#livonian war

[shtoproishoditemae]

Poland again

[danaa-scully]

TATYANA LYALINA as Tsaritsa Anastasia Zakharyina-Yurieva 

The Terrible (2020)

↳ Episode 3: Livonian War

[glup3]

Ilya Repin, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581, 1883-85

Ivan Ivanovich, son of Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible, had a good relationship with his father, and even once slayed an assassin who was about to attack his father, thereby saving the tsar’s life. Their relationship began to grow sour when the younger started questioning the tsar’s military strategy during the Livonian War. The tsar struck down Ivanovich’s pregnant wife at this time for wearing light clothing, causing a miscarriage. When Ivanovich confronted his father about it, the tsar struck him down with a scepter. The blow proved fatal. The tsar is reported to have cried out “May I be damned! I’ve killed my son! I’ve killed my son!”

[barbucomedie]

Armour of King Stephen Báthory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth dated between 1550-1560 on display in the Weltmuseum in Vienna, Austria

This ensemble is formed of a Turkish helmet and armour thought to be from Prague. It is not known when and how Bathory came into possession of the helmet, though presumably it came to Transylvania as an honorary gift from the Ottoman Sultan (perhaps Sultan Selim II) in order to tie the recipient to himself. Stephen Bathory was elected Grand Duke of Transylvania in 1571 and in 1575 he became King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. By conquering Pskov he won the Livonian War (1578-1582) alongside Denamr, Sweden and Norway against the Russian ruler Tsar Ivan IV, the Terrible.

Photographs taken by myself 2022

[unhonestlymirror]

America: I wonder how you four ended up being relatives, you look so... diverse.

Lithuania: *facepalm*

Latvia: Dude, THAT'S racist.

India: Wow, you sound just like your father, it gives me nostalgia! :D

Estonia: *tries not to laugh*

India: About 10 000 years ago, there lived a family of a hundred sons and one daughter. After a big war, the father, whose name was Bharata, was severely wounded and passed away without having time to write a will, so a squabble for power began. Brother turned on brother, everyone wanted to be the next ruler and marry their only sister, as pretty as lotus flower, the only woman who possessed the magical powers. The youngest son, a boy of extraterrestrial beauty and a kind heart, skin as an ivory, hair the ancient darkness of Vidisha, face a sculpture from Sravasthi, he didn't want to participate in those horrors, so he took his bow, arrows and Madu, and he went west to seek his fortune, leaving behind the saddened sister, who was too cowardly to give up everything she knew and leave, even if it meant losing all the power over her body. For many centuries, he wandered around the world like sun, saw thousands of different miracles, participated in thousands of different battles, made thousands of friends - but nowhere he felt like staying forever, nothing brought him a feeling of home. His soul and body were tired, he hated the sun itself, so he went north.

Lithuania: Oh, I know the rest, Curonia told me when I was little! Once, your brother reached the sea merging with the sky itself, bluer than turquoise. He couldn't have but fall into temptation to reach the Heaven Castle. He kept going many miles further ahead, and seeing that the sea didn't go any deeper, he lost his vigilance and track of time. Tired but inspired, he decided to catch himself some fish to eat. No one told him that sea was the local witch's property, whose peace no one dared to disturb for a long time.

Lithuania: Lightning of all colours scorched his ivory skin and long black hair, and the undercurrents dragged his limbs down the water. Jūratė was an asocial introvert, and she really didn’t like the smugglers who took all her amber and killed her fish. At first, she wanted to punish the stranger, but seeing his exhausted bloodless face, her heart was filled with pity, so she brought him to her Amber castle for interrogation.

India: I never liked that wicked daayan.

Lithuania: Well, mom wasn't that evil. After having a hearty lunch in a house made of sun, both made by a beautiful woman with golden hair and sapphire eyes, dad said he immediately fell in love with her. This made her laugh a lot, so she decided not to tell him that she almost killed him and the storm was her doing, and she put all the blame on the Thunder God.

Lithuania: However, when mom asked what his name was, he said something so difficult to pronounce that she asked: "Kas ir ta tauta?" - which means "What is your nation?" Dad didn't know any Baltic language back then, so he thought "kastaut" was some sort of friendly greeting. This word, eventually, became his new nickname. Nowadays, however, its form is Kastytis.

Latvia: Estonia called him Aesti, btw.

Lithuania: The moral of the story is that serious misunderstandings can not only destroy human relationships but also create them! :D

America: What a beautiful story.✨️

Latvia: And then they got married, had 10 children, and died in one day. Happy end.

Lithuania: You sound sarcastic.

Latvia: Wow, no way.

India: So basically, you three are the only alive sons of my brother.

Latvia: Nuh-uh, it's Liet only. Estonia is the oldest of us all, and he's our bro not by blood but by soul, we went through a lot of shit together during Livonian Order occupation, russian empire, nazis, soviets... I'm the proud child of Kurzeme and Latgale. Zemgale as well, but it's complicated.

India: Wait, so you're the grand kid? ...Why do Lithuania and Latvia call each other brothers then, not "nephew" and "uncle"?

