Quick announcement! Now you can follow me behind-the-scenes and direct message me if you want: Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT Hope to see you there!
A main reason was also because for a long time the majority of europe were of catholic rule when king henry the 8th largely for selfish reasons as he wanted a son not a daughter to be air to the thrown and the pope of the the time and catholism at a whole did not agree to his behaviour.. But it in the long run became about the nations elites i.e its royal elites were essentually free to rule and dominate they're own nations people instead of been subservient to catholic rules which essentially meant that many of the popes of those different times were essentially emperors in they're own rights it ment that other european empires and emperors were essentually vessle kingdoms and empires that could by in large have full reign but if a pope commanded and that kingdom or empire was catholic to ignore that or those requests was essentually ignoring the word of god. Its a simplistic way of putting it but essentually thats the way much what we now call europe was... By england turning catholic to protestant it put england into cross hairs where for example the pope of the time thought the spanish Amanda the largest ever and most successful naval fleet in history before then was expected to essentually by its emperor and the pope to invade england to only then for the first time be defeated by a far less organised and less equipped nation that was largely built by a mixture of naval ships aswell pirates and pirateers joined in forces to defeat what was seen as the most powerful and successful naval fleet in history of those times...the Scottish and Irish aswell as the Walsh as being of catholic assent largely did not take kindly to a bordering neighbour who they often saw as infidels with the irish and scots and to a lesser extent often having and helping in many attempted coups and invasions till eventually england invaded them all it was also very brutal and from just being england it became britain. And just because in beticular the irish and scots often in the past sided with other nations such as the french neither did the european powers really respect England's cousins aka the welsh scots and the irish that it essential became a game of who had the biggest empire could not be invaded or be trifled with in which after many failed invasions after the vikings no one really succeed and britain grew the biggest empire which ment we became the most feared and the most dominant empire around. If we never grew an empire we likely would of eventually been invaded... It was harsh times
And yeap dam right slavery was just a normal part of life back throughout most of history its evil as fuck but no matter what nation you look at all nations had a part in slavery... As for us brits we probably had alot enslaved up till like 1066.. but for a large part just being lower or working class ment you was for a huge length in time were essentually treated as a slave. For me i'm english i'm very english and i'm very proud to call myself english but for its time i would probably also say the roman empire as the longest lasting and by far for great lengths in history was probably the most successful empire in recored history for its time with the british empire being far more powerful for its time at its hights but the roman empire by far not the biggest in history but it was probably the most successful. And as evil the romans were and they were fucked up and evil they were probably also alot more civilised than anyone else around and for centuries after they atkeast had shit where a slave could gain freedom such as being gladiators yeah as a gladiator you was most likely to die than ever win freedom but there was atleast a system.. Any and all empires are essentually evil its one nations enflicting its rule of law and its dominance over others. And like all empires the british empire did some evil shit i would argue the worst in general effected was probably the lower british classes but interms of the most evil to others in different nationsnow it wasnt ment to be as intentional as the nazis were but it was of evil intent still and that is its got to be the invention of the concentration camp in south africa from which the nazis got they're ideas. But at the same time where the british took over and dominated the slave trade its also probably the main reason and causes that slavery is now hugely frowned upon as it was not the first to trade in slaves by any means but it was the first ever to ban the legal practice of slavery and at a cost to its own economic status not only that it went to war and threatened other nations with the threat of war if they didnt comply then other european nations and empires followed suit and also did the same. The british empire for example blockaded the ottoman empire's ports when they refused to comply till they eventually had no choice we even eventually went to war with that east indian company which we started but when it refused we sank a load of they're ships... Theres a lot of bad shit the british empire did it was the biggest in recored history every nation and every empire has done bad shit so of course theres shit to be ashamed of but everyone should be proud of they're nations history and how ever bad and evil shit the british empire did there also alot to be proud of...
We never really set out to rule the world imo, it was just one long pub crawl that ended up eclipsing the roman empire. We are currently experiencing the longest hangover ever.
The British Empire surpassed the Roman Empire in the aftermath of the Seven Years War and the Treaty of Paris 1763. By 1925 it had reached it's zenith. Though yes the latter half of the 20th century was 3 parts hangover 2 parts sober.
@@ThePalaeontologist hello. Nice to see this spelled correctly 😂 not a grammar nazi etc just appreciate it because I never see it. I love dinosaurs and bird's soooo much. No expert OK but my thoughts. I think other people in history set up the rules of the game by constantly attacking us like vikings etc people pushed us into the ocean's and the ocean's pushed us back into the people, we won. We shall not be slave's. That's why I think we care about Americans so much because they weren't ever meant to be harmed or "go their own way" say your peice but stay home 🇬🇧 and don't run away, my life isn't perfect either here but I'm staying no matter how many King's have to lose a head threatening us. 🇬🇧 In my opinion and it is just my opinion but I think we tried to create America and the empire not just because European countries would kill us like Germany tried later if we didn't jump in the game and win but I think the reason was to escape the dark ages and old world, 927 ad then magna carta etc to 1776 ad, all of this is a gradual evolution of people from possibly the angeln peninsula in Germany etc to the new world modern day america and it didn't exactly go perfectly as there's a hell of an American victim complex over British people which can be super dangerous like Hitler hating Jews but it worked didn't it? 😂 Isn't she lovely, free, fairly safe and learning, for this reason alone it looks like we can die in peace now or hopefully have some peace after a thousand years because our job is done here but I fear soon we are going to need each other so I'll be waiting. 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 I mean look at brexit? I get confused when Americans call me European even though I am, I forget I'm a mix of blood and people still just keep bringing us more variations in genetics never learning anything about this not working to try take over the British Isles 😂 because I'm a native English man you could say that we feel we are in the middle of the ocean and not right next to France etc but I also think that explains a lot. France, Spain, Germany etc tried to take over the world to create it in their image and we as in England wanted to create the new world which is why it is very important to be thankful but not us like we are thankful but not really having a European old world way of thinking etc we just think completely differently. We are not just an island in Europe we were absolutely essential in the creation of the America we know today by being completely different to European people. They started it but we obviously had better idea's. 😂 Ark survival evolved teaches you very fast 😂
@@chadfreestyle4371 Hey, just seeing this. Well, I think that I agree. I've made the same argument myself. The fact of the matter is that the British Isles were always in someone's sights and if it wasn't one continental power in the colonial period for instance, it was usually the one neighbouring it (or both) France and Spain have tried to conquer Britain several times, alone or together, and that is before we get to the Germans lol the reality of the situation is that the English were basically arising as a people constantly under some duress from the continent. France, and not England, was the 'home' of European feudalism in that, basically, as far as the Church of Rome was concerned, for most of the Medieval Period, Early, High and Late, France was essentially the best in show. It was reliably adherent to the feudalistic system to the point that French nobility took it extremely seriously and would ride down fleeing mercenaries or their own peasants in a battle, if they deemed them cowards. This, I believe, happened to the Genoese Crossbowmen during the Battle of Crecy though I maybe mixing that up with another battle (pretty sure it was Crecy; definitely in the Hundred Years War) The English and Welsh Longbowmen simply outclassed the elite Genoese Crossbowmen, and they were shooting uphill into a head wind if I remember this correctly from reading. Again, could be confusing that with something else. But in any case, they lost, and ran away, mauled by volley after volley of arrows slaughtering them. The French Knights simply ran over the fleeing survivors crushing many to death and giving zero fucks because they hated failure. They sincerely believed they were totally superior and had a God given right to run down anything in their way. Comparatively, even England under the Tudors was more of a European backwater/middling power. Spain under the Hapsburgs was generally the most powerful/becoming the most powerful in this time, and in spite of a heavily inbred King basically defeated France while England was also fighting in Scotland (Scotland, in this time, allied to France) So, France was definitely still very powerful but for a while England still held onto Calais until about 1558 I think, something in that time (sorry my memory on this is hit and miss) Essentially speaking, the British civilisation grew in a very curious way compared to many on the continent. While the French and Spanish could rely on bat caves for Guano (bat poo) for a rich source of phosphates for their gunpowder, the English well, didn't have a lot of that going on in our climes; so turned to gathering this as a tithe from farmers all over the land (on the heavily soiled ground) Henry VIII did everything he could to fortify England against France especially. His coastal forts, beacons, artillery bastions and vanity projects in the English Navy Royale, as the Royal Navy was once known, kept England strong in a time when Spain and France were arguably, a bit stronger still (especially Hapsburg Spain) Henry VIII left England strong enough to contend with France though the situation with Spain was going downhill while they just grew ever stronger due to their exploitation of the New World. To this day, Spanish nationalists call the British 'PIRATES' with typical vitriol (and Argentinian ones, ironically - ironic because they rebelled _against_ Spain anyway) and yet the reality is that the Spanish were basically massacring native Mesoamericans, South Americans, North Americans and anyone they found in the North American Caribbean. Just look at what they did on Hispaniola for instance. Spain and England were on a collision course. England wasn't so much a pirate as we were Robin Hood lol we were poorer than Spain, and then after Spanish war crimes and atrocities against the English in peace time (such as hanging English sailors by their thumbs till they were bleeding from them, in acts of cruelty as they executed perceived interlopers on their colonial trade) England was like screw you Spain and the fight was on. People like Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Francis Drake ('El Draco', the Dragon, to the Spanish) were considered arch pirates by the Spanish...even though they literally had the temerity and arrogance to think they could draw a line down the middle of a globe and say Spain owned one half of the New World and overseas colonies, and Portugal owned the other, backed by the Papacy in Rome. The Treaty of Tordesillas. 1588 vindicated the English, when the expensive Spanish Armada was savaged - as much by the weather, as the English. The English Armada failed, though in the long run, this is not that important as sometimes exaggerated; the obvious paradigm shift was 1588 not the following year. [1/2]
As well as fighting the colonials,we were also fighting the French,Spanish and Dutch,also certain Indian tribes,the final battle with the colonists they relied heavily on help from the French.
Actually the vast majority of troops sent from Britain were German mercenaries as it was unseemly for British to fight British, and don't forget the English King at that time was actually to all intents and purposes German
It amazes me that Americans believe that they were Americans before the war of independence. They were British citizens most of them still had British accents at the time of the war. No taxation without representation was the mantra, not Brits out as in some of the other countries that we frequented.
They were hardly taxed at all in the 13 colonies. The Boston tea party (which was a non-event in the grand scheme of things) occurred because English smugglers were losing money because the British REDUCED import tarrifs. Look it up.
@@Dave.Thatcher1 Actually i think it was the loyalists migrating north that formed Canada. If there were no loyalists there would be no Canada. In fact all of North America could have would up one gigantic country
Extra bonus: No taxation without representation was entirely recruitment propaganda. Prior to the outbreak of conflict, the position (and the reason they were getting Nowhere negotiating with Parliament) was 'no taxation. at all. Ever.' The first time representation is even Mentioned is after plotting the revolt had already begun, when one member of the colonists' delegation to parliament noted in his journal that they were never going to get parliament to agree to their 'no taxation' position while they didn't have any representatives IN parliament. Given WHY parliament was imposing taxes on the colonies to begin with, acquiring representation would have been Simple... all the colonists would have had to do was agree to pay the same taxes the people in Britain did. (note that, at the time, taxes on people and trade in Britain were paying for the entirety of the administration and defence of the colonies. This is why, upon attaining independence, American taxes went WAY up. They weren't being subsidized by British taxpayers any more.)
To add to that. The amount of money borrowed to do that was so huge. It took untill 2015 to repay the loans. So everyone paying tax in the UK up to 2015 was contributing to the freeing of slaves.
We weren’t the first country to ban slavery. When slavery was finally stopped most slave owners were paid compensation. This happened so the act would go through. Slavery had insidiously made many slave owners by proxy (uncle Philip dies all his assets get given to his kin some of which is shares in a sugar plantation . Like have shares in a mining company and not knowing its into fracking.) As a democracy abolishinist had educated with travelling show and meetings . This lead to a massive influx of cash to the uk economy at the expense of national debt. So lots of building projects in England and new business as many had money to invest.
12:44 "What does the French have to do with this?" - Literally everything. Britain's expansion was a race, this video seems to completely ignore the other colonial powers of France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. If we didn't take it, they would and eventually we would've lost our influence. Also as for why the thirteen colonies fought such a short war against the British compared to India, finances. The Thirteen Colonies made so little money for the crown (Jamaica alone made more) that it wasn't worth the fighting at a time when France was plotting to invade at home. India however was a goldmine for trade and worth the effort to maintain control.
I agree. Also for a long time differenr areas of the country preferred the foreigner to other Indian tribes. Same happened in Britain when the Romans turned up. In America without French intervention I think it would have been difficult for the patriots to keep fighting year after year especially as all really wanted a peaceful life earning money. Britain would have probably tired as well and a peace treaty would have neen sorted
Absolutely. The American war of independence (which lasted 7 years and involved France and Russia) was really the major catalyst for the start of Britain's empire expansion. Previously was more about exploration and discovery of new unhabited or largely uninhabited territories charted and claimed for the Crown at a time when the other leading European powers were doing the same. The loss of the 13 colonies was a major economic blow to UK as most trade revenue was from there. And France was a key player in backing the American revolution. Britain's industrial revolution happened early and that combined with a long history as the most dominant maritime power, provided the drive and means to explore the world and seize global trade opportunities. The British empire was always about trade, and commerce. Colonisation and/or Crown rule came later. For the most part Britain was not interested in establishing overseas colonies, particularly in India or Asia. The governance of these places just became necessary because of their trade importance to the British economy. But back to France.. after the 7 years American war of independence, France was bankrupted when Britain sued for peace. It marked the decline of France as the major European power and Britain's rise. France conceded half of Canada, and the East India Company (then the largest and most important trade company in the world with its own private army and navy). The British East India company was the start of Britain's move from West to East and expansion across South East Asia on the back of trade with India. The history of European powers is often overlooked and people focus on Britain as the 'bad guy' who took over half the world lol. Really it started with the Spanish and the Dutch they were expanding long before Britain. Spain was in South America long before Britain colonised North America. The Dutch were in Africa and had established the Dutch East India Company long before France of Britain. Britain was a fairly late comer but had done a lot of ground work in mapping uncharted areas of the world and establishing key sea trade routes.
San ,before what year did the English colonies exist? And yes, it's not slavery, it's different (in fact, the same thing).Don't make the British white and fluffy.
@@помниНеВсеТоСолнышкоЧтоВстает Stating facts, don’t tell me I did something which I didn’t. My ancestors were part of the Irish diaspora, don’t lecture me on the British Empire.
@@san8524 ,perhaps we had a misunderstanding, due to the fact that I am Russian, and I do not know many nuances in English ,anyway, I didn't mean to offend you.
