Partitioning an Empire: The End of the American Revolutionary War 1782-1783

In 1781, Lord Cornwallis surrendered his army to George Washington at Yorktown. Over the next two years, British and Allied diplomats were locked in negotiations over the fate of the belleaguered but not beaten British Empire. Allied diplomats, despite the initial advantages derived from Yorktown, soon found themselves on the backfoot as British naval strength revived, and the prospect of bankruptcy drew ever nearer.
This video aims to be a short documentary charting the negotiations that ended the American Revolutionary War.
Patreon: / oldbritannia
#History, #BritishEmpire, #USA,

[@SamAronow]

Quick note: the borders of the Thirteen Colonies by this time had become much jankier than the Proclamation Line of 1763, as they had free rein to make their own treaties with neighboring American Indian tribes and did so several times, with Virginia's borders extending as far west as Louisville. Also the Americans by the time of Yorktown had already occupied the length of the Ohio River down to the east bank of the Mississippi, as well of the lands of the Shawnee and Cherokee comprising most of Kentucky and Tennessee. Not a big deal, but as long as you were showing the Gullah coast and New York under occupation, I thought it was noteworthy. Also thank you for holding onto Gibraltar.

[@scintillam_dei]

Russia and China should deal with the drunk pirates defiling Gibraltar.

[@julio1116]

"Thanks for holding onto Gibraltar" Why???

[@BadCalibre88]

​@@julio1116because it really annoys Spaniards and their reactions are funny

[@wildfire9280]

@@BadCalibre88 European Falklands

[@ihrfer]

​@@julio1116 Probably, for its importance in World War 2. Just guessing based on Sam's channel.

[@gustavoritter7321]

It is interesting to note that at the time this war was seen first and foremost as a French victory over the UK and yet seven years later France went into bankruptcy

[@mrsupremegascon]

Well UK also got pretty much bankrupted when they won Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2. The two last making them lose their superpower status.

[@barmybarmecide5390]

Generally speaking, bankruptcy is preferable to losing a war and a huge part of your empire. Unfortunately (or fortunately, from our perspective) this particular bankruptcy led to the French Revolution and later the end of feudalism across Europe, so the French monarchy definitely took a fat L here

[@MattCellaneous]

As an American, it must be said that the battle of the capes or the Chesapeake, was solely a French victory. The what ifs of history, if we would have won without them, or had that battle gone a different way blah blah blah, I don't get into. What I do know is what actually happened. And what happened was the French fleet's victory secured our ability to have a Allied victory over a British army in Yorktown and secure American independence. The first World War was not just for Britain's sake. It was the repayment of a debt that we had to the French. That's why the first thing we did was to march to lafayette's tomb. It was a nearly an identical repayment actually. We came in late and half-hearted at first, but in the end we were the deciding factor that helped secure victory and freedom for France in that war. Which is exactly what the french contribution to us was in the The War of Independence.

[@skibbideeskitch9894]

​@martinrabaud6807 If winning the Napoleonic Wars bankrupted Britain, the British* wouldn't have dominated the world for the next century. It accumulated a vast debt that it could afford to manage and pay off very efficiently because Britain's economy was thriving (industrialisation, expanding economy, control of world trade etc)

[@costakeith9048]

@@MattCellaneous While there was a lot of such pageantry with respect to France in WWI, it was largely staged propaganda designed to make Americans more amenable to entering the conflict (largely by helping them dislike French less). The idea that it actually influenced the US decision to get involved in WWI or that we felt we owed some debt to be repaid is fanciful. There were various reasons for the US wanting to get involved from from the freedom of navigation to the desire to ensure loans were repaid to grand idealistic beliefs about democracy and the international order to the insult to national honor that was the Zimmerman telegram; but repaying a debt to France was not amongst these reasons America went to war. Furthermore, as Washington himself made clear during his presidency when he abrogated our alliance with France: any obligation owed to France was owed to the Ancien Regime and was rendered null and void by the French Revolution. Let's not forget it was only US diplomatic intervention that saved Lafayette's life from the French republic and they were the murderers of benefactor Louis XVI, the French republic was never a friend or ally of the United States.

[@Adamm17004]

Definitely the most underrated Geopolitical-Historian KZbin channel

[@kingkiron2934]

Fax Bro this guy drops gems.

[@conqueroryt9639]

Do you know of any good other channels which make videos on geopolitics/history?

[@barituned]

Certainly my favorite

[@Garren-kx2jg]

Dont forget Strategy Stuff

[@Xanthas998]

Oddly specific, but I agree this guy's high quality

[@user-vo9wd6tx6c]

I'm American, and I'm always fascinated to hear other perspectives on our war for independence. In high school, we talk about the British and American forces (obviously), and a fair amount of attention is given to the French (particularly Lafayette) and Native forces. But the Spaniards and Dutch are basically ignored and we don't cover the events in India or Eastern Europe. Thank you so much for this video.

[@jpaulc441]

I found it interesting than many British people actually sympathised with the American want for independence. They felt that a war would damage the lucrative trading relationship between Britain and the 13 colonies (for obvious reasons).

