IM CRYING

They didn't want to originally, but when parliament was ready to put him back on the throne with more power restrictions, he started another civil war. They didn't have a choice.

Expert in 17th century english political history, ask me anything.

Nationalism didn't exist until the French revolution which was 500 years later fuckwit.

>basedboys without a father figure these days.

Lol yeah they will worship anyone they perceive as "strong" no matter how retarded they are. See: Jordan Peterson

The concept of a nation didn't even exist until the French revolution.

Nah nationalism had already started coming into existence all over the place especially with the Reconquista in Spain and the Hundred Years War in France and England. By the mid 1500s the Dutch were pulling of their own nationalist revolution.

Lol no that's a myth England was definitely already a nation-state by that point and so were France, Spain, the Netherlands, and other countries.

The only truly great king the Brits ever had was Alfred the Great.

>The concept of a nation didn't even exist until the French revolution.
your views are outdated. English and the French came to exist in 100 years war, when townspeople allied with monarchs to fight for respectice states

What about Longshanks?

This the concept of a Nation grew naturally out of local towns and regions identifying with each other and uniting.

The first of these systems came out of north Italy, the Italian city-states and the free Imperial cities in Germany and then moved from there to the Hanseatic League, the low countries, and even moved east with the German town system into Poland-Lithuania.

By 1317 the French were kidnapping popes and transferring control of the French Catholic Church to the French monarchy and executing Templars on the grounds of them not being sufficiently pro-French.

In fact you could push back even farther to the French siezures of the Angevin English land holdings in the early 1200s under the justification of French land needing sole French sovereignty or the English Baron wars.

Before the French revolution, in all nations that had monarchies, the people were subjects of the Crown rather than citizens of whichever country they were in. Separate identities have existed throughout history due to the different leaders that people owed their allegiance to, but to call these nations is inaccurate due to the vastly different way that society operated.

>and the free Imperial cities in Germany
Germans don't have a nationalistic tradition, they only have an imperialistic tradition, or at least it's the strongest

Nationalism in Poland-Lithuania appeared around the time when aristocracy decided to curb the power of the king and decided to rule through local and central parliaments

Protestants were the majority in the country, Charles would have oppressed the fuck outta them. Of course they were going to kill him, as far they were concerned it was him or them.

You wot?

Is this sarcasm?

The term nationalism was literally invented by the French after the revolution. A feeling of patriotism or loyalty towards your side and disdain for the other was not nationalism in the 100 years war, rather a rivalry between two different cultures and languages under different kings. Not a rivalry between two nations.

>what is citizenship

Stop talking muhammed.

Nope. Its true, at least not in the way that we perceive nations today.

You're wrong, mehmet. Read the greek books you stole again.

Attached: King_Charles_Wojak_The_First_b.jpg (1600x2762, 1.03M)

Fml i need to get some sleep i'm getting my monarchs mixed up. Charles was Protestant as well. Like someone else said though, he was at odds with the Presbyterian Church in Scotland and would've torn the whole nation apart.

>the people were subjects of the Crown rather than citizens of whichever country they were in

it's not that big of a deal. In Poland we have an account from 12th of one aristocrat calling himself citizen of Poland, but I don't know if polish nationalism existed then alrdy

The British described themselves constantly as subjects of the crown, but didn't it make them belong to the british nationality

You were lied to by your history teacher. It's ok, we all were.

>The term nationalism was literally invented by the French after the revolution
this is correct, but nations themselves predate this

Unless you believe suddenly, out of ass the French Revolution created all cultural and political differences in Europe

>In Poland we have an account from 12th of one aristocrat calling himself citizen of Poland
I even found the picture

Attached: Zbilut_polonie_civis.jpg (1440x474, 118K)

Because Elizabeth and Henry ruined Anglo culture. Creating a rift between the commoners(Calvinistic) and the new aristocracy high church Anglicans which inherited dissolved monastic land.

Boiling over to open rebellion between the monarchy and the parliament after some other issues were created.

