"“war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means,” - Carl von Clausewitz Political history is incomplete without military history, and as is often forgotten in these types of communities, military history is incomplete without political history. Banger video btw
@@nicktrueman224 Well, It’s a fascinating subject. Specially in those places where customs and traditions were incompatible with concepts like the nationalization of war. I personally work with the Carlists in Spain and their opposition to nationalization during the first and second Carlist War. It’s fascinating to see those places where the more “ancien regime” mentalities of vassalage, feudal relations, and communalism where at odds and eventually at war with the nationalization of the country, its institutions, and the military. Edit. Another good example of this conflict is Italy, the Papist and traditional catholic armies of the Habsburgs versus the Nationalists like Giuseppe Garibaldi.
I love how the more we support your work, the all known Ekster consistent sponsor, Ko-Fi, Patreon, subscribing to the alternative platform, you are able to put down, as well mentioned by a fellow commentator, spicy topics. With a cumulative effort to ensure the right of others less financially fortunate, I am so happy you held the honorable, defiant stance to keep posting here. It's so incredibly rewarding and it brings me joy to know you refuse to let even those less financially able to support you to see more valuable content. Thank you. My support was, and is half as a supporter and fan of your material, format, editing, work, and half to ensure that the viewers lacking disposable income to keep seeing what you work so much, passionately, but also at the cost of your time to inform everyone, on as many platforms. My deepest respect, Brandon.
@@BrandonF BRANDON!!! PLEASEEE SHOW US YOU IN A REDCOAT PLEASEEEEE I WANT TO SEE YOU IN THE WOODS WITH A SCARLET COAT!!!!! PLEASE!!! I WANT YOU TO HOLD A MUSKET AND FIRE IT!!! PLEASSEE BRANDON!!! PLEASEEE!!!
Thanks for *not* using "artificial intelligence" for your images as many other history channels are prone to do these days. Authentic period illustrations and paintings are sooooo much better.
I do hope AI will one day be able to follow the formats of old paintings to like it came from the past because majority of modern day internet artists that you can commission are only good in drawing vore
@@antoniodelaugger9236no. People can learn to paint old school. Just go to any art school outside north America and liberal western Europe (I finished a Master's in fine art in Ukraine this spring and everyone was doing some kind of classical or folk art). No vore, no modernist trash.
When you were calling WWII a truly total war after describing it, I realized immediately that we were going to discuss the Levee en masse. Though I will say that until that point, you had me fooled.
I love how you make sure to emphasise how military history is just a part of history. So many self-titled "history buffs" just ignore anything that isn't directly related to their specific area of interest, especially some creators on TH-cam (not to name any names). It's a problem that I think military history disproportionately suffers from for both historiographical and cultural reasons I think.
Oh, this should be wonderful, knowing your devotion to looking at the period through the context of its own time. Also, that introduction was simply wonderful, and could be applied to many such factions, such as the Bolsheviks.
I think the levee en masse and the Napoleonic wars wasn't as large of a departure from times previously as you are proposing in this, and instead grew rather linearly indifferent of population from the 1500's onwards as centralization and more effective (As in better able to direct and tax their populace) states developed, resulting in having a large state and economy becoming increasingly important towards the amount of soldiers one could direct. To give the example of the Spanish in chronological order. Starting around early 1500's, you see reforms issues by Ferdinand to start a professional military such as an order in 1495 that "all our subjects, of whatever rank, should possess suitable offensive and defensive weapons", the adoption of the pike in 1497 and the organization of the Spanish Tercio. Similarly experience with the wars in Granada lead to the castilians to adopt the cannon (which the French already adopted) and the subsequent Italian wars helped spurned on more developments. You still see an example of a Spanish army in the invasion of Navarre that had ~2.5k cavalry, 6,000 infantry and 20 pieces of artillery. Finding funds for the military was exceptionally difficult, and things such as the Italian wars where funded heavily by Italian financiers. Under Charles V, "Spanish" troops was a small but regarded as a fairly highly elite and profession sort. They only represented a fifth of the Hapsburg army that took rome in 1527, and only a sixth of the soliders serving in germany by 1547. What exactly is and isn't Spanish soldiers during this period is a bit harder to say due to the many separate kingdoms (Plus "Spain" being more multiple kingdoms in itself) but to give examples An Imperial army that invaded France in 1524 had 24,000 men which included 5,000 Spanish infantry. For a more "Spanish" endeavor you then can look at the invasion of Tunis. Ignoring the galleys, there were over 30,000 soldiers with 4k from the elite Spanish Tercio's of Italy along with 7k Germans and 8k Italians. To give a comparison to the Napoleonic wars, you can remember that Napoleon in his invasion of Italy had around ~37,000 soldiers and was eventually reinforced to 50,000. Whilst Napoleon obviously didn't represent the majority of men serving under the French, it is important to note that two and a half centuries proceeding Napoleon we already have similarly sized armies to what he had operating in the Mediterranean To advance the clock to Phillip in 1560’s, you will see now the Tercio’s were now effectively permanent professional military units consisted not of conscripts (like many soldiers prior) but paid volunteers. They tended to be from a relatively high social class, with