Who do you consider the good guys and good sides history?

What Vlad?

Cuba was the most developed place in America outside of the US and Canada until Castro.chimped out

Poland in Polish-Bolshevik war.

How does that invalidate what I said brainlet?

Cuba's prosperity came from American trade and investment following the Spanish-American War in 1898, until then it had been a stagnant shithole.

And even in the 1950s it wasn't as prosperous like you claim, it would have been fifth most developed in Latin America after Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Costa Rica.

Spanish Monarchy abolished the monopoly later on with the Bourbon reforms. The Viceroyalties were able to trade between themselves.

Read actual history.

That doesn't refute his argument you doofus, it was still poor as shit, because the spanish are an incompetent bunch.

I'm refuting what he said in his first comment, not exactly the one I answered now.

Using as an argument the state of Cuba and the Philippines in 1898 is stupid. The Dominican Republic in 1898 was also "poor" and had been independent for years. You are making a relationship between the Wars of Independence and the poverty of the viceroyalties, when in reality those wars did not help the economies of these countries at all and their leaders were racist and wealthy (Simon Bolivar literally declare himself has "Dictator of Peru").

Another thing, by 1898 the throne of the Spanish crown had been usurped by the liberals. Those who ironically did not give a shit about the people of Cuba, the Philippines or Puerto Rico.

Again read real history. and not memes.

What about the Spanish Civil War guys? Its very difficult to like the Republicans tbqh

The 1778 Reforms allowed the American Colonies to trade with 13 Spanish ports instead of 1, and to trade with each other but they were very limited.

Overall the Spanish Empire was still a stagnating monopoly where colonies could not trade with the outside world and the "Casas de Contratacion" regulated trade and ensured huge profits by having monopoly power over all trade.

So it was still a monopoly, just a slightly less restrictive one. (But incredibly restrictive when you compare it with the British Empire or the Dutch)

>I'm refuting what he said in his first comment
Except you didn't, the 1778 reforms were window dressing, not an effective end to the monopoly.

>Using as an argument the state of Cuba and the Philippines in 1898 is stupid.
No it's not, other former Spanish territories had prospered hugely as a result of the end of the Spanish monopoly.

>You are making a relationship between the Wars of Independence and the poverty of the viceroyalties, when in reality those wars did not help the economies of these countries at all
Yes they did, in the long term. In the short term obviously wars create economic chaos.

But by 1898 Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica were all wealthier than Spain in per capita GDP, this was thanks in no small part to the end of the Spanish monopoly which allowed these territories to trade with Britain, USA or whoever they wished.

>and their leaders were racist and wealthy (Simon Bolivar literally declare himself has "Dictator of Peru").
WTF?
1. Bolivar was not the only Latin American independence leader. His area of influence was limited only to Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

Haven't you heard of Artigas, San Martin, O'Higgings, Santander, Morelos? How were any of these leaders racist? Also wealthy? What the fuck are you talking about? Many of these leaders weren't rich and many died in poverty. Like San Martin who died poor in France.

Fuck off to /pol/ and let adults discuss real history.

It's even harder to like the Rebels if you actually know history.

>Costa Rica
Not even now is as prosperous as you claim

>White Army in the Russian Civil War
Russian civil war was a shitshow. There weren't any good guys in that war. White Army was a collection of various anti-communist forces that often hated each other and barely worked together which was the reason for their spectacular failure.

I said 1898, source is Angus-Maddison Series

>americans in war of independence
>portugal in dutch-portuguese war
>entente in WW1
>allies in WW2
>capitalist side in cold war

>White Army

I thought to myself "oh, were they really the good guys? I mean, sure if they won, it would have saved millions of lives and... wait that kind of makes them the good guys."

Now you are making a connection between the economic improvement of some Spanish American countries and the independence. Ignoring deliberately that other American countries that became independent did not improve economically, but instead went to shit, like Mexico, Gran Colombia or Peru.

>Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
He was not the only one but he was one of the most important.

