"Cassius?! We actually know what that means!" And here we find out that Historia Civilis talked for years about Julius Caesar just to pave the way to the English Civil War
What about copernicus' heliocentric model, how does that lead back to caesars death? Because without his revolution in science you wouldnt even be watching this video.. With the telescope galileo was able to see there were moons rotating around jupiter which called into question aristotelian physics at the same time roughly tycho brahe was making his findings known which leads to keplers laws and then to newtonian mechanics then to einstein theories on spacetime and relativity
@@TheSquidPro you can read it, its free on the internet: "The History of the Puritans: From the death of King Charels I. to the Act of ..." by Daniel Neal It's on page 56. ps, you might not know old English. F = S a lot of the time.
Makes me wonder if H.C. will humanize him. It's easy to alienate and judge a figurehead from an abstract caricature of the man. It's another thing entirely if we walk in the mans shoes and are faced with the same decisions and realities.
Upcycle Electronics not that I don’t agree, but it’s funny how this matter of humanisation always gets bought up in favour of CHARLES, a man whose reputation was renewed around the same time the monarchy was, whilst CROMWELL perpetually remains the religious tyrant who banned Christmas because he was just that mean.
John Doe He certainly strikes me as a more *charming* personality. I wouldn’t confuse that with likeability. He was a stubborn ass who refused to entertain the idea that divine right *might* just come with divine responsibilities, and he didn’t care how many of his subjects (which he supposedly believed he was divinely appointed to protect) died to prove that point. Not to spoil the next video, but it was his own refusal to let go of his grudge against his own people that saw him put to death. Same goes for Cromwell- certainly his sense of humour and the passion of his convictions have been buried by the eventual victors, and the more I read about him the more I can’t help but grow a sense of respect and admiration. But his actions make him far from likeable.
"We are all Britons, and I am your king!" "Didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective." "You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship..."
you know, i only learned this relatively recently, but the best thing about that skit in retrospect is that peasant in particular was describing some of medieval village governance accurately albeit with anachronisms aplenty. Im not certain but its easy to imagine that Terry Jones wrote that scene cus dudes just a big ol' a history nerd
@@dndboy13 I think it's showing how we, in the current generation, think we have all these great ideas, but if you dig deep, they've all been around for thousands of years already. We don't expect peasants to talk like that, and probably most of them didn't, but then again maybe they did but their voice has been lost to history.
7:55 it's important to remember that, when we're talking about property in England, we're talking about land ownership, not personal possessions. Going back to William the Conquer, land had been diveded out to nobles of all stripes, who then either used serfs or let the land out to tenant farmers (what we would call sharecroppers, in the US). When radicals talked about eliminating private property, they meant getting rid of the landlords (who were actual Lords) and having local communities hold ownership of the land as part of the common wealth of the community. Similar models of ownership were tried in New England, at around the same time. As for the notion of maintaining private ownership, but handing out parcels of land to the individual farmers who worked it, no one had thought of it yet, and it would likely have seemed far more radical than simply doing away with private land ownership, or putting a King on trial.
It's also tied in with the politics of enclosure and Enclosure Acts. And then there's the ugliness of how enclosure and the idea of land as personal possession had in the Highland Clearances (which I should add was primarily done by Scots, especially lowland Scots, against the Highland Scots, but did include some notable English lords doing it as well, hence the misconception it was an English policy against Scots and not a continuation of Anglo-Scottish anti-Gaelic politics that had existed well before union), as community patriarchs transformed into landlords and the communal use of land stopped, which helped lead into the very, very complicated history of crofting culture in the Highlands that still exists and remains politically useful. Probably not explained it well, but shits interesting, how the concepts of land and ownership have changed on this island over the centuries, especially given the numerous different groups and cultures present and different systems of governance.
@@thecondescendinggoomba5552 there's a Woody Guthrie song called "Why oh why" where he keeps asking questions and then answering them, all using the same format. Finally, he gets to, "Why does the landlord take money?" To which he is forced to respond, "Now I don't know that one myself." which sort of breaks the format, but is also the punchline of the whole song.
thats how drug dealers in them corners work bro, first, they hook you up, and them left you high and dry and wanting some more squares in the screen fighting for political gains and resourses.
I agree. Historia Civilis should be condemned for emotional abuse of 600K subscribers and obliged to sell all his property (save his books), rent a small room (with broadband access) and upload a 20 minute video thrice a week!
The Army: "You're under arrest for crimes against the kingdom. Parliament will decide your fate." The King: "I. AM. THE. PARLIAMENT." The Army: "Not anymore." The King: "So it's treason then." *ignites Scottish army*
You were the chosen one. You were supposed too destroy the church of England not strengthen it. Bring balance to the parliament not leave it in pieces.
Weatherbee He wasn’t a religious fanatic like he is often made out to be though. The parliament was actually full of more extreme religious fanatics than him. There's great many examples which show that Cromwell was a fairly tolerant man. For instance, Parliament had the Quacker James Nayler convicted on the charge of blasphemy for merely reenacting the arrival of Christ in Jerusalem. He was sentenced to be put in the pillory and on there to have a red hot iron bored through his tongue. It was Cromwell who called for leniency. A historian wrote that: “The sad spectacle of the parliamentary "trial" of the Quaker James Nayler,marked as it was by numerous speeches reflecting extreme religious fanaticism, is only one among many examples that could be cited of the gap between Cromwell's views and those of the bulk of the political nation. But the plain fact of solid, personal achievement in the struggle for toleration is spread across the historical record; Cromwell's attitude toward the Jews, his treatment of individual Catholics and Anglicans in England, his concern for the distressed Protestants of the Vaudois, his conversations with the Quaker George Fox, all reflect this. The man who could protest against the application of a test of Presbyterian orthodoxy by arguing that ‘the State, in choosing men to serve them, takes no notice of their opinions; if they be willing faithfully to serve them, that satisfies’ was no fanatic.” People often says that Cromwell was a religious fanatic because of his campaign in Ireland, but people forget that there was an Irish rebellion in 1642 where thousands of English Protestants were killed. Many people in England (and naturally Cromwell as well) were strongly angered by these acts. Nonetheless, there’s absolutely no evidence Cromwell ever gave orders for his soldiers to kill unarmed men, women and children. He only ever ordered men who were ARMED to be put to death. Cromwell defended his actions in Ireland. “Well, your words are,Massacre, destroy and banish, good now, give us an instance of one man sincemy coming into Ireland, not in arms, massacred, destroyed or banished.” The accusations of Cromwell being immensely cruel in Ireland are nothing but propaganda from royalist Catholics. Cromwell behaved no differently than to any man from his own times. In fact, he behaved behaved better. He often hanged his own men if they dared to rape or pillage.
