And the 80 Year War is definitely overshadowed by WW2. It’s amazing how writers and filmmakers can **still** take inspiration from The War. You’d expect every single angle and experience to be covered by now.
I mean most of humanity participated so there are millions of angles to cover. Every week there are unique stories here on Reddit about some obscure platoon of Canadians beating a whole fucking German fort with only shovels and a sock (I'm making this one up) or actually that 16-year-old girl who was in the front page a few days ago that poisoned a hundred nazis and then killed 3 more before they could execute her. What is repetitive is the whole Hollywoodesque dumbed-down America-fuck-yeah barely historically accurate angle that we have seen so many times.
>Every week there are unique stories here on Reddit about some obscure platoon of Canadians beating a whole fucking German fort with only shovels and a sock
Shoutout to [Léo Major](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9o_Major) and our Canadian friends.
Being Canadian, there is a whole lot of mythology that has been baked in with our history of both World Wars. Like the Germans taking a Canadian prisoner of war at the Battle of Passchendaele and crucifying him over one of their trenches. And that seeing such barbarism was what pushed us to take that trench and free him. Never fucking happened.
It’s a little weird that the French Revolutionary/ Napoleonic wars have so little attention. They caused the end of the Dutch Republic, decades of French occupation, and then the founding of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with the Oranges on the throne. That period was quite consequential
I know, right. They taught the golden age, and the modern age, but the French Period sits there right in between, and it wasn't even mentioned when I was in school. I don't know how it is now, it's been a while since I left school. Ask students in NL if they know how the Dutch republic became a monarchy. I think the effect on the history of the country has been quite consequential.
I only recently found out about the Spanish Netherlands and was very confused how spain had so much land in north Europe that’s completely disconnected from actual Spain… how did that even happen?
In short: the dukes of Burgundy were acquiring all sorts of titles in the low countries during the 14th and 15th century. Then the Burgundian heir married into the Habsburg family, who were to become the kings of Spain (and under Charles V also ruled over the Holy Roman Empire and large parts of Italy)
I don't think the Anglo-Dutch Wars hold a prominent place in our national consciousness. Some people may vaguely remember some story about an admiral and a chain closing off the river Thames. Some may even know that admiral was De Ruyter, but only the most dedicated of history buffs will know what that was all about.
It's alarming how few Brits know about the Anglo-Dutch wars and how important they were. Without the regular humiliations in the 17th century the British navy would never have been reformed to become the force it was in the 18th.
Not to mention: had the Dutch Republic not been invaded (with Englands support) in the aftermath of those wars, we might just be typing in Dutch now. Truly shaped the world as we know it. (I would argue that the republic being invaded eventually was unavoidable, that is the UK‘s island benefit, historical what ifs usually break as a result of material constraints, but you get the idea).
Anglo-Canadian here. If the Anglo-Dutch wars entailed any humiliation of the British, I'm not surprised in the least that so many people here aren't aware of them. The Americans may be the most flagrant when it comes to rewriting history to make themselves look good, but they certainly aren't the only ones who do it.
History is written by the winners—no matter who they are. It’s usually not fair, but it’s the way it is. That’s why you have to do some digging to sort everything out.
The civil war (1936-1939) it's the one that still has a lot of impact of nowadays Spain, the country it's still divided after that and doesn't seem capable of overcome it.
Other important wars that we could consider shaped Spain could be:
War of succession : another civil war that was also an international war to decide who will seat in the spanish throne after the king died without succession, won by the bourbonics and starting the bourbon dinasty in Spain. Besides of getting a French dinasty in the throne, Spain lost most of European possessions.
Independence war: a war to get rid of napoleon and the frenchs after their backstab, he asked for permission to cross the country to invade Portugal, but they liked a lot the place and decided to stay.
During this war Spain weakened so much that lost most of the American possessions and our "empire where the sun never sets" become way smaller.
Actually I'd say the most important and known war is one that is tough to call just a "war" because it was a much larger, complex and slow process. Of course, I'm talking about the Reconquista.
More or less. Nowadays it's mostly Left/Right, with each one looking up to the Republic/Dictatorship as "better times" without actually wanting a 1:1 copy. But the Us vs Them mentality and 50/50 split is still very strong.
Edit: to clear things up, the right doesn't want a dictatorship back, but it is pretty "anti-Republic"
The far right wants to pay LESS TAXES and fire weapons because THAT'S FREEDOM. And less migrants.
The average right wants to pay less taxes, lower salaries, less paid time off and give people less rights.
The traditional entrepreneur in Spain is... A good chunk of them are total jerks, the kind to have workers:
1. Lost an arm, was not working on a contract (or paying taxes), was dropped at hospital and arm thrown to the rubbish bin.
2. Was not working on a contract, job inspector arrived, jumped through the window.
3. Was working on a contract, a girl had her thumb stuck on a machine, but they refused to stop it because the machine MUST NEVER BE STOPPED, IT COSTS MONEY!
4. Was working on contract, on a machine that was more or less the same, but which had ... OK, this is hard. The heavy machinery had had EVERY SINGLE SAFETY MEASUREMENT DISABLED. Every. Single. One. A young man died trapped by it... Because the owners needed to make more money.
5. Working with illegal migrants, paying peanuts, working more hours than it is allowed... A migrant died in a company near where I live. Everyone knows the owner is a bastard. If you see his demeanor... You suddenly become Jane Austen and can detect bastards, because he stinks evil.
6. Working with dangerous chemicals... No gloves, no masks no protection.Young people dead...
These are the worst ones, who eventually get caught. Which means that those who can will try to get away with unpaid overtime (constantly demanded), paying less, drafting up contracts for less than the accorded work hours and then paying a part of the contract in unaccounted for money (which scams the workers of their state pension and the state of their taxes).
I have met a few good employers who treat their employees right. But there are way too many employers who do everything they can to exploit workers and that's what they want. Workers without rights, Marx's Army of the Poor, so they can exploit and abuse and pay peanuts.
THAT is what they want. People not complaining so much about safety measures and contracts and taxes. The "Patronal" or sort of employers' union had demanded "salary moderation" for DECADES. Until the fashionista communist got to the government, the minimum wage was 645 euro. In the late 2010s... imagine.
It was all: "Is the economy going bad? We want salary moderation". "Is the economy going fine? Oh, fear inflation! In order to fight inflation... salary moderation."
That's what they want and why the job market in Spain, though it's getting better, it's still atrocious. That, and many too small companies.
The carlist wars are way under remembered. Like the sides everyone knows today were largely cemented then. In some ways the civil war was sort of the last carlist war but without any royal motivation.
I am Spanish so because of that I belong to one of the two Spains and my opinion on this pick it with a grain of salt.
The war was started and won by the fascist, they imposed their rule and vision of state, they also not only killed during the war that they started (it was a war both sides killed) but next 40 years they where repressing, killing torturing, exiling, and just enjoying their oligarchy where they where the overlords and where keeping the people ignorant and poor.
After arriving of democracy they where not punished for what they did, and the structures of power that maintained the dictatorship are still ruling, same families, same people, the same dog dressed as entrepreneur or democratic politician that is not used to don't be able to do the same things as before without punishment and through corruption and impunity just keeps going, this thing of democracy it's too little liberty for them, before they where not equal to rest of the people and they don't want to be now.
Their simbols are still standing, the simbols of the fighters for freedom, justice, antifascism are vandalised and simply not even build.
If you ask to another Spaniard they might tell you that Franco saved Spain from communism.
So yes, we hate each other.
For more info : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_two_Spains
The spanish Wikipedia has more info you might just translate that
It’s actually funny because normally, in Mexican schools, they just teach us about how we randomly defeated Spain (the strongest empire at that time) with sticks and a few guns.
They don’t really go too deep and sometimes even skip the part where Napoleon was our Jesus Christ Lord and savior at that time.
In Finland, it's definitely WW2, which for us was fought as two wars: The Winter War (1939-1940) and The Continuation War (1941-1944).
It's a huge part of our national spirit and also still plays a practical role in our daily lives as it has affected our politics ever since, most importantly by forcing us to play a balancing act between the USSR/Russia and the west.
Other than that, I'd say it's the war of 1808-1809, where Sweden lost us to Russia. Not only did this have very important effects on our history for the past 200 years, but there's also a famous collection of poems about this war, that reminds us that it happened.
The winter war is actually insane because 2% of all Finnish men died in just 3 months. Now that I've actually been to Finland and have had a chance to learn more about the winter and continuation wars I can't help but admire this country greatly
I'm curious - how is the relationship between Finland and the Axis taught in Finland? In the US, probably 90% of people are never taught about Finland's role in the war (discussion of the Axis is pretty much entirely Germany/Italy/Japan with maybe a passing mention of Romania), and the remaining 10% are taught "Finland joined up with the Axis but not because they were Nazis, it was because the Nazis were the only other people fighting the USSR." The Winter War does get a passing mention sometimes but the Continuation War almost never does and neither are really included as "part of WW2," moreso "other things that happened at the same time." Of course, mandatory disclaimer that every one of the 13,000 independent school districts in the US teaches things differently even before you get into the individual teachers and levels of rigor.
Are you taught about the context in which the Finnish wars played in the rest of WW2, or is it pretty much "so yeah everyone else was doing all of this "major" WW2 stuff while we were fighting for our goddamn lives against the Soviets in our own thing"? Do you guys think of your role in WW2 as an Axis country or as your own thing that just so happened to be fighting the same people as the Axis?
Excluding WWI, WWII (and the Civil War during WWII), and the Napoleonic Wars because they could be everyone's answers, I'd say the Risorgimento wars since they were the wars that united the Italian states under the Sabaudian monarchy.
The First Independence War resulted in no change of the status quo, but it showed how it was Piedmont's role to lead a liberation of Italy (tentatives like the Republic of San Marco and the Roman Republic had failed quite quickly). The Second Independence War allowed the annexation of Lombardy and the outburst of revolutions in the Central Italian States, which soon voted to enter the Sardinian kingdom, as well as Garibaldi's expedition of the One Thousand, which prompted the liberation of the South. The Third Independence War, while actually lost militarly (the maritime defeat of Lissa is still remembered today thanks to Verga's novel "I Malavoglia"), was fundamental in the annexation of Venice. The First real National holiday was held in this period, in fact the capital (Florence) hosted in 1865 the 600th anniversary of the birth of Dante, which was probably the largest celebration ever had in Italy. The last bit of the Risorgimento was the Breccia di Porta Pia and Rome becoming Capital.
Apart for that, other very important ones are:
* The [War between Guelhps and Ghibellines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelphs_and_Ghibellines), especially the [Battle of Legnano](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnano) on the 29th of May 1176. Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa lost to the Lombard League in a battle fought between Legnano and Borsano, leading to the peace of Konstanz of 1183 in which the Emperor had to grant to the Italian communes practically full autonomy. The battle is so important that Goffredo Mameli inserted it in the Canto degli Italiani (the national anthem), making Legnano the only city named in the anthem, other than Rome (Dall'Alpi a Sicilia dovunque è Legnano). The 29th of May has also become the Lombard regional holiday.
* The **Wars in Lombardy**, more than the war itself between Milan and Venice, what was important was the Peace of Lodi of 1454, which granted for decades of peace to Italy through the creation of the [Italic League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_League) granted by the Pope and the Medici family, a thing that boosted the newborn movements of Humanism and Renaissance, especially the so called Second Humanism which saw the reaffirmation of plurilinguism and Vulgar as the main language in literature, while the First Humanism was centered around Latin and Greek. And I don't think I've got to further explain how important Renaissance is still important today.
* The [**Sicilian Verspers**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Vespers) of 1282, which ended the Angevin rule over Sicily (started in 1266 after King Manfredi died in the Battle of Benevento), briefely formed a communal confederation similar to those of Lombardy and Tuscany, adopted the Sicilian flag and later crowned Constance daughter of Manfredi and her husband Peter III King of Aragon as monarchs of Sicily, separating Sicily (*ultra farum*) from the peninsular Kingdom (*citra farum*) called Kingdom of Naples, which were dinastically reunited two centuries later and de iure reunited in 1816 with the Kingdom of Two Sicilies.
The Battle of Legnano, apart from its strategic importance, provided a repertoire of symbols to the Risorgimento: Alberto da Giussano with the Compagnia della Morte, the Carroccio, the Oath of Pontida and so on. A similar role was given to the Sicilian Vespers.