>Haven't you heard of Artigas, San Martin, O'Higgings, Santander, Morelos?
San Martin was a british mercenary. More or less the other are the same, they all work together.

I'm a dominican. It's laughable how delusional are you about /pol/.

This one might be too easy:
youtu.be/75zmIj_4LFQ

>Cuba's prosperity came from American trade and investment following the Spanish-American War in 1898,
Cuba had the highest GDP per capita of Spain until 1898.You are clearly clueless and most likely a dumb brainlet

The English under King Alfred and his allies whenever they fought the Danish invaders.

>Now you are making a connection between the economic improvement of some Spanish American countries and the independence. Ignoring deliberately that other American countries that became independent did not improve economically, but instead went to shit, like Mexico, Gran Colombia or Peru.
Yes, maybe this argument is hard for you to grasp, but it I will try using simple logic for you.

If A, not B nor C

Does not mean

If not A, B and C

The end of the Spanish monopoly was a prerrequisite for these countries prospering. This does not mean ending the monopoly would automatically make all these countries wealthy, simply that it would give them the possibility or potential to do so.

>He was not the only one but he was one of the most important.
Nice backpedalling, I thought they were all racist (?) and wealthy (?????)

>San Martin was a british mercenary.
[Citation needed]

>More or less the other are the same, they all work together.
Morelos, Artigas worked with San Martin?
What the fuck are you saying ?

>I'm a dominican
So a LARPer. That's even worse.
If you at least had Spanish blood I could understand the delusion, but there's no defending your pathetic inferiority complex.

Yes and all of Spain together with Cuba was a shithole because of protectionism, you keep missing the point.

>>San Martin was a british mercenary.
>[Citation needed]

How I said before, read real history, brainlet. The chiefs of the St. Martin fleet in the Pacific were ALL British (pic-related).

He even let Thomas Cochrane steal the treasure of Lima (Peru).

You're a fool fighting with ideological bias, nothing more, nothing less.

Cooperation =/= Mercenary

They had common interests in seeing the Spanish dominion of the Americas come to an end. This doesn't mean he was a "mercenary" which is someone that accepts money to back a military cause.

Your revisionist view of history dates from the 1940s and has been largely debunked.

>Yes and all of Spain together with Cuba was a shithole because of protectionism, you keep missing the point.
Still better than any other country in latin america

No it wasn't.

No, San Martin even sent a diplomatic mission to put British princes to reign in South America. The Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge, to be exact.

He let them steal Peru, he indebted the country to the British and opened its ports only for their benefit.

Like I said, you're just an brainlet who can not stand the truth.

reading shit about the first crusade is funny. it just seems like a bunch of unassuming nobles who were pious as fuck bumbled their away as a disorganized mess into conquering the levant. then they massacred a bunch of muslims.

>Good guys
Generally nobody.

>Bad guys.
Central Asian Horse Nomads. Hands down.

I mean, even Nazis and Commies were driven with a sense of justice for some cause that was dear to them.

But Nomads?
>Be civilization who has never heard of X Horde before.
>Suddenly X Horde shows up and demands stuff from you on pain of death.
>You say no because y tho?
>They subjugate you violently and take your stuff.
>Only justification is "dis our culture!" or "the weak should fear the stronk >:)"
>Discover that their "states" are merely protection rackets with a chieftain going around to collect tribute.

Wow so many wrong opinions in one post

>Atilla
>looking like a scrawny chink

unironically Franco and Salazar

This, also the vikings
>Raid peaceful monasteries
>Rape and pillage in defenceless villages then run off when an actual army shows up
OMG what an awesome warrior culture that were so progressive letting women fight

The comuneros.They tried to prevent Habsburger autism but they didn't listen.DEP Padilla,Bravo and Maldonado

>Good guys
the Taborites

The Caliphate of Cordoba was a prosperous country and quite progressive. That all changed when Christians decided to reclaim 'their' land and Cordoba had to ask North African savages for aid. Turning a forward-thinking paradise back to a usual Muslim shithole.

Christians weren't the good guys in this war. People had a higher standard of living and more freedoms under the spanish muslims.