Your Julius Caesar series is the best one I've seen. I really hope you will continue on through the life of Augustus too. Thank you for the awesome videos. I always look forward to them.
@@xaph5575 Easy mistake to make as there are two of them with similar names.* Plus, realise* is more of a pain to see than mistaken a Roman name from a similar sounding Roman name who was around the sametime as Cassius in my humble opinion. *sure you know but just for whom does not: Marcus Licinius Crassus - Wartorn Stubborn General (aka Loyalist) Gaius Cassius Longinus - Silver Tongue Senator (aka Backstabber) See how confusing that is :)
You're work must somehow make it's way into the classroom. The work you do is one of the highest degree of value I have seen in a very long time. Anyway, just thought I would drop a note of support.
"The King was playing for time..." "The moderators were playing for time..." Sounds like an old British tradition. Yes, Brexit, I'm looking right at you.
@@dbojangles1597 You don't see any of that in Scandinavian politics, and those countries are allegedly the most democratic countries in the world. Dishonestly stalling proceedings due to corruption shouldn't be viewed as "meh, politics as usual" if you want real change. Have some backbone.
I'm over here desperately looking for the trial video, but darn, it's not released yet. You got me hooked man, these history of Rome and now England is pretty awesome. Keep up the good work sir.
Well the final product in France wasn't good either, a lot of bug, bad fonctionalities, only few good characters, and well even after 4 big patches, that still a mess of a game
@@deschloro Although - given the franchise at work, it's arguable that the army was more representative of the English populace than Parliament was. Either way though, there was a sequence of narrower and narrower representation behind the people in power.
I mean that's the ultimate resolution of the Divine Right vs Popular Sovereignty argument. After you chop enough royal heads and nobody gets struck by lighting you kinda figure out where political legitimacy truly originate from.
@@RoberttheWise That does not follow. There is nothing dictating that God would or should respond with lightning, but seeing as how popular sovereignty had to be flexed with unlawful tactics and putting briton through two civil wars with a higher per capita death toll than any other british war says a lot for it. How much death justifies political legitimacy of popular sovereignty?
@@AndrewTheFrank The line of reasoning is sound if you focus on what supposed source of power is ultimately capable of enacting real change in the world. What has the last word about how things are. And there you clearly see that Divine Right or some extreme form of Legalism where the law is the ultimate basis ultimately bows to a violent mod doing their thing. And you are absolutely right that the pure expression of this popular legitimacy is death and violence. But that's exactly the point. Because violence is ultimately real and every other legitimacy was historically propped up by veiled popular sovereignty. Divine Right was only a thing because the masses believed in a god and the authority he invested in the king and violently punished dissenters. Rule of Law was only a thing because people agreed to what the law should be and enforced it. So the question is not what is good. The question is what is real and how do we make it good.
English civil war was only fought by British people. Thirty years war almost half of Europe was involved in one side or other apart from constant wars with Turks and Spanish Netherlands. Also most of the battles against Swedish, Denmark and France took place inside the lands of HRE
In history, boring usually denotes convoluted beyond belief. Think of it like any battle scene in any given Michael Bay or Emmerich flick: something is allegedly happening but you just don't give a damn about anyone so it kinda just flows over your head. My favorite example is the Diadochi wars: pretty much every participant is a vile piece of shit that turns on each other at a moment's notice only to team up with another guy (or their son if the dad has already been executed). There's just nobody there you can truly root for and keeping tabs on all the new alliances before they break all over again within another three months is a formidable job.
It’s kind of funny that Charles’ perspective that any other political power diminished his own was exactly what caused the power of the monarchy in England to just completely collapse following his death.
Wouldn’t mind getting some more modern stuff now that Caesar’s dead... though I still want to continue the Rome stuff too, at least until the rise of the Empire.
17:43 If the Kingdoms of Scotland and England are separate entities, does that not make it possible for the king to cause legal injury to himself? The King of Scotland ordered a Scottish army to invade England and attack English subjects; that seems like that should constitute some sort of crime against the King of England. The King of Scotland caused injury to the King of England; the fact that the same person holds both titles is largely irrelevant.
No, because only the subjects of a king can commit treason against that king. "Outside treason" is not possible. If King A attacks King B, that's not treason, it's just a normal war. This is btw true even for the modern definition of treason - what Putin did to the Ukraine, for example, no matter how much it is against international law, is NOT treason.
The argument might work if you could argue that kings qualify as their own subjects, but good luck getting the king on trial to accept that premise. Especially since it's, from a legal perspective, sentencing him to death for hitting himself.
*The Adventures of Robin Hood* from 1938. With Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland and Basil Rathbone. Music by Erich W. Korngold. In my opinion the best adaptation of Robin Hood ever.
@@tago3860 he is one of the conspirators who killed Caesar I think. Memories rusty, he boasted or threatened a senator by alluding to it in a forum or w/e those fukken nerds called a state gathering.
Historia civilis uploads a video and I know its gonna be a good day. Best historical content on youtube hands down. Also one of the only youtubers worth signing up for patreon for.
Invicta does some good stuff too. I really like his Aztec stuff. Drachinifel also does really good videos on 19th/20th century warships and naval technology.
I know we tend to stick to Rome when it comes to multi-part series around here, but I'd be very excited to see you take on the English Civil War with the same care you've taken to chronicle the life and times of Julius Caesar.
"...this led to Ireton being cancelled." I love the use of Vernacular here. You're truly making history digestible through well polished animation and clear script writing. Keep this early England content coming!
Really well done again. These are by far the best and most useful documentaries I've ever seen on political history/the evolution of politics. And you manage to do that with very limited visual aides. Really well done. Please keep it up.
As the someone following the Holy Roman Imperial tradition my answer to the question is: Yes, of course! But getting your Monarch to face punishment is an entirely different matter.
It wasn’t even just monarchs too. Any sovereign, any princes or princesses of any of the empire’s hereditary monarchies could also be tried before the empire’s courts or the Imperial Diet. In fact, the empire had sole authority in that regard, and that fact helped save the life of the future Frederick the Great.