French, Spanish, Dutch. The three largest empires in the world all fighting against the British. What’s funny is the fact the largest battles of the American war of independence wasn’t even right in the americas but in Europe
You forget the British born colonists in America who also fought the British Empire during it aswell, while the British Empire had an entire planet to patrol and police.
The British empire can't be looked at in isolation, they were competing with other European empires* for world resources. *French, Spanish, Portuguese Dutch, German
"What does the French have to do with this?" - My dear lady, do you not know of the ancient rivalry between Her Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and them buggers across the channel?
@@Diegomax22 Pardonnez mois, mais Guillaume le Batard est le Duc seulment de Normande - il n'avait rein qui vous peut-etre descrivez La France! Pardonnez mon Francais, le dernier fois je me avais un lesson c,est en 1952. Le Chef de mon Lycee sont un petit Suisse - Nom de Olivier Berthoud; les livre donc nous user pour notre lessons peut publiez pars Hachete en Paris. A cette temps je m'habite Folkestone - au bord du la Manche.
Hopefully our family will all be together as one again with free trade & borderless travel between the 4 of us we are already 4 of the best countries for standards of living health, education finance & stability. Together we are only stronger. Can, UK, Aus, NZ
Well as a Brit I'm excited at the thought of it and delighted people in you other three countries feel the same. I'm just very worried every time the word "Empire" comes up. Not only did the British do a lot of stupid and shitty things at various times to various people (usually involving a famine not being dealt with humanely or some dickhead in the military thinking he was infallible) but it seems a bit of an insult to the modern countries you all are now. Democracy's come a long way in the last century and a cooperative or federation has to go foward reflecting that. Having said all this, I'm stoked at the prospect of it happening and am delighted a lot of people around the world think the same. Let's do this! I reckon more of our old friends might want in on it, too, if we play our cards right.
More than integral. Most of us here see you australia and new Zealand as core parts of the empire. We see you as equel to England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales.
True, i think we wouldve maintained it for a while, tried to establish a more favorable government in each of the states and allowed each to become independent like Canada or Australia
People should be autonomous or independent as a matter of principle. Partnership within a loose confederacy is perhaps acceptable but the emphasis really ought to be on autonomy and on independence.
@@imaginativespirit591 but the problem is that, she states stuff like she knows what she is talking about. Obviously she doesn't. So these comments are acceptable. Your comment is not.
Doesn't sound like you know a whole heap of anything, Americans didn't 'fight off' the empire it was British colonials that wanted to be independent of the UK. they saw their opportunity when the UK fought an expensive war for the American colonist called the Indian war, the the colonist refused to pay back their war debt, so the UK put stamp duty on everything which they used as an excuse.
The Indian War is the name given to the part of the 7 Years War that they as British colonists fought against the French along side regulars of the British Army. With the destruction of the French power in Acadia (Canada) and the northen the Mississippi region the colonists no longer needed the British Army for protection and so resented paying taxes in excess of the percived benefits of those taxes. If the British Army regulars had still been needed to protect them against a French threat, "no taxation without representation" would have been muted.
@@EaterOfBaconSandwiches My favourite when I used to travel on business to the states was to convince them they only had a 249 year lease, citing the handing back of Hong Kong as an example. The best two 'believers' were two US marine Gunnery Sergeants (in full mess dress) I met in the hotel bar (I'm ex Royal Navy so we were swapping sea stories) before they attended a Marine thrash of some description in the hotel banqueting suite. They were not pleased with me next morning at breakfast 'cos their colonel had put them straight, at length and with some volume apparently.
The colonists did not incur a war debt, nor was the french & indian war to protect america. It was a european conflict that spread to England and France’s colonies. The British Empire incurred a massive debt from fighting for almost a decade straight and taxing colonials was one way the brits tried to cut the deficit. Seems like u don’t know a whole heap of anything either.
@@chrisr5307 That's the American propaganda: th-cam.com/video/gzALIXcY4pg/w-d-xo.html&t= Simplified version for you. More reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#Prelude_to_revolution These wars don't fight themselves, they cost monies. Your logic is becasue the UK was fighting mainly in Europe and Africa they didn't own America anything after WW2. Nobody stated it was to protect America.
When Queen Elizabeth I died without children to inherit, her first cousin twice removed who was already King of Scotland inherited the English throne. Elizabeth's father Henry VIII had a sister Margaret who married the King of Scotland James IV, and it was their great grandchild who would become the first king of Great Britain. The royal house moved from Tudor to Stewart.
@Skylo Jenkins Having no Schooling doesn't make them stupid although if I was going to go on TH-cam and discuss a subject I think I might take a little time to read and learn about it. Many people today don't seem to have any sort of embarrassment threshold and are happy to make fools of themselves.
The reason why the Scottish king took the throne because he was the cousin of the English queen who had just died with no children, making him the succesor
James was James 1st of England and James 6fh of Scotland when he succeeded to the English throne in 1603 after Elizabeth 1st died. He and his successors were kings of two separate countries until 1707 when the Act of Union under Queen Anne finally joined the two countries and the two parliaments.
@@stephenrose8188 Do you mean "The Favourite"? Yes - truth takes a bit of a back seat here. Although the most enjoyable portrayal of James the 1st and 6th was by Alan Cummings in Dr Who!! Again nor much reality, but lots of fun.
Also, in any history of England/Britain/UK, you have to consider France in all English actions. Fear of invasion by France, desire to retake possessions in France, the French expansion/colonialism etc. For example, one of the significant factors in ending the US War of Independence was not just the active assistance of the French in America, but the growing fear of expanding war with France back in Europe, so Britain wanted her troops and ships back home.
Not just history. How to mess up trade negotiations: Put a francaphone team one side of a table and an anglophone team on the other and expect them to reach a reasonable compromise ...
@@firstlast7052 mind add the inability to read -- alla the quote from the French leader Mr maccarooon covid jab 2% effective so anyone over 50 can just die off -- just the public face of the EU killing off their oldies and covering it up -- funny how the french like to get in close to the action even when its nasty or backstabbing -- modern history shows France are just the same as they were in old times and throughout history as is most of Europe reverting to type
In a nutshell, the British and French had a series of friendly conversations that have lasted since the 11th century over who should control the world.
Most soldiers fighting for the British empire were local people. They did so because they’re better paid and treated than by their own native rulers. In India the empire suppressed customs such as suttee, and brigands like the thuggees, and spent huge amounts of money developing infrastructure. Calcutta, for example,had a telegraph system before New York!
@Tim Wholesome that's a ridiculous statement. The Americans didn't even take part in the war for 2 years (late as always). By the time they joined the tide had turned and the Germans were already in retreat everywhere. Without the USA the Germans would still have lost. Much more of Europe would probably have been Russian dominated although it is doubtful they would have invaded Britain. Americans tend to believe Hollywood too much. American industrial power helped a lot, a truly huge amount, but they did not win the war. Remember, even by 1944, 3 of the 5 beaches on D-Day were not American and the vast majority of ships there were British.
Something I learned today. New York is named from the English city of York. I know most USA places are based around English names but for some reason this was completely new to me. By the way, the British Empire was the largest and most successful in history.
To clarify, the Scottish king didnt take the throne as in just walking in and stealing it, he just happened to be the next in line to it, and as there was now one monarch on both thrones, the two kingdoms were merged
This must be one of the most simplistic videos i have seen anyone watch. I suggest you go back 1000 years to see how the Island of Britain was formed, and then study its relationship with the rest of Europe for the next 500 years. Then go from there lol But i have subscribed :)
Why not go back millions of years to see how the land formed. Britain began with the union of crowns, that's a good place to start. I'll add that the trade monopolies included Scotland so Scottish commercial interests were frozen out by the English during the 17th century, despite having the same king, ending with the Darien disaster, Scottish bankruptcy and the Scottish parliament effectively forced to abolish itself and Scotland and England combining to form Great Britain.
The slave trade in the British Empire was outlawed in 1807 by the “Abolition of Slave Trade” act, but it wasn’t until April 2010 when it became illegal to own a person in the UK. The 1807 act included compensation to slave owners for the loss of their slaves. Here’s an extract from The Guardian newspaper: “In 1833, the British government used £20m, 40% of its national budget, to buy freedom for all slaves in the empire. The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn’t paid off until 2015. Which means that living British citizens helped pay to end the slave trade.”
Some of these comments are pretty critical of you. But you're doing an amazing thing trying to learn, and a brave thing doing it publicly where people can see you do it and get some things wrong. Fuck the haters. Subbed.
This may be unpopular but I can't view the suppression of the practice of Suttie as anything but a good thing too. I know it is hip to think of the british empire as only out for the money (not an unjustified view) it is strange that the British made a big deal about suppressing this part of Hindu culture if they merely wanted to keep the Guineas flowing
@@sourcehub8323 So, how did English become the lingua franca? Despite only being slightly 'franca'? Commerce, trade and sweet sweet conquest! Exaggerated perhaps, but it kinda is true... :D
Woww ... I'm seeing more and more Americans reacting to videos that involves their own country and literally don't know anything about it !! They call themselves patriots so at least know who you are and where you come from as a nation !!
Interesting that what you took from this is that a lot of the Empire was built by companies, something people often don't recognise and assume it was all armed invasion.
If history repeats itself we can look forwards to the day when the likes of Amazon use a massive private army to force a county's government to hand power to them so that they can shut down all competitors.
@@aestheticdemon3802 I think you are comparing apple and oranges. The contractors worked for the US government in Iraq. Those firms, were not, for example, running the Iraqi government so that they could then pass laws to gather taxes legally to pay dividends to their share holders which is what the East India Company ended up doing as an adjunct to trading goods and services.
yep, never invaded India, brought it, didn't bother in the USA as it didn't make money, did in Canada because trees make boats. Never used to exterminate local populace either, much better to use them to help you. USA still has thanks giving, later the Americans weren't so nice....
Britain abolished it in 1803, USA 1865. Even after it was abolished in USA blacks had been subject to segregation and had no proper civil rights until the 1960s. Yet we get called the bad guys. Go figure eh. Revised history.
@@paullangton-rogers2390 Imagine being so stupid you think you should be congratulated for ending slavery after you started and profited from slavery for centuries.
@@ariellekaplan707 Europe didn’t start slavery. It started in Africa and was common there long before the British arrived. And other places also had slavery like Arabia which enslaved the Africans long before and after the Europeans did. Everyone had slavery, complaining about it won’t change history, and blaming people for no good reason just causes problems.
The elephant in the room, we also enjoy a good fight, either at home or abroad, we pass ourselves as being passive, we have made warfare an art. David Sterling set up Special Air Service, during WW2. Quality over quantity.
Really appreciate these reaction videos of yours. There are a lot of reaction videos on TH-cam rn of British people reacting to videos about America / American history so it's nice to get a reaction vice versa from an American reacting to and learning more about British history. Keep up the cool reactions!
That aspect was huge, It was a race with the other powers of Europe to find new lands and opportunities. And fight your rivals throughout the race. It's said Germany's failure in this period would later inspire the rise and spread of Nazi Germany.
@@SoGal_YT The one obvious exception being the conquest of Zimbabwe previously known as Rhodesia by Cecil Rhodes who was a massive egoist with delusions of grandeur he was in it for power as well as wealth
Jane Grey was invited, Henry VII was invited, William III was invited, Louis the Lion was invited.... Taking the throne by invitation is still taking the throne. Particularly when the invitation is from people who have absolutely no constitutional right to invite anyone to become King. Nb. The people who invited James I technically committed high treason by approaching him to offer the throne while their Queen was alive, and refusing to name an heir.
What’s missing here is that there were already long established Portuguese, Dutch and Spanish trading companies and burgeoning French east India company, the military was primarily engaged in fighting the Dutch Spanish and French, rather than the ‘countries’ they were trying to monopolise trade with.
Yeah, for context you need to look at what all of the western european countries were doing at that time. Britain may have been the most successful at it, but all of those countries were doing it. For instance, the map of Africa may show the sections controlled by the British, but what it doesn't make clear is that the entire continent was controlled by European nations as they essentially carved up the continent between themselves, with the same being true of north/south America and much of the rest of the world.
It's called 'New' Hampshire in the US for a reason. The same as New York, and New England, Because these places already existed in Britain. Virginia is also named after Elizabeth the 1st, The Virgin queen.
The video mentions the battle of Plassey - that and Pondicherry were defeats for the French attempts to take over India. French troops and officers were employed by many Indian rulers to improve their own armies.
@@chrismalcomson7640 prithee, one would assume you could name every one of those "200 wars" ?......known in the trade as bollocks. must refer you to the "war of Jenkins ear".... love tripe....esp with onions, rakes a vinegar. x
Typical American thinks that the reason the British empire left America was because of their rebellion lmao just ignoring the fact the American rebels begged Spai and France for help and lead to the British empire having to be at war with 3 nations; with also having other colonies to rule with India’s rebellions too lool
Thank you for this posting .I think it is good to get an outsider view of our Empire. It was built on the total strength of the Royal Navy particularly after the Battle of Trafalgar and the defeat of the French, That led to the words of the song Rule Brittania, Britannia rules the waves. The growth of the Empire was in the main for the expansionist growth of trade to satisfy the ever growing needs of wealthy owners that exploited the GB workforces tremendously. It continued unabated with the strength of The Royal Navy and The Crown Forces providing the back up if required. I remember as a child we used to have a Public Holiday which was Empire Day and we celebrated the fact that the sun NEVER set on the British Empire. Great historical content and thank you for your very pertinent commentary.
@@silvergirlsoph with the current 14 oversea territories of the UK right now, most of any country on earth and 16 commonwealth countries it technically still doesnt.
@@hopclang9409 The phrase was first made by Fray Francisco de Ugalde, Spanish, to King Charles 1. The phrase was later used when Britain acquired other territories. In 1852,
Actually the King of Hawaii asked to become a British protectorate in order to ward off American influence, and he chose to put the Union Jack in his flag as a sign of that. His request was politely declined, and Hawaii became part of the American empire, until it was made up to statehood.
