Historical Nations Hockey Concepts 2.0

[IceCap]

I've been reading the constant arguing between SP00 and Ice_Cap and I think it's time for you guys to both stop spamming this thread with it, just take it to PM or something.

This is my thread. My project. He started this tripe. I've asked the mods to look into it, but they've either done nothing or spoken to him in PM and he's just ignored them.

Ice_Cap has done several nice concepts, and intriguing articles to go along with them. From what I can tell his articles have been pretty accurate.. history does belong to those that write it and perhaps people in Macedonia have a different interpretation of it than others, but in general it is accepted that Alexander the Great was Greek. With that said, his Greek blood probably differs immensily from any of the people living it that region now.

The articles I've written here are pretty bland, because of the fact that I've gone out of my way to only present the historical facts. Pick up any scholarly historical journal and it's filled with people who have written articles taking a position one way or the other on what the facts represent. These articles are simply accounts of what happened. Just the facts. No interpretations, no political agenda. Just what happened.

Pick any university. Any one. Pick any Classical Studies or Ancient History professor. Ask them if Alexander the Great was Greek. They'll look at you like you just asked if the sky was blue.

As for SP00, more or less I respected your views and attempted to understand your side of the story, but by claiming that today's Macedonians are not even slightly Slavs (Serbs) or Bulgarians completely decredibilizes you.

He lost credibility the moment he said ancient Macedonia wasn't a Greek nation. I respect all interpretations of history if they're based on solid, tangible facts. Once you accept those facts you can interpret them however you want. What SP00 is doing isn't interpreting the facts differently. He's falsifying them.

[SP00]

I've been reading the constant arguing between SP00 and Ice_Cap and I think it's time for you guys to both stop spamming this thread with it, just take it to PM or something.

Ice_Cap has done several nice concepts, and intriguing articles to go along with them. From what I can tell his articles have been pretty accurate.. history does belong to those that write it and perhaps people in Macedonia have a different interpretation of it than others, but in general it is accepted that Alexander the Great was Greek. With that said, his Greek blood probably differs immensily from any of the people living it that region now.

As for SP00, more or less I respected your views and attempted to understand your side of the story, but by claiming that today's Macedonians are not even slightly Slavs (Serbs) or Bulgarians completely decredibilizes you.

From what I've read, today's Macedonian national sentiment was spread on a large scale by Tito's government, but that's a whole other story. All in all, let's please get back to focusing on the asthetics of the design. Thanks

I agree we should stop this, and after this post I will not continue on this matter anymore.

Anyway, being a slav, is more linguistic than ethnic. But that's another discussion and up for debate, I wont go into that.

Even if being a slav was ethnical term, then I dont understand your point of putting (Serb) behind the world slav. The word 'Slav' is not a synonym for a Serb. So i don't know why you did that. Or are you implying that Macedonians are actually Serbs or Bulgarians? If so, then that's the most ridiculous thing ive seen in this entire thread, even worse than what ice cap claims. So I really hope you didn't meant that. Macedonians are not Serbs nor Bulgarians. Macedonians are Macedonians. Im sure there are Bulgarians and Serbs living in Macedonia and Im sure Macedonians are mixed with many peoples, but so is every other nation in Europe. There is no 100% homogenic nation, oh yeah I forgot, except for Greece of course lol, that's what they claim.

The second disturbing thing you said is that Macedonia's sentiment was created by Tito. Sir, maybe it is because you not being familiar with the subject, I hope so, but that's just not true. Even long before Tito was even born let alone came to power, there was a Macedonian identity, a Macedonian nation, sentiment, pride, history, whatever you want to call it. The Tito card is only being pulled by some ignorant nationalist Greeks. There are so many sources for that, there is proof of a Macedonian consciousness way before Tito and his friends. Believe me I know. If not, if you would deepen a bit more into the subject you will find out too. And if you did actually meant that, well then I rest my case.

That's also the biggest struggle of the Macedonian people. Always fighting for your existence, always fighting for being able to be a Macedonian, always fighting for existing.

I want to end the discussion with this part of the book 'The untamed Balkans' by Frederick Kovacs

[IceCap]

Nothing in there about ancient Macedonia or Alexander the Great.

If you want me to say that the modern Macedonian nation has fallen on hard times, has been under the domination of others, sure, I will agree with you, and as someone from a people who have been oppressed before I can sympathize.

