Talk:Rampjaar

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

Munster

The article's second sentence refers to Munster's attacking the United Provinces. That seems highly unlikely to me; the writer was probably looking for one of the German Münsters listed at Munster (disambiguation). Please disambiguate the link, if you know which one is intended. (And otherwise, don't touch it until you do know!) --Quuxplusone 1 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)

The only cited source on this page is "I Will Maintain" by Marjorie Bowen. This is a problem, given that the book is a work of historcial fiction. I'm not syaing that the article isn't true, but I don't think a ficitional source can really be used as the basis of a historical article. There must be a good, nonfiction, source out there somewhere. Varlet16 17:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Waterline

There was a link to a nonexistent section about action in the seige of Groningen, linking to an obviously non-English page title: Gronings ontzet. Odd. A quick search turned up the predictable answer: Gronings ontzet is a Dutch wikipedia page. I made this an external link to the Dutch page, which IMO is much preferable to a nonworking link to a page that'll never be written in English under that title. However, I suspect that there may be a better way of linking "This action" to info about that action, or of linking to another Wikipedia site. Complex.confusion (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Britain

The impacts section gives the impression that the Dutch 'mobilised all their resources' and succesfully invaded Britain to overthrow the Stuart dynasty. The section sounds like it came from some nationalist Dutch school textbook. It needs to be pointed out that the 'English' parliament (Scotland was not yet in union) specifically invited William of Orange to 'invade' in order for them to get rid of James II.1812ahill (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have never read a Dutch school textbook making these claims: we too go along with the usual myths :o). The historical facts are however that English Parliament, which was packed with "Jacobites", never invited William. William made seven politicians, some of which former members of Parliament, write an invitation as a pretext for an invasion — which the Dutch obviously ventured upon to serve their own interests. The invasion was very real, with a real Dutch fleet of nearly five hundred vessels, and the real regular Dutch Army. William never called it an invasion of course: those troops were there to protect him against evil councillors conspiring to prevent his help to his poor father-in-law. No, the real objection should be that the Dutch needed not to exhaust their resources by far to subdue a state as weak as England :o).--MWAK (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism

Could someone verify (with a proper source) that body parts of the de Witt's were actually eaten by the mob that killed them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.23.134 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notorious fact in Dutch history. And it seems indeed to be a well-attested fact, not a common myth. Recently several books about these events have been published, as there is an obvious parallel with the present rise of populism in the West, so providing a source will be no problem.--MWAK (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide one, then? Because, really, this story smacks more of hostile contemporary propaganda than fact. The Dutch page states simply that body parts were removed (presumably either lost in the violence of the event or taken as souvenirs). Heavenlyblue (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of cannibalism of the De Witt brothers

I am a South African and I have lived in the Netherlands for 14 years. When I got here I began a little private and amateur research of Dutch history so that I would come to know something of my new homeland. In the course of my historical studies I came across the issue of cannibalism surrounding the murders of the De Witt brothers during the Rampjaar (1672). There are not many English-language sources, with the exception of one that I found: 'The Dutch Republic. Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall: 1477-1806' by Jonathan I. Israel. For a more thorough discussion, I had to go to Dutch-language sources. I contacted the Haags Historisch Museum and the Museum de Gevangenpoort and I was lead to the book by Luc Panhuysen: 'De Ware Vrijheid. De levens van Johan en Cornelis de Witt'. When I consulted that book I also discovered another source: 'Gedrukte chaos. Populisme en moord in het Rampjaar 1672' by Michel Reinders.

The Dutch Republic. Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall: 1477-1806, Jonathan I. Israel, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
ISBN 0-90-820734-4
, 1998
De Ware Vrijheid. De levens van Johan en Cornelis de Wit, Luc Panhuysen, Uitgeverij Atlas, Amsterdam/Antwerpen,
ISBN 90 450 1422X
,2005
Gedrukte chaos. Populisme en moord in het Rampjaar 1672, Michel Reinders, Uitgeverij Balans, Amsterdam,
ISBN 978 94 600 32844
, 2010

For specifics about the acts of cannibalism that includes original text of the body parts consumed, see pages 177, 178 and 179 in the Reinders book, and pages 460, 461 and 462 in the Panhuysen book.

In the Israel book, see page 803:

"The corpses were dragged to a nearby scaffold and pulled up by the feet to be displayed to the people, and then mutilated, parts being roasted and eaten in a frenzy of cannibalistic hatred."

