Who were the baddies? And why is the answer obviously Lancaster?

>Lancaster
>older cities

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? Especially when London backed York and York itself was a Lancastrian stronghold for a big chunk of the wars.

it mean't that they didn't want to change the power structures that were built by the historic revolts those towns supported to make the crown weaker. Whereas the newer towns made by migration and colonization of certain river and forested lands would want more change to occur because change made them strong and gave them a place to live.

York because they lost

It was a draw

What towns were made by migration and colonisation? All of the major cities and towns that had a role in the Wars of the Roses had been there for hundreds of years.

Depends on if you class Bosworth as a Lancaster vs York conflict or an internal struggle within the Yorkists.

Richard Duke of York did not do a single thing wrong, except for getting his arse kicked by a girl and a bunch of lads in skirts.

By the time of Bosworth it was Tudor and not Lancaster

>only Western European country to achieve superpower status
This is your mind on Lindybeige.

Just have to look at the places todayto see that the good guys won in the end.
York: Beautiful cultural capital of the North of England.
Yorkshire: Gods own county, 3 national parks rolling green countryside, chalk cliffs and beaches
Lancaster: Insignificant regional shithole
Lancashire: Literally nothing but post industrial decay, muddy estuaries and depression.

>Edinburgh: beautiful rich, enlightenment basically created the modern age
Did Scotland win the War of the Roses?

but there was no house of Edinburgh in the Wars of the Roses m8

Edinburgh is the city state of Scotland for all intents and purposes.

York was a lancastrian city

It was the Lancastrians

> They start the whole thing by using their influence over the weak king to bully the Duke of York
> Their incompetence lead to the loss of vast amounts of land in France and the weakening of the crown
> Once war starts, they go into an autistic rage and start attaining everyone's land, isolating themselves
> They betray the Duke of York and murder him in cold blood completely without honour
> That French bitch desperately tried to control England against the wishes of even the parliament

Lancatrians were the bad guys
Yorkist were the good guys
Tudor was also a good guy

>Begged for assistance in the suez crisis
Yeah I'm sure the *nglo took a lot of work to persuade

Based baguetteposter

I don't disagree with your conclusions but I do with your assessment. I don't think York could have done much better had he remained in command in France. In fact The types of men serving in France has changed since even Henry V's time to heavily being the lesser gentrt. Despite this the English nearly held Gascony/Bordeaux if it weren't for Talbots bluster, but to be fair he made a mistake.

What I would say was a mistake was the Beauforts being given command of an army and doing a pointless campaign for land when there was much more important fronts.

>what is the entire 19th century

>I am illiterate: the post

Henry VII & VIII sucks donkey dick
Edward was pretty cool
Mary earned her nickname
Liz was bae
Based Stewarts liberated England from their own stupidity.

70% of the world is water, the British controlled the vast majority of that water, pretty good amount of land too, if that doesn't constitute superpower, the word is meaningless

user, re-read the original post he was replying to. The very first words.

The 2 early Lancasters, Henry IV and V, were great.
Edward IV and Richard III were good too
The Tudors, besides Henry VII, suck dick.

>The Tudors, besides Henry VII, suck dick.
Papist detected

>War of the Roses thread
>dead on arrival, with just a bit shitposting and offtopic otherwise
>meanwhile three africa threads on the frontpage and active

yeah, its Veeky Forums, all right.

>lives through the deaths of 3 sons and as many grandsons
Do you think she died depressed af

>There are more americans on Veeky Forums than brits
>amount of brits willing to talk about this probably low anyway
>american conversation is limited to varying angles of race war ("pro white" to spurn black identitarians or "pro black" to spurn white identitarians)

checks out

The "good guys" in history are always the winners because the only true universal value is strength. Discuss.

Wrong because everyone knows Henry Tudor was a wanker.

Richard III did nothing wrong Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury got what they deserved

It's surprising to see Americans on the Veeky Forums board. Most people like to talk about their own country's history or Rome, so i guess they make all the Roman threads because they sure haven't got much history of note

the US has more history than the UK

...

That's...technically accurate

UK was formed 1801, US was formed 1776

They are making most of the Blacked threads, plus there is a thread about the best american general post ww2 right now because apparently shooting up rice farmers and dunecoons is somehow impressive

...

That’s the entire history of British colonialism, you’ve never defeated a significant enemy by yourself. The closest the British have come is the war of 1812 and that ended in a tie. WW1 you were the minority partner between France and America and the British contributed nothing beyond a base to invade Northern Europe from.

>"hey fellow Anglos, let's have a war to decide which one of the two branches of this French family should rule us"

Then they chose a Welsh house instead

Genuinely embarrassing if you believe this.

Wales is literally a bigger county than Cornwall.

Is there a reason York is only one letter away from Ork? I think so.

What was the point of this post?

To enrage britbongs like you by reminding that your favorite moment in your national history was a feud between to parts of a French family

They were mostly born in England silly

I'm not even English.

So, not all of us are racist and are accepting of the French origins of our monarchs. I'm proud of them as men of England not because of their ancestry, but because of their actions

bump

not sure but is undoubtedly the hero

So is Sadiq Khan

Who?

>be shitty noble
>overthrow king
>be mad when other shitty nobles decide it's a good idea to overthrow you

Fucking Yorkist get out REEEEEEE

Veeky Forums is a Lancastrian board

This. Lancaster REPRESENT.

>implying OP wasn't shitposting from the start

>so i guess they make all the Roman threads because they sure haven't got much history of note
This is obvious. Americans are the biggest Roman LARPers around.

The Welsh are based

Success breeds jealousy

>he types in english

>thinks british history is relevant
>compared to africa, home of BBC

>19th Century is Post WWII

bump

A bunch of French Norman elites start a gang war after years of oppressing the celtic common folk, putting power into the Frog kings hands.

If elites werent so retarded I would expect a conspiracy to cause war.

>he thinks the WotR was the two cities fighting each other

The absolute fucking state...

From which branch did Henry base his claim?

>Celtic common folk

Lolwut

>Celtic common folk

Attached: 1500877978669.png (741x568, 29K)