[@orthodox-mp6hv]

That's fairly normal I would think. In our own struggle for liberty we are tought in school about the fighting on the Rumelian front of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 about the battles, about the heroism and sacrifices... and yet we are tought nothing about the Caucasian front which is without a doubt far more economically important. Ultimately the fighting on North American soil is more relevant and important to Americans than the fighting somwhere half-way accross the globe.

[@scintillam_dei]

"Spain created the British Empire and the USA." kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmXbiZuYequIY5o&ab_channel=SCINTILLAMDEI

[@LedosKell]

I was lucky enough to have two teachers who at least explained to us that there were other theaters concurrent with the fighting in North America.

[@junsu21]

@@orthodox-mp6hvyes, the fighting in North America is more important for US citizens to learn, however the complexity of this war is just another indication of how watered down and biased the history that is taught in American K-12 schools really is. If people are lucky, they will take a college level American history class and learn the full story versus the kiddie story filled with the likes of Paul Revere and George Washington.

[@stuartwald2395]

A remaining dispute: There is no doubt but that Vergennes was publicly upset by the USA's separate deal with the UK, but many believe that he was actually relieved, as it allowed France to make peace without being held hostage to Spain's endless (and futile) attempts to take Gibraltar.

[@MattCellaneous]

Some historians believe(Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy, author of the 'Men who lost America' amongst them) that Lord North's comment was actually about his ministry and not about the American war at the time. I think I agree with this point of view.

[@AFGuidesHD]

The one time the French win and it results in disaster for everyone.

[@primarchvulkan5097]

That's not fair, the French won fairly often and it was usually a disaster lol

[@artfuldodger9312]

The French's participation in the American War of Independence proved to be their downfall and led to their ruin. This significant involvement in the conflict had far-reaching consequences that played a pivotal role in shaping the future of France.

[@michaelsurratt1864]

I mean we only say that because Napoleon invaded Russia if he managed to not do that and focus on the continent it would have been the best thing to ever happen to the French

[@poiuyt975]

@@michaelsurratt1864 Not at all. The worst events in France took place even before Napoleon came to power. The horrors of the French revolution haunt the country to this very day.

[@tylerclayton6081]

@@poiuyt975 The French revolution brought about enlightenment that is the foundation of our modern western civilization.

[@tylerclayton6081]

@@michaelsurratt1864 Napoleon never lost a single battle in Russia. Only the British ever defeated Napoleon

[@michaelsurratt1864]

@@tylerclayton6081 regardless of him losing any battles he invaded with 600,000 and left with 90,000

[@skibbideeskitch9894]

It's testament to the the under-appreciated qualities of the heavily maligned North Ministry that, despite losing some of her oldest & most populated colonies, Britain came out of the war not only in a _better_ condition than France, but with the position of dominance she'd established at the Seven Years War intact. Without the intractable problems of campaigning in the American enterior, Lord George Germain might be remembered more in the mold of someone such as Henry Dundas.

[@skiteufr]

Lol. The UK ended with even more debts from that war than France and lost the crown jewel of the time of their Empire. Don't make it sound it was ok, it was a heavy defeat for Britain

[@skibbideeskitch9894]

@@skiteufr Britain *could* and *did* effectively manage its major war debts (Pitt's First Ministry). Due to the ineffective finanical structure of the Ancien Regime, the French could not. She collapsed into revolution barely 6 years after the war ended. "lol" indeed. France demonstrably came out worse that Britain, having failed to take the West Indies (the most valuable British possessions at the time, & were recognised as such. The 13 Colonies were never the jewel of the crown). You'll be horrified to learn the war didn't end at Yorktown. It ended with the failure and disintegration of the Bourbon Alliance after the Saintes & Siege of Gibraltar.

[@skiteufr]

@@skibbideeskitch9894 again. Don't make it sound like you won the war because your pathetic country only won a siege. Most of Britain's carribbean possessions were in French hands by the end of the war except Jamaica (which was the only thing saved by the Saintes). The trade with India was heavily disrupted. At the end of the war, the Bourbon alliance was stronger than ever : Spain won back Florida, won back Menorca. France used the conquests of the carribbean to pressure Britain into a Peace treaty. It handed back most of the captured islands except Tobago but well, it wasn't really important as France already had Saint Domingue, the richest colony in the world at that time and didn't want to take too many islands from Britain has it would have been a heavy burden to defend and control (reason why they were as bargain to end the war and not as prizes). The French revolution was a good and much needed thing. The most important turning point in western history that created the liberal world we live in today, and turned a country attacked from all sides into the conqueror of Europe... So again, i know that you British like to turn your numerous defeats into victories or you try to take credit from the contribution of others, but the American revolutionary war was a clear defeat on all fronts for Britain It was diplomatically isolated for the first time as it had not alliance with a great power of the continent and the challenge on all fronts proved too much for Britain.