Lithuania: It’s complicated.

Latvia: He's too Polish to be my uncle.

Lithuania: Shut up, my German nephew.💢

Latvia: Uno reverse, Estonia is your uncle.

Estonia: Please stop, I don't want to be anyone's uncle XD

[fideidefenswhore]

I hope this isn't stupid, but did Henry really do the Great Matter the right way? I just feel if he'd used a normal argument instead of making it a religion problem it'd be easier for him. If he said "I have no son, so I want to make a new marriage and get one, to protect my people from war" then wasn't that a reason other kings had, and they got annulments? That would be just a fact and everyone at the time knew no son had problems. Sure Catherine would still fight but she couldn't really say he was wrong. But instead if he says it's all Leviticus and God's mad it gives her the out to say she never slept with Arthur so God's not counting that as a real marriage. Then Henry has to say she's lying and so she looks the injured party and right to be offended, and nobody knows what to believe so it just drags out hoping someone dies.

Precedentially and in hindsight, making it a "religion problem" might not have been the best course; but I think it was genuinely his belief and also he had been so highly respected as "Defender of the Faith" (literally) up to that point that he saw an opportunity for fame and acclaim in (what he believed to be) the "righteousness" of his case, and a way to shore up the image, power, and prestige of the English monarchy; even when it became clear it would be one from a position of defiance. We have to place his belief in the context of his acclaim as a scholar and theologian up through the 1520s...it was bold, but so was Henry, and while the common narrative is that his case was facile; after further reading I found that to be reductive:

"In Henry’s obsession with an idiosyncratic interpretation of natural law and his apparent indifference to the strength of his own case on Deuteronomy we may discern a litigant who seems determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of possible victory. Nevertheless it is hard to resist the conclusion that the biblical texts themselves support Henry’s claim that his marriage contravened divine law as expounded by Moses. [...] In the field of legal codes Henry’s view, whether treated as a matter of divine or human law, held a strong position. Among other examples the Council of Neo-Caesarea and the regional Council of Agde followed the Levitical injunction by forbidding the marriage of men to their brothers’ widows. Faced with such arguments, Bishop Fisher usually asserted that the prohibitions did not specifically forbid all dispensations – yet nor did they specifically allow any. As on the Leviticus/Deuteronomy dilemma, Fisher reasoned that in cases of ambiguity the pope should interpret the matter. Yet such a papal interpretation had been given by Innocent III in a rider to his judgement on the Livonian issue discussed below: that, whatever the validity of pagan marriages to which the Deuteronomical exception might apply, a man’s marriage to the widow of a deceased childless brother should not be permitted to baptised Christians." HADWIN JF. Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Henry VIII. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 2019

I don't think there's really anything he could've done to assure a 'secure' outcome, tbh (besides the possible counterfactual of applying for an annulment circa, say, 1520 rather than 1527, he did seem to have a better understanding and alliance with Leo X). The final judgement from Clement was that Henry had lived too long in matrimony with Catherine by principle of the dispensation granted to be able to legitimately protest the dispensation.

Precedent ran against Henry in the specific matter of Popes erasing former dispensations. That was not something they had done; but arguably Popes did reverse decisions of their predecessors in other matters, or sometimes reverse their own decisions-- there are many cases, for instance, of Popes granting annulments and then reversing them. This can make better sense of Henry's decision to reify the legitimacy of both his annulment with Catherine and his marriage with Anne via Parliament, even before the Pope has made declaration (because, even if he had made one in his favour, it might not have stuck...the sands were always shifting, too, even if, say, Clement had died without declaration and his successor had been an anti-Imperial candidate, like the later Paul IV, that did rule in his favour, was it not possible he himself would die and his successor reverse that decision? It is plausible to consider, also, a counterfactual where Henry made his application late 1525 or 1526, had it granted January 1527, and Imperial troops stormed as they did by May, pressurizing Clement to reverse...):

"And here it must be acknowledged that, while a substantial case could be built to support Henry’s challenge on the issue of the bull, the fact of that issue had significantly changed the situation and the canonical context within which it might be viewed. On the question of possible rescission of the bull the critics seem to have been right: on balance, precedent would appear to run against the king. Neither a dissolution nor an annulment would seem likely to have been granted. No previous marriage had been ended on the grounds that a pope had acted ultra vires; nor, as David d’Avray notes, ‘was any dispensation to my knowledge … ever revoked because the alleged political ills that it was meant to cure were later shown to be imaginary’. The application of the principle of dissimulatio – the turning of a blind eye to the legal weaknesses of a long-standing union in view of the greater good that would accrue by leaving well alone – could also have favoured the queen’s cause; a similar canonical rule held that ‘doubtful cases ought to be resolved in favour of the marriage’. Most significant of all might be the maxim asserted by Gilles Bellemère in the count of Armagnac’s case, that if the pope asks for advice before taking action, he should be told that the dispensation should not be granted; however, if he has already acted, then he should not be opposed. Thus, even if Henry had succeeded in convincing an impartial court of the impropriety of Julius II’s granting the dispensation, all [of his] lengthy campaign might well have gained him not that triumphant solution for which he had striven but merely the cold comfort of a Pyrrhic victory." HADWIN JF. Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Henry VIII. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 2019

