HOME | DD
Gabbanoche — Fur Gott und Sie
#braunschweig #christian #herzog #tolle #toller #von #wolfenbüttel #halberstädter
Published: 2015-06-20 15:53:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 1165; Favourites: 7; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
The protestant badass Christian von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, One of the truly colorful characters of the Thirty Year's War.Christian was what some would call a dangerous protestant fanatic, with a reputation for being cruel against the catholic church. He has actually been described as a frenetic foe to the Habsburgs. He was also very keen on fighting the catholics and one of the reasons was that he was in love with Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia and he had declared some sort of chivalrous love for her.
Since she was the consort of Frederick V, waging war on Frederick's foes would somehow prove him worthy of her love i suppose(They should make a movie about it!!!!). Not sure what he could have achieved with her even if he had beaten the Habsburgs, i mean she was queen. But then again, perhaps a queen needs lovers as well sometimes, what do i know
Für Gott und Sie(For God and her), was one of the mottos that could've been seen on Christian's standards.
Related content
Comments: 28
He certainly looks like the sort of courtier whose advances would be more welcome than unwelcome - although if The Winter Queen shared her little brother King Charles the Firsts attitudes towards catholics then Herr Christian would be very unlikely to win Her Majesty's love with displays of Anti-Catholic Atrocities!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, but as far as i know Elizabeth Stuart was dedicated to the Bohemian struggle and did all in her power to gain allies to Frederick V. Where her own faith stood i don't know, but it seems she put her husband before it. After all didn't Charles I cock it all up(Besides losing his head and kingdom)? Guess the sister was smarter. And while on the subject, the Stuarts are an odd bunch when it comes to religion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When you rule THREE Kingdoms each practising a doctrine of Christianity incompatible with the others, I imagine that a certain theological flexibility is a survival trait!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wouldn't call James II & VII flexible at all! I would say that when it comes to the Stuarts James I and Charles II was probably the most suited for the role of king, even though i think Charles II is a bit odd. And that's probably why i find him interesting, one moment he's authoritarian and the second it actresses and wine
Also a stronger king would have subdued the theological quarrel of his subjects, but then again you English have always loved to keep your monarch on a short leash.
Also i never understood why the English insisted on having a union? Why just not annex Ireland and Scotland? To me it's and enigma. Not exactly as it was viewed as a union when George I jumped the throne and Great Britain took form anyways. If Sweden would have been successful in conquering Denmark then it would have been tatty bye with the church of Denmark and Danish laws
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Which might very well explain why the Kalmar Union is long defunct and the United Kingdom (barring a few quirks in it's historical process) is an ongoing concern to this day!
After all if you Conquer and Occupy a population then one has to accept the burden of an occupying force and the risk that Occupation will turn into a bleeding ulcer on the body of the State (consider the French problems in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars), but if you make a deal with the neighbours which they can accept as more or less equitable to all parties then you have the Foundation of a mutually-supportitive, self-sustaining state (consider the United States, for example, which were once 13 separate colonies and are now MUCH bigger).
I'd also have to agree with you on James VII and II, who had all the flexibility of an oaken trunk - as well as the fact that so far as cunning intelligence goes Charles II and his Grandfather James were the pick of the Stuart litter (although the Merry Monarch probably claims Pole Position for having MUCH more style than Jimmy Sextus).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now wait a moment! All you continentals and islanders seem to think that this Kalmar Union was the life long goal for Scandinavian kings! And this is not true at all! The Kalmar Union was founded as a way to stop all the wars that plagued medieval Scandinavia(A period just as bloody as the Viking age, if not more so!). It just happened to be that Denmark was the strongest and took on the leading role, Sweden however was displeased almost at the beginning and spent most of the time rebel against it.
When Gustaf I finally managed to break free from Denmark he had no ambition what so ever to form the union again... The Swedish king we most associate with Danish wars is Carl X Gustaf and his goal was simple, annihilate the Danish state and kill as manny Danes as possible! attempt was made to get the Norwegians to rebel and perhaps even unite with Sweden in union or as a Swedish province. But Sweden never had any ambitions to found a second Kalmar union. The race was to be the ruler of the north and the baltic. So you can't compare it! Denmark however fought to regain control over Sweden.
In Sweden theological matters the view was thusly: For where it is not unity in faith and religion, there can never be love and unity into worldly matters, but doubts and all the depravity. Hence you either bend for the will of the Swedish empire or pay the price! Better to have it out, than keep quarrel about it over and over again.