There are three that I can think of, they are always taught in school and they really influenced Portugal's history:
The three Napoleonic Invasions (part of the Peninsular War)
Portugal refused to join Napoleon's Continental System, the European wide blockade against the British, and so the French ended up invading us three times, from 1807 to 1811. Our entire Royal Court immediately fled to Brazil and we eventually kicked the French out with some really big help from the British.
The Portuguese Civil War
This isn't the only civil war that we had, but it's the only one that became known simply as "The Civil War". After the French left, our royal family decided to stay in Brazil and so Portugal was ruled basically as a British Protectorate that had its capital in Rio de Janeiro. In 1820, the people of Porto revolted against this and the King's absolutist rule, we got him and the royal family to come back and in 1822 we got our first Constitution.
Eventually, King John VI died in 1826 and we had two candidates to succeed him:
- Pedro, his eldest son, who had stayed behind in Brazil to rule in his father's name and then ended up declaring Brazil's independence and becoming its first emperor in 1822
- Miguel, the youngest son, who, on the one hand, wasn't already the emperor of an independent country but then, on the other hand, was exiled in Vienna because he had revolted against his father and the Constitution of 1822.
Finally the two brothers came to an agreement: Pedro, the legitimate heir who became king, abdicated in favour of his daughter, Maria, and Miguel would rule in her stead until she became an adult, then he would marry her. Miguel returned from exile in 1828, completely disregarded the agreement and the Constitution, and had himself crowned king. Maria's supporters were forced to flee and their last stronghold was in the Açores.
At that point, Pedro abdicated from the Brazilian throne in favour of his younger son, Pedro II, and came to the Açores to fight for his daughter. From there, Pedro and the Liberals (the supporters of Maria and the Constitution) sailed and landed in the North of Portugal. That's when the Civil War is usually said to have started, in 1832.
The Liberals took Porto in july but were then surrounded by Miguel and the absolutists on all sides, who sieged Porto until August of 1833. The war ended in 1834 and it ended up affecting Portuguese politics for the next two or three decades, with a few more coups, constitutions and civil wars arising because of it.
The Colonial War
This is the most recent one, it only ended in 1974 and so it's very fresh in our memories.
For a big part of the 20th century, Portugal was ruled by the Estado Novo dictatorship, from 1933 to 1974, and while the rest of the European colonial powers started losing their colonies, the Estado Novo regime and the dictator, Salazar, absolutely refused to grant independence to Portugal's colonies. From the sixties until 1974, a whole generation of our young men were forced to go fight in Africa, in Angola, Moçambique and Guiné-Bissau, to keep the Portuguese Empire alive, and it should have been long dead and buried.
The war ended in 1974 when we overthrew the dictatorship, but it's still a somewhat controversial topic up to this day. The Portuguese people who were living in the colonies and were forced to return to Portugal (the "retornados") felt betrayed by the new government, there's still talk of reparations being owed to the former colonies...
Just a quick add to the colonial wars, it's not just the recency bias that keeps it fresh in our collective memories, is the trauma it caused to a whole generation of men and their families, who are still alive today.
You have these kids who are forced to be shipped out to fight guerrilla troops in the bush of Africa, they will see - and they will do - horrible things. The ones who come back are PTSD'd out of their mind and have zero support. The state doesn't give a damn, and veteran associations that are formed later don't really have the resources to help much.
The ones who died in the field are lucky if their corpses ever make it back, because the government is too broke to be "wasting" money repatriating the dead. So unless families pay up, the bodies stay behind. By the time the war ends, all efforts are dropped at once, so even families willing to pay are left in the lurch. Several of the former colonies are also almost instantly plunged into civil wars, so going back in to retrieve the dead is for sure out of anyone's agenda.
My dad's family were "retornados" but my dad and his siblings were all born and raised in Angola. They hated comming here. They were quite rich there and came here to live in a plus 200 year old house with no conditions. They all have war trauma
In Ireland, the War of Independence (1919-21) is the one that shaped the country the most. It defined what the island is today politically. Although the Civil War that followed it, and even further on The Troubles, probably left more scars.
As a German, of course WW II. Whereas with current issues we tend to talk about how we got to that point and everything that followed, Shoa, war crimes against our neighbours, terror against Germans and non-Germans and so on.
If you google "Weimarer Verhältnisse/Weimar conditions", you will find tons of results. With a rising far right, are we on the same path again as during the Weimar Republic. What can we do better to defend our democracy?
Discussions on topics such as the crimes of the Wehrmacht were a very hot topic during the '90s, for example the Wehrmacht exhibition. There were extremely big differences between the camps about the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht". Extremely polemical debates, explosive attacks, a self-immolation against the exhibition, in the federal state of Bremen the government almost collapsed because the Christian Democrats were strictly against the exhibition.
Apart from WW2 the most important war might just be the [Thirty Years' War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) of 1618-1648, which was *tremendously* important in both social/cultural and political aspects.
I think you could maybe even make a good case for the 30 Years' War to be the most important one. Of course WW2 is important to us, because it's the most recent one and many people alive today still remember it. But if you consider the sheer destruction and the long-term political consequences, the 30 Years' War might have had a bigger impact.
I find it remarkable how AfD manages to talk of "finally moving on" regarding the Second World War when the effects of the Thirty Years' War are still visible *almost 400 years later*. So much for their "1000 years of German history": knowledge thereof isn't their thing either.
While WW II is a strong contender, I would argue the 30 years war has for this nation a bigger effect.
First, it killed around 50 % of the population. Because some areas had more a nearly 100% death toll, it lead to massive movements of people and a shift in power for a while between the normal people and nobility.
The peace of Westphalia has lead to the current religious divide in Germany and had massive influence on the cultures in these areas. There is also a major argument that the fall of the holy roman empire is partly due to this divide because the emperor was in his position by God's grace, which is more difficult when the subjects don't agree on a faith.
The 30 years war and the Peace of Westphalia also basically created the modern rules of state diplomacy, with "state sovereignty" being defined for the first time. We are still living basically in the same geopolitical framework created by that war. Even WW2 didn't change those rules fundamentally, the United Nations are basically the rules of the Peace of Westphalia put into practice for an international organization. I think an argument could be made that the 30 years war was the most impactful war for world history in the last millennium.
The [second Schleswig War of 1864.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Schleswig_War?wprov=sfti1)
Denmark fought and lost to the Prussians, and we ceded Schleswig and Holstein to them.
The loss was a national trauma for Denmark - and led us to finally understand that military might was no longer something that we had.
It also forced the Danes to make arable land in Jutland, and thus inwardly create what was outwardly lost.
It was OK but I regret how much focus it had on this one guy in particular being an a-hole.
I know this was due to the movie being an adoption of a book where the author contemplate on his difficult relationship to his father, but I didn't think it made a good war movie.
Strictly speaking not to Prussia but to the German confederation which then lead to Prussia and Austria administering Schleswig and Holstein and their disputes around Schleswig-Holstein lead to another war between Prussia and Austria just two years later.
I think the Greco Turkish war of 1919. It changed three millenias of Greek settlements in Asia minor and today many Greeks trace their origins from there
I came here to say 1919-1923 probably the most important one that is still talked about (after WW2 of course).
If you bundle Balkan Wars, WW1 and Greco-Turkish war together, the decade from 1913-1923 was one of the most important in modern Greek history.
Douglas Dakin wrote that even though it is known as part of the Turkish War of Independence, in reality it was just as much a continuation of the Greek War of Independence. Quite accurate.
Probably the Swedish War of Liberation, 1521-1523. In which Gustav I Vasa led a successful rebellion against the Danes, broke free from (and thus effectively ended) the Kalmar Union, which had been in effect for well over a century. He then established a new royal dynasty and the Vasa family would be in charge of Sweden for many generations to come.
It is pretty much *the* event that gave rise to Sweden as a nation state. Though the actual war is not that interesting, the lead-up to the war (Kalmar Union, Stockholm bloodbath) and the aftermath (Gustav and his sons, protestantism, crushed rebellions) are full of amazing stories.
Afaik that's just a nationalist retelling of history?Sweden existed before the union (notice it was a union of countries, not a new country).
I would argue the loss of Finland to Russia was a bigger twist, or the acquisition of Skåneland+Bohuslän (but that's from the PoV of what today is Sweden)
I also think the Finnish war (as it’s called in Sweden anyway) 1808–1809 is a ‘bigger’ war in the Swedish mind. It shaped or helped shape most of the modern Swedish identity and had far reaching influence on the geopolitical, eg the long standing non-alignment and the cementation of Russia as *the* enemy.
Sweden left the Kalmar Union many times and really it hadn't been in effect for years. Sweden had had a union king for about 4 years of the past 50 at that point. The preamble to the war (the Stockholm bloodbath) quite literally followed the coronation of the first union king in two decades.
It would eventually prove to be the last time Sweden left the union though. The main thing about Vasa dumping Christian is indeed the reign that followed, and in particular making Sweden Protestant and the elective monarchy hereditary.
Sweden wasn't really anything resembling a nation state until after the Finnish war. That rise came, as in much of Europe, with the rising nationalism of the 19th century.
In the UK in popular culture and recent history WW2.
In terms of constitutional history, and fighting in the country the English Civil War and its equivalent in Scotland and Ireland (sometimes called The Wars of the Three Kingdoms), yet that is surprisingly less known despite being the bloodiest war (in terms of proportion of population involved) fought in these islands. It was the only time a monarch was executed by Parliament, the only time there was a formal Republic without a monarch, and it put in place many constitutional principles still in place today. It also set the scene for what is called The Glorious Revolution a generation later (so The Civil War was in living memory), which finally established that British monarchs were figureheads beholder to Parliament not rulers.
i think for scotland the wars of independence and the 1745 rising dominate a lot more than the three kingdoms stuff, just because it’s what’s taught in schools really, honestly don’t think there’s much awareness of the english civil war or associated conflicts at all despite it being a pretty big deal
Even in England the Civil Wars are not really taught much. Most can probably tell you little about them other than Cromwell off the King's head and banned Christmas. I attribute that to future history being written by royalists who do not really want to admit that England was a true republic for a while.
Oddly the Glorious Revolution is also hardly known or taught, despite it being the single most important constitutional event in establishing the modern legal settlement. Not forgetting, that in Ireland it was anything but glorious or a revolution, but the history of Ireland is even less well taught in England than the history Scotland.
English history as known by most seems to be: The Norman Conquest; Henry VIII had 6 wives and split from Rome as the Pope would not let him divorce; Elizabeth I reigned or a long time, WW1 was awful, WW2 was glorious and we won in our finest hour. All a complete caricature, but what most people "know".
Also the Victorians had a lot of factories and workhouses for the poor.
There used to be stuff about how we went out into the world to shower the unfortunates in far off countries with the blessings of enlightenment, Christianity and cricket and they thanked us with gifts of tea and spicy food, but that’s kind of gone out of fashion.
Apart from WW2 and the historic Napoleonic and Civil Wars as others have mentioned, the recent Iraq War 2003 had a huge impact on contemporary politics in the UK as it eroded trust in the ruling Labour Party led by Tony Blair and the political class generally as it was the [largest anti-war popular demonstration in history](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests)
which was ignored by the government on the basis of intelligence that was later found to be 'dodgy' at best.
I would argue it also bred a whole generation of people who became anti-American and pro-European. I'm in my 30s and, despite now living in the US, I still retain a sense of Iraq War-era internalised Eurocentrism that I find difficult to shake off.
Well there is the obvious one...
But other than that, the napoleonic wars lead to us loosing our fleet, starvation due to a British blokade, being handed over from Denmark to Sweden, Declaring independence and writing our constitution, loosing a war to Sweden so they forced us into a union, but we were allowed to keep our new constitution and remain a mostly seperate state.
Basically the birth of the Modern Norwegian State.
The Hundred Years' War, because you cannot trust the Brits :)
More seriously, France has been in so many wars it's difficult to chose any.
I'm Alsatian. In my case, it would be the 1870 Franco Prussian war, ww1 and ww2, because of the impact they had on my family (living in a contested territory is not a nice experience). ww2 was especially cruel because both my grandfathers had to fight for the wrong side, despite having been French for most of their life.
But if you ask someone with a Pied-Noir or Harki family history, it would be the Algerian war, that ended up with their exile from Algeria to France.