the Spanish Tercios in Flanders almost half being nobles, but with Spains relatively low population (This point Castille’s population was ~5 million, and majority of men who served in the Spanish Spanish Tercio’s were from castille or Andalusia), and the spanish tercios rarely exceeded 10% of the men serving under the Spanish crown, with many Italian (predominately recruited from Milan or Naples) also existing. Ever lacking manpower, the Spanish crown also continued practices of conscription in Castille and also made up the shortfall through extensive hiring of foreigners. To use the battle of Lepanto of an example (Something we consider a famous Spanish victory), the Spanish contributed 14 galleys manned by the Spanish and a further 63 galleys of Italians under Spanish control out of the total force of 203 galleys. Of the 28k troops, there were ~8,500 spanish, ~5,000 germans and the remainder Italians. The fleet also had ~13,000 sailors and ~44,000m rowers. Of the finances, Spain paid about three ffiths of the cost. When you look at this in total, this is Spain, Venice and the Papal States together mustering ~85,000 men for a campaign. Armies of 85,000 weren’t unknown during the Napoleonic wars, and we are still multiple centuries away. Overall by 1584, the Spanish empire had roughly 35,000 men in Spain, 62,000 in Flanders, 24,000 in naples, 24,000 in Portugal and the capability of raising around 200,000 men in total if required .Obviously, not all congregated in a singular army. Similarly obviously the army was mostly non-spaniards, though many were of regions under the rule of the Spanish crown. To give a specific example, the army of Flanders in 1608 infantry consisted of almost 50% germans, ~20% Spanish, and the remainder Belgians and Italians. In 1649 the army of Flanders has 23 German Tercios, 11 Belgian, 6 Spanish and 4 Italian. As this comment is getting exceedingly long, I am going to do a bit of a timeskip. After the treaty of Utrecht (In which she lost much of her empire), the Bourbons issued reforms to the Spanish military. By 1725, the Spanish army annual cost was around 5 and a half million escudos with figures of it's size ranging from 30,000 to 70,000, and in around 1734 there was a total ~30,000 Non-spanish in service (consisting of Belgians, Swiss and Irish mostly) which at times compromised up to a third of the Spanish army. This is smaller than centuries prior, but it is also comparing Spain at it’s height to an exceptionally low period. Despite this, they are still mustering a large army and the armies she musters later in the Napoleonic wars (And you certainly can say the Spanish got quite nationalistic during the Peninsular campaign) ultimately don’t involve too many more men. To very briefly compare this to the Dutch for example, you see them mustering disproportionately high amounts of men compared to the area they control allowing them to at times allowing their armies to even outnumber their enemies occasionally. Typically their armies were exceptionally professional unlike the Spanish which relied massively more on conscription (So conscription and the using of the common man in the army being more a factor of finances and population than so much just nationalization of the army). Eventually as their neighbors centralized and advanced, the Dutch couldn’t keep up and the war of Spanish Succession is really the last war they were a major participant in. Fundamentally however the numbers of soldiers these countries mustered both prior and after the French revolution never had a sudden inexplicable jump, but rather grew fairly regularly and any major spikes or drops ultimately being from acquisition or losses of territory than a sudden political development. The reforms of Carnot did improve how many men France could field, but I’d argue ultimately not exponentially so. The fact that their non-revolutionary monarchical counterparts throughout the years kept on mustering similarly high numbers shows that it wasn’t a development inherently tied to the French Revolution. I might add more to this later, I wasn't expecting to spend my night digging out my history books to write 1k words in a youtube comment.
He was the edgelord of the enlightenment. Exaggerating statements about religion and what the powers of the state should be. The biggest flaw isn't his to begin with. Modern interprentations of his work is what hurt him the most.
@@TeutonicEmperor1198he also supported his ideas based on a completely fictional version of China as some hyper rational, efficient, science obsessed state...it was before Google and mass tourism so nobody could call his BS. China at that time was the Qing Dynasty, which was extremely irrational and not at all progressive. The education system was based on lifetime bureaucratic appointments won by parroting the Confucian classics and having pretty calligraphy fitting a rigid standard (馆阁体), restricting or even forbidding foreign travel and sailing to some extent, and an opposition to foreign modernization so zealous that (in the 19th century) the imperial government insisted on ripping up the railway network after one enterprising governor built one without permission. Well, like Rousseau's state of nature, most of the "evidence" for enlightenment arguments is just made up by the writer.
It can be argued that the Spanish war of resistance against the French during the Napoleonic wars was also a part of this process. The modern Spanish national identity draws a lot from that resistance (so-called "Spanish Independence War" in Spanish sources), with the Region of Madrid conmemorating the 2nd of May as local holiday (for the uprising), or the fact that the first Spanish Constitution was drafted during the war, the Constitution of 1812, nicknamed "La Pepa" due to having been signed the day of Saint Joseph (Pepa is the female form of Pepe, a Spanish diminutive for Joseph), with the chant "Viva la Pepa!" being a long-standing liberal slogan. In the city of Cádiz, where that Constitution was made (and where the provisional wartime Government was established), they still sing the song "con las bombas que tiran los fanfarrones" (with the bombs thrown by the braggarts, a song mocking the French soldiers).