Wasn't he killed in Hawaii? I think they were called The Sandwich Islands at the time, which is 'deliciously' ironic, because Cook became a meal for the inhabitants!! 😋
While I fully understand the history behind this statement, and agree largely with the knowledge to back it up, I'm just going to say it's a little more nuanced than you suggest. The loss was serious, make no mistake; perhaps not _economically_ though even then it must be contextualised further than simply comparing the economic value of the Thirteen Colonies in a basic and somewhat superficial way. You are correct, though as I say, it's a bit more complex than that. To clarify, the island of Jamaica to which you refer was indeed economically more valuable than the entire Thirteen Colonies combined. The British Empire had sugar plantations, rum makers, exotic goods, fruits, spices, contraband, commodities, textiles and tobacco making Britain a lot of money. Slavery, yes, also. Wealth from all over the Empire poured through the Caribbean as it was often a stopping point for ships heading from the South Atlantic to the Thirteen Colonies, obviously. Though slavery was eventually stopped, of course, the British circulated hundreds of thousands of slaves through the region (the Spanish and Portuguese enslaved even more people; and what the Spanish did to places like Hispaniola in the Caribbean, beggars belief - effectively a form of ethnic cleansing parading as exploration) In any case, the Thirteen Colonies were formatively newer and typically in temperate or even cold climes. Yes, the colonies of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, were obviously exceptions to this, though New York and Boston were hardly warmer than England. Boston, New York, Charlestown and Savannah were major British settlements and after the Seven Years War Britain had captured Quebec and Montreal in Lower Canada. Boston was well-guarded by the British Army and Royal Navy, enjoying a highly advantageous position on the Eastern Seaboard of North America, in a time when the Eastern Seaboard was nowhere near as well-developed and populous as it would later become. In other words, Boston, Charlestown, New York and to a lesser though still important extent, Savannah, were hugely important in a manner perhaps disproportionate to how they would become (with the exception of New York, whose star only ascended further across the centuries) New York was (originally, at least) a _very_ British city. It might be hard to believe now after centuries of immigration, Americanisation, anti-British propaganda run rampant and simply the passage of time through new paradigms, though suffice it to say that back in 1775 for example, the New Yorker was essentially British. And not just to some small extent either; places like New York were so 'plugged in' to the British civilisation, that they'd receive newspapers/pamphlets from London, _before many Northern English towns would_ via maritime trade and regular relays of news ships going back and to across the North Atlantic) Believe it or not, New York was hardly a den of rebellious fervour as sometimes implied; the rebel 'capital' so to speak, was in Philadelphia, although Boston would be in with a shout of spiritually sharing the honour. Rabble rousing business owners jealous of 'special treatment' for native Americans (see Proclamation Line Act 1763) were stirring some major league shit in the streets of Boston. They acted like the British were taxing the American people to death, simply to get their own way in causing a separatist movement. Eventually the Virginian Legislature (including the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) would join the growing calls to arms. I'm not saying there were no rebels in New York; clearly there were still hundreds if not thousands growing in number. However, many Loyalists remained throughout the Thirteen Colonies (at the end of the war, some 100,000 or so American Loyalists were deported, their possessions confiscated/stolen, their homes repossessed and often public shaming and violence such as tarring and feathering went along with this, before and after the war) Funny how we never hear about that 'glorious' side of the war. Because it was not. Point is, that the Thirteen Colonies were obviously a place of immense potential. I mean, the USA is proof enough of that today. I am just saying that Boston, Savannah and Charlestown for instance, and especially New York, were sorry losses for the British. In fact, in 1781, the British Army of North America still held out at Savannah, Charlestown and New York at the end of the war. They were _not_ forcibly driven out by strength of arms. They were made to leave by the Treaty of Paris 1783. In fact, British troops had repelled repeated rebel and native allied attempts to take Savannah, and New York casually maintained a typical standing garrison of 8,000 men, plus a Royal Navy fleet in the Harbour. Charlestown had been strenuously recaptured earlier in the war, and they weren't just going to give up on the place (until they gave up on the war entirely; or should I say, the tax payers and politicians had had enough) Cornwallis, though captured and humiliated at Yorktown (though in fairness, outnumbered 3:1 by a Franco-American Army led primarily by General Rochambeau; so not the most shameful way to lose) was a ferocious field general and was known as a great attacking general, logistician and father figure among his troops. He was a complex figure and not above using severe measures to win, though he generally preferred the honour of set piece battlefield victories. Had the government and particularly Governor-General Henry Clinton, given Cornwallis more support and freedom to operate how he liked, i.e. very aggressively, always on Washington's heels, then the outcome of the war could have been very different. Instead, Clinton was more comfortable parading his men in New York while bedding a fellow officer's wife (true story) Even as Cornwallis defiantly held on as the trap closed on him at Yorktown, Clinton misunderstood the situation atrociously. Washington wanted to all out assault New York (perhaps still sore about being hammered there earlier in the war at Long Island) However, his subordinates - and mostly the French allies with more experience than him in war - basically said, feint an attack on New York, give Clinton the slip, and then converge on Yorktown. Clinton fell for it; making him very cagey and reluctant to send aid to Cornwallis, or even just to evacuate him. Even as Cornwallis pleaded for evacuation with urgent letter after letter, Clinton idled, taking weeks to reply. It was a disgraceful situation and in fairness, Cornwallis never lost a battle in open field (though he nearly did at Guilford Courthouse) Generally, he won 9 battles and was a great general, trained in the best of European warfare, but with his own very aggressive style. He nearly caught Washington like 10 times. Scared of being unable to evacuate if he needed to, should the ships be elsewhere, Clinton tarried and the delay was fatal for the British cause in the war. Cornwallis was trapped and it was only a matter of time; and when he finally did send the fleet to evacuate Cornwallis, it was way too late and the new French battle fleet build for this war, arrived under France's best admiral in the era, the Comte de Grasse. The British and French fleets fought in the Chesapeake Bay for an entire day though the outnumbered and outgunned British were forced to fall back to New York. Cornwallis was now completely alone. Later in life, while casually the Governor of India, Cornwallis would reflect that, while never losing a field battle, he was 'defeated in detail' by the death of a thousand cuts style degradation that led to his inevitable cornering and capture. He'd lost his best eyes and ears at the Battle of Cowpens (where his subordinate cavalry Colonel, Banastre Tarleton, was soundly defeated, losing much of the 'British Legion' - Cornwallis's finest light infantry and his even rarer light cavalry) Cavalry of any kind was rare in the war, so it was a serious loss. Tarleton had squandered the best hope Cornwallis had of staying fast and mobile, so he moved towards the coast seeing that as a better idea than chasing after wild geese. When told about Tarleton's defeat and his losses, Cornwallis was said to lean so hard on his general's sword that it snapped in two. He was angry. The light infantry, though not as heavily armed and numerous as the Line Infantry regulars, were more flexible and able to screen his army, saving lives from being taken by sharpshooters etc (they were a counter to those tactics) Denuded of those troops, Cornwallis's situation was becoming dire as he was outnumbered in increasingly hostile territory and miserably far from realistic reinforcement. He abandoned North Carolina, realising the British strategic mistake in thinking many loyalists would rise up there (some did, though Britain's policy of freeing slaves to encourage the men to fight for them, didn't sit well with, you guessed it, Southern cotton and molasses plantation owners) His army marched 25 miles a day just to avoid being surrounded. And when they were forced to fight, they did, very well (the British soldiers were if nothing else, consummate professionals) [1/2]
[2/2] _We must not lose our sugar islands!_ ~ King George III, 1782 (upon hearing of the French Navy moving to strike the British possessions in the Caribbean) The Royal Navy was not happy to say the least about the fact their one serious defeat in the war, had effectively left Cornwallis stranded (I've seen historians like overrated and annoying Dan Snow, basically try and say that 'one defeat and a continent was lost') Bit unfair on the RN though. It was Clinton's fault for dithering and being too scared of his own safety. The RN fought well. In any case, they avenged their defeat at the tactically inconclusive though strategically disastrous Battle of the Chesapeake, and soundly hammered the French at the Battle of the Saintes, 1782, the year after Yorktown fell in 1781. Admiral Rodney defeated the Comte de Grasse good style, no two ways about it. So ended France's greedy attempt to overreach and exploit British misfortunes and steal more plunder in the Caribbean. The loss of the Thirteen, while not nearly as economically important as the Caribbean by comparison, was a prestige hit for the British did take some doing to overcome. It was a shocking situation for the King especially, whom lamented the lost wonders of the lands now out of his own reach. However, ironically, part of the reason why the Boston Tea Party had dressed as native Americans, was to mock the fact that the King had sided with the natives to the West in the Ohio Valley. Much of the French and Indian Wars segment of the broader Seven Years War, had been fought in the Ohio Valley, typically over strategic forts the French insisted on building when asked not to. Recognising their concerns, the King had banned Westward movement beyond the Ohio Valley (at least for some time to come) This was anathema to white Americans who wanted to settle new land and make fortunes of their own. Most of the Virginia Legislature, Boston Tea Party and Signatories of the Declaration of Independence, would have been fervently anti-Native American. The Iroquois called Washington, 'the Destroyer/Burner of Villages'. Thomas Jefferson clearly hated native Americans too. And he owned slaves. For the Natives, British defeat in the war, was a defeat even more so for them. Even tribes who'd sided with the rebels, were eventually turned on one by one, as the fledgling USA insisted on it's own expansionism in the 19th century. From then to Tecumseh's role in the War of 1812, the consequences were dire for them. Disease, even more so, ravaged their tribes all over. Jamaica was more important financially, but in context, if Britain held onto the Thirteen for longer, then of course that situation would end as the sheer amount of business, trade and tax able to be raised with more people than Jamaica could compare to them, would surpass the revenues from Jamaica. This would be even more pronounced after slavery was abolished, of course. Yet on the horizon, the tea trade was about to change everything; soon enough accounting for 1/3 of Britain's annual import expenditure (not even joking, tea was very expensive back then due to the rarity of it in the quantities able to be shipped, and the difficulty the tea clippers had racing back and to to get it) Cue Opium Wars and Britain reasserting itself over all rivals.
@@mephistophelescountcaglios1489 Translation: couldn't address my points so latched onto one error. I had mixed up the two as the Spanish massacred natives on both anyway. Moot point. For some reason I thought Hispaniola was the older name of Cuba, easily done. Yet if that was what you got from my replies then okay.
It's a very simplistic video. It really glosses over many facts. For a start, it doesn't even mention the fall of the Spanish empire or the battle of the Armada and how that started us on the path to empire. Thats really the biggest lesson of the empire
If you want to view the Spanish & French Navies, take a glass bottom boat trip over famous Naval battles areas of Sea, which saw the conflicts between Britain and those two.....you'll see their ships resting on the Ocean floor... ;-)
@@SoGal_YT It wasn't even a thing in the US until the mid to late 1980's. Traditionally. American civilians saluted the flag during the national anthem with an outstretched right arm. This was dropped in 1942 for reasons that are lost in the mists of time. After that, Americans stood to attention for their national anthem. I guess in the 1980's, some people felt that they should make a gesture to make them seem more patriotic than their neighbours. It didn't take long for politicians to realise that making this gesture would gain them a few votes. Personally, I think standing to attention for your national anthem, is a sign of respect, making strange hand gestures though (salutes from serving & ex-military aside), is a sign of insecurity.
@@julesburton4649 I'm in favour of our monarchy- they are a lot cheaper than a president would be if we compare to the United States. It's not like she has any real power - it helps for public relations and allows our government to stay home and do their job while the royal family represent us abroad. I'm always curious of the benefits republicans think we have by getting rid of the royal family. When Charles becomes king the royal family is going to be streamlined anyway.
the empire really doesn't get covered here in the UK mostly because a large amount of people due to modern outlooks paint the empire as evil worse then the Nazis when really it was far from it. The empire led the way in abolishing slavery across the world doing so even though economically it wasn't worth it. The empire gladly kept and promoted native leaders openly used foreigners in the military and operated under a meritocratic system.
1 - No one paints the British Empire as worse than the Nazis. You are just making shit up. 2 - The Empire indeed led the way in abolishing slavery...after being one of the biggest slaving empires at that period. That's like saying that the person that started to burn your house, should be viewed as a hero because right after it he decided to put out the fire and save what was left in your house. 3 - The empire only promoted native leaders to a certain extent. Black Africans were disenfranchised and were legally prevented from acquiring any skilled jobs in the Cape colony for example, and no Indian would ever serve as Viceroy, etc. And in all seriousness, all the power in the British Imperial possessions, all rested on white British men, very rarely on people of color.
@@robto Yes it is look how politicians especially those on the left talk about the empire, they want us to hate the nations colonial past and with the riots this year has seen protests about monuments to the empire and the tearing down of a statue. I never said that the empire didn't benefit from slavery find a major world empire that didn't, im not saying that people should be grateful what but considering the other empires at the time (and i mean at the time) it was seen as a best option for the people. Now once again at the time the promotion of any non whites was a big step, the Indian civil service was staffed primarily by native Indians, and no i never said that people fought for the empire because of some grate love of the empire it was a job, do you work because you love your job, no you work because that pays your bills, and historically the military has always been the biggest employer with the lowest skill requirement. Any love that people of the empire have for it comes from them having a place in it and benefiting from it, same for every major empire.
This is a discussion that, as can be seen, rages on in Britain. For most of the 20th century, British kids were taught that the empire was a force for nothing but good. Some people still cling to this view, and take great exception to any attempts to actually tell not just the best bits of the truth, but the whole truth. Which is what happens nowadays, much to the annoyance of our friend here. So much so that he is induced to exaggerate to make his point.
@@guywilletts2804 i didnt say that the empire was a force for good, and i never said it was good in its entirety name a nation in history that has a spotless record, my point being it wasn't as bad as some make it out to be these days
@@The_Alt_Vault exactly what I'm saying. Get off your high horse and accept that it was pretty shitty lots of the time in lots of ways. But that was then. We, as a nation, can grow up, stop being defensive, and move on, but all this "name me an empire..." stuff sounds like you're trying to hide something. I know you'll say you're not, but don't bother coming back with some mealy mouthed attempt to justify the indefensible. What, apart from military might, gave out forefathers the right to even be in places like India, irrespective of how we judge their actions when they got there.
Is this what you were thinking of about Captain Cook? ''Cook and his crew became the first Europeans to visit the Hawaiian islands. They went on to explore the west coast of North America, where Cook tried and failed to pass the Bering Strait in his search for a northern passage between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.''
Something you might want to look into (because it is barely covered in US history) is The Seven Years War and it's effect on the American Revolution, something that the French had a large stake in.
I don't understand the statement that the USA beat the British in the war of independents when a Treaty of Alliance followed in 1778, which led to French shipments of money, matériel and troops to the United States of America as well as the ignition of a global war with Britain. Subsequently, Spain and the Dutch Republic also began to send assistance, which along with political developments in Europe left the British with no allies during the conflict
When Queen Elizabeth I died, without an heir, the next person in the line of succession was James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots who was a cousin to Elizabeth. When James took the throne, he became James I of England.
1/4 of the contiguous states based on this map: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Mexico_1824_%28equirectangular_projection%29.png Still a huge amount though.
