/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan


New Reply on thread #37835
X
Max 20 files0 B total
[New Reply]

[Index] [Catalog] [Banners] [Logs]
Posting mode: Reply [Return]


thumbnail of 69cfd565ecbb313584018556405eb1d1-videomp4.mp4
thumbnail of 69cfd565ecbb313584018556405eb1d1-videomp4.mp4
69cfd565ecbb313... mp4
(235.98 KB, 480x600 h264)
The 100 years war occurs between England and France, a war of European hegemony. At various points, England controls Paris and more of France than France itself, but in the end, the French win with Scottish help. The Burgundians switch sides multiple times and benefit off both sides' victories, these Burgundians ruled both the eastern parts of France, and the "Leo Belgicus", or the Netherlands in its entirety. The massive Burgundian gains allowed lands west and east of the Rhine to travel easier, meaning that northern and eastern France were far more Germanic than they are now; these subjects, of mixed Frankish, Frisian, and Saxon origins were called "Deutscher" and in English, "Dutch". Flanders, a province heavily tied to England since before the Anglo-Saxon invasion and thus a natural ally of the English falls to the Burgundians. The Burgundian mantle is a red St. Andrew's cross on a white banner. These Burgundians married into the Habsburg family, originally Swiss mountian-jews but they were kicked out and had better luck Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary. Castile and Aragon (a state that at the time, controlled southern Italy, parts of Greece and as the "Catalan company", even parts of Armenia, with high ties to the Byzantine empire ever since the Komnenos dynasty), anti-English French allies were also on the winning side of the 100 years war, and so once they united, and after the Castilians finally destroy Granada (which was just a Spanish vassal state anyways, which is why its destruction "makes no sense" as a certain Gerry noted), the now ultra-powerful Spaniards married into the ultra-powerful Habsburgs who in-turn married into the ultra-powerful Burgundians, and these Habsburgs also became the Holy Roman emperor, basically ruling all of Germany, Italy, Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, etc.. In short, winners on all sides unite, their only real threat now being the Ottomans and now, France as they're realiisng their former allies are all teaming up. After the "discovery" of the New World and overthrow of the Aztecs and Incas as well as the Philippines, as well as having the pope give them along with the Portuguese all of the New World, the Habsburgs became the most powerful nation in the world. However, then the Protestant reformation happened, and now northern Europe stopped being papist. Southern France and the Netherlands in particular became a hotbed for radical Calvinism, whereas England became Anglican after his king hated his Spanish wife, whom his pope jewed him after divorcing her. Thus England now hated Spain, and since Flanders was formerly the closest nation to England and is also becoming Protestant, and antagonistic to Spain, they decided to fund them and the princes of Orange-Nassau (formerly all part of Burgundy) went against Spain. Spain first won, and beat the shit out of them, but later on the Dutch started beating the shit out of them. After Bloody Mary married the king of Spain, Spain claimed England and after Elizabeth I (who may have been a man) took power, sent a massive armada to destroy them, but that got annihilated, and eventually ended up in Ireland creating the black Irish. Now England doubled down on funding the Dutch, eventually Flanders was divided between the Spanish crown (which would eventually become the country known as "Belgium" today) and the Netherlands, but there was still an unending war between Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. Eventually the Ottomans also took much of Hungary from the Habsburgs and besieged Vienna, and France was still trying to invade Italy in the Italian wars (where the Habsburg emperor betrayed the king of England in his promise to give him all of France, why England went against them in the first place), the Dutch were able to take New York, steal Brazil, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and all from the Portuguese, and also hired privateers including jewish ones to harass Spanish shipping. Eventually (long after William of Orange died).

Like the 100 years war itself, it wasn't just 80 years of non-stop warfare, since the 30 years war was a part of the 80 years war as well. 
Spain tried to take the Netherlands again after all of northern Germany fell, but eventually the Swedes came down from the north and beat the shit out of the Catholic Germans, even reaching parts of Czechia and Slovakia, and later keeping a bunch of that land as well as forcing Spain to relinquish its claim on the Netherlands. Christian IV also betrayed Sweden and basically lost Jamtland, Bahuslen, and Skane in the process, thus putting Sweden in a similar situation to Spain earlier. Too bad they didn't get Silesia as well. France was able to take back former Burgundian lands including parts of Flanders, Alsace, and England lost Calais, but they weren't a part of this anyways. The Bourbons also got a chance to steal the Habsburg throne from Spain, meaning that France could replace Spain as the new world power as they were already incredibly powerful to begin with (so much so that after this, it took a war of Spanish succession, 7 years war, revolutionary wars, Napoleonic wars, and then the Franco-Prussian war to actually calm them down and leave England to become more powerful than them). Then this happened: 
https://youtube.com/watch?v=c-WO73Dh7rY
That's the 30 years war in a nutshell.