The description of the french revolution events is broad indeed, but that kind of period can't be essentially summed up in a few hours, let alone minutes, so well done. And on the heart of the video, couldn't agree more. As an example, the defeats of France in 1870 & 1940, which share many fundamental similarities, are nearly always explained, especially in anglo countries, only looking at the military events, without any place for the inner politics. The inner politics were the most influential factor on the french sides both times.
This is why I come here. Brandon has a way of giving you a seemingly narrow topic that to some may feel like minutiae but in truth, nothing will make you think and expand your mind like these topics. You rarely think about the change in attitude of the populace about what consisted of the nation and what one must sacrifice for the nation. It really makes you think what our day would look like if the prevalent attitudes had been different ideals.
Yay, new brandon video! Ive been sick with a cold or covid (not sure which yet) so this is some much needed entertainment to distract me for a while, thanks Brandon.
I do pray and in the most earnest and hearty verisimilitude pray that you recover your stength and vigour after none too soon a time my illustrious commenter
My introduction to history was through military history. It wasn't until I went to college when I fully realized how many more historical disciplines there were, and how much they contribute to our understanding of the past. Your concluding point about studying the grains is very well taken.
Same. One thing I realized is how wikipedia charts of figures and videos showing overhead view of maps with moving blocks representing military units and footage from the Total War games, don't show the whole story of war; and rather give a distorted image of war
That was such an amazing video, i have to say. Your topics are always something new and interesting. I especially like your narration. I learnd so much by this video, thanks so much
Amazing video! I first started thinking about this topic with David A Bell’s “The First Total War.” Hopefully those will all lead to a reunification of the historical discipline!
The conclusion is great. I first got into history because of warfare and learning all the tactical details. Now I don't care who flanked whom at the battle Wimbletonberryshire. I want to know that Lord Smithwickston's grand nephew was leading the army instead of Sir Gallyfgwall despite being more qualified because it would have helped secure an alliance needed for a different war in Poland
Don't forget to include the Nationalization of Ghosts. I know it's uncomfortable to talk about, but war is paranormal by it's very nature. To ignore that aspect of it is to do so at your own peril.
14:18 I'd love for you to expand on this, and i suppose what preceded it, on the video i mean. A casual exploration of thinkers, but mostly their ideas, of the time maybe? Id like that.
Do another video on nationalism in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Tell us more about how Picards and Gascons and Bretons became French, or how Scots and Welsh and the various kinds of English became British.
@@Jeff-ts9ut Fair enough. Now let me ask you about the other big one. Goethe of course is pronounced something like " goer-tuh" but you sometimes hear people say it "Go-fee." Do you like that pronunciation? Of course the pronunciation is the pronunciation, so right or wrong answer here but I'm wondering where you stand in this issue.
@ThommyofThenn my answer is, as it has aways been, that the more a German surname sounds like it has been spit though a mouthful of marbles, the better.
Is there some deep lore reason Brandon hates Voltaire so much? I guess he was a bit of an edgelord with some pretty gross views about some topics, but I don't know if he was really worse than most of his contemporaries. Early Modern history is just so fascinating to me- the way so many different philosophical, economic, technological and military innovations all came together over the course of 200-300 years to completely transform life for millions, all around the world is just astonishing.
The Dutch Wars were just as horrifying as the Revolutionary wars. French troops under Luxemburg and the other French commanders had 0 qualms with murdering civilians at will with the French War Minister even giving the green light. The Dutch also ate the De Witts who they blamed for the Dutch defeats. During the 9 Year's War Imperial troops would castrate French POWs since they were so used to facing the Turks who did the same thing.
Thank you for your video covering what i consider to be one of the worst sociopolitical things to ever happen in the modern era and how it was accomplished. This mentality and approach has lead to all of the worst things that have happened since. While i do not necessarily expect any presenter to share or talk about it from my perspective. I sincerely appreciate the lack of fawning and praising of that development, the way many many others would The final section about a holistic approach being necessary for actual understanding was a cherry on top to a great video
You can make the case that total war (not the game franchise) came out of mass media and mass literacy that allowed for the creation of a nation state in a way that wasn’t possible before
one line that says a lot is. "king George comand and we obey. that makes only sense when even a ranker sees themself as a subject to the crown. earlyer It was the local lord that had the troops. it was he who paid them.
I have to say that the initial bit is truly something. A lot of what we could easily associate with the most violent and authoritarian forms of military dictatorships could easily apply to the militaristic nationalism of the late enlightenment. Often I have made the claim that fascism probably arose between 1820 and 1870, and that movements like the Russian Decemberists, Garibaldi and Il Risorgimento, or Baldomero Espartero in Spain against the Carlists. I’d say this proto-fascistic politics really set the stage for what would happen in the first half of the 20th Century.