It took America another 50 years to abolish slavery and even then it continued for a long time unlike the British where slaves were very rare in Great Britain even before it abolishment
Been on a bit of binge of your videos 😂, but the British empire was the largest empire by land mass and population. The mongol empire was the largest continuous empire meaning there was no breaks in the land mass that they owned
To break it down it was if Walmart had it's own army also America only won independence because we didn't send reinforcements because we was at war with France and Spain at the time and was important
Also there was massive unrest in the mainland uk with the same percentages of people on the side of the rebels and wanted the war against them to end, and more people marched on London from Newcastle in support of the American colonists than would march on the Bastille in Paris
France financed the war of independence and provided a lot of troops/command. It was France's attempt at making Britain fight a 2 front war. It cost France so much money that it led to the French Revolution.
The motivation behind the expansion of the British empire is very similar to the motivation behind Americas spread of influence. In fact America can be described as an Empire, the main difference between the modern American empire and the British empire is Britain mainly exerted direct influence on its overseas interests where American uses indirect influence to maintain its overseas interests.
Leaves out a pretty important part about the East India Company. That is was a ~company~ and not the British government that raised an army and gained control of India. If Google took over Mexico you wouldn't blame in on the American government.
Well, you would blame them a Bit, in that they're really supposed to suppress any attempts by private entities to acquire the ability to do things like that just as a function of being a (supposedly) functional nation-state. But no, you're right, you would indeed attribute the actions to Google, not the USA. The thing with the East India Company? There were a bunch of East India Companies. The one in question was the British East India Company (as opposed to it's Dutch, French, etc. counterparts), so some minor confusion arises, as in conflicts with other entities they Would be referred to as 'the British", as confusing them with the British government (who is at least nominally supposed to reign them in if they start getting out of hand, and thus on whose behalf they can be assumed to acting if such does not occur) is much less of an issue than, say, getting in a fight with the Wrong 'East India Company'.
The East India Company was an early example of outsourcing, they could be as pushy and aggressive as they liked in the knowledge that if things went wrong, the British Navy would bail them out...
@@YouSmokeChed it was owned by a group of merchants and wealthy individuals. It was not created or owned by the British Government, although the British government gave it a royal charter to allow it to trade with India. Not sure what you’re getting at?
The independence war was a battle as we were fighting napoleon at the time. The war was won when we burnt your wire house down in 1812 after napoleon was defeated and you sighed a peace treaty
this seems to be the popular theme lately but isn't really the case. the burning of the white house was symbolic but the war went on for months after that event and it didn't really impact the war. The war of 1812 was closer to a draw than to anything else. As neither side really gave up anything. In some ways, the Americans even got what they wanted as the impressment of American sailors ended, but neither side gained much in terms of territory.
@@flyingeagle3898 Sorry but... Wrong... The way you determine winners and losers is look at objectives... America: Invade British Canada, butcher the Canadians and steal their stuff... Failed Destroy British Maritime Trade through the use of 44 gun heavy frigates designed as Commerce Raiders... Failed Defend their own territory against incursions... Failed (We captured a fair bit of territory, which we later returned in the settlelemt, we also ravaged the Chesapeke Bay area) Defend their Capital.. Failed... Keep their ports open to generate trade revenue and customs duties needed to finance their Government and War Effort ... Failed Britain: Defend Canada... Succeded Stop American pirates... Succeded Punish enemies for trying to invade Canada by occupying their Capital and burning all their government buildings... Guess... If you really want to see who won, look at that nice straight line across the map of the continent, the peace treaty drew a line across the continent from American territory, all the way to the pacific with a sign saying "stay south of this or we'll come and kick you again" America LOST the war of 1812-1814 ultimately because of money, the lack of T. A. X. E. S. in the US, meant the only source of Govt revenue was port duties, with all your ports blockaded, no revenue, no money to pay for the war, unless you borrowed... The occupation of your Capital, despite having some 20,000 troops in the area by an army of under 5000, was a colossal failure that left foreign Bankers unwilling to lend a bankrupt nation any more cash. And finally... Impressment of American Sailors... Most "americans" at that time still had British accents and names, so to protectthem from being mistaken for British sailors and impressed the US ordered the use of "Pass-Ports". But being a cheap bunch allergic to tax funded govenment, they basically privatised it. The US ambasador in London was SELLING fake passports for $4 a pop... Port officials in the US encouraged sailors to buy several copies of their passport, and sell the spares to deserters in Liverpool. To clarify... US Passport 1812 Style "This is to certify that ___John Smith___ is an American citizen, please treat him right. Identification Height ___medium___, weight ___medium___, hair ___medium___, eyes ___medium___, distinguishing marks ___medium___, signed ___Hank B Yank___, Harbour Master, Port of ___Buttuckett___"
It always surprises me at the American lack of knowledge of the history of other countries and geography of the world, do those subjects get taught in schools in the USA ?
@@Revolución_Socialista I understand what you mean but Central, South and Canadian American people don't like being called American as my partner is Canadian and isn't keen on that expression
You seem to forget that the colony's was an extension of Britain... So the independence was not to 'regain' your country as it was never yours. America was invaded by Europe, British gained the rule via the colonies they set up. (Totally trade based - but all war is based on acquisition of trade) There was no British empire then. This is why the 'second empire' is a thing (?). Really it is the empire after the loss of the American colonies. Technically there was no first empire. The empire was established in trade and then forced to stay with military might - until.... What kills all empire is revolt/revolution... Liked your bit on slavery. Yes this was totally the norm for any dominant power of old. Disgusting thought for modern minds.
Interesting that you skimmed over the fact the British abolished slavery in 1807 over 200 years ago (Fun fact the British actually actively pursued anyone carrying out slavery and punished them and freed the slaves)
Me: is British Also me: doesn't know the words to the national anthem, but knows this version... 🎶🎶🎶 I'm missing bargain hunt What should I have for lunch Maybe some chips 🎶🎶🎶
The music, apart from the National Anthem are Sea Shantys sung buy sailors on ship to help keep a rythem when pulling ropes, rowing etc.. and because of the lack of iPods in those days.
James Cook was the first European to discover Hawaii (Hawaii still has the Union flag on it's state flag), he also explored the coastline from Oregon to Alaska hoping to discover the Northwest Passage around the Americas.
Scotland didn't 'take over' the throne. The current king of Scotland was the son of the current English queens cousin, Elizabeth 1st. Elizabeth had no children and so james 6th of Scotland was heir to the throne. He became james 1st as no English king had previously been named james. This was the first time an English monarch was on both the English and Scottish throne. This was hie GB was made.
@@SoGal_YT when Queen Elizabeth died, she never had any children and so no heir. King James was her cousin and she basically supported along with the parliament to name him the heir to the throne.
@@SoGal_YT There was also the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when politicians and lords invited a Dutch king (William of Orange) to invade. When William landed, a lot of people, including members of (existing) king James' family, deserted him and William took over without a battle.
when I was in school in Scotland we had to say “James the 6th and 1st” and “James the 7th and 2nd” every time or we were hit with the tawse - a two foot long , two inch wide heavy leather strap, split halfway into two strips.
Just the clarify the British didn't start the slave trade, they took part in it once it started to be successful in order to gain wealth. However they did abolish it soon after and forced nations to outlaw slavery. Infact the British government only just recently finished paying for loans in which it took out to end slavery. I believe 2015 was the last payment.
Thumbs-up. Your 'proportionality of known World' argument is an excellent one, one I've never heard before. A great one for declaring the Roman Empire not just the longest enduring but, perhaps, the largest known World empire in history.
Three things facilitated British expansion in the 18th century. The creation of an accurate maritime chronometer to enable the calculation of longitude. Eradicating scurvy by means of a proper diet. A plentiful supply of Cornish copper to sheath the hulls of naval ships. This made them faster and more durable than other European navies. To be honest, if you turn up in a place where the culture is technologically about 500 years behind you, it is pretty much inevitable that you will be in charge.
Quick announcement! Now you can follow me behind-the-scenes and direct message me if you want:
Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/
Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT
Hope to see you there!
A main reason was also because for a long time the majority of europe were of catholic rule when king henry the 8th largely for selfish reasons as he wanted a son not a daughter to be air to the thrown and the pope of the the time and catholism at a whole did not agree to his behaviour.. But it in the long run became about the nations elites i.e its royal elites were essentually free to rule and dominate they're own nations people instead of been subservient to catholic rules which essentially meant that many of the popes of those different times were essentially emperors in they're own rights it ment that other european empires and emperors were essentually vessle kingdoms and empires that could by in large have full reign but if a pope commanded and that kingdom or empire was catholic to ignore that or those requests was essentually ignoring the word of god.
Its a simplistic way of putting it but essentually thats the way much what we now call europe was... By england turning catholic to protestant it put england into cross hairs where for example the pope of the time thought the spanish Amanda the largest ever and most successful naval fleet in history before then was expected to essentually by its emperor and the pope to invade england to only then for the first time be defeated by a far less organised and less equipped nation that was largely built by a mixture of naval ships aswell pirates and pirateers joined in forces to defeat what was seen as the most powerful and successful naval fleet in history of those times...the Scottish and Irish aswell as the Walsh as being of catholic assent largely did not take kindly to a bordering neighbour who they often saw as infidels with the irish and scots and to a lesser extent often having and helping in many attempted coups and invasions till eventually england invaded them all it was also very brutal and from just being england it became britain. And just because in beticular the irish and scots often in the past sided with other nations such as the french neither did the european powers really respect England's cousins aka the welsh scots and the irish that it essential became a game of who had the biggest empire could not be invaded or be trifled with in which after many failed invasions after the vikings no one really succeed and britain grew the biggest empire which ment we became the most feared and the most dominant empire around. If we never grew an empire we likely would of eventually been invaded... It was harsh times
And yeap dam right slavery was just a normal part of life back throughout most of history its evil as fuck but no matter what nation you look at all nations had a part in slavery... As for us brits we probably had alot enslaved up till like 1066.. but for a large part just being lower or working class ment you was for a huge length in time were essentually treated as a slave. For me i'm english i'm very english and i'm very proud to call myself english but for its time i would probably also say the roman empire as the longest lasting and by far for great lengths in history was probably the most successful empire in recored history for its time with the british empire being far more powerful for its time at its hights but the roman empire by far not the biggest in history but it was probably the most successful. And as evil the romans were and they were fucked up and evil they were probably also alot more civilised than anyone else around and for centuries after they atkeast had shit where a slave could gain freedom such as being gladiators yeah as a gladiator you was most likely to die than ever win freedom but there was atleast a system.. Any and all empires are essentually evil its one nations enflicting its rule of law and its dominance over others. And like all empires the british empire did some evil shit i would argue the worst in general effected was probably the lower british classes but interms of the most evil to others in different nationsnow it wasnt ment to be as intentional as the nazis were but it was of evil intent still and that is its got to be the invention of the concentration camp in south africa from which the nazis got they're ideas.
But at the same time where the british took over and dominated the slave trade its also probably the main reason and causes that slavery is now hugely frowned upon as it was not the first to trade in slaves by any means but it was the first ever to ban the legal practice of slavery and at a cost to its own economic status not only that it went to war and threatened other nations with the threat of war if they didnt comply then other european nations and empires followed suit and also did the same. The british empire for example blockaded the ottoman empire's ports when they refused to comply till they eventually had no choice we even eventually went to war with that east indian company which we started but when it refused we sank a load of they're ships... Theres a lot of bad shit the british empire did it was the biggest in recored history every nation and every empire has done bad shit so of course theres shit to be ashamed of but everyone should be proud of they're nations history and how ever bad and evil shit the british empire did there also alot to be proud of...
SoGal so can you now stop calling English people British please call the English English
🇬🇧❌🇪🇺
🇫🇷 : ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯
To be fair that was the English national anthem. The rest of the countries that make up Great Britain all have their own unique national anthems.
We never really set out to rule the world imo, it was just one long pub crawl that ended up eclipsing the roman empire. We are currently experiencing the longest hangover ever.
The British Empire surpassed the Roman Empire in the aftermath of the Seven Years War and the Treaty of Paris 1763. By 1925 it had reached it's zenith. Though yes the latter half of the 20th century was 3 parts hangover 2 parts sober.
@@ThePalaeontologist hello. Nice to see this spelled correctly 😂 not a grammar nazi etc just appreciate it because I never see it. I love dinosaurs and bird's soooo much.
No expert OK but my thoughts.
I think other people in history set up the rules of the game by constantly attacking us like vikings etc people pushed us into the ocean's and the ocean's pushed us back into the people, we won. We shall not be slave's.
That's why I think we care about Americans so much because they weren't ever meant to be harmed or "go their own way" say your peice but stay home 🇬🇧 and don't run away, my life isn't perfect either here but I'm staying no matter how many King's have to lose a head threatening us. 🇬🇧
In my opinion and it is just my opinion but I think we tried to create America and the empire not just because European countries would kill us like Germany tried later if we didn't jump in the game and win but I think the reason was to escape the dark ages and old world, 927 ad then magna carta etc to 1776 ad, all of this is a gradual evolution of people from possibly the angeln peninsula in Germany etc to the new world modern day america and it didn't exactly go perfectly as there's a hell of an American victim complex over British people which can be super dangerous like Hitler hating Jews but it worked didn't it? 😂
Isn't she lovely, free, fairly safe and learning, for this reason alone it looks like we can die in peace now or hopefully have some peace after a thousand years because our job is done here but I fear soon we are going to need each other so I'll be waiting. 🇬🇧 🇺🇸
I mean look at brexit?
I get confused when Americans call me European even though I am, I forget I'm a mix of blood and people still just keep bringing us more variations in genetics never learning anything about this not working to try take over the British Isles 😂 because I'm a native English man you could say that we feel we are in the middle of the ocean and not right next to France etc but I also think that explains a lot.
France, Spain, Germany etc tried to take over the world to create it in their image and we as in England wanted to create the new world which is why it is very important to be thankful but not us like we are thankful but not really having a European old world way of thinking etc we just think completely differently.
We are not just an island in Europe we were absolutely essential in the creation of the America we know today by being completely different to European people. They started it but we obviously had better idea's. 😂
Ark survival evolved teaches you very fast 😂
As a fellow Brit I agree... we just wanted to experience all the different alcoholic beverages offerings that’s all..
@@marksapollo But hot beverages really make the British happy. Tea, yeah tea.
@@chadfreestyle4371 Hey, just seeing this. Well, I think that I agree. I've made the same argument myself. The fact of the matter is that the British Isles were always in someone's sights and if it wasn't one continental power in the colonial period for instance, it was usually the one neighbouring it (or both) France and Spain have tried to conquer Britain several times, alone or together, and that is before we get to the Germans lol the reality of the situation is that the English were basically arising as a people constantly under some duress from the continent.