The free Imperial cities in Germany were like mini sized nations like the Italian city states but smaller. The Hanseatic League was larger and was similar in composition as well to a Nation state but weaker. The Dutch Republic became the first actual Germanic speaking nation state outside the Nordic countries.

Poland-Lithuania had a lot of early marks of a nation state and a form of government that ultimately descended from the north Italian city states/republucs.

The difference is subtle but important. Back before nations as we currently see them, when feudalism and feudal-capitalist hybrids were in place, one would owe their loyalty to their king/earl/prince by divine right. The internal divisions created by the feudal system and the different allegiances that people had meant that the modern concept of a nation and the concept they had back then was completely different. People did obviously feel the need to defend their native clay, and if this was threatened it took priority, which is why in international wars people defined themselves by the name of the country they came from rather than by the earl/prince that they fought under.

It's also v hard to generalize like I did because of the fluidity and differences in European politics so I apologize if I have misled.

You mean England right?
If you want to go for just any King from any part of Britain then there's also Robert The Bruce, MacBeth was also a great King in psite of that faggot Shakepeare's character assassination of him. Edward Longshaknks if you're English or Richard The Lionheart. King James the 6th/1st. If you want to also include Ireland then Niall Noigiallach and The Uí Néill.

spite*

>The free Imperial cities in Germany were like mini sized nations like the Italian city states but smaller
I would question whether they were nations, rather regionalisms. Imho, Germans identified themselves through layers of power structure and loyalty to the emperor, which is why Germans constantly push for imperialism

>which is why in international wars people defined themselves by the name of the country they came from rather than by the earl/prince that they fought under
but this was the basis for oldest nationalities of Europe, wasn't it

I'll reword, the concept of the nation that we have today didn't exist until the French revolution. They did exist in their own right under their own historical circumstances but none resembled closely enough what we would today call a nation rather than a monarchy.

Yeah I won't argue with that. It was definitely the basis and in countries like England there is no way to concisely say when it became the modern nation because of the antiquity and fluidity of the constitution.

>loyalty towards your side and disdain for the other was not nationalism in the 100 years war

The sense of nationhood and nationality are the keys to nationalism. France and England already had these even prior to the Hundred Years War, (but their nationalism exploded during the war to ever increasing levels)

The existence of a monarchy does not prohibit the existence of a nation state, by that logic the UK isn't a nation state today because it is still technically a constitutional monarchy which predates the French Revolution by over a century

In Britain wasn't it more loyalty to the King or whomever was challenging for the position? I mean even during the Jacobite rebellion they like to make out it was Scotland fighting England but it was really just supporters of the current Monarch vs the Exile. English, Scots, and Welsh on one side and English, Scots, French, and Irish on the other.

Fuck the king

Attached: 3325EEF3-11C4-42B6-8E22-3F43CE643DAB.jpg (800x450, 91K)

Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira!
les aristocrates à la lanterne!
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira!
les aristocrates on les pendra!

Attached: frenchrevolution.png (1306x604, 768K)

The Free Imperial cities had city based identities and citizenship, but they still served as a basis for later nation-state concepts not only in Germany but in other parts of Europe (the Netherlands, France, Eastern Europe).

Ironsides did nothing wrong

Attached: robespierre3.jpg (720x708, 43K)

The 17th century generally was a complete political clusterfuck so it's really hard to talk in the sense of nation development. Our more modern concept came in and out throughout the century, with England as a nation planting itself strongly during the protectorate and then England as subjects returning after interregnum was over and done with, with England (more so but not over 30%) then deciding itself over religious lines. It's confusing man.

>WHY THE FUCK DID THEY HAVE TO KILL CHARLES

Because he marched into the Commons with dozens of soldiers.

Attached: 1516561470887.png (1512x1008, 703K)

To be fair to Charlie, they still wanted him as King even after the first civil war.

So what was prorestant about these wars between the gentry and the king

I can't make much of this. England became anglican, then suddenly puritans appear next century, then they lose and flee to America

Yes he did
Republican spotted