Hello Brandon. I have commented before that I believe the AWI to be the significant part of this change. The French, who were revolting subsequently, would have been influenced by having taken part in that effort to throw off monarchy and the Declaration of Independence is like a blueprint for the rights the sans culottes were sent to fight for. The fact that the monarchies of Europe attacked the revolting French produced the need for the citizen armies. The irony was that they had backed the revolting Americans against the British to further their own interest and it rebounded upon them through the rise of Napoleon. Another irony is the idea of German total war in WW2. The British could be seen as having beaten them to it, drawing on their experience from WW1. I saw an interesting video, I think from the Western Front Association about recycling in WW1 as a part of such efforts, which might be something you could look at as a future video idea?
Coming into this vid, pardon the pun, Im not so certain if I agree with the idea of the "national war" being modern. I won't be surprised if the Classical Age and the Middle Ages saw such instances of total wars between nations too. After all, war never changes, and history sure does rhyme if not repeat, and I'd dare say history is cyclical rather than linear towards some ideal of "progress"
agreed. the earliest example of a citizen army I can think of would be the roman Legion's. Not to mention Brandon doesn't take into account the sheer impact a siege has on a city. The starvation feels like total war to me
At 17:40, I think it’s a picture of the repression in Vendée, when the republican ideas were explained again to the local population through the killing of quite a lot of the people around. Something still hushed in today’s French schoolbooks.
Hey Brandon, I have an idea for a video. What about a video seiges and how they worked with muskets and stuff like that? I'd think it would be an interesting concept. Examples like the Alamo or Petersburg, Virginia, come to the top of my head when I think of seiges with muskets. I believe you would know more about seiges that happened in Europe than I would.
I'd enjoy your review of the Goebbels produced, government funded epic propaganda film, Kolberg. It would fit this theme, and be right up your historical alley.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.922 | 10 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zmV5HRIxIBI/mqdefault.jpg)
"“war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means,” - Carl von Clausewitz
Political history is incomplete without military history, and as is often forgotten in these types of communities, military history is incomplete without political history.
Banger video btw
*banging title*
Phrasing
Banger comment!
4:51 there’s the chonker
Unironically have added "Why were 18th C. cows so square?" to my video list.
I can already tell this will be the mountain on the most replayed thing
The glorious oblong big boi.
🧍♂️🐄
'Orgasm of the Enlightenment', that what we're calling 'post-nut' clarity now?
i think we should make it the British English word for it
Ohhh boy, I’m literally writing my dissertation on this in order to finally get my degree in history!!!
Yes it is a little like that isn't it.
Lmao
@@nicktrueman224 Well, It’s a fascinating subject. Specially in those places where customs and traditions were incompatible with concepts like the nationalization of war. I personally work with the Carlists in Spain and their opposition to nationalization during the first and second Carlist War. It’s fascinating to see those places where the more “ancien regime” mentalities of vassalage, feudal relations, and communalism where at odds and eventually at war with the nationalization of the country, its institutions, and the military.
Edit. Another good example of this conflict is Italy, the Papist and traditional catholic armies of the Habsburgs versus the Nationalists like Giuseppe Garibaldi.
Just dropped, I already know it’s gunna be a spicy one.
Dear oh dear! Its 1 am, Brandon. You have no right to... Yeah ok, I'm gonna watch it...
4:59
Why cow square?
Cow circle, not square.
I love how the more we support your work, the all known Ekster consistent sponsor, Ko-Fi, Patreon, subscribing to the alternative platform, you are able to put down, as well mentioned by a fellow commentator, spicy topics. With a cumulative effort to ensure the right of others less financially fortunate, I am so happy you held the honorable, defiant stance to keep posting here. It's so incredibly rewarding and it brings me joy to know you refuse to let even those less financially able to support you to see more valuable content. Thank you. My support was, and is half as a supporter and fan of your material, format, editing, work, and half to ensure that the viewers lacking disposable income to keep seeing what you work so much, passionately, but also at the cost of your time to inform everyone, on as many platforms. My deepest respect, Brandon.
Over time Brandon has grown into an adept and insightful military philosopher.
I'm so sorry that I missed this- thank you so much! Not just for the kind words but the generosity as well, of course.
@@BrandonF BRANDON!!! PLEASEEE SHOW US YOU IN A REDCOAT PLEASEEEEE I WANT TO SEE YOU IN THE WOODS WITH A SCARLET COAT!!!!! PLEASE!!! I WANT YOU TO HOLD A MUSKET AND FIRE IT!!! PLEASSEE BRANDON!!! PLEASEEE!!!
4:50 SQUARE COW SQUARE COW
It's right there in the song: "Aux armes, citoyens/Formez vos bataillons."
Wait till you read the lyrics of the Chant du Départ.