That being said, there is no real connection between the Macedonians of today and the Macedonians of Alexander the Great's time. There simply isn't. Ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great were Greek. It was a Greek kingdom with Greek language, religion, art, philosophy, and literature. All of this is fact. You cannot argue with it.

I'm sorry that your people came under hard times, I truly am. That doesn't mean they can co-opt another people's history though.

[SP00]

This is my thread. My project. He started this tripe. I've asked the mods to look into it, but they've either done nothing or spoken to him in PM and he's just ignored them.

I have not been contacted by any mods and I dont understand why or why you would report something. I mean; what? For responding to you?

The articles I've written here are pretty bland, because of the fact that I've gone out of my way to only present the historical facts. Pick up any scholarly historical journal and it's filled with people who have written articles taking a position one way or the other on what the facts represent. These articles are simply accounts of what happened. Just the facts. No interpretations, no political agenda. Just what happened.

Pick any university. Any one. Pick any Classical Studies or Ancient History professor. Ask them if Alexander the Great was Greek. They'll look at you like you just asked if the sky was blue.

That's not really true. There are many historians who aknowledge the fact that Macedonians are and were not Greeks. Have you ever heard of Borza? Even ancient sources who lived in those times have clearly stated that Macedonians are not Hellenes. Maybe you should take a notice of Demosthenes sometime? There are so many sources where you can see that they werent hellenes and that they were a different people and that even the ancient hellenes never saw the Macedonians or Alexander as one of their own. The claiming by the Greeks of Alexander and the Macedonians as theirs, is a phenomena of recent years out of interest.

He lost credibility the moment he said ancient Macedonia wasn't a Greek nation. I respect all interpretations of history if they're based on solid, tangible facts. Once you accept those facts you can interpret them however you want. What SP00 is doing isn't interpreting the facts differently. He's falsifying them.

You lost credibility the moment you painted the jersey blue. Of course Im going to say you are falsifying them, not me. No, ancient macedonia was not a Greek nation. The term Greek, did not even exist in those times. You as a historians hould know that. I just want to tell you. There are many sides and many people who disagree.

Nothing in there about ancient Macedonia or Alexander the Great.

Yeah, I did not post that piece because of ancient Macedonians. I posted it to show that Macedonians always had to fight for their existence. No one cared about them, always opressed and that even if Macedonians always had a Macedonian identity and consiousness, it will always be disputed and Macedonians will always be called Bulgarians by Bulgars, Greeks by Greeks and Serbs by Serbs.

If you want me to say that the modern Macedonian nation has fallen on hard times, has been under the domination of others, sure, I will agree with you, and as someone from a people who have been oppressed before I can sympathize.

That being said, there is no real connection between the Macedonians of today and the Macedonians of Alexander the Great's time. There simply isn't. Ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great were Greek. It was a Greek kingdom with Greek language, religion, art, philosophy, and literature. All of this is fact. You cannot argue with it.

I'm sorry that your people came under hard times, I truly am. That doesn't mean they can co-opt another people's history though.

Maybe not, and if that is what you believe fine and I somewhat agree, allthough there are cultural and historical traces of modern Macedonians to ancient Macedonians. Every Macedonian knows and experienced that.

But I then wonder, how can you believe that todays Greeks do have something in common with the ancient hellenes? If you think so about the Macedonians of today not having to do something with ancient Macedonians, then, modern day Greeks do not have anything to do with ancient hellenes either. If you look at it like that, we are all one big mix of peoples.

Im sorry I ruined your thread, if everyone feels that way. Lets just all stop.

[IceCap]

I have not been contacted by any mods and I dont understand why or why you would report something. I mean; what? For responding to you?

For cluttering up my thread with faux-historical nonsense.

You lost credibility the moment you painted the jersey blue. Of course Im going to say you are falsifying them, not me. No, ancient macedonia was not a Greek nation. The term Greek, did not even exist in those times. You as a historians hould know that. I just want to tell you. There are many sides and many people who disagree.

Oh Lord. Of course the term Greek didn't exist back then. "Greek" is a modern English word. "Hellenistic" is the term used to describe the ancient Greeks because "Hellas" is the Greek term for Greece. "Hellas" and Greece mean the same thing, "Hellenistic" and "Greek" mean the same thing.