[@herrlord-rk7ir]

@@skibbideeskitch9894 In the long-term, America's independence severely and negatively affected the so-called "position of dominance" that Britain had in the Americas. Had there been no American independence, then Britain's position in the Americas (and thus the world) would've been more secure throughout the 19th century and beyond. But Britain's defeat in the hands of USA and France prevented that. Also, France's extraordinary performance during the Napoleonic Wars against multiple coalitions show that France was not weakened at all by the conflict in North America. Even after Napoleon's defeat, France was STILL a major power in Europe in 1816 (unlike Germany in 1946). France lost its dominant status in Europe ONLY after the Franco-Prussian war in 1870s and not after the conflict with UK in 1780s. UK may not have faced the true and ultimate consequences of its defeat against USA/France in the short-term. But the long-term was not very kind to UK who got dwarfed by USA.

[@skibbideeskitch9894]

@@herrlord-rk7ir Does any of that of that change the fact France came out of the war in a worse state than Britain, that it severely crippled the Ancien Regime, or that American Independence didn't interrupt Britain's upward trajectory as a world power? The British Empire was more powerful in the early 19th century than at anytime before American Independence, because A) Post-1815, France and Spain were no longer threats, and B) She had a marked superiority in naval power, industrialisation and world trade. These factors were not reliant on controlling a colonial state in the Americas which, if Independence didn't happen, may never have progessed much beyond the Proclamation Line of 1763. France did very well for much of the Napoleonic Wars. She ultimately also lost the Napoleonic Wars, in great part due to Britain's marked superiority at sea & GB's ability to draw on vast finanical & imperial resources. Her 18th century victories in the Seven Years War and 11th hour success against France and Spain in 1782-1783 enabled this.

[@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745]

Benjamin Franklin's 'advisable articles' were huge stretch goals lol

[@mrbyzantine0528]

Classic bargaining tactic: start way higher than you want and gradually 'come to an agreement' of your true goals.

[@LANCELOT1911]

Gave me a good laugh that's for sure 😂

[@barmybarmecide5390]

Brilliant, thank you for your hard work and consistent quality, these videos are great resources for someone looking to read deeper into the subject! Especially the early history of European imperial expansion, such a unique period of human history

[@nygothuey6607]

Your videos are absolute treasures. The geo-political aspect of history is often ignored in favor of the military events. I'm glad that you've chosen to cover this aspect on your channel.

[@Grenadier311]

Excellent presentation, as usual. An enjoyable dose of information not easily found elsewhere outside of multiple history books fortifies my mind when I watch your videos.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Brilliantly done as always!

[@unusualhistorian1336]

Excellent documentary! Keep it up!

[@user-pe4dx4lp4x]

Honest to goodness, your videos and topics are so interesting and just amazing. You are more than able to give the diplomatic machinations of these people and powers in such a balanced way

[@josww2]

One of my favorite KZbin channels. Your videos are fantastic!

[@jackjones3919]

Great video, as always!

[@jacobharrison5284]

I love your videos! I consider myself to be fairly historically knowledgable but you always show angles and point of views that can hardly be found elsewhere. Please keep up the good content!

[@MartinUToob]

I've managed to watch a good number of videos on this channel and would like to compliment its overall excellence. A very fine job.

[@OldBritannia]

Thank you, very pleased you like them.

[@kevinb5016]

I really enjoy your work and agree with the underrated and absolute treasures comments below. Keep up the good work.

[@jackharvey7750]

Keep up the good work chief 👏 👌

[@yurilemay884]

Awesome, just found your channel thank you

[@ImStillWoody]

Another Great video! 👍👍

[@philliprandle9075]

Great video!

[@alansmithee8831]

Another example of how this century was not simply monarchs playing at soldiers. The cost of beating Britain created another English speaking power, but bankrupted the non English speaking kingdoms that opposed it, leading to their downfall soon after, but the details of how and why are seldom discussed in favour of what came next. Still, nothing to lose one's head over just yet?

[@kenchem9253]

As an American I’ve always found the relative darkness surrounding the end of the revolutionary war in our country interesting. In school we’re taught the battle of Yorktown ended the war, and not that in continued for years on afterwards. Nor are we taught the extent of the global reach of the conflict, it’s just taught to us as the French came to help us after the Battle of Saratoga. The final years of the war and the period directly after until the ratification of the Constitution are glossed over most likely because the period was a total shitshow with States threatening war with one another over trade and land rights and insurrections against the weak federal government. I also find it very interesting that in spite of the war fought between our two countries and the aid France gave us, we almost immediately turned our backs on them and began trade with England. I think it was always inevitable due to shared culture and language the two nations became close allies, even regardless of the many bumps in the road leading up to and after the “coming out party” of sorts of the US-UK relationship with American funding of and entry into WW1.

[@alansmithee8831]

@@kenchem9253 The mistrust lasted beyond WW1. Dough Boys were not strictly allies, although on the same side. Check out videos from US WW1 Museum Kansas. Even at the start of WW2 from the US perspective the two countries did not entirely trust each other. They had to learn to respect each other at each level by common experience. I enjoy watching some of the better US reaction channels, if only because I enjoyed touring US for three months back in the 1990s. My northern English dialect, spoken with my friend, often had us confused for Irish by enthusiastic Irish Americans. We tried to let them down gently as my friend's forenames are James Stewart, which we declared to show Celtic origins. We were asked in Texas if we had come all the way from England on the bus. 🏜🌎🏝🚌🏖🌍🏞 It seems those naval battles' significance was over exaggerated?