I really appreciate the "simple" format of just relevant images and a great monologue without obnoxious music in the background
Amen to that.
I love how you connect military history with economics and politics and culture etc
12:13 For anyone curious the guy on the right is Voltaire
What did Voltaire do to my boy?? Gonna look it up later
@@TaxEvader08- Voltaire would kill people with sarcasm. He was a very witty jerk.
cus the guy on the right is so stupid for not attempting to complete the system of german idealism!
Thanks for *not* using "artificial intelligence" for your images as many other history channels are prone to do these days. Authentic period illustrations and paintings are sooooo much better.
I do hope AI will one day be able to follow the formats of old paintings to like it came from the past because majority of modern day internet artists that you can commission are only good in drawing vore
@@antoniodelaugger9236no. People can learn to paint old school. Just go to any art school outside north America and liberal western Europe (I finished a Master's in fine art in Ukraine this spring and everyone was doing some kind of classical or folk art). No vore, no modernist trash.
@@antoniodelaugger9236we have thousands of old school paintings.
AI jsut looks tacky
When you were calling WWII a truly total war after describing it, I realized immediately that we were going to discuss the Levee en masse. Though I will say that until that point, you had me fooled.
I love how you make sure to emphasise how military history is just a part of history. So many self-titled "history buffs" just ignore anything that isn't directly related to their specific area of interest, especially some creators on TH-cam (not to name any names). It's a problem that I think military history disproportionately suffers from for both historiographical and cultural reasons I think.
This is the weirdest title I’ve ever seen
You ready for an orgasm of enlightenment
I read it 3x, still weird.
Nut of war
I know this one will already be a banger because this could be the title of a post-doc article in a niche historiography journal no one reads.
*I promise it says only organs of war*
Ooh ooh! I learned about this a week ago in school!
Brandon, you're the only TH-camr whose sponsor ads I actually enjoy and will gladly sit through, lol
Oh, this should be wonderful, knowing your devotion to looking at the period through the context of its own time. Also, that introduction was simply wonderful, and could be applied to many such factions, such as the Bolsheviks.
I think the levee en masse and the Napoleonic wars wasn't as large of a departure from times previously as you are proposing in this, and instead grew rather linearly indifferent of population from the 1500's onwards as centralization and more effective (As in better able to direct and tax their populace) states developed, resulting in having a large state and economy becoming increasingly important towards the amount of soldiers one could direct.
To give the example of the Spanish in chronological order.
Starting around early 1500's, you see reforms issues by Ferdinand to start a professional military such as an order in 1495 that "all our subjects, of whatever rank, should possess suitable offensive and defensive weapons", the adoption of the pike in 1497 and the organization of the Spanish Tercio. Similarly experience with the wars in Granada lead to the castilians to adopt the cannon (which the French already adopted) and the subsequent Italian wars helped spurned on more developments. You still see an example of a Spanish army in the invasion of Navarre that had ~2.5k cavalry, 6,000 infantry and 20 pieces of artillery. Finding funds for the military was exceptionally difficult, and things such as the Italian wars where funded heavily by Italian financiers.
Under Charles V, "Spanish" troops was a small but regarded as a fairly highly elite and profession sort. They only represented a fifth of the Hapsburg army that took rome in 1527, and only a sixth of the soliders serving in germany by 1547. What exactly is and isn't Spanish soldiers during this period is a bit harder to say due to the many separate kingdoms (Plus "Spain" being more multiple kingdoms in itself) but to give examples An Imperial army that invaded France in 1524 had 24,000 men which included 5,000 Spanish infantry. For a more "Spanish" endeavor you then can look at the invasion of Tunis. Ignoring the galleys, there were over 30,000 soldiers with 4k from the elite Spanish Tercio's of Italy along with 7k Germans and 8k Italians. To give a comparison to the Napoleonic wars, you can remember that Napoleon in his invasion of Italy had around ~37,000 soldiers and was eventually reinforced to 50,000. Whilst Napoleon obviously didn't represent the majority of men serving under the French, it is important to note that two and a half centuries proceeding Napoleon we already have similarly sized armies to what he had operating in the Mediterranean
To advance the clock to Phillip in 1560’s, you will see now the Tercio’s were now effectively permanent professional military units consisted not of conscripts (like many soldiers prior) but paid volunteers. They tended to be from a relatively high social class, with the Spanish Tercios in Flanders almost half being nobles, but with Spains relatively low population (This point Castille’s population was ~5 million, and majority of men who served in the Spanish Spanish Tercio’s were from castille or Andalusia), and the spanish tercios rarely exceeded 10% of the men serving under the Spanish crown, with many Italian (predominately recruited from Milan or Naples) also existing. Ever lacking manpower, the Spanish crown also continued practices of conscription in Castille and also made up the shortfall through extensive hiring of foreigners. To use the battle of Lepanto of an example (Something we consider a famous Spanish victory), the Spanish contributed 14 galleys manned by the Spanish and a further 63 galleys of Italians under Spanish control out of the total force of 203 galleys. Of the 28k troops, there were ~8,500 spanish, ~5,000 germans and the remainder Italians. The fleet also had ~13,000 sailors and ~44,000m rowers. Of the finances, Spain paid about three ffiths of the cost. When you look at this in total, this is Spain, Venice and the Papal States together mustering ~85,000 men for a campaign. Armies of 85,000 weren’t unknown during the Napoleonic wars, and we are still multiple centuries away.
