I have had this game for about a year but i did not know that you could customize like that.

When you said 'as usual reality looked very different from views fuelled by propaganda' I was completely expectant of a ground news plug! 😂

Tagline for your channel "where armies die like crunching cornflakes"

Can we get Venetian soldier merch

You introduced me into Venetian pike and shot history. Thank you, I never knew I needed it but I do know

It's been pretty standard since Ur or akkad. Mass torture scenes have a propagandistic message....Don't be next fool.

Wait until you learn about today's propaganda 😅

​@@gunnarsjolander617140 beheaded babies!

makes you wonder how the saxons were arrayed though.

It does help.

Appreciate that

Glad you enjoy it!

But just when the world needed him most he disappeared.

If you were already impressed by Prince Gabor Bethlen' "reliability", you have to see his successor George I Rákóczi who helped the Swedes besieging Brno in 1645 by bringing the plague into their camp. It did surely relieve their logistics and such. Seriously, the Transilvanian Princes might have been useful as a thorn in the Habsburgs' side but you couldn't expect them to actually achieve anything.

I think the war was mostly a defensive war. Sweden and Poland was fighting a family game about who had the most rightous claim to the Swedish throne. The King of Poland was the former King of Sweden and he was angry and wanted his throne back.Poland was one of the mightiest countries in Europe, and to make bad things worse was it also allied with Spain and the German emperor in Austria. Rumours had spread that Poland was planning to build a navy, which would get the help from Spain to land troops in Sweden and remove the Swedish King and put the country under polish control. This was a great fear. And the success Austria had in this war made many countries worried that Germany was becoming unified and too powerful for any country have a chance to beat it. Even powerful France got worried. And Denmark and Sweden did not like to have a powerful Germany at their doorstep, and when it began building a navy did they feel the need to act before it was too late. Germany was to be attacked before it had become completly unified and built a strong navy. Denmark joined the war but were quickly beaten back. And later on would Sweden join the war after a peace with Poland was made. It should also be said that Swedens top priority was never to get land from Germany. At least not in the last 10 years of the war. The most important war goal was instead to get money so it could pay off its enormous economic debts it had built up by paying for all mercenaries. Austria refused and it took 10 years for them to finally agree to this demand, and then had Swedens debts only grown larger. So a bad move from their part. The next important thing for Sweden was to guarantee religious freedom in Germany and the autonomy of each little German state. And after that did France and Sweden get a seat in the German parliament and was declared as guarantors of the independence of the small German states. And only then after those demands had been met was Sweden interested in any territorial compensation. And what it got was quite meager considering the large sacrifices. Both Sweden and Brandenburg laid claims to Pomerania after its former ruler died. Brandenburg got the bigger and more prosperous part of it, while Sweden got the poorer western part of it. And the areas of north western Germany that Sweden held not much economical significance either. It was however useful to have bridgehead for Swedish troops to walk into Denmark through the backdoor, and as a supply hub in the case of another war in Germany.

"As we say in Germany, go where the pepper grows" - But it's a Swedish saying too

@@Grasslander write in swedish please. i'd like to see.

And Polish too! It's interesting how sometimes different languages share such sayings.

@@uelibinde Dra dit pepparn växer

hmm, i think you were early with some other people in your life. probably premature even!

@@clintmoor422 jokes on you i never gotten laid

Have you tried some ancestry searching things? Or that DNA test that could verify your ancestry.

@@Torag55 No I haven't, and I probably never will. It would be too much work, and I'm not really interested in the reality of that story. To me, it's just a story.

Bro....quit your fibbing, we can all see your an alien. You don't live in Finland, you live on planet Zurn.

We were ready to die our king On the fields of Breitenfeld

Fire at will Aim for their cannons

thanks for the love and the comment!

@@SwedishDrunkard5963 Nei, du tar feil, jeg snakker norsk ;) + jeg er kjent med Svenske bokstaver og forstår hva du mener med..

@@giod6266 Kul, Nu känner jag mig dum även om jag kanske förväntade mig det.

@@SwedishDrunkard5963 Nei da, alt i orden! Setter pris på at du ville forklare.. ❤

@@giod6266 tack

Thanks :P Let's hope UKposts agrees with you and shows the video to our subscribers! Apparently that's not something that can be taken for granted these days.

