Talk:Attack on Amsterdam (1650)

Prestige and power?

What resources substantiate these supposed motivations of prestige and power for William II? When you check the paintings and drawings made of him, he was constantly being depicted as something he wasn’t and there isn’t even a clear consensus on what he did look like, because they either made him look like the painter or weak or ugly and deranged in some cases.

Amsterdam has a history of lawlessness and being our main port supported also the slave trade. What if he merely meant to support the democratically established rule of law as felt by all people? What if he sought to counteract colonialism, maybe stating that you can’t impose your governance on anyone?

There are many what ifs and I remember reading that he prevented war with England by speaking to the people in person, notifying them the reasons for war were false and as such inexistent. The Internet seems to be heavily moderated. I’m pretty sure I also read he didn’t die at 24, a corpse was placed in his bed, he fled the palace to evade the many attempts on his life, and the people when informed he was dead replied that he wasn’t.

Where did I read this? Where did those resources go? Emilehobo (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• No historian seriously disputes the fact that the army was the main source of the stadtholder's power, and that the size of the army corresponds to the amount of power.
• It's interesting that you seem to know what William II looked like while also claiming that there is no consensus what he looked like.
• Amsterdam was no more lawless than the House of Orange. Slavery was a legalised institution that virtually everyone in society participated in or tolerated, until abolitionist movements started to appear in the 18th century. To suppose this was his reason for attacking Amsterdam is laughable. If he had any legitimate reasons, we'd probably find them in his Eleven Articles against Amsterdam pamphlet.
• The 'rule of law' in the 1650s Dutch Republic was not 'democratically established' in any modern sense of those words, but by a mixture of force of arms and treaties between nobility, clergy and urban merchant elites. Applying these notions here is anachronistic, claiming that these were 'felt by all people' is populistic, and supposing that the person who staged a coup was doing it because 'you can’t impose your governance on anyone' is ironic. What if scenarios are for discussion forums, not for a talk page, unless you can cite reliable sources.
• Look dude, this is not the place for your conspiracy theories. Just because you think you read something somewhere doesn't make it true. We are not under any obligation to provide the sources for the wacky ideas you seem to have; you need to provide reliable sources yourself if you want to be taken seriously. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)