 >>/37836/
And as a bonus, the son of Constantine XII Palaiologos also surrendered his titles to Spain. Spain expelled its jews to South America allowing a large Spanish-speaking community to practice its merchant behaviour there. By all means Spain was a hyperpower that needed to be slain by the English, Flemish and whatever other power existed at the time. Maybe not the French or Turks, though they contributed to beating them as well.

 >>/37836/
I read the habsburg page on wiki and saw this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilegium_Maius

Apparently they faked their way into the austrian throne lol. 

Seems like the burgundians were up to no good, who the fuck were they? 

St andrews cross, is there any symbology or why did you mention that. 

I read the catalan company wiki, very strange adventure they had. Apparently they could win battles against enemies that was twice the size...on foot. 

The lenght of the war still doesnt make any sense to me. Was it so that privateers could loot the spanish? So that bankers could finance both sides? I mean...according to miles all kingdoms were controlled by the "phonecian navy" so that means the only real goal was to make money and bleed out the european population. 

The 30 years war absolutely devastated germany/bohemia for decades. It was a hell of a lot worse than ww2 for example. The swedes were in no part innocent in that part.


thumbnail of Map_Holy_Roman_empire.jpg
thumbnail of Map_Holy_Roman_empire.jpg
Map_Holy_Roman_empire jpg
(102.99 KB, 609x602)
 >>/37842/
> Seems like the burgundians were up to no good, who the fuck were they? 
The Burgundians themselves were descendants of a group of people that left Bornholm (Burgundaholm), likely after they were kicked out of their island by the Danes, and then were pushed all the way to eastern France by the Huns, where they founded the province of Bourgogne. They were essentially a mix of Eastern Germans and Huns. The leaders however were Franks whom absorbed Roman and some jewish blood as time went on, their duchy being established in 843. Their story is pretty complicated as it is, Wikipedia hardly explains it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundian_State
Essentially, France and the HRE absorbed Lotharingia, or former "Middle Francia", which stretched through the "Blue Banana" region of Europe. After the HRE collapsed, Burgundy took it and as England invaded France, they often rebelled and joined the English or other armies, jewing them and gaining all the benefits, and when the tides turned against England, they joined France again. Thus when France won the 100 years war, they won, and these "Frankish" dukes that ruled Burgundy consolidated most of what was formerly "Lotharingia", not just the current province of Burgundy as well as Provence. 
> St andrews cross, is there any symbology or why did you mention that. 
It's because that was the Spanish flag during its age as a superpower. Spain, Austria, and Bohemia were all Burgundian realms in practice. Charles V even spent most of his time in the Netherlands, not Spain or modern Germany.
> The lenght of the war still doesnt make any sense to me. 
It's overstretched to make it sound a lot bigger than it really was, it only took 80 years for Spain to stop claiming the Netherlands. For comparison, England claimed France for 500 years, does that mean there was some 500 year war against France? No. It wasn't actually that long of a war, most of what we call the "80 years war" lasted around 30 years in-reality.

 >>/37844/
In other words, in some angles it was a war between the House of Burgundy and the House of Orange, and in a less aristocratic view, it was just the English helping out the Flemish against the Spanish papist menace.



thumbnail of CharlesVempire.jpg
thumbnail of CharlesVempire.jpg
CharlesVempire jpg
(120.92 KB, 1024x768)
 >>/37847/
Remember when the king of England wanted to invade France, but when the most powerful man in the world and his former ally beat the French and captured the French king in Italy, they betrayed him? Maybe that's why the Germs and English started to "ruin Europe". They weren't perfect either but they didn't operate on treason. 
>  >Slovakia
Upper Hungary was actually under Ottoman rule at the time, so no it wasn't attacked. Moravia was, however.

