View high resolution
COLONIAL COCKTAILS! (part 2)
Discussions about colonialism can get tense—especially in the Netherlands, where certain aspects of the country’s colonial past remain very touchy. Since liquor loosens tongues, we’re starting an every-now-and-again series called “Colonial Cocktails,” where we sit down with historians, journalists and filmmakers, make them drinks of our own devising, and ask them for their take on colonialism.
This week’s expert is Tristan Mostert. A junior curator of the Rijksmuseum’s history department who wrote his master’s thesis on 17th century VOC warfare, Tristan has all kinds of insights into why the Dutch transformed from fearsome warriors into bike-riding peaceniks. His conclusion: they gave up.
Tristan is drinking a Jodensavvane, our slave-revolt themed cocktail that is a variation on a Bourbon Old Fashioned.
Kel O’Neill: So how do you like the cocktail?
Tristan Mostert: Well, after what you told me about it I’m not sure I really can like it, of course. But it’s good.
KO: We were wondering if you could draw any continuity between private armies as they exist now, and as they did during the initial VOC military experiment.
TM: Yeah, it’s a different thing. Nowadays we think of armies as being national armies, usually with conscripts and you have to have your passport and there’s all sorts of links to nationalism and the like. This simply didn’t exist in the days of the Dutch East India Company. Conscription, well it happened, but it was rare, and it always met with great opposition. Nationalism, like it developed later, wasn’t there yet, and all armies, even the Staatse legers, which were like the state armies of the Dutch republic, were much more like private armies, and the Dutch East India Company simply had been allowed to have an army of its own. But also, if you ran a small trading company you brought cannon. There wasn’t much of a violence monopoly at the time. It was a lot more open. So if you tried to compare the Dutch East India Company to Blackwater, you’d run into problems.
KO: When you look at VOC sea battles, do you think that most of the time the conflicts that came up were conflicts of self-protection, or conflicts of aggression by the VOC?
TM: The first bit of warfare that the Dutch East India Company waged, I suppose you could say, was mostly defensive.
It was an extension of European conflict. The Netherlands were at war with Spain, which automatically meant they were at war with Portugal. It was the same king at the time. They wanted into the Asian trade and tried all kinds of things to make that work, but in the end they were going to end up getting shot at by the Portuguese. And then, at a certain point, they started shooting back.
Later, they start winning. They beat the Portuguese up quite a bit, then they discover, specifically in the Moluccas, that violence can be very practical if you want to enforce certain trade conditions. And they start doing that with relish. They’re very practical about it—they’re not out to conquer the world. It’s not the second half of the 19th century. They use it when they think it’s profitable.
So if they think, “hey, we can beat up these people in the Moluccas and it will help us with our spices,” they do that. If they see a big Japanese shogun or Indian Moghul who is more powerful than them, they say, “no, wait, we’ll just build a little settlement there and we’ll be very nice to you.”
Often, when people talk about early colonialism, this whole 19th century notion comes with it. So in the 19th century, European countries swarm across the world and really divvy it up. And they bring steam engines, and they bring antibiotics, and they bring rifled artillery, and they’re willing and able to conquer the world.
At the height of its power, the Dutch East India Company had 10,000 soldiers spread out across pretty much half the planet. And you could discuss, yeah, that the ships were a litte better and they had firearms, but the technological differences weren’t that great. There were cases, particularly in Taiwan, where the Dutch East India Company was just smashed by a largely Chinese army.
Eline Jongsma: The Dutch aren’t known these days to be fierce warriors or anything. How were they doing in the 17th century? How did they compare to the others?
TM: To the English and the Portuguese? They did exceedingly well, but they also had the time with them. The Portuguese empire was kind of falling apart and the Portuguese were very cocky, like most colonial empires are, and felt that they could win it all. But in reality their organization wasn’t too good, and was a little outdated. As soon as they came to blows with the Dutch, the Dutch won and won and won until the 1660s, when the Portuguese had a few specks left and the rest was taken.
EJ: Why do you think that changed? What happened to us?
TM: In the 18th and 19th century we were passed left and right by other European powers, and were no longer a serious party in battles, or in wars at all. So I guess we kind of stopped trying at some point. I guess that’s the short answer.
EJ: So you sort of automatically retreat if you’re not one of the big players?
TM: Well, they tried. I mean during the Napoleonic age, when you had this whole mess with the colonies, they tried to defend the Cape. They failed miserably. They tried to defend Java. It worked for a bit, then the English took it all the same. They’d already lost most of India. They fought. They just weren’t too good at it anymore.
And that’s all folks! See you next time.