"Do you really want to import a hundred thousand extremely agitated French republicans with a penchant for decapitation who will now have great reasons to come wreck your face up? I didn't think so." - Tallyrand, probably
TBH, it's essentially the other side that declared war on France, so punishing France for having kicked their ass 5 times in a row (and 6 for some) after they declared war on France freely is a bit silly. You could argue that only Spain and Russia could pretend as a compensation in there.
The Switzerland story is actually quite a bit more of a success than what you presented. You have to imagine that at the time, Switzerland was wayyyyy more disunited than it is today, had only recently structured itself (thanks to Napoleon actually), and had about... nothing to offer to the big players. The fact that they managed to gain back all the territories of the former confederation - or in other words, of the messy loose web of alliances that went in all directions (except for Valtellina and Mulhouse), and even gained territory that would allow for the self-subsistence of Geneva (who until then was a city surrounded by France and Savoy with no land), is an absolute triumph of diplomacy.
@@balabanasireti nah we love other Europeans, just made out as if we’ve got some sinister disliking but everyone I’ve met from Germany, France, Sweden, Norway etc u name it, they’ve all been v nice.
"Austria wanted a strong France to counter Britain and Russia" "Russia wanted a strong France to counter Britain and Austria" Me: And I'm guessing Britain wanted a strong France to deal with Russia and Austria? "And Britain just didn't want to deal with the continent anymore" ...Yeah I should have seen that coming
The actual answer is yes. Specifically, Britain viewed Russia as the next big threat to the European balance of power. Britain and Russia would spend much of the next century playing ‘the great game’ over interests in Afghanistan, and of course France and Britain teamed up to beat Russia in the Crimean War. Not sure the UK was that concerned about Austria. Austria, it was pretty clear, had peaked by this point. And Prussia only became a major threat after the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars, after which we all know about the British-German arms race that proceeded WW1.
@@economicerudite4924 Well for ataryers you just contradicted yourself by saying the answer was yes but then providing an explanation that leaves the answer as more of a yesn't. I'm on mobile at 1am rn so I can't see your entire comment while typing this, but if you disagree with anything I say I'll happily argue with you.
I think a video about Charles Maurice de Talleyrand's longevity is in order: the guy stayed in power accross 6 different political regimes and was a kind of renound House of Cards politician. Famous for his punchlines and political survivability. One of his quotes shows his game: "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public." Great video as usual btw, keep it up.
Ho yes ! Could you imagine a TV show following his career and manoeuvres across all these regime changes ? He gets a lot of hostility from every side but, as far as I know, he was one of the firsts to always pursue peace, for the good of the realm. To last this long and achieve so much he probably was crazy clever and must have pulled some mad moves.
Yeap, he was interesting guy. He was s bishop in pre-revolution France, Napoleon called him "shit in a silk stocking" , US almost went to war with France over his corruption, and yet he served his country quite well.
it's also intersting to see that the camp of "preserve France" is basically the Entente. I imagine they gained a lot of good diplomacy points with France from having defended their territory on the negotiations table.
Yeah. I imagine that those good diplomacy points would came in handy for Russia when deciding to attack the Ottoman empire, so they would definitely not have to defend Crimea or anything
Also they had all the same reasons post Napoleon and pre-WWI Russia wanted a strong France to counter Austria and Germany. Britain did not want to be involved with the continent and didn't want to have to counter Germany. And France gave lands to Germany on the idea that they could be easily taken, ie Strong France to counter Germany. The most mutual of understandings.
Well fun fact since no one took lanf britain didnt take land after winning the war of 1812 becaude otd be hard to convince europe to not take land if thry did
Sorry to inform you but the french version of the Austrian painter is skyzophrenic and wants to abolish France, Germany and Reality itself, in his timeline the Austrian painter is considered a moderate who rules Austria.
Technically, it could have been a political move. Since no one recognized Napoleon as the rightful ruler of France and still recognized the king, declaring war on France the nation would basically be like admitting that Napoleon was in charge. So by declaring war on him, they could still recognize the king's legitimacy and undermine Napoleon's while still mobilizing against him for war.
@@Mplkjo15 not how it worked ,as afterthe fact the decision and whatever u said would shape ever so sligly the opinion , meaning htat if the alliance recognise napoleon the debate could go in "yhea but he was our rightfull leader u said it yourself thus u attack the french people" where u much prefer the "yhea but we think he was rightfull"
1:20 is in my opinion the most interesting part in this video. The fact that Talleyrand wanted the Rhine area to become prussian instead of the polish areas, which were a part of prussia before the napoleonic wars, in some way created Germany in the long run. Prussia had now a huge incentive to connect its eastern and Western lands and made it a driving force in somehow uniting the northern German states either by unifying them diplomatically or annexing them. If the Rhine province had never become a part of Prussia there might not have been a German unification under Prussian hegemony. The Prussian kings were never huge fans of becoming German emperors anyway. They were content with beeing Prussian kings.
Totally agree. Plus, with Silesia as its only industrial province, Prussia would have stayed behind German states benefiting from the industrial revolution in Ruhr region.
Rhinelanders were often not keen. Rhenish troops in the Prussian army in the Waterloo campaign deserted in large numbers, and the Rhineland was often referred to as "Musspreussen" ("Has to be Prussia").
Well, You know these areas vere Polish, before they become prussian, right? Poland just kinda get it back for this period when it kinda exist (but as a puppet - first of Napoleon, then Russia)
@@Lyokoheros-KLPXTV yes, sure. These Polish areas were only prussian for 11 years at this point. So there was no long standing claim to them anyway. it is just fascinating to consider that the Prussians had to be pressured into accepting German lands over Polish lands which doesn't make any sense if you go with a national approach. it shows us that still the idea of a unified nation state wasn't well established at all at this point which reminds us of the fact that our modern day national historiagraphies aren't really good to explain historic events. They probably had the idea of "rightfully" obtained Polish provinces that are connected to the core areas are better than some areas that were merely occupied by the French for some time but are not directly connected. The reshuffeling of the borders that took place in congress of Vienna in which these polish areas were given to Russia was probably due to the fact that winning a war meant at that time spoiling the victorious. Russia gained these polish lands since this was one of the few options in which it actually could gain some territory that wasn't a Prussian core area and reestablishing Poland wasn't seen as an option at that point. This also shows us how the lands these Monarchs ruled over were often seen as just pawns that can be used to trade with.
@@gengis737 The Ruhr boom would have never occurred without Prussian capital and authority as the rhine-ruhr area was previously occupied by a dozen or so minor states. They'd never be able to pull off that industrial boom.
@@graveperil2169 "Britain got dragged in" This is mythology. Britain dived right into WW1 and 2. No one forced Britain into either war other than British choices and action. Most logically due to it's "balance of power/ divide and conquer" doctrine. People think the German invasion of Belgium "forced" them into the war, yet, little known fact; the British cabinet actually voted in 1914 that the Treaty with Belgium did not compel them into a war with the invader. (they possibly voted this way because it could have been France that invaded first).
It’s kind of interesting that every power that bordered France(Savoy,Swiss,Netherlands,and Austria(who had large influence in Germany) all wanted to punish France hard and countries like Britain and Russia that had no border with France didn’t want to punish it.
I guess the issue was: * for countries that bordered France, a strong France was a threat, so they would want to weaken it. * for countries that bordered countries that bordered France, _those_ countries being strong would be a threat, so they would want France to stay strong.
Its important to note that the leaders of Russia were in love with French style, clothing, even intellectual world views. They later in early 1900s brought French reforms to Russia but that impowered the population and ended up in the complicated civil unrest. Russia had famines, wars, disease but it never ended up in a civil war until the population were given freedom.
@@drscopeify what the f*ck is French reforms in Russia? Please stop spreading BS. Also what kind of freedom are you talking about? Video is about 1810-s when, true, French language was dominant among higher echelons of society. Though at the early nineteen-hundreds Russian identity was strong and dominant among people. Russian literature and culture was fully developed at this point and french cultural dominance was long gone at this point
Ironically, the "Give Prussia the Rhinelands so we can take it for ourselves" plan backfired very hard because it was far more valuable than most Prussian land and was the first real major step to German unification. Which would come to bite France's ass when Prussia came knocking for Alsace-Lorraine.
@@Klaevin I think today Talleyrand and Napoleon would Generally approve the modern European Union EXCEPT (ironically) for the corruption, waste, and inefficiency of its bureaucracy. The Ukraine War would, I think, not surprise Talleyrand in the least. Napoleon would be fascinated at the current Gaza conflict.
@@adrianjohnson7920 except that the EU is designed to bring all money to Germany and the Benelux. the Benelux imports, Belgium prints the money, Luxemburg has the banks and Germany produces. every other European country loses because of the EU. France and other "lower end" manufacturers like Italy and Spain need to devalue their currency in order to export their goods and all the other countries in Eastern Europe are exploited for their cheap labor and prevented from developing further. if both men were alive today, they would ask "hey, how come Russia is invading small Russia? why is Small Russia even a thing? Why are the United states, who are on the other side of the globe, supporting small Russia so much?" or "how come the jews have their own country? weren't there arabs there before? remind me again why it was a bad idea to kill all those Vendéens, if we're supporting this new jewish state? Again, why are the United States supporting the Jews so heavily in this mass killing of arabic peoples?" and finally : "wait, how come the United states are so heavily invested in so many wars all around the globe? they don't even have colonies! oh wait, maybe.... wait, has all of Europe simply become colonized by the United States?"
On a similar note, another question I've wondered is why the UK didn't (re)gain Heligoland as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Presumably it wasn't considered viable to defend against a revanchist Germany.
It had lost it's strategic importance by the end of the war. However, it was taken as a war prize at the end of WW2, but as it had lost its strategic value, it was just used as a bombing rage. This understandably pissed off the people who lived on Heligoland before the war and the German government, causing negotiations for its return to Germany to begin, which it later did in 1952.
@@benlonghurst7777 Heligoland was also a giant fortress, they needed to destroy all of those munitions somehow I get the need, but of course, bombing Heligoland to the ground was just not the right way to do it.
