>be catholic during times of religious strife and war >decide

sometimes u gotta teleogically suspend the ethical

>doesnt not a thing about the things that made him attack rome

if that holy bastard backstabbed the empire by allying with France a nation so treacherous that even made alliance with the muslim evil (see unholy alliance), of course Karl V was gonna fuck him in the ass

>>1807099
Sometimes the pope is a shithead and deserves it.

Sometimes that other major catholic country is allying with the fricking t*rks against you.

What would you have done in his place?

>>1807124
I would have gibn back Flanders and Burgundy, rightful french clay, in exchange for peace in Italy, heresy purging in netherlands, and no turkish alliance.

I want everyone to get this into their head.
Considering his exceptions, his promises and his position, the Popes has been among the greatest asshole ever in history. They have base their religious power on being the heirs of a man embodying modesty, generosity and unselfishness and then used that power to wage wars, gain wealth and kill those questioning them. Saying that they weren't worse than rulers of the same time don't count as an answer as those rulers didn't claim themselves to be the representatives of Jesus on earth. They weren't even afraid of lying, as shown with the donation of Constantine.
The papal states deserved any shit they ever got.

>>1807290
t.frog

>>1807323
This is why Catholicism is inherently retarded and satanic.

File: 1468336966621.jpg (469KB, 1056x674px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1056x674px

I'm a massive ouiaboo and I hate how Charles V humiliated François I, but on the other hand I can't help but wish he had succeeded, that he had created a Universal Monarchy and passed on to the next generations a unified, Catholic Europe. He also might've succeeded in removing kebab if not for Protestantism, and if I'm not mistaken he also dreamed of going on a crusade like Saint Louis before him.

But then again, the succes of Charles V would mean France would never become the dominant power in Europe. I feel conflicted, because Charles was simply THAT based.

>>1807652
The only achievement of Charles was to win the italian wars. That's better than Francois, but in regard to all the power he held, that's not so great.

Had Francois won the election and the wars, I fantasize that he, on the other hand, would have been able to remake the carolingian empire and extend it to Constantinople.

>>1807716
To be fair, Charles V was always on the move and spent close to no time sitting still, purely because he constantly needed to go back and forth to keep his empire together. He was doing everything he could to keep a very fragile house of cards from collapsing. And he would've gotten away with it if not for the Proddies.

I wonder what makes you think François would've fared any better. He was far from incompetent, he was both a warrior and a patron of the arts (and he rekt Henry VIII's boipussy), but what makes you think he'd be better than Charles?

File: 1397374500436.jpg (112KB, 1060x404px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1060x404px

>>1807652
>ywn live in a europe unified under the Burgundy cross
>ywn in a europe where constantinople was retaken in a new crussade under Charles V
>ywn live in a europe where kebab and protestants were removed
>ywn in a world were the eternal anglo was cucked by a strong and unified europe

Why even live?

>>1807733
Mostly, because of circumstances. Charle's empire, by its very geography, was intolerable for the french kings, and hard to control for the spanish ones. Unless France was completely defeated and conquered, unity in europe was not achievable, and that hurdle was just too high at that time.
An association of France with a conquered Italy and the HRE, would have been a much more durable and solid entity. There would have been no serious exterior competition except for the turks, and internal strife could have been checked more easily (no need to move your troops from castille to flanders through italy).
France was also demographically and economically more solid than Spain, so it would have been a better power base for a european empire.
And Charles had to fight the turks and the french all his life. Had Francois succeeded in the election and in Italy, he and his successors would have had nothing to fight but the turks.

>>1807927
Good point. Though what I never expected is why Charles V never forced the hand of François I after Pavia. The king was captured, France was decisively defeated. Why did Charles never follow through on this? It would've precisely solved the problem you described and created a geographically continuous empire. And François was in no position to refuse, being both defeated and captured.

>tfw no strong catholic leader to raid Rome and throw pope Francis from the balcony of St. Peter's basilica

>>1807099
I read the text first and thought the pic was gonna be Napoleon.