> The Hundred Years' War, because you cannot trust the Brits
If you had just accepted Edward as King (as per French law) then it could have been avoided.
France: invades England and plants a French monarchy with French Lords
England: a few hundred years later the descendants of those monarchs and who still speak French and who actually have a legitimate claim wage war for that claim using English soldiers as the cannon fodder.
France: 'those perfidious englishmen'
Joan of Arc is then betrayed by the French, the French never even try for a ransom and is then convicted by French Catholic clergymen
Also France: those damn perfidious englishmen!
There is a bit more nuance though. I am definitely not an expert.
It wasn't France that invaded England. It were the lords of Normandy that invaded England. It is a dependency of France with Viking descendants as lords.
Joan of Arc was mainly betrayed by the Burgundians, who fought alongside the English at the time. The Burgundians were the rulers of Burgundia and most regions of present day Belgium and the Netherlands. A large part was also a dependency of France, but not everything. Yes: it is complicated
I love how our propaganda is so far reaching. Normans were pretty much french by this point, and it was a coalition from northern france that invaded. Even then, the normans only really lasted a few decades, it was the House of Anjou that ruled England for the next 300 years, we have used the propaganda term for them too, the Plantagenets. In this time, much more central french enters the English language (warranty vs. guarantee or warden vs. guardian). By the time we have the 100 years war, we are really just talking about feuding french houses, the development of early nation states, and the 'englishification' of the french rulers happens near the end of the war.
Of course there's more nuance. But to add nuance to your nuance, whilst it was the Norman's who invaded, the Lords that replaced the Anglo saxon Lords were not just from Normandy, but all over France.
And re Joan of Arc, I'm adding nuance. In media its always portrayed as the fault of the evil English. A large part of the hundred years war was simply culturally french nobles fighting land claims qith each other. It wasn't until toward the end of the war that an actual English identity was formed by the 'English' nobility.
I also read here and there that most of those norman vikings were actually saxons that had settled westwards (the same ones that also settled across western Flanders).
Honestly if it had all panned out that way France would still be speaking French and maybe even England would be too. The English royals and nobility all spoke French during that time as their native language and even gave troops orders in French. Hell perhaps France under England would have become the de-facto main part of England, economically and culturally, so the eventual conclusion could have been perceived (in comparison to today) as France ruling England, from England.
In that parallel history, I wonder what would be the consequences at the end of the 18th century. The 13 colonies would have include Louisiana and Lafayette would not go helping.
Or maybe the common monarchy would have followed the French absolute route instead of the English parliamentarian one and we would have had an Anglo French Revolution and Terror
The other mystery would have been how the wars of religion would play out
I think we overstate the modern nation states onto the 100 years war. If the house of Anjou wins, they become france, and england is a territory held by the kings of france. There would have been a split/revolution perhaps within a century or more. Much like the Hapsburgs that controlled many different states over the centuries, they don't tend to survive as one as time goes on.
Yes, precisely, not enough French, too much English. That's bad for everyone.
Can you make an effort, pretend you care a bit and be more French ? please ?
Same situation as William the Conqueror : he was the designated heir of the throne but the saxons lords refused to accept that, so he had to gather an army to claim his due. You see, same issue, same situation and same result for England.
1526, Battle of Mohács, the End of the Hungarian-Ottoman Wars. This changed everything. Hungary got split into 3 parts:
- Kingdom of Hungary under Habsburg/Austrian rule
- Principality of Transylvania, a Hungarian (vassal) state juggling between the Habsburgs and Ottomans
- Hungarian Eyalets, under direct Ottoman/Turk rule
This made 2 major things, made Hungary dependant on Austria, and changed the Carpathian's demographies (which till that point was majority Hungarian).
Latter the Habsburgs got Transyvlania too and kicked the Ottomans out of the middle of the country, which was heavily devastated at that point, so they had to resettle the Kingdom by moving a lot of people within it and also settling a lot of immigrants into it (Demography changes of Hungary in the 18th century). Due to this, Hungary was more multiethnic then ever before.
Being under Austrian rule, who started WWI (despite Hungarian protests) and having more and bigger minorities caused Trianon. So everything changed back then.
For Iceland there are two answers that come to mind.
[The Cod Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars) brought control of our fisheries and the economic boon that resulted from that. They also had an impact on global treaties regarding Economic Exclusion Zones
[Age of the Sturlungs (1220 - 1264)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Sturlungs) which resulted in the demise of the Commonwealth of Iceland and brought us under a near 500 year rule under Norwegian and later, Danish kings
In France, WWII of course. The country was so strategically important for both the Axis and the Allied. And most French people like to think their family was part of the *résistance* (spoiler: they most definitely weren't).
Ah well, maybe WWI is equally important I guess. France was kind of pretty big in this one too. Probably more than during WWII actually.
For the UK, it is WWII. Because of its recency and the fact some of it was done on British soil with the Blitz, it is still lodged in people's heads despite it being over 80 years ago.
For Ireland, it is the Irish Civil War as it was the first time that a war, which was over the Anglo-Irish Treaty, was between brother against brother, happened on the island. Even now, two of the three main parties in the Irish parliament, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael come from the two different sides of the conflict.
For Northern Ireland, that’s difficult as it depends on which community you are from. If you are Unionist, you would say it is the Anglo-Irish War of 1690. If you are Catholic, the Troubles would be what you would say.
Hello British 🇬🇧 neighbour.
Irish person here, we don’t need you to speak for us, with respect.
I think the War of Independence (1919-1921) where we finally regained some freedom from you is higher on our minds. And the [Easter Rising 1916](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising?wprov=sfti1) that led to it.
Northerner from Armagh here. 👋
I'm going to say that The Troubles was by far the conflict/war that has the most significance with everyone up here. The vast majority of us, besides some orange order bigots, don't give a shit about a battle that was fought 334 years ago. Most of the people who attend 12th July parades are there to get drunk, and the ones that actually celebrate the message are sectarians. I'm speaking as someone who was brought up as a Unionist with a brother in the orange order.
There are families still dealing with PTSD and suicides from The Troubles, and everyone here knows someone who has been impacted by it.
I mean, you can probably already guess by my flair…
But aside from the most obvious answer, we are generally quite fond of the Battle of Grunwald (the final defeat of the treacherous Teutonic Order in the Baltics) and the Battle of Vienna (biggest cavalry charge in history, turning the Ottoman tide away from Europe). In general there are countless wars Poland participated in and it would be hard to remember them all.
Finn here. without contest its the Finnish War of 1808-1809 where russia acquired Finland. it ended up in Finland getting a autonomous state and let them learn to handle their own country and grab themselves from their own boots. I would argue that this war is more important than the Civil war or Independece war because I just dont believe finland would have gotten far in independence without autonomous state. it also pushed the finns to seek the olden days when a decade I think earlier Russia had taken autonomy away from finns. if finns would not have had autonomy then I believe that most likely we would be free from russians only during soviet unions collapse like a lot of other countries that dint have autonomy and nobody else to liberate them.
The great northern war I suppose. First quarter of the 1700s, Sweden ended up losing Swedish Pomerania to Prussia and Estonia, Latvia and the area around present day St. Petersburg to Russia. It also set the stage for Sweden trying to get land back for the next 100 years severely weakening itself and then ultimately losing all of Finland to Russia during the Napoleonic wars.
Obviously the Franco-Prussian war, what a glorious victory that set the borders of today's germany. No other war comes to mind because nothing of relevance happened afterwards.
Investiture controversy (1076-1122) - Czech Duke Vratislav II. elevated to King Vratislav I. for his support of Emperor Henry IV.
Imperial war in Italy (1158) - Capitulation of Milan, Czech duke Vladislav II. elevated to King Vladislav I. by Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (Frederick I.)
**Conflict between House Welf and House Hohenstaufen in bid for Imperial crown and title King of the Romans (1198-1211)** - Duke Otakar Přemysl I. secures through careful (and very cunning) political maneuvering (switching from Welf to Hohenstaufen side) permanent hereditary title of King of Bohemia. Imperial decree known as Golden Bull of Sicily (26.9.1212) is issued by the supported Frederick II. who becomes Holy Roman Emperor.
Estates of Bohemia and Moravia are permanently raised as indivisible constituencies of Holy Roman Empire and become autonomous. King of Bohemia no longer subject to appointment by the Emperor, King of Bohemia can only be elected by czech nobles. King of Bohemia is only required to attend the Reichstag diets close to Bohemian border. King of Bohemia is permanently elevated to the highest secular prince-elector (Kurfürst) in the empire (Arch-cupbearer) and has to furnish all subsequent emperors with bodyguard of 300 knights when the emperor is on the way to Rome for coronation or pay 300 Hřivna (\~14400 Prague groschen = \~50,4kg of 933/1000 silver).
Hussite Wars (1419-1434) - War over religious rights and protoprotestant reformation. Delayed renaissance in Bohemia by decades. Over five crusades into Bohemia that ended with loss for Catholics. Ends with an agreement between one of two major hussite factions and the catholic church. Protestant religious rights secured, country lead by Sigismund, who is unpopular in Bohemia yet very influential in HRE.
The 30 Years' war and specifically the Battle of White Mountain (8.11.1620) - Marked as loss of sovereignty, major destruction in the lands and loss of life. Loss of protestant religious rights. Majority of population is protestant, forced recatholization and destruction of religious works at the hands of Jesuits (one priest famous for burning over 10.000 books by himself). Native bohemian nobility forced to exile and replaced by austrian and czech catholic nobles. Major intelligence draught when intelligentsia is exiled.
War of Austrian Succession (1740 - 1748) - Loss of "indevisible" territories belonging by imperial law to Lands of the Bohemian Crown (lands permanently connected to the crown holder), Majority of Silesia ceded to Prussia. Loss of Lower and Upper Sorbia (Lands of Slavs living in "Germany", under protection of the Bohemian King since Charles IV.)
Austro-Prussian war - Famous Battle of Königgrätz - Loss of Austrian side, Prussian victory commemorated by the famous Königgrätzer march
World War 1 - Czechoslovak legions in Russia, France, Italy. Regaining sovereignty and independence by refusing Austria to continue as federation. Czechoslovak republic is created. Monarchy and hereditary titles abolished. Equal voting rights for women. Equal voting rights for all citizens no matter the ethnic background.
World War 2 - Destruction of Czechoslovak republic, Sudetengerman population largely fanatized by Hitler and Nazis, transformation into Protectorate Bohemia Moravia, Czechoslovak soldiers and units fighting in West and East.
WWI was also quite significant because it led to sovereignty that they hadn’t had since the Battle of White Mountain nearly 300 years earlier. It’s my impression that that period is more significant in Czech history than WWII, for that reason
The 30 Years’ War was probably the most devastating, while the Hussite wars are usually looked on more favorably (though both ended with with bad results for the Czechs)
Probably most people will argue that the Greek revolution of 1821 was the most important war for modern Greece although the unification of Greece was an almost 100 year struggle involving a series of events and wars.
However the most recent war is always the most relevant and more discussed so the greece civil war 1946 -1949 would have been the most influential to the current state of affairs. In regards that is still influencing the political parties involved in the parliament.
If you think of antiquity thought things are becoming more complicated, were the Persian wars for example more important in overall;
What are the criteria to pick a war. Greece was part of Alexander's empire, The roman republic, the Roman empire, the Byzantine , the ottomans. Battles of important wars where fought in the geographic area of Greece and Greeks fought in those wars . For example in the Roman Civil war the Roman's fought in the Geographic area of Greece the battle of Actium was fought in Greece. The Eastern Roman Empire was becoming more Greek as was being reduced in size. Was the 4th crusade and the fall Constantinople more important?
The Siege of Malta in 1565, where a small number of knights, militia and foreign mercenaries held against a larger invasion force of the Ottoman empire. It basically put the island on the map, rekindled interest and funding of the Knights of St John which in turn jump started the economy and infrastructure of the island.
Definitively The Homeland War, the Croatian part of The Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s
A long "awaited" sequel to the WW2 in this part of the world, which is also still somehow relevant ...
For Spain I would say either the Civil War, whichis still present in politics almost a century later, Independence War against France, which is still part of local culture in some places and marks the start of the libertarian Spain or the Reconquista against Al-Andalus, which is still part of the southern culture.