@@jevinliu4658 Yeah, causing the largest non-nuclear explosion in history to sink an island was definitely kinda a dick move to the Frisians who got told to piss off, so formal apologies to Germany and the Frisians I suppose
@@derserthefoxxo3873 What's hilarious is that it failed to achieve its objective of destroying the harbour facilities. Which is very British I suppose...
Historia Civilis made an amazing 2 part video on the Congress of Vienna and goes into great detail about what every country wanted and how they decided on what Europe's borders would look like after Napoleon. That channel and this channel make the best history content imo
Fun fact: though Spain was strictly neutral during peace negotiations in Viena (mostly because their complete ruin provoked by the war itself and the weakness that had been dragging since the second half of the XVIII century), some defended positions more "active/beligerant". For instance, general Castaños, after the short occupation of the Roussillon during the summer of 1815, proposed the adquisition of the Fortresses of Mont-Louis(near Llívia and the gate of the catalan Pyrenean valleys) and Bellagarde (whose situation allow France to invade all the region of Girona, and was the main defense position of the Roussillon). Specifically, Spain threw some "oficial reclamations" in Viena: the restoration of Ferdinand IV (uncle of the King of Spain) in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies; the restituion of the Papal States; the restoration of the House of Bourbon in the duchies of Parma, Piacenza y Guastalla, all for María Luisa de Parma, sister of the king of Spain, and the readquisition of the French Louisiana. All these reclamations were ignored during the congress, and treated bilaterally between France and Austria in the next years. In fact, Spain did not sign the final act of the Congress of Viena. It was not until 1817 that Spain accepted the treaty.
Did Spain not know that France no longer owned Louisiana? And that if they wanted it back they’d have to take it up with James Madison. Also I’m marginally sure they barely had a Mexico at that time either so how tf did they think anyone would take them seriously on that demand
Every European treaty negotiation that involves the Netherlands comes down to them trying to force themselves to a place on the Great Powers table and then being told to get lost. Got to admire the determination.
I'd not really blame them... When ever the Netherlands have been attacked by either France (pre Napoleonic) or Germany (post 1815), they've always been overrun in a matter of days. So no one takes a country like them serious!
Speaking of the Congress of Vienna (where they maintained the notion of the monarchical government in Europe), could you create a future video on the reaction of the world powers on the Greek War of Independence? It sparked right after the Napoleon's defeat.
“Let the Turks deal with it” “Aw crap they’re winning against our Christian brothers, but We still want to preserve the balance so can’t really do anything about that.” “Nevermind screw it let’s help Greece”
@@pocketmarcy6990 Also, also France and Britain thinking: "Greece, cradle of Western civilization" "must revive Hellenism" "fear of Russian expansion through the the Balkans and the Turkish Straits" "Reaction on the fall of Missolonghi, the massacre of Christians, and the death of prominent philhellenes like Lord Byron" "Must have a Britain-French protectorate over Greece, rather than being a Russian satellite state like the Danubian principalities and the Slavic nations (e.g. Serbia, Bulgaria)."
It would be great to see the old/new maps overlaid whenever there are territorial changes. Seeing them sequentially forces one to pause the video and jump back-and-forth in time a couple of times to notice the differences...
Can you do "why did Portugal not colonize South Africa?" or "why did Portugal not colonize North America?" both are interesting Edit: I know about the treaty of Tordesillas but they DID establish a failed colony in Canada, that’s why I asked For South Africa they did GO to the cape of good hope but never made a colony there
Portugal did colonize South Africa but they were beaten at the game by the Dutch and Britain and North America was Spanish per the treaty of Tordesilhas
For the latter question, the Treaty of Tordesillasade decided the world in half between Portugal and newly united Spain. North America was on the Spainish side. As for the latter, Portugal did colonize Southern Africa, but not South Africa. IIRC, they tried to, but couldn't hold onto it.
Portugal didn't have a large enough population to really populate their colonies. The best that most of their colonies other than Brazil were military outposts.
@@TempestLM thats because the lands they ruled was basically seen as the Kings land. The idea of centralizing it into a state came about after the 30 years war which lead to the idea of a nation state.
He once made a video on the topic of longer videos as he did them once (10 min videos). The problem is the youtube algorithm. History channels can be targeted quite frequently esp regarding certain topics like Nazism, Communism and their crimes and such. He is not doing them anymore as it would be too much of a risk for that much work.
@@shinsenshogun900 It already had for decades by this point hence why a much smaller fleet wiped out a combined french and spanish fleet twice it's size and it was not the first or last time this had happend because whilst buying into the officer class was still a thing in the royal navy you could actually go from seaman to admiral like William Mitchell when everyone else did not Normaly allow this yet giving the RN an advantage
By 1801, Great Britain had given up claims to the (now defunct) French throne and any territory there. Now what is interesting is all of the Franch colonies given back that Britain had gobbled up during the Napoleonic wars.
Great video as always! I do want to suggest making the "they have this-they wanted this-they actually got this" maps clearer, though. Perhaps a dotted line along the original borders and/or grayed out areas for the lands they didn't get? Just a suggestion 🙂
"Savoy, despite not doing anything, was given this land at the behest of Austria-" Savoy, Italy in the Third War of Independence and Italy in the Great War: *Spiderman pointing meme*
Savoy was litterally ruined and under france's military what do you expect from them ? Going to war with sticks? And it's not true, there was a lot of insurrections.
Savoy was litterally ruined and under france's military what do you expect from them ? Going to war with sticks? And it's not true, there was a lot of insurrections.
Another thing you have to mention is that France was defeated but still thrice more populous than England or Prussia, which is a strong advantage in a period of infantry wars. Carving the country might have driven Europe to another war even if you put a king on the thrown again
Three video ideas from a Patreon member: 1.) Why does Monaco exist? 2.) Why did the Gadsden Purchase happen? 3.) How did Thailand avoid being colonized?
2. Southerners wanted the trans continental railway to pass through the south (rather than through Nebraska as actually happened), so they purchased the piece of land as it was flatter and less mountainous than the rest of the newly acquired Mexican territory, thinking it would allow them to more persuasively push for a southern route.
I think Monaco has been founded by italians genova rich merchants who left italia on pirate ships, they decided to invade the rock of monaco and founded their city there, monaco has ever been a place defended by rich people because they can avoid to pay french taxes sur as Switzerland or Luxembourg, the reason of their existence is just they are fiscal paradise
Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord was born in 1754; his first name is often shortened to "Talleyrand". His nickname was "Le Diable Boiteux" (The Lame Devil in English) (because he had a problem with one of his feet and was essentially “A Devil” in diplomacy.). He is known to have betrayed all the French regimes and everyone, in general, several times. Talleyrand is, without a doubt the greatest traitor and the greatest manipulator in history. From 1789 to 1838, he served and betrayed all regimes: bishop, he first betrayed the church by bringing the Civil Constitution of the Clergy to the Assembly where he had been elected before fleeing France during the terror to find her only under the Directory as Minister of External Relations; in office, he maneuvers to bring down the regime and install Bonaparte in power. Then he dropped Napoleon during the Hundred Days and favored the return of Louis XVIII; in the end, he worked for the fall of Charles X in favor of the July Monarchy. In the intriguing genre that has betrayed everyone, we don't do better. But Talleyrand justified himself for these betrayals: “I have never abandoned a regime before it had abandoned itself. In his eyes, he was trying to serve France. Talleyrand is, without a doubt, my favorite historical figure; in addition to having beautiful quotes and a macabre sense of honor, he has a dark and tenuous reflection that accentuates his personality. Countries feared him because he had a very tenuous sense of diplomacy, and he was an unparalleled manipulator. For example, in 1808, he betrayed Napoleon during the Iberian War by carrying out a coup d'etat. Napoleon, on returning to France, did not kill him but only scolded him. Because no one could have a hand on Talleyrand. Once, Napoleon I, was defeated once and for all at Waterloo, France was not invited to the Congress of Vienna even though it was the main party concerned. Well, Talleyrand invites himself there anyway and manages to save France diplomatically by manipulating and using his rhetorical skills, his contacts, etc. And the most interesting thing about Talleyrand is in the painting of the coronation of Josephine the Empress of France; everyone is frozen, emotionless, moved, or happy. Talleyrand, in the painting, watches the scene with irony and contempt, implying that he was behind it all. Once, he was leaning on the shoulder of Fouché (A complex character who has fascinated many authors, Fouché is particularly known for his involvement in the violent repression of the Lyon insurrection in 1793 and for having been Minister of Police under the Directory, the Consulate, the Empire and the Second Restoration.) and on seeing them Chateaubriand said: "Suddenly a door opens: vice silently enters leaning on the arm of crime, Monsieur de Talleyrand supported by Monsieur Fouche." He is decorated with enormous titles in different countries, such as: Legions of Honor: Legionnaire (9 Vendémiaire Year XII (October 2, 1803), as Minister of External Relations), then, Grand Officer (22 Messidor Year XIII July 11, 1804, as Grand Chamberlain), then, Grand Eagle of the Legion of Honor (12 Pluviôse Year XIII (February 1, 1805), in the same capacity) - Grand Collar of the Legion of Honor as a grand dignitary of the Empire, Title in other country: Order of the Black Eagle (Kingdom of Prussia): 1805, Grand Cross of the Order of the Red Eagle (Kingdom of Prussia): 1806, Order of St. Andrew (Russian Empire): 1807, Knight of the Order of the Spanish Golden Fleece: 1814, Knight of the Order of the Elephant (Kingdom of Denmark): 1815, Knight of the Order of the Holy Spirit Knight of the Order of Louis of Hesse, Knight of the Order of the Golden Eagle of Württemberg (Kingdom of Württemberg). Knight of the Order of Saint Anne of Russia, Commander of the Order of Charles III of Spain Grand Commander of the Order of the Crown of Saxony, Grand Commander of the Order of the Crown of Westphalia, Grand Cross of the Imperial Order of Leopold (Austria), Grand Cross of the Order of the Savior (Greece), Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Joseph (Grand Duchy of Tuscany), Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Stephen of Hungary, Grand Cross of the Order of Saint-Hubert (Bavaria), Grand Cross of the Order of Our Lady of Conception of Vila Viçosa (Portugal), Grand Order of the Order of the Lion and the Sun (Persia), Order of Medjidie (Ottoman Empire), etc. And what I find incredible with Talleyrand, despite the fact that I am a Catholic, I must recognize him, is that he died reconciled with the Church and God. As mentioned above, he was the bishop of Autun; during this period, he manipulated Louis XVI into giving him money, etc. He chose this path because he could not be a soldier because of his foot problem. However, he didn't necessarily like being a bishop and didn't care. The proof is that he got married when he was exiled from the revolution when terror reigned because it was discovered that he had manipulated the revolutionaries and the king, therefore the monarchists (When I said that he betrayed everything, it was not an hyperbole). At the end of his life, on his 84th birthday, a few days before his death on May 17, 1838, he was reconciled with the church for the various sins he had committed, and he died with a good conscience. Until the end, he will have tricked, manipulated, conned, and won what he wanted. Here are some of these quotes to illustrate the character: Men are like statues, you have to see them in place. The best way to overthrow a government is to be part of it. The speech was given to man to disguise his thought. The malcontents are poor people who reflect. There is one thing more terrible than slander, it is the truth. Politics is only a certain way of agitating the people before using it. In politics, what is believed becomes more important than what is true. Where there is a treaty, there is a penknife. You can violate the laws, without them shouting. Chance is perhaps the pseudonym of God when he does not want to sign. Well, I think I summed up the character pretty quickly, but you can get an idea of who this man is.
