Which medieval society would you want to live in? Germany/The Holy Roman Empire seems the most comfy to me. Between the fairy tales and my visit to Bavaria there's a certain image I have of the area that's different than when I look at France or England. What about you? This is assuming you're a peasant.
>>374087
I FEEL THE SAME REGARDING "MEDIEVAL GERMANY" AS YOU DO, AND I THINK THAT GENERALLY, CENTRAL EUROPA WAS THE LEAST SORDIDLY MISERABLE EUROPEAN ZONE DURING MEDIEVAL TIMES; I WOULD NEVER WANT TO LIVE IN MEDIEVAL TIMES THOUGH.
>>374121
Why do you type in all-caps, and why do you think a quagmire of private conflict between lords is less miserable than any other place?
>muh stereotypes
The type of architecture on your pic was actually born in Western France
The Grimm Fairy Tales and ideas of Dukes and Barons and the pretty architecture really romanticize Germany. There's just something really comfy about it that I can't exactly put my finger on.
>>374146
>German flag
I dont think germany had serfdom, which helped it become a leading Renaissance nation with the introduction of free towns and the printing press.
>>374153
I know that feeling. I hate being American. When I think of their history it's just dry native americans and cholera. Everything is ugly and boring looking.
>>374163
As a history lover I do hate being American. Huckleberry Finn, The Revolutionary War.. it's all shitty looking. The only time that looks interesting might be the 1900s or 1950s, but even then Europe is just far more fascinating,
>>374087
Song dynasty China sounds like the most comfy metropolitan shit ever
>you will never go to the local poetry club, have a drink with your friends, head down to the local park to play polo and go home to your qt waifu who is extremely well versed in Tang poetry and singing
Everything changed when the Jurchens attacked
>>374186
Did they have opium dens? I imagine as a chinaman I'd be drafted by the local warlord and become a statistic in some generic war.
>>374204
There were no opium dens before the Qing dynasty.
And there were no warlords during the Song dynasty.
>>374270
Sounds pretty peaceful though I'd still want my opium. What's the catch? There's gotta be something that made the life of the average chinaman shit.
Being a working class Englisman living in the 1800s chilling in pubs and getting in bare knuckle boxing matches would be cool. No major war to worry about getting drafted in. Wouldn't want to work in the coal mines. Just something that would allow me to chill with my mates in the pub would be all I need. Lots of banter and fighting included.
>>374315
>you'll never be Ronnie Pickering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dcv6GKNNw
>>374146
Protip: 'Gothic' was used by Visari to describe the Germans, not the French.
'Gothic' architectural styling originated in France, and was championed by Germany. Just like how the Netherlands championed the production of illuminated manuscripts and tapestries, and were commissioned by the French to produce them.
Probably Iberia. Constant warfare, but at the very least if you were a penniless lowborn you had some chance of earning the status of petty nobility through prowess in battle.
>>374370
That is such a naively romantic perception.
>>374367
Either way anything on mainland Europe was a lot better than what you saw in America. I mean log cabins, jesus christ. And now you got shitty houses everywhere that all look like this. Beside select locations in the city, America has no soul. I'd rather live in a chav council flat than here.
>>374371
Not really. Many lowborn Christians earned titles this way in Iberia.
>>374371
Seriously. If you were a peasant you'd be in the front of the line, and get turned into hamburger as the forces collided. What the fuck is battle prowess? You're not going have a 1v1 duel with someone. You'll stand in a mass formation with a pike or spear, and assuming you don't get shot by an arrow, you're gonna to get cut to pieces. And hope it's a quick death. Or you might be laying on the field bleeding out for a few days. Dehydrated as your tongue turns into a dry mass while in you're in so much pain but no one cares. No morphine or alcohol. And you likely have dysentery, so you're shitting your brains out further getting dehydrated.
Maybe you get lucky and survive your battle so you get promoted since everyone else died. Well guess what the war ain't over and you still got more fighting to do before you can go home and reap the rewards. Rinse and repeat. Goodluck, and even if you don't get hurt in battle there's a good chance you'll die from disease.
>>374396
I don't know why you're all getting so butt flustered. The only point I was making was that there was at least some opportunity during the reconquista for social mobility, which was not common elsewhere in this time. In other words, one was not doomed to destitution by blood. I made no comment at all about warfare being a walk in the park.
>>374412
The point is the "opportunity" was mostly a ruse. It's like a pyramid scheme, unless you were the first to be there, you weren't getting anything. Give some desperate peasant the idea that he can have some social mobility if he fights in the army, and you've got one of history's biggest scams. At least today there's the GI bill and other benefits in writing.
>>374377
Fucking burgers and their planned obsolescence that extends to their architecture. Everything looks like hammered shit and no one cares. At least Boston has tried to maintain some of it's history but if you go into the south or midwest it's depressing. A history major should be allowed to be a citizen in Europe or Asia upon graduation.
>>374427
Quite curious, then, that so many managed it. I also don't think you know how warfare was waged, particularly in the early years of the reconquista. You talk about being "in the front of the line" as if there were battelines in the guerrilla warfare conducted in mountainous Asturias, La Rioja, or northern Castile.
Under the guidance of Caliph Haroun Al Rashid
>>374315
except the fact your working class, which literally means working 12 hours a day senpai.
>>374157
u blind m8?
>>374484
But during this 12 hours I'd have top banter with my m8s. Then we'd go to the pub for 6-8 hours for more banter, alcohol, and possible violence. Then I'd go to my little home, fuck my wife (likely getting her pregnant for the 8th time - yay more kids), have a few hours sleep, and do it all over until I die. I'd assume my lifespan would be no greater than 45. My education level would be that of a 6th grader and it would be glorious.
I wouldn't want to live in any medieval society to be honest.
>>374548
I like this
>>374087
I'd imagine Venice and its wealthy stato da tera would make for the comfiest living.
>>374087
>13th C Mongolian horseman
Just for the rape really.
>>374087
Whichever one would guarantee my a virgin non obese young fertile wife. This is the only answer.
Obviously France, at least before the Hundred Years War.
Richest, most powerful, most culturally influential, and overall most civilised country in Europe.
>>374087
Probably the Republic of Venice in the high middle ages.
>>374367
>'Gothic' architectural styling originated in France, and was championed by Germany.
wut
All the finest examples of Gothic architecture are in France. What do you mean by "championed"?
>>375534
>enjoying decadence
It just meant the nobles class was entrenched and stable and the countryside heavily populated allowing them to draw a considerable tax.
If you were a peasant you had even less space to breath than in England and less opportunities as well.
Which is why they got their ass kicked that badly by the flemmish and the english btw.
>>375550
>implying
>>375556
What are you talking about, some peasants were wealthy as fuck, and France offered all kinds of opportunities for social advancement thanks to the highly developed clergy, academic system, and state administration. Some of the people in the highest positions of powers were commoners, and there were of course the more classical ways to join the ranks of the nobility as a capable warrior.
>Which is why they got their ass kicked that badly by the flemmish and the english btw.
The fuck, both of those got their asses handed to them by the French over and over again.
>>375569
>France offered all kinds of opportunities for social advancement thanks to the highly developed clergy, academic system, and state administration.
Not nearly as much as the HRE or the Italian city states though due to them being much less centralised. It's no coincidence that the Renaissance and the Reformation emerged from there.
>>375564
Yeah that was built in the 19th century. What are you going to post next, Neuschwanstein?
The fact is Germany was a complete backwater during the Middle Ages. Just about everything nice and old looking you'll find there was actually built in the late 19th century under the Kaiser in an effort to fabricate a more impressive German history and keep up with Western countries.
Protip: most things you thought were German, like Gothic architecture or Grimm's fairy tales, are actually French.
>>375550
>All the finest examples of Gothic architecture are in France.
Nice opinion.
Britain, Italy, Sweden, Austria, and Germany all disagree, certainly that 'all the finest examples of Gothic architecture' exist in a single country, let alone France by itself.
>What do you mean by "championed"?
Exactly what the word means.
Do you even know the etymology of the term 'Gothic'?
>>375534
>toiling the fields all day under the shadow of a castle
>the lord will humiliate, beat the shit out of you or even kill you if you protest or he thinks you're protesting. Or for no reason at all.