In the Reinders book, the description of the mutilation of the bodies links symbolic acts that the brothers were accused of (such as the cutting off of the fingers of the right hand of Johan de Witt with which he had signed the "Eeuwig Edict" or the cutting off of their noses because "De gebroeders De Witt hadden een karakteristiek grote neus" ["The De Witt brothers had characteristic large noses"] and had used them in images as a sign of their greatness, and so on). The description of the gruesome mutilation is extensive, and body parts mentioned included: ears; tongue; hands; feet; genitals; heart; and lungs. Regarding consumation, Reinders writes and quotes text as follows (page 177 and 178):

"Meerdere verwijderde delen van de lichamen werden vervolgens geconsumeerd. Iemand beet op de geslachtsdelen. Rond negen uur was het de beurt aan de laaste lichaamsdelen: ook de harten gingen eruit. Een jongen gooide het hart in het gezicht van Johan de Witt, waarna hij het orgaan opraapte en zijn handeling herhaalde. 'Als de harten uyt de lichamen waeren gehaelt', schreef Van der Goes, 'dat de rompen met stocken op geset wierden, off het dode verckens waeren geweest.' De Alkmaarder Jacob Zeeman schreef dat de broers 'als een beest [waren] opengespouwen'. Delen van de harten verdwenen samen met stukken van de longen in een deken en gingen linea recta naar Engeland."
MY ENGLISH TRANSLATION ...
"Several removed parts of the bodies were then consumed. Someone bit on the genitals. Around 9 o'clock it was the turn of the last parts of the body — out came the hearts. A boy threw the heart into the face of Johan de Witt, and then picked up the heart again and repeated what he had done. 'Als de harten uyt de lichamen waeren gehaelt,' Van der Goes wrote, 'dat de rompen met stocken op geset wierden, off het dode verckens waeren geweest' — ('After the hearts were cut from the bodies, the carcasses were splayed with sticks as if they were hogs'). Jacob Zeeman of Alkmaar wrote that the brothers were 'als een beest [waren] opengespouwen' — ('as an animal that had been butchered'). Parts of the heart along with pieces of the lungs disappeared in a blanket and were sent straight to England."

In all of Reinders' writing, the sources of information are richly documented with footnotes indicating the original references.

The Panhuysen book also describes the mutilation of the bodies linked to symbolic acts associated with the brothers. Panhuysen writes that it all started when a sailor shouted that the corpses had to be hung upside down. Panhuysen explains that this carnivalesque reversal was an ancient form of rebellion. Panhuysen describes the mutilation in much the same manner as Reinders (probably due to both writers accessing the same sources). Regarding the consumation, Panhuysen describes that butchers were called as to the slaughter of pigs:

"Er bevonden zich verschillende vleeshouwers onder het publiek, die de lichamen van de broers openspalkten zoals ze dat met geslachte varkens deden. En zoals gebruikelijk met dierenvlees werden de lichamen geconsumeerd. Er werden kannibalen gesignaleerd die zich aan de organen vergrepen. Iemand slikte een oog door en zei: `Morgen schijt ik het er weer uit.' Vrouwen wikkelden zich in darmen, souvenirjagers sneden haar, tepels, vingers, oren, neuzen en andere uitsteeksels af. Anderen verkochten deze kleinodièn: een vingerkootje deed zes stuivers, een hele vinger tussen de vijftien en twintig, een oor dertig."
MY ENGLISH TRANSLATION ...
"Several butchers were called from the public, so that the bodies of the brothers could be splayed and butchered as done with pigs. And as done with animal meat, the bodies were commonly consumed. People were noticed cannibalising the organs. Someone swallowed an eye and said, 'Morgen schijt ik het er weer uit.' — ('Tomorrow I will shit it out again'). Women wrapped themselves with the intestines, souvenir hunters cut off hair, nipples, fingers, ears, noses and other protrusions. Others sold body parts as jewels: a finger bone fetched six 'stuivers'; a whole finger between fifteen and twenty; an ear, thirty." Amsterdave (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, was the city under siege?...with the population starving?...& resorting to cannibalism?

.....The lynching and cannibalistic eating of the De Witt brothers, seems very extreme, for a Christian nation. Could some expert in Dutch history, comment... Possibly, was the city under siege? ...with resupply cut off, and the population starving? Or, was that kind of mob behavior NOT unusual for that time and place? ......Or is this another example supporting the Flynn Effect, in that our distant ancestors were of very low intelligence and low impulse control. Many were illiterate or barely literate, not for lack of education, but because they lacked the aptitude and ambition to learn. 2601:7C0:C400:2930:1CB9:7E83:24B6:FE08 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no siege, no starvation. The Dutch were among the most literate of nations. They were under a lot of collective stress though, needing a scapegoat for the ruin of the fatherland. In the seventeenth century, mutilating the bodies of traitors, just before or after their execution, was common in West European countries also. The cannibalism was more a case of desecrating a feared and morally superior ruler. In more recent times, a Trumpist mob might have lynched Clinton and barbecued selected parts.--MWAK (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rampjaar&oldid=1205002087"