Baba you may find this interesting.

[India]

This is a document contained in the national archives. A letter from the King of France to the Pope asking him to support William Wallace's campaign for Scottish independence.

[i]Это - документ, содержавшийся в национальных архивах. Письмо от Короля Франции. Посланный лидеру Католической церкви в Риме. Просьба у поддержки кампании William Wallace для шотландской независимости.[/i]



[url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/imagelibrary/popup/sc1_30_m_81wallace.htm][b]CLICK HERE[/b][/url]

[SirPaco]

It is the old alliance? ))

[India]

It is the old alliance? ))

And don't forget the Irish.

[Rassa]

its indi crazy ?

Инди ума сошел?

[SirPaco]

And don't forget the Irish.

lool )))))))

[SirPaco]

[QUOTE=Rassa;170149]its indi crazy ?

Инди ума сошел?[/QUOTE]

why would you think this? I don't have a clue why you would think this :o

[Rassa]

i`m just joking , tbh i was think she will show to you some girls not bloody damn old paper

[SirPaco]

ah

hehe )

[Rognarius]

As Charles XIV was saying if you plan to go France start from Scotland, if you want to go Scotland start from France. It was 2 vs 1 actually initially, but English managed to kick both asses, you got to admit that :-)

Supporting William Wallace would be useless as Scot clan lacked unity anyway, they wouldn't hold for long vs England united by a single strong royal power.

During 100 years war English got very good mercenary force recruited from all the scum and mad of England and mainland this allowed them to operate oversee as Knights are usually not willing to stay way from their lands for too long. At same time French had only their worthless feudal levy, they wouldn't be able to fight oversee anyway, asking Pope for help vs England is actually great sign of weakness, would Philip had force he would have landed in Scotland.

And what Pope could do? Excommunicate England? Bah he did it and nothing happen.:-)

England was rogue state they violated all chivalry rules and disrespected all international authorities at those times. They used ranged weapon vs French Knights instead of chivalric battle and they executed prisoners irrespective of their noble rank if battle would shift to their disadvantage. But for this they are known as first state in Europe that started using something that looks like tactics after long period of Medieval primitive battles where Knights woulds just duel each other or charge each other en mass but using no battle plan or strategic planning.

Many of defeated Scots tho didn't return back to peace, many Scots become mercenaries some of them ended up even in Russian army. There were many Scots mercs and officers in a armies of Europe. Scots problem was not only lack of unity but also their nobles basing their elite status on support form English elite, this was making their loyalty shift every time. More then that they were willing to invite English to sort out their local conflicts, so one of them having English support would emerge stronger that others, and this was allowing England to manipulate them most of time.

Scotland would break away only if they would get someone like Ioan the Terrible, who would put everyone on their knees and declare him self a Tzar of Scotland, but such vampire would kill lot of people :-)

[dmccow]

... but such vampire would kill lot of people :-)

During his board in Russia:

-The jury is entered
-Free elementary education (church schools)
-Medical quarantine for borders
-Local elective self-management.
-For the first time there was a regular army (and the first-ever military form)
-The Tatar attacks were stopped
-The slave labor was forbidden ( source: Ioan Grozny's code of laws; судебник Ивана Грозного)
-The state monopoly for trade in the furs, entered by Grozny, is canceled only a few years ago.
-The territory of the country is increased 30 times!
-Emigration of the population from Europe has exceeded 30 000 families (those who lodged along a frontier, were paid elevating money per family. Expenses books can prove it).
-Growth of the population well-being (and taxes) during his reign has made some thousand (!) percent.

No one was executed extrajudicially. Total number of the "subjected to repression" has made from three, to four thousand. (And times were dashing. Just recollect a massacre of St. Bartholomew).

In 16 century in Europe there was a set of brochures for any brainless inhabitant stating that the Russian tsar is the drunkard and the debauchee, and all his citizens are the same wild ugly creatures. While in manuals to ambassadors it was specified that the tsar is the nondrinker, unpleasantly clever and does not bear any drunk categorically, and even has forbidden alcohol drinking in Moscow, it is possible therefore to "get drunk" only in the country, in so-called "наливки" (a place where liquers were served). Source: research "Ivan le Terrible" by Kazimir Waliszewski, France.

Certainly Ivan IV was the despotic and severe governor and to deny it would be ridiculous. But he was not any outstanding exception. All stories about his improbable cruelty are deprived any basis.

While he was in power there have been executed 3-4 thousand persons. And during a so-called massacre of St. Bartholomew (the king of France Charles IX actively participated in it, shooting heretics with harquebus from a balcony) on August, 23rd, 1572 more than 3 thousand Huguenots have been killed. For what? They have dared to choose a little other way to Christianity. It turns out that all for one night in the most "civilised" European country it has been exterminated approximately as much people as for ALL time of "terror" of Ivan Grozny. And later, within two weeks were killed about 30 thousand Protestants.

I am too lazy to describe Henrich VIII (England), Charles V (Spain) and the such like worthies as it is becoming a rather long essay in foreign language. What I am pointing here is that Ivan was no more vampire then the others of his epoch and "The Terrible" is just a bad translation of "грозный".