>you can't do shit because he's hoarding all the weapons, trained to fight on horseback and will beat the shit out of you if you try to do that on your own (with a stick and donkey because you're poor as fuck).
>believes this inequality is due to a curse in your bloodline
>you can never escape this, ever
>like being perpetually stuck in a particularly strict middle school
Nothing of value was lost
>>375576
>It's no coincidence that the Renaissance and the Reformation emerged from there.
Those were both pretty shitty things, and they emerged from there because France had been destroyed by the Hundred Years War. Until then every cultural or intellectual movement had emerged from France.
>>375579
>Yeah that was built in the 19th century.
That means absolutely nothing.
>All the finest examples of Gothic architecture are in France.
>posts contrary example
>BUT IT WASN'T BUILT IN THE GOTHIC PERIOD
>The fact is Germany was a complete backwater during the Middle Ages. Just about everything nice and old looking you'll find there was actually built in the late 19th century under the Kaiser in an effort to fabricate a more impressive German history and keep up with Western countries.
Holy shit, you sound like one butthurt baguetteboo, way to invalidate all of your posts with your absurd bias.
>Protip: most things you thought were German, like Gothic architecture or Grimm's fairy tales, are actually French.
Absolutely buttblasted.
>Grimm's fairytales
Had a strong variety of European influences, Grimm's fairytales are not exclusively French or derived from French culture.
What a dumb faggot you are, mate.
>>375579
>Yeah that was built in the 19th century.
Are you literally retarded? The construction started during the High Middle Ages. The Cathedral of Cologne is one of the most well known and archetypical examples of Gothic architecture.
>Germany was a complete backwater during the Middle Ages
Utter nonsense. Why do you think was the German King crowned Emperor? It was less centralised but the free cities of the Empire were important centres of commerce, famous for their goods. The Archbishops and Princes that ruled the land were powerful local rulers.
>>374473
I'm with this guy.
>>375569
>some peasants were wealthy as fuck
Accumulated generational wealth, good relations with the lord, and special privileges granted over the others.
They were still prey to considerable jealousies, on their own and exposed to outlaws. If they feel out of favor with the local lord they were fucked.
> highly developed clergy, academic system, and state administration.
All the high positions in the clergy were dominated by nobles, usually second sons, being granted bishop ranks for their family's wealth and influence.
And not being able to have a wife, legitimated kids and a real family is shitty even if you would make it into the lower ranks.
There were some rare cases of patrician families making it up there but it's not like patricians weren't the equivalent of an urban nobility. And that was just the king doing it to spite the other nobles.
Basically if you were starting from scratch you were fucked. You would have to be particularly talented and lucky to go anywhere and be spotted from childhood. And even there being too talented and an innovator would get you into troubles with various authorities starting with the peasant/burgher guilds.
>Gothic architecture is a style of architecture that flourished during the high and late medieval period. It evolved from Romanesque architecture and was succeeded by Renaissance architecture. Originating in 12th-century France and lasting into the 16th century, Gothic architecture was known during the period as Opus Francigenum ("French work") with the term Gothic first appearing during the later part of the Renaissance.
Stay buttmad guys ;^)
>>375534
>Richest
Arguable. England was also extremely rich.
>most powerful
See: Switzerland, England.
>most culturally influential
Really? You know who produced the art in that picture you posted?
Italy and the Netherlands both had much more developed fine arts in the medieval period.
Most culturally influential is not only not measurable, it's a joke to attribute to a single region.
> and overall most civilised
Again, this is a joke of an opinion with little basis in reality.
Not to say France wasn't civilized, but even considering a 'most civilized' country surrounded by relatively civilized countries is a joke.
>>375584
>Those were both pretty shitty things
I assume the printing press was so too.
>>375581
>Britain, Italy, Sweden, Austria, and Germany all disagree
Not really. I'll refer you to Kenneth Clark, the most prominent British art historian of the 20th century, who considered Chartres cathedral the most beautiful covered space in the Western world.
Chartres is universally considered the most accomplished example of the Gothic style, and it was so influential that because of its stained glass windows the until then almost unknown colour blue became associated with the Virgin Mary, and eventually with all of Europe.
Other great Gothic buildings include the Saint Denis basilica, Notre Dame cathedral (notable for being the first two), or the cathedral of Reims. The only notable foreign examples are in England, with some heavily localised examples in Italy and Spain. Nothing in Germany even makes the list.
>Do you even know the etymology of the term 'Gothic'?
Yes, it was created by Renaissance Italians as an insult, because they thought Gothic architecture was barbaric and primitive. During the actual Gothic Era, the Gothic style was known as the "French style".
>>375569
>The fuck, both of those got their asses handed to them by the French over and over again.
kek. Is this a joke or a deluded frenchfag?
>>375584
>Those were both pretty shitty things, and they emerged from there because France had been destroyed by the Hundred Years War. Until then every cultural or intellectual movement had emerged from France.
BAGUETTEBOOS EVERYONE
>all roads lead to le Paris
Kill yourself. You are as bad as Germanophiles. You are spouting absolute nonsense, and I've seen you post your bullshit before.
>>375588
>u-u mad
Sorry your country isn't the centre of the universe m8.
>>375591
He/you posted the towers of the Cologne cathedral. Those didn't even exist until 1880.
Sorry but claiming Gothic architecture was "championed by Germany" based on one construction site is total delusion.
>Why do you think was the German King crowned Emperor?
Because Eastern Franks inherited that title from Charlemagne?
>>375601
>The only notable foreign examples are in England, with some heavily localised examples in Italy and Spain. Nothing in Germany even makes the list.
You are literally delusional, and no, a single art historian does not validate your delusions.
>Yes, it was created by Renaissance Italians as an insult, because they thought Gothic architecture was barbaric and primitive.
You're forgetting a key detail: it was a pejorative towards the Germans, and not the French. Wonder why you'd purposefully forget that part.
>>375599
Are you seriously claiming England or Switzerland were more powerful than France?
>Italy and the Netherlands both had much more developed fine arts in the medieval period.
You're thinking of the early Renaissance. Throughout the Romanesque and Gothic Eras it was France.
>Most culturally influential is not only not measurable, it's a joke to attribute to a single region.
What language did Marco Polo write his book in? Hint: it wasn't Italian.
>>375603
>Is this a joke or a deluded frenchfag?
A deluded frenchfag.
He's a resident here, posts about France being the best country in all of Europe, HATES the Renaissance because it doesn't fit his narrative and France barely took part in it.
Seriously, this retard thinks the Renaissance was awful because he believes it entirely to be an ideological attack on the Gothic ideals, which he believes to be entirely French, he's insane.
>>375615
>claiming Gothic architecture was "championed by Germany"
I made no such claim. But Cologne Cathedral is commonly regarded as one of the most archetypical examples of Gothic architecture, world heritage site, etc.
>Because Eastern Franks inherited that title from Charlemagne?
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about if you think the HRE had any connection to the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne.
The first Emperor of the HRE was no Frank, it was the Saxon King, Otto I who gained the title after defeating the Magyar invaders at Lechfeld. As defender of Christendom he was bestowed the title of Emperor in Rome.
Otto was a ruler in the tradition of Charlemagne but he had no ties to him.
Certainly, a backwater King couldn't have accomplished such feat, after the Magyars had been buttraping Europe, including France, over and over again.
>>375623
>Are you seriously claiming England or Switzerland were more powerful than France?
Relative to population they certainly were. Switzerland provided mercenaries for all of Europe toward the end of the medieval era and for a tiny country made Francis of France hesitate about attacking them.
It's still considered the greatest victory of France in the 16th century. Against a tiny mountain nation not numbering a million souls.
>>375618
>more incoherent crying
And no, calling something Gothic was calling like it German, with the obvious implication that Germany is shit. The Italians were saying "lol French art is German-tier".
>>375623
>Are you seriously claiming England or Switzerland were more powerful than France?
France: mostly conquered by the English in the hundred years war, pursued Swiss pikemen as its core infantry into the Renaissance.
>Throughout the Romanesque and Gothic Eras it was France.