Overall by 1584, the Spanish empire had roughly 35,000 men in Spain, 62,000 in Flanders, 24,000 in naples, 24,000 in Portugal and the capability of raising around 200,000 men in total if required .Obviously, not all congregated in a singular army. Similarly obviously the army was mostly non-spaniards, though many were of regions under the rule of the Spanish crown. To give a specific example, the army of Flanders in 1608 infantry consisted of almost 50% germans, ~20% Spanish, and the remainder Belgians and Italians. In 1649 the army of Flanders has 23 German Tercios, 11 Belgian, 6 Spanish and 4 Italian.
As this comment is getting exceedingly long, I am going to do a bit of a timeskip.
After the treaty of Utrecht (In which she lost much of her empire), the Bourbons issued reforms to the Spanish military. By 1725, the Spanish army annual cost was around 5 and a half million escudos with figures of it's size ranging from 30,000 to 70,000, and in around 1734 there was a total ~30,000 Non-spanish in service (consisting of Belgians, Swiss and Irish mostly) which at times compromised up to a third of the Spanish army. This is smaller than centuries prior, but it is also comparing Spain at it’s height to an exceptionally low period. Despite this, they are still mustering a large army and the armies she musters later in the Napoleonic wars (And you certainly can say the Spanish got quite nationalistic during the Peninsular campaign) ultimately don’t involve too many more men.
To very briefly compare this to the Dutch for example, you see them mustering disproportionately high amounts of men compared to the area they control allowing them to at times allowing their armies to even outnumber their enemies occasionally. Typically their armies were exceptionally professional unlike the Spanish which relied massively more on conscription (So conscription and the using of the common man in the army being more a factor of finances and population than so much just nationalization of the army). Eventually as their neighbors centralized and advanced, the Dutch couldn’t keep up and the war of Spanish Succession is really the last war they were a major participant in.
Fundamentally however the numbers of soldiers these countries mustered both prior and after the French revolution never had a sudden inexplicable jump, but rather grew fairly regularly and any major spikes or drops ultimately being from acquisition or losses of territory than a sudden political development. The reforms of Carnot did improve how many men France could field, but I’d argue ultimately not exponentially so. The fact that their non-revolutionary monarchical counterparts throughout the years kept on mustering similarly high numbers shows that it wasn’t a development inherently tied to the French Revolution.
I might add more to this later, I wasn't expecting to spend my night digging out my history books to write 1k words in a youtube comment.
That was very informative. Thank you.
Sweden did it too and did it better.
I tend to agree with this; the 30 years war was deadlier than ww2 per capita. Armies get larger - but so does the general population.
I didn't know other people hated Voltaire as much as I do! Kudos
Why?
Pls explain. I haven't really looked into Voltaire
He was the edgelord of the enlightenment. Exaggerating statements about religion and what the powers of the state should be.
The biggest flaw isn't his to begin with. Modern interprentations of his work is what hurt him the most.
@@TeutonicEmperor1198he also supported his ideas based on a completely fictional version of China as some hyper rational, efficient, science obsessed state...it was before Google and mass tourism so nobody could call his BS. China at that time was the Qing Dynasty, which was extremely irrational and not at all progressive. The education system was based on lifetime bureaucratic appointments won by parroting the Confucian classics and having pretty calligraphy fitting a rigid standard (馆阁体), restricting or even forbidding foreign travel and sailing to some extent, and an opposition to foreign modernization so zealous that (in the 19th century) the imperial government insisted on ripping up the railway network after one enterprising governor built one without permission. Well, like Rousseau's state of nature, most of the "evidence" for enlightenment arguments is just made up by the writer.
@@michaelwarenycia7588 very interesting! I didn't know about his fascination with China. Thanks for the information!!
Early modernity is so fascinatingly complex
It can be argued that the Spanish war of resistance against the French during the Napoleonic wars was also a part of this process. The modern Spanish national identity draws a lot from that resistance (so-called "Spanish Independence War" in Spanish sources), with the Region of Madrid conmemorating the 2nd of May as local holiday (for the uprising), or the fact that the first Spanish Constitution was drafted during the war, the Constitution of 1812, nicknamed "La Pepa" due to having been signed the day of Saint Joseph (Pepa is the female form of Pepe, a Spanish diminutive for Joseph), with the chant "Viva la Pepa!" being a long-standing liberal slogan. In the city of Cádiz, where that Constitution was made (and where the provisional wartime Government was established), they still sing the song "con las bombas que tiran los fanfarrones" (with the bombs thrown by the braggarts, a song mocking the French soldiers).