Amazing quality, amazing information. In my youth, I was very fond of The three Musketeers saga, Alexander Dumas presents the trial and execution from the perspective of the nobles, in his novel "20 years later".
Really like this, not only are you making these histórica events understandable and entertaining, but let us know why it’s so important to the grand scheme of history
Honestly I think I like these “one offs” better than ur usual stuff. You always find such unique and interesting topics and events. Keep up the good work and happy new year.
I would *LOVE* a small series, if not large one, about the English Civil War or any other civil war in human history. The fallout of it is so, well, fun to watch?
I have been addicted to this channel for scratching my Roman history itch, but this video is top notch. Please keep up the great work bud. You are an amazing voice for history.
I'm just five minutes in and somehow I understand the situation of the English civil war *MORE* then after watching some other lectures. ...guess what they say is true that "If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough"
@Jamie Owns This was before the Act of Union, wasn't it? So, despite sharing a monarch, they were separate entities, and therefore it could be argued as a foreign invasion.
Jamie Owns Unless you’re arguing that Scotland was indistinguishable from England at the time, then yes, he was invading with a foreign army. And Cromwell didn’t *enslave* the Scots, unless you’re hyperbolically referring to his occupation of that country they didn’t have at the time.
@@rationalroundhead6739 If Scotland didn't have the country, then how did he occupy it? I know you don't like the monarchy, but don't lay in bed with a mass murderer just because he tried--and failed--to get rid of it.
@@ZeroNumerous First of all, you might want to re-read my argument again. You're agreeing with me. Second of all, you can throw that particular label at anyone famous for their actions in wartime. I could, and do, throw it at the feet of either Charles; they started all three wars- one of which was unwinnable and the others were unnecessary- and the uprisings in his other realms that caused them in the first place. Obviously this isn't going to convince *you* that it wasn't justified, because you agree with the cause. So why the hell do you think it's gonna convince *me?*
It's weird, I feel like, from the very short "English Civil War" modules in history at school, you get the idea of a tyrant king being kicked out by the people. A lot of the nuance, the rump parliament, the army purging moderate members of the house of commons, and the general questions over the legality of the whole thing are pretty much skipped over. All we get is "Cromwell eventually took over, and he turned out to be a dick too.
Frankly, the "legality of the whole thing" is very much a moot point - as the video mentions, under a doctrine of popular sovereignty the king and nobility are "politically irrelevant". It was lawful because the legislature made it lawful.
@@snuurferalangur4357 Yes, anyone can claim to represent some nebulous "will of the people". That doesn't mean the Commons were *wrong* to unilaterally decide to exclude the Lords. By the theory the Commons were operating under, it was lawful because they passed it. The Lords doubtless disagreed with that theory, but the Commons sure didn't. Neither body was exactly super representative of the actual people of the country... but between the two it's hard to argue the House of Lords wasn't *less* representative. So the Commons did at least have _a_ leg to stand on even if it was a flimsy one. True, it's important to keep in mind through all this that just about every even vaguely modern tyranny has claimed to represent the "will of the people". Even if that were an actual thing that could be identified so concretely, just claiming it doesn't make it so. That's why free and fair elections are so important. But one also needs to keep in mind that when one _already_ doesn't live under a representative system the doctrine of popular sovereignty makes popular attempts to overthrow the monarch or whatever quite solidly legitimate - and therefore "legal" insofar as such a term can exist without reference to a specific code of laws.
@@PhysicsGamerTechnically speaking, the House of Lords was actually more representative than the Rump Parliament… insofar as there were more people in the House of Lords. Because the rump HoC scarcely represented anyone aside from themselves. On that scale of pure numbers… technically, yeah. TLDR, the Commons managed to piss away their own legitimacy and political mandate so effectively the Goal essentially was a more representative body by the time they were finished
Good Lord Protector, I was just wanting to watch a good video on the English Civil War, and this pops up. Being from Historia Civilis ensures it'll be not a good video but a great one
Some historians marked this period as that of tension between the patrimonial rights/royal prerogative of the Emperor and the distribution of power within his government and power holders. As shown by the respective regicides of Emperor Osman II and King Charles I.
Over the past year I've started catching up on your videos and they are amazing! I never realized I could get this invested in events told through blocks but here we are. Thank you for all the effort you put into this and I'm really looking forward to the next video!
6:15 -- I think it's not just that the rank-and-file of the army had been radicalized. It's also a matter of social class. The only people elected to Commons were landowners, the "forty-shilling freeholders" who had the right to vote. From the same class or above would have been drawn the army officers. They naturally would be opposed to expanding the franchise. The army rank-and-file, on the other hand, would have been largely the lower classes who had no representation in Commons at all. They naturally would have sympathized with the faction that wanted to give them a political voice.
The Army had a mixture of specific demands (concerning such mundane matters as payment of arrears and immunity from prosecution for any crimes committed during the war) and vaguer aspirations for more democratic government. The key year was actually 1647, when the soldiers began electing agitators to represent them (not unlike modern shop steward)
So glad you're making videos again man. I absolutely love your content. I was just cruising along through this video and then right at the end I realized how relevant this is to current events. +5 relevance points.
Audible is the internet's leading provider of audio entertainment... I love Duncan's voice. it just calms you, even when he's talking about a dude murdering his brother in front of their mother.
Thank you very much for this video. I found interesting how a savvy politician like Charles played for time, but did not conceive how the situation can get out of hands, and lead to unimaginable consequences.
my friends that only watch the anime: woah dude, this Oliver Cromwell is so badass, such resolve and sense of justice! he will be the salvation of the parliament and free britain from tyranny me, having read the manga: can I set a camera to catch your reactions? no reason in particular... I just think the expression on your faces will be priceless in a few episodes
Thank you for this and the subsequent videos on this subject. In researching my ancestors who arrived on the shores of North America in this era, I have found it informative to better understand what was happening in England and Holland both prior to their arrival, and as they established themselves on these shores. Your videos give me some insight to this.
Mr. Civilis, are you going to make a series on Augustus/Octavian, like you did with Caesar? I've been hoping for an in-depth video analysis of the siege of Mutina, and just what the hell was going on with it. What were the Senate, Mark Anthony, and Octavian thinking during that whole time? It's absolutely fascinating.
English civil war with a Cassius cameo. Yep, need more eggnog. 😸
.
indeed. but i hope, he will continue the macedonian series by covering the battle of ipsus next.
sir..
