jeroenrottgering

Troughout the late 16th, 17th and 18th century Amsterdam stood in it's prime if it came to science, technology wealth, culture, new ideas, liberalism, law and freedom. Amsterdam was the centre of Europe and almost every European ship coming back from a colonial venture arrived in Amsterdam. The city was booming and all over Europe people came to the city to find work and to live in this unique world. Craftsman, scientists, scholars, tradesman and people from all other working classes came to this place. Within a short time Amsterdam changed from a European backwater during the 15th century and early 16th century into the centre of Europe and perhaps the world.

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?

Gudenrath

I don't understand the comparison to Rome. While Amsterdam may very well have been the epicenter of tolerance, freedom of speech and multiculturalism (which was not that great by modern standards, but greater than anywhere else in Europe at the time) during the 17th century, it was certainly not the things that gave Rome its fame. To be compared with Rome either the city should have been the greatest in population and size, or it should have been the capital of the most powerful nation of its era, neither of which fits Amsterdam.

Why not simply say Amsterdam was the Amsterdam of its time, and in that way create a more fitting yardstick to account for its advantages as compared to any other place in Europe at the time?

Pacific_Victory

I think Amsterdam was the BEST place to live during that time...

Like Gudenrath said though, not really a good comparison to Rome.

1.) Was not the dominant military power in the region.
2.) Was not the center of a massive land empire.

I'd say if anything, it was more like the Athens of it's time.

Frank81

Amsterdam 17-18th centuries (not 16th century) was more similar to Athens. The capital of a maritime empire, centre of freedom and scienced, attraction of foreigners from elsewhere of every kind.

Linschoten

Good point, more like Athens! As the centre of a maritime trading empire, and an investment centre, there was in fact noting comparable to it in the ancient world, so we might as well say that Amsterdam was the Amsterdam of its time!

Naomasa298

A shame that the Dutch reputation for tolerance and liberalism seems to no longer be warranted.

Linschoten

That's an over-generalization

Maundu

a shame indeed..

Naomasa298

Perhaps, perhaps not. Judging by the actions of the Dutch government and a few of the posts by some Dutch members of the forum, it's not an unwarranted statement. In my opinion.

jeroenrottgering

In what way. We still allow drugs, gay marriage, drugs, freedom of speech etc. In what way are we less liberal then before? Amsterdam is still the heaven for free spirits.