Throughout the Romanesque and Gothic eras, there was barely any fine art worth talking about in Europe. The most noteworthy art was the poetry and paintings from Italy.
>What language did Marco Polo write his book in?
Your point being?
>>375581
>an architectural style born and developed in France
>called opus francigenum by everyone in Europe during the Middle Ages
>having anything to do with Goths
The English, the Germans, the Spanish all built fine gothic structures, but their model was French (even though they sometimes heavily transformed it). Except for a few notable exceptions, Italy didn't care much for the gothic and followed its own traditions.
>>375626
>it entirely to be an ideological attack on the Gothic ideals
This is actually true.
>which he believes to be entirely French
That's bullshit.
>he's insane
Probably no life and in need of validation.
French and brits are usually very deluded and defensive about their pasts.
>>375626
>the term "Gothic" is literally a Renaissance slur for "French"
>the entire intellectual basis for the "Renaissance" is anti-Gothic, since it's a "rebirth" of civilisation after the "dark ages"
You just listed two simple facts.
>>374146
Actually thats tudor architecture and it originated in england, itleast the wall patterns the roofing in OP is more latin and has me confused as to where it would have originated.
>>375636
I'm not arguing the origin of Gothic architecture.
I'm saying it's a joke to consider Germany irrelevant to the style, when its name refers to Germans in the first place.
>The English, the Germans, the Spanish all built fine gothic structures, but their model was French (even though they sometimes heavily transformed it).
The point is, it originated in France and there are fine examples of it there too, but to say that France is the best of all is pure opinion.
>>375631
>I made no such claim.
The person I was talking to did. Maybe read the conversation.
And there's no contradiction between defeating Hungarians and being a cultural backwater.
>>375632
M8 Switzerland was not more powerful than France.
>>375639
>This is actually true.
No its not. The Renaissance is far more complex intellectually and simpler artistically than its attributed ideological basis. The biographies of the pioneering artists make no mention of their trade being an ideological protest.
>>375640
>the entire intellectual basis for the "Renaissance" is anti-Gothic, since it's a "rebirth" of civilisation after the "dark ages"
That is such a sweeping, retarded generalization, it just goes to show how little you actually know about the Renaissance.
to be honest in the medieval times cozy was south
as a way of life aesthetics and freedom in the general meaning of the world
the decline in the middle east started later
>>375630
>Flanders was literally a French vassal
That is, after they got their ass kicked and the crown of France lost control of it.
Flemish cities already emancipated when the kicked the Frankish lord's ass at the golden spurs.
Death was so unusual for a Frankish knight (due to only fighting each other in codified warfare and peasant rabbles) that they would hinder any form of infantry innovation for a century, out of sheer butthurt.
>>375647
>And there's no contradiction between defeating Hungarians and being a cultural backwater.
Except for where you said "backwater" rather than "cultural backwater".
Not to mention that in terms of craftsmanship and commerce, the Holy Roman Empire was anything but unimportant. The Hanseatic Leage controlled most of the Baltic Trade, cities like Passau, Augsburg, Nuremberg and Innsbruck were famous for their arms and armour and had all the sovereign rulers of Europe among their customers.
>>375630
>Why are you so butthurt at France?
The real question is: why are you so butthurt about the rest of Europe, and getting called out on your gross idealization of France?
>>375635
>conquered by the English
The Hundred Years War was a civil war in France between the Valois and Plantagenet families, with Burgundy and various nobles usually on the Plantagenet side. England was only tangentially involved in it as being one of the Plantagenet possessions.
>Swiss pikemen as its core infantry
So why weren't those Swiss pikemen in the enormously powerful Swiss army?
>The most noteworthy art was the poetry and paintings from Italy.
Really? Fucking poetry? Who wrote the Roman de la Rose? Who wrote all the troubadour songs? Who wrote all three medieval literary cycles? Medieval literature was totally French.
>Your point being?
It's French. Marco Polo wrote in French, because it was by far the most relevant language of the time.
>>375652
>The biographies of the pioneering artists make no mention of their trade being an ideological protest.
How can the clash even be denied holy shit you are just as dumb.
>>375652
Read Petrarch.
>>375661
>Medieval literature was totally French.
If we ignore all the German minnesingers, that is.
>>375645
>Italians call your art shit
>clearly this means that feces played a fundamental role in its creation!
It's just an insult you dimwit.
>>375655
>one battle vs centuries of French hegemony
>>375661
>The Hundred Years War was a civil war in France between the Valois and Plantagenet families
Not even close. The English dynasty was already deeply entrenched into England by then and the main reasons the French nobles refused to back up Edward's claim as the start is because they saw him as a foreigner. Literally word for word.
Then they got their asses royally handed to them in battles where they heavily outnumbered the English armies each time and before they knew it, half of France was occupied.
All the notable names in the English armies were local mercenaries and lords from England.
>>375656
That armor is from 1484.
>>375675
The fuck are you smoking nigga? Belgium is an independent country to this day and the french were never able to assert their authorities on Flanders for long periods of time.
>>375661
>England was only tangentially involved in it as being one of the Plantagenet possessions.
And yet, dynastically and territorially, it was ultimately England that was in possession of most of France.
>So why weren't those Swiss pikemen in the enormously powerful Swiss army?
Because they were in the French army you mong.
In maintaining its sovereignty and shitting on the Burgundians and Habsburgs, the Swiss demonstrated themselves as easily one of the most powerful nations of the late medieval/early Renaissance.
The presence of mercenaries in the Hundred Years War was quite significant as well.
>Really? Fucking poetry?
Hmm I wonder where the most celebrated poet of the medieval period came from.
>Medieval literature was totally French.
And its actual production still heavily involving the Flemish and Italians, along with the French.
>>375657
I'm stating facts that are very easily verifiable and that are individually all entirely within the historical consensus. But this board seems to get extremely angry at any mention of French relevance. I'm guessing it's got something to do with the large amount of /pol/ American germanbooism.
>>375677
And France had kicked England's ass every possible way for centuries before that, which is a little more relevant since we're talking about the time "before the Hundred Years War".
>>375684
Your point being?
>>375664
>How can the clash even be denied holy shit you are just as dumb.
Because it's not nearly as simple as you're simplifying it to.
Just because there was a lot of change doesn't mean there wasn't continuity as well.
The presence of Gothic ideals in early-mid Renaissance art shows that it was not a comprehensive protest, and that by no means was there unanimous opposition towards the Gothic aesthetics and ideals.
>>375665
I know what Petrarch says.
That doesn't mean there wasn't more at play in the entirety of the Renaissance than the dark ages/Renaissance dichotomy.
>>375696
>And France had kicked England's ass every possible way for centuries before that
>things that never happened
>>375686
Flanders was a vassal county of France for most of the Middle Ages.
>>375707
>that it was not a comprehensive protest
Who said it was. Before the 19th century such a thing would be impossible unless emanating from religious authorities.
>>375689
>I'm stating facts that are very easily verifiable
No, you're largely overstating the greatness of France.
>But this board seems to get extremely angry at any mention of French relevance.
You're a retard.
You're not mentioning French relevance, you are saying compared to France the rest of Europe is irrelevant. This is a retarded assertion to make about the Medieval period.
>I'm guessing it's got something to do with the large amount of /pol/ American germanbooism.
No, you're just as bad as those Germaboos though, bud. You're idealizing a country over others just like they do, instead of attempting to suppress your own immense bias.
>>375687
Oh for fuck's sake.
Around 1300, most kingdoms of Europe were ruled by cadet branches of the House of France. Even the fucking PAPACY, which two centuries earlier had totally humiliated the German emperor, was completely under French control and its seat had been moved from Rome into France.
You have to be absolutely delusional to deny French political hegemony at that time.
>>375708
That dumbass probably things Normans = French, don't bother.
>>375705
The Middle Ages lasted 1000 years, not 50. Everything you have is essentially the Renaissance, and in my original post I already stated that French hegemony ended with the Hundred Years War.
>>375708
>>375725
You really shouldn't be on this board.
>>375727
Pretty much all I've named was related to the Middle Ages, not to the Renaissance. Your conclusion is based on a picture.