@@franciscomm7675 *Issus
And yeah, I hope HC continues that !
This video came out just hours ago, but it says this comment is 6 days old.
"Cassius?! We actually know what that means!"
And here we find out that Historia Civilis talked for years about Julius Caesar just to pave the way to the English Civil War
Four.
dimensional.
chess.
Oh, yeah. It's all coming together.
Just wait til you find out how all this is just a setup for his plans for world domination.
Plot twist
Good.
When the entire history of Rome series was just context for someone being called "a Cassius" in the English Civil War
Everithing in western history has something to do with Julius Caesar and his aassessination... its probably the most seminal murder in human history
Id say the 3rd most important murder would be Arch duke Franz Ferdinand
What about copernicus' heliocentric model, how does that lead back to caesars death? Because without his revolution in science you wouldnt even be watching this video.. With the telescope galileo was able to see there were moons rotating around jupiter which called into question aristotelian physics at the same time roughly tycho brahe was making his findings known which leads to keplers laws and then to newtonian mechanics then to einstein theories on spacetime and relativity
im talking to keledran von something
@@Loots1 Man... sorry... im not native and i didnt understand a thing pass "this video"
”Huh Cassius. We actually know what that means”
The most ambitious crossover in history
"We know who that was!"
>Quickly re-watches the video
the entire caesar series was only a set up, so he could show us this video and make the cassius reference!
@@TheSquidPro you can read it, its free on the internet:
"The History of the Puritans: From the death of King Charels I. to the Act of ..." by Daniel Neal
It's on page 56.
ps, you might not know old English. F = S a lot of the time.
It’s an old meme sir, but it checks out.
@@TheSquidPro Which video?
When parliament first questioned his fitness for the crown, Charles allegedly responded
‘I’m definitely the best king in England at the moment’
With a mouth like that, I don't know if I wouldn't advocate for his eventual execution myself.
Makes me wonder if H.C. will humanize him. It's easy to alienate and judge a figurehead from an abstract caricature of the man. It's another thing entirely if we walk in the mans shoes and are faced with the same decisions and realities.
Upcycle Electronics not that I don’t agree, but it’s funny how this matter of humanisation always gets bought up in favour of CHARLES, a man whose reputation was renewed around the same time the monarchy was, whilst CROMWELL perpetually remains the religious tyrant who banned Christmas because he was just that mean.
Can't say he didn't have a sense of humor, and certainly strikes me as a more likeable man than Cromwell.
John Doe He certainly strikes me as a more *charming* personality. I wouldn’t confuse that with likeability. He was a stubborn ass who refused to entertain the idea that divine right *might* just come with divine responsibilities, and he didn’t care how many of his subjects (which he supposedly believed he was divinely appointed to protect) died to prove that point. Not to spoil the next video, but it was his own refusal to let go of his grudge against his own people that saw him put to death.
Same goes for Cromwell- certainly his sense of humour and the passion of his convictions have been buried by the eventual victors, and the more I read about him the more I can’t help but grow a sense of respect and admiration. But his actions make him far from likeable.
Historia Civilis videos about the English civil war is the best idea ever. I am so ready for this
XIDNAF! WOOOOOP WOOOOP
Xidnaf was alive 8 months ago, wild
@@jjrneptune The fuck is a Xidnaf?
upload pls
@@andrehaugvaldstad read the name of the original commenter
"Arbitrarily demanding loans from nobility"
Ah yes, the EU4 method of budget balancing
Where he goofed was not using "cash 5000" as needed. Rookie mistake
@Beauty Queen EU4 is a game
@Beauty Queen L
Amateur! Not taking the 1% Burgher loans
"We are all Britons, and I am your king!"
"Didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."
"You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship..."
you know, i only learned this relatively recently, but the best thing about that skit in retrospect is that peasant in particular was describing some of medieval village governance accurately albeit with anachronisms aplenty.
Im not certain but its easy to imagine that Terry Jones wrote that scene cus dudes just a big ol' a history nerd
@@dndboy13 You're probably correct.
@Marc Singleton the masses in modern history have seldom supported many of their governments policies, should call it unpopular sovereignty
@@dndboy13 I think it's showing how we, in the current generation, think we have all these great ideas, but if you dig deep, they've all been around for thousands of years already. We don't expect peasants to talk like that, and probably most of them didn't, but then again maybe they did but their voice has been lost to history.
@@dndboy13 no he was not, he was referring to modern ideologies
7:55 it's important to remember that, when we're talking about property in England, we're talking about land ownership, not personal possessions. Going back to William the Conquer, land had been diveded out to nobles of all stripes, who then either used serfs or let the land out to tenant farmers (what we would call sharecroppers, in the US).
When radicals talked about eliminating private property, they meant getting rid of the landlords (who were actual Lords) and having local communities hold ownership of the land as part of the common wealth of the community. Similar models of ownership were tried in New England, at around the same time.
As for the notion of maintaining private ownership, but handing out parcels of land to the individual farmers who worked it, no one had thought of it yet, and it would likely have seemed far more radical than simply doing away with private land ownership, or putting a King on trial.
It's also tied in with the politics of enclosure and Enclosure Acts. And then there's the ugliness of how enclosure and the idea of land as personal possession had in the Highland Clearances (which I should add was primarily done by Scots, especially lowland Scots, against the Highland Scots, but did include some notable English lords doing it as well, hence the misconception it was an English policy against Scots and not a continuation of Anglo-Scottish anti-Gaelic politics that had existed well before union), as community patriarchs transformed into landlords and the communal use of land stopped, which helped lead into the very, very complicated history of crofting culture in the Highlands that still exists and remains politically useful.
Probably not explained it well, but shits interesting, how the concepts of land and ownership have changed on this island over the centuries, especially given the numerous different groups and cultures present and different systems of governance.
The concept of landlords is inherently tyrannical anyways
I keep forgetting this is the 1650's, its crazy how much a a generation or even 50 years makes.
@@thecondescendinggoomba5552 there's a Woody Guthrie song called "Why oh why" where he keeps asking questions and then answering them, all using the same format. Finally, he gets to, "Why does the landlord take money?" To which he is forced to respond, "Now I don't know that one myself." which sort of breaks the format, but is also the punchline of the whole song.
What happened to those lands in New England?