"In his eyes, he was trying to serve France." - and an argument can be made that he did this, even if it meant turning on the government in power at the time. Certainly he was vital for France's interests at Vienna.
@Carlton-B The charisma of Talleyrand, rather than Lenin and Mao, is that unlike them he was at heart a civilised man who liked to do the right thing; but as a pragmatist, only so long as it didn't cost him anything. That said, he was NOT a coward; his intrigues against Napoleon ran the close risk of being shot or hanged; and he knew this, and did it anyway. He was a cold-blooded and brilliant politician, financial expert, and systems analysist; he did his homework, had his own intelligence network; though pragmatic and prudent, he knew when to take a calculated risk, and it usually paid off. However he cultivated the image of a languid, lazy, "lucky" aristocrat. Though very much a "grand seigneur" he ran his foreign ministry and made his friends on strictly meritocratic lines, and respected and rewarded his staff for good work. They in turn were fiercely loyal to him; as were his domestic servants and staff, who adored him. He was strict but fair, and had a preference to keep and take care of valued people by him for life. (He also quietly took care of, or secretly aided the careers of his natural children, of which he may have had as many as 20.) He was not exactly your typical womaniser; as a charming and attractive man, he enjoyed the company of women, and respected their minds; was probably more seduced than seducing; and kept most of his old mistresses as cherished and lifelong friends. Until he was 62, Talleyrand preferred "ancient-regime" women his own age. He was taken by surprise by the love of his life, his brilliant young niece-by-unhappy-marriage (39 years younger than he) when they became an unexpectedly politically brilliant "power couple" at the Congress of Vienna. They adored each other's minds, and remained tenderly devoted to each other until his death, aged 84. Though they did have an "open relationship": Dorothea was a passionate woman, Talleyrand ageing and growing frail; after the birth of their beloved daughter Pauline in 1820, they seem to have become platonic lovers.)
When Napoleon returned, he did offer absolute & unconditional peace terms in exchange for retention of his throne. How serious he was will forever remain a mystery because the Allies refused & initiated another war on him.
Talleyrand was the epitome of always "playing both sides so I always come out on top." In hindsight it is kind of insane that France got a representative at the Congress in the first place. It's like if Germany had a representative at Potsdam.
This decision saved France and european peace ( even if we created 2 Wars ) and what Is even more incredible Is that 20 years after vienna's treaty France was the 2nd strongest nation in the World and austria ( who defended France ) Lost all of her empire sometimes destiny strikes hard
I think they allowed France to keep Corsica because France had gained that territory via purchase instead of outright conquest. Their purchase of Corsica also happened way before the Napoleonic Wars (hence why Napoleon was born in France and not Genoa).
What's funny is that Piedmont-Sardinia, the kingdom that ruled over Savoy, eventually allied with the French (under Napoleon III no less) instead of being a buffer state and snatched most of Austria's Italian lands in the War of Italian Unification. Talk about a measure COMPLETELY backfiring.
@@wordart_guian They didn't really snatch them though, there was a referendum held on whether to let Savoy and Nice be handed over, and both governments agreed on it. Austria's Italian lands were mostly taken by force in 1859.
@@thunderbird1921 it was a yes or yes referendum (like crimea) the savoy government was ok (though niçard garibaldi obvs wasn't), but the people weren't really asked
Virgin Austria-Hungary after 4 years of war: is broken up into different countries and forgotten by everyone else Chad France after 25 years of war: gains territory and has its former enemies prop it up as a great power again
@@tz8785 For a very loose definition of "peace." There wasn't a continent wide war for a while but you can't throw a stone in the 19th century without hitting a regional war with lasting consequences.
This channel is very good. Explain interesting facts in a short way. Others channels talks about interesting facts but with videos greater than 10 minutes. Sometimes we just want a short answer without so many details. Thanks!
I imagine, little to nothing. The people probably didn't hear about it, or didn't understand the severity of this, as censorship would deny them this information. The gov't however, was divided. The civilian government (the pigeons) would probably be concerned by their allies defeat, but then again... that part of the government had lost all hope and was just wanting for this to end, but they couldn't because... the real power was on the military, the hawks, who were so absurdly brainwashed by their imperial religion thingy of god-emperor, that they were unfazed by any issues. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki got bombed, the hawks simply shrugged it of with a "meh, we loose more civilians on the incendiary bombings, so this is fine)". They couldn't care less.
The actual amswer: they offered to surrender, but the Allies after the Potsdam Conference refused anything other than an unconditional surrender. They tried to negotiate a surrender through the Soviet Union, but once the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, they knew that any hope of a negotiated surrender would be impossible and surrendered unconditionally.
That map also is wrong because it also contains Finland. When the ussr gained kaliningrad, it had already lost Finland and had lost a war trying to conquer Finland. Meaning at no point did either russia or the ussr ever have both at the same time.
When Napoleon was defeated for the first time, I would've given him Corsica to rule over and kind of encourage some type of rebellion to keep Napy busy consolidating his island kingdom to keep him out of mischief.
@@gontrandjojo9747 wdym he is great for bringing tourist today and the only ppl who hated him at the time was the paoliist witch was the opposing party ofc they'd hate him lmao , most ppl didn't cared at the time and still don't care bout it either
He came out of Elba with like a thousand men and retook France in ten days. If he had had Corsica he would have returned with ten thousand men and invaded England.
One thing to consider was that the border between France and Savoy/Italy and the border between France and Spain are very good borders to maintain in terms of geography and language. This is very good for the maintenance of territorial integrity and minimises future territorial disputes. This is obviously not the case for the Rhine area though.
Talleyrand may have been the best politician in history. He served under Kings, Republics, and Empires, and yet was always in power himself. One has to respect that.
Ah, being a fan of Historia Civilis, I know the answer is 30% Talleyrand being a madlad, 60% the coalition not trusting each other, and 10% the tsar being a cockup
People who call Talleyrand a traitor need to realize that he did a lot of good for France as well. Napoleon would have been defeated anyways but by cooperating with the coalition he began the process of building up allied trust towards a France without Napoleon
3:14 omg wow! Nobody caught that at the end- unlike other major wars, territorial losses were off the table, and they were throwing shade and WW1 and WW2. Brilliant foreshadowing commentary.
Nice video. Another reason is that French citizens were dreaded as potential revolutionaries. Invaders were not quite comfortable with the idea that if they stayed too long, they could have a general revolt like French 1793 or Spain 1808. Also, to crush France twice required the coalition of the whole of Europe and armies of hundreds of thousands of men, not something you do every decade. So having a stable French government was all-important. I am not sure of the balance of power during Vienna's negotiation. It was more England and Austria against the rogue Prussia supported by Russia. In 1815 Napoleon could even publish a secret agreement of England, Austria and French monarchy to build a military alliance against Russia's and Prussia's claims on Poland. Then Prussia accepted Talleyrand's proposal to give up most of Poland for Rhineland. And Austria accepted to leave Belgium to Netherland, and territories in Germany to Bavaria against a free hand on Italy, separated from France by Piedmont. So Talleyrand satisfied nearly everyone, except that Rhineland gave to remote Prussia the basis for it's future industrial and financial power in the West, a clear claim to unify and lead Germany, and a foot at the entrance of France.
*VIDEO SUGGESTION:* How did the other European powers react to the proclamation of The Second French Empire with Napoleon III? Didn't it raise any red flags considering... past events? Was there ever even a possibility of there being an Eighth Coalition War?
The British were annoyed and scared 1st. But they were a huge diplomatie by the French to prove that they were on the British side. Trade relations between the country Meeting between Queen Victoria and Napoleon,III. Crimean war and Suez canal.
Napoleon III made the smart move of going to the Crimean War with Britain despite having nothing to gain from this war (except British friendship). Then when Napoleon declared war on Austria a few years later, the British didn't intervene.
Crimean war pretty much killed those possibility. At worst Napoleon could met German federation with Prussia and Austria together who would be provoked by French claims on west bank of Rhine.
I think there was also a silent reason not mentioned but understood by the different powers. France nationalistic identity. Unlike all the other newly formed nations that were starting to define their borders, identity, language, and reason to be united under one single banner. France already had a strong national identity which meant that taking any piece of France would be met with a lot of public dissaproval from the local French in the area and could lead to unrest, sabotage and more conflict. Even the powers that seemed big and united would eventually split into different national identities after a crisis.
'French nationalistic identity' has always been a little less strong than many think. Away from Paris, there have always been areas with strong local identities, not always loyal to whatever sort of government was in Paris. Local dialects and cultures have survived, and some areas are more likely than others to think about issues such as restoration of the monarchy.