And guess what champ? Alexander the Great's conquest of the ancient world is called the Hellenistic Period. Why? Because Alexander the Great caused the Hellenization of the ancient world. Why? Because he and his Macedonian kingdom were a Hellenic, ie Greek, nation.

If you want to stop, then all I have to say is thank G-d Almighty. I took time out of my Holy Roman Empire article to start this nonsense up again.

[SP00]

For cluttering up my thread with faux-historical nonsense.

But, you did the same thing sir

Oh Lord. Of course the term Greek didn't exist back then. "Greek" is a modern English word. "Hellenistic" is the term used to describe the ancient Greeks because "Hellas" is the Greek term for Greece. "Hellas" and Greece mean the same thing, "Hellenistic" and "Greek" mean the same thing.

And guess what champ? Alexander the Great's conquest of the ancient world is called the Hellenistic Period. Why? Because Alexander the Great caused the Hellenization of the ancient world. Why? Because he and his Macedonian kingdom were a Hellenic, ie Greek, nation.

Yeah, Hellenistic, so don't talk about the word Greek, when you are referring to a period 2000 years ago. But if the Macedonians accepted hellenic civilization, that does not mean they were Greeks or hellenes or whatever themselves. That's a huge mistake. Ive said it before. Hellenic civilization was the most developed civilization back then, the knowledge, the believes, culture it was the then dominant known world, like the western world nowadays. That the Macedonians accepted Hellenic practices and culture, does not mean they were greeks or whatever. Macedonians were Macedonians. They fought against the Hellenes, they had their own language, they had a kingdom, which was very unknown for Hellenes, they were seen as Barbarian Macedonians by Hellenes themselves. For example Demosthenes and all the other Hellenes back then.

Hellenic is not a synonym for Greek and I dont understand how you can see the term Hellenic in a ethnic way.

For example, next to the Hellenic world in those times, there was a Persian world and Persian civilization, many people accepted that civilization and their culture, but that doesnt mean all those peoples who accepted it, were in fact Persians themselves, inside the Persian empire and among the people who accepted Persian civilization are about hundreds of different ethnicities.

And this is not disputed at all. There are many sources who tell you about this, including pro greek sources.

If you want to stop, then all I have to say is thank G-d Almighty. I took time out of my Holy Roman Empire article to start this nonsense up again.

Yup, you can continue your holy roman empire article now.

The Evidence:

N.G.L. Hammond

The Greek view of the Macedonians and their monarchy

"We have already inferred from the incident at the Olympic Games c.500 that the Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not to be Greeks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing Amyntas, who was king c.500, as ' a Greek ruling over Macedonians' (5.20. 4), and Thucydides described the Macedonians and other northern tribes as 'barbarians' in the sense of 'non-Greeks'...... (Thuc. 2. 80. 5-7; 2. 81. 6; 4. 124.1)....Greek speech-writer called the Thessalians 'Greeks' and Archelaus, the contemporary Macedonian king, 'a barbarian'. Demosthenes spoke of Philip II as 'the barbarian from Pella'. Writing in 346 and eager to win Philip's approval, Isocrates paid tribute to Philip as a blue-blooded Greek and made it clear at the same time that Macedonians were not Greeks. (Isoc. 5.108 and 154) Aristotle, born at Stageira on the Macedonian borderand the son of a..... doctor at the Macedonian court, classed the Macedonians and their institution of Monarchy as not Greek, as we shall see shortly.It is thus not surprising that the Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by Alexander the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. They were proud to be so."

-------------

General Editor

M.B. SAKELLARIOU

Member of the Academy of Athens

EKDOTIKE ATHENON S.A.

1988

Quote:

"...Isokrates places Macedonia outside the boundaries of Greece and describes the Macedonians as ‘an unrelated race’..."

"…The general sense of a passage in Thucydides gives the impression that the historian considered the Macedonians barbarians." The Macedonians are also distinguished from the Greeks and classified with the barbarians in the Pen Politeias, an anonymous work written about the end of the fifth or the beginning of the fourth century B.C. Various ancient geographers and historians of the classical and post-classical periods, such as Ephoros, Pseudo-Skylax, Dionysios son of Kalliphon and Dionysios Periegetes, put the northern borders of Greece at the line from the Ambrakian Gulf to the Peneios. Isokrates places Macedonia outside the boundaries of Greece and describes the Macedonians as ‘an unrelated race’. Medeios of Larisa, who accompanied Alexander on his campaign in Asia, calls the Thessalians ‘the most northerly of the Greeks’.