I also think the translation at 9:30 is a little incorrect. In Swedish it is ”Det är bättre att vi binder våra hästar i fiendens gärdesgårdar än han i våra”... which mean that "it is better that we come with our horses to the enemies farms, than he come with his to ours". So yes Sweden would try to let Germany pay for Swedens war. However it also true that Sweden viewed this as a defensive war and did not want German troops to come to Swedish soil and bring the horrors of war to the homeland and plunder Sweden and use Swedens resources against itself. Gustav Adolf was reluctantly dragged into a war with Germany. Swedens enemy the King of Poland was allied to the German emperor and that was the reason why Gustav Adolf feared Catholics expansion up into northern Germany so much. A strong Polish-German-Spanish anti-Swedish alliance was too strong for Sweden to ever be able to defeat it. So going to war with Germany before it became too strong made sense to Sweden.

All my homies hate Gustavus Adolphus

@@CptCudlScoops Nah you crazy all my homies love Gustavus Adoluphus the real GOAT

Don't forget that Gustavus died and it was the French Catholics (not the Swedes) who won the war in the end...

based

Mighty eagle rule alone, liberator claim the throne

Lion from the Northern land, Take the scepter on his hand!

goatee

Hmm the Foil Neck Things

@@HistoricalGuy417I wear a foil neck thing and a powdered wig and I get soooo many bitches my game is insane

The powdered wig, I think. People let that shit get nasty, but at least the neck ruffles you can keep clean.

Magdeburg was a city the same size as Berlin and Vienna at that time. Imagine that say a town of 3 million people getting murdered today and one can realize the brutality and destruction this event had.

@@nattygsbord Thank you, exactly what I tried to say. Magdeburg was the dominant city of that region and might have continued to be that. Was a free city (Reichsstadt) on top of that, if I recall correctly. Imagine just slaughtering thousands and thousands of human beings face-to-face. Innocent civilians, women, children and then their pets as well, just because. War is the most stupid and evil thing ever.

Who the fuck are Katholics????

@@michaelking9772 Seriously, you can’t deduct that?

Fair assessment

premiere pro, after effects, photo shop, a lot of patience

@@arisnotheles va?

As a German I feel this too

Hoppas du hört krigshistoriepoddens avsnitt om 30 åriga kriget. Den bästa skildringen av kriget någonsin

@@oliverbrunninge Ja det har jag

This beast in the shape of a man with a dream to rule sea and land

And all of those who stand in his way Die by god and victorious arms

@@JN-rk5rl With the righteous that follows him south Once more, set ashore, to war

Gustav II Adolfs Sweden had around 0.9- 1.2 million people. Germany had about 20 million people. So it is 10 times Swedens size. And Sweden managed to dominate all of modern day Germany back then and even to walk armies into far away locations like Munich, Nuremberg and Prague and establish a Swedish navy in southern Germany. And in the span of a few decades would Sweden also conquer Moscow, occupy all of the gigantic Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth with its 11 million people. And Denmark which was considered a great regional power had its capital threatened of destruction and half of its territory taken by the Swedes in a single war. And the Swedes felt so sure that they would conquer and destroy Denmark that they did not even bother to press hard in the peace negotiations to make Denmark sacrifice more land, as they assumed that Denmark would soon cease to exist anyways. So confident did the Swedish King feel about the Swedish military machine.

Germany is not "almost the whole continent" and in the end after the death of Gustavus Adolphus, the Swedes were almost expelled from the Holy Roman Empire, the ones who won the war were the French and in fact they were the ones who almost dominated the whole continent in various phases from the second half of the 17th century to the beginning of the 19th century. It is almost impossible that they could have dominated all of Europe with such a small population without the help of allies like France or England, and they did not even prevent the Russians from winning the Great Northern War a century later.