@@harryfaber Sure, Brittany comes to mind not only for their late union to the French crown but also for their unique identity, language and breton culture that can be tracked to pre-Roman times. However if we compare that French identity to the one in the United Kingdoms where Scotts, welsh and Irish are in constant conflict with the English centralized power then the French seem more united than the united kingdoms (Specially with the Irish declaring independance)
@@harryfaber That's false. They've always been nationalistic, their national sentiment began in the middle ages. But not in the form of the revolution, they called themselves French even when they didn't spoke the language of Paris and only talked breton for example. It changed with the revolution, identity appartenance was changed.
I love how, once again, Britain's main reason for doing anything was that it just didn't want anything to do with mainland Europe. Not that we've changed much in that regard...
@@toledochristianmatthew9919 It's amazing how much of European history can be simulated by a game of wack-a-mole with each 'mole' having the flag of a different European power and a hammer called 'English/British foreign policy'.
@@Neion8 having a powerful navy and professional fighting force can do that. Though to be honest Britain itself had been beaten, humiliated, and conquered by other foreign powers like the Danes, Normans, etc.
@@toledochristianmatthew9919 True, but it was those very conquests that made old-school Englishmen decide to head off threats before they arise rather than wait for the enemy to land on our shores and burn our towns. Had the Anglo-Saxons been left to it, Britiain likely would've remained little different to most other European minor powers.
Actually Talleryand managed to sign a military alliance with Great Britain and Austria against Russia and Prussia. But Napoléon’s come back ruined everything. Talleyrand was a great diplomat
@@Emperor1G Are you sure Napoleon was not bringing down France? Napoleon was awful for France. Napoleon betrayed the revolution and usurped total power for his own self-interest by establishing a military dictatorship with an emphasis on warmongering. Napoleon abused conscription so that he could wage war and remain in power, not for the benefit of the French youth. In the process Napoleon left France militarily occupied, defeated, its once powerful military in shambles, a generation worth of men wiped out, France losing territory, forced to reinstate the hated monarchy at the desire of the rest of Europe. A total failure due to Napoleon's gross incompetence, recklessness wastefulness and delusion that weakened the once mighty French military until it was in shambles.
@@ИнИс-щ8д Right, because power-hungry delusional goons never seize total power in Europe and wage war. That never happens or ever will. A derange lunatic has never hijacked a powerful military from a lost and confused European nation and waged war on the continent. Thugs never seize power in Europe, they are in jail, not heads-of-state. Europe is so prestigious, so triumphant. Not in 1800, not in 1939, and certainly not today has any goon ever seized a powerful military from a lost and confused European country and menace Europe with total war. Because the wars in Europe produce nothing but "glory" and "triumph", not disgraceful disastrous tragedies.
That is Comtat Venaissin, it was created during the Middle Ages and it was an exclave of the Papal States, it was incorporated into France during the Revolution in 1791
Because, even if they will never admit it, the English have always been the number one fans of France. That's why their national motto is in French and also why the flag of England is the old French crusader flag or the reason why they used a French song for their national anthem. And let's not even talk about the English language which is just a bad plagiarism of the French one. To France England is like that old ex who can't stop talking shit about you while still being mad in love.
As Historia Civilis said, France might have been cowed but it was still a great power and one of the largest nations of Europe- it wouldn't have been a good idea to try and force massive concessions.
"Nobody helped Switzerland because nobody cared about them"
This sounds like a villain backstory but for neutrality
Straight up Switzerland would go with the fuck all your factions faction and be based later on
Switzerland getting Geneva, but also experiences internal conflict and development of its national policy after the Sonderbund
Just wait man, you never know what they've got lurking under those mountains
*caring* is a dangerous word in geopolitics.
It's good when no one cares.
At the time they were just hill shepherds not the bank they are today
"I don't think we should punish France." - France
"Do you really want to import a hundred thousand extremely agitated French republicans with a penchant for decapitation who will now have great reasons to come wreck your face up? I didn't think so." - Tallyrand, probably
"Oui" -France
The *Kingdom* of France, to be precise.
Don't forget that at the time, it was as much a "Republic vs. Monarchy" war than a "France vs. Europe war".
TBH, it's essentially the other side that declared war on France, so punishing France for having kicked their ass 5 times in a row (and 6 for some) after they declared war on France freely is a bit silly. You could argue that only Spain and Russia could pretend as a compensation in there.
"I concur." - France with fake mustache
The Switzerland story is actually quite a bit more of a success than what you presented. You have to imagine that at the time, Switzerland was wayyyyy more disunited than it is today, had only recently structured itself (thanks to Napoleon actually), and had about... nothing to offer to the big players. The fact that they managed to gain back all the territories of the former confederation - or in other words, of the messy loose web of alliances that went in all directions (except for Valtellina and Mulhouse), and even gained territory that would allow for the self-subsistence of Geneva (who until then was a city surrounded by France and Savoy with no land), is an absolute triumph of diplomacy.
Lost some, got some. I'm just sad for the land we lost in italy.
A triumph of *Swiss* diplomacy...I don't imagine the French and the Savoyards might agree.
@@AleksiOsuisse i bet the people in the lost land are cursing the congress of Vienna to this day.
nt
At least somebody dosen't laugh at us in the comments. Thx man.
"and Britain just didn't want to have to deal with the continent anymore." Some things never change
And honestly who can blame them 😂😂😂
Yes, the only time they care about the continent is when they can damage France.
U.K. really doesn’t have time for their shit 😂
@@paulluka2029 The people of Britain apparently
@@balabanasireti nah we love other Europeans, just made out as if we’ve got some sinister disliking but everyone I’ve met from Germany, France, Sweden, Norway etc u name it, they’ve all been v nice.
Because James Bisonette was the new King and the allies didn't want to lose their funding.
Wow didn't expect you to be here. great gameplay videos tho
It's hard to argue with his assessment
Seems plausible
Treasurer Kelly Moneymaker
Can you make videos about how to get better at bo1?
"Austria wanted a strong France to counter Britain and Russia"
"Russia wanted a strong France to counter Britain and Austria"
Me: And I'm guessing Britain wanted a strong France to deal with Russia and Austria?
"And Britain just didn't want to deal with the continent anymore"
...Yeah I should have seen that coming
Yep.
The actual answer is yes. Specifically, Britain viewed Russia as the next big threat to the European balance of power. Britain and Russia would spend much of the next century playing ‘the great game’ over interests in Afghanistan, and of course France and Britain teamed up to beat Russia in the Crimean War.
Not sure the UK was that concerned about Austria. Austria, it was pretty clear, had peaked by this point.
And Prussia only became a major threat after the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars, after which we all know about the British-German arms race that proceeded WW1.
Hehehe Vive la France 🟦⬜🟥💪🇫🇷👊
You'd better take surrunder back jokes
@@christophermichaelclarence6003 🏳️
@@economicerudite4924 Well for ataryers you just contradicted yourself by saying the answer was yes but then providing an explanation that leaves the answer as more of a yesn't. I'm on mobile at 1am rn so I can't see your entire comment while typing this, but if you disagree with anything I say I'll happily argue with you.
I think a video about Charles Maurice de Talleyrand's longevity is in order: the guy stayed in power accross 6 different political regimes and was a kind of renound House of Cards politician. Famous for his punchlines and political survivability. One of his quotes shows his game: "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public."
Great video as usual btw, keep it up.
Ho yes ! Could you imagine a TV show following his career and manoeuvres across all these regime changes ? He gets a lot of hostility from every side but, as far as I know, he was one of the firsts to always pursue peace, for the good of the realm. To last this long and achieve so much he probably was crazy clever and must have pulled some mad moves.
Yeah, the ultimate chameleon slash cockroach of diplomatic history.
Yeap, he was interesting guy. He was s bishop in pre-revolution France, Napoleon called him "shit in a silk stocking" , US almost went to war with France over his corruption, and yet he served his country quite well.
Today we would call him a mix of opportunist and institutionalist.
The 19th century had some of the most interesting political thinkers. Also add in Bismarck, Marx, Clausewitz, many others.
it's also intersting to see that the camp of "preserve France" is basically the Entente. I imagine they gained a lot of good diplomacy points with France from having defended their territory on the negotiations table.
Yeah. I imagine that those good diplomacy points would came in handy for Russia when deciding to attack the Ottoman empire, so they would definitely not have to defend Crimea or anything
Also they had all the same reasons post Napoleon and pre-WWI
Russia wanted a strong France to counter Austria and Germany.
Britain did not want to be involved with the continent and didn't want to have to counter Germany.
And France gave lands to Germany on the idea that they could be easily taken, ie Strong France to counter Germany.
The most mutual of understandings.
yeah the famous austrian republic against germany, the netherlands, italy and swisterland
It's just that said countries had interest that lasted till WW1, AKA counter a potential German threat among others things
@@gregoryaldous2165 There was no Germany.
Long story short: nobody wanted a french version of the Austrian painter
Damn this is actually very accurate a fully militaristic France in the 1850's would have really been bad for Europe
Absolute nonsense. It's because The Great Powers all secretly hated each other.
Well fun fact since no one took lanf britain didnt take land after winning the war of 1812 becaude otd be hard to convince europe to not take land if thry did
Sorry to inform you but the french version of the Austrian painter is skyzophrenic and wants to abolish France, Germany and Reality itself, in his timeline the Austrian painter is considered a moderate who rules Austria.
@@x-a- funny skin condition man
France loses 2 major european wars and doesn't get carved out.
Germany "is it possible to learn this power?"
@@epg96 Imagine spamming your comment across comments
Not from a Jedi...
Eating frogs and snails is a pathway to many abilities, some consider...unnatural.
100 speech
@@wetfuego6331 *germany turns to the dark side and kills all the youngling states around it
you know you've been a bad boy when entire coalitions of countries declared war on *you* and not your country
And they become the bad boys for inflicting the man’s personally acquired loyal armies, which belonged to the nation they did not declare a war on
Technically, it could have been a political move.