Can Historia Civilis commit crimes? Depriving us of his videos for a month is abuse. I need these everyday LOL
I feel the same way, but the reality is, the wait is to be expected for accurate videos.
Rome wasn't build in one day :)
thats how drug dealers in them corners work bro, first, they hook you up, and them left you high and dry and wanting some more squares in the screen fighting for political gains and resourses.
I agree. Historia Civilis should be condemned for emotional abuse of 600K subscribers and obliged to sell all his property (save his books), rent a small room (with broadband access) and upload a 20 minute video thrice a week!
Firefox is red, Explorer is blue. Google+ sucks and Chrome does too.
No it was built in a year
Always a great video!
Evan Edinger no
oh yeah british guy
ampngus
Anything: (happens)
Ireland: ctrl-c ctrl-v flames.jpg
In the immortal words of Sergeant Major Harper: "God save Ireland."
@@eldorados_lost_searcher Save it from themselves likely.
Weird how people don't like being colonized. Huh.
"Sir, Ireland is in a state of revolt!"
"Still?"
@@calistman222 "yessir. Just letting you know things are running normally!"
The Army: "You're under arrest for crimes against the kingdom. Parliament will decide your fate."
The King: "I. AM. THE. PARLIAMENT."
The Army: "Not anymore."
The King: "So it's treason then." *ignites Scottish army*
12/12
You were the chosen one. You were supposed too destroy the church of England not strengthen it. Bring balance to the parliament not leave it in pieces.
I mean.... they don’t call it King- (or nowadays Queen-) in-Parliament for nothing
I like the Idea that the King just threw a match at the Scottish army and they just immediately lit ablaze
They do commit crimes. They like anyone else, would be accountable, as "NO ONE" is above the Common Law.
Treason act applies.
"Oliver Cromwell, he was quite religious"
That's QUITE an understatement! 🤣
Baldy: You can't use that cup.
Cromwell: Why not ?
Baldy: Because that's the King's cup.
Charles: baldy
Baldy: don't call me baldy
Charles: I didn't call you baldy, baldy
Weatherbee
He wasn’t a religious fanatic like he is often made out to be though. The parliament was actually full of more extreme religious fanatics than him.
There's great many examples which show that Cromwell was a fairly tolerant man. For instance, Parliament had the Quacker James Nayler convicted on the charge of blasphemy for merely reenacting the arrival of Christ in Jerusalem. He was sentenced to be put in the pillory and on there to have a red hot iron bored through his tongue. It was Cromwell who called for leniency.
A historian wrote that: “The sad spectacle of the parliamentary "trial" of the Quaker James Nayler,marked as it was by numerous speeches reflecting extreme religious fanaticism, is only one among many examples that could be cited of the gap between Cromwell's views and those of the bulk of the political nation. But the plain fact of solid, personal achievement in the struggle for toleration is spread across the historical record; Cromwell's attitude toward the Jews, his treatment of individual Catholics and Anglicans in England, his concern for the distressed Protestants of the Vaudois, his conversations with the Quaker George Fox, all reflect this. The man who could protest against the application of a test of Presbyterian orthodoxy by arguing that ‘the State, in choosing men to serve them, takes no notice of their opinions; if they be willing faithfully to serve them, that satisfies’ was no fanatic.”
People often says that Cromwell was a religious fanatic because of his campaign in Ireland, but people forget that there was an Irish rebellion in 1642 where thousands of English Protestants were killed. Many people in England (and naturally Cromwell as well) were strongly angered by these acts. Nonetheless, there’s absolutely no evidence Cromwell ever gave orders for his soldiers to kill unarmed men, women and children. He only ever ordered men who were ARMED to be put to death.
Cromwell defended his actions in Ireland. “Well, your words are,Massacre, destroy and banish, good now, give us an instance of one man sincemy coming into Ireland, not in arms, massacred, destroyed or banished.” The accusations of Cromwell being immensely cruel in Ireland are nothing but propaganda from royalist Catholics. Cromwell behaved no differently than to any man from his own times. In fact, he behaved behaved better. He often hanged his own men if they dared to rape or pillage.
I mean, is the Pope Catholic?
It's a video about England, it's only right that he indulges in some of our customs, like understatement ;)
Your Julius Caesar series is the best one I've seen. I really hope you will continue on through the life of Augustus too. Thank you for the awesome videos. I always look forward to them.
_Where does political power come from?_
*Thomas Hobbes has entered the chat.*
I'm mad this doesn't have more upvotes
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Mao Zedong
@@ualaelinlive this, but unironically
@@Izual001 Say what you will about Mao, he's pretty solid on political philosophy
*J.S. Mill has also entered the chat*
It's treason then - King of England
The House of Commons will decide your fate
I am the Crown.
*Monarchist screeching*
"The sovereign will decide your fate."
"I AM THE SOVEREING"
He is the senate !
Not his year
King Charles the first
1649 A.D.
Lmao yes
Its crazy how even kings did not insert their names into years, but Roman Consuls did.
@@forgetful9845 Uh,So your telling me that in the 60 years Victoria ruled EVERY year would be called Victoria?Thatd confusing
@@DeathBone4656 true
It really only works with 1 year consuls,Even the 4/8 years of the U.S president makes it confusing
When you realize that the series about the roman republic was made so we could understand what being like Crassus meant
*Cassius
Not Crassus
*Cassius
Aaand you mixed Cassius with Crassus.
Gotta rewatch it all, you failed the exam XD
@@xaph5575 Easy mistake to make as there are two of them with similar names.*
Plus, realise* is more of a pain to see than mistaken a Roman name from a similar sounding Roman name who was around the sametime as Cassius in my humble opinion.
*sure you know but just for whom does not:
Marcus Licinius Crassus - Wartorn Stubborn General (aka Loyalist)
Gaius Cassius Longinus - Silver Tongue Senator (aka Backstabber)
See how confusing that is :)
You're work must somehow make it's way into the classroom. The work you do is one of the highest degree of value I have seen in a very long time.
Anyway, just thought I would drop a note of support.
"The King was playing for time..."
"The moderators were playing for time..."
Sounds like an old British tradition. Yes, Brexit, I'm looking right at you.
Humans hate changing their habits
Sounds a bit too familiar to american politics ATM, TBH...
@@TheStaffmaster It's a feature of democratic politics generally to be honest.
@@dbojangles1597 You don't see any of that in Scandinavian politics, and those countries are allegedly the most democratic countries in the world.