And, that's actually a misconception; it was probably the predominant of his arguments/case, but hardly the only one or aspect:

"Like many other litigants, Henry adopted a ‘scatter-fire’ approach to his task of seeking an annulment, attacking a vast array of targets, hoping that at least one shot might reach its mark. His opponents tended to follow suit, thus a comprehensive analysis of each pellet might seem desirable to do the parties full justice. This has not been attempted in the present study. Instead it has seemed best to concentrate on three of the most serious and most often cited defences of the queen’s case, those based on the questions Henry asked of the universities in 1530-1, thus setting the agenda for the debate. The first of these was that, while forbidden by the texts of Leviticus, marriage to a brother’s widow was prohibited by the Church only if the previous marriage had been consummated, whereas Katherine insisted that she came to Henry 'virgo intacta'. Secondly, it was argued that the Levitical prohibition should be interpreted as being limited by the command in Deuteronomy requiring a man to marry a childless brother’s widow, exactly what Henry had done. Lastly, the king’s critics cited a number of what they considered relevant precdents for the dispensation granted to Henry and Katherine by papal bull in 1503.

Each [argument of the Queen's side] appears to have serious weaknesses. The strict application of canonical procedures in the case would appear to favour a verdict that Arthur and Katherine had indeed consummated their union. On Deuteronomy, not only had the Church generally regarded the command as obsolete and inapplicable to Christians but the contentious verse does not on close examination cover Henry’s case at all. Finally, none of the oft-cited papal dispensations involved a clear-cut breach of the Levitical injunctions: the bull really does seem to have broken new ground and might not have been issued had all the facts been known." HADWIN JF. Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Henry VIII. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 2019

Royals being anti or pro papal tended to be a matter of political timing, and this wasn't unique to Henry VIII. Hell, Mary I's spouse was excommunicated (not just threatened with excommunication, as her father had been circa the Great Matter era) by Paul IV because he had sent the Duke of Alva to occupy the papal states in retaliation for his alliance with France, and deprived her councilor and Archbishop of Cantebury, Reginald Pole, of his legateship and ordered him to return to Rome to answer charges of heresy ; and she chose to defend them rather than repudiate them in kind.

So, for the matter of claiming Catherine wasn't a virgin when he married her...I don't think he anticipated that she'd confess otherwise to Campeggio and unseal the confession; or use the trial of Blackfriars for the opportunity to repeat her own claim otherwise and then refuse to attend the rest of the hearing of evidence. For the hearing in Dunstable in 1533, she refused to attend, as well, and so did her supporters, so there's some revionism in the narrative that the Henrician side of the divide refused to hear her own evidence and supporters. They clearly did not regard it highly; arguably they gave it short shrift, but the political tactic of refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of any proceedings or hearings outside strict papal jurisdiction (not that all of Catherine's supporters adhered so strictly to that, when it suited them...see: Trial of Zaragoza) by Catherine and her supporters precludes the accusation, reified by Marian Parliament, that Henry and Cranmer "refused to hear evidence" from oppostion. This was a convenient fiction, underrating agency and choice and emphasizing a narrative of corruption vs "godly truth".

But at the same time, I think that aspect of it was a matter of principle for both of them and yet a nothingburger both legally and politically: it was impossible to prove or disprove. There was ambiguity on the matter because the dispensaton covered any possibility ("forsan"); even Clement's declaration did not really fully vindicate her side because he didn't comment on the matter of her virginity upon her marriage to Henry. It was, ultimately, a non sequitur. Henry pursued it because he vehemently believed it was true, and that the proof was in his deceased children by the marriage, that they had died because of the Levitical 'curse', for lack of better word...

And Henry had legal/canonical precedent on his side (see excerpt from JF Hadwin's excellent article on the case above, and this one: "[...] the canonical procedures for determining non-consummation suits would have worked against her. As in any such dispute, witnesses were questioned. Not surprisingly, their stories differed according to their nationality: like the decisions of the universities this was a case of what Hans Thieme delightfully described as cuius regio, eius opinio. English ones remembered a raunchy young prince boasting of his having ‘been this night in the midst of Spain’. Most of the interrogation records of the queen’s Spanish servants have been lost, but they seem to have agreed with the implications of the leading questions that they were fed by recollecting only an immature wimp. Canonical rules, however, held that in such controversies, the husband’s view was to be preferred to the wife’s. Furthermore, in the absence of sound evidence to the contrary, in any marriage that had lasted more than a few days, consummation [would] be presumed. This is why neither Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador, nor his successor, Chapuys, was enthusiastic about Katherine’s claim and probably why Campeggio felt relief that the question was not to be argued at Rome. As Gardiner had warned the queen earlier, presumption would run against her: rightly or wrongly, in any court operating under standard canonical rules and procedures, she would probably have lost this argument."), but not circumstance.