In contrast with the genealogy of the mythical founder of the Macedonians to be found in Hellanikos there are three other genealogies of Makedon in which he is not included in the stemma of Hellen. About 700 B.C., Hesiod refers to Makedon as the son of Zeus and Thyia. Pseudo-Skymnos calls him "born from the earth". Pseudo-Apollodoros and Aelian reflect a tradition according to which Makedon was the son of Lykaon. …"

[M.B. SAKELLARIOU]

Waldemar Heckel: Macedonians and Greeks: Language, Culture, Attitudes

"It is clear from the extant historians that the lost sources made a CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN MACEDONIANS AND GREEKS - ethnically, culturally and linguistically - and THIS MUST BE AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES....."

Alexander the Great

Historical Sources in Translation

By: WALDEMAR HECKEL, University of Calgary

J C YARDLEY, University of Ottawa

About the Authors

Waldemar Heckel is Professor of Ancient History at the University of

Calgary. He was a founding editor of the Ancient History Bulletin and is the

author of numerous books and articles, including The Last Days and Testament

of Alexander the Great (1988), The Marshals of Alexander's Empire (1992),

and The Wars of Alexander the Great (2002).

J. C. Yardley is Professor of Classics at the University of Ottawa and a

past President of the Classical Association of Canada. His publications

include translations of Quintus Curtius' History of Alexander, Livy 31-40,

and Justin's Epitome of Trogus. His latest work is Justin and Pompeius

Trogus (2003).

Book II – Battle of Issus, in Arrian’s “The Campaigns of Alexander - Penguin Classics Edition”

Quote:

“Darius’ Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander’s triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian.” [p.119]

Amazon: The Campaigns of Alexander (Penguin Classics) (Paperback)

[Gfonk04]

And you thought the CSA would be controversial. Heck, you might as well do a Confederate concept at this point, it will probably cause less of a mess than this Macedonia/Greece/"Let's argue about something that literally happened 2000 years ago" nonsense. Heck, do a Palestine concept if you really want people to freak out.

These are great, I love the detail on each of them. The Germany one is pretty sweet, I understand the block numbers, but I like the more unique numbers you used at first and the interrupted striping. And I won't add to the praise already heaped on Rome since all the superlatives have been used up, but it's awesome.

How about some of the original 13 States since, under the Articles of Confederation, each state was basically its own country.

How about:

California Republic

Quebec

French Empire (Napoleon I)

Bavaria (Or any of the other multitude of pre-Germany states)

Prussia

Kingdom of the Two Sicilies

Tokugawa Shogunate (technically it's Japan, but a different government a la your French Monarchy, etc.)

Persian Empire

Sparta / Athens / Argos / Etc. (No? Too soon?)

American Indian Nations

Transylvania (May not have been an independent nation, but it'd be pretty rad to see a design with "Dracula" on the back, or "Tepes" if you're going for less sensational, also Wallachia may be more historically correct, but whatever.)

Mongol Empire

Anyway, awesome work on these, they look modern, but not overly complicated with great design elements that use detail but don't clutter the overall design (i.e. Texas shoulder patches). Don't let the haters keep you down.

EDIT: I wrote this while the huge monstrosity above was being written, I would love the mods of this board to please not kill this thread because it is great and I would like Ice_cap to please not quit on this idea since it's fun and interesting and open to a lot of possibilities. Can't we all just agree that Alexander conquered a lot of places a long time ago and who cares what nationality he was because he's dead and life goes on?

[SP00]

Anyway, awesome work on these, they look modern, but not overly complicated with great design elements that use detail but don't clutter the overall design (i.e. Texas shoulder patches). Don't let the haters keep you down.

ho ho ho. I want to get this straight, that I dont hate on Ice_cap or on his designs or anything. I dont hate anything at all. I think his designs are great and Im looking forward in seeing more. Especially a California Republic or Native American one

Can't we all just agree that Alexander conquered a lot of places a long time ago and who cares what nationality he was because he's dead and life goes on?

Yes sir. That's the best. I agree.