France, and not England, was the 'home' of European feudalism in that, basically, as far as the Church of Rome was concerned, for most of the Medieval Period, Early, High and Late, France was essentially the best in show. It was reliably adherent to the feudalistic system to the point that French nobility took it extremely seriously and would ride down fleeing mercenaries or their own peasants in a battle, if they deemed them cowards.
This, I believe, happened to the Genoese Crossbowmen during the Battle of Crecy though I maybe mixing that up with another battle (pretty sure it was Crecy; definitely in the Hundred Years War)
The English and Welsh Longbowmen simply outclassed the elite Genoese Crossbowmen, and they were shooting uphill into a head wind if I remember this correctly from reading. Again, could be confusing that with something else. But in any case, they lost, and ran away, mauled by volley after volley of arrows slaughtering them. The French Knights simply ran over the fleeing survivors crushing many to death and giving zero fucks because they hated failure. They sincerely believed they were totally superior and had a God given right to run down anything in their way.
Comparatively, even England under the Tudors was more of a European backwater/middling power. Spain under the Hapsburgs was generally the most powerful/becoming the most powerful in this time, and in spite of a heavily inbred King basically defeated France while England was also fighting in Scotland (Scotland, in this time, allied to France) So, France was definitely still very powerful but for a while England still held onto Calais until about 1558 I think, something in that time (sorry my memory on this is hit and miss)
Essentially speaking, the British civilisation grew in a very curious way compared to many on the continent. While the French and Spanish could rely on bat caves for Guano (bat poo) for a rich source of phosphates for their gunpowder, the English well, didn't have a lot of that going on in our climes; so turned to gathering this as a tithe from farmers all over the land (on the heavily soiled ground)
Henry VIII did everything he could to fortify England against France especially. His coastal forts, beacons, artillery bastions and vanity projects in the English Navy Royale, as the Royal Navy was once known, kept England strong in a time when Spain and France were arguably, a bit stronger still (especially Hapsburg Spain)
Henry VIII left England strong enough to contend with France though the situation with Spain was going downhill while they just grew ever stronger due to their exploitation of the New World.
To this day, Spanish nationalists call the British 'PIRATES' with typical vitriol (and Argentinian ones, ironically - ironic because they rebelled _against_ Spain anyway) and yet the reality is that the Spanish were basically massacring native Mesoamericans, South Americans, North Americans and anyone they found in the North American Caribbean. Just look at what they did on Hispaniola for instance.
Spain and England were on a collision course. England wasn't so much a pirate as we were Robin Hood lol we were poorer than Spain, and then after Spanish war crimes and atrocities against the English in peace time (such as hanging English sailors by their thumbs till they were bleeding from them, in acts of cruelty as they executed perceived interlopers on their colonial trade) England was like screw you Spain and the fight was on.
People like Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Francis Drake ('El Draco', the Dragon, to the Spanish) were considered arch pirates by the Spanish...even though they literally had the temerity and arrogance to think they could draw a line down the middle of a globe and say Spain owned one half of the New World and overseas colonies, and Portugal owned the other, backed by the Papacy in Rome. The Treaty of Tordesillas.
1588 vindicated the English, when the expensive Spanish Armada was savaged - as much by the weather, as the English.
The English Armada failed, though in the long run, this is not that important as sometimes exaggerated; the obvious paradigm shift was 1588 not the following year.
[1/2]
Americans did not fight off the English. The English colonials fought off the English. There was no yank in sight.
As well as fighting the colonials,we were also fighting the French,Spanish and Dutch,also certain Indian tribes,the final battle with the colonists they relied heavily on help from the French.
No it was English patriots fighting English loyalists of a continental crown
@Half life 3 steuben
Also the British didn't leave murica into the latter half of the 19th century and they left peacefully.
Actually the vast majority of troops sent from Britain were German mercenaries as it was unseemly for British to fight British, and don't forget the English King at that time was actually to all intents and purposes German
It amazes me that Americans believe that they were Americans before the war of independence. They were British citizens most of them still had British accents at the time of the war. No taxation without representation was the mantra, not Brits out as in some of the other countries that we frequented.
They were hardly taxed at all in the 13 colonies. The Boston tea party (which was a non-event in the grand scheme of things) occurred because English smugglers were losing money because the British REDUCED import tarrifs. Look it up.
Many were originally quite loyal, and viewed succession as a last resort
@@AlexanderDiviFilius And many "Americans" still loyal to Britain decamped to Canada after the war of Independence!
@@Dave.Thatcher1 Actually i think it was the loyalists migrating north that formed Canada. If there were no loyalists there would be no Canada. In fact all of North America could have would up one gigantic country
Extra bonus: No taxation without representation was entirely recruitment propaganda. Prior to the outbreak of conflict, the position (and the reason they were getting Nowhere negotiating with Parliament) was 'no taxation. at all. Ever.' The first time representation is even Mentioned is after plotting the revolt had already begun, when one member of the colonists' delegation to parliament noted in his journal that they were never going to get parliament to agree to their 'no taxation' position while they didn't have any representatives IN parliament.
Given WHY parliament was imposing taxes on the colonies to begin with, acquiring representation would have been Simple... all the colonists would have had to do was agree to pay the same taxes the people in Britain did. (note that, at the time, taxes on people and trade in Britain were paying for the entirety of the administration and defence of the colonies. This is why, upon attaining independence, American taxes went WAY up. They weren't being subsidized by British taxpayers any more.)
Sadly the video doesn't say that Britain was the first country to get rid of the slavery and use 40%of income to do so
Back off with your inconvenient truth.
To add to that. The amount of money borrowed to do that was so huge. It took untill 2015 to repay the loans. So everyone paying tax in the UK up to 2015 was contributing to the freeing of slaves.
We weren’t the first country to ban slavery. When slavery was finally stopped most slave owners were paid compensation. This happened so the act would go through. Slavery had insidiously made many slave owners by proxy (uncle Philip dies all his assets get given to his kin some of which is shares in a sugar plantation . Like have shares in a mining company and not knowing its into fracking.) As a democracy abolishinist had educated with travelling show and meetings . This lead to a massive influx of cash to the uk economy at the expense of national debt. So lots of building projects in England and new business as many had money to invest.
@@geoffhoward7115 I'm in agreement with the original comment.
That would annoy the southern half of Trumps America!
12:44 "What does the French have to do with this?" - Literally everything. Britain's expansion was a race, this video seems to completely ignore the other colonial powers of France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. If we didn't take it, they would and eventually we would've lost our influence.
Also as for why the thirteen colonies fought such a short war against the British compared to India, finances. The Thirteen Colonies made so little money for the crown (Jamaica alone made more) that it wasn't worth the fighting at a time when France was plotting to invade at home. India however was a goldmine for trade and worth the effort to maintain control.
I agree. Also for a long time differenr areas of the country preferred the foreigner to other Indian tribes. Same happened in Britain when the Romans turned up. In America without French intervention I think it would have been difficult for the patriots to keep fighting year after year especially as all really wanted a peaceful life earning money. Britain would have probably tired as well and a peace treaty would have neen sorted
The British weren't in a race with Portugal. They were in alliance.
@@radiocrash our longest unbroken alliance to this day
Absolutely. The American war of independence (which lasted 7 years and involved France and Russia) was really the major catalyst for the start of Britain's empire expansion. Previously was more about exploration and discovery of new unhabited or largely uninhabited territories charted and claimed for the Crown at a time when the other leading European powers were doing the same. The loss of the 13 colonies was a major economic blow to UK as most trade revenue was from there. And France was a key player in backing the American revolution.
Britain's industrial revolution happened early and that combined with a long history as the most dominant maritime power, provided the drive and means to explore the world and seize global trade opportunities. The British empire was always about trade, and commerce. Colonisation and/or Crown rule came later. For the most part Britain was not interested in establishing overseas colonies, particularly in India or Asia. The governance of these places just became necessary because of their trade importance to the British economy.
But back to France.. after the 7 years American war of independence, France was bankrupted when Britain sued for peace. It marked the decline of France as the major European power and Britain's rise. France conceded half of Canada, and the East India Company (then the largest and most important trade company in the world with its own private army and navy). The British East India company was the start of Britain's move from West to East and expansion across South East Asia on the back of trade with India.
The history of European powers is often overlooked and people focus on Britain as the 'bad guy' who took over half the world lol. Really it started with the Spanish and the Dutch they were expanding long before Britain. Spain was in South America long before Britain colonised North America. The Dutch were in Africa and had established the Dutch East India Company long before France of Britain. Britain was a fairly late comer but had done a lot of ground work in mapping uncharted areas of the world and establishing key sea trade routes.
@@radiocrash Portugal were expanding though so Brits wanted to get there first 😊
The British abolished the slave trade before the US and backed it up by using their navy to put an end to it.
San ,before what year did the English colonies exist? And yes, it's not slavery, it's different (in fact, the same thing).Don't make the British white and fluffy.
@@помниНеВсеТоСолнышкоЧтоВстает Stating facts, don’t tell me I did something which I didn’t. My ancestors were part of the Irish diaspora, don’t lecture me on the British Empire.
@@san8524 , I didn't mean to offend you ,but your comment looks exactly as I described
@@помниНеВсеТоСолнышкоЧтоВстает Totally disagree, stating facts, you’ve put your own twist on it.
@@san8524 ,perhaps we had a misunderstanding, due to the fact that I am Russian, and I do not know many nuances in English ,anyway, I didn't mean to offend you.
I mean no offence
But the American war of independence also included the french Spanish and Washington used german mercenaries to fight the British..
Wdym no longer offence.. it's true facts
French, Spanish, Dutch. The three largest empires in the world all fighting against the British. What’s funny is the fact the largest battles of the American war of independence wasn’t even right in the americas but in Europe
And the british used 14% of their army
You forget the British born colonists in America who also fought the British Empire during it aswell, while the British Empire had an entire planet to patrol and police.
Also, they had a choice to invest in america or india, they diverted their attention to india
The British empire can't be looked at in isolation, they were competing with other European empires* for world resources. *French, Spanish, Portuguese Dutch, German
belgians
@@Lord_Reeves literally
@@Lord_Reeves Cute, little Belgium... Vulnerable... At the mercy of France and Germany...
Mostly Spanish at first, then the French
And we bested them all/the world.
“We had a few skirmishes with Mexico”
... You invaded Mexico. A massive part of the U.S. was Mexican land.
Texas, for example. Totally stolen from Mexico by force of arms.
@@individualmember I mean thats how all wars work.
Texas,California and more
We invaded almost every country in the world.
@Matthew Smith The cyber men from doctor who
"What does the French have to do with this?" - My dear lady, do you not know of the ancient rivalry between Her Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and them buggers across the channel?
Moi je pe rappelle que vous êtes notre colonie, vous avez notre langue, votre reine a du sang français et vous nous avez volé notre hymne !
@@Diegomax22 idk what u said but I agree
Every evil and despicable act that has ever occurred in human history can in some way be blamed on them buggers across the channel. It's just fact.
@@PhoenixDawn93 the Armenian genocide?
@@Diegomax22 Pardonnez mois, mais Guillaume le Batard est le Duc seulment de Normande - il n'avait rein qui vous peut-etre descrivez La France! Pardonnez mon Francais, le dernier fois je me avais un lesson c,est en 1952. Le Chef de mon Lycee sont un petit Suisse - Nom de Olivier Berthoud; les livre donc nous user pour notre lessons peut publiez pars Hachete en Paris. A cette temps je m'habite Folkestone - au bord du la Manche.
I'm Canadian. Thank God we were an integral part of the Empire.
Really?
Hopefully our family will all be together as one again with free trade & borderless travel between the 4 of us we are already 4 of the best countries for standards of living health, education finance & stability. Together we are only stronger.
Can, UK, Aus, NZ
Well as a Brit I'm excited at the thought of it and delighted people in you other three countries feel the same. I'm just very worried every time the word "Empire" comes up. Not only did the British do a lot of stupid and shitty things at various times to various people (usually involving a famine not being dealt with humanely or some dickhead in the military thinking he was infallible) but it seems a bit of an insult to the modern countries you all are now. Democracy's come a long way in the last century and a cooperative or federation has to go foward reflecting that.
Having said all this, I'm stoked at the prospect of it happening and am delighted a lot of people around the world think the same. Let's do this! I reckon more of our old friends might want in on it, too, if we play our cards right.
More than integral. Most of us here see you australia and new Zealand as core parts of the empire. We see you as equel to England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales.
@Chris T Maybe they could be interested in joining too? Some of the West Indian nations as well, perhaps?
If we weren’t spread so thin at the time and had we wanted to keep America, trust me we would have!
They would've went independent sooner or later like everyone else though.
We were more interested in India and the possibilities of what they could bring to us lol.
True, i think we wouldve maintained it for a while, tried to establish a more favorable government in each of the states and allowed each to become independent like Canada or Australia
Yeah they threw tea into the sea doesn't seem so bad now but tea back then was very expensive.
People should be autonomous or independent as a matter of principle. Partnership within a loose confederacy is perhaps acceptable but the emphasis really ought to be on autonomy and on independence.
Did she really say what does the french have to do with this. Americans think they singlehandedly fought off the British Empire lol.
Kinda sad
Wasn’t even Americans, it was British colonials in America against the British.. other countries were involved in this also
She still learning. No need for that negative comment
Not most of us she is a staro type of American not knowing anything
@@imaginativespirit591 but the problem is that, she states stuff like she knows what she is talking about.
Obviously she doesn't.
So these comments are acceptable.
Your comment is not.
Doesn't sound like you know a whole heap of anything, Americans didn't 'fight off' the empire it was British colonials that wanted to be independent of the UK. they saw their opportunity when the UK fought an expensive war for the American colonist called the Indian war, the the colonist refused to pay back their war debt, so the UK put stamp duty on everything which they used as an excuse.
The Indian War is the name given to the part of the 7 Years War that they as British colonists fought against the French along side regulars of the British Army. With the destruction of the French power in Acadia (Canada) and the northen the Mississippi region the colonists no longer needed the British Army for protection and so resented paying taxes in excess of the percived benefits of those taxes. If the British Army regulars had still been needed to protect them against a French threat, "no taxation without representation" would have been muted.
@@EaterOfBaconSandwiches My favourite when I used to travel on business to the states was to convince them they only had a 249 year lease, citing the handing back of Hong Kong as an example. The best two 'believers' were two US marine Gunnery Sergeants (in full mess dress) I met in the hotel bar (I'm ex Royal Navy so we were swapping sea stories) before they attended a Marine thrash of some description in the hotel banqueting suite. They were not pleased with me next morning at breakfast 'cos their colonel had put them straight, at length and with some volume apparently.