>>375710
>for most of the Middle Ages
1191-1384 is most of the middle ages? And I'm actually being kind and counting the time it was virtually independent form the crown in all but name.
Oh wait, I bet you believe the Carolingian Empire is the same country as a 19th century nation state idea of France.
None, they all suck. They are fun to read about but the quality of life was terrible by today's standards.
>>375722
>Around 1300, most kingdoms of Europe were ruled by cadet branches of the House of France.
You do realize that with the maintained independence of those kingdoms, like the Hungarians, Polish, and English, that this means nothing except a lot of French people in high places of otherwise separate, independent kingdoms, right?
Hence the dynastic wars, and the fact that there was no sandwiching of the Holy Roman Empire between the French in Hungary/Poland and in France. Just because they're all of the same French dynasties in no way means they're in ANY way centralized you moron.
>which two centuries earlier had totally humiliated the German emperor
This is relevant how?
The Papacy was just as variable as the HRE. Went through periods of different influences from different families throughout Europe.
>You have to be absolutely delusional to deny French political hegemony at that time.
And you would have to be insane to perceive the French presence as any way unified. It was not centralized, or else the French would have EASILY conquered Europe.
>>375734
I don't see England in that picture. In fact I see half of France under English rule and then about 1/5th still under french rules.
Meanwhile the french crown tried once to invade England, the dauphin had to run away after 1 year of occupying London, leaving his entire army behind to be slaughtered.
>>375717
I listed facts that for most of them nobody has even really questioned, and that individually are all completely accepted. From those I draw the obvious conclusion, which is that France was politically hegemonic from the 12th to early 14th centuries, and culturally hegemonic all the way since the 10th. It's a simple fact that everything people associate with the Middle Ages and that they usually believe is German or English (like Gothic architecture, or the Crusades, or Arthurian legends, or even the fairy tales OP mentioned) actually comes from France.
I understand this offends a lot of sensibilities, be they nationalistic or political correctness, but realities are realities regardless of anybody's feelings.
>>375722
By 1300? France got itself in several crushing defeats against the Aragonese around that time and a failed crusade if I recall. Almost no territorial gain in the HRE or anywhere outside of a small strip of Aquitaine really.
Hardly what I call hegemonic. The French king also had to deal with the great peers all the time and had little control over most of his country.
>>375753
The only sensibility offended here is your deluded nationalism.
>>375743
>this means nothing except a lot of French people in high places of otherwise separate, independent kingdoms
Yes and I suppose that was all just a huge coincidence. Members of the French royal family were just spontaneously elected kings all over the place because they all happened to have the most charming smiles, it had nothing to do with French power. And making the Papacy your bitch doesn't mean anything either, I mean I'm sure anyone else could have moved it to their own country too, they just didn't bother.
>And you would have to be insane to perceive the French presence as any way unified.
What? France was absolutely centralised by feudal standards, more than any other large kingdom.
>>375734
So they are English now?
>>375764
And you still can't dispute any of the facts I mentioned, all you can say is "it's wrong cause I don't like it!"
>>375748
What do you think happened between those two maps?
>>375789
This is what everyone else in this thread has been doing with your shutting your hears in full denial.
>>375753
>I listed facts
Okay I'll break it down for you.
>>375534
>Richest, most powerful, most culturally influential, and overall most civilised country in Europe.
Relative to the Medieval period, those aren't facts, they're opinions. Why are they opinions? Because they're so broad, arguable, and not definitively observable in Medieval France. They're subjective assertions.
Richest might be relatively agreeable if you could literally post the treasuries of all countries in Medieval Europe, but you really have an uphill battle on 'most powerful' and need to set out a rigid definition of 'power', say if power = most ethnically French kings in Europe, then okay. But clearly there's a lot more to power.
Cultural influence and 'civilized' is not even necessarily quantifiable. With the cultural input of the Italians and Netherlandish, again completely arguable, and still more subjective than fact.
You have not proven your standpoints. You have argued that having dynasties strewn uncooperative throughout Europe = power, and done nothing more than assert that all Medieval culture was French, with nothing but a single art historian whose personal account is that France has ideal examples of Gothic architecture.
Again:
>You're not mentioning French relevance, you are saying compared to France the rest of Europe is irrelevant. This is a retarded assertion to make about the Medieval period.
>You're idealizing a country over others just like they do, instead of attempting to suppress your own immense bias.
Stop it. It's fucking obnoxious and toxic.
>>374087
Define peasant.
>>374160
>which helped it become a leading Renaissance nation
u wot m8?
>>375790
The French king waited for Lionhearth to leave on a Crusade with his army to seize back all this land.
Besides that's hardly a moral victory. They just managed to not be completely occupied. Meanwhile England never suffered a successful French or Frankish invasion, ever.
>>375534
I'd go for Italy/Low Countries
>>375797
So far the arguments I've seen are:
- some Gothic towers built in 1880 as evidence that Germany was central to Gothic architecture, not France
- the fact that Swiss pikeman fought for France rather than their own country as evidence that Switzerland was more powerful than France
- various things that happened after the mid 14th century and are thus outside the scope of this discussion
>>375534
Fun fact that manuscript showing france was produced in the low countries...
>>375778
>Yes and I suppose that was all just a huge coincidence.
If you have any clue about dynastic presence in Europe, it almost always boil down to marriage, convenient deaths, and convenient inheritance. See: Charles V's Empire.
>just spontaneously elected kings all over the place because they all happened to have the most charming smiles, it had nothing to do with French power.
God you are so fucking naive, read above.
> And making the Papacy your bitch doesn't mean anything either,
It really doesn't. The French did it and the Germans did it. Had minimal long-term effects with how suddenly the Papacy's attitude could change.
>France was absolutely centralised by feudal standards, more than any other large kingdom.
The French presence in Europe as a whole. Jesus, even what you're saying isn't true until post-Hundred Years war, just look at what preceded the Hundred Years war. It was truly consolidated in the Renaissance.
The point is: the French dynasties in England, Hungary, and Poland were NOT unified.
Why don't you go jack off over the Sun King, he's actually worth your idealization.
Poland. The king was badass and the country barely got hit by the plague.
>>375799
90% of the population.
A poor farmer who most likely starts as a serf. Where would you want to be if you were that.
>>375816
Hard choice really. Depends on the century.
>>375806
>as evidence that Switzerland was more powerful than France
If a tiny country like that was already able to pose a threat, you can bet that a few of these added up to easily challenge any sort of imagined hegemony France might have had.
> various things that happened after the mid 14th century and are thus outside the scope of this discussion
The french kings had even less power before.
>>375798
>But clearly there's a lot more to power.
I'd say being able to move the centre of Christendom to your own country and under your control is pretty strong evidence of power.
>Cultural influence and 'civilized' is not even necessarily quantifiable.
Gothic architecture, troubadour songs and poetry, all the great literary cycles, the French language, ideals of chivalry and courtesy, the feudal system itself, the Cluniac conception of the Catholic Church....
All those are things that came to dominated all of the West. All of them came from France.
>>375814
This is true, Poland was actually a fantastic little place to live for the most part of European history until the 18th century or so.
>>375801
Those aren't nation-states you dimwit. Being king of England didn't magically stop Richard Lionheart from being duke of Anjou, Aquitaine, and Normandy. This is land the Angevins lost.
>Meanwhile England never suffered a successful French or Frankish invasion, ever.
Well except those three times when it did. Not that this is even relevant.
>>375833
Didn't they institute serfdom during the 15th century quite harshly?
any city in the empire in the 2nd century ad
basically everything was really really good
the country's absolute dictators happening to be really good guys for a hundred years in a row might have had something to do with it
>>375831
>I'd say being able to move the centre of Christendom to your own country and under your control is pretty strong evidence of power.
Yeah, that really lasted, didn't it?
I'd sure say that being called shit like 'King of the Romans' and referred to as 'Emperor' is pretty strong evidence of power, but oh wait, it's just bravado.
>Gothic architecture, troubadour songs and poetry, all the great literary cycles, the French language, ideals of chivalry and courtesy, the feudal system itself, the Cluniac conception of the Catholic Church....
>All those are things that came to dominated all of the West. All of them came from France.