[IceCap]

Anyway, awesome work on these, they look modern, but not overly complicated with great design elements that use detail but don't clutter the overall design (i.e. Texas shoulder patches). Don't let the haters keep you down.

ho ho ho. I want to get this straight, that I dont hate on Ice_cap or on his designs or anything. I dont hate anything at all. I think his designs are great and Im looking forward in seeing more. Especially a California Republic or Native American one

You spam my thread. You go on and on about faux-historical nonsense. Whether or not you intended to "hate" on my work you, sir, have crapped all over my thread and made what should have been an enjoyable creative exercise a G-ddamn chore.

My last words. After this post I won't say another damn word about Alexander the Great or Macedonia. He came from the Argead dynasty, a dynasty that ruled ancient Macedonia until the Romans invaded it. Do you know what Agread means? It means "from Argos." The ancient Macedonians were descended from groups of people who migrated north from the Greek city-state of Argos.

As for the Greeks looking down on the ancient Macedonians? Yeah they did. In the way that people from big cities can look down on people from the country. The city-states were the centres of power, and learning, and culture. Macedonia was some backwater kingdom. The people migrated there from Argos, sure, but they had to adjust to life in a harsh mountainous terrain. Thus the Greeks considered them less civilized because they lived a harsher, more subsistence-based lifestyle then the Greeks in the city-states.

EDIT: I wrote this while the huge monstrosity above was being written, I would love the mods of this board to please not kill this thread because it is great and I would like Ice_cap to please not quit on this idea since it's fun and interesting and open to a lot of possibilities. Can't we all just agree that Alexander conquered a lot of places a long time ago and who cares what nationality he was because he's dead and life goes on?

I'm not going to quit. Lord knows trolls have derailed far to many well put together concept threads already. I don't intend to let that happen. I've gone to the mods to ask them to look into this SP00 person. I don't know what that will accomplish, but I have asked them to look into it. I don't think the thread will be closed, but if they tell him not to do this to any future threads it'll be a net gain.

Thanks for the support

[IceCap]

The Holy Roman Empire, 800-1806

The Holy Roman Empire first came into being in the year 800, during a period of tension between the eastern and western Churches. The heir to the Roman Empire was the Byzantine Empire, which made the Byzantine Emperor the head monarch of all of Christiandom. Looking for an alternative heir to the Roman Imperial crown that was more friendly to the western Roman Church, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor. Charlemagne, who was King of the Franks, had united western Europe under his rule, the first time western Europe had been unified since the collapse of the western Roman Empire.

When Charlemagne died his Empire was divided between his three sons, and they fought for the Imperial crown. In 881 Charles, grandson of Charlemagne, was crowned Holy Roman Emperor Charles III. When he died in 888 what was left of the Empire fell into disarray and the Holy Roman Emperors only nominally controlled areas in northern Italy. In 924 Emperor Berengar I died and the crown fell into disuse, with no suitable candidates to take it up.

In 936 Otto Liudolfing was elected King of Aachen, a Germanic city. In 951 he married the Queen of Italy, taking over her realms. In 955 he defeated the Hungarians in the Battle of Lechfeld. His soldiers raised his banner and proclaimed Otto Emperor. In 962 Otto was formally crowned Holy Roman Emperor Otto I by the Pope, which established Germanic control of the Holy Roman crown.

A joke among historians is that the Holy Roman Empire neither Holy, Roman, or an Empire. True, the Emperors were crowned by the Pope, but the Empire was no more theocratic then any other state in medieval Europe, and the Emperors clashed with the Pope over Church control in their realm just as much as any other European monarch. As for Roman, well at various points the Empire did include the northern section of Italy. Rome itself, however, remained under direct Papal control. As for not being an Empire? The Holy Roman Empire was a confederation in the strictest sense. Seven electors around the Empire would choose the next Emperor, which would be confirmed by the Pope. Each Emperor had direct control over whatever his personal realms happened to be, but outside of that his reign in the Empire was nominal. The Empire was made up of a collection of kingdoms, principalities, duchies, independent city-states, electorates, and the like. Each had their own local rulers who held all practical control in their realm. They all recognized the nominal authority of the Emperor, but in practice is was difficult for the Emperor to exert control over an area without the consent of the local ruler. The strength of the Emperor varied between monarchs, but the Holy Roman Empire was never a single unified state.