Since no one recognized Napoleon as the rightful ruler of France and still recognized the king, declaring war on France the nation would basically be like admitting that Napoleon was in charge. So by declaring war on him, they could still recognize the king's legitimacy and undermine Napoleon's while still mobilizing against him for war.
@@nbewarwe French people recognized him and it's all that matter
@@Mplkjo15 False. French people never matter
@@Mplkjo15 not how it worked ,as afterthe fact the decision and whatever u said would shape ever so sligly the opinion , meaning htat if the alliance recognise napoleon the debate could go in "yhea but he was our rightfull leader u said it yourself thus u attack the french people" where u much prefer the "yhea but we think he was rightfull"
1:20 is in my opinion the most interesting part in this video. The fact that Talleyrand wanted the Rhine area to become prussian instead of the polish areas, which were a part of prussia before the napoleonic wars, in some way created Germany in the long run. Prussia had now a huge incentive to connect its eastern and Western lands and made it a driving force in somehow uniting the northern German states either by unifying them diplomatically or annexing them. If the Rhine province had never become a part of Prussia there might not have been a German unification under Prussian hegemony. The Prussian kings were never huge fans of becoming German emperors anyway. They were content with beeing Prussian kings.
Totally agree. Plus, with Silesia as its only industrial province, Prussia would have stayed behind German states benefiting from the industrial revolution in Ruhr region.
Rhinelanders were often not keen. Rhenish troops in the Prussian army in the Waterloo campaign deserted in large numbers, and the Rhineland was often referred to as "Musspreussen" ("Has to be Prussia").
Well, You know these areas vere Polish, before they become prussian, right? Poland just kinda get it back for this period when it kinda exist (but as a puppet - first of Napoleon, then Russia)
@@Lyokoheros-KLPXTV yes, sure. These Polish areas were only prussian for 11 years at this point. So there was no long standing claim to them anyway.
it is just fascinating to consider that the Prussians had to be pressured into accepting German lands over Polish lands which doesn't make any sense if you go with a national approach. it shows us that still the idea of a unified nation state wasn't well established at all at this point which reminds us of the fact that our modern day national historiagraphies aren't really good to explain historic events.
They probably had the idea of "rightfully" obtained Polish provinces that are connected to the core areas are better than some areas that were merely occupied by the French for some time but are not directly connected. The reshuffeling of the borders that took place in congress of Vienna in which these polish areas were given to Russia was probably due to the fact that winning a war meant at that time spoiling the victorious. Russia gained these polish lands since this was one of the few options in which it actually could gain some territory that wasn't a Prussian core area and reestablishing Poland wasn't seen as an option at that point.
This also shows us how the lands these Monarchs ruled over were often seen as just pawns that can be used to trade with.
@@gengis737 The Ruhr boom would have never occurred without Prussian capital and authority as the rhine-ruhr area was previously occupied by a dozen or so minor states. They'd never be able to pull off that industrial boom.
"Britain just didn't wanna deal with the continent anymore" British foreign policy for about 70 years after that
Based
still is but after this we still got dragged into WW1 and WW2
Germany in 1871: hello!
Britain: you’re ruining my whole plan
Can you blame em?
@@graveperil2169 "Britain got dragged in"
This is mythology. Britain dived right into WW1 and 2. No one forced Britain into either war other than British choices and action. Most logically due to it's "balance of power/ divide and conquer" doctrine.
People think the German invasion of Belgium "forced" them into the war, yet, little known fact; the British cabinet actually voted in 1914 that the Treaty with Belgium did not compel them into a war with the invader. (they possibly voted this way because it could have been France that invaded first).
It’s kind of interesting that every power that bordered France(Savoy,Swiss,Netherlands,and Austria(who had large influence in Germany) all wanted to punish France hard and countries like Britain and Russia that had no border with France didn’t want to punish it.
I guess the issue was:
* for countries that bordered France, a strong France was a threat, so they would want to weaken it.
* for countries that bordered countries that bordered France, _those_ countries being strong would be a threat, so they would want France to stay strong.
Its important to note that the leaders of Russia were in love with French style, clothing, even intellectual world views. They later in early 1900s brought French reforms to Russia but that impowered the population and ended up in the complicated civil unrest. Russia had famines, wars, disease but it never ended up in a civil war until the population were given freedom.
@@drscopeify
Until the population had enough education to know how badly they were being exploited. Same pattern all around the world.
@@drscopeify what the f*ck is French reforms in Russia? Please stop spreading BS. Also what kind of freedom are you talking about? Video is about 1810-s when, true, French language was dominant among higher echelons of society. Though at the early nineteen-hundreds Russian identity was strong and dominant among people. Russian literature and culture was fully developed at this point and french cultural dominance was long gone at this point
@@DomWeasel If only they thought of getting a democracy, but no instead they wanted communism..
Ironically, the "Give Prussia the Rhinelands so we can take it for ourselves" plan backfired very hard because it was far more valuable than most Prussian land and was the first real major step to German unification. Which would come to bite France's ass when Prussia came knocking for Alsace-Lorraine.
well, in the VERY long run, it ended up helping France because they formed the EU with Germany.
Oh wait...
@@Klaevin I think today Talleyrand and Napoleon would Generally approve the modern European Union EXCEPT (ironically) for the corruption, waste, and inefficiency of its bureaucracy. The Ukraine War would, I think, not surprise Talleyrand in the least. Napoleon would be fascinated at the current Gaza conflict.
@@adrianjohnson7920 except that the EU is designed to bring all money to Germany and the Benelux.
the Benelux imports, Belgium prints the money, Luxemburg has the banks and Germany produces.
every other European country loses because of the EU.
France and other "lower end" manufacturers like Italy and Spain need to devalue their currency in order to export their goods and all the other countries in Eastern Europe are exploited for their cheap labor and prevented from developing further.
if both men were alive today, they would ask
"hey, how come Russia is invading small Russia? why is Small Russia even a thing? Why are the United states, who are on the other side of the globe, supporting small Russia so much?"
or
"how come the jews have their own country? weren't there arabs there before? remind me again why it was a bad idea to kill all those Vendéens, if we're supporting this new jewish state? Again, why are the United States supporting the Jews so heavily in this mass killing of arabic peoples?"
and finally :
"wait, how come the United states are so heavily invested in so many wars all around the globe? they don't even have colonies! oh wait, maybe.... wait, has all of Europe simply become colonized by the United States?"
On a similar note, another question I've wondered is why the UK didn't (re)gain Heligoland as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Presumably it wasn't considered viable to defend against a revanchist Germany.
It had lost it's strategic importance by the end of the war. However, it was taken as a war prize at the end of WW2, but as it had lost its strategic value, it was just used as a bombing rage. This understandably pissed off the people who lived on Heligoland before the war and the German government, causing negotiations for its return to Germany to begin, which it later did in 1952.
@@benlonghurst7777 Heligoland was also a giant fortress, they needed to destroy all of those munitions somehow
I get the need, but of course, bombing Heligoland to the ground was just not the right way to do it.
@@jevinliu4658 Yeah, causing the largest non-nuclear explosion in history to sink an island was definitely kinda a dick move to the Frisians who got told to piss off, so formal apologies to Germany and the Frisians I suppose
@@derserthefoxxo3873
What's hilarious is that it failed to achieve its objective of destroying the harbour facilities. Which is very British I suppose...
@@DomWeasel Yeah, we aren't exactly good at this "world power" thing, we can barely keep our own country together nowadays (Scottish Independence ftw)
Historia Civilis made an amazing 2 part video on the Congress of Vienna and goes into great detail about what every country wanted and how they decided on what Europe's borders would look like after Napoleon. That channel and this channel make the best history content imo
Every Historia Civilis upload honestly makes my day, his content is soooo good.
I had to confess, I missed the red square guy dearly.
@@mfaizsyahmi the orange square guy deserved it tho
Come for the square people, stay for the stories.
History Civillis? AKA My Favourite Squares
Fun fact: though Spain was strictly neutral during peace negotiations in Viena (mostly because their complete ruin provoked by the war itself and the weakness that had been dragging since the second half of the XVIII century), some defended positions more "active/beligerant". For instance, general Castaños, after the short occupation of the Roussillon during the summer of 1815, proposed the adquisition of the Fortresses of Mont-Louis(near Llívia and the gate of the catalan Pyrenean valleys) and Bellagarde (whose situation allow France to invade all the region of Girona, and was the main defense position of the Roussillon).
Specifically, Spain threw some "oficial reclamations" in Viena: the restoration of Ferdinand IV (uncle of the King of Spain) in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies; the restituion of the Papal States; the restoration of the House of Bourbon in the duchies of Parma, Piacenza y Guastalla, all for María Luisa de Parma, sister of the king of Spain, and the readquisition of the French Louisiana. All these reclamations were ignored during the congress, and treated bilaterally between France and Austria in the next years. In fact, Spain did not sign the final act of the Congress of Viena. It was not until 1817 that Spain accepted the treaty.
If what the wanted had happened, that would have been WILD.
Did Spain not know that France no longer owned Louisiana? And that if they wanted it back they’d have to take it up with James Madison. Also I’m marginally sure they barely had a Mexico at that time either so how tf did they think anyone would take them seriously on that demand
Yeah we're gonna conquer!!!!
1823
Our great empire might need some reinforcement
1936
Almost there
@@paranoidandroid6095 Franco and The Spanish Army: Are you sure about that?
Poor Spain. They never recovered from the War of the Spanish Succession.
Every European treaty negotiation that involves the Netherlands comes down to them trying to force themselves to a place on the Great Powers table and then being told to get lost.
Got to admire the determination.
"DAMN IT WE'RE IMPORTANT !!"
"This isnt the 17th century anymore, go play with the other minor powers"
Fully depends on the time period. Until the 1750s the Dutch were recieved as a major power
I'd not really blame them...
When ever the Netherlands have been attacked by either France (pre Napoleonic) or Germany (post 1815), they've always been overrun in a matter of days.
So no one takes a country like them serious!
Everyone hates us
@@Raadpensionaris Because they were super rich due to their wealthy colonies in the East Indies.