The description of the french revolution events is broad indeed, but that kind of period can't be essentially summed up in a few hours, let alone minutes, so well done.
And on the heart of the video, couldn't agree more.
As an example, the defeats of France in 1870 & 1940, which share many fundamental similarities, are nearly always explained, especially in anglo countries, only looking at the military events, without any place for the inner politics.
The inner politics were the most influential factor on the french sides both times.
This is why I come here. Brandon has a way of giving you a seemingly narrow topic that to some may feel like minutiae but in truth, nothing will make you think and expand your mind like these topics. You rarely think about the change in attitude of the populace about what consisted of the nation and what one must sacrifice for the nation. It really makes you think what our day would look like if the prevalent attitudes had been different ideals.
Yay, new brandon video! Ive been sick with a cold or covid (not sure which yet) so this is some much needed entertainment to distract me for a while, thanks Brandon.
I do pray and in the most earnest and hearty verisimilitude pray that you recover your stength and vigour after none too soon a time my illustrious commenter
Just got over covid myself, you got this 💪
@@HOSS257 turns out it isn’t covid, probably a flu or cold
I actually really enjoyed this ad read
Great video: I'm preparing an oral exam to become a teacher in Italy and this video really helped me integrate some notes on the twentieth century.
My introduction to history was through military history. It wasn't until I went to college when I fully realized how many more historical disciplines there were, and how much they contribute to our understanding of the past. Your concluding point about studying the grains is very well taken.
Same. One thing I realized is how wikipedia charts of figures and videos showing overhead view of maps with moving blocks representing military units and footage from the Total War games, don't show the whole story of war; and rather give a distorted image of war
The ending words was so poetic. Great video
Damn, Brandon’s coming out with bangers at a faster and faster pace these days
Glad you think so! But, I hate to say it, I will likely be away for pretty much all of March...so, yeah.
@@BrandonF No worries, gives us time to catch up on all the old content!
4:51 Do they still make cows like that if so where can i get one
Go to Wendy’s
"I promise it's a discount, not a request."
*sad AtunShei noises*
Love your presentations!
Brilliant summation of the societal changes of the Early Modern Era.
That was such an amazing video, i have to say. Your topics are always something new and interesting. I especially like your narration. I learnd so much by this video, thanks so much
Amazing video! I first started thinking about this topic with David A Bell’s “The First Total War.” Hopefully those will all lead to a reunification of the historical discipline!
Brandon pulls no punches about truth of the warhawk's mindset and the reality of ##scism
The conclusion is great. I first got into history because of warfare and learning all the tactical details. Now I don't care who flanked whom at the battle Wimbletonberryshire. I want to know that Lord Smithwickston's grand nephew was leading the army instead of Sir Gallyfgwall despite being more qualified because it would have helped secure an alliance needed for a different war in Poland
FINALLY I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR SO LONG FOR A VIDEO ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS, PLEASE DO MORE
Thank you.
Very Food video, loved it. Really sums up the spirit of the times
Don't forget to include the Nationalization of Ghosts. I know it's uncomfortable to talk about, but war is paranormal by it's very nature.
To ignore that aspect of it is to do so at your own peril.
Thank You!
oh this one is a banger.
Wow, that section regarding the Enlightenment thinkers was so much more aggressive than I would have thought, given your general attitude and mien.
14:18 I'd love for you to expand on this, and i suppose what preceded it, on the video i mean.
A casual exploration of thinkers, but mostly their ideas, of the time maybe?
Id like that.
Very nice review, thank you!
Great Video
Incredible title. Great content. Love this topic.
i did a lecture on this, was really fun. im publisher but i did it with an historian
Well Well well. That title is so based
The en in levé en masse is pronounced more like “on” in phrenetic English
Do another video on nationalism in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Tell us more about how Picards and Gascons and Bretons became French, or how Scots and Welsh and the various kinds of English became British.
A lot of those people would disagree that they ever did.
LA VICTOIRE, EN CHANTANT,...
Calling Voltaire the original edgelord is so accurate though.
Audio cut out from 14:07-14:13
Brandon, please list your sources for those who want to look into this topic further!
I always want to pronounce it as "gobbles" like a turkey
That is much more fun
@BrandonF Really? Putting the stank on 'guerbles' has always been a thrill.
@@Jeff-ts9ut Fair enough. Now let me ask you about the other big one. Goethe of course is pronounced something like " goer-tuh" but you sometimes hear people say it "Go-fee." Do you like that pronunciation? Of course the pronunciation is the pronunciation, so right or wrong answer here but I'm wondering where you stand in this issue.
@ThommyofThenn my answer is, as it has aways been, that the more a German surname sounds like it has been spit though a mouthful of marbles, the better.
@@Jeff-ts9ut good response 🤓
The work you do is so important.
This is a great video on the birth of modernity. From a military perspective.
Great video!!