Well stated.
The colonists did not incur a war debt, nor was the french & indian war to protect america. It was a european conflict that spread to England and France’s colonies. The British Empire incurred a massive debt from fighting for almost a decade straight and taxing colonials was one way the brits tried to cut the deficit. Seems like u don’t know a whole heap of anything either.
@@chrisr5307 That's the American propaganda:
th-cam.com/video/gzALIXcY4pg/w-d-xo.html&t=
Simplified version for you.
More reading:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#Prelude_to_revolution
These wars don't fight themselves, they cost monies. Your logic is becasue the UK was fighting mainly in Europe and Africa they didn't own America anything after WW2.
Nobody stated it was to protect America.
When Queen Elizabeth I died without children to inherit, her first cousin twice removed who was already King of Scotland inherited the English throne. Elizabeth's father Henry VIII had a sister Margaret who married the King of Scotland James IV, and it was their great grandchild who would become the first king of Great Britain. The royal house moved from Tudor to Stewart.
Stewart, a good Scots name.
@@stevetheduck1425* Stuart.
When you watch or listen to an average American it does make you wonder if they actually have schools over there.
it's such a shame 😔
@Skylo Jenkins Having no Schooling doesn't make them stupid although if I was going to go on TH-cam and discuss a subject I think I might take a little time to read and learn about it. Many people today don't seem to have any sort of embarrassment threshold and are happy to make fools of themselves.
Ignorant comment
Tell us about how clever you are.
They definitely not stupid it the only super power
The reason why the Scottish king took the throne because he was the cousin of the English queen who had just died with no children, making him the succesor
Yeah and his mother was Mary Queen of Scots
James was James 1st of England and James 6fh of Scotland when he succeeded to the English throne in 1603 after Elizabeth 1st died. He and his successors were kings of two separate countries until 1707 when the Act of Union under Queen Anne finally joined the two countries and the two parliaments.
@@halcroj Nothing new here, it's all well known and recorded, basic teaching in school here. Just don't be fooled by Hollywood's version of history.
@@stephenrose8188 Do you mean "The Favourite"? Yes - truth takes a bit of a back seat here. Although the most enjoyable portrayal of James the 1st and 6th was by Alan Cummings in Dr Who!! Again nor much reality, but lots of fun.
@@halcroj Yes!, and you're right, fun but not much reality (bit like Braveheart really, great film about as accurate as the daily news bulletins)
The British Empire gifted the world with civilisation and modernity.
And a sprinkling of war, starvation, sectarianism, and cultural appropriation
Also, in any history of England/Britain/UK, you have to consider France in all English actions. Fear of invasion by France, desire to retake possessions in France, the French expansion/colonialism etc. For example, one of the significant factors in ending the US War of Independence was not just the active assistance of the French in America, but the growing fear of expanding war with France back in Europe, so Britain wanted her troops and ships back home.
Not just history. How to mess up trade negotiations: Put a francaphone team one side of a table and an anglophone team on the other and expect them to reach a reasonable compromise ...
@@firstlast7052 fishing amirite
Also need to take into account the Spanish and Dutch cos they're the other main European nations forming colonies around the world
@@firstlast7052 mind add the inability to read -- alla the quote from the French leader Mr maccarooon covid jab 2% effective so anyone over 50 can just die off -- just the public face of the EU killing off their oldies and covering it up -- funny how the french like to get in close to the action even when its nasty or backstabbing -- modern history shows France are just the same as they were in old times and throughout history as is most of Europe reverting to type
I often wonder how much of the European psyche was tempered by the Huns displacing everyone leading up to the barbarian migration period.
She clearly doesn't know about her own countries history 😂🤦♂️
She's so biased and harsh against her own ancestors
It wasn't a country then. It was a sliver of coast. Big it tho . Americans!
its the american education system all americans claim is the best in the world
You must be new to this yanks aren't that bright or intelligent part.
They're also adamant that it's a revolutionary war and not a civil war and that the colonists we're yanks. They wasn't. They are English.
In a nutshell, the British and French had a series of friendly conversations that have lasted since the 11th century over who should control the world.
Why not read '1000 years of Annoying the French' by Stephen Clarke to really understand the 'Love Lost' between the two countries!
@@derekambler I actually have it lol. I gave it to my father as a present.
LOL....how very true!
The other reason we conquered so many countries is that Britain's navy was unrivalled. Its skills were world-renowned.
On the slavery aspect, the power of the British Empire was also very effective in enforcing its abolition.
It goes on 'til this day. Until 1900s in my country, a dominion of the Empire.
Hahaha she says the americans pushed the British out of america when the 'americans' are British colonists fighting for independence from britain
Most soldiers fighting for the British empire were local people. They did so because they’re better paid and treated than by their own native rulers. In India the empire suppressed customs such as suttee, and brigands like the thuggees, and spent huge amounts of money developing infrastructure. Calcutta, for example,had a telegraph system before New York!
We only clutch our chests when we have a heart attack..
A comment to die for.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Or when the curry is too hot!
😁
@@welovecheshirecats4557 That's indigestion 😂
Lmfao "is there a Hampshire somewhere in England"
@Weebo DX you're smart
Just up the road from Londonshire, isn't it?
It'll blow her mind to learn that there's a Boston too
@@imperialdebauchery5988 And a York......
and a York too
The British never set out to rule the world, that trait is reserved for the USA. It was rooted in trade and protecting trade routes.
Plus resources and also competition with some of the other nations in Europe.
🤣🤣🤣 that's funny
@Lee Davis we got the rape and pillaging from our viking heritage.
@Tim Wholesome that's a ridiculous statement. The Americans didn't even take part in the war for 2 years (late as always). By the time they joined the tide had turned and the Germans were already in retreat everywhere. Without the USA the Germans would still have lost. Much more of Europe would probably have been Russian dominated although it is doubtful they would have invaded Britain. Americans tend to believe Hollywood too much. American industrial power helped a lot, a truly huge amount, but they did not win the war. Remember, even by 1944, 3 of the 5 beaches on D-Day were not American and the vast majority of ships there were British.
@Tim Wholesome yeah Americans got British heritage. American Civil war was the English fighting the loyal English of the crown.
what did the French have to do with this? Almost everything haha
Something I learned today. New York is named from the English city of York. I know most USA places are based around English names but for some reason this was completely new to me. By the way, the British Empire was the largest and most successful in history.
To clarify, the Scottish king didnt take the throne as in just walking in and stealing it, he just happened to be the next in line to it, and as there was now one monarch on both thrones, the two kingdoms were merged
This must be one of the most simplistic videos i have seen anyone watch. I suggest you go back 1000 years to see how the Island of Britain was formed, and then study its relationship with the rest of Europe for the next 500 years.
Then go from there lol
But i have subscribed :)
Why not go back millions of years to see how the land formed. Britain began with the union of crowns, that's a good place to start. I'll add that the trade monopolies included Scotland so Scottish commercial interests were frozen out by the English during the 17th century, despite having the same king, ending with the Darien disaster, Scottish bankruptcy and the Scottish parliament effectively forced to abolish itself and Scotland and England combining to form Great Britain.
@@Catubrannos Perhaps you should look at the management, and the Spanish, for the disaster of the Darien expansionist plan.
The "Spanish Lady" bit is a Sea Shanty a ballard sung by British Sailors helping to win the Empire
You said it so well in the first 2 minutes of your video. " I Know nothing".
Murica
Educashion.
😂😂
We also abolished the slave trade.
I’m Irish and you shouldn’t of had a slave trade in the first place
@@gerardmcguigan1 Back then anyone with colonies did it, you either joined in or you got left behind.
@@gerardmcguigan1 wasn't it Dublin that became the biggest slave market in Western Europe. in the 11th century?
The slave trade in the British Empire was outlawed in 1807 by the “Abolition of Slave Trade” act, but it wasn’t until April 2010 when it became illegal to own a person in the UK.
The 1807 act included compensation to slave owners for the loss of their slaves. Here’s an extract from The Guardian newspaper:
“In 1833, the British government used £20m, 40% of its national budget, to buy freedom for all slaves in the empire. The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn’t paid off until 2015. Which means that living British citizens helped pay to end the slave trade.”
@@moonone Dublin was under British control at the time
Some of these comments are pretty critical of you. But you're doing an amazing thing trying to learn, and a brave thing doing it publicly where people can see you do it and get some things wrong. Fuck the haters.
Subbed.
If nothing else we gave the World the English Language, used in Aviation and Maritime.
However there no way to deny that Britain gave the world far more then just that.
Also,the insurance industry,and because of insurance fraud,coffin ships etc, we created safety boards,ship inspection etc
This may be unpopular but I can't view the suppression of the practice of Suttie as anything but a good thing too. I know it is hip to think of the british empire as only out for the money (not an unjustified view) it is strange that the British made a big deal about suppressing this part of Hindu culture if they merely wanted to keep the Guineas flowing
@@rayjennings3637 Frightfully sorry about that! 😊
Ray Jennings and the English gave the Americans - Unions
Considering that I as an Estonian speak English is basically due to some Brit bois wanting tea and spices.
Gotta havw that tea
I am British and that is very exaggerated
@@sourcehub8323 So, how did English become the lingua franca? Despite only being slightly 'franca'? Commerce, trade and sweet sweet conquest! Exaggerated perhaps, but it kinda is true... :D
@@RyanRyzzo eh I guess you're right
Check out Admiral Cowan & the Royal Naval Baltic Squadron of 1919 -21.
Woww ... I'm seeing more and more Americans reacting to videos that involves their own country and literally don't know anything about it !! They call themselves patriots so at least know who you are and where you come from as a nation !!
Isn't this the one of the beauties of TH-cam, that you are getting actual, raw perspectives from a real, ordinary people?
"Americans" are all people who live in the American continent, not just in the United States.
This was down to the might of the Royal Navy, at one point twice as big as any other two Navys put together.
um, but ships have to dock.
It was actually as big as twice all the european and american navies put together.
@@zaftra Ships do have to dock, but the British had plenty of bases where its ships COULD dock throughout its Empire. That was the point :)
Britain’s intention was to always be able to beat the next 2 biggest navies in the world at anytime.
@@bobpage6597 Think you missed my point.
We didn't invade the known world.....we colonised the unknown world
nah those worlds were well known to the people who lived there lol
@@markie1990123 But, crucially, they *didn't* know about History and Geography, so no-one cared what they thought
India, the Middle East and Southern China were unknown??? what are you smoking?
Don't know about that. Ireland was known as the "Isle of Saints and Scholars" before invasions and penal laws and mass confiscation of land.
So true. Traded the world.
Thanks for putting your hand on your heart when u was listening to the anthem also I'm from uk
Interesting that what you took from this is that a lot of the Empire was built by companies, something people often don't recognise and assume it was all armed invasion.
In the case of India, Great Britain taking over from the British East India company was a government bail-out
If history repeats itself we can look forwards to the day when the likes of Amazon use a massive private army to force a county's government to hand power to them so that they can shut down all competitors.
@@firstlast7052 Did you miss the use of some 120,000 mercenaries as "security consultants" by a handful of American Mega Corporations in Iraq?
@@aestheticdemon3802 I think you are comparing apple and oranges. The contractors worked for the US government in Iraq. Those firms, were not, for example, running the Iraqi government so that they could then pass laws to gather taxes legally to pay dividends to their share holders which is what the East India Company ended up doing as an adjunct to trading goods and services.
yep, never invaded India, brought it, didn't bother in the USA as it didn't make money, did in Canada because trees make boats.
Never used to exterminate local populace either, much better to use them to help you. USA still has thanks giving, later the Americans weren't so nice....
In Britain's defence, we were instrumental in the banning of the Slave Trade in the 19th Century, although we did profit from it for a while.
There was sadly no way to not whether directly or indirectly at the time.
Britain abolished it in 1803, USA 1865. Even after it was abolished in USA blacks had been subject to segregation and had no proper civil rights until the 1960s. Yet we get called the bad guys. Go figure eh. Revised history.
@@paullangton-rogers2390 Imagine being so stupid you think you should be congratulated for ending slavery after you started and profited from slavery for centuries.
@@ariellekaplan707
Europe didn’t start slavery. It started in Africa and was common there long before the British arrived. And other places also had slavery like Arabia which enslaved the Africans long before and after the Europeans did. Everyone had slavery, complaining about it won’t change history, and blaming people for no good reason just causes problems.
It was private individuals that practiced it. More slavery goes on today than any point in human history
The elephant in the room, we also enjoy a good fight, either at home or abroad, we pass ourselves as being passive, we have made warfare an art. David Sterling set up Special Air Service, during WW2. Quality over quantity.
Really appreciate these reaction videos of yours. There are a lot of reaction videos on TH-cam rn of British people reacting to videos about America / American history so it's nice to get a reaction vice versa from an American reacting to and learning more about British history. Keep up the cool reactions!
Thank you! I've got more British themed videos coming up soon. Enjoying getting to know more about the UK.
The creation of the British Empire driven mainly by rivalry with other european empires for mercantile benefit rather than power as such
Ah, makes sense. I didn't think of it from a rivalry perspective.
That aspect was huge, It was a race with the other powers of Europe to find new lands and opportunities. And fight your rivals throughout the race.
It's said Germany's failure in this period would later inspire the rise and spread of Nazi Germany.
@@SoGal_YT The one obvious exception being the conquest of Zimbabwe previously known as Rhodesia by Cecil Rhodes who was a massive egoist with delusions of grandeur he was in it for power as well as wealth
James I didn’t “take the throne” he was invited to become king
Jane Grey was invited, Henry VII was invited, William III was invited, Louis the Lion was invited.... Taking the throne by invitation is still taking the throne. Particularly when the invitation is from people who have absolutely no constitutional right to invite anyone to become King.
Nb. The people who invited James I technically committed high treason by approaching him to offer the throne while their Queen was alive, and refusing to name an heir.
@@alexander9703 Actually Elizabeth I acknowledged James as her successor.
he acceded to it
What’s missing here is that there were already long established Portuguese, Dutch and Spanish trading companies and burgeoning French east India company, the military was primarily engaged in fighting the Dutch Spanish and French, rather than the ‘countries’ they were trying to monopolise trade with.
Yeah, for context you need to look at what all of the western european countries were doing at that time. Britain may have been the most successful at it, but all of those countries were doing it. For instance, the map of Africa may show the sections controlled by the British, but what it doesn't make clear is that the entire continent was controlled by European nations as they essentially carved up the continent between themselves, with the same being true of north/south America and much of the rest of the world.
15:46 yes there's a Hampshire in England, I live here. :D The old capital of England, Winchester, is in Hampshire.
Why do people seem to make fun of Sussex residents?