In 1125 Lothair III was elected Emperor. When he died the electors chose not to elect his son, but rather Conrad Hohenstaufen, who became Conrad III. This marked the beginning of the Hohenstaufen house as one of the major players in Imperial politics. Conrad was succeeded as Emperor by his nephew Fredrick I, who attempted to solidify Imperial control by integrating a large number of loyal soldiers into the nobility. He hoped that since they owed their promotion into the ruling elite to him, they would remain loyal to him and allow him to exert greater control over the Empire. This group of warrior nobility formed the basis of the Empire's large knight class, an army totally devoted to the Empire, not to any one local ruler. Fredrick I also over saw the building of new cities, one of which was Munich. Prior to this all cities were based around the decaying remains of Roman cities, or around monasteries. This urban explosion marked the first establishment of cities not tied to ancient Roman locations. Henry IV added Sicily to the Empire, and held Richard I of England, returning home from crusade, hostage. The ransom emptied the English treasury. Frederick II invited the Teutonic Knights to Christinize the Prussian tribes in 1226. The Teutonic hierarchy mixed with the now Christian Prussian base to form the basis of the Kingdom of Prussia, a Germanic State that would nominally exist within the Empire until the Thirty Years War in the 17th century.

In 1452 Fredrick Hapsburg was crowned Fredrick III. The Hapsburgs would have a stranglehold on the Imperial crown until its the Empire was dissolved in 1806, and who would continue to rule the Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire until the end of World War I in 1918. Prior to this the capital of the Empire had been wherever the Emperor held court. The Hapsburgs were also Dukes of Austria, however, and so the Austrian capital of Vienna became the Imperial capital. In 1493 Fredrick III's son Maximilian assumed the throne as Maximilian I and met with the local rulers of the Empire to hammer out something to strengthen the internal structure of the Empire. A central Imperial court and Imperial parliament were established.

In 1530 Maximilian's grandson Charles was crowned Emperor Charles V. Earlier in 1516 he had assumed the throne of Spain as King Charles I through the death of his other grandfather, King Ferdinand II. As King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V became the most powerful man in the world. Not only was he Emperor of the vast German lands and holdings in eastern Europe, but he was also King of the Spanish colonial empire, with its vast holdings in Central and South America. Charles V devised a system to properly manage his holdings, creating a series of councils, first at the local level, and then higher and higher until they got to him. Local matters were handled by the local councils, so that Charles V wasn't bogged down in the minutia that came with ruling such a large empire.

It was during the reign of Charles V that the Protestant Reformation stated. A German Priest named Martin Luther wrote The Ninety-Five Theses criticizing the Catholic Church for straying from the path Christ set out for Christians in the Bible. Luther was a subject of the Holy Roman Empire, which proved important. Pope Leo X wanted Luther tried for heresy in a Church court, but Charles V refused saying that as a subject of his Empire, Martin Luther would be tried in an Imperial court. He was still found guilty, but he was able to go into hiding while the Protestant Reformation grew.

Soon debate sprung up across the Empire as cities, kingdoms, and principalities all decided whether they would remain Catholic or become Protestant. Tensions flared up and conflict emerged.

In 1555 Charles V signed the Peace of Augsburg in an attempt to diffuse the situation. Each kingdom, principality, electorate, or free city in the Empire could choose whether it wanted to be Protestant or Catholic, and Protestants were free to worship in Catholic areas of the Empire. Emperor Rudolph II further cemented the rights of Protestants. Rudolph II's brother Matthias succeeded him, however. Matthias himself didn't curtail religious freedoms, but he was childless. He pushed for his heir, Ferdinand of Styria, to be crowned king of Hungary and Bohemia within the Empire. Ferdinand was himself a fiercely loyal Catholic and Protestants began to worry that he would repeal the religious tolerance they had been granted. Upon Matthias' death Ferdinand was crowned Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II and was elected king of both Hungary and Bohemia. He sent two Imperial officers to Prague to administer Bohemia while he was absent. Bohemian Protestants seized the officers and threw them out of a window. They survived, but this kicked off the Thirty Years' War.

The Bohemian Protestant revolt spread through the Empire, and Ferdinand II was faced with civil war. Phillip IV of Spain, Ferdinand II's nephew, entered the war on the side of the Catholic Empire, while the Protestants appealed to foreign Protestant forces for aid. Christian IV of Denmark and Gustavus II of Sweden both intervened on the side of the Protestants, with Gustavus II running roughshod over the Imperial Catholic forces. Gustavus II died, however, and his Protestant army was defeated at the Battle of Battle of Nordlingen in 1634. This ended Sweden's involvement in the conflict. Without Sweden to back the Protestants up the Spanish and Imperial Catholics looked poised for victory. Then France intervened.