My unpopular judgement is that Henry was actually far more judicious in his timing of the Great Matter than he's given credit for; as early as 1529 he's saying he's "about to undertake the annates", he delays the cessation of paying the annates until Easter 1533; he waits to pass the Act of Kings alone nominating Archbishops and consecrating bishops until Cranmer is elected Archbishop by the Pope (a fait accompli, because it does mean that Cranmer's annulment of his marriage can be viewed as an act of the papacy, by extension; and forces Clement's hand...arguably this backfired, but not fully, he did not excommunicate Cranmer, probably because doing that to someone he had so recently promoted would call his judgement into question); and he doesn't pass the Act in Absolute Restraint of Annates until 1534, after Clement declares for the validity of his marriage with Catherine. Was the timing different (annates are forbidden by law irrevocably, and then Clement declared for the marriage), one could argue otherwise (that Henry had been too hasty); but Clement could've secured annates from England for the rest of Henry's reign had he done the opposite, or possibly delayed their total annihilation had he just continued to not declare on the matter.

[timomoe]

Sweden, Estonia, and SweEst HCs (pt. 1/?)

(tw for violence, war, and blood)

Let's get one thing straight right off, alright? From about 980-1925, Sweden was... Awful. Genuinely terrible, and that's putting it lightly. He was controlling and manipulative and cold and generally lacked compassion for other people and nations. He judged whether or not nations were equal to him and worthy of his respect by how much damage they could do, how strong they were, and how well they could stand against him. This is due to the fact that Sweden was stuck in the mindset of servitude for quite some time. He believed that he owed everything to his people and government, and he believed the best way to repay them for his life was to be a tool to them. And he was very useful in this way. When someone was too afraid or humane to carry out an order, Sweden took the reigns and did it himself. He is responsible for many, many deaths. Innumerable deaths. Men, women, and children.

And Estonia? Estonia was a problem. And by that I mean he was a problem for every nation that sought to control him. He was not a docile, frightened man that rolled over in surrender every time a new power stepped into his land to conquer it. No, no, no. Estonia has been a fighter since day one, and it is because of his love, respect, and attachment to his land. He has led rebellions, raids, and war bands. He has slaughtered Teutonic Knights, priests. Eduard has fought off other nations and drove them away. Those who wished to take over the country needed to get past him first, and when he was young, that was a massive challenge. Estonia didn't show mercy when faced with those who were bent on destruction. He was a problem for anyone who didn't come in peace.

So naturally you'd think this would mean that Estonia and Sweden would naturally be at odds at the beginning of the Swedish Era in Estonia, right? Wrong.

You see, Sweden had the benefit of letting Denmark, Livonians, and the Teutonic Order go in and make their attempts at conquering, each with a different level of success. Not only that, but Sweden himself knew what kind of a threat Estonia posed. Estonia had destroyed his first capital city (Sacking of Sigtuna). Estonia had led revolts against Denmark (St. George's Night Uprising), and had made it clear that brute force, brutalization, and havoc were not good methods of making them submit. They couldn't be broken, and neither could Eduard. Instead, Sweden took a different approach. He was soft on Estonia - much softer than he was on Finland, his then spouse, who suffered greatly under the Swedish crown. He did not force Christianity on them, instead allowing them to keep or mix their traditions with it, resulting in a blend of Estonian folk practice and Christianity. He took back their land from the Baltic Germans and Livonians and redistributed it to native Estonians.

Of course, his methods were a flimsy veil that hid his true intentions, and Estonia knew that right away. Sweden was being gentle on him because he guessed that it would make Estonians more docile and easy to control. If they favored their reign, then it meant they would remain loyal to Sweden when other nations eventually came to try and take the territory on the Baltic from him.

Eduard wasn't fooled by this and remained hostile towards Sweden for decades. He continued to rebel and disobey and ignore Sweden. Sweden didn't retaliate or punish him for this, instead opting to let him do as he pleased, much to the annoyance of the other nations that lived with him at the time, such as Finland and Latvia and Livonia. Latvia to a lesser degree, as Sweden was softer with him too.

Rounding back to Sweden judging a nations worth by their strength, Estonia displaying that strength was actually the thing that made him not just respect him, but fall in love with him

See, when things got bad, Estonia would often up and disappear into the forest for weeks, sometimes months. Every time, Sweden had to find him and bring him back. One of the first times this happened, Estonia ambushed Sweden from a tree, wrestled him to the ground, subdued him, and threatened to kill him with Sweden's own knife. This impressed Sweden so much that he could not help but catch some feelings for him.

He didn't outright pursue Estonia during the Swedish age, as he was too busy, and even if he wasn't, Estonia would never have reciprocated. Instead he put great amounts of effort into befriending him, which he did successfully. In fact, he and Estonia were so close by the end of the Swedish age that when he lost the Great Northern War to Russia and lost Estonia and Latvia, he was inconsolable for almost an entire decade.