Speaking of the Congress of Vienna (where they maintained the notion of the monarchical government in Europe), could you create a future video on the reaction of the world powers on the Greek War of Independence? It sparked right after the Napoleon's defeat.
at first everyone including russia wanted to preserve the balance of power so they didn't help greece until later
“Let the Turks deal with it”
“Aw crap they’re winning against our Christian brothers, but We still want to preserve the balance so can’t really do anything about that.”
“Nevermind screw it let’s help Greece”
@@pocketmarcy6990 Also, also
France and Britain thinking:
"Greece, cradle of Western civilization"
"must revive Hellenism"
"fear of Russian expansion through the the Balkans and the Turkish Straits"
"Reaction on the fall of Missolonghi, the massacre of Christians, and the death of prominent philhellenes like Lord Byron"
"Must have a Britain-French protectorate over Greece, rather than being a Russian satellite state like the Danubian principalities and the Slavic nations (e.g. Serbia, Bulgaria)."
Kings and Generals channel has a wonderful new series of videos on exactly this topic
It would be great to see the old/new maps overlaid whenever there are territorial changes. Seeing them sequentially forces one to pause the video and jump back-and-forth in time a couple of times to notice the differences...
Yeah, just showing the changes in a third color or something would be best
Can you do "why did Portugal not colonize South Africa?"
or "why did Portugal not colonize North America?"
both are interesting
Edit: I know about the treaty of Tordesillas but they DID establish a failed colony in Canada, that’s why I asked
For South Africa they did GO to the cape of good hope but never made a colony there
Portugal did colonize South Africa but they were beaten at the game by the Dutch and Britain and North America was Spanish per the treaty of Tordesilhas
For the latter question, the Treaty of Tordesillasade decided the world in half between Portugal and newly united Spain. North America was on the Spainish side.
As for the latter, Portugal did colonize Southern Africa, but not South Africa. IIRC, they tried to, but couldn't hold onto it.
for north america i have one sentence,treaty of tordessailes
Portugal didn't have a large enough population to really populate their colonies. The best that most of their colonies other than Brazil were military outposts.
the split the world in two with spain getting the west and portugal the east
As a Swede, I find it hilarious to see Bernadotte happily wander off with Norway at 0:43
I didn't see it first time thank you it made me laugh.
Too bad swede lost Finland after this war
Good catch!
Thanks for explaining what that was! It's quite funny, to see a soon-to-be King of Sweden run off happily with an entire country in his hand!
amazing detail
Switzerland: Time to pay up France. You OWE me land!
Everyone: Shut up Meg
Switmegland
Is Napoleon the only guy to have a war declared on him personally or are there others?
One can say that Caesar personally declared war on his former triumviral partner Pompey and his senatorial allies
@@shinsenshogun900 that is a civil war
He is the only one
Before formation of states kings and chiefs probably declared war on each other instead of "country"
@@TempestLM thats because the lands they ruled was basically seen as the Kings land. The idea of centralizing it into a state came about after the 30 years war which lead to the idea of a nation state.
The quality gets better and better. Just wished you uploaded longer videos... or maybe a series on a specific topic.
He once made a video on the topic of longer videos as he did them once (10 min videos). The problem is the youtube algorithm. History channels can be targeted quite frequently esp regarding certain topics like Nazism, Communism and their crimes and such. He is not doing them anymore as it would be too much of a risk for that much work.
"The UK didn't want to have to deal with the continent anymore"
It might have happened more than once
The only time in recorded history where the British didn’t like France losing territory
Dame you know it's bad when Britain don't want to deal with the assholes of the mainland anymore
Britain getting ready to rule the waves that her European rivals entirely cannot
I guess they've learnt invading and trying to occupy French territory always lead to massive defeat. 100 year war.
@@shinsenshogun900 It already had for decades by this point hence why a much smaller fleet wiped out a combined french and spanish fleet twice it's size and it was not the first or last time this had happend because whilst buying into the officer class was still a thing in the royal navy you could actually go from seaman to admiral like William Mitchell when everyone else did not Normaly allow this yet giving the RN an advantage
By 1801, Great Britain had given up claims to the (now defunct) French throne and any territory there. Now what is interesting is all of the Franch colonies given back that Britain had gobbled up during the Napoleonic wars.
"Britain didn't want to deal with the continent anymore."
Some things just never change.
And they really surprised when Brexit are indeed popular.
lies, the british involved themselves purposely
Great video as always! I do want to suggest making the "they have this-they wanted this-they actually got this" maps clearer, though.
Perhaps a dotted line along the original borders and/or grayed out areas for the lands they didn't get?
Just a suggestion 🙂
"Savoy, despite not doing anything, was given this land at the behest of Austria-"
Savoy, Italy in the Third War of Independence and Italy in the Great War: *Spiderman pointing meme*
Savoy was litterally ruined and under france's military what do you expect from them ? Going to war with sticks?
And it's not true, there was a lot of insurrections.
Savoy was litterally ruined and under france's military what do you expect from them ? Going to war with sticks?
And it's not true, there was a lot of insurrections.
As someone who has been carved up, I can safely say France got off pretty good
Hungary?
Hold up did you just say you got carved up??
Kinky 😏
He’s a cake with internet
@@salaminedandco.588 Divorce is a hell of a thing.
At the peace conference of every war, there's always a Savoy-type. A nation who basically did nothing at all, but is still like "Guys, we did it!"
You. just. don't. know. the. history. of. my. department. 😠
@@romaingillet2526
La savoie c'est la France goofy
@@smal750j'ai écrit département pas Pays
A character holding a sign that says “you may exist” never gets old
I bet Napoleon was just James Bisonette pretending to be Napoleon
That's the stupidest thing I've heard today
@@chadesh-var Who knows he may be right
Hmmmmm
This broke my brain
Nah
Another thing you have to mention is that France was defeated but still thrice more populous than England or Prussia, which is a strong advantage in a period of infantry wars. Carving the country might have driven Europe to another war even if you put a king on the thrown again
That "lol" at 0:50 is your new peak of humor.
Three video ideas from a Patreon member:
1.) Why does Monaco exist?
2.) Why did the Gadsden Purchase happen?
3.) How did Thailand avoid being colonized?
3. Thailand = very interesting.
2. Southerners wanted the trans continental railway to pass through the south (rather than through Nebraska as actually happened), so they purchased the piece of land as it was flatter and less mountainous than the rest of the newly acquired Mexican territory, thinking it would allow them to more persuasively push for a southern route.
There's already vid about Thailand tho lol, it's not on this channel but somewhere else
I think Monaco has been founded by italians genova rich merchants who left italia on pirate ships, they decided to invade the rock of monaco and founded their city there, monaco has ever been a place defended by rich people because they can avoid to pay french taxes sur as Switzerland or Luxembourg, the reason of their existence is just they are fiscal paradise
Gadsden happened for a proposed train line. It didn't pan out as planned, so it remained.
Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord was born in 1754; his first name is often shortened to "Talleyrand". His nickname was "Le Diable Boiteux" (The Lame Devil in English) (because he had a problem with one of his feet and was essentially “A Devil” in diplomacy.). He is known to have betrayed all the French regimes and everyone, in general, several times. Talleyrand is, without a doubt the greatest traitor and the greatest manipulator in history. From 1789 to 1838, he served and betrayed all regimes: bishop, he first betrayed the church by bringing the Civil Constitution of the Clergy to the Assembly where he had been elected before fleeing France during the terror to find her only under the Directory as Minister of External Relations; in office, he maneuvers to bring down the regime and install Bonaparte in power. Then he dropped Napoleon during the Hundred Days and favored the return of Louis XVIII; in the end, he worked for the fall of Charles X in favor of the July Monarchy. In the intriguing genre that has betrayed everyone, we don't do better. But Talleyrand justified himself for these betrayals: “I have never abandoned a regime before it had abandoned itself. In his eyes, he was trying to serve France.
Talleyrand is, without a doubt, my favorite historical figure; in addition to having beautiful quotes and a macabre sense of honor, he has a dark and tenuous reflection that accentuates his personality. Countries feared him because he had a very tenuous sense of diplomacy, and he was an unparalleled manipulator. For example, in 1808, he betrayed Napoleon during the Iberian War by carrying out a coup d'etat. Napoleon, on returning to France, did not kill him but only scolded him. Because no one could have a hand on Talleyrand. Once, Napoleon I, was defeated once and for all at Waterloo, France was not invited to the Congress of Vienna even though it was the main party concerned. Well, Talleyrand invites himself there anyway and manages to save France diplomatically by manipulating and using his rhetorical skills, his contacts, etc.
And the most interesting thing about Talleyrand is in the painting of the coronation of Josephine the Empress of France; everyone is frozen, emotionless, moved, or happy. Talleyrand, in the painting, watches the scene with irony and contempt, implying that he was behind it all. Once, he was leaning on the shoulder of Fouché (A complex character who has fascinated many authors, Fouché is particularly known for his involvement in the violent repression of the Lyon insurrection in 1793 and for having been Minister of Police under the Directory, the Consulate, the Empire and the Second Restoration.) and on seeing them Chateaubriand said: "Suddenly a door opens: vice silently enters leaning on the arm of crime, Monsieur de Talleyrand supported by Monsieur Fouche."
He is decorated with enormous titles in different countries, such as:
Legions of Honor:
Legionnaire (9 Vendémiaire Year XII (October 2, 1803), as Minister of External Relations), then,
Grand Officer (22 Messidor Year XIII July 11, 1804, as Grand Chamberlain), then,
Grand Eagle of the Legion of Honor (12 Pluviôse Year XIII (February 1, 1805), in the same capacity) - Grand Collar of the Legion of Honor as a grand dignitary of the Empire,
Title in other country:
Order of the Black Eagle (Kingdom of Prussia): 1805,
Grand Cross of the Order of the Red Eagle (Kingdom of Prussia): 1806,
Order of St. Andrew (Russian Empire): 1807,
Knight of the Order of the Spanish Golden Fleece: 1814,
Knight of the Order of the Elephant (Kingdom of Denmark): 1815,
Knight of the Order of the Holy Spirit
Knight of the Order of Louis of Hesse,
Knight of the Order of the Golden Eagle of Württemberg (Kingdom of Württemberg).
