What happened to this great Empire?

Henry II did not have a casus belli. And his wife was a plotting backstabber.

Most of the French land was inherited

>casus belli
What the fuck. Johan get out.

And was't England speaking some Saxon "bark bark" at the time?

Philippe II Auguste happened

You realize that's a thing, right? It's the reason no European country colonized Ethiopia. They couldn't consider them savage since they were already Christian. They strategically married relatives off in order to sew future claims to be pressed. People didn't just declare war on who they felt like without everyone else taking a very negative opinion towards it.

Yes Jacques, we get it. le france stronk xD

The eternal Anglo spares no one

Richard the Lionheart happened.

It's ironic how Richard, the actual shit king is remembered fondly as a good king, and John, the actual good king, is remember as a shit king.

Robin hood

>English and French under one ruler
Doomed from the start, desu senpai.

Perfidious Albion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Italo-Ethiopian_War
They did try, though

Based on what I've just read, the war broke out over a perceived breach of a treaty, which the Italians took as a (((cassus belli))).

The Italians tried and got their asses handed to them the first time. They pulled it off the second time but got it taken off of them since they got their asses handed to them again.

Religion was part of it, but so was geography (mountains surrounded by desert are inconvenient to invade), their willingness to import European weapons and experts in order to modernize (similar to Japan in this regard), and pretty decent leadership (IE Menelik II).

Not the other guy, but yes, casus belli is just the stated reason for going to war.

It can be a complete asspull, and usually was. The Italians literally made two different treaties, one they gave to the Ethiopians and the other they showed to the Europeans. Then when the Italians tried to enforce the treaty they showed to the Europeans Menelik abrogated it (because of fucking course you would) and Italy invaded.

Eternal anglo as usual.

>centuries of varying degrees of military success
>get occupied by germany because they werent allowed to militarize Belgian border
>hurr hurr stulid frogs only surrender
Why does the shit poster post his shit

They weren't really that interested in Wales because there's little of value there. It was only conquered because Welsh Princes would stage raids in the west and the English decided to give them law.

John:
>Killed his nephew, the more legitimate heir to the lands in France by their laws, and then would torture and kill anybody who dared even speak of that.
>Alienated himself from the Church when the lords weren't there
>Got the Kingdom put under an interdict and seized church property, yet his father is seen as the bad guy for accidentally killing Becket

And in case you don't know what an interdict is it means that the church doesn't do its services in a kingdom. Anywhere. No marriages, no funerals or burials, no indulgences, baptisms, anything of the sort.

He also fucked up any of his campaigns to try and maintain the French holdings, and set a very very poor relation with the Irish when he was governing there before becoming the King.

Richard on the other hand was not a good ruler, and knew he was going to be absent, so he actually did appoint skilled administrators in his absence (they quarreled with John) while he was busy being one of the greatest commanders of his time period and preserving a Christian states in the holy land.

Well yes, practically all Englishmen spoke various dialects of Old English during the time of the Angevin Empire.

Are you alright user? You do know that the Welsh already paid tribute to Henry II because the Normans didn't stop at England in 1066, and the Welsh lords preferred to pay tribute than be conquered outright, right? And with every ruler since Bastard Bill they would make more and more excuses, and have to be forced into paying again, until Edward I got sick of it and conquered 2/3rds of the country.

In the middle ages there was no pressing need for a casus belli, it was always easy to manufacture one of some kind. What was difficult was configuring the situation in such a way that you'll expend the least amount of effort for the most gain. Want to rule all of France? You can be Edward III and your grandfather was king of France, and some French lords might even join you and your cause looks right to your soldiers. Or you can be Henry II and blunder your way through, making war on your wife and alienating her vassals and the very independently minded French lords. Stop getting your history from Paradox games, it all comes down to energy and economics.

Isn't it past your bedtime? I remember high school starting at 7.

As this guy says, casus belli is usual just a clever asspull, not hard to do. Have you ever wondered why wording of legal documents or treaties is so convoluted and vague? The more interpretations that can be made, the more easily it can be broken.

>As this guy says, casus belli is usual just a clever asspull, not hard to do. Have you ever wondered why wording of legal documents or treaties is so convoluted and vague? The more interpretations that can be made, the more easily it can be broken.

So you believe that treaties and laws are merely propped up by a small cabal (freemasons? jews?) to serve their own economic and "energetic" interest, whatever that means. Instead of, you know, being the standard way of social and economic groups to uphold their perfectly mundane and justified interests, and that they're convoluted not because someone wants to obscure them, but because there are a great many overlapping and contradictory claims and rights of many different groups with various political power and legal influence. You believe that casus belli is always a cynical justification, not based on very real social mores, personal and political relationships, international law and custom, treaties, and so on.

And you accuse others of being 7 years old. All while espousing the faux-mature, yet ignorant views a 12 year old would hold. The world is so simple. The only thing that counts is power. Too bad the sheeple can't see it. Get over yourself.

France was worth taking. Wales would require an expensive campaign to subdue and garrison forces to maintain control, and at the end of the day you own Wales.

Mate, the war that followed was practically a french civil war, there were french ruling on both sides of the canal.

this tbqh

King John happened

Philip Augustus.

You sure do jump to conclusions, buddy. I personally think that it's the internet that's bred your kind of people.

7am, user. I started high school at 7am you dipshit.

1)Angevins were French
2)MARRIAGES !

English retard

>mfw the French cucked themselves by inheriting England which ended by conquering half of France because kingdom > duchies

>conquered
It was already owned by them and most of it was acquired through marriages

Also stop taking such an ethnic view of this, it was only the nobles that really cared and maps always oversimplify the geopolitical situation of the Medieval World.

It's funny how Bouvines is barely known by english people. Of course, they all know about Agincourt, but they seem to forget all the times they fucked up against France.

>Glorified
>Cheerleader

That was around 200 years down the line, this is the initial Angevin Empire that John fucked up