He wouldn't see Estonia again until the Interwar Period - during the 1920s.

Edit: A lot of these hcs were heavily influenced by @hetaestoniahq - we have spent hours talking about this stuff, so not mentioning him would be a massive discredit. Also, go follow him, his takes on Estonia's character are actually perfect.

[lietpolski]

Summary: When Eduard's land is given to Sweden, he suddenly has to deal with his new position as a subordinate in his household. Luckily for him, there's an easy way to improve his situation: all he has to do is make Sweden fall for him.

Takes place in the 1580s, soon after the conclusion of the Livonian war.

Pairings: Estonia/Sweden (with hints of Finland/Sweden)

my contribution to estonia week! ❤ it doesn't follow a prompt because i had to write it in advance ):

if you think the ship is random, you're sort of right, but give it a shot!! maybe i can convince you :,) we love a rarepair that makes historical sense

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 3.5

363 – Roman emperor Julian leaves Antioch with an army of 90,000 to attack the Sasanian Empire, in a campaign which would bring about his own death. 1046 – Nasir Khusraw begins the seven-year Middle Eastern journey which he will later describe in his book Safarnama. 1279 – The Livonian Order is defeated in the Battle of Aizkraukle by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 1496 – King Henry VII of England issues letters patent to John Cabot and his sons, authorising them to explore unknown lands. 1616 – Nicolaus Copernicus's book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres is added to the Index of Forbidden Books 73 years after it was first published. 1766 – Antonio de Ulloa, the first Spanish governor of Louisiana, arrives in New Orleans. 1770 – Boston Massacre: Five Americans, including Crispus Attucks, are fatally shot by British troops in an event that would contribute to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War (also known as the American War of Independence) five years later. 1811 – Peninsular War: A French force under the command of Marshal Victor is routed while trying to prevent an Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese army from lifting the Siege of Cádiz in the Battle of Barrosa. 1824 – First Anglo-Burmese War: The British officially declare war on Burma. 1825 – Roberto Cofresí, one of the last successful Caribbean pirates, is defeated in combat and captured by authorities. 1836 – Samuel Colt patents the first production-model revolver, the .34-caliber. 1850 – The Britannia Bridge across the Menai Strait between the island of Anglesey and the mainland of Wales is opened. 1860 – Parma, Tuscany, Modena and Romagna vote in referendums to join the Kingdom of Sardinia. 1868 – Mefistofele, an opera by Arrigo Boito, receives its premiere performance at La Scala. 1872 – George Westinghouse patents the air brake. 1906 – Moro Rebellion: United States Army troops bring overwhelming force against the native Moros in the First Battle of Bud Dajo, leaving only six survivors. 1912 – Italo-Turkish War: Italian forces are the first to use airships for military purposes, employing them for reconnaissance behind Turkish lines. 1931 – The British Raj: Gandhi–Irwin Pact is signed. 1933 – Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party receives 43.9% at the Reichstag elections, which allows the Nazis to later pass the Enabling Act and establish a dictatorship. 1936 – First flight of K5054, the first prototype Supermarine Spitfire advanced monoplane fighter aircraft in the United Kingdom. 1939 – Spanish Civil War: The National Defence Council seizes control of the republican government in a coup d'etat, with the intention of negotiating an end to the war. 1940 – Six high-ranking members of the Soviet politburo, including Joseph Stalin, sign an order for the execution of 25,700 Polish intelligentsia, including 14,700 Polish POWs, in what will become known as the Katyn massacre. 1942 – World War II: Japanese forces capture Batavia, capital of Dutch East Indies, which is left undefended after the withdrawal of the KNIL garrison and Australian Blackforce battalion to Buitenzorg and Bandung. 1943 – First Flight of the Gloster Meteor, Britain's first combat jet aircraft. 1944 – World War II: The Red Army begins the Uman–Botoșani Offensive in the western Ukrainian SSR. 1946 – Cold War: Winston Churchill coins the phrase "Iron Curtain" in his speech at Westminster College, Missouri.

[mai-von-weissenfels]

I would like to establish myself as the biggest hater of August II of Saxony (1670 - 1733).

Below is a list of everything I don't like about him (warning: long thread):

Stole the Polish throne not once but twice, and his son stole it for a third time.

I know Poland's elective monarchy system is a bit fucked up (they have had a bunch of foreign monarchs before) but still August didn't even win the election. He was backed by several powerful surrounding states, like the HRE and Russia, but he still got his way onto the Polish throne by various shady shenanigans, involving a lot of bribery.

Now I'm not saying he's responsible for the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, but I'm saying he's partially to blame. The time period he was in was about after Poland won a major war (Great Turkish War 1683 - 1699). But he only saw Poland as an extension of Saxony, and a place where he could legally have the title of King while still being in charge of territory within the HRE. And he got it into another war that it didn't need to be in (more on that in a bit). Now, the war, the Great Northern War (1700 - 1721), it went pretty badly for the Saxons, and August was forced to give up the Polish throne. I would say even Karl XII had more regard for the Polish people than August, since he took the effort to find a suitable Polish candidate for the Polish throne instead of appointing one of his own. But as soon as Karl was defeated in Russia, August just stole the throne back. And after his death another war broke out in Europe over whether his son or a Pole would succeed the throne. The Polish throne became a spot for greater European powers to try gain influence. Which then led to the Partitions of Poland. So yeah. Not a fan.