Knight of the Order of Saint Anne of Russia,
Commander of the Order of Charles III of Spain
Grand Commander of the Order of the Crown of Saxony,
Grand Commander of the Order of the Crown of Westphalia,
Grand Cross of the Imperial Order of Leopold (Austria),
Grand Cross of the Order of the Savior (Greece),
Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Joseph (Grand Duchy of Tuscany),
Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Stephen of Hungary,
Grand Cross of the Order of Saint-Hubert (Bavaria),
Grand Cross of the Order of Our Lady of Conception of Vila Viçosa (Portugal),
Grand Order of the Order of the Lion and the Sun (Persia),
Order of Medjidie (Ottoman Empire), etc.
And what I find incredible with Talleyrand, despite the fact that I am a Catholic, I must recognize him, is that he died reconciled with the Church and God.
As mentioned above, he was the bishop of Autun; during this period, he manipulated Louis XVI into giving him money, etc. He chose this path because he could not be a soldier because of his foot problem. However, he didn't necessarily like being a bishop and didn't care. The proof is that he got married when he was exiled from the revolution when terror reigned because it was discovered that he had manipulated the revolutionaries and the king, therefore the monarchists (When I said that he betrayed everything, it was not an hyperbole). At the end of his life, on his 84th birthday, a few days before his death on May 17, 1838, he was reconciled with the church for the various sins he had committed, and he died with a good conscience. Until the end, he will have tricked, manipulated, conned, and won what he wanted.
Here are some of these quotes to illustrate the character:
Men are like statues, you have to see them in place.
The best way to overthrow a government is to be part of it.
The speech was given to man to disguise his thought.
The malcontents are poor people who reflect.
There is one thing more terrible than slander, it is the truth.
Politics is only a certain way of agitating the people before using it.
In politics, what is believed becomes more important than what is true.
Where there is a treaty, there is a penknife.
You can violate the laws, without them shouting.
Chance is perhaps the pseudonym of God when he does not want to sign.
Well, I think I summed up the character pretty quickly, but you can get an idea of who this man is.
@@mathisr5392 bah écoute faut bien s’exprimer sur des personnages historiques des fois.
"In politics, what is believed is mire important than the truth". Describes the MAGA movement to a T, sadly
"In his eyes, he was trying to serve France." - and an argument can be made that he did this, even if it meant turning on the government in power at the time. Certainly he was vital for France's interests at Vienna.
@Carlton-B The charisma of Talleyrand, rather than Lenin and Mao, is that unlike them he was at heart a civilised man who liked to do the right thing; but as a pragmatist, only so long as it didn't cost him anything. That said, he was NOT a coward; his intrigues against Napoleon ran the close risk of being shot or hanged; and he knew this, and did it anyway. He was a cold-blooded and brilliant politician, financial expert, and systems analysist; he did his homework, had his own intelligence network; though pragmatic and prudent, he knew when to take a calculated risk, and it usually paid off. However he cultivated the image of a languid, lazy, "lucky" aristocrat. Though very much a "grand seigneur" he ran his foreign ministry and made his friends on strictly meritocratic lines, and respected and rewarded his staff for good work. They in turn were fiercely loyal to him; as were his domestic servants and staff, who adored him. He was strict but fair, and had a preference to keep and take care of valued people by him for life. (He also quietly took care of, or secretly aided the careers of his natural children, of which he may have had as many as 20.) He was not exactly your typical womaniser; as a charming and attractive man, he enjoyed the company of women, and respected their minds; was probably more seduced than seducing; and kept most of his old mistresses as cherished and lifelong friends. Until he was 62, Talleyrand preferred "ancient-regime" women his own age. He was taken by surprise by the love of his life, his brilliant young niece-by-unhappy-marriage (39 years younger than he) when they became an unexpectedly politically brilliant "power couple" at the Congress of Vienna. They adored each other's minds, and remained tenderly devoted to each other until his death, aged 84. Though they did have an "open relationship": Dorothea was a passionate woman, Talleyrand ageing and growing frail; after the birth of their beloved daughter Pauline in 1820, they seem to have become platonic lovers.)
Great video as always
My brother in Chris you didn’t even watch it
When Napoleon returned, he did offer absolute & unconditional peace terms in exchange for retention of his throne. How serious he was will forever remain a mystery because the Allies refused & initiated another war on him.
It was because everyone likes the hexagon shape, it really ties the map together.
Talleyrand was the epitome of always "playing both sides so I always come out on top." In hindsight it is kind of insane that France got a representative at the Congress in the first place. It's like if Germany had a representative at Potsdam.
This decision saved France and european peace ( even if we created 2 Wars ) and what Is even more incredible Is that 20 years after vienna's treaty France was the 2nd strongest nation in the World and austria ( who defended France ) Lost all of her empire sometimes destiny strikes hard
🇨🇵💪
Britain first I take it?
I friggin LOVE how detailed his maps are. Like, you can almost see your own village if it was once along a border in Europe.
France: “Please don’t carve me up.”
Also France: “Let’s carve up Germany.”
Germany: “Please don’t carve me up.”
Also Germany: “Let’s carve up Russia and Eastern Europe.”
Because those two countries hate each other
@@AlexC-ou4ju and France if they could have
@@AlexC-ou4ju Found the r*ssian.
Germany absolutely annihilated Northern French lands. There's your answer.
Because Talleyrand was a damn good negotiator.
2:57
They dignify you sire by making you a nation.
I'm surprised that Savoy didn't get Corisca. Seems like it would help make it a better buffer state.
I think they allowed France to keep Corsica because France had gained that territory via purchase instead of outright conquest. Their purchase of Corsica also happened way before the Napoleonic Wars (hence why Napoleon was born in France and not Genoa).
What's funny is that Piedmont-Sardinia, the kingdom that ruled over Savoy, eventually allied with the French (under Napoleon III no less) instead of being a buffer state and snatched most of Austria's Italian lands in the War of Italian Unification. Talk about a measure COMPLETELY backfiring.
@@thunderbird1921 and then france snatched a lot of sardinia's lands before turning their back on them
@@wordart_guian They didn't really snatch them though, there was a referendum held on whether to let Savoy and Nice be handed over, and both governments agreed on it. Austria's Italian lands were mostly taken by force in 1859.
@@thunderbird1921 it was a yes or yes referendum (like crimea)
the savoy government was ok (though niçard garibaldi obvs wasn't), but the people weren't really asked
Virgin Austria-Hungary after 4 years of war: is broken up into different countries and forgotten by everyone else
Chad France after 25 years of war: gains territory and has its former enemies prop it up as a great power again
Chad Austria after losing four wars to France: gains venice for belgium and regains the rest of its territory
Napoleonic wars: followed by a century of essentially peace in Europe.
The Great War: sequel after 20 years.
All the success resides in onion
@@tz8785 For a very loose definition of "peace." There wasn't a continent wide war for a while but you can't throw a stone in the 19th century without hitting a regional war with lasting consequences.
More like France learning their lesson not to fight Britain and get them onside in future wars.
Your videos about history are succint, hilarious, and correct! Well done, sir!
I could have saved an entire college semester of study by having access to this material, if only this had existed in 1980!
1:35 THAT’S GENIUS!!!
This channel is very good. Explain interesting facts in a short way. Others channels talks about interesting facts but with videos greater than 10 minutes. Sometimes we just want a short answer without so many details. Thanks!
What was imperial Japan's reaction to the fall of Nazi Germany?
Too busy to react and then they became too non existent to react.
I imagine, little to nothing.
The people probably didn't hear about it, or didn't understand the severity of this, as censorship would deny them this information.
The gov't however, was divided. The civilian government (the pigeons) would probably be concerned by their allies defeat, but then again... that part of the government had lost all hope and was just wanting for this to end, but they couldn't because...
the real power was on the military, the hawks, who were so absurdly brainwashed by their imperial religion thingy of god-emperor, that they were unfazed by any issues. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki got bombed, the hawks simply shrugged it of with a "meh, we loose more civilians on the incendiary bombings, so this is fine)". They couldn't care less.
The actual amswer: they offered to surrender, but the Allies after the Potsdam Conference refused anything other than an unconditional surrender.
They tried to negotiate a surrender through the Soviet Union, but once the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, they knew that any hope of a negotiated surrender would be impossible and surrendered unconditionally.
@@mathewfinch officially at least
No one could hear them over the bombing.
France "Is this a trick, why are you letting me go?"
UK "Good enemies are hard to find."
These videos are so short yet so informative it’s stunning
Small mistake at 2:40 Russia has European U.S.S.R borders ( notably Konigsborg and Ruthenia)
Russia didn’t get Kaliningrad until 1945. I don’t get it?
@@guillaumegiroux9425 that’s what I’m saying. That map is not the right time frame for Russia
That map also is wrong because it also contains Finland. When the ussr gained kaliningrad, it had already lost Finland and had lost a war trying to conquer Finland. Meaning at no point did either russia or the ussr ever have both at the same time.
@@guillaumegiroux9425ok but after ww2 It was still the Soviet Union
This is a post-war-USSR+Finland Russia
So interesting, such interesting geopolitics history. Nicely said and done video! Keep it up
Well, French diplomacy has always been quite good, so that’s also to be taken into consideration
"Hey guys, see what happened when you tried to invade us in the 1790's? Can we chill now?"
@@charakiga 😁
Except under Louis XIV. The Sun King made his army's job much harder than it needed to be by alienating all his allies.
When Napoleon was defeated for the first time, I would've given him Corsica to rule over and kind of encourage some type of rebellion to keep Napy busy consolidating his island kingdom to keep him out of mischief.
Dude, Napoleon was hated in Corsica (and still is).
@@gontrandjojo9747 wdym he is great for bringing tourist today and the only ppl who hated him at the time was the paoliist witch was the opposing party ofc they'd hate him lmao , most ppl didn't cared at the time and still don't care bout it either
He came out of Elba with like a thousand men and retook France in ten days. If he had had Corsica he would have returned with ten thousand men and invaded England.
