Hello /his/
First time posting here. Honestly I know history very bad, never was my interest, and I never did well with it in school. I've only been interested in large scale history like evolution of planet and life.
Recently I got interested in Jeanne d’Arc, after I saw a film La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928), which impressed and shook me. So I started digging more info on Jeanne, and learned about Hundred Years' War. I remember studying it in school, but as usual I forgot all the details.
So I was always 100% positive towards Great Britain and their history, but what I've learned makes me change my mind. So apparently GB invaded France and wanted to take over it, merely like Hitler in 1939. So is GB actually evil? Or do I miss something?
Yes. The League of Super Best Countries was actually formed to fight against the evil Dr Britain.
>>1315204
First off, GB didn't exist, it was England.
Secondly, yes, GB and anglos are the villains of the world, scum only rivaled by the turks.
Thirdly, applying good/bad to history is a no-no
>>1315236
>rivaled by the turk
Aah fuck you barbarian cunt.
>>1315236
I understand. Applying good/bad to anything is a no-no actually. It's just personal perception. What I wanted to say is that England invaded France for no other reason that to just take over it and claim it as their own land. If I understand it correctly. And if I'm not mistaken that is not something France ever did in their history, apart from ancient times when the countries were just forming.
Also is there some good reading about Jeanne? Especially interested in her personal qualities, what was her personality, what she looked like etc.
>>1315254
>England invaded France for no other reason that to just take over it and claim it as their own land
If you boil it down massively, yes.
>France ever did in their history
m8, france has been the war mongers of Europe. I mean Louis XIV went to war with Europe like 5 big times. More to the time period, you have the Italian Wars and Burgundy wars, and skip ahead a bit you have the Thirty Years War
>>1315254
It wasn't for no reason. As far as the English were concerned Edward was the rightful King of France through his mother Isabella. Throw in historical Angevin territories throughout modern France and it's easy to see why the English would think they had a real claim to France.
And to your second point, I'd say Napoleon annexed a lot of territory for no reason except that he could.
>>1315204
>So I was always 100% positive towards Great Britain and their history, but what I've learned makes me change my mind. So apparently GB invaded France and wanted to take over it, merely like Hitler in 1939. So is GB actually evil?
Not sure if trolling or American
I'll considere it's the later and explain things to you
1. GB didn't exist until 1707. It was England
2. They didn't invade France.
England was ruled by a bunch of French nobles who had territories in France and a claim on the French throne
In that war they lost all their French territory they held before the war and their claim on the French throne
3. Yes GB was evil, but it has nothing to do with Joan of Arc's era
If you like video games you can try out Jeanne d'Arc on PSP. It has no historical value but it's a pretty fun game.
>>1315277
>Napoleon
Woops I totally forgot about him. As I said history is not my strongest part.
>>1315254
The countries didn't really exist in the way they do today. Neither were modern democracies and had no way of mobilizing the populace and interaction between the masses and the national government, such as it was, was distant.
It is more accurate to say that one powerful family, the Plantagnets, who were part of a network of French-speaking warrior-aristocratic families who controlled the majority of land in France and England, fought a civil war against the Capets, another powerful family in that network. They made this war because they had a claim, through intermarriage between the families, to the landed property of the Capets. The patriarch of the Plantagnet family was the King of England, but he also owned vast, and more prosperous, estates throughout France and in his capacity as ruler of these French lands was in fact a vassal of the King of France, the patriarch of the Capets.
>>1315278
Not American, but neither European. Second point clears it out for me, now it makes much more sense, ty.
>>1315288
Not really, and I don't own PSP anyway. I'd rather watch a few films about her, or read a few articles. I'm interested in something that have historical value, I want to know more about who she actually were.
>>1315254
Well it wasn'tfor no reason, let me explain: So in 1066 William I. , the duke of Normandy and vassal of French king invaded Britain and proclaimed himself king of England, that created very strange situation. To shorten this, in 1337 English king Edward III. twisted this and claimed that because of this connection he has right to be get France under his rule (Personal union) so he claimed french trone and the war began
>>1315303
Sure, but that only excuses fighting those wars, not annexing all that land and establishing an Empire. The first is self defence, the second is a power grab.
The Hundred Years War wasn't between France and England, it was a civil war between two French families which both claimed the throne of France. England had nothing to do with it, it just happened to be owned by one of those families and thus served as a source of cannon fodder.
There's certainly no shortage of shitty things that Britain has done throughout history though, perfidious Albion is more than just a meme.
>>1315573
I love how the French get so butthurt over the 100 years war on his
>>1315350
No, the second was to keep them from waging war on him again, which he figured was never going to stop because people really disliked him and loathed him when he kept BTFOing everyone who attacked him. So he just removed those people from power and put his friends on their thrones. It was pretty reasonable.
>>1315640
Why would they? The "English" side lost. In fact they got their asses kicked by a literal teenaged girl, it' just about the most embarrassing thing that ever happened.
>>1315573
This
Brits and to an extent French did fuck up Middle-East in massive way with Sykes-Pikot and Balfour Declaration as well as switching their support from Hashemites to Al-Saud family after WW1.
Almost everything that is wrong with Middle-East today can be traced back to how badly breaking the Ottoman Empire was handled.
>>1315204
Things to do if you want to be taken seriously: don't say 'evil', no-one in history is 'evil'. Don't compare things to Hitler. Don't confuse Britain, UK, England.
>>1315664
Dint know they always seem to be when you bring up the hyw
>>1315723
It was handled fine. The problem with the middle east is the fact that trouble makers used to get their heads stomped on. Now people can't do that.
>>1315745
You're probably just projecting your own buttpain, m8
>>1315204
>Honestly I know history very bad
you'll fit right in.
>So is GB actually evil?
Well they did burn a saint so I'd say those bastards are pretty heretical at least.
>>1315573
>England had nothing to do with it
Except this very war created both France and England as modern nations and conditioned the English continental policy for the centuries to come
>>1317987
It created England. France already very much existed.
>>1317828
Fuck off, it was the French that burned Joan of Arc. We're heretical bastards for sure, but that's one thing we didn't do.
>>1319722
Bitch please, the trial was a complete sham and clearly under Angevin control.