@@IsaacRaiCastillo *" the Swedes were almost expelled from the Holy Roman Empire"* And Frederick the Great was almost crushed in the seven years war, and the Romans were at the brink of disaster after the defeat at Cannae, so what is your point? *"the ones who won the war were the French"* Thats like saying Brazil won World war 2 for the allies. The majority of all troops fighting in Germany was under the Swedish flag. The Swedes fought this war longer than the French did. France begged for Swedish help when Spanish troops threatened Paris. And it was mainly Swedish troops that made the final push to end this war. *"they were the ones who almost dominated the whole continent in various phases from the second half of the 17th century to the beginning of the 19th century"* France was the strongest power in Europe up until 1815. Or at least until after the Seven years war. However it was no unrivaled super power. It had several mighty neighbours that kept it in check. And that was possible to do back then because England, Holland, Sweden and Brandenburg were countries well with well managed government administrations that allowed larger military than what badly mismanaged countries like France, Austria, Poland and the Ottoman empire had. They also tended to build up militaries that also was able to punch over their own weight - and so in particular in the case of Sweden and Brandenburg. The English army was not any remarkable, but the English navy was so enormous in size that by the 1700s that no country on its own could ever hope to defeat it. Even the second and third largest navies in Europe would togheter have less ships than England. *"It is almost impossible that they could have dominated all of Europe with such a small population without the help of allies like France or England"* It dominated the area called northern Europe and the Baltic sea. It did not have much power ouside of that area. Just like Spains, France and Englands power in the Baltic sea was very limited. Did England and Spain have much saying in what happened on the Balkans in the 16th and 17th and 18th century? - No. But that fact does not mean that they were powerful great powers. And Sweden was the dominant great power in northern Europe in the 17th century. If you asked Poland, Brandenburg, Denmark-Norway, Saxony, Russia, and Kurland which country around the Baltic sea they feared the most, then they would answer Sweden. In the end was it tiny Prussia that came to dominate Germany and not Austria. And little England would dominate the world and not France despite it had a 5 times larger population than England back in the 1500s. And it was Sweden who occupied and bullied the much larger Polish-Lithunian commonwealth at multiple times and not the other way around. In the past it was easier for small countries punch above their own weight. And it is stupid and historically ignorant to try to apply game rules from the 1900s and 2000s back on the past. Then you will not understand anything. And you will have no clue why England came to domitate the world. How Portugal and the Netherlands could build sizeable colonies worldwide, and how Sweden could beat the crap out of big countries like Germany, Russia and Poland and build the largest navy in Europe in the late 1500s and early 1600s. Had one travelled back in time it to the 1500s and proposed your worldview. Then people would have felt certain that the Ottoman empire would be the strongest country on the planet. And the incestious Habsburgs would continue to gobble up more land with royal marriages. And France would forever be the most powerful country in western Europe as it had the largest population and a good climate that allowed the place to be rich thanks all the bounty of food their lands produced. After all, did the muslims call crusaders for "franks" since most and nearly all of them came from France - the most powerful and most populated country in Europe at that time. England on the other hand was militarily weak and had a small population. It could not win any wars on its own but constantly had to ally itself with a strong land power like Prussia. *"they did not even prevent the Russians from winning the Great Northern War a century later."* I think it is astonishing that Sweden came close to winning the war at multiple occasions. Sweden stood alone against Denmark, Norway, Saxony, Poland, Russia, and later on also against Hannover and Brandenburg. The enemy had a 13 times larger population than Sweden, but for two decades were they force Sweden to the negotiating table. Compare that to Frederick the Greats Prussia which had to fight against enemies with a population of only 9 times stronger, and Frederick also had allies like Britain, Hanover and Hessen that provided troops that could help fight off French and German empire attacks before they reached Prussia. But despite all this, and despite many impressive military victories stood his Kingdom at the brink of total destruction after the defeat at Kunersdorf after just 3 years of war. However the Russians remained passive and that saved Prussia from destruction, as Frederick had no troops left after that defeat to stop a push into Brandenburg. Frederick kept on fighting the war, but by late 1761 had his luck runned out again as the Austrians had for the first time made a succesful winter campaign. After that could only a miracle have saved Prussia. And that is what Frederick got when the Russia empress died, and the mentally ill prussian fanboy King Peter III took power in russia and made peace with Frederick and decided to join the war on Fredericks side. So which side handled the war better? I would argue that Sweden did. And many of Prussias military defeats just oved to Fredericks own stupidity, hubris and arrogance - like Hochkirch and Kunersdorf. Sweden on the other hand continued to fight outnumbered for the entire war, but despite that deliever impressive victories time and time again: Narva 1700, Düna 1701, Rauge 1701, Kliszow 1702, Saločiai 1703, Pultusk 1703, Jakobstadt 1704, Poznan 1704, Poniec 1704, Gemauerthof 1705, Warsaw 1705, Fraustadt 1706, Grodno 1708, Holowczyn 1708, Malatitze 1708, Rajovka 1708, Oposhnya 1709, Krasnokutsk-Gorodnoye 1709, Helsingborg 1710, Gadebusch 1712, Stäket 1719. Indeed had Charles XII not died in 1718 had Norway likely fallen into Swedish hands as two of Norways biggest cities were only weeks from falling. Fredriksten fortress, was the gateway to Oslo and it was estimated by both sides to fall within half a week. And Trondheim only had food for two more weeks before it had to surrender. And after that would Denmark be kicked out from the war. Saxony was already eager to make peace and saw no reason to keep on fighting as it likely would not lead to any territorial gains, and the King have become more hostile towards Russia and Brandenburg. The tiny Hanoverian army could easily have been crushed by Swedish forces after Norway was taken, and no Danish navy could block Swedish troops from being sent to Germany. And with Denmark and Hanover out of the way would Brandenburg stand no chance alone against the Swedish troops and would likely soon have surrendered as well. So then would only Russia be left to defeat. And while the strong Swedish navy would protect Sweden from a russian invasion could Swedish troops march into the undefended Baltics and retake the breadbasket of Sweden. And without the Baltic harbors would the entire russian army in Finland starve to death - so russia would have then been forced to retreat. So basically all the land gains by Swedens enemies since 1721 would have been undone by that point. So even at the last years of the war did Sweden stand a good chance of winning the war.