2. Undeservedly won the Great Northern War

Oh boy, where do I even start. I guess I'll start from even getting into it in the first place. He knows his rule on Poland is illegitimate. He has to bribe the local Polish nobility to support him. And now, he wants to bribe the Livonian nobility to declare him the legitimate King of Poland. How does he do that? He promises to liberate them from Swedish rule. And put them under Saxon rule perhaps! Well anyways, he employs not only the Saxon army, but also the Polish army to fight in the war. It's not even their fight!

Well, now onto the actual war. I've got to give props to Denmark for surrendering within four months and thus saving Saxony from the "worst performance in the GNW" title, but honestly it's not much better. I compiled a list of battles in the GNW once, and I kid you not, Saxony never won a single battle by itself, they only win when they're joined by Russia. Saxony even lost and signed a peace with Sweden in 1706. They only came back to win the war when Russia defeated Sweden in 1709. Karl's mistake of neglecting the Russian front was his own fault. If he went for Russia first, defeated them, then went one on one with Saxony, I believe he would win.

3. Just a genuinely bad person

Hear all those stories about monarchs improving some aspects of their countries for the better? August does none of that. He could care less about the people and more for a luxurious lifestyle of collecting paintings and mistresses. Yes, the grandiose palaces full of high class art in Dresden are his. Granted, he reigned before the Age of Enlightenment and only caught a tiny bit of the very beginning, but Peter the Great lived during exactly the same time as him, and he cared for his people.

And about the mistresses, he was a notorious womanizer, and is said to have fathered over 300 children. Only one was legitimate. One. He once sent a consort, Aurora von Königsmarck, to try to persuade Karl XII to sign peace. She was refused, but still, that wasn't a very respectable move from August.

So yeah, in conclusion, I don't like him. Easily one of the worst monarchs ever in my opinion. Even his victories weren't legit. Thanks for reading my rant

[ptseti]

The Coat of Arms of The Brotherhood of Blackheads ___ The Brotherhood of Blackheads is an association of local unmarried male merchants, ship-owners, and foreigners that was active in Livonia (present-day Estonia and Latvia) in the mid-14th century… The Brotherhood of Blackheads originated as a military organization, but the non-military aspects of the association gradually became more pronounced until the Brotherhood became a predominantly social organization after the end (1721) of the Great Northern War… The brotherhood traces its origin to a group of foreign merchants who, according to the legend, had participated in the defence of Reval (present-day Tallinn in Estonia) during the Saint George's Night Uprising between 1343 and 1345 when the indigenous population of Estonia unsuccessfully tried to exterminate all foreigners and eradicate Christianity from Estonia… According to the Great Rights in Tallinn, the Brotherhood of Blackheads committed itself to defending the city from any enemy invasion… Among other duties, the Brotherhood provided the city with a cavalry detachment… The Blackhead cavalrymen patrolled the city wall and six of them made rounds inside the wall every evening after the city gates were locked at sunset… In 1526 the Brotherhood presented the city council of Tallinn with 8 rock-hurling machines, 20 cannon carriages, and 66 small-calibre guns… Money was donated for making cannons for Narva, and it was stipulated that the Blackheads' coat of arms be on all the guns… During the 25-year-long Livonian War (1558-1583), members of the Brotherhood of Blackheads in Tallinn participated in many battles and successfully helped to defend the city against the Russians who unsuccessfully besieged Tallinn in 1570–1571 and again in 1577… The military aspect of the Brotherhood can be attributed to its founding during the days of the last great anti-Christian revolt of the indigenous people of Northern Europe in the wake of the Northern Crusades…

[lightdancer1]

Wrapped up the third and last book on the Baltic region:

Wrapped up my third and last book in the Baltic history series. This one brings that history to the end of the USSR, and by the time it reaches the 20th Century it proceeds on dual tracks, one Sweden-Denmark-Norway, one Lithuania-Latvia-Estonia. This is in no small part a logical result of the difference between more or less independent states and states that were absorbed into first Romanov and then Bolshevik versions of Russian imperialism.

This book also lays out very plainly how the Nordic model of social welfare came about, spares no pains (not that the US advocates ever pay attention to this part) to note how it's actually funded, and that Nordic peoples are willing to pay that price. US wannabes, OTOH, would be a case of 'wait and see but doubt vehemently.'

One of the most key points, though, is that at least to the first half of the 20th Century Scandinavia was as backwards as Russia if with better PR. Large portions of its countryside were still very much in a medieval to 1600s model of shitty housing and miserable lives and the none too pleasant conditions of the cities were still miles beyond the horrid life of a Scandinavian farmer, which is why so many people fled as fast as their little legs could carry them.