Dishonestly stalling proceedings due to corruption shouldn't be viewed as "meh, politics as usual" if you want real change. Have some backbone.
@@andrehaugvaldstad Uh yeah, we still have stalling in Scandi(at least in Norway).
I'm over here desperately looking for the trial video, but darn, it's not released yet. You got me hooked man, these history of Rome and now England is pretty awesome. Keep up the good work sir.
What makes a man turn moderate? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of moderation?
I dont like Moderates kif. With Radicals you know where they stand
I think, more often than not it's a matter of moderate upbringings and a life of moderation. Maybe their parents were moderators?
Burn the fence!
Am I the only one that got this joke?
@@equalssign44 yes, the only one.
“Popular Sovereignty”
It was a beta test. It needed some patching, maintenance windows, etc. Go on, read the forums.
Well the final product in France wasn't good either, a lot of bug, bad fonctionalities, only few good characters, and well even after 4 big patches, that still a mess of a game
Well done for noticing. It’s the biggest misconception in English history. Parliament didn’t win the civil war. The army did.
@@deschloro Although - given the franchise at work, it's arguable that the army was more representative of the English populace than Parliament was. Either way though, there was a sequence of narrower and narrower representation behind the people in power.
Napoleon I Bonaparte interesting to see you here.
King Charles I: "You can't execute me, I'm divinely ordained."
Parliament: "Chop him, lads."
chop chop, mate
"We'll drop the knife and let god decide the rest."
I mean that's the ultimate resolution of the Divine Right vs Popular Sovereignty argument. After you chop enough royal heads and nobody gets struck by lighting you kinda figure out where political legitimacy truly originate from.
@@RoberttheWise That does not follow. There is nothing dictating that God would or should respond with lightning, but seeing as how popular sovereignty had to be flexed with unlawful tactics and putting briton through two civil wars with a higher per capita death toll than any other british war says a lot for it. How much death justifies political legitimacy of popular sovereignty?
@@AndrewTheFrank The line of reasoning is sound if you focus on what supposed source of power is ultimately capable of enacting real change in the world. What has the last word about how things are. And there you clearly see that Divine Right or some extreme form of Legalism where the law is the ultimate basis ultimately bows to a violent mod doing their thing. And you are absolutely right that the pure expression of this popular legitimacy is death and violence. But that's exactly the point. Because violence is ultimately real and every other legitimacy was historically propped up by veiled popular sovereignty. Divine Right was only a thing because the masses believed in a god and the authority he invested in the king and violently punished dissenters. Rule of Law was only a thing because people agreed to what the law should be and enforced it. So the question is not what is good. The question is what is real and how do we make it good.
03:51
post Thirty Years' War Germany: "Those are rookie numbers."
English civil war was only fought by British people. Thirty years war almost half of Europe was involved in one side or other apart from constant wars with Turks and Spanish Netherlands. Also most of the battles against Swedish, Denmark and France took place inside the lands of HRE
@@akapbhan ala not a very fun time to be German
@@arawn1061 There was never a fun time to be German since Julius caesar decided to build a bridge across Rhine
Nice Graystillplays reference!
Who said that English civil war would be boring? It contains more plot twists than a great book.
Assassin Agent and when you can listen to it without the absurd accents it’s amazing
In history, boring usually denotes convoluted beyond belief. Think of it like any battle scene in any given Michael Bay or Emmerich flick: something is allegedly happening but you just don't give a damn about anyone so it kinda just flows over your head. My favorite example is the Diadochi wars: pretty much every participant is a vile piece of shit that turns on each other at a moment's notice only to team up with another guy (or their son if the dad has already been executed). There's just nobody there you can truly root for and keeping tabs on all the new alliances before they break all over again within another three months is a formidable job.
It’s kind of funny that Charles’ perspective that any other political power diminished his own was exactly what caused the power of the monarchy in England to just completely collapse following his death.
Wouldn’t mind getting some more modern stuff now that Caesar’s dead... though I still want to continue the Rome stuff too, at least until the rise of the Empire.
He should do a series on each emperor now
Son of Tiamat Rome had like 70 emperors, so knowing the time it takes for him to produce a video, that’d take the better part of 6 years lmao
@@dhorto27 Good point. Maybe one video encompassing whole dynasties
@@Chud_Bud_Supreme Not that much better. There were many emperors who were the only member of their dynasty.
@@dhorto27 I don't see a problem here.
17:43
If the Kingdoms of Scotland and England are separate entities, does that not make it possible for the king to cause legal injury to himself? The King of Scotland ordered a Scottish army to invade England and attack English subjects; that seems like that should constitute some sort of crime against the King of England. The King of Scotland caused injury to the King of England; the fact that the same person holds both titles is largely irrelevant.
A monarch of one nation attacking another isn't treason it's just war so it wouldn't technically be treason
he probably claimed as the king of these countries he was loaning his army to quell a rebellion.
No, because only the subjects of a king can commit treason against that king. "Outside treason" is not possible. If King A attacks King B, that's not treason, it's just a normal war. This is btw true even for the modern definition of treason - what Putin did to the Ukraine, for example, no matter how much it is against international law, is NOT treason.
The argument might work if you could argue that kings qualify as their own subjects, but good luck getting the king on trial to accept that premise. Especially since it's, from a legal perspective, sentencing him to death for hitting himself.
Lady Marian: Why, you speak treason!
Robin Hood: Fluently.
Bishop of the Black Canons: I advise you to curb that biting tongue of yours.
Robin: It's a habit I never formed, Your Grace.
*The Adventures of Robin Hood* from 1938. With Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland and Basil Rathbone. Music by Erich W. Korngold. In my opinion the best adaptation of Robin Hood ever.
@@lakrids-pibe You do realise that de Havilland is is unbelievably, still alive.
That's lovely. I hope she's doing well.
@@neilbuckley1613 She died two months ago as of now. RIP
"The principles and temper of a Cassius"
*I understood that reference*
I didn't :(
@@tago3860 he is one of the conspirators who killed Caesar I think. Memories rusty, he boasted or threatened a senator by alluding to it in a forum or w/e those fukken nerds called a state gathering.
Historia civilis uploads a video and I know its gonna be a good day. Best historical content on youtube hands down. Also one of the only youtubers worth signing up for patreon for.