Joe Biden has ancestors from Sussex.
@@1158supersiri What's Sussex got to do with Hampshire or Winchester?
Love From Gosport!
It's called 'New' Hampshire in the US for a reason. The same as New York, and New England, Because these places already existed in Britain. Virginia is also named after Elizabeth the 1st, The Virgin queen.
"what's the French got to do with this?" 😂😂...... Everything
200 wars in 500 years is what the French had to do with it...
@@chrismalcomson7640 exactly... Everything
The video mentions the battle of Plassey - that and Pondicherry were defeats for the French attempts to take over India. French troops and officers were employed by many Indian rulers to improve their own armies.
Goddam french 😂
@@chrismalcomson7640 prithee, one would assume you could name every one of those "200 wars" ?......known in the trade as bollocks. must refer you to the "war of Jenkins ear".... love tripe....esp with onions, rakes a vinegar. x
The British empire covered a third of the globe. At its height it was so vast that the sun never set on it
A quarter is the number I've usually come across and a quarter of the world's population back then too.
@@Catubrannos if you include the polar ice caps and empty parts of the world? 180 out of 200 countries invaded, all improved
Typical American thinks that the reason the British empire left America was because of their rebellion lmao just ignoring the fact the American rebels begged Spai and France for help and lead to the British empire having to be at war with 3 nations; with also having other colonies to rule with India’s rebellions too lool
True they Show real hybris
Thank you for this posting .I think it is good to get an outsider view of our Empire. It was built on the total strength of the Royal Navy particularly after the Battle of Trafalgar and the defeat of the French, That led to the words of the song Rule Brittania, Britannia rules the waves. The growth of the Empire was in the main for the expansionist growth of trade to satisfy the ever growing needs of wealthy owners that exploited the GB workforces tremendously. It continued unabated with the strength of The Royal Navy and The Crown Forces providing the back up if required. I remember as a child we used to have a Public Holiday which was Empire Day and we celebrated the fact that the sun NEVER set on the British Empire. Great historical content and thank you for your very pertinent commentary.
Old phase the sun never sets on the British empire
True except when it did
@@silvergirlsoph with the current 14 oversea territories of the UK right now, most of any country on earth and 16 commonwealth countries it technically still doesnt.
yeah we stole that phrase from the Spanish, after we took their gold
@@hopclang9409 The phrase was first made by Fray Francisco de Ugalde, Spanish, to King Charles 1. The phrase was later used when Britain acquired other territories. In 1852,
@@silvergirlsoph there’s still a small amount left so it’s not gone just yet
Cook claimed Hawaii as well, that's why they still have the Union flag in the corner of theirs. It was not originally USA.
Ah, wondered about that.
Actually the King of Hawaii asked to become a British protectorate in order to ward off American influence, and he chose to put the Union Jack in his flag as a sign of that. His request was politely declined, and Hawaii became part of the American empire, until it was made up to statehood.
@@iamthecaptainofmysoul2293 cool, I didn't know they asked. We should never have turned them down, I have seen their women.
Wasn't he killed in Hawaii?
I think they were called The Sandwich Islands at the time, which is 'deliciously' ironic, because Cook became a meal for the inhabitants!! 😋
@@jamespasifull3424 Yes, they were.
thank god for someone willing to learn!
'Empire of the seas' is the best documentary on the British empire, but it is 4 episodes long
I agree a fantastic four parter by Dan snow
The loss of the13 colonies was minor as 1 west indies island was worth more than all 13 colonies
And Britain still had the Canadas as a source of furs and Eastern White Pines for ship's masts.
While I fully understand the history behind this statement, and agree largely with the knowledge to back it up, I'm just going to say it's a little more nuanced than you suggest. The loss was serious, make no mistake; perhaps not _economically_ though even then it must be contextualised further than simply comparing the economic value of the Thirteen Colonies in a basic and somewhat superficial way. You are correct, though as I say, it's a bit more complex than that.
To clarify, the island of Jamaica to which you refer was indeed economically more valuable than the entire Thirteen Colonies combined. The British Empire had sugar plantations, rum makers, exotic goods, fruits, spices, contraband, commodities, textiles and tobacco making Britain a lot of money.
Slavery, yes, also. Wealth from all over the Empire poured through the Caribbean as it was often a stopping point for ships heading from the South Atlantic to the Thirteen Colonies, obviously. Though slavery was eventually stopped, of course, the British circulated hundreds of thousands of slaves through the region (the Spanish and Portuguese enslaved even more people; and what the Spanish did to places like Hispaniola in the Caribbean, beggars belief - effectively a form of ethnic cleansing parading as exploration)
In any case, the Thirteen Colonies were formatively newer and typically in temperate or even cold climes. Yes, the colonies of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, were obviously exceptions to this, though New York and Boston were hardly warmer than England. Boston, New York, Charlestown and Savannah were major British settlements and after the Seven Years War Britain had captured Quebec and Montreal in Lower Canada.
Boston was well-guarded by the British Army and Royal Navy, enjoying a highly advantageous position on the Eastern Seaboard of North America, in a time when the Eastern Seaboard was nowhere near as well-developed and populous as it would later become.
In other words, Boston, Charlestown, New York and to a lesser though still important extent, Savannah, were hugely important in a manner perhaps disproportionate to how they would become (with the exception of New York, whose star only ascended further across the centuries)
New York was (originally, at least) a _very_ British city. It might be hard to believe now after centuries of immigration, Americanisation, anti-British propaganda run rampant and simply the passage of time through new paradigms, though suffice it to say that back in 1775 for example, the New Yorker was essentially British.
And not just to some small extent either; places like New York were so 'plugged in' to the British civilisation, that they'd receive newspapers/pamphlets from London, _before many Northern English towns would_ via maritime trade and regular relays of news ships going back and to across the North Atlantic)
Believe it or not, New York was hardly a den of rebellious fervour as sometimes implied; the rebel 'capital' so to speak, was in Philadelphia, although Boston would be in with a shout of spiritually sharing the honour.
Rabble rousing business owners jealous of 'special treatment' for native Americans (see Proclamation Line Act 1763) were stirring some major league shit in the streets of Boston. They acted like the British were taxing the American people to death, simply to get their own way in causing a separatist movement. Eventually the Virginian Legislature (including the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) would join the growing calls to arms.
I'm not saying there were no rebels in New York; clearly there were still hundreds if not thousands growing in number. However, many Loyalists remained throughout the Thirteen Colonies (at the end of the war, some 100,000 or so American Loyalists were deported, their possessions confiscated/stolen, their homes repossessed and often public shaming and violence such as tarring and feathering went along with this, before and after the war)
Funny how we never hear about that 'glorious' side of the war. Because it was not.
Point is, that the Thirteen Colonies were obviously a place of immense potential. I mean, the USA is proof enough of that today. I am just saying that Boston, Savannah and Charlestown for instance, and especially New York, were sorry losses for the British. In fact, in 1781, the British Army of North America still held out at Savannah, Charlestown and New York at the end of the war. They were _not_ forcibly driven out by strength of arms.
They were made to leave by the Treaty of Paris 1783. In fact, British troops had repelled repeated rebel and native allied attempts to take Savannah, and New York casually maintained a typical standing garrison of 8,000 men, plus a Royal Navy fleet in the Harbour.
Charlestown had been strenuously recaptured earlier in the war, and they weren't just going to give up on the place (until they gave up on the war entirely; or should I say, the tax payers and politicians had had enough)
Cornwallis, though captured and humiliated at Yorktown (though in fairness, outnumbered 3:1 by a Franco-American Army led primarily by General Rochambeau; so not the most shameful way to lose) was a ferocious field general and was known as a great attacking general, logistician and father figure among his troops. He was a complex figure and not above using severe measures to win, though he generally preferred the honour of set piece battlefield victories.
Had the government and particularly Governor-General Henry Clinton, given Cornwallis more support and freedom to operate how he liked, i.e. very aggressively, always on Washington's heels, then the outcome of the war could have been very different.
Instead, Clinton was more comfortable parading his men in New York while bedding a fellow officer's wife (true story)
Even as Cornwallis defiantly held on as the trap closed on him at Yorktown, Clinton misunderstood the situation atrociously. Washington wanted to all out assault New York (perhaps still sore about being hammered there earlier in the war at Long Island) However, his subordinates - and mostly the French allies with more experience than him in war - basically said, feint an attack on New York, give Clinton the slip, and then converge on Yorktown. Clinton fell for it; making him very cagey and reluctant to send aid to Cornwallis, or even just to evacuate him.
Even as Cornwallis pleaded for evacuation with urgent letter after letter, Clinton idled, taking weeks to reply. It was a disgraceful situation and in fairness, Cornwallis never lost a battle in open field (though he nearly did at Guilford Courthouse) Generally, he won 9 battles and was a great general, trained in the best of European warfare, but with his own very aggressive style.
He nearly caught Washington like 10 times.
Scared of being unable to evacuate if he needed to, should the ships be elsewhere, Clinton tarried and the delay was fatal for the British cause in the war. Cornwallis was trapped and it was only a matter of time; and when he finally did send the fleet to evacuate Cornwallis, it was way too late and the new French battle fleet build for this war, arrived under France's best admiral in the era, the Comte de Grasse. The British and French fleets fought in the Chesapeake Bay for an entire day though the outnumbered and outgunned British were forced to fall back to New York. Cornwallis was now completely alone.
Later in life, while casually the Governor of India, Cornwallis would reflect that, while never losing a field battle, he was 'defeated in detail' by the death of a thousand cuts style degradation that led to his inevitable cornering and capture. He'd lost his best eyes and ears at the Battle of Cowpens (where his subordinate cavalry Colonel, Banastre Tarleton, was soundly defeated, losing much of the 'British Legion' - Cornwallis's finest light infantry and his even rarer light cavalry) Cavalry of any kind was rare in the war, so it was a serious loss.
Tarleton had squandered the best hope Cornwallis had of staying fast and mobile, so he moved towards the coast seeing that as a better idea than chasing after wild geese.
When told about Tarleton's defeat and his losses, Cornwallis was said to lean so hard on his general's sword that it snapped in two. He was angry. The light infantry, though not as heavily armed and numerous as the Line Infantry regulars, were more flexible and able to screen his army, saving lives from being taken by sharpshooters etc (they were a counter to those tactics)
Denuded of those troops, Cornwallis's situation was becoming dire as he was outnumbered in increasingly hostile territory and miserably far from realistic reinforcement. He abandoned North Carolina, realising the British strategic mistake in thinking many loyalists would rise up there (some did, though Britain's policy of freeing slaves to encourage the men to fight for them, didn't sit well with, you guessed it, Southern cotton and molasses plantation owners)
His army marched 25 miles a day just to avoid being surrounded. And when they were forced to fight, they did, very well (the British soldiers were if nothing else, consummate professionals)
[1/2]
[2/2] _We must not lose our sugar islands!_ ~ King George III, 1782 (upon hearing of the French Navy moving to strike the British possessions in the Caribbean)
The Royal Navy was not happy to say the least about the fact their one serious defeat in the war, had effectively left Cornwallis stranded (I've seen historians like overrated and annoying Dan Snow, basically try and say that 'one defeat and a continent was lost') Bit unfair on the RN though. It was Clinton's fault for dithering and being too scared of his own safety.
The RN fought well. In any case, they avenged their defeat at the tactically inconclusive though strategically disastrous Battle of the Chesapeake, and soundly hammered the French at the Battle of the Saintes, 1782, the year after Yorktown fell in 1781.
Admiral Rodney defeated the Comte de Grasse good style, no two ways about it. So ended France's greedy attempt to overreach and exploit British misfortunes and steal more plunder in the Caribbean.
The loss of the Thirteen, while not nearly as economically important as the Caribbean by comparison, was a prestige hit for the British did take some doing to overcome. It was a shocking situation for the King especially, whom lamented the lost wonders of the lands now out of his own reach. However, ironically, part of the reason why the Boston Tea Party had dressed as native Americans, was to mock the fact that the King had sided with the natives to the West in the Ohio Valley.
Much of the French and Indian Wars segment of the broader Seven Years War, had been fought in the Ohio Valley, typically over strategic forts the French insisted on building when asked not to. Recognising their concerns, the King had banned Westward movement beyond the Ohio Valley (at least for some time to come) This was anathema to white Americans who wanted to settle new land and make fortunes of their own. Most of the Virginia Legislature, Boston Tea Party and Signatories of the Declaration of Independence, would have been fervently anti-Native American.
The Iroquois called Washington, 'the Destroyer/Burner of Villages'. Thomas Jefferson clearly hated native Americans too. And he owned slaves. For the Natives, British defeat in the war, was a defeat even more so for them. Even tribes who'd sided with the rebels, were eventually turned on one by one, as the fledgling USA insisted on it's own expansionism in the 19th century. From then to Tecumseh's role in the War of 1812, the consequences were dire for them. Disease, even more so, ravaged their tribes all over.
Jamaica was more important financially, but in context, if Britain held onto the Thirteen for longer, then of course that situation would end as the sheer amount of business, trade and tax able to be raised with more people than Jamaica could compare to them, would surpass the revenues from Jamaica. This would be even more pronounced after slavery was abolished, of course.
Yet on the horizon, the tea trade was about to change everything; soon enough accounting for 1/3 of Britain's annual import expenditure (not even joking, tea was very expensive back then due to the rarity of it in the quantities able to be shipped, and the difficulty the tea clippers had racing back and to to get it) Cue Opium Wars and Britain reasserting itself over all rivals.
@@ThePalaeontologist a very long reply but I am unsure as to its correctness after Hispaniola was referred to as aka Cuba
@@mephistophelescountcaglios1489 Translation: couldn't address my points so latched onto one error. I had mixed up the two as the Spanish massacred natives on both anyway. Moot point. For some reason I thought Hispaniola was the older name of Cuba, easily done. Yet if that was what you got from my replies then okay.
It's a very simplistic video. It really glosses over many facts. For a start, it doesn't even mention the fall of the Spanish empire or the battle of the Armada and how that started us on the path to empire. Thats really the biggest lesson of the empire
If you want to view the Spanish & French Navies, take a glass bottom boat trip over famous Naval battles areas of Sea, which saw the conflicts between Britain and those two.....you'll see their ships resting on the Ocean floor... ;-)
We don't put our hand on our hearts during the national anthem.
It was just an automatic reaction, being American 😆
@@SoGal_YT It wasn't even a thing in the US until the mid to late 1980's. Traditionally. American civilians saluted the flag during the national anthem with an outstretched right arm. This was dropped in 1942 for reasons that are lost in the mists of time. After that, Americans stood to attention for their national anthem. I guess in the 1980's, some people felt that they should make a gesture to make them seem more patriotic than their neighbours. It didn't take long for politicians to realise that making this gesture would gain them a few votes. Personally, I think standing to attention for your national anthem, is a sign of respect, making strange hand gestures though (salutes from serving & ex-military aside), is a sign of insecurity.