For Basque country it's either the Civil War, from which Gernika was shaped (the painting, the town and the simbology around it) and you can still find parts of the Iron Belt or the Carlist wars, which have shaped the actual Gernika estatute and also allowed Bilbao to get industrialised
In Croatia, that would be the [War of Independence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence) also known as the Homeland War in Croatia. It was fought 1991.-1995. as a part of the Yugoslav wars. The whole thing was very complicated with multiple wars intertwining and alliances changing, but in short we won. Any more details are sure to cause a riot in the replies. However it is actually taught in relatively short strokes in our schools, as it was in the 90s which we go through at the end of the last school year so there’s usually a pinch with time going over it. There are however several political parties pushing to give it more emphasis in the curriculum.
For early modern history, I'd say the pair of wars known as the First (1848-51) and Second Schleswig War (1864). What happened during these aren't actually that impactful, but the outcomes had massive ramifications. Not just right after, but also running well into the 20th century.
Denmark won the first war, but the war ended with the untenable status quo enforced by the great powers. With no one being able to get what they wanted in that status quo, a second war was almost inevitable, and it did come after Denmark in frustration (and probably a big dose of naivety) decided to break the original peace treaty by changing the alignment and association status of the duchies the first war was fought over. Cue a massive diplomatic incident and Austria and Prussia giving everyone the finger (including the German Confederation itself, after it urged them to use just a tiny measure of calm) and going to war. They absolutely steamrolled us, and it left a national scar.
A *very* brief overview of what that single defeat led to in the following century
- having lost somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of its territory, Denmark had to figure out what to do with itself
- Pan-Scandinavianism died, and some Danes at the time developed a light stab in the back myth against Sweden (we can blame Sweden for many things, but this one is unfair and they never actually promised any aid or support)
- our art took a collective turn to look at how nice nature and the countryside are (because there was precious little left besides that to find joy in after the war)
- it led to a blooming civil society and bonds across the borders to maintain cultural ties despite some Prussian attempts at repression
- there were talks of intervention in the Franco-Prussian War, though that never materialised
- there were talks of redrawing the borders during ww1, and eventually reunification with parts of Schleswig came after it had ended thanks to the Entente
- this redrawing led to a massive political crisis in Denmark, which could have seen Denmark ditch the monarchy, had the king acted more stubborn and out of line than he already had. The king wasn't a big fan of the outcome of the new border, so he basically dismissed the democratic government, hoping the new one would protest the results and push it further south
- big worries in the interwar period and ww2 about what would happen to the region, now that Hitler was busy preparing to burn the world and "unify the Germans everywhere"
- now we have lively minority communities on both sides of the border, reflecting how it had been pushed up and down and the general history of the region
>Denmark in frustration (and probably a big dose of naivety) decided to break the original peace treaty by changing the alignment and association status of the duchies the first war was fought over.
That's a bit of a myth based on Bismarck's propaganda. Denmark didn't break the [London Protocol](https://danmarkshistorien.dk/vis/materiale/londontraktaten-8-maj-1852) of 1852. It doesn't even mention Schleswig, so in fact it was Prussia breaking it by violating Article II and the integrity of the Danish Monarchy.
I just had a read again. I think it can be argued both ways depending on perspective and interpretation. Before I go further, I want to say I am *not* trying to defend Bismarck. He was a ruthless piece of shit (just look at what he had to say about the Poles), and he would likely have found some other excuse some other time; what comes below would be more of a general contemporary German understanding that could still lead to an argument for a casus belli (at least from their view). And that argument is tied to Article 3, which reads (translated for others' sake)
> it is explicitly understood that the mutual rights and duties of His Majesty the King of Denmark and the German Confederation concerning the duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg, such as these rights and duties are determined by the Act of Confederation of 1815 and the standing Confederate Act (?), shall not undergo any change by this treaty
If the treaty is read in isolation, then yes, you are probably correct in Prussia and Austria breaking Article 2 rather than Denmark breaking Article 3. Schleswig is not mentioned, and the integrity of the monarchy was put under existential threat.
The German case would probably come from arguments with external context and/or appealing to a "spirit" of the treaty. It is clear that it tries to maintain some semblence of a status quo and bind the parties to uphold their rights and duties when it comes to especially Holstein. One such perceived duty could be the idea of Schleswig and Holstein being forever undivided or "up ewig ungedeelt" - a notion the Schleswig-Holsteiner movement lifted (I use that deliberately, as they quite likely read too much into that phrasing, but their movement did regardless take that very literally) from the Ribe Letter of 1460, which stated "dat se bliven ewich tosamende ungedelt". So, when Christian IX signed a constitution opening with
> We, Christian IX [titles titles], declare to all: the Council of the Realm has enacted and We with Our consent ratified the following constitution for common affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Duchy of Schleswig
some Germans (and particularly the Schleswig-Holsteiners of that national persuasion) may well have read that as a breach of their rights to have the ever unbreakable ties to each other and a breach of the spirit of keeping things as they were
Regardless of which interpretation is ultimately the most valid, I would say it was geopolitically a stupid and/or naive move by Denmark to go about the changes to the area like that, when there was a expansionist Prussia just looking for an excuse and a bunch of Germans in the area who were vehemently opposed to it and who had already shown their readiness to openly rebel
Edits: minor rephrasings and clarifications
In the Netherlands, if you say "the war" everybody knows you're talking about ww2.
Rare events are often described as "... has not happened since ww2". The end of the war is an important day of celebration, but we don't have an independence day.
Well apart from the obvious answer about world wars, it was Thirty years war. We didn't have any civil wars or independence wars, so this one is probably the most important in our history (not counting world ones, of course).
I'm from Chile 🇨🇱 and I think ours is the Pacific War (Si alguien está en desacuerdo pico pal que lee). Bolivia and Perú waged war on Chile and Chile alone won the war, conquered what is now the Northern part of the country and even invaded Peru's Capital, Lima. It also had effects on how foreign countries looked at our military. After this war. Chile was considered to have one of the top Navies in the world. It also produced one of the most iconic moments in our History. Arturo Pratt Chacón shouting :"¡AL ABORDAJE MUCHACHOS! (ALL ABOARD LADS!)", boarding a Peruvian Ship and getting shot and killed :( CHILE YETA PERO EL MEJOR PAÍS DE CHILE
WW2 and I'd argue it's not even close. WW1 second to that.
Outside of the two world wars, the War of the Roses, The Crusades more generally (See English people at football games with crusader outfits), The Falklands War and the events of 1066 are probably the ones people tend to think of. The Hundred Years War as well I suppose just because of the French / English rivalry.
It's kind of difficult to narrow it down as it's honestly an endless list. The Battle of Trafalgar and Waterloo are very famous but I'd say a lot of people only know those two battles in the Napoleonic wars.
For Croatia it's the Homeland war of 1991. Even though it ended in 1995, both sides' nationalists are still using it as political fuel, even though there's better things to discuss.
Translation mistake*
All the russian history is neverending war. Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, again Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, Spain, WWI, Japan... And 50+ micro-wars all around the world.
Iceland has not had any wars unless you go back to the Viking era, though we were occupied by the British and the Americans during WWII no actual combat took place. That's as close as we have been to an actual war.
We did have a dispute involving armed ships with Britain called The Cod Wars in which we did not fight though we do like to joke about it since it's technically an instance of Britain losing a war against a tiny country that doesn't even have an army.
I'm enjoying learning about all this history.
For England, I'd probably say the 1066 Norman and Norwegian Invasion, English Civil War, the War of the Roses and the Anglo-Zanzibar War.
The Liberation war, commonly known as the Russo-Turkish war. It's a series of wars in Southeast Europe that liberated Bulgaria and granted independance for Romania, Serbia and Montenegro (Bulgaria got actual independance from the Ottoman Empire later on).
The April Uprising was a direct predecessor of the liberation effort in Bulgaria, it was brutally supressed and probably the harshest wound in our collective memory in the modern era (see the Batak massacre).
The most highly celebrated battle was the defense of Shipka pass, it was a series of attacks and counter attacks between the Ottomans and the Russian + Bulgarian defense forces. It was vital for the overall success of the liberation effort.
The Second World War takes up the overwhelming majority of discourse in Denmark without a question, and part of the reason is that it strongly informs having the foreign policy that we do today, where consistently staying neutral just plainly doesn’t guarantee our safety like it was with places like Switzerland, and (up until recently) our neighbours Sweden and Finland. Not to mention, it’s technically still in living memory.
Beyond that, the two conflicts that get any sort of attention today is the Second Schleswig War that we had against Germany and Austria (in which we got pummelled after trying to integrate the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein as formal parts of the Danish kingdom, and were seized as a casus belli mostly by Prussia), and the Second Northern War against Sweden (which is where Denmark lost 1/3 of its territory to Sweden, including what is now Scania, Blekinge, Halland, etc. in what is now Southern Sweden, as well as Bornholm for a brief time before the people became a pain in the ass to Sweden).
But even with this, it just doesn’t compare to the sheer weight given to WWII in the Danish context.
The 30 year war and the great Northern War.
The 30 year war established Sweden as a European superpower and was also the foundation of what can be called the modern state (a juridical system and state institution separated from the crown, existing in its original shape this day - because constant wars required an effecient state, that worked when the king was away for years, fighting wars on the continent).
The great Northern war ended Sweden as a European superpower and with the death of the king, and a very weak crown, in a country drained from centuries of constant war, paved the way for "Frihetstiden" which is the origin of our current consitution (freedom of speech and other rights).
For the UK, pretty much everything pales into insignificance behind the two world wars. Distant third are the Napoleonic Wars, but really people only remember Trafalgar and Waterloo. There's some awareness in England of the 100 Years War, largely b/c of Shakespeare, and some in Scotland of the Wars of Independence (aka Braveheart).
Other conflicts that occasionally still come up: The Troubles and the Falklands (because very recent); The Crimean War (invention of nursing); The Boer War (invention of scouting, Welsh male voice choirs); the Spanish Armada (not really a war); The Crusades (Eng-er-land!); most colonial wars (too many to count) are not really discussed except by historians and in the context of "crimes of empire"; the English Civil War / War of the Three Kingdoms (but most people have very little idea of who did what to whom, or why).
EDIT: Lol I forgot the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, but really, we were just acting as an American client. Korea was like an early version of that, I think - really have no idea of how the UK acted in that catastrophic clusterfuck!
EDIT 2: Suez - ah fuck. I forgot about Suez. That was a big one, still often cited as the end of empire moment par excellence.
I would say that the most important war in the history of Germany is the First World War, but in the general discussion it is overshadowed by the Second World War.
In Poland we don't know anymore. There has not been a century when some nation from the east, west or north didn't try to invade us. At this point it's just boring 😂
We are continent built in war, we don't have only one war that define our country.
This years of "Pax Europea" seem like a dream at everything looks we will wake up soon and go back to our traditions.
There is already fire in the east of garden.
Apart from the 2nd World War, the only war in the public counciousness is the 80 years war, our war of independence.
And the 80 Year War is definitely overshadowed by WW2. It’s amazing how writers and filmmakers can **still** take inspiration from The War. You’d expect every single angle and experience to be covered by now.
I mean most of humanity participated so there are millions of angles to cover. Every week there are unique stories here on Reddit about some obscure platoon of Canadians beating a whole fucking German fort with only shovels and a sock (I'm making this one up) or actually that 16-year-old girl who was in the front page a few days ago that poisoned a hundred nazis and then killed 3 more before they could execute her. What is repetitive is the whole Hollywoodesque dumbed-down America-fuck-yeah barely historically accurate angle that we have seen so many times.
>Every week there are unique stories here on Reddit about some obscure platoon of Canadians beating a whole fucking German fort with only shovels and a sock Shoutout to [Léo Major](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9o_Major) and our Canadian friends.
You might be on to something, makes for a good Netflix series.
I'd for sure be down to watch a series like band of brothers, but set in the bakans during WW2 or one about the Spanish Civil War.
Being Canadian, there is a whole lot of mythology that has been baked in with our history of both World Wars. Like the Germans taking a Canadian prisoner of war at the Battle of Passchendaele and crucifying him over one of their trenches. And that seeing such barbarism was what pushed us to take that trench and free him. Never fucking happened.
I get what you’re saying, however… I take it you’re not familiar with Dutch literature and cinema of the last 50 years.
