Talk:Battle of Vågen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Date of the battle, August 2 or 12?[edit]

Some references seem to set the date of the battle to August 12, rather than August 2. Indeed the first article Wikipedia had on this subject (and which I just found) was entitled Action of 12 August 1665. Does anyone know for certian what is the right date? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dates of this period can be given in Old Style or New Style.--MWAK 14:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
As stated above, this appears to be a discrepancy between Old Style and New Style calendar usage. Ten days would be the correct offset for the year 1665. Accordingly then, the battle took place August 2 (Old Style) or August 12 (New Style).--Landnámsmann 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The idiocy of article ratings[edit]

Not really a discussion, just a comment on the "ratings" given by participants in the myriad of "projects" out there. This article has just been relegated from "class B" to "start-class" in the "Military history Wikiproject". <angry rant>And that just serves as an example, as far as I'm concerned, of how meaningless these project-ratings are. As far as I can see, this is a good article (and, no, I haven't contributed to it). But still, it is branded "start-class", with no explanation, no details about what should be done to improve the article, what is lacking or wrong. Nothing at all, just the word "start-class". How does this contribute to improving wikipedia? As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't. It only serves as discouragement to real contributors, who write or contribute to articles, and are then slapped in the face with a "start-class". What's the point? </angry rant>--Barend (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why no one else has responded to this earlier, however, I would firstly like to say to Barend (not sure if you are still around, but hopefully you are) that I understand where the above point of view comes from. You are right in pointing out some of the failings of the ratings system. The person who rated the article should have provided some comments as to why it does not meet the Military History Project B class criteria. I have read over the article and have updated the checklist now, however, unfortunately it is still a Start class article according to the criteria.
This is unfortunate because in my opinion it is a well written article with very good content and supporting materials, etc. Normally it would be a C class article, however, for some reason Military History Project does not support the use of C-class and hence, therefore it is unfortunately a Start class article. (Don't ask me why, as I feel it should use C-class).
There is only one reason why it is not a B class under the Military History Project, and that is because it lacks in line citations. For a B class in the Military History project, an article needs at least one in line citation per paragraph (more if multiple sources were used, or if there are multiple assertions that could be challenged). If these could be added, it would quite easily be a B class article. Indeed it could even be nominated for a Good Article (GA) review if someone were willing to invest the time that would require. (In anyone is interested - please go to WP:GAN and follow the prompts).
To Barend I say, please do not be discouraged from contributing because of the ratings system. It is designed to make people try to improve their contributions. However, as you say above it does not work if the system is used arbitarily and no feedback is provided. Incidentally, if you are ever wanting more involved feedback, you can put a military history article up for peer review by adding it to the list at WP:MHPR.
If you wish to nominate a military history article for re-assessment, please add it to the list at WP:MHA. Anyway, I hope this helps bring some understanding to the process. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Golden lion - not Golden lyon[edit]

Have changed the name of one of the ships in the english flotilla from Golden lyon to Golden lion, there is also an existing article that match well with the number of guns listed, the HMS Lion (1557). Ulflarsen (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Old English?[edit]

"and that which would for ever have begarred the Hollander"

Anyone know what the word 'begarred' meant in Old English? All I could find was something along the lines of 'covered with filth'. Would really like to see this clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a simple spelling mistake (by me, not Pepys' I fear); it should of course have been "beggared".--MWAK (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Value of the golden guilder in 1665[edit]

Article states, that "The Dutch had paid the equivalence of 36 tons of gold, or 3,648,490 guilders, to buy this cargo." - it means, that the golden guilder was worth of 9,867 grams (or so) of pure gold. How about the source which could prove this statement? From my side I can show completely different numbers (two sources):

1. The basic unit of currency in the Dutch Republic was the guilder, denoted by fl (florin), which, in 1638, had a gold content of 0.77 grams (0.027 ounces).

2. Intrinsic value of the guilder in grammes op fine gold and silver (in grammes):

year gold silver 1560 1.515 18.242 1570 1.515 17.412 1580 1.178 13.681 1590 1.000 11.608 1600 0.927 11.487 1650 0.704 10.333 1700 0.624 10.333

Earlier the golden guilder was probably bigger (from "Money and exchange rates in 1632" by Francis Turner):

"The gold coin was the Venetian ducat, introduced in 1284, contained just over 3.5 grams of gold and was the first international coin. It was so successful that it was minted under different names by many European nations. In northern Europe it was called the Guilder or Gulden and it had a variety of other names such as the Florentine or Rhenish Florin, the Forint (Hungary) or the Scudo (Milan)."

Another source shows us a little bit different story, but the gold amount in coin is the same - 3.5 grams:

"Money in the 17th century Netherlands

Let us first trace the guilder back to its origin: Florence. The "fiorino d'oro" of the Republic of Florence was the first European gold coin struck in sufficient quantities to play a significant commercial role in Europe. It was first struck in 1252. It had 3.5 grams of nominally pure gold (0.1125 troy ounce). The design of the original Florentine florins was the distinctive fleur-de-lis "flore" badge of the city on one side and on the other a standing, facing figure, of St. John the Baptist wearing a hair shirt. This "flore" coin was called a "florin" or a "golden florin". As many Florentine banks were international super companies with branches across Europe, the florin quickly became the dominant trade coin of Western Europe for large scale transactions, replacing silver bars in multiples of the mark (a weight unit equal to eight troy ounces), or a pound sterling silver. In the fourteenth century, a hundred and fifty European states and local coin issuing authorities made their own copies of the florin. However, on other countries' florins, first the inscriptions were changed (from "Florentia" around the fleur, and the name of the saint on the other side), then local heraldic devices were substituted for the fleur de lis.

The Netherlands In 1378, under Count Willem V (not related to Willem of Orange) the Dutch made their own version of the Florence golden florin (in Dutch: "gulden florijn"). Those two words were too long for everyday use. The coin was just called a gulden (guilder) and in the written language for a certain amount, say a 100 guilders, was written as Fl 100. (the FL stood for Florin). All very similar to a 100 dollars, written $100. In 1521 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (in Latin Carolus) introduced the golden Carolus gulden (guilder) and in 1543 the silver Carolus gulden. This gulden was in use till 1680. Therefore, the names used in literature for money in the Netherlands in the 16th and 17th century -florijn, florin, gulden, guilder, Carolus gulden or guilder, Car. guilder- are all the same unit."

So how about the golden guilder worth more than 9 grams of gold? Could anybody explain? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, both the "36 tons of gold" and the "3,648,490 guilders" estimates are from the VOC itself. Indeed, a nine gram gold Dutch guilder of this period did not exist. And indeed, the Dutch seventeenth century guilder was, in its various forms, a silver coin. And 3,648,490 guilders had about the equivalent value of 36 tonnes of silver. Nevertheless, this is not some simple mix-up of the two metals; such estimates with comparable amounts of gold are common in Dutch sources of this time. However, it could of course be that the decimal mark of the period was not understood by modern publishers. Perhaps someone with a lot more knowledge of the subject might clear this up.--MWAK (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of guns per ship[edit]

on German page it is stated that Revenge had 58 guns, on this page here 60! Haven´t compared the others...What is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)