Time traveling Moseley, I knew it.
Advertisement
by Salus Maior » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:15 am
by Novus America » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:15 am
Nova Cyberia wrote:North German Realm wrote:I'm like, 90% sure Germany had no actual case to justify any form of annexation in the West. Like, at all. The German population of Lorraine were nowhere near large enough to justify annexation of concessions in the scale that the Volksdeutsche of the East were.
The German Empire was just too fucking ambitious. Not only did they want a network of vassals carved out of Russia's former Western territories, they also wanted complete domination of the low countries and they wanted to fucking vandalize France.
Essentially, they wanted complete domination over mainland Europe. They bit off way more than they could chew.
by Napkizemlja » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:16 am
by North German Realm » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:17 am
5 Nov, 2020
Die Morgenpost: "We will reconsider our relationship with Poland" Reichskanzler Lagenmauer says after Polish president protested North German ultimatum that made them restore reproductive freedom. | European Society votes not to persecute Hungary for atrocities committed against Serbs, "Giving a rogue state leave to commit genocide as it sees fit." North German delegate bemoans. | Negotiations still underway in Rome, delegates arguing over the extent of indemnities Turkey might be made to pay, lawful status of Turkish collaborators during occupation of Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Syria.
by Old Tyrannia » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:17 am
Salus Maior wrote:Old Tyrannia wrote:Given that the First World War left the United Kingdom bankrupt and marked the end of Britain's global hegemony, I don't see how we benefited from it at all.
The real beneficiaries of the war were the United States, Japan, Russian communists and perhaps Italy. I suppose France regained Alsace-Lorraine, but at a very high cost.
And Fascists.
by Nea Byzantia » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:18 am
Napkizemlja wrote:Nea Byzantia wrote:He certainly wasn't expecting the First Crusade. He was probably just expecting a few thousand mercenaries; not half of Europe.
That is a given but to say that religion wasn't the driving force is wrong. The main non-religious factor was Pope Urban II attempt at quelling the numerous petty wars between knights and the lower nobility as well as attempting to increase Papal authority on the nobility of Europe.
by Kowani » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:18 am
Novus America wrote:Napkizemlja wrote:The only thing you could potentially blame Britain for is taking a bit too long to make its position clear to the Germans; maybe if they had been a bit faster in indicating that they would go to war if Belgium's neutrality was violated then perhaps the Germans would have avoided launching their attacks. That is about it. Everyone was looking to the UK to find a diplomatic solution to the July Crisis and the British government certainly gave it a shot to avoid a war. The idea that Britain had Franz Ferdinand assassinated is baseless beyond belief and fueled by nothing else other than your Anglophobia.
Yes, the UK was not to blame. Serbia was the most guilty, Austria had has justification to attack Serbia but could have avoided it. Russia should not have been so willing to defend Serbian terrorism, Germany made it much worse by launching a unprovoked attack on Belgium.
The UK had a treaty to defend Belgium, and it followed the treaty.
by North German Realm » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:19 am
Kowani wrote:Novus America wrote:
Yes, the UK was not to blame. Serbia was the most guilty, Austria had has justification to attack Serbia but could have avoided it. Russia should not have been so willing to defend Serbian terrorism, Germany made it much worse by launching a unprovoked attack on Belgium.
The UK had a treaty to defend Belgium, and it followed the treaty.
Well…if Russia hadn’t defeated Serbia, Austria-Hungary would have had dominance over the Black Sea- which is where most of Russia’s trade went.
5 Nov, 2020
Die Morgenpost: "We will reconsider our relationship with Poland" Reichskanzler Lagenmauer says after Polish president protested North German ultimatum that made them restore reproductive freedom. | European Society votes not to persecute Hungary for atrocities committed against Serbs, "Giving a rogue state leave to commit genocide as it sees fit." North German delegate bemoans. | Negotiations still underway in Rome, delegates arguing over the extent of indemnities Turkey might be made to pay, lawful status of Turkish collaborators during occupation of Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Syria.
by Nova Cyberia » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:19 am
Novus America wrote:Nova Cyberia wrote:The German Empire was just too fucking ambitious. Not only did they want a network of vassals carved out of Russia's former Western territories, they also wanted complete domination of the low countries and they wanted to fucking vandalize France.
Essentially, they wanted complete domination over mainland Europe. They bit off way more than they could chew.
This is absolutely true. They tried to do it all, all at once. Almost succeeded too.
But when you go all or nothing you often get nothing.
Just dealing with the East even after Russia was beaten would have taken years.
Do not try to gain everything in one war.
Win a less ambitious one, spend a few years consolidating and recovering before trying again.
by Nova Cyberia » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:20 am
by Kowani » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:21 am
by Salus Maior » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:22 am
Nea Byzantia wrote:Napkizemlja wrote:That is a given but to say that religion wasn't the driving force is wrong. The main non-religious factor was Pope Urban II attempt at quelling the numerous petty wars between knights and the lower nobility as well as attempting to increase Papal authority on the nobility of Europe.
Religion was a driving factor on the surface. On a political level, the Pope wanted to bring the Orthodox to heel; and the Italian banking clans wanted a piece of the Silk Road and the economic prosperity of the East.
by North German Realm » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:22 am
5 Nov, 2020
Die Morgenpost: "We will reconsider our relationship with Poland" Reichskanzler Lagenmauer says after Polish president protested North German ultimatum that made them restore reproductive freedom. | European Society votes not to persecute Hungary for atrocities committed against Serbs, "Giving a rogue state leave to commit genocide as it sees fit." North German delegate bemoans. | Negotiations still underway in Rome, delegates arguing over the extent of indemnities Turkey might be made to pay, lawful status of Turkish collaborators during occupation of Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Syria.
by Nea Byzantia » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:23 am
Salus Maior wrote:Nea Byzantia wrote:Religion was a driving factor on the surface. On a political level, the Pope wanted to bring the Orthodox to heel; and the Italian banking clans wanted a piece of the Silk Road and the economic prosperity of the East.