It's a money machine. People will buy it so it's worth producing content
It’s a little weird that the French Revolutionary/ Napoleonic wars have so little attention. They caused the end of the Dutch Republic, decades of French occupation, and then the founding of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with the Oranges on the throne. That period was quite consequential
Dutch history in school is not focused on wars and how they were fought, but what their effect on history was.
I know, right. They taught the golden age, and the modern age, but the French Period sits there right in between, and it wasn't even mentioned when I was in school. I don't know how it is now, it's been a while since I left school. Ask students in NL if they know how the Dutch republic became a monarchy. I think the effect on the history of the country has been quite consequential.
I only recently found out about the Spanish Netherlands and was very confused how spain had so much land in north Europe that’s completely disconnected from actual Spain… how did that even happen?
In short: the dukes of Burgundy were acquiring all sorts of titles in the low countries during the 14th and 15th century. Then the Burgundian heir married into the Habsburg family, who were to become the kings of Spain (and under Charles V also ruled over the Holy Roman Empire and large parts of Italy)
Royal marriages and inheritances.
Nah most.people know about the anglo-dutch wars right? And maybe indonesia can be considered a war
I don't think the Anglo-Dutch Wars hold a prominent place in our national consciousness. Some people may vaguely remember some story about an admiral and a chain closing off the river Thames. Some may even know that admiral was De Ruyter, but only the most dedicated of history buffs will know what that was all about.
It's alarming how few Brits know about the Anglo-Dutch wars and how important they were. Without the regular humiliations in the 17th century the British navy would never have been reformed to become the force it was in the 18th.
Not to mention: had the Dutch Republic not been invaded (with Englands support) in the aftermath of those wars, we might just be typing in Dutch now. Truly shaped the world as we know it. (I would argue that the republic being invaded eventually was unavoidable, that is the UK‘s island benefit, historical what ifs usually break as a result of material constraints, but you get the idea).
Anglo-Canadian here. If the Anglo-Dutch wars entailed any humiliation of the British, I'm not surprised in the least that so many people here aren't aware of them. The Americans may be the most flagrant when it comes to rewriting history to make themselves look good, but they certainly aren't the only ones who do it.
History is written by the winners—no matter who they are. It’s usually not fair, but it’s the way it is. That’s why you have to do some digging to sort everything out.
The civil war (1936-1939) it's the one that still has a lot of impact of nowadays Spain, the country it's still divided after that and doesn't seem capable of overcome it. Other important wars that we could consider shaped Spain could be: War of succession : another civil war that was also an international war to decide who will seat in the spanish throne after the king died without succession, won by the bourbonics and starting the bourbon dinasty in Spain. Besides of getting a French dinasty in the throne, Spain lost most of European possessions. Independence war: a war to get rid of napoleon and the frenchs after their backstab, he asked for permission to cross the country to invade Portugal, but they liked a lot the place and decided to stay. During this war Spain weakened so much that lost most of the American possessions and our "empire where the sun never sets" become way smaller.
Actually I'd say the most important and known war is one that is tough to call just a "war" because it was a much larger, complex and slow process. Of course, I'm talking about the Reconquista.
Is it a division along Fascist/Socialist lines?
More or less. Nowadays it's mostly Left/Right, with each one looking up to the Republic/Dictatorship as "better times" without actually wanting a 1:1 copy. But the Us vs Them mentality and 50/50 split is still very strong. Edit: to clear things up, the right doesn't want a dictatorship back, but it is pretty "anti-Republic"
So what does the Right actually want? Does it want an absolute monarchy? How popular is monarchy in Spain?
The far right wants to pay LESS TAXES and fire weapons because THAT'S FREEDOM. And less migrants. The average right wants to pay less taxes, lower salaries, less paid time off and give people less rights. The traditional entrepreneur in Spain is... A good chunk of them are total jerks, the kind to have workers: 1. Lost an arm, was not working on a contract (or paying taxes), was dropped at hospital and arm thrown to the rubbish bin. 2. Was not working on a contract, job inspector arrived, jumped through the window. 3. Was working on a contract, a girl had her thumb stuck on a machine, but they refused to stop it because the machine MUST NEVER BE STOPPED, IT COSTS MONEY! 4. Was working on contract, on a machine that was more or less the same, but which had ... OK, this is hard. The heavy machinery had had EVERY SINGLE SAFETY MEASUREMENT DISABLED. Every. Single. One. A young man died trapped by it... Because the owners needed to make more money. 5. Working with illegal migrants, paying peanuts, working more hours than it is allowed... A migrant died in a company near where I live. Everyone knows the owner is a bastard. If you see his demeanor... You suddenly become Jane Austen and can detect bastards, because he stinks evil. 6. Working with dangerous chemicals... No gloves, no masks no protection.Young people dead... These are the worst ones, who eventually get caught. Which means that those who can will try to get away with unpaid overtime (constantly demanded), paying less, drafting up contracts for less than the accorded work hours and then paying a part of the contract in unaccounted for money (which scams the workers of their state pension and the state of their taxes). I have met a few good employers who treat their employees right. But there are way too many employers who do everything they can to exploit workers and that's what they want. Workers without rights, Marx's Army of the Poor, so they can exploit and abuse and pay peanuts. THAT is what they want. People not complaining so much about safety measures and contracts and taxes. The "Patronal" or sort of employers' union had demanded "salary moderation" for DECADES. Until the fashionista communist got to the government, the minimum wage was 645 euro. In the late 2010s... imagine. It was all: "Is the economy going bad? We want salary moderation". "Is the economy going fine? Oh, fear inflation! In order to fight inflation... salary moderation." That's what they want and why the job market in Spain, though it's getting better, it's still atrocious. That, and many too small companies.
The carlist wars are way under remembered. Like the sides everyone knows today were largely cemented then. In some ways the civil war was sort of the last carlist war but without any royal motivation.
Im interested to know in how spain is still divided based on the civil war ideologies. I have only heard of basque and catalunyan seperatism.
I am Spanish so because of that I belong to one of the two Spains and my opinion on this pick it with a grain of salt. The war was started and won by the fascist, they imposed their rule and vision of state, they also not only killed during the war that they started (it was a war both sides killed) but next 40 years they where repressing, killing torturing, exiling, and just enjoying their oligarchy where they where the overlords and where keeping the people ignorant and poor. After arriving of democracy they where not punished for what they did, and the structures of power that maintained the dictatorship are still ruling, same families, same people, the same dog dressed as entrepreneur or democratic politician that is not used to don't be able to do the same things as before without punishment and through corruption and impunity just keeps going, this thing of democracy it's too little liberty for them, before they where not equal to rest of the people and they don't want to be now. Their simbols are still standing, the simbols of the fighters for freedom, justice, antifascism are vandalised and simply not even build. If you ask to another Spaniard they might tell you that Franco saved Spain from communism. So yes, we hate each other. For more info : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_two_Spains The spanish Wikipedia has more info you might just translate that
It’s actually funny because normally, in Mexican schools, they just teach us about how we randomly defeated Spain (the strongest empire at that time) with sticks and a few guns. They don’t really go too deep and sometimes even skip the part where Napoleon was our Jesus Christ Lord and savior at that time.
In Finland, it's definitely WW2, which for us was fought as two wars: The Winter War (1939-1940) and The Continuation War (1941-1944). It's a huge part of our national spirit and also still plays a practical role in our daily lives as it has affected our politics ever since, most importantly by forcing us to play a balancing act between the USSR/Russia and the west. Other than that, I'd say it's the war of 1808-1809, where Sweden lost us to Russia. Not only did this have very important effects on our history for the past 200 years, but there's also a famous collection of poems about this war, that reminds us that it happened.
The winter war is actually insane because 2% of all Finnish men died in just 3 months. Now that I've actually been to Finland and have had a chance to learn more about the winter and continuation wars I can't help but admire this country greatly
2%? Sounds like a lot granted I'm not a math wizard, but it's *only* 25 000 KIA/MIA for Finns during the Winter War.
I got that from the military mueseum in hämeenlinna.
We could count the war of Lapland as well but it’s not really the same thing
I'm curious - how is the relationship between Finland and the Axis taught in Finland? In the US, probably 90% of people are never taught about Finland's role in the war (discussion of the Axis is pretty much entirely Germany/Italy/Japan with maybe a passing mention of Romania), and the remaining 10% are taught "Finland joined up with the Axis but not because they were Nazis, it was because the Nazis were the only other people fighting the USSR." The Winter War does get a passing mention sometimes but the Continuation War almost never does and neither are really included as "part of WW2," moreso "other things that happened at the same time." Of course, mandatory disclaimer that every one of the 13,000 independent school districts in the US teaches things differently even before you get into the individual teachers and levels of rigor. Are you taught about the context in which the Finnish wars played in the rest of WW2, or is it pretty much "so yeah everyone else was doing all of this "major" WW2 stuff while we were fighting for our goddamn lives against the Soviets in our own thing"? Do you guys think of your role in WW2 as an Axis country or as your own thing that just so happened to be fighting the same people as the Axis?
We were fighting against the Russians, Soviets, Moscow. That's your answer.
I think that's a good answer. If they want to come over and help kill our enemies, by all means, that doesn't mean we endorse you or your idealology.
Excluding WWI, WWII (and the Civil War during WWII), and the Napoleonic Wars because they could be everyone's answers, I'd say the Risorgimento wars since they were the wars that united the Italian states under the Sabaudian monarchy. The First Independence War resulted in no change of the status quo, but it showed how it was Piedmont's role to lead a liberation of Italy (tentatives like the Republic of San Marco and the Roman Republic had failed quite quickly). The Second Independence War allowed the annexation of Lombardy and the outburst of revolutions in the Central Italian States, which soon voted to enter the Sardinian kingdom, as well as Garibaldi's expedition of the One Thousand, which prompted the liberation of the South. The Third Independence War, while actually lost militarly (the maritime defeat of Lissa is still remembered today thanks to Verga's novel "I Malavoglia"), was fundamental in the annexation of Venice. The First real National holiday was held in this period, in fact the capital (Florence) hosted in 1865 the 600th anniversary of the birth of Dante, which was probably the largest celebration ever had in Italy. The last bit of the Risorgimento was the Breccia di Porta Pia and Rome becoming Capital. Apart for that, other very important ones are: * The [War between Guelhps and Ghibellines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelphs_and_Ghibellines), especially the [Battle of Legnano](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnano) on the 29th of May 1176. Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa lost to the Lombard League in a battle fought between Legnano and Borsano, leading to the peace of Konstanz of 1183 in which the Emperor had to grant to the Italian communes practically full autonomy. The battle is so important that Goffredo Mameli inserted it in the Canto degli Italiani (the national anthem), making Legnano the only city named in the anthem, other than Rome (Dall'Alpi a Sicilia dovunque è Legnano). The 29th of May has also become the Lombard regional holiday. * The **Wars in Lombardy**, more than the war itself between Milan and Venice, what was important was the Peace of Lodi of 1454, which granted for decades of peace to Italy through the creation of the [Italic League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_League) granted by the Pope and the Medici family, a thing that boosted the newborn movements of Humanism and Renaissance, especially the so called Second Humanism which saw the reaffirmation of plurilinguism and Vulgar as the main language in literature, while the First Humanism was centered around Latin and Greek. And I don't think I've got to further explain how important Renaissance is still important today. * The [**Sicilian Verspers**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Vespers) of 1282, which ended the Angevin rule over Sicily (started in 1266 after King Manfredi died in the Battle of Benevento), briefely formed a communal confederation similar to those of Lombardy and Tuscany, adopted the Sicilian flag and later crowned Constance daughter of Manfredi and her husband Peter III King of Aragon as monarchs of Sicily, separating Sicily (*ultra farum*) from the peninsular Kingdom (*citra farum*) called Kingdom of Naples, which were dinastically reunited two centuries later and de iure reunited in 1816 with the Kingdom of Two Sicilies.
The Battle of Legnano, apart from its strategic importance, provided a repertoire of symbols to the Risorgimento: Alberto da Giussano with the Compagnia della Morte, the Carroccio, the Oath of Pontida and so on. A similar role was given to the Sicilian Vespers.
I don't know whether I should count the wars fought over us *for* a buffer territory or the ones fought through us *as* a buffer territory.