[@johnnotrealname8168]

It was only France that was bankrupted. The other powers trundled onwards. Spain's finances were fairly solid in the late 18th Century and it was more onerous on the peasantry compared to France (Of course in theory, in reality the French system was clearly worse.).

[@alansmithee8831]

@@johnnotrealname8168 I was thinking of when Napoleon decided to just take the whole country for Spain and Netherlands.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@alansmithee8831Which country? Also he invaded the Netherlands.

[@maxt-pi5ky]

Excellent video.

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

Damn good channel, damn good video!

[@sebby_scarfkid944]

Delayed sleeping specifically to wait for this release, and it was defo worth it, keep up the great work my guy

[@danz1182]

Another terrific video from this channel. One aspect not covered here that I thought played a large role was concern in London over what it would cost to win and reassert control over the 13 colonies. Britain simply could not afford to win after Yorktown. That is why it is so significant.

[@chrisbirch6513]

You are the best

[@orktv4673]

I love these in-depth discussions of peace treaties!

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

Excellent overview - the period between Yorktown and the Treaty of Paris is sadly too often no more than an short epilogue in many histories of the period. It is worth remembering that Franklin was a colonial agent for the Pennsylvanian assembly for nearly 16 years, keeping a house in the Strand, so he had deep network of contacts in British political elite, and of course had a wide reputation as a scientist and philosophy in enlightenment France and had had a great many correspondences with figures in Paris. His deep knowledge of both the British and French social scene and political systems was undoubtedly why he was so succeessful in playing a shadow game between Paris and London that for the most part redounded to the benefit of the 13 colonies..

[@pocketmarcy6990]

Yeah, US schools basically go straight from Yorktown to the Treaty

[@starliaghtsz8400]

another one in just 2 weeks? damn what a treat

[@ilFrancotti]

The British may have lost the American Revolutionary war.. but given the coalition of enemies they were facing they managed to snatch a valuable peace. This sounds like a "Prussian defeat", if you let me pass the term.

[@unpseudopascommelesautres997]

For once ! They finally face a coalition. Most of the time it's the otherway around. France facing coalition.

[@officialamy794]

Quick question, what do you use to make the maps in your videos? Very good models. Keep up the good work.

[@vihaankaushal7452]

Hi old Britania! I feel that your channel is quite underrated and your style of explaining geopolitics should be noted. With that said, I would like to ask you if in the future will you be making such videos for more modern events? (from the cold war to today). It would certainly be interesting to be able to see how you explain more recent events in this sort of video style.

[@OldBritannia]

The next Other Great Game episode will go up to the Suez crisis and a bit beyond. I’d also like to cover Potsdam and the settling of the post-war order at some point. But unfortunately Cold War history isn’t really my area of interest. I actually found it a bit dry when I studied it academically. But I certainly wouldn’t rule out doing such topics in the future.

[@vihaankaushal7452]

@@OldBritannia Alright thats quite fair. I do wanna see the next episode of the great game, I think the series depicts the more unknown rivalry between the US and the British Empire pretty well, while in most other historical records the Americans are always portrayed as being the friendly neighbour who would one day aid Britain in their time of need, of course people always forget that the American's weren't helping for free, and the cost would be Britain's hegemony.

[@WaybackHistoryChannel]

Your videos covering British foreign policy are some of the best geopolitics content on KZbin! Looking at historical events from a geopolitical angle is also the format of our channel; we actually recently looked at the history of Britain’s presence in Menorca. Keep up the good work, cheers! 🇺🇸🇬🇧

[@twillis1998]

Great video as always!

[@stevesmith4367]

Yo buddy. You have the most mature views on events of all the “historio/political” channels on youtube. Don’t ever change except for one thing - stick to a topic until you finish it. I guess one other thing, go into more detail. Your stuff is great.

[@nicbahtin4774]

when it comes to financial responsibility or stick to the British you bet your a$$ france will chose the latter

[@danever159]

Great channel and video. Suggestions: independence of Spanish and porchugese colonies in America and geo politics around it, the situation around China and colonialism, colonialism around India and south Asia and how that played out, some parts or a series for the ottoman empire?

[@MakerManX]

"porchugese"

[@Tassek]

Always appreciate your content! This time period is so important and consequential to our modern era, and yet most people don’t know enough about it. Keep up the great work!

[@louisiananlord17]

I have been dying for this video. Old Britannia, as always a masterful analysis and Vergennes, was a keen mind to orchestrate what he did for Mother France! 🇫🇷 Franklin is always being tops, too! 🇺🇸

[@Doosteroni]

Good video man

[@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle]

Thank you so much for this! We are not taught any of the worldwide aspects of the Revolution in the U.S. Please do more about the War itself outside the 13 colonies! I am super interested! Great channel!

