This guy sucks

I was hoping to hear what the ottomans wanted to gain as well

A lost opportunity, for sure. Maybe CANZUK can bring about the free trade zone in the future.

American statehood is based on SEPARATISM))) A constant reminder to Russia of the mistake it made in helping the young American state in the war of independence against the British Empire

UK should be thankful that US helped them.

Love the content! Are you planning on covering the opium wars?

So much for Britain's greatest statesman-Churchill. A drunken, narcissistic warmonger who destroyed his own country.

7:00 "World power and world interest" now its a third world country.

Britain is most coward, cunning and evilest country of entire world.

America didn't break it, it joined it, it's called NATO now. One Crown to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.

This channel in style reminds me somethimes of Historia Civilis, although vastly different in topic. Nevertheless this channel has nothing to envy from anyone, a video release is like a movie premiere

There is a known misconception of Russia's desire and leadership to partition Poland. Poland was already a puppet state of Russia in the early 18th century. It was an Eastern buffer between it and Prussia and Austria. Catherine II was not keen to participate but had few options. Prussians and Austrians were steamrolling onto the topic. Russia's patriots were also in favour because historical Russian lands were returned (during the first partition). What is definite - the partition created a foundation for future tension and postponed the Russo-Turkish struggle for some time.

Vlogging through history brought me here! Heart content!

Dear Mr. Old Britannia, would you mind doing a video about Austria in the war of the Spanish Succession? Especially focusing on Joseph I. (the seconds grand-oncle)?

Simply Amazing! Only Apostolic Majesty can surpass your utterly amazing content! Keep doing deep dives.

As an austrian, I did not expect you to make this interesting. I thought the video was gonna be boring but it turned out that I'm pretty invested.

When wasn't Hungary ready to rise against the Emperor?

Historic ironies: ▪ Charles VI long ago had led armies in Spain claiming the old throne of Carlos II of Habsburg. Like 'Austria' 'Spain' was a union of realms all with their own laws ▪ At one point Maria Theresa was considered a wife for the future Carlos III of Spain - he was far down the line of succession at the time. would have been "interesting" if Maria Theresa's consort then ascended the Spanish throne ▪ while the hereditary Habsburg lands could only pass via males (the German and French tradition), this wasnt the tradition in Bohemia, Hungary or the Austrian Netherlands- the marriages of Maximilian I and Ferdinand I were how they came into Vienna's possession in the first place I love your work! makes one think about so much

1)It was self inflicted - no dynamic & integrated commowealth economy, 2)The US was already the largest economy since 1890, 3)Socialism after WW2. Again, self inflicted. 4)Due to 3 and other factors, awesome industries like aircraft, automotive, motorcycle, and even being a pioneer in AI were thrown down the toilet and flushed incessantly by deranged British minds. The rest is history.

*Divide and rule.* Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and *divide and "gain an advantage"* if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened. DIVIDE AND CONTROL At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness). Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today *still* carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans. One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity. From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy." Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories." [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] *"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.* Some examples regarding the theory in practice: After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances. What was "in it" for Washington DC? Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe... First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century) Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe. Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences... Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it. *"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."* Robert Greene And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did... The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below). These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power. Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences). What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London? London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself. Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians. A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine. Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. Me: "pwomises made"...lol With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..." The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895. To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind. Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s). *A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.* Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...

*The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.* Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoritism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? "Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." -- Walter E. Williams

The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900). *Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.* Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Today, their leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent. Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoritism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of] And _that_ is what they did. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues. *Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.* It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? *War is a great "divider."* It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with _themselves._ "Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams That is what empires have always done. Create the *default rival/enemy.* It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the *default rival/enemy.* Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it *immediately* becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.

So basically UK gave america everything and US gave us nothing in return

10:59 smallpox epidemic + Maria Theresa + 1767 same epidemic that killed Isabella of Parma?