...The Crusaders wanted to bring the Orthodox to heel, by swearing fealty to the Byzzie Emperor and helping him reclaim some cities? (They broke off later, of course, but they attacked the Muslims not the Byzantines)
by Novus America » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:23 am
Kowani wrote:Novus America wrote:
Yes, the UK was not to blame. Serbia was the most guilty, Austria had has justification to attack Serbia but could have avoided it. Russia should not have been so willing to defend Serbian terrorism, Germany made it much worse by launching a unprovoked attack on Belgium.
The UK had a treaty to defend Belgium, and it followed the treaty.
Well…if Russia hadn’t defeated Serbia, Austria-Hungary would have had dominance over the Black Sea- which is where most of Russia’s trade went.
by North German Realm » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:23 am
5 Nov, 2020
Die Morgenpost: "We will reconsider our relationship with Poland" Reichskanzler Lagenmauer says after Polish president protested North German ultimatum that made them restore reproductive freedom. | European Society votes not to persecute Hungary for atrocities committed against Serbs, "Giving a rogue state leave to commit genocide as it sees fit." North German delegate bemoans. | Negotiations still underway in Rome, delegates arguing over the extent of indemnities Turkey might be made to pay, lawful status of Turkish collaborators during occupation of Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Syria.
by Novus America » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:24 am
Nova Cyberia wrote:Novus America wrote:
This is absolutely true. They tried to do it all, all at once. Almost succeeded too.
But when you go all or nothing you often get nothing.
Just dealing with the East even after Russia was beaten would have taken years.
Do not try to gain everything in one war.
Win a less ambitious one, spend a few years consolidating and recovering before trying again.
As you said, they should have gone with the eastern plan.
But honestly, their crushing victory during the Franco-Prussian War made them arrogant. They figured they would be able to quickly defeat the French again.
by Old Tyrannia » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:25 am
Novus America wrote:Nova Cyberia wrote:The German Empire was just too fucking ambitious. Not only did they want a network of vassals carved out of Russia's former Western territories, they also wanted complete domination of the low countries and they wanted to fucking vandalize France.
Essentially, they wanted complete domination over mainland Europe. They bit off way more than they could chew.
This is absolutely true. They tried to do it all, all at once. Almost succeeded too.
But when you go all or nothing you often get nothing.
Just dealing with the East even after Russia was beaten would have taken years.
Do not try to gain everything in one war.
Win a less ambitious one, spend a few years consolidating and recovering before trying again.
by Salus Maior » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:31 am
Nea Byzantia wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
...The Crusaders wanted to bring the Orthodox to heel, by swearing fealty to the Byzzie Emperor and helping him reclaim some cities? (They broke off later, of course, but they attacked the Muslims not the Byzantines)
They attacked the Eastern Roman Empire in 1204, and sacked the New Rome; and before that, they had no real intention of keeping their vows; and they didn't.
by Old Tyrannia » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:33 am
Salus Maior wrote:Nea Byzantia wrote:They attacked the Eastern Roman Empire in 1204, and sacked the New Rome; and before that, they had no real intention of keeping their vows; and they didn't.
Yes, and they weren't supposed to sack Constantinople.
The Crusade was declared for Egypt, the Venetians steered it off course for their own benefit.
by Nova Cyberia » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:48 am
Salus Maior wrote:Nea Byzantia wrote:They attacked the Eastern Roman Empire in 1204, and sacked the New Rome; and before that, they had no real intention of keeping their vows; and they didn't.
Yes, and they weren't supposed to sack Constantinople.
The Crusade was declared for Egypt, the Venetians steered it off course for their own benefit.
by Fahran » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:08 pm
Nova Cyberia wrote:The problem with the Crusaders was that none of them really had any loyalty to the Byzantines (who were the primary ones calling for help from the Pope), and it showed. Rather than returning the territory they conquered to the Eastern Romans they set up their own Crusader states instead.
by Fahran » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:11 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Yes, and they weren't supposed to sack Constantinople.
The Crusade was declared for Egypt, the Venetians steered it off course for their own benefit.
by Kowani » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm
Fahran wrote:Nova Cyberia wrote:The problem with the Crusaders was that none of them really had any loyalty to the Byzantines (who were the primary ones calling for help from the Pope), and it showed. Rather than returning the territory they conquered to the Eastern Romans they set up their own Crusader states instead.
The First and Third Crusades, more or less, accomplished what they set out to achieve. The First Crusade returned Nicaea and much of western Anatolia into Byzantine hands and then proceeded into the Levant where it managed to seize Antioch, Edessa, Acre, and Jersualem, thus establishing independent Christian polities that could safeguard the pilgrimage routes. The Second Crusade subdued the rebellious and treacherous aristocracy of Cyprus, returned Jaffa, Tyre, and the Levantine coast to Christian rule, and imposed a treaty that safeguarded pilgrimage into the Holy Land. But, yes, the First and Second Crusades actively considered the interests of the Byzantines and a substantial amount of time was spent fighting the Seljuk Turks on their behalf, as well as to reestablish the County of Edessa.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Elejamie, Herador, Ifreann, Kaumudeen, Likhinia, Saarenmaa, Skircoat4, The Lone Alliance, The Whimslands, The Xenopolis Confederation
Advertisement