>>1807978
Napoleon was "catholic". Though he wasn't fond of atheism and deism, he never had any feel for christianity (not even as a schoolboy) and during his Italian campaign he ordered his men to treat the pope as yet another ancien régime monarch. The concordat of 1801 was also entirely politically inspired. Only on Saint Helena did he start musing about Christianity, which might be the only part of his life where we could truly consider him christian.

For the rest of his life he was a wishy-washy watchamacallit. Probably like many Frenchmen today, who call themselves Catholic but don't believe in God. Unlike Napoleon III who was actually quite pious.

>>1807950
> And François was in no position to refuse, being both defeated and captured.
I imagine Francois would have died rather than to abdicate to a foreign king.
And Charles didn't try because he played by the rules, the same ones that gave him all his lands in the first place - you don't just take a kingdom from someone else without a legitimate claim.

Besides, the fundamental laws of the kingdom of France say that the crown follows its own laws, and that it does not belong to the king : he is not allowed to abdicate, to choose his successor, or to give up sovereignty, and any treaty that he signs contrary to this is void and invalid.
These laws were written during the hundred years war, but they would have applied there.
Had Charles tried and succeeded to make Francois sign away his kingdom, no one in France would have recognized the authority of the treaty; a regent would have been named and the war restarted.

>>1808059
>Besides, the fundamental laws of the kingdom of France say that the crown follows its own laws, and that it does not belong to the king : he is not allowed to abdicate, to choose his successor, or to give up sovereignty, and any treaty that he signs contrary to this is void and invalid.
Is that also why France has both Orléanist and Legitimist pretenders? With the Legitimists going by the crown of the law, which would make the Orléanist claim null and void even though it was factually enforced?

>>1808075
Yes. The legitimists argue that Philippe V, the first bourbon king of Spain, who renunced the crown of France for himself and his descendants, had no right to do so. So now that the direct line from Louis XIV went extinct, his direct male heir is the legitimate king of France.
Orleanists, to keep the king in times of political upheaval, compromised on these laws.

>>1808005
Never had a feel for Christianity? You, sir, are quite insane.

Napoleon on Jesus Christ:

I see in Lycurgus, Numa and Mohammed only legislators who, having the first rank in the state, have sought the best solution of the social problem but I see nothing there which reveals divinity...nothing announces them divine. On the contrary, there are numerous resemblances between them & myself, foibles and errors which ally them to me and to humanity.
It is not so with Christ. Everything in Him astonishes me. His spirit overawes me, and His will confounds me. Beside Him and whoever else in the world, there is no possible term of comparison. He is truly a being by Himself. His ideals and His sentiments, the truths which He announces, His manner of convincing, are not explained either by human organization or by the nature of things.
His birth and the history of His life; the profundity of His doctrine, which grapples the mightiest difficulties, and which is, of those difficulties, the most admirable solution; His Gospel, His apparition, His empire, His march across the ages and the realms, is for me a prodigy, a mystery insoluble, which plunges me into a reverence which I cannot escape, a mystery which is there before my eyes, mystery which I cannot deny or explain. Here I see nothing human. The nearer I approach, the more carefully I examine, everything is above me, everything remains grand—and of a grandeur which overpowers.
His religion is a revelation from an intelligence which certainly is not a man. There is a profound originality, which has created a series of maxims before unknown. Jesus borrowed nothing from our sciences. One can absolutely find nowhere, but in Him alone, the imitation or the example of His life.

>>1808005
Napoleon knew Jesus quite well.

"Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force.

Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him. . . . I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man; none else is like Him: Jesus Christ was more than a man. . . . I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me . . . but to do this is was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lightened up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts. . . .

Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful!

In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers.

Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This it is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

>>1808155
No, wait, I got confused. The legitimist pretender is heir in direct line from Louis XIV, through the spanish Bourbons, while the orleanist pretender is a descendant of Louis XIII.

>>1808182
>>1808191
Aren't both of those quotes from his stay on Saint Helena? I know almost for certain that at least the second one was from his days in exile.