@@nattygsbord True.

​@@nattygsbord Sweden's success in the Thirty Years' War would not have been possible without rallying the German Protestants to its cause and gaining French subsidies to pay its army. Sweden alone did not have the manpower - for most of the time, more than two thirds of the soldiers in the "Swedish army in Germany" were German mercenaries like Prague's partly conqueror Königsmarck. Also, like the video said: Sweden couldn't pay its army, it had to rely on contributions (which rapidly dwindled by the devastation the soldiers caused) and foreign subsidies. But in the end, they fought the war in Germany for France and brought it to an end almost on their own - because France was enterily occupied with fighting Spain until Rocroi 1643 and did even afterwards not score many really impactful victories against the Austrian Habsburgs.

an offer to the gods

Sweden and Spain had professional armies while Denmark did rely on mercenary forces that was hastenly put togheter as soon as the country declared war. Sweden more relied on mobilizing its own farmboys that it have trained togheter to become well drilled military units, and where the men in each platoon were friends and knew each other. And this created a strong bond between the men to want fight til the end for ones friends. The Spaniards terucio was similiar in this regard. But the Danish men of quickly mobilized mercenaries, volunteers, and forcefully conscriped mercenaries had not trained togheter and did not know each other. So their fighting morale and skills on the battlefields were therefore lacking. The Kalmar war was therefore the last time the Danish army was superior to the Swedish army. After then had the Swedish army improved tactics, training and organisation so much that the Danes could no longer compete.

Yes, but I wanted a source that isn't a UKposts comment. Denmark's military history is surprisingly opaque.

@@XScorpionXful I don't think it is surprising, I mean countries loves to read and talk about their military victories but not so much about depressing and humiliating defeats. To me as a Swede is it a bit funny when I listen to Norwegian military podcast, and the Norwegian wars in the 1600s and 1700s are just quickly passed over while the Napoleonic war is much more talked about. Probably because thats the only war with Sweden it did do well. The Norwegian military history is sparse.. it does not have much military glory, its more of a country of great explorers that found iceland, greenland, america... and travelled antartica. Likewise do the French love to talk about Napoleon, but the 1700s does not get much love from them. And here in Sweden is it not much written about Pomeranian war that went badly for Sweden. After 1613 have Denmarks military history only seen defeats. Torstenssons war was a disaster for Denmark, and the war of 1658 was the worst catastrophy Denmark's history - its like when Germany lost Prussia or when Hungary lost two-thirds of its territory in 1920. The Scanian war was unsuccesful in taking back all lost lands from Sweden. And likewise was the Great Northern war. The country easily got bullied into submission during the Napoleonic wars. And 1864 was it time for Denmark to get beaten up by the Prussians. And the country lost to nazi-germany in just a few hours of fighting. So from having been a great power during the viking age and medieval times and a pretty powerful Kingdom also under the Kalmar union... have Denmark faded into a tiny plot of land without much power. So I can understand if a Dane think the historical trend have been depressing. Another reason for the lack of Danish literature is probably the fact that Denmark have historically been more of a naval power, unlike its Swedish neighbour which was a land power. Like England did the strong Danish nobility probably feel more comfortable with a strong navy than an army that the King could use to supress rivals for power. And Denmarks borders in year 1520 was much different from today. Not only did Jylland and Själland need a sea connection. But so did also the connection between Denmark and Norway, Denmark and Iceland, Denmark and Gotland and Denmark and Scania, Denmark and Bornholm. And Denmarks imperialist ambitions in the Baltic sea and its attempts to take Saaremaa also required a navy. Denmark was also had a big merchant navy. And it was also the most succesful colonial power of all the countries in the Baltic sea, and its possessions in America, Africa and India needed a navy. Its navy had a much higher quality than the army, and could score many victories against the Swedes even later on. So its not much surprising that the navy gets more attention than the arm.