[@Rowlph8888]

This deccision bby France is thhe most pivotal reason for the shappe of the worldd internattionally right now. Just one example is that no independence at this moment would mean no Independence in the future for the colonies because Britain industrialised and got steam powered gunboats within a few decades and a France that doesn't go into revolution, remaining financially and militarily recovered, would mean no modern Germany either, but small German states remaining, with Prussia the largest, as before -Therefore no world wars

[@owenovercash9848]

Good job as always

[@micahistory]

100th comment. Just wanted to say great video as usual and I always appreciate the diplomatic angle on this channel

[@johnnyszani1061]

Could you do one on the war aims of the powers in the spainish war of succession.

[@gequitz]

Another great vid! Also, 1782 was the "Year of Blood" on the western American frontier. After Yorktown, American settlers launched more incursions into the land's of indigenous peoples loyal to Britain, west of the Appalachians. Crawford's expedition ended in US defeat in Ohio country, and things ended more or less status quo ante bellum by the end of 1782. But, the Northwest territories were recognized by Britain to be open for American expansion, and expand America did.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

Yeah, they just gave it up to America even though a case can be made that it was Spanish-Allied natives that won the territory.

[@Joker-no1uh]

Yea, I'm guessing the Natives would have been slaughtered regardless, but after Britain abandoned their Native allies, Americans wanted their revenge for siding with Britain

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@Joker-no1uh I think Britain was supporting a war between the Indians and the Americans after independence actually. Also the reason for independence, one of them, was moving into Indian land out West over the Appalachia mountains.

[@Nicholas_I]

That's just great and there is nothing more to say

[@danehollyoak4897]

Brilliant just brilliant, your look into diplomacy is fascinating.

[@timothydexter4027]

Please could you make a community post of some of your favourite books?

[@OldBritannia]

For this video in particular (though sources are at the end) or just in general?

[@timothydexter4027]

@@OldBritannia In general.

[@mrsupremegascon]

13:45 If Napoleon won, I am 100% convinced that this quote would have been seen as prophetic. I am maybe wrong, but I don't think the consequence was that dramatic even for France in the long term. As France will become an absolute mastodonte in the decades to come, despite the revolution and civil wars. You can't point the collapse of the French Monarchy to just the debt situation. France being both an absolute Monarchy and the center of enlightenment was a recipe for disaster that only waited for a fuse to blow up. Napoleonic wars is what made France weak between 1815 to the 1900s. Destroying it's economy, it's demography, it's diplomatic standing, etc... Not the American wars.

[@ilFrancotti]

The American wars destroyed the idea that France had of itself.. which led to all the other things that you mentioned later on. It started here though.

[@unpseudopascommelesautres997]

Sure France lost it's superpower status after 1815 but even after the ruining of the coalition wars. France still stayed top 3 world power along with the new superpower UK and Prussia/germany.

[@NYG5]

In the long term grand scheme of things this was merely a division of labor between the Eastern British Empire and the Western.

[@b-1battledroid674]

"It's so over bros" -Lord North

[@calebroberts5422]

Learning a lot from this channel actually nice not to hear the same stuff from 15 different channels lol...well done And you actually name your sources😍

[@joseluiscalixto5651]

To tell you that at minute 11:30, the background of the ambassador's flag is incorrect. He is using the Burgundian Cross of the Habsburg era in Spain, instead of using the white flag and Bourbon shield (Fleur de lis).

[@OldBritannia]

Ah yes you’re quite correct. Very silly error on my part, apologies.

[@BalenCM]

Love your videos! Would be cool to see how you make them, maybe you could do a video in the future showing how to make the maps and stuff

[@OldBritannia]

Honestly, my mapping process isn't much different from Dr Ludwig's tutorial here on YT, as that is where I learned from. Just watch that and find a style you like from the internet. But I will get round to making a full video at some point.

[@nickmacarius3012]

Excellent video! I would love to see another video on the topic of the War of Spanish Succession. Specifically, on the emphasis that on France's accomplishment by putting a Bourbon on the Spanish throne.

[@guidoserafino2943]

The only one citing thoroughly academic works. Amazing job!

[@echo4428]

Great video. Helped me understand how the US obtained all the land east of the Mississippi in the negotiations.

[@thomasrinschler6783]

One of the points he doesn't show though is that the Americans were in effective occupation of Kentucky and southern Illinois/Indiana at the time, which gave them a few extra good cards at the negotiating table.

[@gabrielsotelo2484]

Hes back!

[@joshwebb5016]

I can’t thank you enough for covering this subject. My dissertation earlier this year focused on the role of the Battle of the Saintes

[@OldBritannia]

Really interesting topic for a dissertation. A much neglected battle. If only Rodney had ordered a general pursuit...

[@joshwebb5016]

@@OldBritannia Agreed. A missed opportunity to make a grand victory even grander.

[@Karkkuss]

ANOTHER VIDEO LETS GOOOOO

[@techlead2769]

This channel is so underrated

[@davidcunningham2074]

very well explained

[@rpaterson433]

Great video! Although I do disagree with your conclusion that the peace treaty laid the foundations for future greatness. The division of the trans Atlantic, Anglo - Saxon empire is like the east west split of the Roman Empire. The beginning of the end. A long lasting empire could only have been achieved through unity. The later empire of trade and treaty in the east could only ever survive for a set amount of time.