Yes, these things that just magically sprouted forth from France and France alone with no prior influence of development, by the power of French magic.
Or put into context, part of the history of European culture that, while originating from the region recognized as France, was shared in and further developed and changed by the rest of Western and Central Europe in a manner that defies perfect tiers like 'best, good, bad, worst'.
>>375813
>it almost always boil down to marriage
Right and apparently everyone was just stumbling over each other trying to marry their daughters to the family of some irrelevant non-country. Again, probably the smiles.
>the Germans did it
When? You mean the Habsburg occupation of Rome? Pretty sure everyone agrees that was a time of Habsburg hegemony.
>The point is: the French dynasties in England, Hungary, and Poland were NOT unified.
I wasn't claiming that the entire world was unified within a French empire... It's just very obvious that a country that is in a position to do those things is the most powerful one in the West.
>>375855
>medieval
oh shit didnt read sry
>>375836
>Well except those three times when it did.
>things that never happened
Oh wait, he's gonna say the Normans were French.
>>375828
Switzerland never posed a thread to France, that's absolutely retarded. The battle of Marignano was part of the War of the League of Cambrai, and at the time the Swiss were allied with the HRE, Spain, England, and more, all against France.
And guess who won. France.
>>375858
>Yeah, that really lasted, didn't it?
It lasted for over a century. It would have lasted much longer if France hadn't been destroyed by the Hundred Years War. But even with that war raging, France still managed to hold on to the Papacy for 80 years.
>I'd sure say that being called shit like 'King of the Romans' and referred to as 'Emperor' is pretty strong evidence of power, but oh wait, it's just bravado.
One of those is words, the other is actions.
>part of the history of European culture that, while originating from the region recognized as France, was shared in and further developed and changed by the rest of Western and Central Europe in a manner that defies perfect tiers like 'best, good, bad, worst'.
So I assume you'd also object to the Renaissance being called "Italian" or the Industrial Revolution being called "British".
>>375859
>is the most powerful one in the West.
That they were a powerful entity separate from the HRE is no doubt the case.
That they can be called hegemonic is complete nonsense. They suffered major defeats in those centuries you describe, could not take hold of all the land held by the english crown on the continent, could not project their power efficiently farther than their own kingdom . And the French king often had to deal with internal dissent.
There hadn't been a single Hegemony since Charles the Great.
>>375859
>Right and apparently everyone was just stumbling over each other trying to marry their daughters to the family of some irrelevant non-country.
I would in no way call the Habsburgs the most powerful or relevant dynasty of the Renaissance even if they had married into the royal families of Spain, England, and controlled by way of inheritance Bohemia and the Netherlands, and otherwise much of the New World too.
They were very relevant, just like the Medici, Tudors, and of course, Valois and Bourbon.
But they easily had the most family members in the most royal families with the most territory in the mid-late Renaissance.
Yet it was the Bourbons and Tudors that had the more powerful, centralized kingdoms.
In the same manner, French dynasties throughout Europe =l= French being the most powerful and relevant.
>When? You mean the Habsburg occupation of Rome?
What 'occupation'? You mean when Charles V's army sacked it out of lack of pay?
>Pretty sure everyone agrees that was a time of Habsburg hegemony.
Well guess what, the reality is that it wasn't. The reality is that being a Holy Roman Emperor as the Habsburg was to be a powerful prince among powerful princes, and other, European king. Just because your seed spread far, doesn't mean shit.
In the same manner, England and the HRE were relevant in the Medieval period, and it's not an objective assertion to say the French were the MOST powerful/dynastically relevant at this time. They were relevant, but that 'most' is a load of bullshit.
>>375867
>The battle of Marignano was part of the War of the League of Cambrai, and at the time the Swiss were allied with the HRE, Spain, England, and more, all against France.
Wikipedia really detaches people from the reality of history.
That period of the Italian wars aren't even the height of Swiss power, and that 'alliance' is so entirely deceiving.
>>375866
You're on /his/, you don't get to "Normans were Viking Aryan Übermenschen!!"
French armies successfully conquered England in 1066 with the Norman Conquest, in 1215 during the Barons' War, and in 1326 with Isabella of France's invasion.
>>375881
>So I assume you'd also object to the Renaissance being called "Italian" or the Industrial Revolution being called "British".
Absolutely. Attributing the Renaissance to Italy alone is bullshit, just as attributing the entire industrial revolution to Britain is bullshit. It's just garbage, when so many countries were involved in such important and differing manners.
Thread successfully derailed.
>>375894
>You're on /his/, you don't get to "Normans were Viking Aryan Übermenschen!!"
Jesus what a dumb fucking meme.
No one is saying the Normans are German, but they're not French either. They're Normans. Kill yourself.
>>375883
OK were any of these hegemonies according to you?
Spain/Habsburgs in the 16th century
France between 17th and early 19th century
Britain in the 19th century
>>375891
You're the one who brought up Marignano.
>>375867
>the Swiss were allied with the HRE, Spain, England, and more, all against France.
Actually it was the French and Venetians vs the Swiss. The battle was in the Swiss's favor until Venetians reinforcements arrived even tho the french were already heavily outnumbering them.
The French involved their entire army, the Swiss whichever mercenary was not engaged somewhere else.
I think it's time to stop posting you are embarrassing yourself.
>>375899
>Spain/Habsburgs in the 16th century
This is a myth.
The Hapsburgs had a big blob of territory and a lot of family members, doesn't make them hegemonic. And I adore their history and their biographies, I think their selfishness and negligence is so human and beautiful, but they absolutely sucked. They were practically shit, but a sentimental bunch so I love them.
>France between 17th and early 19th century
With the rise of other powers at that point, there were too many for France alone, while expansive and powerful, to be THE hegemony. I mean unless you consider Napoleon to be hegemonic but that's really pushing the postulated length in the word hegemony.
>>375894
Normans merged Scandinavian and French influences to make a distinct culture. To call them french is completely dumb. They behaved like an independent entity and were far more overreaching than your average french dukedom.
>>375897
The Normans were French, and the Norman Conquest was even more French than Normandy was since it included men from all over France.
The Normans in England were always referred to simply as "French" until they were rebranded by nationalistic English historians in the 19th century.
>not one mention of Constantinople
okay.png
>>375918
>But literally everybody does it.
No they absolutely do not.
In fact, I will tell you right now wholeheartedly that this is the first time I've ever heard the Industrial Revolution get called exclusive British.
The 'Italian' Renaissance is a point of academic contention, there is not a unified answer. The implication that the entire Renaissance is Italian is not a consensus, it is argued much more logically accepted that the Netherlandish, German, and eventual British and French contributions warrant the regional divisions of 'Italian' and 'Northern' Renaissance.
>literally any historian ever.
Hey friend, you're literally wrong.
>>375913
For fuck's sake you're talking about a battle from 1515 that the Swiss lost so badly that they swore eternal neutrality, in an attempt to prove that Switzerland was more powerful than France in the 13th century.
One of us certainly needs to stop posting.
>>375894
>in 1215 during the Barons' War
This is actually a terrible example since it ended in a crushing defeat after one year. Forcing the Dauphin to flee and leave his entire army behind.
>and in 1326 with Isabella of France's invasion.
Actually not an invasion backed in any way by France, neither is it Isabella's invasion. Edward had been in exile in France and returned in England to claim back the throne after running away from the French court.
How ironic that you would use that one. It was the one thing that allowed Edward to wage war on France later on.
France did not have such a great military lineage back then. Get over it.
>>375908
I'm not even the person you were replying to.
At any rate, the HRE is the long-term enemy of the Swiss, the 'alliances' of the Italian wars aren't in any way accurate representations of the political contentions between Italian city states, and Germany/Switzerland.
>>375923
They were French with some Scandi influence. They were still culturally more French than most of France.
This is like claiming Saxons aren't German.
>>375930
>this is the first time I've ever heard the Industrial Revolution get called exclusive British
Are you shitting me?
>>375948
>Are you shitting me?
Nope. Covered in several times in high school and college, never once heard it referred to as the British Industrial Revolution, and I live in a commonwealth country. I have only ever seen it referred to as the Industrial Revolution, never once with 'British' behind it.
