Talk:Raid on the Medway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remembered from school[edit]

Pepys: My god, the Devil shits Dutchmen..."

Poem

"When a loud ill wind is heard,
from the devils hairy horn,
an Englishman he knows the sound
of a Dutchman being born!"

Anon.

The sources are not easy to be found. Did Pepys write this in 1672? Did anyone claim the little poem?

Robert Prummel 01:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is from Pepys' entry of 19 July 1667; but he didn't make this exclamation himself: the words are those of the Surveyor of the Ships William Batten:
One tells me that, by letter from Holland, the people there are made to believe that our condition in England is such as they may have whatever they will ask; and that so they are mighty high, and despise us, or a peace with us; and there is too much reason for them to do so. The Dutch fleete are in great squadrons everywhere still about Harwich, and were lately at Portsmouth; and the last letters say at Plymouth, and now gone to Dartmouth to destroy our Streights' fleete lately got in thither; but God knows whether they can do it any hurt, or no, but it was pretty news come the other day so fast, of the Dutch fleets being in so many places, that Sir W. Batten at table cried, "By God," says he, "I think the Devil shits Dutchmen."--MWAK (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation?[edit]

In the text on Terschelling it says that the Raid on the Medway was a retaliatory expedition after "Sir" Robert Holmes had gone a bit overboard and burned 150 merchant ships as well as the town of West-Terschelling to the ground in Holmes's Bonfire. There is no mention of this in this article. Could anyone check if this is true (and then add it). Afasmit 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. P5 ref name="Pepys" /The Dutch Raid on the Medway, Samuel Pepys, 1667 /ref added as link to prevent duplication.ClemRutter 09:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chain[edit]

There are lots of references to "the chain", but at no point is it introduced. From what I gather it was literally a metal chain, rather than a chain of things, but beyond that I can tell nothing. Is having chains across rivers a frequent maritime occurrence? How big was the chain? How long had it been there? danno 19:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was in the age of sail common to protect harbours by booms or chains. Of course the phenomenon can't be fully treated within the context of this article, but I'll try to add some detail in the text.--MWAK (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two captured ships[edit]

The rear board (stern) of one of the two ships, The HMS Royal Charles, is still on display in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam as a war trophy. I renember looking at it when, as a boy, I visited the museum. Peter Horn User talk 16:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so it is. Peter Horn User talk 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

User:ClemRutter removed my {{refimprove}} tag, but this article is sorely lacking in references. There are huge swaths of text without any citations whatsoever that I don't see how it can be "disputed". "The Raid" has two footnotes, none of the Samuel Pepys quotes are cited, and both "The Dutch withdraw" and "Aftermath" have just one cite each. Thus, I'm restoring the tag. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There basically are only two books used as reference: "Rodger, N.A.M. (2004), The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain 1649—1815, Penguin Group" and "Age Scheffer, Roemruchte jaren van onze vloot, Baarn 1966". But there are plenty of online sources. Eg:
Can these and other websites be used or do we have to wait for someone who has read one or both mentioned books to add inline references? SpeakFree (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, my friend I am not disputing that more inline references are needed, that is blindingly obvious. I am disputing that spraying around {{refimprove}} tags is constructive. It is pure courtesy to expand the reasoning on the talk page. Checking the history, tells you who is active on the article- reading the article would tell you that there are few notable sources available- and at this point it would be more helpful to actually start adding the inlines so your name appears in the history! I deleted your tag to highlight the problem. The tag you used is helpful where an article is being put together rapidly by a large number of inexperienced editors- here it is just aggravating- that is why I dispute its value.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me tell what I'm doing: Every day I update the appropriate subpage of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. This takes me anywhere between 30 minutes to 3 hours. I skim a lot of articles to do this. I don't have time to read each article carefully and put {{cn}} tags in the appropriate places. So yes, I do drive-by maintenance tag applications to highlight the immediate problem(s) I see. This serves the additional purpose of alerting any other editor who might be checking out potential SA candidates that this one is ineligible. So why you might feel offended/annoyed that "your" article got tagged, those maintenance tags are indeed useful for other editors. Thus, rather than simply remove the tags, fix the problems that the tags describe. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was accurate in highlighting the problem. Please advise us all how adding 2 references in 2007 counts as ownership! You really must read the history before making silly assumptions.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

The battle was between 19 and 24 June, not between 9 and 14 June!! Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 21:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wjb.nu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=1:laatste-nieuws&id=88:onthulling-qde-slag-op-de-medwayq&Itemid=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Targaryen (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC) http://www.defensie.nl/marine/actueel/nieuws/2009/11/04/46138758/Onthulling_De_slag_op_de_Medway[reply]

It;s a mess all the dates should be checked and converted to the current date system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.103.207 (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no such thing as an absolute date; this is a matter of convention. In general it is best — at least for the day of the month — to apply the date system in use at a certain time and place. Otherwise we would have to indicate that Julius Ceasar was murdered at 25 March, which would be a bit awkward to say the least. Also this makes a reference to contemporary literature a lot easier: e.g. we are citing Pepys' diary which naturally conforms to indicating Julian dates but would have to be separately explained when using Gregorian dates. Of course the Dutch in 1667 officially used Gregorian dates and this has to be made clear.--MWAK (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note[edit]

The piece from Military Affairs titled "The Dutch invasion of England: 1667" is in the public domain. It can be accessed here. So if anyone wants to incorporate text from it, it's allowed per WP:PD (with care). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference, from BBC: Battle of Medway: The English defeat that's largely forgotten. Onanoff (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raid on the Medway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raid_on_the_Medway&oldid=1208346052"