[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/int/ - International


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1557881617692.jpg (371 KB, 1016x1356)
371 KB
371 KB JPG
European history is pretty much just France chimping out and being put down. Macron seems eager for this to happen again. The Italian Wars and the Revolutionary wars are the most famous examples that I can think of off the top of my head. Why does France have a need to do this shit?
>>
File: C706UD-h_400x400.jpg (27 KB, 400x400)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>1066
>hundred years war
>>
File: 1539034084345.png (252 KB, 1528x1184)
252 KB
252 KB PNG
>>105633281
YEAH!
>>
>Why does France have a need to do this shit
The eternal gaul is a disgusting, violent subhuman whose goal is destroying the rest of Europe
>>
>>105633307
The Italian Wars were kino. I still don't understand France's obsession with Naples though
>>
>>105633377
angevin dynastic claims
>>
>>105633515
Those claims must have meant a lot considering they kept going at it
>>
>>105633377
>>105633568
>I still don't understand France's obsession with Naples though
Unlike today Italy was really, REALLY rich at the time. Getting a finger in the pot there meant a lot. If you also look at Charles VIII's expedition he didn't go by boat, he just strongarmed his way by land through the territory of the weak and undefended city-states of the North. My speculation is that by claiming the Kingdom of Sicily, they would be able to enforce their will on the (even back then) much richer North too. It's not like they'd have a choice, considering they wouldn't be able to meaningfully fight back (that and the biggest boi in North Italy, Venice, was a French ally under Francis I).

The other reason I can speculate on is the Eternal Habsburg and a "If we don't take it, they will" mindset. Which proved to be true of course and allowed the Habsburgs to be the most powerful entity on earth until the Pr*testant reformation (which in turn explains why France sided with the Protestants despite culling Huguenots in their own country).
>>
>>105633377
Italy was loaded with money, and the best minds and artists were located there. Banksters from (((Venice))) and (((Genoa))) had European kings by the balls for centuries. Venice declined a lot after the Ottomans lost Hungary, but other parts of Italy remained filthy rich. Even by the point of Italian unification, Two Sicilies was the richest country in Southern Europe.
>>
>>105633741
65 years were spent for that. At a certain earlier point you'd rhink France would have cut their losses
>>
>>105633741
>>105633960
Yeah I get it now. Also it seems to me that Spain was at its peak during the Italian Wars.
>>
File: 1446920073255[1].png (132 KB, 554x439)
132 KB
132 KB PNG
>>105634004
The Hundred Years War lasted 115 years, the 80 Years War lasted 72 years, 65 years was by no means exceptional for the time. Especially when you consider wars at the time weren't Total Wars and mostly fought by professionals, mercenaries and nobles. Financially speaking it was probably a trifling matter compared to what potential profits hanged in the balance.
>>
>>105634023
Well, we held more than half of Italy for a long time. Milan, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, Parma, the Presidi, etc. Our troops even captured the French king once in combat, something that the French never did with a Spanish king.
>>
>>105634046
Henry II's death really fucked up France
>>
>>105633568
since dynasties intermarried it was easy to lose ones country if you just gave up on it, especially kingdoms were like countries today, a claim on a duchy here and there, and the next thing you know the english king wants to be the king of france
>>
>>105634166
Hard to wrap my head around that. I guess it makes more sense to Europeans
>>
>>105633568
Feudal dynasties were basically competing mafias. Finding claims and going to war over them was basically the entire point of their existence. These were not wars waged to secure the interests of a state and the people in it but personal matters of the lords involved. They were all just trying to get rich and have some fun war while at it.
>>
>>105633281

How is Macron chimping out? He's probably the only guy in the EU aiming for a strong independent Europe.
>>
>>105634216
Not really. Just look at how the English treat the HYW for example. It's common for layman to project the concept of modern nation-states backwards into history.
>>
>>105634216
To a feudal lord/king the lands they hold are just a means to an end. They fought these wars for personal and dynastic gain. The people in their lands were obligated to pay for it and (not as often as you'd think) provide troops for it because the lord or some of his ancestors had secured that contractual obligation in some other war.
>>
>>105634275
He wants an EU army, which will automatically put him at odd with any country that watns even a semblance of independence. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's not a coincidence that this push happened right after Brexit. They want to prevent such a fluke from happening again by ensuring there's only one military in the EU and it's loyal to the EU itself, not to the nations that make up its components. New independence movements will be treated like the one in Catalonia:
>Declared invalid
>Leader arrested
>Area occupied
>>
>>105634382
what is this stupid shit
Orbán wants an EU army too
>>
>>105634661
That also makes Orbán an enemy of national sovereignity then. Simple as. Though "Redpilled and Based" Eastern Europeans are among the biggest fans of the EU gibsmedat machine so it's not surprising. They just appear anti-EU due to being anti-migration.
>>
>>105634382
And that's how it should be. The only thing the constitutuent nations are good for is providing a redundant layer of authority that is too weak to exist on its own. Better to be in our own empire than be the perpetual bitches of US, Russia and China.
>>
>>105634775
You're only anti-EU because of a misplaced sense of relevance and because you don't like eastern gypsies getting gibs
>>
>>105634808
>I don't want my country to be the puppet of larger powers, much better to be less relevant to the EU then Hawaii is to America instead!
You're just choosing for your country to become a German Bundesland rather than an American ally.
>>
>>105634113
Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba is my Gran Capitán
>>
>>105634216
Play ck2 if you want to feel and understand the feudal autism.
>>
>>105633281
we're good boys though
>>
>>105634382

An EU Army would be more like national armies pooling together their resources and some sort of unified command network a la NATO style for when needed.

I still see the threat to national sovereignity with that, but it's exactly the same as it is with NATO currently (only that interests would change, and that butthurts the anglos and their bitches) and it certainly is less of loss of national sovereignity than the Euro and the Economic Union currently are.

See Greece default:

>Dutchie troika guy imposes them financial capitulation terms or die lol
>country turned into vassal state
>economy in ruins

Or see Eastern Europe becoming clientelar subservient economies of German and Dutch interests and moneys while their own people have to migrate and their own industrial and service economies are annihilated. That's the real threat to national sovereignities and to the EU project as well.
>>
>>105633330
>flag
>calling us a mutt
>>
>>105635481
>An EU Army would be more like national armies pooling together their resources
Maybe, but that's not what Macron is talking about. The man who calls nationalism "a leprosy" wants a truly European army, not a mutual defense agreement (which, by the way, already exists). A European army would be loyal to the EU.

>See Greece default
Oh no, you mean that decades of structurally spending more than your income and a broken tax system means you'll have to pay back your debt and your debtors will pressure you into not defaulting? That's the one thing you can't really blame on the EU, that's just a structurally Greek problem. The EU makes for an easy scapegoat though.

>Or see Eastern Europe becoming clientelar subservient economies of German and Dutch interests and moneys while their own people have to migrate
On what planet? In fact one could debate the opposite: companies like Philips are now moving production away from the Netherlands and to Poland.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/05/philips-shifts-230-support-jobs-to-poland-to-boost-efficiency/
>>
>>105633281
The franch should have won the italian wars
>>
>>105635614

> A European army would be loyal to the EU.

Just like european armies are loyal to NATO when they're assigned under NATO command. He's calling for something like that.

>The EU makes for an easy scapegoat though.

Literally everyone in the EU nowadays acknowledges that the management of the Greek situation was a disaster and/or retarded.

>On what planet?

On this Planet. Someone post again the graphic of countries most benefitted by the Euro and the Economic Union. You're welcome to FULLY Holxit and have your national sovereignity back.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.