>>375932
>that the Swiss lost so badly that they swore eternal neutrality
Gross misinterpretation of the terms of the peace of Fribourg. The Swiss and French agreed to an ''eternal'' alliance and the Swiss were monetarily compensated for their past campaigns, which is what they wanted in the first place.
But I've seen this being said by other French people already. It's a common myth due to the way it's presented in your schools (and 4chan shitposting/dickwaving added on top)
As for 'lost so badly', the loss of the French king were so considerable that it is even questioned today if it can be considered the 'sun' of his reign as some have put it in the past.
Obviously Francis was not so confident he could go in for another one and agreed not to ask for any territorial concessions.
>>375934
French armies conquered England three times. English armies never conquered France. No amount of mental acrobatics will change that.
>Edward
Edward was a child, it was his mother who went into exile and then reconquered England in her son's name.
>France did not have such a great military lineage back then.
This has to be bait.
>>375953
I'm not talking about it being referred to as "the British Industrial Revolution", I'm talking about everyone stating that it's British and should be credited to Britain.
>>375943
>This is like claiming Saxons aren't German.
German as in? This is a good point because there was no such thing as a German identity in the early medieval era. Neither was it a thing until much later in the 18th and 19th century.
Normans were definitively a distinct people, with their own customs that were a mish mash of several influences, especially as they adapted with each conquests, as far as the levant. William was virtually independent when he initiated his invasion of England.
Their ability to travel and conquer distant land over naval invasions was a legacy of their viking heritage, as was the organization of the state, and their ethnicity.
And really, no other piece of France has been as successful as the Normans in their far reaching enterprises, which really sets them apart.
>>375963
>French armies conquered England three times.
You insist on saying this when you've been proven wrong already. Especially the two later, one which almost got the Capetian line ended and was a decisive defeat.
>English armies never conquered France.
So the English prince reclaiming his country with no French assistance, to then invade France from there, counts as a 'french' invasion, but somehow the English holding Paris for decades and half of France periodically for 3 centuries doesn't?
Go to school Pierre.
>it was his mother who went into exile and then reconquered England in her son's name.
She didn't . It was a lord named Mortimer who led the landing, and the force had backing from the lords of the HRE who escaped French authority. It had nothing to do with the French Kingdom other than Edward's mother was the daughter of a previous French king.
The current French king had no interest placing someone with a claim on his throne on the English throne and even tried to arrest Edward before he could leave.
>>375899
>Britain in the 19th century
Only this one. In that no one were challenging them and they arbitrated Europe as per British interests.
By far the first economic, naval and military power until the rise of the German Empire.
>>375978
Every region had local traditions, what you're saying implies that neither France, nor any other countries at the time existed.
>Their ability to travel and conquer distant land over naval invasions was a legacy of their viking heritage
Their big advantage was precisely that they fought French and not Viking, with French use of cavalry.
>the organization of the state
Not in any way.
>their ethnicity
They spoke French and practiced Catholicism, how were they in any way ethnically Viking and not French?
In case you're confusing ethnicity and race, you should realise the population of Normandy wasn't exterminated to make way for the Vikings, there was only minor Viking admixture and William himself was 1/32th Viking.
Not to mention as previously stated that most of the adventurers and mercenaries who joined William's cause weren't even from Normandy, but from elsewhere in France. A couple even from Italy and Spain.
>And really, no other piece of France has been as successful as the Normans in their far reaching enterprises
Except when some overwhelmingly French nobles traveled across the known world and conquered the Levant just 33 years later.
>>376028
British dominance in 19th century Europe was less pronounced than that of France before, or that of Spain before that.
>>376014
>You insist on saying this when you've been proven wrong already.
No, you just keep trying to change the subject to irrelevant nonsense, like the obvious fact that the French king's conquest wasn't permanent.
French armies conquered England. Three times. Get over it.
>the English holding Paris for decades and half of France periodically for 3 centuries doesn't
Plantagenets controlled Paris for a little over a decade, and large swaths of France (never even half) for a total of about 20-30 years during the Hundred Years War. At no point did an English army ever conquer France.
>all this nonsense about Isabella's conquest
It wasn't "lords of the HRE who escaped French authority", it was the count of Hainaut who was vassal to the king of France. Edward had no claim to the French throne since the French king was Charles the Fair who was a direct Capetian, and Isabella's brother. The future Edward III was 12 years old when Isabella brought him with her to France and decided to go back with an army to overthrow Edward II.
>>375963
>than that of France before
When?
Napoleon? Only lasted about 10 years, it's generally agreed that he was severely compromised before the invasion of Russia.
Louis 14? 3 draws and one defeat count as hegemonic now?
>Spain
Hard to argue with that one. 1500-1600 definitively saw Spain claiming crushing victories after another. Until the German rebellions started to happen and they tried landing in England.
>>374087
but i don't want live as a peasant in a medieval society
>>376073
France between 1643 and 1815.
>>376070
>like the obvious fact that the French king's conquest wasn't permanent.
But he didn't conquer anything Pierre. He captured London in the middle of a civil war, the Barons suddenly sided against him and kicked him out of the city and crushed his army in the only battle that took place. There was no conquest there beyond a failed landing.
>French armies conquered England. Three times. Get over it.
>If I repeat it enough time it will become true
>it was the count of Hainaut who was vassal to the king of France.
Who did so without the crown's consent, and the crown of France had virtually no power in Hainaut. Hainaut is also hardly culturally french but that's something else entirely.
And guess what happened shortly after in the following wars for the prince's Claim on France?
If you count Edward's return to England with no gain for France, no direct french assistance, as a french victory then you are a deluded dumbfuck. Can't help you with your missing braincells.
Charles was increasingly unpopular, had no male heir and poor health. His uncle was the one ruling in his stead most of the time and wanted to see his own son one day on the throne. They had very little assurance.
>>376091
>7 years war
>Spanish succession
>Bankruptcy
>Very little territorial gains that weren't returned a decade after
>had to stay allied with the Ottomans
>had to sell Louisianna to spain to keep their alliance
'Hegemony'
>>374315
>1800s
>medieval
>>376120
>failed landing
This desperation.
He occupied England for 16 months. The barons offered him the crown at one point.
>Who did so without the crown's consent
The crown didn't give a shit.
>His uncle was the one ruling in his stead
Charles de Valois was dead by then.
It's obvious from how emotional you are about this that you're an English nationalist. But then you should really avoid even thinking about this entire time period since everybody involved, be it on the "French" or the "English" side, was French, including John Lackland, Richard Lionheart, Edward II, Isabella of France, the count of Hainaut, Edward III, and every single baron of the Barons' War.
>>376034
>the population of Normandy wasn't exterminated to make way for the Vikings
The province was considerably depopulated by that time. The Scandinavians were invited to settle down with their families and people back home which caused a considerable migration into this much more hospitable land.
To this day Normandy has the highest blond hair and blue eyes traits recurrence in France.
Catholicism is not exclusive to France. Americans speak English and yet they're not British.
>Not to mention as previously stated that most of the adventurers and mercenaries
>from elsewhere in France
>most
Citation needed. With the proof that they also provided the meat of the battle effort and not act as meat shield for the Normans elite, which was common.
>Except when some overwhelmingly French nobles traveled across the known world and conquered the Levant just 33 years later.
Only after a crusade was declared and with support from all the other catholic kingdoms.
>>376138
>Thirty Years War
>Franco-Spanish War
>War of Devolution
>Franco-Dutch War
>War of the Reunions
>War of Spanish Succession
>War of Quadruple Alliance
>War of Polish Succession
>War of Austrian Succession
>American Revolutionary War
>French Revolutionary Wars
>five Coalition Wars
The only war France lost during this entire period was the Seven Years War, which was a clusterfuck of aliances where France only played a secondary role.
>Very little territorial gains that weren't returned a decade after
lol. This is Europe in 1648. By the end of Louis XIV's reign, France had basically the same borders as today.
What long lasting territorial gains did Britain make during its period of hegemony?
>>376162
>The crown didn't give a shit.
What could possibly go wrong?
>>376175
Vikings didn't speak French and weren't Catholics.
But they might indeed have had a slightly higher incidence of blonde hair, so yeah that's convincing, since blonde hair was unheard of elsewhere in France especially in the Capetian family.