[@Bahamut3525]

As a French person, I still don't understand why we didn't keep Québec/French Canada, it was really the only good outcome that could have come from this war for France. To this day, Québec being part of Canada and not independent, or a French Outremer territory, makes no sense to me. I feel that were French metropolitaners and Quebecers work together, we could build a thriving Atlantic relation to rival the Anglo Atlantic cooperation. Not just economically, but culturally massively too (exchange in universities, arts, etc).

[@shorewall]

Quebec may yet become independent. Quebec is currently bribed to stay in Canada, but with the end of endless economic growth, such a model may become unsustainable. Canada itself has a lot of troubles on the horizon, and limited ways to address them.

[@Bahamut3525]

@@shorewall To be honest, I highly respect Canada and would never wish for Quebec to be independent as a way to weaken Canada. But I do legitimately believe independence of Quebec would be better for both nations. It's legitimately hard to run a bilingual nation that's bilingual in theory only, and in practice is only monolingual in the relevant territories. Both Quebec and Canada would thrive as independent nations not focused on one another. I wish Canada the best though. Canadians are great generous and polite people, I'm saddened to see Canada go down the craphole with terrible cost of living, housing crisis, immigration, and an incompetent Trudeau government.

[@inferno_slayer]

Yoooooo new old Britannia

[@leondu4295]

This channel makes me feel like I'm reading Thucydides.

[@WILLIAM1690WALES]

From a British perspective on the world stage, I think the battle of Trafalgar 21st of October 1805 was slightly more important?🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇬🇧

[@josephyates9936]

Trafalgar actually changed nothing. Even worse Nelson, Britain's greatest admiral, was killed in the engagement. Napoleon's victory at Austerlitz ended the war of the 3rd coalition which was pretty much an outright victory for the French leaving Britain to be on the losing side. And Napoleon kept on fighting for another ten years aferwards. So it's hard to see the importance of Trafalgar outside of the naval battle itself.

[@WILLIAM1690WALES]

@@josephyates9936 you are a pathetic little soul. The result of Trafalgar was the Royal Navy was dominant for 150 years plus right round the world, and with that control, we have the world empire, and of course with the world trade,business, military and making sure we put certain countries in their place and that could even apply to you was ever hole you come from?

[@natshirley101]

@@josephyates9936 Trafalgar was the final cherry on top of Britain's navy supremacy's cake. It decisively ended any faint embers of Spain/France actually trying to compete navally with Britain, locking in a perpetual unchallengeable enemy for Napoleonic France.

[@user-px8eo2cs4g]

Wake up babe, old Britannia posted

[@louisiananlord17]

I tell my wife, be quiet, baby. Old Britannia has posted a video. 😊🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@Anglo_Saxon1]

Its like a big game of chess!

[@RealArcalian]

Would you consider doing the Louisiana Purchase? After all, some British bankers were involved, and Britain was certainly affected by it...

[@jackvogel9777]

This is a nice piece of work, burin VERY short, I think it really minimizes the short sightedness of England in the loss of its American colonies, and that this was the death knell of Britain as a great power, let alone the superpower it might have become, though it toots a long time for this to bear fruit. Unlike France, Portugal, the Netherlands and Spain, England was tied to America culturally and by blood in a way that no European power ever had been with the New World, and in a way Britain never would or could be with India. Sure, India became the jewel in the British crown after Richard Sharpe conquered it 😉 but so what? That didn’t last long and couldn’t have. There simply couldn’t have been a future for that relationship such as could still exist today between old England and New England.

[@shorewall]

New England would be like Canada or Australia today if they didn't become independent. Shackled in a subordinate position, eventually granted commonwealth status perhaps, but never developing into the equivalent of the USA today. Or London would have had to take the back seat to the demographic explosion possible in New England, essentially colonizing the Colonizer, with New England becoming the strength, and wanting the equal, or greater, say. The only way for Britain to hold America would be to clip the wings and bind the feet, so as to hold back their enormous potential. Britain had a lot of advantages, but it was an island nation, limited by geography, while America was almost completely unlimited. If America gained access to the tech and economy of Britain, as it did in our timeline, it had the greater potential.

[@patrickblanchette4337]

Thank you for your coverage of so many important aspects of my country’s (USA🇺🇸) foundation.

[@Thurnmourer]

First British Empire stuff and all that continues to confuse me as it gives the impression the British government collapsed. Rather than it being a way to differentiate the periods of British imperial history.

[@OldBritannia]

Yes it's perhaps not the most rational of terms. I think it does serve to nicely divide the initial focus on the West (America and West Indies), and post-1783 focus on the East (India), so I still find it a useful term for these types of videos.

[@shorewall]

@@OldBritannia I like it, because as an American, the only British Empire I know is the Eastern one. Talking about the First British Empire helps me to remember that Britain once controlled about half of North America.