And that's what i never understood about the English governance of Ireland and Scotland. I mean you cant just pump in English aristocrats to sit in fine estates and collect tax. Then you will always be the oppressor. That is at least my opinion, lesser evil and all that.
I'm not familiar with Jimmy Sextus... But i agree about James and Charles II.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Strictly speaking we Britons didn't actually pump English aristocrats into Scotland - in fact after the Union of the Crowns rather the opposite happened! - and in truth it has always been Parliament, rather than the Aristocracy which has managed the taxes (so we express our indignation with the ballot box, rather than the Guillotine).
As for Ireland … well, I'd say that the Irish have made their views on the topic of Colonial Plantation rather clear (although my understanding of the Earls driven out of Elizabethan Ireland was that a significant number of their ancestors were Anglo-Norman knights whose descendants had become naturalised over a period of some centuries - although I may be mistaken).
I would also like to note that you Scandinavians are FAR more Continental than we, since a majority of your Homeland or Homelands are actually ON the Continent rather than a little way off it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha yeah i somewhat felt that when i sent that comment i was probably a bit out in the blue on what i was talking about.. But still i think you got my point, right?
Pff.... Poppycock and utter nonsense! We are not continentals and that's that!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did indeed take your point Master Gabbanoche.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah nice to hear from you again Libra, been wondering where you've been.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lurking beneath the sea with Cthulhu, have you eh
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not brave enough to risk all those tentacles - no, I fear I'll just have to hang out with Old Ben Kenobi in the shadows of History instead.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice portrait once again 
Pretty nice flair of chivalry. It's interesting to know that already in the 16th century people (most of all the nobility) started romanticizing the medieval knight. Wonderful proof of this is the widely known novel about Don Quijote, which was written as a critique about people admiring the middle ages
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks and thanks for the grammar lesson, i had a hunch i got it wrong, but i don't exactly have the knowledge when it comes to german grammar. I studied french in school ffs!
Yeah they always say that the knights were bigger when they actually didn't exist. Guess it's like the barbarians in the 19th-20th century
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No problem
Thehe, nice comparison with the barbarians. Didn't think of that so far, but I guess you're right
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I actually just studied French for a year i think, switch over to english because i couldn't handle the grammar, being dyslexic and all. I never got why it's so damn important to be able to write... Wouldn't it be more important to learn to speak the damn language? That was at least my opinion, so i quit with a rage
But i still would like to learn French, always liked France a lot. After all i have Wallon ancestors and they spoke French i think
A bit sad we don't romanticise as much these days 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did study it for several years (4 years it was, or something like that), but it seems I wasn't really talented.
Well yeah the romantic perspective on historical things vanished in the recent past; on the positive side, it got replaced by a more rational outlook overall, I'd say. But maybe, just maybe, a bit of admiration of past ideals would not hurt, you're right
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Languages are fun! I wouldn't mind speaking French, German and a bit of Icelandic
Yes i agree on the positive side! But didn't exactly mean history, i mean in our view of the world, past and present. It wouldn't hurt with some chivalry in today's youth. Stop swaggering and pick up a sword!
Also some modern historians are so rational and "neutral", that i expect them to be working for the enemy
Basically, old history books: We were badass, we showed what was what! Modern history books: We weren't special at all... You know what i mean
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, languages can be really interesting. Also, really valuable!
(Side note: Would you really hand certain teenagers a sword...?
Yeah well I see what you mean, but they don't do this to put certain groups down or to make everything seem equal. Instead of showing how awesome something (like a culture or nation or whatever) was, modern historians try to put things into (a neutral) perpective. In academic writing, this can make your paper more plausible. On the other hand, honor those who deserve it! A certain level of appreciation towards a specific subject is acceptable and often more than adequate.