>Only after a crusade was declared and with support from all the other catholic kingdoms.
After a Crusade was declared by a French Pope, and an army of overwhelmingly French nobles and French knights conquered the Holy Land and founded a bunch of kingdoms that were all ruled by French lines and defended by orders of French knights.
>>376182
>Spanish succession
>Victory
Almost of those you mentioned either resulted in eventual defeat (the revolutionary saga), bankruptcy, a draw or had France only participating in a much bigger coalition (Austrian succession, Polish succession, 30 years war).
No one ever lost half a continent in a single war tho, I would say that's a pretty impressive defeat all in all.
>>374087
T'ang/Early Song China desu.
Its pretty comfy with extensively wide cities and all that. Not to mention most wars are in the Periphery of the Empire. (An Lushan excluded)
>>376187
- this wasn't Charles the Fair's problem, he was a king's son and nobody had any claim against him, it only became a problem for his cousin Philip de Valois when he became king
- Isabella's son Edward was heir to the English throne anyway, Isabella only hastened his father's death
>>376182
>lol. This is Europe in 1648. By the end of Louis XIV's reign, France had basically the same borders as today.
Meanwhile with France's very own Prinz Eugen making huge territorial gains for the Habsburgs into Ottoman territory, and still maintaining a large presence in the Mediterranean, the French of the 17th century are still overshadowed by the height of the Polish and Swedish at this point.
Unlike the Polish and Swedish they actually maintained their power well into the 18th century, but look at how that ultimately ended.
>>376202
>But they might indeed have had a slightly higher incidence of blonde hair
>slightly
Quelle surprise! Exactly the borders of the Normans dukedom.
>>376162
>The barons offered him the crown at one point.
And then kicked his ass when they stopped liking him. There was only two pitched battles and France lost both of them.
Had the French prince not been wanted from the start he would not even have set foot.
>>376204
Yeah the War of Spanish Succession sure was a French defeat, that must be why a Bourbon sits on the Spanish throne right now.
And the rest you said is completely wrong, I mean I don't know, just look up the wars if you don't know about them.
>War of Devolution
>France alone vs Spain + Netherlands + England + Sweden
>France acquires Armentières, Bergues, Charleroi, Courtrai, Douai, Furnes, Lille, Oudenarde and Tournai
>Franco-Dutch War
>France alone vs Netherlands + HRE + Spain + England + a whole bunch of others
>Franche-Comté and Spanish Netherlands cities ceded to France
>War of the Reunions
>France alone vs Spain + HRE + Genoa
>France wins
I could go on but basically the typical war in these two centuries was France vs everybody else and France winning and growing larger.
All while every educated person outside of France was speaking French, reading French writers, and adopting French table manners btw.
>>376250
But Louis XIV's expansion was largely contingent on two factors other than his ambition. These are
#1 Central Europe tearing itself apart in the same century
#2 The waning Habsburg presence in Western Europe
Without those factors, his expansion may well have ended up being just as inconsequential as the successful but incredibly short-lived conquest of Italy in the preceding century, so contended by the Habsburgs that they ended up with half the peninsula, and most of the north until Louis came and take took it.
Again, with what were essentially the Polish and Swedish golden ages occurring simultaneously, your argument for French hegemony at this point really isn't looking good.
>>376250
>that must be why a Bourbon sits on the Spanish throne right now.
Doesn't matter. Louis' heir was forced to renounce his rights to the French throne. They became a separate dynasty from then on. Louis 14 was forced by England to go at war with his own son immediately after.
France lost every battle of the war until the English withdrew after they were assured France would not make any territorial gain or claim a dual Spanish/French crown.
Spain was forced to cede its territories to Austria and the Netherlands.
The french also got their first taste of Marlborough and loved it ever since then.
>>376269
>The waning Habsburg presence in Western Europe
Which is a direct consequence of french foreign policy against them. How deluded can on get?
>>376220
>the French of the 17th century are still overshadowed by the height of the Polish and Swedish
I can't even tell what is bait.
>but look at how that ultimately ended
Yeah and everything ultimately ends with the heat death of the Universe, what kind of a nonsensical point is that?
>>376223
Wow I never knew that bit of Southern England was pure Viking while the rest of Western England was non-Viking. Have there been a lot of wars between those two clearly wildly differing civilisations based on their irreconcilable eye colours?
>>376279
My first post in this thread but if you want to sound butthurt at least make it sound less british
>>374315
Most of rural england still lives pub culture
>>376283
>Which is a direct consequence of french foreign policy against them.
lol fuck off, it was a direct consequence of their negligent self-destruction. Only on their hometurf could the Habsburgs survive. The Netherlandic people were incredibly tenacious for their sovereignty, and the Spanish ceding them was inevitable. The height of the Habsburgs was over by a century when Louis XIV took power, and since that height it wasn't a plateau, but a self-destructive charge into the ground.
The Habsburgs were decadent and aggressive in Western Europe, ensuring their demise better than any French policy ever did. Keep sucking that lily-dick though.
>>376269
>#1 Central Europe tearing itself apart in the same century
>#2 The waning Habsburg presence in Western Europe
lol, and who do you think was responsible for that, genius?
>>376296
The fall of Habsburg power was a direct consequence of France systematically attacking and undermining it since the late 15th century.
>>376279
>The french also got their first taste of Marlborough and loved it ever since then.
Are you Canadian? That was Canadian tier humour.
>>376287
>I can't even tell what is bait.
Are you retarded?
Relative to their history, the 17th century was the height of Polish and Swedish power, and the last period where they've been at their largest.
Louis XIV was taking chips off the HRE. Fair to say the expansion of northern powers in the 17th, and Russia in the 18th century, far overshadows the French in this period.
>what kind of a nonsensical point is that?
That the mediocre non-hegemony of the French ended in complete uprising anyway. Pitiful to be honest. At least something actually powerful came from it.
>>376297
The Habsburgs, for both of them, genius.
>>376316
Now it's just the butthurt talking. Have a break lad, you're embarassing yourself
>>376316
>Relative to their history
Who cares? I'm sure Monaco is at its high point right now, doesn't make it a world power.
>That the mediocre non-hegemony of the French ended in complete uprising anyway.
And British non-hegemony ended in it losing its empire and becoming the sick man of Europe, and Roman hegemony ended in total collapse...
Wow you just discovered that hegemony ends when it ends. Have a cookie.
>>376319
The correct answer was France.
>>376304
Holy shit your dumb.
It's clear you don't even have a vague idea of Habsburg history.
Their fall was their own fault, not because of evil French collusion.
The French were an adversary for sure, but Habsburg negligence and aggression, in policy and finances, led to Habsburg decline. Wasting their treasuries and fighting against the Protestants and Netherlandish, that's what assured the Habsburg fall, not the French.
The French tore bits off the Habsburg corpse.
>>376250
>war of devolution
He was forced to give almost everything back in the same war. The gains you are mentioning are microscopic dots on the map.
>Franco-Dutch War
Again microscopic gains. Louis was forced to back off from his earlier attempt to overrun the entire Spanish Netherlands.
That's not what hegemonic means.
>War of reunions
Not a single battle. Austria was fighting the Ottomans Empire. France overran their eastern possessions. They were forced to give most of it back in the 9 years war.
>>376287
>Wow I never knew that bit of Southern England was pure Viking
It's called the Saxons
>>375599
>most powerful
>See: Switzerland, England.
Are you retarded?
>>376335
>microscopic gains
>>376327
And you still don't know what hegemony means.
>>375632
>Relative to population they certainly were.
Holy shit, what a fucking dumbass
Power/might of a country is one of the few things you shall NEVER calculate per capita
Retard
>>376351
lol
>>376351
Are you retarded? Those are the conquests from 1552 to 1789
>post a map he didn't look at.
>>376334
France systematically opposed the Habsburgs in Italy, allied with the Ottomans, encouraged the independence of Germanic states, and caused the Habsburg defeat in the Thirty Years War.
This is when Habsburg hegemony ends and French hegemony begins, in the 1640s.
>>376367
lol indeed. Where are those God forsaken parasitic swamps now?