[@Georgieastra]

The Battle of the Chesapeake was a draw between two fleets of lumbering ships all of which were badly in need of careening. Rodney would arrive in American waters a few months later with ships that had copper plated hulls which kept barnacle growth to a minimum and meant his vessels were much more nimble than their French and Spanish adversaries. No one but the Royal Navy could afford to copperplate large number of ships and the victory at the Saintes effectively put a stop to large scale troop movements across the Atlantic. If Rodney had arrived just a few months earlier then Cornwallis would have easily evacuated the Yorktown peninsula. The respective Fleets of Britain France and Spain were hugely expensive compared to the economies of these States and imposed an immense financial burden on them. The French economy buckled in much the same way as the Soviet Union imploded in the face of Reagan's massive increase in military spending.

[@josephyates9936]

The battle of Chesapeake was strategic defeat for the British and it completely changed the course of world history. The USA would be a country like Canada today if they had not won the war of independece which hinged around the naval engagements at Chesapeake.

[@owenowen212]

Another based video, thank you good sir

[@Fyrdman]

'The Men Who lost America' is one of the greatest resds Ive ever had

[@OldBritannia]

Only read part of it I'm afraid to say, must get round to the rest if you recommend that highly.

[@nightdragonx123]

I would love a video on what the USA was getting it self and what its reaction was to the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. Maybe both those from an American Diplomacy lense?

[@Short..]

"It's over" 00:28

[@richardcaves3601]

Two results of significance: the treasure France spent lead directly to their revolution, and the British incorporated lessons learned into their army, just in time to use them against Napoleon

[@teamgamespace5708]

they use coalition

[@richardcaves3601]

@@teamgamespace5708 I mean military tactical and strategic lessons

[@josephyates9936]

Yes getting their allies to do most of the fighting for them - did the British pass on those milatary tactics? Even then Napoleon was winning for almost fifteen years so it's hard to see any relevance of the military tactical and strategic lessons that the British learnt during the American war of independance. @@richardcaves3601

[@sircoloniser5454]

in before anyone can watch the whole video as I'm early let me make a joke: France's finances after the revolutionary war

[@freebutterfree4872]

What happened with the Dutch in the revolutionary war? How did they take part and why and what did the lose?

[@MrCheesyPants]

The 4th Anglo-Dutch War was kind of a sideshow to the revolutionary war. The Dutch were trade rivals but nominally neutral to the British. Dutch traders supplied the Americans and the French with things like materials to build ships, circumventing British blockades, claiming a Free Trade position based on treaties from previous Anglo-Dutch Wars. The British captured some of these shipments, claiming that they were "contraband" and thus exempt from the treaties.. Dutch Republic then tried to join an armed neutrality league along with Russia, Denmark, Sweden to protect their trade interests. The British found out and declared war to prevent this, had the far stronger navy at this point, and hit Dutch colonies and trade hard. The end result was minor in terms of territorial changes, but basically settled the end of the Dutch East-India Company and increased debts and economic decline that spiralled the Dutch Republic into low-level civil war and later becoming a French puppet state until Napoleon's defeat.

[@doug6500]

The Dutch got wrecked. Another nation who drank from the poisoned chalice of aiding the Rebels.

[@thomasrinschler6783]

​@@MrCheesyPants I love how he says they played with fire and got third degree burns. Sums up what happened perfectly.

[@user-dc6kp7zv6l]

I genuinely love all the thumbnail ❤

[@memofromessex]

Thanks, as great as ever! If I could have one request, it'd be Franco-British diplomacy in the Long Nineteenth Century. I studied 19th Century French politics at uni but never really understand the strange frenemy situation between the two states. Britain was either a long-term enemy or 'auld ally' of France - it seems like France knew it was beat but Britain was still interested in maintaining its honour and its territory integrity. But nevertheless they did rub up against each other and then eventually become real allies for WWI. I still don't get why Britain and France didn't draw together stronger after WWI and why we are still so antagonistic even into the modern world, despite our valiant history together in the 20th century, but that's probably for another KZbin channel!

[@andrewmacgregor8717]

I really enjoyed that. Little pieces of the puzzle brought to light. Growing up in Canada at the time of the Bicentennial celebrations in the US gave a bit of a not too honest jingoistic view of the Revolutionary War. The important facts glossed over in favor of a narrative that diminishes the French contribution to financing this little enterprize, and overplays KG3 as a tyrant. Thank-you

[@emperornapoleon6204]

Splendid analysis, as always. I love hearing about the American Revolution from other perspectives - something often overlooked in the US!

[@TheSkyGuy77]

Wild how the American revolution was more a world war than a revolution 😂

[@Rowlph8888]

Well, the idea that it was a revolution has no substantiation. Effectively, The population of the 13 colonies was 3,500,000 Brits (separated into 2 to groups: loyalists and revolutionaries) and a few thousand Germans - That's a Civil War, right there, plain and simple! *But it wouldn't Sounds so impressive as "the 2nd British Civil War" would it! 😆

[@anthonyruby2668]

HAPPY FALL (or Autumn as most British ppl i knew preferred) EQUINOX!!!