Any thoughts about doing long form videos again? Ten minutes of your historical humor is great!
They didn't deserve to carve a nation that 1v7 them and beat them multiple times.
Talleyrand about Napoléon : "Quel dommage qu'un si grand homme soit si mal élevé"
Napoléon about Talleyrand : "monsieur, vous n êtes que de la merde dans un bas de sois" 😎
One thing to consider was that the border between France and Savoy/Italy and the border between France and Spain are very good borders to maintain in terms of geography and language. This is very good for the maintenance of territorial integrity and minimises future territorial disputes.
This is obviously not the case for the Rhine area though.
2:45 So the same reason that they opted for "Brexit" several decades later.
The funny thing is that the great majority of these wars were not declared by Napoleon/France but the rest of European Monarchies
Keep up the great stuff
"And Britain just didn't want to have to deal with the continent anymore" ROFLLL some things never change hahaha love it
Talleyrand may have been the best politician in history. He served under Kings, Republics, and Empires, and yet was always in power himself. One has to respect that.
Ah, being a fan of Historia Civilis, I know the answer is 30% Talleyrand being a madlad, 60% the coalition not trusting each other, and 10% the tsar being a cockup
Basically: "Do not give them ANY reasons to start another revolution"
Well that held 15 years :D
But French weren't the one to declare war anyway, monarchies were.
I am a simple man...I see the new episode by history matters, I click
Nice vid!
People who call Talleyrand a traitor need to realize that he did a lot of good for France as well. Napoleon would have been defeated anyways but by cooperating with the coalition he began the process of building up allied trust towards a France without Napoleon
Napoleon was the real traitor. Napoleon was a usurper and abuser of power who dragged France into total defeat, despite France's powerful military.
Let's just take a moment to take in the fact that a coalition of all of Europe's great powers decided to declare war on one person.
I always upvote your videos before even watching them. Love your channel!
“Declared war on Napoleon and not France” not sure why I found this so funny, I just imagine a whole army vs one man
3:14 omg wow! Nobody caught that at the end- unlike other major wars, territorial losses were off the table, and they were throwing shade and WW1 and WW2. Brilliant foreshadowing commentary.
This is a nice bookend to the oversimplified videos on the Napoleonic Wars
When you cant weaken your enemy, cause you might need them against your ally
Talleyrand was the epitome of 5D chess, the guy would make the most veteran politicians of todays look like toddlers
I love your channel
Nice video.
Another reason is that French citizens were dreaded as potential revolutionaries. Invaders were not quite comfortable with the idea that if they stayed too long, they could have a general revolt like French 1793 or Spain 1808. Also, to crush France twice required the coalition of the whole of Europe and armies of hundreds of thousands of men, not something you do every decade. So having a stable French government was all-important.
I am not sure of the balance of power during Vienna's negotiation. It was more England and Austria against the rogue Prussia supported by Russia. In 1815 Napoleon could even publish a secret agreement of England, Austria and French monarchy to build a military alliance against Russia's and Prussia's claims on Poland.
Then Prussia accepted Talleyrand's proposal to give up most of Poland for Rhineland. And Austria accepted to leave Belgium to Netherland, and territories in Germany to Bavaria against a free hand on Italy, separated from France by Piedmont.
So Talleyrand satisfied nearly everyone, except that Rhineland gave to remote Prussia the basis for it's future industrial and financial power in the West, a clear claim to unify and lead Germany, and a foot at the entrance of France.
*VIDEO SUGGESTION:*
How did the other European powers react to the proclamation of The Second French Empire with Napoleon III? Didn't it raise any red flags considering... past events? Was there ever even a possibility of there being an Eighth Coalition War?
they said aw freak not again
The British were annoyed and scared 1st. But they were a huge diplomatie by the French to prove that they were on the British side.
Trade relations between the country
Meeting between Queen Victoria and Napoleon,III. Crimean war and Suez canal.
Napoleon III made the smart move of going to the Crimean War with Britain despite having nothing to gain from this war (except British friendship).
Then when Napoleon declared war on Austria a few years later, the British didn't intervene.
Crimean war pretty much killed those possibility. At worst Napoleon could met German federation with Prussia and Austria together who would be provoked by French claims on west bank of Rhine.
It was almost 40 years later and Napoléon III was a completely different person than his uncle.
TH-cam, you know I love History Matters yet you’re not showing these in my recommended videos!
Missed the perfect chance @1:03 to say "Daddy chill"
I think there was also a silent reason not mentioned but understood by the different powers.
France nationalistic identity. Unlike all the other newly formed nations that were starting to define their borders, identity, language, and reason to be united under one single banner. France already had a strong national identity which meant that taking any piece of France would be met with a lot of public dissaproval from the local French in the area and could lead to unrest, sabotage and more conflict.
Even the powers that seemed big and united would eventually split into different national identities after a crisis.
'French nationalistic identity' has always been a little less strong than many think. Away from Paris, there have always been areas with strong local identities, not always loyal to whatever sort of government was in Paris. Local dialects and cultures have survived, and some areas are more likely than others to think about issues such as restoration of the monarchy.
@@harryfaber Sure, Brittany comes to mind not only for their late union to the French crown but also for their unique identity, language and breton culture that can be tracked to pre-Roman times.
However if we compare that French identity to the one in the United Kingdoms where Scotts, welsh and Irish are in constant conflict with the English centralized power then the French seem more united than the united kingdoms (Specially with the Irish declaring independance)
@@harryfaber That's false.
They've always been nationalistic, their national sentiment began in the middle ages.
But not in the form of the revolution, they called themselves French even when they didn't spoke the language of Paris and only talked breton for example. It changed with the revolution, identity appartenance was changed.
Something about the way you said “nobody would benefit from an expanded Switzerland” made me burst out laughing
I love how, once again, Britain's main reason for doing anything was that it just didn't want anything to do with mainland Europe.
Not that we've changed much in that regard...
And as always, as soon as britain declares that it is fed up with the continent, it immediately gets engaded in happenings in the continent hahaha
@@AlfaGiuliaQV or does its own thing until a rival threatens them. Ie France and Germany.
@@toledochristianmatthew9919 It's amazing how much of European history can be simulated by a game of wack-a-mole with each 'mole' having the flag of a different European power and a hammer called 'English/British foreign policy'.
@@Neion8 having a powerful navy and professional fighting force can do that. Though to be honest Britain itself had been beaten, humiliated, and conquered by other foreign powers like the Danes, Normans, etc.
@@toledochristianmatthew9919 True, but it was those very conquests that made old-school Englishmen decide to head off threats before they arise rather than wait for the enemy to land on our shores and burn our towns. Had the Anglo-Saxons been left to it, Britiain likely would've remained little different to most other European minor powers.
Video Idea: "Why wasn't the Kievan 'Rus restored after the Mongol Invasion?" I like your vids! :)
It was, in 2014*
*outcome of major war pending
Because Southern Rus including Kiev was conquered by Lithuania and secondly Kievan rus was not a single state, but like 50 Duchies...
"because that's a stupid idea" is a fair answer I think
Actually Talleryand managed to sign a military alliance with Great Britain and Austria against Russia and Prussia. But Napoléon’s come back ruined everything. Talleyrand was a great diplomat
he was a traitor who did more to hamper and bring down Napoleon from the inside than anyone except, perhaps, Fouche.
@@Emperor1G oui mais c’est quand même un grand diplomate malgré sa moralité
@@Emperor1G Are you sure Napoleon was not bringing down France? Napoleon was awful for France. Napoleon betrayed the revolution and usurped total power for his own self-interest by establishing a military dictatorship with an emphasis on warmongering. Napoleon abused conscription so that he could wage war and remain in power, not for the benefit of the French youth. In the process Napoleon left France militarily occupied, defeated, its once powerful military in shambles, a generation worth of men wiped out, France losing territory, forced to reinstate the hated monarchy at the desire of the rest of Europe. A total failure due to Napoleon's gross incompetence, recklessness wastefulness and delusion that weakened the once mighty French military until it was in shambles.
Талейран настоящая крыса. Он действовал за спиной Наполеона ещё с 1809. Это он внушил Александру мысль о том, что Наполеон зло.
@@ИнИс-щ8д Right, because power-hungry delusional goons never seize total power in Europe and wage war. That never happens or ever will. A derange lunatic has never hijacked a powerful military from a lost and confused European nation and waged war on the continent.
Thugs never seize power in Europe, they are in jail, not heads-of-state. Europe is so prestigious, so triumphant. Not in 1800, not in 1939, and certainly not today has any goon ever seized a powerful military from a lost and confused European country and menace Europe with total war. Because the wars in Europe produce nothing but "glory" and "triumph", not disgraceful disastrous tragedies.
surprised france wasnt in the "punish france camp" just to be on the opposite side to britain
Great as always. Would love to see one on the Schäffer Affair
0:08 what’s that non-French part of modern day France in the Southeast?
That is Comtat Venaissin, it was created during the Middle Ages and it was an exclave of the Papal States, it was incorporated into France during the Revolution in 1791
@@cozyvoyage5142 thanks!
As an Englishman, I ask myself this question daily...
I'm asking myself why you are not able to cook anything good (I would like to have a better thing to say but that's all I got).
As a Frenchman, I wonder why a nation that doesn't care about the continent constantly try to sabotage a nation that cares about the continent.
Because, even if they will never admit it, the English have always been the number one fans of France. That's why their national motto is in French and also why the flag of England is the old French crusader flag or the reason why they used a French song for their national anthem. And let's not even talk about the English language which is just a bad plagiarism of the French one.
To France England is like that old ex who can't stop talking shit about you while still being mad in love.
@@solwen I feel we're more like two really good friends making fun of each other.
@@solwen it wasn’t the old french crusader flag it was the norman one because it had the norman lion, but ye true in a way
Britian and France really did have a Batman-Joker relationship: they hate each other but cant live without them
As Historia Civilis said, France might have been cowed but it was still a great power and one of the largest nations of Europe- it wouldn't have been a good idea to try and force massive concessions.
Another major war would've broken out. That's what happened with Germany
0:03 head on a pike on the left?
Turkish officer
Yes