@@skasteve6528 "This was dropped in 1942 for reasons that are lost in the mists of time. " ... like being the same as the Nazi salute.
I don't & won't sing it because I'm an atheist and a Republican ( UK not US version)
@@julesburton4649 I'm in favour of our monarchy- they are a lot cheaper than a president would be if we compare to the United States. It's not like she has any real power - it helps for public relations and allows our government to stay home and do their job while the royal family represent us abroad. I'm always curious of the benefits republicans think we have by getting rid of the royal family. When Charles becomes king the royal family is going to be streamlined anyway.
the empire really doesn't get covered here in the UK mostly because a large amount of people due to modern outlooks paint the empire as evil worse then the Nazis when really it was far from it. The empire led the way in abolishing slavery across the world doing so even though economically it wasn't worth it. The empire gladly kept and promoted native leaders openly used foreigners in the military and operated under a meritocratic system.
1 - No one paints the British Empire as worse than the Nazis. You are just making shit up.
2 - The Empire indeed led the way in abolishing slavery...after being one of the biggest slaving empires at that period. That's like saying that the person that started to burn your house, should be viewed as a hero because right after it he decided to put out the fire and save what was left in your house.
3 - The empire only promoted native leaders to a certain extent. Black Africans were disenfranchised and were legally prevented from acquiring any skilled jobs in the Cape colony for example, and no Indian would ever serve as Viceroy, etc. And in all seriousness, all the power in the British Imperial possessions, all rested on white British men, very rarely on people of color.
@@robto
Yes it is look how politicians especially those on the left talk about the empire, they want us to hate the nations colonial past and with the riots this year has seen protests about monuments to the empire and the tearing down of a statue.
I never said that the empire didn't benefit from slavery find a major world empire that didn't, im not saying that people should be grateful what but considering the other empires at the time (and i mean at the time) it was seen as a best option for the people.
Now once again at the time the promotion of any non whites was a big step, the Indian civil service was staffed primarily by native Indians, and no i never said that people fought for the empire because of some grate love of the empire it was a job, do you work because you love your job, no you work because that pays your bills, and historically the military has always been the biggest employer with the lowest skill requirement.
Any love that people of the empire have for it comes from them having a place in it and benefiting from it, same for every major empire.
This is a discussion that, as can be seen, rages on in Britain. For most of the 20th century, British kids were taught that the empire was a force for nothing but good. Some people still cling to this view, and take great exception to any attempts to actually tell not just the best bits of the truth, but the whole truth. Which is what happens nowadays, much to the annoyance of our friend here. So much so that he is induced to exaggerate to make his point.
@@guywilletts2804 i didnt say that the empire was a force for good, and i never said it was good in its entirety name a nation in history that has a spotless record, my point being it wasn't as bad as some make it out to be these days
@@The_Alt_Vault exactly what I'm saying. Get off your high horse and accept that it was pretty shitty lots of the time in lots of ways. But that was then. We, as a nation, can grow up, stop being defensive, and move on, but all this "name me an empire..." stuff sounds like you're trying to hide something. I know you'll say you're not, but don't bother coming back with some mealy mouthed attempt to justify the indefensible.
What, apart from military might, gave out forefathers the right to even be in places like India, irrespective of how we judge their actions when they got there.
Is this what you were thinking of about Captain Cook?
''Cook and his crew became the first Europeans to visit the Hawaiian islands. They went on to explore the west coast of North America, where Cook tried and failed to pass the Bering Strait in his search for a northern passage between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.''
"what do the french have to do with it?" lol, quite a lot
they are on of the main reason the states got their independence
Something you might want to look into (because it is barely covered in US history) is The Seven Years War and it's effect on the American Revolution, something that the French had a large stake in.
I don't understand the statement that the USA beat the British in the war of independents when a Treaty of Alliance followed in 1778, which led to French shipments of money, matériel and troops to the United States of America as well as the ignition of a global war with Britain. Subsequently, Spain and the Dutch Republic also began to send assistance, which along with political developments in Europe left the British with no allies during the conflict
Absolutely
When Queen Elizabeth I died, without an heir, the next person in the line of succession was James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots who was a cousin to Elizabeth. When James took the throne, he became James I of England.
skirmishe ? with mexico ? 1/3 of usa is former mexican territory.
1/4 of the contiguous states based on this map: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Mexico_1824_%28equirectangular_projection%29.png Still a huge amount though.
In military terms it was little more than a skirmish, just a few thousand troops on each side.
@@grahamfox7568 mainly cause Mexico was a very new country and was very unstable ( had recently broken free from the Spanish)
@@creature2479 yeah it wasn't really a fair fight
It took America another 50 years to abolish slavery and even then it continued for a long time unlike the British where slaves were very rare in Great Britain even before it abolishment
Been on a bit of binge of your videos 😂, but the British empire was the largest empire by land mass and population. The mongol empire was the largest continuous empire meaning there was no breaks in the land mass that they owned
To break it down it was if Walmart had it's own army also America only won independence because we didn't send reinforcements because we was at war with France and Spain at the time and was important
Also there was massive unrest in the mainland uk with the same percentages of people on the side of the rebels and wanted the war against them to end, and more people marched on London from Newcastle in support of the American colonists than would march on the Bastille in Paris
And from an economic the spice and tea in the East was far more important at that time. Plus the endless fights with the french lol.
@@markchisnall4535 when are we not in a war with France they royal navy are going to be arresting French fishermen lol
France financed the war of independence and provided a lot of troops/command. It was France's attempt at making Britain fight a 2 front war. It cost France so much money that it led to the French Revolution.
Britain did NOT start slave trade. The ancient Egyptians and Romans were trading slaves first. The Brits only picked up on it
The British were english irish scottish welsh.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The motivation behind the expansion of the British empire is very similar to the motivation behind Americas spread of influence. In fact America can be described as an Empire, the main difference between the modern American empire and the British empire is Britain mainly exerted direct influence on its overseas interests where American uses indirect influence to maintain its overseas interests.
Wow! I didn't know that there are no schools in America, fascinating
They all got shot down by school shooters..
"It's crazy" as they say 😂
Leaves out a pretty important part about the East India Company. That is was a ~company~ and not the British government that raised an army and gained control of India. If Google took over Mexico you wouldn't blame in on the American government.
Well, you would blame them a Bit, in that they're really supposed to suppress any attempts by private entities to acquire the ability to do things like that just as a function of being a (supposedly) functional nation-state. But no, you're right, you would indeed attribute the actions to Google, not the USA. The thing with the East India Company? There were a bunch of East India Companies. The one in question was the British East India Company (as opposed to it's Dutch, French, etc. counterparts), so some minor confusion arises, as in conflicts with other entities they Would be referred to as 'the British", as confusing them with the British government (who is at least nominally supposed to reign them in if they start getting out of hand, and thus on whose behalf they can be assumed to acting if such does not occur) is much less of an issue than, say, getting in a fight with the Wrong 'East India Company'.
The East India Company was an early example of outsourcing, they could be as pushy and aggressive as they liked in the knowledge that if things went wrong, the British Navy would bail them out...
who backed that company
@@YouSmokeChed it was owned by a group of merchants and wealthy individuals. It was not created or owned by the British Government, although the British government gave it a royal charter to allow it to trade with India. Not sure what you’re getting at?
"Americans" are all people who live in the American continent, not just in the United States
Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful reaction. I
I'm really loving learning more about the Brits and the world in general!
The British empire covered the largest area globally, more than any other including the Mongols etc.
It was partly an economic thing, but also a case of not wanting the French and Spanish to have stuff
The independence war was a battle as we were fighting napoleon at the time. The war was won when we burnt your wire house down in 1812 after napoleon was defeated and you sighed a peace treaty
British would have keep USA New England . If french never stepped their nose in foreign buisness
this seems to be the popular theme lately but isn't really the case. the burning of the white house was symbolic but the war went on for months after that event and it didn't really impact the war. The war of 1812 was closer to a draw than to anything else. As neither side really gave up anything. In some ways, the Americans even got what they wanted as the impressment of American sailors ended, but neither side gained much in terms of territory.
@@flyingeagle3898 Sorry but... Wrong...
The way you determine winners and losers is look at objectives...
America:
Invade British Canada, butcher the Canadians and steal their stuff... Failed
Destroy British Maritime Trade through the use of 44 gun heavy frigates designed as Commerce Raiders... Failed
Defend their own territory against incursions... Failed (We captured a fair bit of territory, which we later returned in the settlelemt, we also ravaged the Chesapeke Bay area)
Defend their Capital.. Failed...
Keep their ports open to generate trade revenue and customs duties needed to finance their Government and War Effort ... Failed
Britain:
Defend Canada... Succeded
Stop American pirates... Succeded
Punish enemies for trying to invade Canada by occupying their Capital and burning all their government buildings... Guess...
If you really want to see who won, look at that nice straight line across the map of the continent, the peace treaty drew a line across the continent from American territory, all the way to the pacific with a sign saying "stay south of this or we'll come and kick you again"
America LOST the war of 1812-1814 ultimately because of money, the lack of T. A. X. E. S. in the US, meant the only source of Govt revenue was port duties, with all your ports blockaded, no revenue, no money to pay for the war, unless you borrowed...
The occupation of your Capital, despite having some 20,000 troops in the area by an army of under 5000, was a colossal failure that left foreign Bankers unwilling to lend a bankrupt nation any more cash.
And finally... Impressment of American Sailors...
Most "americans" at that time still had British accents and names, so to protectthem from being mistaken for British sailors and impressed the US ordered the use of "Pass-Ports". But being a cheap bunch allergic to tax funded govenment, they basically privatised it.
The US ambasador in London was SELLING fake passports for $4 a pop...
Port officials in the US encouraged sailors to buy several copies of their passport, and sell the spares to deserters in Liverpool.
To clarify... US Passport 1812 Style "This is to certify that ___John Smith___ is an American citizen, please treat him right. Identification Height ___medium___, weight ___medium___, hair ___medium___, eyes ___medium___, distinguishing marks ___medium___, signed ___Hank B Yank___, Harbour Master, Port of ___Buttuckett___"
I'm a Brit and love the fact you love learning about the world which I like to do.
If you call yourself a "Brit" - YOU AIN'T. Your English, N. Irish , Scottish or Welsh.
@@MyRobertgrant You good bro?
It always surprises me at the American lack of knowledge of the history of other countries and geography of the world, do those subjects get taught in schools in the USA ?
"Americans" are all people who live in the American continent, not just in the United States
@@Revolución_Socialista I understand what you mean but Central, South and Canadian American people don't like being called American as my partner is Canadian and isn't keen on that expression
You seem to forget that the colony's was an extension of Britain... So the independence was not to 'regain' your country as it was never yours.
America was invaded by Europe, British gained the rule via the colonies they set up. (Totally trade based - but all war is based on acquisition of trade)
There was no British empire then. This is why the 'second empire' is a thing (?). Really it is the empire after the loss of the American colonies. Technically there was no first empire.
The empire was established in trade and then forced to stay with military might - until.... What kills all empire is revolt/revolution...
Liked your bit on slavery. Yes this was totally the norm for any dominant power of old. Disgusting thought for modern minds.
I like the way you present the content. Keep it up.
Interesting that you skimmed over the fact the British abolished slavery in 1807 over 200 years ago (Fun fact the British actually actively pursued anyone carrying out slavery and punished them and freed the slaves)
Me: is British
Also me: doesn't know the words to the national anthem, but knows this version...
🎶🎶🎶
I'm missing bargain hunt
What should I have for lunch
Maybe some chips
🎶🎶🎶
Subscribed and will watch more of your videos - very interesting watching someone in the process of learning.
The music, apart from the National Anthem are Sea Shantys sung buy sailors on ship to help keep a rythem when pulling ropes, rowing etc.. and because of the lack of iPods in those days.
James Cook was the first European to discover Hawaii (Hawaii still has the Union flag on it's state flag), he also explored the coastline from Oregon to Alaska hoping to discover the Northwest Passage around the Americas.
Scotland didn't 'take over' the throne. The current king of Scotland was the son of the current English queens cousin, Elizabeth 1st. Elizabeth had no children and so james 6th of Scotland was heir to the throne. He became james 1st as no English king had previously been named james. This was the first time an English monarch was on both the English and Scottish throne. This was hie GB was made.
This channel should be called 'American without a clue!'
Yes James 6 became James 1 of England by invitation of English parliament
Oh wow...I think I need to learn about how the government works, or did work, in the UK. I had no idea royalty could swap countries like that, lol.
@@SoGal_YT when Queen Elizabeth died, she never had any children and so no heir. King James was her cousin and she basically supported along with the parliament to name him the heir to the throne.
@@carsonramsay4840 Ah, thanks for the explanation.
@@SoGal_YT There was also the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when politicians and lords invited a Dutch king (William of Orange) to invade. When William landed, a lot of people, including members of (existing) king James' family, deserted him and William took over without a battle.
when I was in school in Scotland we had to say “James the 6th and 1st” and “James the 7th and 2nd” every time or we were hit with the tawse - a two foot long , two inch wide heavy leather strap, split halfway into two strips.
it is not meant to be a cross it is the English flag on top of the Scottish flag combined called the Union Jack
"Canada is no threat to us" hahaha tell that to the U.S back in 1812
Just the clarify the British didn't start the slave trade, they took part in it once it started to be successful in order to gain wealth. However they did abolish it soon after and forced nations to outlaw slavery. Infact the British government only just recently finished paying for loans in which it took out to end slavery. I believe 2015 was the last payment.
Thumbs-up. Your 'proportionality of known World' argument is an excellent one, one I've never heard before. A great one for declaring the Roman Empire not just the longest enduring but, perhaps, the largest known World empire in history.
Three things facilitated British expansion in the 18th century. The creation of an accurate maritime chronometer to enable the calculation of longitude. Eradicating scurvy by means of a proper diet. A plentiful supply of Cornish copper to sheath the hulls of naval ships. This made them faster and more durable than other European navies. To be honest, if you turn up in a place where the culture is technologically about 500 years behind you, it is pretty much inevitable that you will be in charge.
Cook captain of the hms endeavour ships are regularly named after him
NOT FORGETTING 'MORSE.
@@jamesmcleesh2688 never. Chief inspector
George Washingtons ancestorial home is in Washington,Sunderland city in North East England.
People forget the Vikings enslaved britons and Europeans, Cork in Ireland was a big slave trading post for them