmark could draw support from France in disputes with others countries. This was true in relation to the Netherlands, where Sehested towards the end of his embassy asked Louis XIV to support Denmark in the conflicts over trade in Guinea. The French king then also ordered the ambassador in The Hague, d'Estrades, to in the king's name do everything to support the Danish demands. However, it was of little use: the disputes remained first (partially) resolved with the Danish-Dutch treaty of 1666 and the Peace of Breda 1667. (Translated from Danish)}

Also can i hear your arguements, for how this is an mixed result? And also the "other" territorial changes? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To me it is not clear why 1665 should be seen as the end of the conflict? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the dates should be changed to 1666, since that is when a treaty on the issue was signed, but the siege of Cape Corso ended on 3 May 1664, which I think is the last military act between the Danes and the Dutch, so it could also be changed to that. Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Robinvp11 @MWAK @Admiral Fisker

I pinged Robin and MWAK because they have contributed a lot to pages on the Anglo-Dutch Wars and Admiral Fisker because he is very familliar with Danish sources. (1 happens to be a Brit, 1 a Dutchman and 1 Dane)

Curious what you guys think of this page. The information is valuable, but I am not sure about the page name and some other things. According to @Tinkaer1991 this was an Anglo-Danish victory, but I am not sure if that makes sense since the Second Anglo-Dutch War was going on by the time of the Danish-Dutch Treaty. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

A basic misunderstanding seems to be that the treaties of 1666 and 1667 somehow concluded a peace between the Republic and Denmark. These states had not been formally at war; in 1666 Denmark entered the war on the Dutch side. There were always hostilities between outposts of the various trade companies.--MWAK (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

What did the Danish-Dutch treaty of 1666 then conclude? According to Lars Christensen, who has a Ph.d in History, the treaty was to solve the disputes of "trade in Guinea"

Even though I still see this as a de facto war, im open to changing the name to Dano-Dutch Conflict or something in those lines, if that is more correct. - Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This can not be considered a war. No state of war existed between Denmark and the Netherlands, and neither Danish nor Dutch policy was, luckily, decided by small garrisons in Africa. This was rather a series of skirmishes between colonial outposts, which wasn't uncommon. Such outposts often had a very free hand, as the capitals of their respective countries were months away, meaning that oversight was very loose, and that orders could not arrive with any form of expediency. Lars Christensen himself cites this as the reason for these minor encounters between allies in far-off lands:

"With two small forts and the Glückstadt Company behind them, it seemed like the groundwork for good business beneficial to private investors and the King's reputation had been laid. The problems were, however, enormous. The Dutch and the English were fighting aggressively for the same territories without any great consideration for whether or not there was peace or war between their respective states in Europe. In the Maritime Powers [England and the Netherlands] it was also private companies that held the right to trade in the colonies, and their somewhat hard-handed capitalism regularly ran counter to the interests of their native states. It was one of the last places were the states still were not strong enough to take control, including the control of the monopoly on violence."

- Frederik III - Fra Afmagt til Enevælde, s. 547 (2023)

With regards to the 1666 treaty: such a treaty to solve a dispute or a conflict would not mean that a war had ever existed. Border and colonial disputes were not extremely uncommon, and treaties were at times signed to solve such disputes. However, nowhere does Lars Christensen state that the treaty was signed to solve the disputes. Instead, he writes that the treaty did solve the dispute alongside the 1667 Treaty of Breda. Denmark's possession of the Guinean trading posts was confirmed at Breda (see the same page in Christensen's book mentioned above), and the 1666 treaty was instead just an alliance treaty between Denmark and the Netherlands, wherein the question of the Guinean ports was only briefly touched upon - it was, you might say, in this regard only settled preliminarily:

"Negotiations relating to the Guinean skirmishes and the remaining subsidies had only been completely preliminary, but these questions would presumably not cause any difficulties...

With regards to the dispute in Guinea between the Danish Africa Company and the Dutch West India Company, the Dutch commissionaires agreed to a draft treaty proposed by Klingenberg...

- Danmark-Norges Traktater 1523-1750 - Sjette Bind, s. 78 & 85 (1923)

There was no state of war, nor any conclusion of peace. Hence why this series of skirmishes cannot be considered a war. Admiral Fisker (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I humbly take my statement back then, but this still arises the question to the page name. Do you have any suggestions? Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

'Dano-Dutch Colonial Conflict on the Gold Coast', perhaps? Admiral Fisker (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s too long. Maybe call it “Dano-Dutch colonial conflict” since it was the only colonial conflict they fought 85.203.152.246 (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you propose the should be then? E4t5s.new (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)