Invicta does some good stuff too. I really like his Aztec stuff. Drachinifel also does really good videos on 19th/20th century warships and naval technology.
just when I thought this channel couldnt get any better! The English Revolution! One of my Favorites! Can't wait for the next one!
I was expecting a "Roman politics would never be the same again"
Rip caesar
Even though it's been a week since seeing this video, blown away by Civilis's masterful storytelling. Dude knows how to make an old story sound new!
Wasn't expecting this. Merry Christmas indeed!
3:32
You know it's gonna be good when the drums start playing
"well, now that we've wrapped up that Caesar business, onto something completely different, yet somehow the same!" Historia Civilis, probably
Charles I “No law exists under which a king can be charged with a crime.”
Rump Parliament “They do now.”
Only 3 weeks since the last video!
Love the quick upload schedule.
I know we tend to stick to Rome when it comes to multi-part series around here, but I'd be very excited to see you take on the English Civil War with the same care you've taken to chronicle the life and times of Julius Caesar.
YES!!
"The most moderate of moderates fled".
Tell my wife I said, hello.
Go to condition beige.
"All I know is my gut says maybe."
What makes a man turn moderate?
@@kristoforperkola6923 Lust for gold? Power? Or maybe they were just born with a heart full of moderacy.
Your comment says 6 days ago but the video says it was published today?
"...this led to Ireton being cancelled." I love the use of Vernacular here. You're truly making history digestible through well polished animation and clear script writing. Keep this early England content coming!
"Trial of the millennium"? Come on now, it's nothing to lose your head over!
Ha
Ha
Ha
Really well done again. These are by far the best and most useful documentaries I've ever seen on political history/the evolution of politics. And you manage to do that with very limited visual aides. Really well done. Please keep it up.
As the someone following the Holy Roman Imperial tradition my answer to the question is:
Yes, of course!
But getting your Monarch to face punishment is an entirely different matter.
It wasn’t even just monarchs too. Any sovereign, any princes or princesses of any of the empire’s hereditary monarchies could also be tried before the empire’s courts or the Imperial Diet. In fact, the empire had sole authority in that regard, and that fact helped save the life of the future Frederick the Great.
My favorite channel. Can’t get enough of these.
شكراً
This was a great treat
Can't wait for more
Amazing quality, amazing information. In my youth, I was very fond of The three Musketeers saga, Alexander Dumas presents the trial and execution from the perspective of the nobles, in his novel "20 years later".
I bet Ireton being called _a Cassius_ was Historia Civilis' casus belli to talk about the English Civil War.
you could say it was his cassius belli
Really like this, not only are you making these histórica events understandable and entertaining, but let us know why it’s so important to the grand scheme of history
"Are you allowed to remove a king for gross incompetence?"
10/10 great reference lol.
What was the reference at?
@@iddomargalit-friedman3897 impeachment in the us I would guess
@@user-gw5df2br5k
Thought so, but those weren't the articles...
Could still be right though.
Honestly I think I like these “one offs” better than ur usual stuff. You always find such unique and interesting topics and events. Keep up the good work and happy new year.
I would *LOVE* a small series, if not large one, about the English Civil War or any other civil war in human history. The fallout of it is so, well, fun to watch?
I have been addicted to this channel for scratching my Roman history itch, but this video is top notch. Please keep up the great work bud. You are an amazing voice for history.
I'm just five minutes in and somehow I understand the situation of the English civil war *MORE* then after watching some other lectures.
...guess what they say is true that "If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough"
@Jamie Owns
This was before the Act of Union, wasn't it? So, despite sharing a monarch, they were separate entities, and therefore it could be argued as a foreign invasion.
Jamie Owns Unless you’re arguing that Scotland was indistinguishable from England at the time, then yes, he was invading with a foreign army.
And Cromwell didn’t *enslave* the Scots, unless you’re hyperbolically referring to his occupation of that country they didn’t have at the time.
@@rationalroundhead6739 If Scotland didn't have the country, then how did he occupy it? I know you don't like the monarchy, but don't lay in bed with a mass murderer just because he tried--and failed--to get rid of it.
@@ZeroNumerous First of all, you might want to re-read my argument again. You're agreeing with me.
Second of all, you can throw that particular label at anyone famous for their actions in wartime. I could, and do, throw it at the feet of either Charles; they started all three wars- one of which was unwinnable and the others were unnecessary- and the uprisings in his other realms that caused them in the first place.
Obviously this isn't going to convince *you* that it wasn't justified, because you agree with the cause. So why the hell do you think it's gonna convince *me?*
Literally the best channel on TH-cam hands down.
I would love to watch a Historia Civilis video about the Levelers, the Diggers, and the Ranters.
Holy crap an explanation of the English Civil War that I could follow. That's a first, and damned if I haven't tried several times previously. Bravo!
It's weird, I feel like, from the very short "English Civil War" modules in history at school, you get the idea of a tyrant king being kicked out by the people. A lot of the nuance, the rump parliament, the army purging moderate members of the house of commons, and the general questions over the legality of the whole thing are pretty much skipped over. All we get is "Cromwell eventually took over, and he turned out to be a dick too.
Frankly, the "legality of the whole thing" is very much a moot point - as the video mentions, under a doctrine of popular sovereignty the king and nobility are "politically irrelevant". It was lawful because the legislature made it lawful.
I wouldn't technically call parliament 'the people', they were representing a very small group of men. But yes I see your point.
@@snuurferalangur4357 Yes, anyone can claim to represent some nebulous "will of the people". That doesn't mean the Commons were *wrong* to unilaterally decide to exclude the Lords. By the theory the Commons were operating under, it was lawful because they passed it. The Lords doubtless disagreed with that theory, but the Commons sure didn't.
Neither body was exactly super representative of the actual people of the country... but between the two it's hard to argue the House of Lords wasn't *less* representative. So the Commons did at least have _a_ leg to stand on even if it was a flimsy one.
True, it's important to keep in mind through all this that just about every even vaguely modern tyranny has claimed to represent the "will of the people". Even if that were an actual thing that could be identified so concretely, just claiming it doesn't make it so. That's why free and fair elections are so important.
But one also needs to keep in mind that when one _already_ doesn't live under a representative system the doctrine of popular sovereignty makes popular attempts to overthrow the monarch or whatever quite solidly legitimate - and therefore "legal" insofar as such a term can exist without reference to a specific code of laws.