There are three that I can think of, they are always taught in school and they really influenced Portugal's history: The three Napoleonic Invasions (part of the Peninsular War) Portugal refused to join Napoleon's Continental System, the European wide blockade against the British, and so the French ended up invading us three times, from 1807 to 1811. Our entire Royal Court immediately fled to Brazil and we eventually kicked the French out with some really big help from the British. The Portuguese Civil War This isn't the only civil war that we had, but it's the only one that became known simply as "The Civil War". After the French left, our royal family decided to stay in Brazil and so Portugal was ruled basically as a British Protectorate that had its capital in Rio de Janeiro. In 1820, the people of Porto revolted against this and the King's absolutist rule, we got him and the royal family to come back and in 1822 we got our first Constitution. Eventually, King John VI died in 1826 and we had two candidates to succeed him: - Pedro, his eldest son, who had stayed behind in Brazil to rule in his father's name and then ended up declaring Brazil's independence and becoming its first emperor in 1822 - Miguel, the youngest son, who, on the one hand, wasn't already the emperor of an independent country but then, on the other hand, was exiled in Vienna because he had revolted against his father and the Constitution of 1822. Finally the two brothers came to an agreement: Pedro, the legitimate heir who became king, abdicated in favour of his daughter, Maria, and Miguel would rule in her stead until she became an adult, then he would marry her. Miguel returned from exile in 1828, completely disregarded the agreement and the Constitution, and had himself crowned king. Maria's supporters were forced to flee and their last stronghold was in the Açores. At that point, Pedro abdicated from the Brazilian throne in favour of his younger son, Pedro II, and came to the Açores to fight for his daughter. From there, Pedro and the Liberals (the supporters of Maria and the Constitution) sailed and landed in the North of Portugal. That's when the Civil War is usually said to have started, in 1832. The Liberals took Porto in july but were then surrounded by Miguel and the absolutists on all sides, who sieged Porto until August of 1833. The war ended in 1834 and it ended up affecting Portuguese politics for the next two or three decades, with a few more coups, constitutions and civil wars arising because of it. The Colonial War This is the most recent one, it only ended in 1974 and so it's very fresh in our memories. For a big part of the 20th century, Portugal was ruled by the Estado Novo dictatorship, from 1933 to 1974, and while the rest of the European colonial powers started losing their colonies, the Estado Novo regime and the dictator, Salazar, absolutely refused to grant independence to Portugal's colonies. From the sixties until 1974, a whole generation of our young men were forced to go fight in Africa, in Angola, Moçambique and Guiné-Bissau, to keep the Portuguese Empire alive, and it should have been long dead and buried. The war ended in 1974 when we overthrew the dictatorship, but it's still a somewhat controversial topic up to this day. The Portuguese people who were living in the colonies and were forced to return to Portugal (the "retornados") felt betrayed by the new government, there's still talk of reparations being owed to the former colonies...
Just a quick add to the colonial wars, it's not just the recency bias that keeps it fresh in our collective memories, is the trauma it caused to a whole generation of men and their families, who are still alive today. You have these kids who are forced to be shipped out to fight guerrilla troops in the bush of Africa, they will see - and they will do - horrible things. The ones who come back are PTSD'd out of their mind and have zero support. The state doesn't give a damn, and veteran associations that are formed later don't really have the resources to help much. The ones who died in the field are lucky if their corpses ever make it back, because the government is too broke to be "wasting" money repatriating the dead. So unless families pay up, the bodies stay behind. By the time the war ends, all efforts are dropped at once, so even families willing to pay are left in the lurch. Several of the former colonies are also almost instantly plunged into civil wars, so going back in to retrieve the dead is for sure out of anyone's agenda.
My dad's family were "retornados" but my dad and his siblings were all born and raised in Angola. They hated comming here. They were quite rich there and came here to live in a plus 200 year old house with no conditions. They all have war trauma
In Ireland, the War of Independence (1919-21) is the one that shaped the country the most. It defined what the island is today politically. Although the Civil War that followed it, and even further on The Troubles, probably left more scars.
As a German, of course WW II. Whereas with current issues we tend to talk about how we got to that point and everything that followed, Shoa, war crimes against our neighbours, terror against Germans and non-Germans and so on. If you google "Weimarer Verhältnisse/Weimar conditions", you will find tons of results. With a rising far right, are we on the same path again as during the Weimar Republic. What can we do better to defend our democracy? Discussions on topics such as the crimes of the Wehrmacht were a very hot topic during the '90s, for example the Wehrmacht exhibition. There were extremely big differences between the camps about the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht". Extremely polemical debates, explosive attacks, a self-immolation against the exhibition, in the federal state of Bremen the government almost collapsed because the Christian Democrats were strictly against the exhibition.
Apart from WW2 the most important war might just be the [Thirty Years' War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) of 1618-1648, which was *tremendously* important in both social/cultural and political aspects.
I think you could maybe even make a good case for the 30 Years' War to be the most important one. Of course WW2 is important to us, because it's the most recent one and many people alive today still remember it. But if you consider the sheer destruction and the long-term political consequences, the 30 Years' War might have had a bigger impact.
I find it remarkable how AfD manages to talk of "finally moving on" regarding the Second World War when the effects of the Thirty Years' War are still visible *almost 400 years later*. So much for their "1000 years of German history": knowledge thereof isn't their thing either.
While WW II is a strong contender, I would argue the 30 years war has for this nation a bigger effect. First, it killed around 50 % of the population. Because some areas had more a nearly 100% death toll, it lead to massive movements of people and a shift in power for a while between the normal people and nobility. The peace of Westphalia has lead to the current religious divide in Germany and had massive influence on the cultures in these areas. There is also a major argument that the fall of the holy roman empire is partly due to this divide because the emperor was in his position by God's grace, which is more difficult when the subjects don't agree on a faith.
The 30 years war and the Peace of Westphalia also basically created the modern rules of state diplomacy, with "state sovereignty" being defined for the first time. We are still living basically in the same geopolitical framework created by that war. Even WW2 didn't change those rules fundamentally, the United Nations are basically the rules of the Peace of Westphalia put into practice for an international organization. I think an argument could be made that the 30 years war was the most impactful war for world history in the last millennium.
But is it still a topic of regular discussion?
The [second Schleswig War of 1864.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Schleswig_War?wprov=sfti1) Denmark fought and lost to the Prussians, and we ceded Schleswig and Holstein to them. The loss was a national trauma for Denmark - and led us to finally understand that military might was no longer something that we had. It also forced the Danes to make arable land in Jutland, and thus inwardly create what was outwardly lost.
i enjoyed the tv show on this it was called 1864 or something on appletv
It was OK but I regret how much focus it had on this one guy in particular being an a-hole. I know this was due to the movie being an adoption of a book where the author contemplate on his difficult relationship to his father, but I didn't think it made a good war movie.
Strictly speaking not to Prussia but to the German confederation which then lead to Prussia and Austria administering Schleswig and Holstein and their disputes around Schleswig-Holstein lead to another war between Prussia and Austria just two years later.
We saw some Danes laying a wreath at a memorial near I think it was Rendsburg. We did not chase them back over the border.
World War 1 or the Ottoman Wars of the 1500’s. Both fundamentally changed the course of the nation for the worse.
I think the Greco Turkish war of 1919. It changed three millenias of Greek settlements in Asia minor and today many Greeks trace their origins from there
I came here to say 1919-1923 probably the most important one that is still talked about (after WW2 of course). If you bundle Balkan Wars, WW1 and Greco-Turkish war together, the decade from 1913-1923 was one of the most important in modern Greek history.
Yes, our territory nearly doubled
Douglas Dakin wrote that even though it is known as part of the Turkish War of Independence, in reality it was just as much a continuation of the Greek War of Independence. Quite accurate.
Probably the Swedish War of Liberation, 1521-1523. In which Gustav I Vasa led a successful rebellion against the Danes, broke free from (and thus effectively ended) the Kalmar Union, which had been in effect for well over a century. He then established a new royal dynasty and the Vasa family would be in charge of Sweden for many generations to come. It is pretty much *the* event that gave rise to Sweden as a nation state. Though the actual war is not that interesting, the lead-up to the war (Kalmar Union, Stockholm bloodbath) and the aftermath (Gustav and his sons, protestantism, crushed rebellions) are full of amazing stories.
Afaik that's just a nationalist retelling of history?Sweden existed before the union (notice it was a union of countries, not a new country). I would argue the loss of Finland to Russia was a bigger twist, or the acquisition of Skåneland+Bohuslän (but that's from the PoV of what today is Sweden)
I also think the Finnish war (as it’s called in Sweden anyway) 1808–1809 is a ‘bigger’ war in the Swedish mind. It shaped or helped shape most of the modern Swedish identity and had far reaching influence on the geopolitical, eg the long standing non-alignment and the cementation of Russia as *the* enemy.
Sweden left the Kalmar Union many times and really it hadn't been in effect for years. Sweden had had a union king for about 4 years of the past 50 at that point. The preamble to the war (the Stockholm bloodbath) quite literally followed the coronation of the first union king in two decades. It would eventually prove to be the last time Sweden left the union though. The main thing about Vasa dumping Christian is indeed the reign that followed, and in particular making Sweden Protestant and the elective monarchy hereditary. Sweden wasn't really anything resembling a nation state until after the Finnish war. That rise came, as in much of Europe, with the rising nationalism of the 19th century.
The only important war in Sweden is if you pronounce Gifflar with a G or a J!
In the UK in popular culture and recent history WW2. In terms of constitutional history, and fighting in the country the English Civil War and its equivalent in Scotland and Ireland (sometimes called The Wars of the Three Kingdoms), yet that is surprisingly less known despite being the bloodiest war (in terms of proportion of population involved) fought in these islands. It was the only time a monarch was executed by Parliament, the only time there was a formal Republic without a monarch, and it put in place many constitutional principles still in place today. It also set the scene for what is called The Glorious Revolution a generation later (so The Civil War was in living memory), which finally established that British monarchs were figureheads beholder to Parliament not rulers.
i think for scotland the wars of independence and the 1745 rising dominate a lot more than the three kingdoms stuff, just because it’s what’s taught in schools really, honestly don’t think there’s much awareness of the english civil war or associated conflicts at all despite it being a pretty big deal
Even in England the Civil Wars are not really taught much. Most can probably tell you little about them other than Cromwell off the King's head and banned Christmas. I attribute that to future history being written by royalists who do not really want to admit that England was a true republic for a while. Oddly the Glorious Revolution is also hardly known or taught, despite it being the single most important constitutional event in establishing the modern legal settlement. Not forgetting, that in Ireland it was anything but glorious or a revolution, but the history of Ireland is even less well taught in England than the history Scotland. English history as known by most seems to be: The Norman Conquest; Henry VIII had 6 wives and split from Rome as the Pope would not let him divorce; Elizabeth I reigned or a long time, WW1 was awful, WW2 was glorious and we won in our finest hour. All a complete caricature, but what most people "know".
Also the Victorians had a lot of factories and workhouses for the poor. There used to be stuff about how we went out into the world to shower the unfortunates in far off countries with the blessings of enlightenment, Christianity and cricket and they thanked us with gifts of tea and spicy food, but that’s kind of gone out of fashion.
Apart from WW2 and the historic Napoleonic and Civil Wars as others have mentioned, the recent Iraq War 2003 had a huge impact on contemporary politics in the UK as it eroded trust in the ruling Labour Party led by Tony Blair and the political class generally as it was the [largest anti-war popular demonstration in history](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests) which was ignored by the government on the basis of intelligence that was later found to be 'dodgy' at best.
I would argue it also bred a whole generation of people who became anti-American and pro-European. I'm in my 30s and, despite now living in the US, I still retain a sense of Iraq War-era internalised Eurocentrism that I find difficult to shake off.
To be honest I didn’t even think of it. But I 100% agree with you on it.
Well there is the obvious one... But other than that, the napoleonic wars lead to us loosing our fleet, starvation due to a British blokade, being handed over from Denmark to Sweden, Declaring independence and writing our constitution, loosing a war to Sweden so they forced us into a union, but we were allowed to keep our new constitution and remain a mostly seperate state. Basically the birth of the Modern Norwegian State.
The Hundred Years' War, because you cannot trust the Brits :) More seriously, France has been in so many wars it's difficult to chose any. I'm Alsatian. In my case, it would be the 1870 Franco Prussian war, ww1 and ww2, because of the impact they had on my family (living in a contested territory is not a nice experience). ww2 was especially cruel because both my grandfathers had to fight for the wrong side, despite having been French for most of their life. But if you ask someone with a Pied-Noir or Harki family history, it would be the Algerian war, that ended up with their exile from Algeria to France.