we thought about doing it but we‘re hesitant. it has been covered by many channels, so the demand is probably quite low.

​@@SandRhomanHistorymany people are interested and will watch any history content on youtube no matter what, if the quality is there. I, for example, watched kings and generals videos about the english civil war some months ago and if you were to upload a video about the same topic next week I would still watch it. Because different perspectives and POVs are always intriguing and stimulating

the Finns were AFAIK light horse so not suited to that role

The Swedish reserve was mostly made up of Germans and Scots. Finnish units were mostly on the right wing and some in the center.

@@thodan467 there were Finnish infantry in the Swedish Army in Breitenfeld as well. You can check out original Swedish Army Regiments, those get divided to modern Swedish and Finnish regiments.

@@jokemon9547 ah ok! I totally remembered wrong, or got myself confused thinking that Horn had mostly commanded troops from the eastern part of the kingdom, but makes sense.

@@MrSpritzmeister Sorry, i thought the finnish cavalry was meant , who AFAIK where light cav and therefore not suited to that role and better suited units had been at hand

after the war yes. in 1631, not yet.

Just a regional power trying to compete with France; England and Spain and losing to Russia; a other regional power.

Sweden was powerful back then. It had a chance of winning the Great Northern War at multiple occasions, but Karl died and then did the traitor nobles and Frederick of Hesse take over the country and drive it towards ruin. The time between 1721 and 1870 was just a dark age in Swedish history. The only positive from this age was scientific breakthroughs and art by Tobias Sergel. Since 1995 have Sweden been in another dark age since it joined the EU and became deindustrialized. Much of Swedens recipy for success in the early modern period was the strong state and strong monarchy and effiecent state apparatus. Our nobility was poor and constantly got murdered - In Stockholms bloodbath, and the murders of the Sture family, and then came King John III who also threatened the nobility with a similiar fate, and shortly after him came King Charles IX who murdered much of the Swedish nobility in Linköpings bloodbath. With the useless Queen Christina did the nobility gain power and wealth... and the Swedish state became weak, as the nobles who owned almost all the land in the country did not pay any taxes. So the Swedish state became underfunded, and militarily weak and had to seak security in military alliances instead. But the alliance with France dragged Sweden into the costly and pointless Franco-Dutch war... which was a costly disaster for Sweden, and the entire Swedish navy had to be rebuilt from scratch after it had been lost in a terrible storm. Many reforms to take back all land and power from the useless and incompetent nobles were made under the Kings Charles X and Charles XI. And soon did Sweden again have the best military in Europe again and a well funded war chest. But after Charles XII died was Swedens time as a great power permanently over because of the f**king nobles.

It's Latinized and to be honest, it kind of sounds better and gives him and his name that gravitas that ancient Rome and its language tends to invoke.

@@Torag55 The latinised version sounds pompous, and foolish.

To You it might but to a Swede it's weird, you're just adding an ''-us'' suffix, that's really it.@@Torag55

English do this constantly to confuse people. If you think it is bad with this.. you should try to learning about spanish history.. where every name is always "angliced" so people dont even relate them to the spanish. Just see how they call "cristobal colon"..

@@TrikipumAre you saying Anglicizing names is worse somehow than Hispanicizing them or what

I mean his videos are interesting but he also has a calming voice that might put you to sleep

let's go :)

What a weird comment to make. We don’t blame the Jews for the holocaust nor do we discredit any of the history recounting or downplay the severity of the massacre that occurred. You owe the same respect to this piece of history.

@@creolekolbytv1252 Do you speak in the name of Protestants or Poles? Cuz I have no idea what's your point

Is he though? Historians still argue over he actually innovated as much as we say he did. Also have to remember that in this particular war he won one major victory at Breittenfeld, a second much less impressive one at Rain, a defeat at Alte Veste and then got himself killed at Lutzen which turned into a bloodbath for both sides. If you add to that his shakier record in previous wars, is he really that big or did his heroic death boost his reputation much higher than it should have? He was certainly a great military commander but I don't know if we can single him out as the father of modern warfare when he was living in an age filled with men who changed warfare.