>>376369
You know there is actual writing next to the map that you can read. Try not to get too distracted by the pretty colours.
>>376311
He's that Swiss Pole from /int/ who's permanently ass-ravaged at France.
>>376390
>French hegemony
>Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
>>376408
Add Israeli, Chinese and Martian. I don't know what you're smoking but I want some.
>>376390
>France systematically
[...]
>caused the Habsburg defeat in the Thirty Years War.
LOL
ARE YOU ACTUALLY FUCKING SERIOUS
BASED RETARD BRO
Also 'systematic opposition' in Italy has a name, it's called war, wars that divvied up Italy between France and Spain, whoopee.
The alliance with the Ottomans is about as consequential as the Franco-Scottish alliance. AKA not really at all.
>encouraged the independence of Germanic states
Oh wow and you combine that with
>caused the Habsburg defeat in the Thirty Years War.
And you have the stupidest, most unfounded and delusional post I have read all day.
Do you have any idea of what the major conflicts in the 30 Years War entailed? Do you? You think it was the French that caused the major Habsburg defeats? Throughout Germany, with German v German and German v Swedish forces, and you think it was the French v the Spanish that caused the Habsburgs to lose? Fucking hell, you're beyond saving. You're flat-out retarded.
Habsburg negligence and protestant dominance in Central Europe, spurred on by Habsburg aggression, caused the defeat of the Habsburgs.
>French hegemony begins, in the 1640s.
What French hegemony?
Show me the French hegemony.
Louis XIV and Rococo =l= hegemony. Somewhat dominance =l= total dominance.
>>376138
Get over it senpai
France was the country all Europe was butthurt about
I just arrived in this thread and I real all the argument and holy shit......so many bullshit from your "side"
>Normans werent French
>France under English (instead of Plantagenet) rule during the Angevin Empire (>>375748 )
>Switzerland was most powerful than France
I mean fuck man, contain your butthurt
>>376408
>many posts less than one minute apart
>several replies each time calling you out on the shit you make up
>all the same person
>makes up imaginary boogeyman
That assblasted frenchfag
>>376427
>so many bullshit from your "side"
I wonder what your first language could be.
>Normans werent French
They objectively weren't, stop the butthurt over ancestors that weren't yours, Jean.
>>376437
>many posts less than one minute apart
Pretty sure you can post every 10 sec on /his/
The one minute thing is for older boards
>>376421
>ARE YOU ACTUALLY FUCKING SERIOUS BASED RETARD BRO
This isn't even controversial you dumb fuck.
France massively supported the Protestants, caused Sweden's entry in the war, and then entered the war itself and dominated the last 10 years of it. The peace of Westphalia made Germany a French protectorate. The French victory over the Spanish at Rocroi marked the end of Spain's hegemony and the start of France's.
>Somewhat dominance =l= total dominance.
In that case nobody has ever had hegemony in the West since the Romans.
>>376427
>after 1000 years of history the french only have 3 victories worth showing
>resorts to bragging about that one time everyone beat the shit out of them
>>376440
By 1066 Normans were 100% French culturally speaking and at least over 50% French genetically speaking
They had literally nothing linking them with vikings aside from a distant ancestry.
It's like if you took an American dude whose ancestor arrived from Germany in 1850 and claimed he was still a German and not American at all despite the fact he always lived there and know no other culture
How butthurt can one be?
>>376437
Yeah I'm sure the guy claiming that 13th century Switzerland was more powerful than France is totally a different retard than the Swiss who keeps making threads whining about French surrender monkeys.
>>376452
>Claim a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring them.
>>376455
Are you retarded?
These are seven wars (=/= battles) in which France faced the most powerful countries of Europe and sometimes won
Could you show me seven wars in which Britain faced most European powers alone?
Of course not, there isnt even one.
>>376468
Huh?
>>376462
Literally what the fuck are you talking about
>>376476
Read the thread.
>>376462
This dude is hilarous though
I remember on of his threads on /int/ about France surrender stuff got archived with only ONE reply lmao
His threads are always failure on /int/ cause the flags prevent him from heavily samefagging without people calling his bullshit out
That must be why he came here
>>376471
>has to split the Napoleonic war in 2 to increase the count
>>376452
>This isn't even controversial you dumb fuck.
Things that aren't true in the slightest aren't controversial, you're right.
>caused Sweden's entry in the war, and then entered the war itself and dominated the last 10 years of it
The French influence to Habsburg decline was largely indirect and only effective long after the Habsburgs had already shot themselves in the foot several times. The idea that the French orchestrated the entire Habsburg downfall to instill their hegemony is an insane conspiracy. The French acted most effectively when the Habsburgs were at their weakest, quite a smart thing to do, but to imply that such weakness was directly brought on by the French is conspiratorial and retarded.
The French were a supplementary factor in Habsburg decline, effectively in the aftermath of their expansion into Western Europe. You're asserting that the French were the primary factor, with shit like the Italian Wars and Franco-Ottoman alliance as your long-term proofs, when in no way did they serve to undermine the Habsburgs, let alone more than the Habsburgs undermined themselves with flagrant spending on military and luxuries, and an ignorant and brutish approach to state and policy in the regions they controlled.
>>376485
>the Napoleonic war
No such thing exist
You must be thinking of the Napoleonic WarS
>>376481
>Starts making outrageous claims
>Gets called a retard during the entire duration of the thread
>Ends up having to come up with an imaginary boogeyman
It's this guy! Yes that uh...Swiss...Pole guy, yes that should do it.
You see, therefore I am right! We french invented all zee things Germans actually invented!
>>376489
>countries defending their interests is an insane conspiracy
Yeah I'm done.
>>376515
>posting on /his/ while believing Gothic architecture was German
Leave.
>>376529
He's probably not even that guy
I bet he just hijacked the thread to shitpost against France
>>376525
Finally out of bullshit to spew Pierre carefully retreats and surrenders.
Another strategic defeat for his country on teh internetz.
>>376525
Yeah you don't have an argument and suddenly your claim is
>single handedly 'undermining' the Habsburgs who were in the process of killing themselves
=
>'France defending its interests'
Your concept of Franco-Habsburg relations equating to French undermining of the Habsburgs is so unfounded and retarded, it's embarrassing how someone could idealize something to that extent.
>>376531
Now don't get mad.
We're only having srs discussion on your historical confabulations
>>376531
>I bet he just hijacked the thread to shitpost against France
This thread was hijacked by a baguetteboo right
>>375534
Here.
And since then it has been nothing but shitposting about how France is perfect not only in the medieval period, but since its conception.
And the worst thing is the autist that does it can't contain himself, he's done the same before.
>>376567
No doubt that's him too, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that post. It's not as intolerable as from there onwards.
>>376560
He just answered OP's question with something other than circlejerking about how great Germany is.
>>376608
No, he got butthurt that someone liked Germany and had to correct that person's FALSE OPINION with 'facts' oh-so-perfect France.
What's going on in this thread
>>376620
So he was wrong in saying that gothic architecture was french or that most fairy tales are?
>>375534
wot
>>376641
Vindicated Charlie vs the world.
>>376642
>gothic architecture
Gothic architecture in Germany is German.
Origin and style may be French, application from country to country has its own regional styles.
> or that most fairy tales are
He was referring to Grimm, which have several European influences, 'most of them' being varied, not French.
Why are you so butthurt that not everyone perceives France as ideally as you? You realize your dogmatism only makes it look worse than it really is, not better? It can stand on its own. It's a common trope to depict France as the center of modern European culture, isn't that enough? Or do you have to continue to shitpost about its absolute perfection?
>>376641
Frog Thinks he's God:
A Retelling of the History of France, Centre of the World
>>376663
I'm not that guy, I just saw the first part of the thread earlier and now came back to it. I honestly had no clue and always thought gothic art and Grimm fairy tales were German, so I that part was new to me.
>>376679
Welp, my mistake.
Thought the question was sarcastic and snarky, didn't realize.
>>376669
As someone who just arrived and read the entire conversation, it sounds like the Pro-French dude initiated the bullshit, but the Anti-French one became more and more butthurt as the conversation went on and started spiting pure lies
Both parties are garbage imo