@@PhysicsGamerTechnically speaking, the House of Lords was actually more representative than the Rump Parliament… insofar as there were more people in the House of Lords. Because the rump HoC scarcely represented anyone aside from themselves. On that scale of pure numbers… technically, yeah.
TLDR, the Commons managed to piss away their own legitimacy and political mandate so effectively the Goal essentially was a more representative body by the time they were finished
@@Edmonton-of2ec I'm not sure what the relevance of "pure numbers" is - that's not how representativeness works even on a technicality.
Good Lord Protector, I was just wanting to watch a good video on the English Civil War, and this pops up. Being from Historia Civilis ensures it'll be not a good video but a great one
"To show you the power of the rule of law, I CUT THIS MONARCH IN HALF"
@EmperorJuliusCaesar I honestly really hope you're kidding
@EmperorJuliusCaesar The king betrayed the nation or the nation betrayed the king?
@@francesconesi7666 It is more specifically the King betrayed his people and the nation betrayed the King.
that was a flex tape reference, wasn't it?
EmperorJuliusCaesar cringe
I just discovered your content this week and have already watched about 20hrs of it. These are SO WELL MADE. Keep up the fantastic work!
Not going to lie I'm thinking about creating my own videos like Historia Civilis' Rome series but in the Stuart period. love this video
You lied though...:)
I’m still amazed on how you make boxes more entertaining of a history show than 90% of documentaries
Some historians marked this period as that of tension between the patrimonial rights/royal prerogative of the Emperor and the distribution of power within his government and power holders. As shown by the respective regicides of Emperor Osman II and King Charles I.
I don't think anyone who willfully clicks on your videos find "Context" boring. Great video!
“One of the most important trials”
Hey now
“Human trials”
That’s right, better keep respect on the name
Bartholomew Chassenee
Im out of the loop, can someone explain that reference?
@@SurvivingAnotherDay Check his video on Animal Crimes.
@@SurvivingAnotherDay probably his funniest video, where Bartholomew Chassenee defended a whole specie from the wrath of god in court.
not important, dump and dumpster are just sht,
Excellent introduction to the English Civil War period. Please do more videos on this subject.
1:40 HC: "I promise to be brief"
Me : "Please don't be."
17 minutes into the video: "And Charles I was put on trial."
I can't express how grateful I am for you bringing out these incredible topics. This was the most interesting video I've watched in months, thank you.
Didn’t expect a cameo by Cassius in this video!
No one expected... the Cassius cameo
This is hands down my favorite channel on this website you are the man and you are powerful
I would love to have a mini series on the English civil war, like the ones you did on macedon.
This channel is extremely underrated
Love the intro. I feel like Trial of King Charles the First is going to be a good episode/series?
Over the past year I've started catching up on your videos and they are amazing! I never realized I could get this invested in events told through blocks but here we are. Thank you for all the effort you put into this and I'm really looking forward to the next video!
6:15 -- I think it's not just that the rank-and-file of the army had been radicalized. It's also a matter of social class. The only people elected to Commons were landowners, the "forty-shilling freeholders" who had the right to vote. From the same class or above would have been drawn the army officers. They naturally would be opposed to expanding the franchise. The army rank-and-file, on the other hand, would have been largely the lower classes who had no representation in Commons at all. They naturally would have sympathized with the faction that wanted to give them a political voice.
The Army had a mixture of specific demands (concerning such mundane matters as payment of arrears and immunity from prosecution for any crimes committed during the war) and vaguer aspirations for more democratic government.
The key year was actually 1647, when the soldiers began electing agitators to represent them (not unlike modern shop steward)
So glad you're making videos again man. I absolutely love your content. I was just cruising along through this video and then right at the end I realized how relevant this is to current events. +5 relevance points.
I just listened to this on the Revolutions Podcast. How convenient.
This comment was brought to you by Audible.
As you know...
Audible is the internet's leading provider of audio entertainment...
I love Duncan's voice. it just calms you, even when he's talking about a dude murdering his brother in front of their mother.
Same
Thank you very much for this video. I found interesting how a savvy politician like Charles played for time, but did not conceive how the situation can get out of hands, and lead to unimaginable consequences.
America is trying to go away from the idea that 'Authority to govern derives from the overwhelming consent of the governed'.
This actually just came up in my democracy exam so I didnt need to read like 50 pages and nailed a question about levellers. Thanks man
my friends that only watch the anime: woah dude, this Oliver Cromwell is so badass, such resolve and sense of justice! he will be the salvation of the parliament and free britain from tyranny
me, having read the manga: can I set a camera to catch your reactions? no reason in particular... I just think the expression on your faces will be priceless in a few episodes
Still better than Charles
Love the soundtrack and outro music. Never change it, please.
Aaah, the old "we're going to destroy the government now, what could go wrong?", a classic that always delivers.
Thank you for this and the subsequent videos on this subject.
In researching my ancestors who arrived on the shores of North America in this era, I have found it informative to better understand what was happening in England and Holland both prior to their arrival, and as they established themselves on these shores. Your videos give me some insight to this.
Can't wait till we put CEOs & Boards through these trials as well... So much fun to be had...
Careful there, Robespierre.
Can't wait for another holodomor after we put CEOs on false trials either
Well, you've clearly identified yourself as a communist...
Daniel McLaughlin Unfortunate how many have been infected, isn’t it?
@@danielmclaughlin5573 Anarcho-communist, actually. Anarchist first, always. :)
This is starting to become my favorite channel
Last time I was this early, Caesar was still alive
woah slow down there Brutus
@@TheUselessStoner
Did something happen to the old boy? Didn't he save the Republic?
Please never stop making videos they are all soo good I’ve seen literally ever single one
Who would win: The Divine Right of Kings or one choppy boi?
Without a doubt, my favorite channel on TH-cam.
According to the Supreme Court, no.
True that what have we come to
Mr. Civilis, are you going to make a series on Augustus/Octavian, like you did with Caesar? I've been hoping for an in-depth video analysis of the siege of Mutina, and just what the hell was going on with it. What were the Senate, Mark Anthony, and Octavian thinking during that whole time? It's absolutely fascinating.
I just love that from a point on every time there is a map Ireland is rioting
You are actually my best TH-cam Channel over 10 Yeats and so on
I really REALLY appreciate tour work, keep going bro💪
I genuinely think that the English Civil War is one of the most important events in world history, yet is so criminally overlooked. Proper shame
You're the only TH-camr I get email notifications for. Can't wait to see the next one!