France entered the war on the side of the Protestants at the decision of Cardinal Richelieu, the chief minister of the French royal court. Though a Catholic Cardinal, Richelieu reasoned that France had more to gain with a Protestant victory. A Catholic victory would allow the Hapsburgs to solidify their holdings in the Empire. This could lead to a union between the two Hapsburg realms, the Kingdom of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. This would leave France surrounded by their traditional enemies in central Europe. The Hapsburgs must be weakened, Richelieu concluded. So in 1635, just as it looked like the Spanish and Imperial Catholic forces would win, France intervened. The Spanish and Imperial forces had been worn down from thirty years of fighting, and the French easily swept through the Empire.

The resulting Peace of Westphalia killed all hopes of ever unifying the Holy Roman Empire. The individual kingdoms, principalities, duchies, and electorates were all granted the ability to not only choose their own religion but also to conduct their own foreign affairs without the consent of the Empire, further fracturing the already fragile confederacy. The war also saw France regain its place as the most prominent land-based power in Europe, and the electorate of Prussia formally broke all ties with the Holy Roman Empire, setting the stage for the eventual emergence of the Prussian-dominated German Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire limped on until the French Revolution. It supported the French Bourbon Crown against the revolutionaries. In 1806 the Holy Roman Empire was defeated in quick succession by the new French Empire under Napoleon I in the Battles of Ulm and Austerlitz. Napoleon I forced Francis II to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire. The Empire's German holdings were re-organized into the Confederation of the Rhine, a French puppet state. Francis reorganized his remaining holdings into the Austrian Empire, with himself as Francis I of Austria. In 1867 a compromise was reached with the Empire's Hungarians. A dual monarchy would be established, with the Emperor of Austria also being crowned King of Hungary. Each nation would have its own Parliament that would come together on issues of foreign affairs and national defence. The new Austro-Hungarian Empire would last until 1918 when it collapsed at the end of World War I.

The main colours are black and gold, colours initially associated with the Holy Roman Empire with the reign of Emperor Otto I. Due to the Hapsburg domination of the Empire these colours became associated with that dynasty and remained Imperial colours even after the Holy Roman Empire gave way to the Austrian Empire, and later the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The double headed eagle was taken from the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire had added a second head to the Imperial Roman eagle, one to represent the east, another to represent the west. Since the Holy Roman Empire was trying to claim itself as the rightful heir to the Roman Empire's legacy it adopted the double headed Imperial eagle as well. This Germanic version survives to this day, as the single headed eagles seen in both Austria and Germany's coat of arms. The red was added because red was often added to the trim of Imperial banners. The alternate logo is a white cross on red, the war emblem of the Empire.

I dipped into the cheese a little bit and with the Los Angeles Kings' font. I'm not a fan of the design myself, but the clunky medieval look seemed fitting for a state that so perfectly captured the essence of medieval feudalism.

With that my set is complete. I'll now move into requests. The Persian Empire is up next.

[Gfonk04]

I think it would look better with the black and gold reversed. It would be the rare case of Black-not-for-black's-sake, since it's integral to the concept anyway.

I also think a gold eagle instead of a black one would keep it from looking too much like a flag copy-paste. It's not your strongest concept, but I like the red shoulders and I think it would really stand out more on a black jersey.

[SP00]

I'm not going to quit. Lord knows trolls have derailed far to many well put together concept threads already. I don't intend to let that happen. I've gone to the mods to ask them to look into this SP00 person. I don't know what that will accomplish, but I have asked them to look into it. I don't think the thread will be closed, but if they tell him not to do this to any future threads it'll be a net gain.

Thanks for the support

To look into what? What did I do? You make it look like I did something horrible. We both did the same

Sir. This is not even necessary and not really fair. You should not call me a troll. I dont like that and there is no need for anyone to 'look into'. Even though we had different opinions, I am not a troll or a hater or anything. I was polite all the time and talked normal all the time, unlike some in here who started with belitling. I did not do anything wrong.

Yeah we got carried away with this historical/political subject, of course, but you are as much responsible for that as I am. Im sure those mods will see the same.

