Amsterdam, the Rome of the early modern era - Page 3 - Historum

**jeroenrottgering** · June 5th, 2012, 04:52 PM

I admit my mistake (not many do that

). I agree Amsterdam was the Athens of it's time. But I think no other European cities either could claim this title then.

**irishcrusader95** · June 5th, 2012, 05:05 PM

it rose fast because the dutch were smart enough to set up a large trading empire before the other larger states could start. unfortunately when they wanted there own trade empire they saw that they had to knock the dutch off their pedestal. i have heard as well that when Peter the great of russia was visiting Amsterdam he studied a lot how it was build over a marsh and this formed a lot of his thinking on howe St. Petersburg was to be constructed. he also studied a lot how dutch ships were build and even worked in the docks to personally see how they were constructed.

Bart Dale · June 5th, 2012, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering

Amsterdam (and Holland in general) was admired for it's freedom and envied for his wealth. Many wars were fought to break the spirit of the Dutch and to crack their economic domination, but all failed. Only at the second half of the 18th century and 19th century London began to bypass the position of Amsterdam as the centre of trade.

European travellers once arriving were amazed how wealthy these people were and how free. Social differences only existed on a very small levels and even the poor had it relatively good.

Do you support my bold statement that we can call Amsterdam the Rome of the Early modern Era. The place to be sort of speaking, such as Rome was during the Ancient Era?

No, Rome is not a good comparison. If you want to compare Amsterdam to any ancient city, then I think classical Athens would what you should compare Amsterdam to. I am sorry, but Amsterdam was never the largest city in Europe like London or Paris, nor were the Dutch the greatest land power of Europe. While they had a powerful navy, England could match them, and they did not dominate on the seas the way Rome did.

Now Athens, on the other hand, you might make a case for. Athens was a powerful, rich city, but not politically dominating the same way Rome was. And Athens was also an intellectual and artistic center. You picked the wrong city for comparison.

**bartieboy** · June 5th, 2012, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Dale

No, Rome is not a good comparison. If you want to compare Amsterdam to any ancient city, then I think classical Athens would what you should compare Amsterdam to. I am sorry, but Amsterdam was never the largest city in Europe like London or Paris, nor were the Dutch the greatest land power of Europe. While they had a powerful navy, England could match them, and they did not dominate on the seas the way Rome did.

Now Athens, on the other hand, you might make a case for. Athens was a powerful, rich city, but not politically dominating the same way Rome was. And Athens was also an intellectual and artistic center. You picked the wrong city for comparison.

England was not always equal to the provinces, for quite a long period the dutch were clearly superior

**jeroenrottgering** · June 6th, 2012, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bartieboy

England was not always equal to the provinces, for quite a long period the dutch were clearly superior

Agreed

**jeroenrottgering** · June 6th, 2012, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Dale

No, Rome is not a good comparison. If you want to compare Amsterdam to any ancient city, then I think classical Athens would what you should compare Amsterdam to. I am sorry, but Amsterdam was never the largest city in Europe like London or Paris, nor were the Dutch the greatest land power of Europe. While they had a powerful navy, England could match them, and they did not dominate on the seas the way Rome did.

Now Athens, on the other hand, you might make a case for. Athens was a powerful, rich city, but not politically dominating the same way Rome was. And Athens was also an intellectual and artistic center. You picked the wrong city for comparison.

Also I think you underestimate the Dutch army during the 17th and early 18th century. They fenced off the vast Spanish Empire, drived the French out in 1672 and contributed greatly in the war of the Spanish succesion and the war of Austrian succesion.

**bartieboy** · June 6th, 2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering

Also I think you underestimate the Dutch army during the 17th and early 18th century. They fenced off the vast Spanish Empire, drived the French out in 1672 and contributed greatly in the war of the Spanish succesion and the war of Austrian succesion.

However the Dutch didn't do those things alone. There were always allies who provided significant help

**Frank81** · June 6th, 2012, 03:59 PM

Dutch fought the war of 1672 alone for a big deal. And they fought it against the most powerful land army and the second most powerful navy of Europe.

jeroenrottgering is right in many points: Dutch had a highly regarded land army for many years. In fact, Mauritius accomplished the deepest and most productive military reforms of the age.

Dutch Navy was far more important than any kind of navy that Rome had on the seas. Again, the closer paralel were the Athenians and their proud, innovative and aggresive Navy.