Too, the political system remained until surprisingly late absolutism in the true sense with the monarchy holding all the political cards and democracy and socialism alike seen as radical innovations. And in all this Scandinavia had it astronomically better than the war-ravaged Baltic regions under Romanov rule, though the local nationalities used the Romanovs like the Yishuv used the Mandate, a means to pry off the Baltic Germans who were the legacy of the Teutonic Knights and the Livonian Order and to establish self-determination and then independence.

This, ultimately, is what Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all have in common. Where they differ is that the Finns got all the good and very little of the bad, outside WWII, where the Baltic states, like Ukraine, Belarus, and Soviet Central Asia were cosmic chew toys in the mouth of a rabid dog.

9/10.

[pinklocksoflove]

Jessice in her armor and her faithful Zweihander "Daneslayer" it eaned it's name from many wars such as the Livonian war where she lent her blade for the kingdom of Livonia.

[frozensigns]

Demonstration in Kyiv in March 1918 in support of Ukrainian statehood and the The Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Photograph taken by a German correspondent, from the collection of the Imperial War Museum, London.

Article VI. Russia obligates herself to conclude peace at once with the Ukrainian People's Republic and to recognize the treaty of peace between that State and the Powers of the Quadruple Alliance. The Ukrainian territory will, without delay, be cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard. Russia is to put an end to all agitation or propaganda against the Government or the public institutions of the Ukrainian People's Republic.

Esthonia and Livonia will likewise, without delay, be cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard. The eastern boundary of Esthonia runs, in general along the river Narwa. The eastern boundary of Livonia crosses, in general, lakes Peipus and Pskow, to the southwestern corner of the latter, then across Lake Luban in the direction of Livenhof on the Dvina. Esthonia and Livonia will be occupied by a German police force until security is insured by proper national institutions and until public order has been established. Russia will liberate at once all arrested or deported inhabitants of Esthonia and Livonia, and insures the safe return of all deported Esthonians and Livonians.

Finland and the Aaland Islands will immediately be cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard, and the Finnish ports of the Russian fleet and of the Russian naval forces. So long as the ice prevents the transfer of warships into Russian ports, only limited forces will remain on board the warships. Russia is to put an end to all agitation or propaganda against the Government or the public institutions of Finland.

The fortresses built on the Aaland Islands are to be removed as soon as possible. As regards the permanent non-fortification of these islands as well as their further treatment in respect to military technical navigation matters, a special agreement is to be concluded between Germany, Finland, Russia, and Sweden; there exists an understanding to the effect that, upon Germany's desire, still other countries bordering upon the Baltic Sea would be consulted in this matter.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brest.asp

[irysan]

Europa Universalis IV - No DLC Ironman Poland Beginner Run Part 2

Brandenburg starts to get walloped after I pulled out of the War and has to start making peace deals. Then pretty much every HRE minor in the surrounding area wants a piece of the pie and jumps on them. The Emperor forced them to all give it back though, lol.

I would have said no to this given the 5% tech cost increase is going to really add up over the rest of game but I didn't wanna get sucked into another big internal conflict whilst I'm waiting for Danzig to fire.

Wolgast refuses tor return what territory it took though. In the meantime I had to deal with some rebellions whilst integrating new territory. Lithuania had a rebellion or two as well that I helped put down.

Hungary spurned the Habsburgs and split from them. I was able to capitalise on this and secure and Alliance with Austria. Should be useful vs the Ottomans.

I also allied Venice because they started the renaissance so they might share knowledge with me. And their armies will again, be critical vs the Ottomans.

I got a Cardinal and took the Cardinal related Estate Privilege.

Danzig still hasn't fired. I started annexing my three vassals giving the Estate privilege to avoid the diplorep penalty. At some point I was able to Vassalise Riga (OPM theocracy in the middle of the Livonian Order.

I really wanted to intervene here but I didn't want to get sucked into a huge war with Muscovy and stop the Danzig event going off (sounds familiar right?).

Crimea didn't get vassalised by the Ottomans, which is another huge relief for me.

Danzig finally fires. Odoyev had got annexed at this point.

The Teutonic Order has a REALLY good ally in Denmark, so Norway and Sweden got sucked into this too, which made me pretty worried to start with. I'll spare the play by play but what essentially happened is that both Crusader Knight kingdoms got slammed whilst the Danish navy sat somewhat pointless blockading ports, and just, not showing up at all. The AI seems to be really bad at using transports and didn't want to push through Novgorod (They may have denied them access? Wasn't keeping track)

I took Aristocratic ideas in the meantime to pump my Cavalry.

Frustratingly, Hungary started a war with Wallachia that eventually turned into a full annexation. I was too tied up to commit to helping. If Teutonic Order didn't have such a strong ally it would have been possible to fight two wars so I let this go. Probably a mistake in retrospect, I could have let Venice and Austria do all the heavy lifting here, but I didn't know the AI was going to be so bad at attacking me.