 >>/37848/
 >>/37848/
>  but when the most powerful man in the world
ahem 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Constantinople_(1533)

Ferdinand was to be considered as the King of Germany, and Charles V as the King of Spain, and they were equal to the Grand Vizier of Ottoman Empire. Moreover, they were banned to count anyone as 'Emperor' except the Ottoman Emperor.[4]


 >>/37844/
> It's because that was the Spanish flag during its age as a superpower. Spain, Austria, and Bohemia were all Burgundian realms in practice. Charles V even spent most of his time in the Netherlands, not Spain or modern Germany.

So Burgundy (!) ruled them all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Burgundy

The Cross of Burgundy (Spanish: Cruz de Borgoña; Aspa de Borgoña) or the Cross of Saint Andrew



 >>/37849/
During the Italian wars, the Turks weren't that powerful, and they only got to the state they did because France helped them out.
 >>/37850/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Upper_Hungary
Fun-fact, since the prince of Transylvania was once also the king of Poland-Lithuania, this meant that all of Poland-Lithuania was once technically ruled by the Ottomans as well. 
 >>/37851/
The Dukes of Burgundy did, with their headquarters in the Netherlands. 
 >>/37852/
The pope and Charlemagne. Essentially, there was an unholy trinity for an unh0ly empire; the jewish community, the pope, and the emperor. 
 >>/37853/
They were part-jewish part-Italian, maybe part-Gaul if they were lucky.

 >>/37850/
Just for more clarificatiion, Turco-Hungarian Transylvania controlled Slovakia before Imre Thököly: 
> On January 18, 1644, the Diet in Kassa elected George I Rákóczi the prince of Hungary. He took the whole of Upper Hungary and joined the Swedish army besieging Brno for a projected march against Vienna. However, his nominal overlord, the Ottoman Sultan, ordered him to end the campaign, but he did so with gains. In the Treaty of Linz (1645), Kassa returned to Transylvania again as the Habsburgs recognized George's rule over the seven counties of the Partium.[24] He died in 1648, and Kassa was returned to the Habsburgs once more

 >>/37854/
Oh the Tökhöly rebellion. That was more liek an occupation. The de jure owner was Leopold.

> Poland-Lithuania
That was a personal union. Báthory as a Polish king wasn't the vassal of the Porte.

 >>/37855/
Well, same as at Thököly.
Tho ofc, it really depends on what we call as "under rule". We could even argue that since the Porte had no say in the internal politics of the princes of Transylvania (it was a tributary state basically, they could pressure them in foreign politics to some extent) they didn't really rule those areas.

 >>/37855/
I would check the various peace treaties they made on border corrections. During the 150 years of our country torn into three, they basically made peace every other year. Moving the borders left to right, and back, or none at all.

 >>/37854/
Dont know if you have read any eustace mullins, but ive always followed the "cannanites" or "phonecian" navy from venice to the netherlands but that was the dutch republic, but it seems like flanders was the main base. Makes sense that the chin dynasty was part of the tribe. 

Maybe this is why they treated the native people in south/central america so poorly. And the slave trade and all that.



 >>/37865/
> Guelphs vs Ghibellines 
Ah yes, the root of all modern conflicts. Fun-fact, the House of Hannover and thus the ruling dynasty of England is actually just a renamed version of the House of Guelph, thus they're not English, French or German. They're Romans. The Habsburgs are also of the same root. Guelphs were originally the House of Este. Who were the Estes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Este
> According to Edward Gibbon, the family originated from the Roman Attii family, which migrated from Rome to Este[10] to defend Italy against the Ostrogoths.
Wikipedia immediately does damage control:
> However, there is little evidence to support this hypothesis. The names of the early members of the family indicate that a Frankish origin is much more likely. 
The "Frankish" nobility were originally Romans, not Germanic. So that's irrelevant. 
Back to the Attia family:
> which may be identical with the gens Atia, also sometimes spelled with a double t. 
Who were the Atia family?
> Marcus Atius M. f. Balbus, praetor in 62 BC, grandfather of Augustus.
> Atia M. f. M. n., the second wife of Gaius Octavius, and mother of Augustus.
> Atia M. f. M. n., the aunt of Augustus, and wife of Lucius Marcius Philippus, consul in 38 BC.
So Romans, yet again. In-fact, they were the ancestors of Augustus. Now you can trace that further, all the way to Troy and then to the Roman gods. 
Now you know why Miles never researched ancient Rome despite constantly dealing with medieval Europe. Ironic too, seeing as he considers Troy a victim of the Phoenicians, and yet Romans are Trojans. So how does that fit into his narrative?