Also, if you look at history books for schools, there's a lot of content hidden in there that a student, or basically anyone who isn't a teacher, doesn't automatically see.Mmodern history school books work towards the student making conclusions and establishing values for themselves, instead of presenting what was awesome and what was not. So that's another reason to write in a more... moderate manner.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well not this generation, but the one to come! You start teaching proper values and moral ect ect at a young age. Gustaf II Adolf was 17(i think) when he became king and Carl XII somewhere close when he fought at Narva, so it's just a matter of upbringing
Well of course...Duh xD Once again i wasn't exactly referring to the way we view history, after all not that many historians i know of wear yoga pants, don't know how it is in Austria ofcourse 
Sweden suffers from a waaaay too liberal school system! It's more important you see to know that when industries came people work in poor conditions and you must feel guilty for the holocaust even though you weren't even alive when that happend and also you must know everything about foreign religions. You don't know because you don't live here and have not suffered from the idiocy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, seems like there's a problem with the curriculum and its execution rather than with the books.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's a problem with both, thought the main problem is probably the curriculum.
To demonstrate a classic modern Swedish historians who are a bit too much you just have too look at the view of Gustaf I (Vasa) back in the romanticism they just go on and on how good he was and now they just go on and on about how bad he was... Without mentioning that the Renaissance rulers are fucking known for cruelty! In fact the whole Renaissance is a cruel period just look at Machiavelli and their view of animals, put that not the point. The point is that they are just gonna be so true and all, that they forget to explain the difference with our views and the ones at the time. Also they never point out that whether he was good or bad as a person, he did still free Sweden from Danish oppression and we haven't been ruled by a foreign power since! Truth is Gustaf I was probably not the nicest guy but he sure as hell was one of the best things that happened to this country!
And the rulers during the Swedish Empire are depicted as power hungry warmongers without any explanation about the time or the political situation. No wonder the Swedish youth has so little knowledge about their own history(or interest for that matter) considering most popular historians just paint it black and say it was horrible(9 out of 10 time a Swedish historians show up on tv, they just say: It was awful! And i always wonder where do they find these stupid people?)... When it in reality perhaps was horrible for a reason!
And yes i'm angry, i'm angry at the way things are over here...
But perhaps Austria doesn't have a problem with way too liberal history writing so you can't relate and if thats so, then you should be happy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh you got a very valid point there, showing differences in thinking and values (!) is a really important aspect. Especially in school! But then again, just as I said, theres the danger of directly pointing out "good" and "bad", which is what modern teachers and of course school-book publishers try to avoid as well as they can. Values must be explained, but this is a difficult topic (In Austria there's the "indocrination prohibition" for exactly this reason. It can be a rather difficult law in theory, but works out very well in practice.)
The thing about Gustaf I and the Danes is another one, namely a matter of controvery, which again, when taught in school, abides by different regulations. I talk from an Austrian perspective once again: Controversial topics have to be shown in class AS controversial topics. So, controversy in class is an issue they really lay emphasis upon here (And to be honest, I can hardly imagine it would be different in Sweden, or is it?) And here again comes the thing into play that I mentioned before: Letting students decide about evaluating history / historical figures on their own, without the teacher explicitly stating their value. It's a difficult matter here, and again, there's a lot going on in class that only the teacher notices ( I assure you, if your history teacher(s) didn't talk about the pro and contra of Gustaf I.'s reign, they did so on purpose).
The next thing, "horrible history", is again a different thing, that's a perspective widely disacknowledged by now (I mean judging the past through the eyes of today). But it works just fine on TV, doesn't it? Horrible stuff always gets you many viewers
Well Austria has quite a big historical society and discourse, I can say that I would not want to complain about that....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand what you're saying and i agree with most of it, i just think it's gone too far! Obviously it was quite a time a go i was in school but when i went to school there was naught about Swedish history(expect the industrialization), and i fear it is even less now... Considering that one of the political parties that rules in government wants to emphasise on anti-racist education... They are radicals though
And my previous post was more regarding normal history books you buy in the book shop rather than school books(even though i've actually read in a school book a few years ago and Sweden weren't even in the damn book...), sorry should have made that clear
Well to answer your question about controversy: Yes i doubt it's any different here. Although i don't really see the controversy in a historical fact like that the Swedes and Danes fought each other quite a lot.
And sadly i think you're spot on about the TV stuff!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh ok, well I had the school books in mind. It's different with regular books of course, since they are written by individulas who don't work in a particular system, unlike school book writers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This one is truly well done. All your artworks have that engraving/woodcut feeling, but this one is specially close.
The man fought without a hand! He was a total badass, I agree. But there were so many incredible characters in the Thirty Years War.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks a bunch, really fun you think so
Exactly, he's like the Skywalker of the TYW! And yes TYW is full of strong characters
👍: 0 ⏩: 0