I LOVE how modern youtube channels use maps!!! Unlike documentaries where a guy just sits on a chair and assumes the layman knows where Bessarabia is. Ppl barely know where Moldova is!!!!!

As usual, a very high quality, informative and entertaining video. This era of history is one of my absolute favourites and your sympathetic and balanced perspective of the topics is very refreshing, as well as your thorough research. Keep up the great work. After concluding the series on Austria, you should consider making a similar one on Russia, which is, as one expects with Russia, has more extreme, dysfunctional and unpredictable happenings.

Not entirely correct: The war of 1779 gave Austria a small strip of Bavaria called "Innviertel".

Iirc after aligning with Britain and France during WWI and not pursuing the alliance with both of them even further after the war, some debated that if the US went on a war against Britain in the inter war years, the US would lose since Britain had vast amount of territories and could somehow lockdown the Atlantic ocean with their superior Navy and Naval bases from New Foundland in the North and in the Caribbeans to the South, which prevented the US Navy in conducting large scale operations and also preventing the US Pacific fleet in reinforcing their Atlantic Fleet to the Panama Canal and transit them to the Atlantic when they could be intercepted by the British in the Caribbean. Also Canada, which could be used by the British as staging and jumping off point in invading the US from the North. Lastly the state of the US armed forces in the 1920s and early 30s, with their peak strength, they couldn't cope with combined Canadian and British invasion from the North.

I wonder if the 1788 disaster at Karansebes had anything to do with his reforms. Those miscommunications between the diverse soldiery might very well be the result of him jamming these ethnically distinct forces together during his centralisation efforts.

It's not just the empire. Britian was financially screwed by the USA.

25:56 Joseph II:Only 100 edicts a year? Huh those are rookie numbers, u gotta pump those numbers up

The irony of ironies. Hitler wanted to the british empire existed and rosenveld wanted to break the british empire.

Ah John Quincy Adams. The man just may be the greatest president of this United States.

This video raises my appreciation of my government of this United States. Such a rare thing these days.

Watching Amadeus before seeing this was an experience

Only one thing I'd add: by Joseph II's reign the title King of the Romans was usually referred to as "King in Germania" (Germaniae rex, König in Germanien), since at least the 16th century. Technically the King of the Romans did not have automatic right to be crowned Emperor - that title was in the gift of the Pope. However, by the 18th century the Habsburgs would crown themselves de facto Emperors without Papal approval and this was largely accepted although not by the Papal States, obviously. Obviously by this point the Protestant reformation had meant that much of former Imperial lands no longer cared about Papal imprimatur (a situation the devoutly Catholic Habsburgs quietly exploited) but there was still a sense that a Papal coronation had some special resonance even by this stage - it is why Napoleon kidnapped the Pope and forced him to participate in a coronation in an attempt to present himself as a latter day Charlemagne.

It's so interesting how many times the Austrian Empire almost collapsed.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bomVpqmumKiYis0 basically a jumpscare by your standards

What music do you use in the video background?

Ireland broke the British empire

Fantastic video as always.

Jospeh instructed that his epitaph should read: "Here lies a ruler who, despite his best intentions, was unsuccessful in all of his endeavors."

Just found your channel and insta subscribed. Wish id found you sooner! Such a refreshing well researched new history channel. Im shocked by the quality of even your first video and am eager to see you continue to grow. Thanks for all the great content, keep up the great work!

“…useless, lazy and obstructive.” is, in my opinion, a pretty fair assessment of the Austrian, or indeed, any aristocracy. (not to mention some of the current crops of politicians)

Definitely agree with your conclusion, he tried to move things along too quickly

Super interesting, I have never seen Joseph II's life covered in this much detail. Thanks Old Britannia

Lol @ the jibe at Deloitte. Too real.

16:30 He is not wrong though 23:15 Ruins a one in a millennia opportunity, proceeds to die

The world needs more in depth Austrian history videos

Thank you so much. I am infatuated with the Hapsburgs. I love this series. Please continue