@@francismorin8561 No it's his system of combining all elements and winning battles without fighting them. It's dumb people taht focus on that he only one won big battle in 30y war. When he infact caused a lot more death through starvation by using strategical movements. Also you completly ignore the whole period before he went into war in Germany. He as a 15 year old took over Sweden which was attacked by Denamrk, Poland and Russia. And the entire Swedish army had been wipped out by Polish troops. As he become king he first handeled Denmark, then Russia then Poland. As Nevitt Dupuy says Gustavus Adolphus is most likely the top 2 commanders in humans history, togheter with Genghis Khan. Because Napoleon, Ceasar, Alexander. Hannibal, Fredrick the Great all inheritade a perfectly good army from their fathers/goverments. Gustavus did not he had to rebuild his just like Genghis Khan. And Napoleon do say study Gustavous campaign to be a good strategist. A good strategist wins battles without fighting them.

@@francismorin8561 He won a few more battles than that and at Rain he was on his way to completly surround his enemy, but Tilly was was mortally wounded by a cannonball, so the Imperial retreated before he could finish the job. Alta Veste was an attack on a fortified encampment, difficult under all circumstances. But why he is called Father of mothern warfare, is not because his victories on the battlefield. Its because how he changed the way war is fought, with e.g more reliability on smaller more movable artillary integrated with the infantry. Look in Ukraine even now how important artillary is, thereby Father of "modern warfare".

The true father of Modern Warfare is the Spanish Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (the Great Captain) who successfully combined the use of firearms with the infantry and those who evolved his concept were the Duke of Alba (who initiated the change from the arquebus to the musket) and Maurice of Nassau (who promoted firearms in the infantry and reduced pikes), Gustavus Adolphus was only the next step in that evolution (by better integrating artillery with infantry), but it should never be called the "Father" of something that didn't start. The only reason why the merit has been stolen is because Protestant countries do not like the idea of giving value to what a Spanish Catholic started.

​@@IsaacRaiCastillo Only Gustaus Adolphus that is known as the father of modern warfare. And yes I do know he tried to get as much info as possible from all dutch diplomats reagrding Maurice of Nassau. Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba never managed to get the fire rate up and make it effective. Which is what Gustavus Adolphus did. Before you could acctually be better with just firing bows as it would have a lot higher fire rate. It's not like the spanish army ahd gone any futher in this and still sticked with large squares of pikes

Si, pero no lo hizo. Y al final los católicos les mandaron a casa en 1934 en Nördlingen, Baviera cuando el Infante Cardenal Fernando de Austria se desvió de su camino junto a los tercios españoles que dirigia desde Italia para combatir en los Países Bajos y derrotó junto a Matthias Gallas y Fernando III Ernesto de Habsburgo y Wittelsbach a los ejércitos de Horn y Weimar que continuaban con su avance tras la muerte de Gustavo Adolfo. Parte importante de la batalla se decidió en la colina de Allbuch donde los españoles aguantaron de forma heroica todo intento de toma del bando sueco, siendo uno de los puntos donde se concentró la accion de la batalla. Gustavo Adolfo tuvo suerte de morirse antes de encontrarse con las tropas imperiales españoles. Después de esta batalla el Infante Cardenal Fernando dirigió sus tropas de nuevo a los países bajos donde como gobernador infligió diferentes derrotas de importancia a los rebeldes holandeses manteniendo el control de ciudades como Amberes y de los paises bajos españoles en general bajo el dominio se su legítimo rey, Su Catolica Majestad. Viva Cristo Rey! Muerte a los herejes.

Actually he worked with fake Catholics who have no moral scruples with working with anyone including the infidel Ottoman Empire against the Catholic Holy Roman Empire at the Treaty of Altmark.

he worked with france. catholic france.

@@uelibinde *In Name Only

And lose

As we all stand united

All Together

Didn't the Germans unite against the Swedes in the Great Northern War? I don't think they have always been friends, for a reason the Swedes no longer have territories in North Germany.

@@IsaacRaiCastillo I was not aware of this conflict. Kind of shattered my bubble somewhat. But even so, sometimes even friends fight