I am sorry for filling this thread so much off topic from my part, but that's the thing with these controversial topics, if you dont want that, then like I said, you shouldnt bring those up and if you do, fine, but dont be surprised that you will get different opinions and responses. Btw, you said above that I started it. But that's not really true. You started with philadelphiaflyers. I gave you a compliment and was just saying the color shouldnt be blue in my opinion and that Macedonia was not Greek, I just stated my opinion, thats all. Then you responded with a whole rant with your historical thoughts and offering proof. But, It doesnt even matter who started it, we both had a part in it.

And again, you were as much talking and ranting about it as I was. We both had a part in this. You continued about it just as much as I have.

So, you shouldn't portray me as a troll or hater, please. Of course the thread should not be closed. We stopped with it and I look forward to your next designs. Im already diggin this holy roman empire design. Good job

[IceCap]

I think it would look better with the black and gold reversed. It would be the rare case of Black-not-for-black's-sake, since it's integral to the concept anyway.

I also think a gold eagle instead of a black one would keep it from looking too much like a flag copy-paste. It's not your strongest concept, but I like the red shoulders and I think it would really stand out more on a black jersey.

Here it is in black

I kept the black eagle though. The German national team currently doesn't feature a gold eagle on their black sweater, because a gold eagle isn't the national emblem. A black eagle is. I used the same reasoning here. A black double headed eagle was the emblem of the Holy Roman Empire. A gold one wouldn't have accurately reflected the nation.

[tvko]

It looks better with black, and I love the choice of the LA Kings' number font. Unfortunately the red seems a little out of place, maybe incorporate it into the uni a little more so it's not sticking out like that. Cool striping.

[wildwing64]

Interesting concept series. I'm liking the Commonwealth uniform a lot, and it's a shame Team GB doesn't look that good. Though with the way things seem to be heading you may end up doing a United Kingdom uniform soon enough.

Kingdom of France looks good, though it might look better if you aligned the fleur de lis with the stripe properly. Or was there a particular reason you went with the effect that you did?

[Gfonk04]

Here it is in black

I kept the black eagle though. The German national team currently doesn't feature a gold eagle on their black sweater, because a gold eagle isn't the national emblem. A black eagle is. I used the same reasoning here. A black double headed eagle was the emblem of the Holy Roman Empire. A gold one wouldn't have accurately reflected the nation.

Bingo. Although, there is some precedent for miscoloring national crests (I'm looking at you, US Soccer), I understand your reason for not changing it.

It looks better with black, and I love the choice of the LA Kings' number font. Unfortunately the red seems a little out of place, maybe incorporate it into the uni a little more so it's not sticking out like that. Cool striping.

Maybe the red solution is to use red for piping, e.g. maybe around the shoulder area where the red is now and other places in the design. Red piping would be subtle and keep the emphasis on the black and gold, but would tie the concept to modern Germany as well. If you wanted to keep the red flag idea, you could throw it on the back collar above the NOB, a la Barcelona's Catalan flag. I think the red is okay as is, but if you wanted to try something else with it, that would be my suggestion.

Also, not to nitpick, but, on my computer at least, the gold on the stripes and the gold on the shield look a little different. The shield is a little brighter.

Otherwise, this look is great. Keep em coming! I want to see Persia with Xerxes' face from "300" on it.

[Brass]

I will be completely honest - I'm not even reading the historical background of the concepts. Maybe others can do the same.

Ice Cap, great work as always. You've been one of my favorite designers on here for years and seeing you indulge yourself in a new project is a treat for all. Keep then coming!

[Edubdesign]

I think the jersey should have a red element to the sleeve and hem stripes. Having red only on the shoulder yoke is very distracting.

That said, that is the only thing I've found wrong so far. Keep up the good work!

[GeauxColonels]

I agree we should stop this, and after this post I will not continue on this matter anymore.

Well, that lasted what, all of ten minutes?

[SP00]

I agree we should stop this, and after this post I will not continue on this matter anymore.

Well, that lasted what, all of ten minutes?

Well that was funny

Sir. I dont know why you felt the need to post this. Are you trying to stir things up again? Are you taking a jab at me? For what? We finally ended this and not talking about it anymore and then some smart guy starts mingling again with funny smart ass comments

Just enjoy the design thread and don't worry about for how many minutes it lasted or not