To makes things worse, Novgorod and Muscovy started fighting too. At this point I had the Crusaders on lock and Denmark had yet to do anything so I got cocky and decided to enforce peace (should have really gone for humiliate rival as a seperate war). This may or may not have been a mistake, because Denmark suddenly actually showed up the second I got into that war. I do suspect it had something to do with military access rules.

Basically what happened almost instantly after I got involved in a war with Muscovy. I think if I had just gone for a seperate war the Scandinavians wouldn't have been allowed through Novogrod. Military Access rules are things that do my head in a bit.

Clutch win

This was a huge gamble but it paid off, Lithuania won their battle and were able to reinforce in the nick of time to win the one to the south that I by all rights should have lost. I probably barely won thanks to the 10% morale boost I had from spending Papacy points.

Rip Wallachia. I'll free you eventually.

It was getting way too hard to fight on multiple fronts and Moldovia was about to finish being annexed, which was going to limit my manpower and force limit, so I peaced out with Muscovy, dragging one of their vassals out as well and hoped Novgorod could use the time and damage I'd done to avoid getting totally decimated.

The Livonian's finally peaced out. I sent Lithuania 100 Ducats because honestly they did a lot of heavy lifting with their armies and I was concerned about their econ. I military access'd my way across the HRE to Denmark to siege them to make them fuck off at this point.

Muscovy got attacked by a Khanate from it's backside after it finished annexing one of its largest vassals mid war and that seems to have turned things around for Novgorod.

I am pretty upset at how much Hungary got done whilst I wasn't able to stop them. I'm unsure if I should be trying to dent the Ottomans or cut Hungary down to size first next at this point.

One of Novgorod's allies is also going to get eaten and I can't do much about it. :(

much about it. :(

FINALLY OUT OF THIS WAR.

That does it for now. Time to rebuild and figure out if if I'm taking on Hungary or the Ottomans next.

[unhonestlymirror]

The scale of russian misinformation is so huge that I've even seen Lithuanians using "Illya Muromets" as a derogatory insult because that legendary warrior is considered to be russian... but Illya is Ukrainian, actually!😭 His real name was Illya Murovets but russia stole it and renamed after the russian city "Murom" which isn't even close to Kyiv, but it sounds so similar to "Murovets", no one would care enough to notice!

The same happens among Ukrainians. I've seen plenty of times how Ukrainians use "gusli" to make fun of russians... but it's not actually an instrument of a russian origin! It's Finno-Baltic, Lithuanians use "Baltijos psalteriumas" as a common term for all these sort of musical instruments because it has a lot of names: Kokles in Latvian, kūkles in Latgalian, Kandla in Livonian (Livs), Kanklės in Lithuanian, Kanele in Estonian, Kantele in Finnish/Karelian Finnish and Kusli in Volga Finnish!

N.B. If it was in the 6th century A.D., it's highly unlikely those people were "Baltic Slavs": here is the original text (allegedly, because it is translated from Greek to russian, and we all know how russians love misleading people):

"They replied that they were Slavs by tribe and lived at the end of the Western Ocean (Baltic sea); that the Khagan had sent ambassadors as far as the local [tribes] to gather military forces, and had tempted the elders with rich gifts. But they, having accepted the gifts, refused him an alliance, assuring him that the length of the journey was an obstacle for them, and sent them, captured [by the emperor], to the Khagan with apologies: after all, the journey takes fifteen months. But the Khagan, forgetting the law [protecting] ambassadors, began to create obstacles for their return. They, having heard that the tribe of the Romans, if one may say so, is very famous for its wealth and philanthropy, went to Thrace, deceiving [the Khagan] at an opportune moment. And they carry citharas, they say, because they are not trained to carry weapons on their bodies; for their country does not know iron, which makes their life peaceful and unperturbed; they play the lyre, not familiar with the singing of trumpets. For those who have never heard of war, it's naturally, as they said, to engage in simple musical exercises. Autocrat, [hearing] all that was said, admired their race and, having honored the barbarians themselves who came to him with hospitality and marveling at the size of their bodies and the enormity of their body parts, he transported them to Heraclia."

Either the author confused something because there could be only Baltic tribes living next to the Baltic sea in the 6th century (Western Europe could never care less about whatever the hell happens in Eastern Europe, even nowadays, with all the Internet sources, they dare to call us "Slavic" and "post-soviet"🙄) or those were ancient Belaruthians (Gudija) who are technically Baltic Slavs who had more or less nice relations with their neighbours, or... russia just made it up, and there was no "slavs" mentioned at all. In any case, the full description really suits Baltic tribes (and even reminds me of Lāčplēsis a bit).

In russia (since it was born somewhen between Ivan the Terrible and Peter the First times) this instrument which is now called "gusli", came through Baltics then Finnish tribes. In Baltic tribes, psalteriumai have a sacral meaning, people there have a lot of festivals with kankliai, and they don't associate this musical instrument with russia... so I don't think Ukrainians should, too.

We should fight back russia not because for its clothes or music, but for their awe in killing and raping people en masse. We should also educate ourselves better about our neighbours.