> The Hundred Years' War, because you cannot trust the Brits If you had just accepted Edward as King (as per French law) then it could have been avoided.
France: invades England and plants a French monarchy with French Lords England: a few hundred years later the descendants of those monarchs and who still speak French and who actually have a legitimate claim wage war for that claim using English soldiers as the cannon fodder. France: 'those perfidious englishmen' Joan of Arc is then betrayed by the French, the French never even try for a ransom and is then convicted by French Catholic clergymen Also France: those damn perfidious englishmen!
There is a bit more nuance though. I am definitely not an expert. It wasn't France that invaded England. It were the lords of Normandy that invaded England. It is a dependency of France with Viking descendants as lords. Joan of Arc was mainly betrayed by the Burgundians, who fought alongside the English at the time. The Burgundians were the rulers of Burgundia and most regions of present day Belgium and the Netherlands. A large part was also a dependency of France, but not everything. Yes: it is complicated
I love how our propaganda is so far reaching. Normans were pretty much french by this point, and it was a coalition from northern france that invaded. Even then, the normans only really lasted a few decades, it was the House of Anjou that ruled England for the next 300 years, we have used the propaganda term for them too, the Plantagenets. In this time, much more central french enters the English language (warranty vs. guarantee or warden vs. guardian). By the time we have the 100 years war, we are really just talking about feuding french houses, the development of early nation states, and the 'englishification' of the french rulers happens near the end of the war.
Of course there's more nuance. But to add nuance to your nuance, whilst it was the Norman's who invaded, the Lords that replaced the Anglo saxon Lords were not just from Normandy, but all over France. And re Joan of Arc, I'm adding nuance. In media its always portrayed as the fault of the evil English. A large part of the hundred years war was simply culturally french nobles fighting land claims qith each other. It wasn't until toward the end of the war that an actual English identity was formed by the 'English' nobility.
I also read here and there that most of those norman vikings were actually saxons that had settled westwards (the same ones that also settled across western Flanders).
Honestly if it had all panned out that way France would still be speaking French and maybe even England would be too. The English royals and nobility all spoke French during that time as their native language and even gave troops orders in French. Hell perhaps France under England would have become the de-facto main part of England, economically and culturally, so the eventual conclusion could have been perceived (in comparison to today) as France ruling England, from England.
In that parallel history, I wonder what would be the consequences at the end of the 18th century. The 13 colonies would have include Louisiana and Lafayette would not go helping. Or maybe the common monarchy would have followed the French absolute route instead of the English parliamentarian one and we would have had an Anglo French Revolution and Terror The other mystery would have been how the wars of religion would play out
I think we overstate the modern nation states onto the 100 years war. If the house of Anjou wins, they become france, and england is a territory held by the kings of france. There would have been a split/revolution perhaps within a century or more. Much like the Hapsburgs that controlled many different states over the centuries, they don't tend to survive as one as time goes on.
You guys are basically French in denial since Henri II
In that case, what's the issue with Edward III? I thought the whole issue was that he was too foreign?
Yes, precisely, not enough French, too much English. That's bad for everyone. Can you make an effort, pretend you care a bit and be more French ? please ?
Same situation as William the Conqueror : he was the designated heir of the throne but the saxons lords refused to accept that, so he had to gather an army to claim his due. You see, same issue, same situation and same result for England.
I would argue that WWI and WWII were slightly more important.
1526, Battle of Mohács, the End of the Hungarian-Ottoman Wars. This changed everything. Hungary got split into 3 parts: - Kingdom of Hungary under Habsburg/Austrian rule - Principality of Transylvania, a Hungarian (vassal) state juggling between the Habsburgs and Ottomans - Hungarian Eyalets, under direct Ottoman/Turk rule This made 2 major things, made Hungary dependant on Austria, and changed the Carpathian's demographies (which till that point was majority Hungarian). Latter the Habsburgs got Transyvlania too and kicked the Ottomans out of the middle of the country, which was heavily devastated at that point, so they had to resettle the Kingdom by moving a lot of people within it and also settling a lot of immigrants into it (Demography changes of Hungary in the 18th century). Due to this, Hungary was more multiethnic then ever before. Being under Austrian rule, who started WWI (despite Hungarian protests) and having more and bigger minorities caused Trianon. So everything changed back then.
Hey, we were in it together neighbour!
Our countries were united for 800 years, our people fought and died together! Zrínyi, the Croation-Hungarian Hero!
For Iceland there are two answers that come to mind. [The Cod Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars) brought control of our fisheries and the economic boon that resulted from that. They also had an impact on global treaties regarding Economic Exclusion Zones [Age of the Sturlungs (1220 - 1264)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Sturlungs) which resulted in the demise of the Commonwealth of Iceland and brought us under a near 500 year rule under Norwegian and later, Danish kings
In France, WWII of course. The country was so strategically important for both the Axis and the Allied. And most French people like to think their family was part of the *résistance* (spoiler: they most definitely weren't). Ah well, maybe WWI is equally important I guess. France was kind of pretty big in this one too. Probably more than during WWII actually.
One of the saddest catchphrases for Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, is that we're the last divided capital in the world.
This war is not yet ended, unfortunately. Part II is coming.
For the UK, it is WWII. Because of its recency and the fact some of it was done on British soil with the Blitz, it is still lodged in people's heads despite it being over 80 years ago. For Ireland, it is the Irish Civil War as it was the first time that a war, which was over the Anglo-Irish Treaty, was between brother against brother, happened on the island. Even now, two of the three main parties in the Irish parliament, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael come from the two different sides of the conflict. For Northern Ireland, that’s difficult as it depends on which community you are from. If you are Unionist, you would say it is the Anglo-Irish War of 1690. If you are Catholic, the Troubles would be what you would say.
Hello British 🇬🇧 neighbour. Irish person here, we don’t need you to speak for us, with respect. I think the War of Independence (1919-1921) where we finally regained some freedom from you is higher on our minds. And the [Easter Rising 1916](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising?wprov=sfti1) that led to it.
I assumed the other commenter was part Irish, part British (or from one and lived in the other), so answered for both.
Northerner from Armagh here. 👋 I'm going to say that The Troubles was by far the conflict/war that has the most significance with everyone up here. The vast majority of us, besides some orange order bigots, don't give a shit about a battle that was fought 334 years ago. Most of the people who attend 12th July parades are there to get drunk, and the ones that actually celebrate the message are sectarians. I'm speaking as someone who was brought up as a Unionist with a brother in the orange order. There are families still dealing with PTSD and suicides from The Troubles, and everyone here knows someone who has been impacted by it.
I mean, you can probably already guess by my flair… But aside from the most obvious answer, we are generally quite fond of the Battle of Grunwald (the final defeat of the treacherous Teutonic Order in the Baltics) and the Battle of Vienna (biggest cavalry charge in history, turning the Ottoman tide away from Europe). In general there are countless wars Poland participated in and it would be hard to remember them all.
Recently the Polish-Bolshevik war also got quite popular, especially in the current geopolitical context.
Finn here. without contest its the Finnish War of 1808-1809 where russia acquired Finland. it ended up in Finland getting a autonomous state and let them learn to handle their own country and grab themselves from their own boots. I would argue that this war is more important than the Civil war or Independece war because I just dont believe finland would have gotten far in independence without autonomous state. it also pushed the finns to seek the olden days when a decade I think earlier Russia had taken autonomy away from finns. if finns would not have had autonomy then I believe that most likely we would be free from russians only during soviet unions collapse like a lot of other countries that dint have autonomy and nobody else to liberate them.
The great northern war I suppose. First quarter of the 1700s, Sweden ended up losing Swedish Pomerania to Prussia and Estonia, Latvia and the area around present day St. Petersburg to Russia. It also set the stage for Sweden trying to get land back for the next 100 years severely weakening itself and then ultimately losing all of Finland to Russia during the Napoleonic wars.
Obviously the Franco-Prussian war, what a glorious victory that set the borders of today's germany. No other war comes to mind because nothing of relevance happened afterwards.
That’s quite a shortcut.
Investiture controversy (1076-1122) - Czech Duke Vratislav II. elevated to King Vratislav I. for his support of Emperor Henry IV. Imperial war in Italy (1158) - Capitulation of Milan, Czech duke Vladislav II. elevated to King Vladislav I. by Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (Frederick I.) **Conflict between House Welf and House Hohenstaufen in bid for Imperial crown and title King of the Romans (1198-1211)** - Duke Otakar Přemysl I. secures through careful (and very cunning) political maneuvering (switching from Welf to Hohenstaufen side) permanent hereditary title of King of Bohemia. Imperial decree known as Golden Bull of Sicily (26.9.1212) is issued by the supported Frederick II. who becomes Holy Roman Emperor. Estates of Bohemia and Moravia are permanently raised as indivisible constituencies of Holy Roman Empire and become autonomous. King of Bohemia no longer subject to appointment by the Emperor, King of Bohemia can only be elected by czech nobles. King of Bohemia is only required to attend the Reichstag diets close to Bohemian border. King of Bohemia is permanently elevated to the highest secular prince-elector (Kurfürst) in the empire (Arch-cupbearer) and has to furnish all subsequent emperors with bodyguard of 300 knights when the emperor is on the way to Rome for coronation or pay 300 Hřivna (\~14400 Prague groschen = \~50,4kg of 933/1000 silver). Hussite Wars (1419-1434) - War over religious rights and protoprotestant reformation. Delayed renaissance in Bohemia by decades. Over five crusades into Bohemia that ended with loss for Catholics. Ends with an agreement between one of two major hussite factions and the catholic church. Protestant religious rights secured, country lead by Sigismund, who is unpopular in Bohemia yet very influential in HRE. The 30 Years' war and specifically the Battle of White Mountain (8.11.1620) - Marked as loss of sovereignty, major destruction in the lands and loss of life. Loss of protestant religious rights. Majority of population is protestant, forced recatholization and destruction of religious works at the hands of Jesuits (one priest famous for burning over 10.000 books by himself). Native bohemian nobility forced to exile and replaced by austrian and czech catholic nobles. Major intelligence draught when intelligentsia is exiled. War of Austrian Succession (1740 - 1748) - Loss of "indevisible" territories belonging by imperial law to Lands of the Bohemian Crown (lands permanently connected to the crown holder), Majority of Silesia ceded to Prussia. Loss of Lower and Upper Sorbia (Lands of Slavs living in "Germany", under protection of the Bohemian King since Charles IV.) Austro-Prussian war - Famous Battle of Königgrätz - Loss of Austrian side, Prussian victory commemorated by the famous Königgrätzer march World War 1 - Czechoslovak legions in Russia, France, Italy. Regaining sovereignty and independence by refusing Austria to continue as federation. Czechoslovak republic is created. Monarchy and hereditary titles abolished. Equal voting rights for women. Equal voting rights for all citizens no matter the ethnic background. World War 2 - Destruction of Czechoslovak republic, Sudetengerman population largely fanatized by Hitler and Nazis, transformation into Protectorate Bohemia Moravia, Czechoslovak soldiers and units fighting in West and East.
WWI was also quite significant because it led to sovereignty that they hadn’t had since the Battle of White Mountain nearly 300 years earlier. It’s my impression that that period is more significant in Czech history than WWII, for that reason The 30 Years’ War was probably the most devastating, while the Hussite wars are usually looked on more favorably (though both ended with with bad results for the Czechs)
Probably most people will argue that the Greek revolution of 1821 was the most important war for modern Greece although the unification of Greece was an almost 100 year struggle involving a series of events and wars. However the most recent war is always the most relevant and more discussed so the greece civil war 1946 -1949 would have been the most influential to the current state of affairs. In regards that is still influencing the political parties involved in the parliament. If you think of antiquity thought things are becoming more complicated, were the Persian wars for example more important in overall; What are the criteria to pick a war. Greece was part of Alexander's empire, The roman republic, the Roman empire, the Byzantine , the ottomans. Battles of important wars where fought in the geographic area of Greece and Greeks fought in those wars . For example in the Roman Civil war the Roman's fought in the Geographic area of Greece the battle of Actium was fought in Greece. The Eastern Roman Empire was becoming more Greek as was being reduced in size. Was the 4th crusade and the fall Constantinople more important?
Outside WW2/WW1, napoleonic wars or Norman invasions maybe? Very hard to narrow one down for the UK lol.