 >>/37867/
Of course, the Phoenicians/Carthaginians played a role in forming the gens families, but they weren't literally everything, and just because they're related doesn't mean they can't actually fight each other (let alone how much Miles pushes "everyone is related", when he starts accusing everyone with a suspicious last name of being jewish). Were the Polynesians Phoenicians too? Miles never got to that, but he'd say yes despite the fact that they're obviously Asiatic. Miles also gets the wrong ideas from things, Gerry said Phoenicia and Israel were separate nations with close tie, while Miles (essentially stealing his work) claims they're the same.

 >>/37867/
Dont know if you read curse of canaan eustace writes about guelps and ghibellines. Apparently the ghibbelines were the "good" ones. I just see it as the dialectic frankly. 

I will think more about the other stuff you mentioned.

 >>/37869/
It's basically a high-aristocrat dialectic (pope vs. emperor), but the Ghibellines are definitely the less evil group as they don't serve the pope and were far more German/Scandinavian than Roman/Romano-jewish. The entire justification for the Guelphs' opposition was that the pope, like the Habsburgs (also Guelphs) took over western Rome. The document used was the Donation of Constantine, which was fake, it was just forged by the pope to gain legitimacy.

thumbnail of RedPill_hand.jpg
thumbnail of RedPill_hand.jpg
RedPill_hand jpg
(15.11 KB, 520x390)
 >>/37854/
> , the Turks weren't that powerful
we were, it's just Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror died too early and his decadent drug addict son took over, not to mention sultan's other son, Cem abdicted by Pope if this not bad, I would like to remind you it's the Borgias. It was more about internal and personal weakness than military one.

 >>/37853/
pic related

 >>/37867/
Nah Habsburgs wanted to trace back their family to some Roman patrician (of Jewish origin) called Peter or something, but they were lacking in couple hundred years of history. They were an backwater Alpine family who managed to climb high. Now their history is game of thrones for sure.





Ah not Pietro. Pierleoni!
https://swanknight.com/habsburg/
I couldn't find the original article I read that.
I would imagine, Rudolph and maybe Joseph both dabbled in ancestry research (Joseph had some plans with Catherine resurrecting the Roman Empire, they wanted a Dacian Empire or something like that as well. Thank you King in the Hat.)



 >>/37867/
Alright im gonna read the Aeneid. Seems like the troyan war is an important puzzle.

Do you think the romans "invented" christianity to hold onto power? 

According to miles jews and phonecians are the same thing. Dont know if he is serious or if he is just making fun of his followers.




 >>/37884/
> Do you think the romans "invented" christianity to hold onto power? 
That they invented Jesus himself? That's misdirection, but Christianity did eventually become the sword of Roman imperialism after Rome became Christian. 
> jews and phonecians are the same thing
Yeah, that's some more bullshit Gerry never agreed with.

 >>/37887/
Actually, they didn't really conquer Armenia but they were mercenaries there. They ruled Thrace and parts of western Anatolia however, meaning that at one point, Aragon alone stretched three continents before the Americas were even "discovered".

 >>/37889/
> That they invented Jesus himself? That's misdirection, but Christianity did eventually become the sword of Roman imperialism after Rome became Christian. 
Can you write more about this. I mean, do we even know if jesus existed? Was not all the apostles jews? old testament...jewish. new testament...jewish.

 >>/37867/
> So Romans, yet again. In-fact, they were the ancestors of Augustus. Now you can trace that further, all the way to Troy and then to the Roman gods. 


So basically it seems that the roman gods were demons that they were worshipping. I've been doing some reading and the pattern with greek mythology, egyptian and the roman is almost identical. 

This is disturbing. 

Rome I think was just the practical implement of greek philosophy and worldview. Almost feels like it was all rigged.

 >>/39800/
> Roman gods were demons
That's what the Catholic church was pushing for 1000 years. Roman gods were more likely real people who were deified and worshipped. The whole Saturn myth with Jupiter castrating him is identical to Noah.


Post(s) action:


Moderation Help
Scope:
Duration: Days

Ban Type:


45 replies | 4 file
New Reply on thread #37835
Max 20 files0 B total