Is there some deep lore reason Brandon hates Voltaire so much? I guess he was a bit of an edgelord with some pretty gross views about some topics, but I don't know if he was really worse than most of his contemporaries. Early Modern history is just so fascinating to me- the way so many different philosophical, economic, technological and military innovations all came together over the course of 200-300 years to completely transform life for millions, all around the world is just astonishing.
You never fail to deliver xD
The Dutch Wars were just as horrifying as the Revolutionary wars. French troops under Luxemburg and the other French commanders had 0 qualms with murdering civilians at will with the French War Minister even giving the green light. The Dutch also ate the De Witts who they blamed for the Dutch defeats.
During the 9 Year's War Imperial troops would castrate French POWs since they were so used to facing the Turks who did the same thing.
Yet another excellent video from our most humble and obedient of servants
Nice video, this is a topic that is so important but so rarely discussed
So the fighting of Leviathans and their death throes are what made war so extreme.
1:58 damn
Thank you for your video covering what i consider to be one of the worst sociopolitical things to ever happen in the modern era and how it was accomplished. This mentality and approach has lead to all of the worst things that have happened since.
While i do not necessarily expect any presenter to share or talk about it from my perspective. I sincerely appreciate the lack of fawning and praising of that development, the way many many others would
The final section about a holistic approach being necessary for actual understanding was a cherry on top to a great video
Ah yes, the “enlightenment” of dresden
You can make the case that total war (not the game franchise) came out of mass media and mass literacy that allowed for the creation of a nation state in a way that wasn’t possible before
one line that says a lot is. "king George comand and we obey. that makes only sense when even a ranker sees themself as a subject to the crown. earlyer It was the local lord that had the troops. it was he who paid them.
I have to say that the initial bit is truly something. A lot of what we could easily associate with the most violent and authoritarian forms of military dictatorships could easily apply to the militaristic nationalism of the late enlightenment. Often I have made the claim that fascism probably arose between 1820 and 1870, and that movements like the Russian Decemberists, Garibaldi and Il Risorgimento, or Baldomero Espartero in Spain against the Carlists. I’d say this proto-fascistic politics really set the stage for what would happen in the first half of the 20th Century.
2:30
Based. The Montagnards did nothing wrong.
Hello Brandon. I have commented before that I believe the AWI to be the significant part of this change.
The French, who were revolting subsequently, would have been influenced by having taken part in that effort to throw off monarchy and the Declaration of Independence is like a blueprint for the rights the sans culottes were sent to fight for. The fact that the monarchies of Europe attacked the revolting French produced the need for the citizen armies. The irony was that they had backed the revolting Americans against the British to further their own interest and it rebounded upon them through the rise of Napoleon.
Another irony is the idea of German total war in WW2. The British could be seen as having beaten them to it, drawing on their experience from WW1. I saw an interesting video, I think from the Western Front Association about recycling in WW1 as a part of such efforts, which might be something you could look at as a future video idea?
Coming into this vid, pardon the pun, Im not so certain if I agree with the idea of the "national war" being modern. I won't be surprised if the Classical Age and the Middle Ages saw such instances of total wars between nations too. After all, war never changes, and history sure does rhyme if not repeat, and I'd dare say history is cyclical rather than linear towards some ideal of "progress"
agreed. the earliest example of a citizen army I can think of would be the roman Legion's. Not to mention Brandon doesn't take into account the sheer impact a siege has on a city. The starvation feels like total war to me
War very much changes
4:51 Got Cow?
Was it Hobbes? You hate Hobbes right?
Looks like Voltaire to me.
I love you
I'm worried about Timmy.
What do you have against Kant & Voltaire???
I was wondering the same thing
He’s a monarchist so…
I could kinda tell it wasn’t Goebbels mainly because the language seemed too defeatist/out of his style for me
7:40 damn no body wanted Alabama
Wow
Why the hate for Voltaire? Just curious
Little Timmyyy!!!! Noooo!!
Is that the father from Carnot? The discoverer of the Carnot cycle? 😂
What a title
The birth of statism.
The first standing army in western Europe after the fall of Rome was France in the early 15th century.
You fooled me big time
At 17:40, I think it’s a picture of the repression in Vendée, when the republican ideas were explained again to the local population through the killing of quite a lot of the people around. Something still hushed in today’s French schoolbooks.
Sad europeans only began legit thinking individually in the 1800s, explains a lot of their history and future : P
Hey Brandon, I have an idea for a video. What about a video seiges and how they worked with muskets and stuff like that? I'd think it would be an interesting concept. Examples like the Alamo or Petersburg, Virginia, come to the top of my head when I think of seiges with muskets. I believe you would know more about seiges that happened in Europe than I would.
Apparently this is very big brain topic for the Reddit audience…
I'd enjoy your review of the Goebbels produced, government funded epic propaganda film, Kolberg. It would fit this theme, and be right up your historical alley.
Why you hate Kant?
What did kant and... the other guy do to you??
Have dumb ideas, the worst of all sins
@@BrandonF oh dear!
Voltaire being the "other guy".
@@oz_jones i don't watch people's portraits for entretainment