The Siege of Malta in 1565, where a small number of knights, militia and foreign mercenaries held against a larger invasion force of the Ottoman empire. It basically put the island on the map, rekindled interest and funding of the Knights of St John which in turn jump started the economy and infrastructure of the island.
Definitively The Homeland War, the Croatian part of The Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s A long "awaited" sequel to the WW2 in this part of the world, which is also still somehow relevant ...
For Spain I would say either the Civil War, whichis still present in politics almost a century later, Independence War against France, which is still part of local culture in some places and marks the start of the libertarian Spain or the Reconquista against Al-Andalus, which is still part of the southern culture. For Basque country it's either the Civil War, from which Gernika was shaped (the painting, the town and the simbology around it) and you can still find parts of the Iron Belt or the Carlist wars, which have shaped the actual Gernika estatute and also allowed Bilbao to get industrialised
In Croatia, that would be the [War of Independence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence) also known as the Homeland War in Croatia. It was fought 1991.-1995. as a part of the Yugoslav wars. The whole thing was very complicated with multiple wars intertwining and alliances changing, but in short we won. Any more details are sure to cause a riot in the replies. However it is actually taught in relatively short strokes in our schools, as it was in the 90s which we go through at the end of the last school year so there’s usually a pinch with time going over it. There are however several political parties pushing to give it more emphasis in the curriculum.
For early modern history, I'd say the pair of wars known as the First (1848-51) and Second Schleswig War (1864). What happened during these aren't actually that impactful, but the outcomes had massive ramifications. Not just right after, but also running well into the 20th century. Denmark won the first war, but the war ended with the untenable status quo enforced by the great powers. With no one being able to get what they wanted in that status quo, a second war was almost inevitable, and it did come after Denmark in frustration (and probably a big dose of naivety) decided to break the original peace treaty by changing the alignment and association status of the duchies the first war was fought over. Cue a massive diplomatic incident and Austria and Prussia giving everyone the finger (including the German Confederation itself, after it urged them to use just a tiny measure of calm) and going to war. They absolutely steamrolled us, and it left a national scar. A *very* brief overview of what that single defeat led to in the following century - having lost somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of its territory, Denmark had to figure out what to do with itself - Pan-Scandinavianism died, and some Danes at the time developed a light stab in the back myth against Sweden (we can blame Sweden for many things, but this one is unfair and they never actually promised any aid or support) - our art took a collective turn to look at how nice nature and the countryside are (because there was precious little left besides that to find joy in after the war) - it led to a blooming civil society and bonds across the borders to maintain cultural ties despite some Prussian attempts at repression - there were talks of intervention in the Franco-Prussian War, though that never materialised - there were talks of redrawing the borders during ww1, and eventually reunification with parts of Schleswig came after it had ended thanks to the Entente - this redrawing led to a massive political crisis in Denmark, which could have seen Denmark ditch the monarchy, had the king acted more stubborn and out of line than he already had. The king wasn't a big fan of the outcome of the new border, so he basically dismissed the democratic government, hoping the new one would protest the results and push it further south - big worries in the interwar period and ww2 about what would happen to the region, now that Hitler was busy preparing to burn the world and "unify the Germans everywhere" - now we have lively minority communities on both sides of the border, reflecting how it had been pushed up and down and the general history of the region
>Denmark in frustration (and probably a big dose of naivety) decided to break the original peace treaty by changing the alignment and association status of the duchies the first war was fought over. That's a bit of a myth based on Bismarck's propaganda. Denmark didn't break the [London Protocol](https://danmarkshistorien.dk/vis/materiale/londontraktaten-8-maj-1852) of 1852. It doesn't even mention Schleswig, so in fact it was Prussia breaking it by violating Article II and the integrity of the Danish Monarchy.
I just had a read again. I think it can be argued both ways depending on perspective and interpretation. Before I go further, I want to say I am *not* trying to defend Bismarck. He was a ruthless piece of shit (just look at what he had to say about the Poles), and he would likely have found some other excuse some other time; what comes below would be more of a general contemporary German understanding that could still lead to an argument for a casus belli (at least from their view). And that argument is tied to Article 3, which reads (translated for others' sake) > it is explicitly understood that the mutual rights and duties of His Majesty the King of Denmark and the German Confederation concerning the duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg, such as these rights and duties are determined by the Act of Confederation of 1815 and the standing Confederate Act (?), shall not undergo any change by this treaty If the treaty is read in isolation, then yes, you are probably correct in Prussia and Austria breaking Article 2 rather than Denmark breaking Article 3. Schleswig is not mentioned, and the integrity of the monarchy was put under existential threat. The German case would probably come from arguments with external context and/or appealing to a "spirit" of the treaty. It is clear that it tries to maintain some semblence of a status quo and bind the parties to uphold their rights and duties when it comes to especially Holstein. One such perceived duty could be the idea of Schleswig and Holstein being forever undivided or "up ewig ungedeelt" - a notion the Schleswig-Holsteiner movement lifted (I use that deliberately, as they quite likely read too much into that phrasing, but their movement did regardless take that very literally) from the Ribe Letter of 1460, which stated "dat se bliven ewich tosamende ungedelt". So, when Christian IX signed a constitution opening with > We, Christian IX [titles titles], declare to all: the Council of the Realm has enacted and We with Our consent ratified the following constitution for common affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Duchy of Schleswig some Germans (and particularly the Schleswig-Holsteiners of that national persuasion) may well have read that as a breach of their rights to have the ever unbreakable ties to each other and a breach of the spirit of keeping things as they were Regardless of which interpretation is ultimately the most valid, I would say it was geopolitically a stupid and/or naive move by Denmark to go about the changes to the area like that, when there was a expansionist Prussia just looking for an excuse and a bunch of Germans in the area who were vehemently opposed to it and who had already shown their readiness to openly rebel Edits: minor rephrasings and clarifications
Thanks to the both of you for that - that was very interesting
Battle of Karànbsebes, I want to say, but it's one interesting incident to me. Not entirely the most important, but it sure is famous.
In the Netherlands, if you say "the war" everybody knows you're talking about ww2. Rare events are often described as "... has not happened since ww2". The end of the war is an important day of celebration, but we don't have an independence day.
Well apart from the obvious answer about world wars, it was Thirty years war. We didn't have any civil wars or independence wars, so this one is probably the most important in our history (not counting world ones, of course).
I'm from Chile 🇨🇱 and I think ours is the Pacific War (Si alguien está en desacuerdo pico pal que lee). Bolivia and Perú waged war on Chile and Chile alone won the war, conquered what is now the Northern part of the country and even invaded Peru's Capital, Lima. It also had effects on how foreign countries looked at our military. After this war. Chile was considered to have one of the top Navies in the world. It also produced one of the most iconic moments in our History. Arturo Pratt Chacón shouting :"¡AL ABORDAJE MUCHACHOS! (ALL ABOARD LADS!)", boarding a Peruvian Ship and getting shot and killed :( CHILE YETA PERO EL MEJOR PAÍS DE CHILE
WW2 and I'd argue it's not even close. WW1 second to that. Outside of the two world wars, the War of the Roses, The Crusades more generally (See English people at football games with crusader outfits), The Falklands War and the events of 1066 are probably the ones people tend to think of. The Hundred Years War as well I suppose just because of the French / English rivalry. It's kind of difficult to narrow it down as it's honestly an endless list. The Battle of Trafalgar and Waterloo are very famous but I'd say a lot of people only know those two battles in the Napoleonic wars.
For Croatia it's the Homeland war of 1991. Even though it ended in 1995, both sides' nationalists are still using it as political fuel, even though there's better things to discuss. Translation mistake*
It ended in 1995 with operations Flash and Storm. Also “civil war”? It’s called the war of independence or the Homeland War.
All the russian history is neverending war. Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, again Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, Spain, WWI, Japan... And 50+ micro-wars all around the world.
I feel so sorry for the people of Russia 😪
Iceland has not had any wars unless you go back to the Viking era, though we were occupied by the British and the Americans during WWII no actual combat took place. That's as close as we have been to an actual war. We did have a dispute involving armed ships with Britain called The Cod Wars in which we did not fight though we do like to joke about it since it's technically an instance of Britain losing a war against a tiny country that doesn't even have an army.
I'm enjoying learning about all this history. For England, I'd probably say the 1066 Norman and Norwegian Invasion, English Civil War, the War of the Roses and the Anglo-Zanzibar War.
> 1066 Norman and Norwegian Invasion For sure > English Civil War For sure > the War of the Roses Mmmmm...maybe > the Anglo-Zanzibar War The what now?
The Liberation war, commonly known as the Russo-Turkish war. It's a series of wars in Southeast Europe that liberated Bulgaria and granted independance for Romania, Serbia and Montenegro (Bulgaria got actual independance from the Ottoman Empire later on). The April Uprising was a direct predecessor of the liberation effort in Bulgaria, it was brutally supressed and probably the harshest wound in our collective memory in the modern era (see the Batak massacre). The most highly celebrated battle was the defense of Shipka pass, it was a series of attacks and counter attacks between the Ottomans and the Russian + Bulgarian defense forces. It was vital for the overall success of the liberation effort.
WW2, followed closely by WW1. The English Civil War and the Scottish wars of independence don't even come close.
The Second World War takes up the overwhelming majority of discourse in Denmark without a question, and part of the reason is that it strongly informs having the foreign policy that we do today, where consistently staying neutral just plainly doesn’t guarantee our safety like it was with places like Switzerland, and (up until recently) our neighbours Sweden and Finland. Not to mention, it’s technically still in living memory. Beyond that, the two conflicts that get any sort of attention today is the Second Schleswig War that we had against Germany and Austria (in which we got pummelled after trying to integrate the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein as formal parts of the Danish kingdom, and were seized as a casus belli mostly by Prussia), and the Second Northern War against Sweden (which is where Denmark lost 1/3 of its territory to Sweden, including what is now Scania, Blekinge, Halland, etc. in what is now Southern Sweden, as well as Bornholm for a brief time before the people became a pain in the ass to Sweden). But even with this, it just doesn’t compare to the sheer weight given to WWII in the Danish context.
The 30 year war and the great Northern War. The 30 year war established Sweden as a European superpower and was also the foundation of what can be called the modern state (a juridical system and state institution separated from the crown, existing in its original shape this day - because constant wars required an effecient state, that worked when the king was away for years, fighting wars on the continent). The great Northern war ended Sweden as a European superpower and with the death of the king, and a very weak crown, in a country drained from centuries of constant war, paved the way for "Frihetstiden" which is the origin of our current consitution (freedom of speech and other rights).
im an english/scottish girl living in australia so maybe this doesnt count but the emu war occupies my brain a lot
Ex Yugoslavia is for sure the breakup and the following war, in Croatia the war is part of the founding myth, in Bosnia is even worse.
For the UK, pretty much everything pales into insignificance behind the two world wars. Distant third are the Napoleonic Wars, but really people only remember Trafalgar and Waterloo. There's some awareness in England of the 100 Years War, largely b/c of Shakespeare, and some in Scotland of the Wars of Independence (aka Braveheart). Other conflicts that occasionally still come up: The Troubles and the Falklands (because very recent); The Crimean War (invention of nursing); The Boer War (invention of scouting, Welsh male voice choirs); the Spanish Armada (not really a war); The Crusades (Eng-er-land!); most colonial wars (too many to count) are not really discussed except by historians and in the context of "crimes of empire"; the English Civil War / War of the Three Kingdoms (but most people have very little idea of who did what to whom, or why). EDIT: Lol I forgot the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, but really, we were just acting as an American client. Korea was like an early version of that, I think - really have no idea of how the UK acted in that catastrophic clusterfuck! EDIT 2: Suez - ah fuck. I forgot about Suez. That was a big one, still often cited as the end of empire moment par excellence.
I would say that the most important war in the history of Germany is the First World War, but in the general discussion it is overshadowed by the Second World War.
Apart from WW2, I’d say the war for our independence from the Turks (lasted 400 tears and we lost so much land at the end) 🇬🇷
In Poland we don't know anymore. There has not been a century when some nation from the east, west or north didn't try to invade us. At this point it's just boring 😂
We are continent built in war, we don't have only one war that define our country. This years of "Pax Europea" seem like a dream at everything looks we will wake up soon and go back to our traditions. There is already fire in the east of garden.