[@merdiolu]

To be fair , British more than compensated the loss of 13 colonies with both keeping their much more profitable (from 18th Century standarts) colonial territories in Carribean , Jamaica (where the sugar ws the vital income for British economy along with cotton , tobacco , coffee) and strategically vital Gibraltar , not to mention keeping Canada as their possesion as their hold in North America PLUS expanding their commercial trde economic military and political influence over Indian subcontinent on a vast scale which led to Second British Empire till 1920'ies of Deppression and Washington Naval Treaty that ended British naval dominance. I would say being 150 year long worldwide top colonial and ecoomic and military bemouth was a good run and who knows (I hate to play what if alternate history) , maybe keeping 13 colonies would be detrimental to future global prospects since refusal to pay taxes and later probably issues about abolution of slavery etc would lead a much more disasterous Civil War in British Empire. Instead they liquadated their unworkable and toxic assets pragmatically and concentrated other parts oıf world which they pressed for profits while France first bankrupted herself for no gain then Napoleonic French Empire invaded already stagnating Spain , causing the collapse of both

[@josephyates9936]

" I would say being 150 year long worldwide top colonial and ecoomic and military bemouth" - a "bemouth" which could never defeat any great power without having militarily more powerful allies to do most of the fighting for them and which lost to the Zulus who were only armed with spears and shields in the nineteenth century...

[@merdiolu]

@@josephyates9936 Zulu Kingdom had firearms and eventually vanquished by British en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ulundi , Isandwana was just one over emphasized engagement a "bemouth" which could never defeat any great power without having militarily more powerful allies to do most of the fighting for them " A bemouth that that dwarfed every other nation economically and territorially bigger than any of its rivals and a naval power which "none" of its allies could dream of (there were no Prussian or Russian or Austrian naval personnel in Battles of Nile or Trafalgar or WWII in Royal Navy) and if they utilised alliances and military coalitions to advance their interests , it displays they were smarter than their adversaries (unlike French till 1815 , Germans till 1945 both wasted their manpower for failed bids to create their own imperial sphares only to be crushed or Russians during Great Game in 19th Century) Having a larger land army does not make you a better military. Having a better and larger navy and diplomatic means persuasion in diplomacy to create alliances in 17th - 20th Centuries made Britain a global superpower though.

[@sylvainduret9880]

Vive la France 💙 🇨🇵 🎉

[@morcosnedal2479]

I don’t think that many Americans know about the battle of Chesapeake actually

[@digitalhistory8526]

Most probably know it as one of the lines in Hamilton (though it's very brief and doesn't really mention the battle)

[@mrsupremegascon]

No many French either I can tell you.

[@barmybarmecide5390]

​@@mrsupremegascontbf America is a smaller part of European history than European history is American

[@kingkiron2934]

@@barmybarmecide5390 That's an interesting way to put it and very true. The entire Americas is largely a footnote in European history. Where as in America European history is considered our history as Westerners. However Americans definitely had a profound impact on European history starting with the American Revolution which caused the French Revolution causing revolutions all throughout Europe.

[@Rowlph8888]

@@kingkiron2934 The American Revolution and particularly the French decision is To support, is arguably the most pivotal event in history for the shape of the modern world in multifaceted ways

[@merocaine]

This is great work, avoids national bias, is clear and concise, devoid of moral judgement. Thanks so much for posting.

[@merocaine]

@@lloyd9500 Well, I'm Irish, and certainly not a fan of the British Empire, and I think he has presented the story in a impartial manner, sympathetic to all sides in turn, seeking to understand motives, and understand actions. It's seems the Channel name has put your back up? It maybe about British history, so what, but it seems to me more about British strategic thinking over the centuries, a super interesting topic. I think you are looking for a different kind of history of the British Empire, that has its own validity of course, but it's not what this channel seems to be aiming for.

[@thomasbergman6903]

I'm naming my first born Old Britannia after the brilliance of this channel.

[@tommyk3464]

Goat posts again

[@johnnotrealname8168]

The French military went through some unfortunate losses, the invasion of Britain which may have worked with Spain, got caught up with disease, Gibraltar stayed the course and in India while, surprisingly, the French naval forces managed to play toe-to-toe with Britain it had no impact on the final peace. In essence whilst losing America (Which honestly was a pain in the neck.) they defended capably. French finances were poor and despite an impressive overhaul of it's army and navy, it was unable to effect a sufficient blow. My biggest question is why the French did not think attacking Hanover was a viable option, it probably could be won and is a bargaining chip if nothing else, plus a warrior-King would boost Louis XVI's personal aura.

[@OldBritannia]

This is actually a point Simms goes into quiet heavily. The British would have liked nothing more than for the French to be distracted by Hanover once more, as they were in the Seven Years’ War. It would have allowed them to ‘conquer America in Germany’ as Pitt had declared. Vergennes specifically disallowed continental adventures (apart from Gibraltar) so it would not suck in French resources from the main theatre as before.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@OldBritannia The main problem for the French in the Seven Years' War in America was the lack of troops getting there (As well as Indian alliances.) but there already is a bunch of troops there fairly able and with certain funding. The French Army deployed like 5,000 troops in America, a rather pitiful number (Although significant enough clearly.). On the other hand, I guess with George III being a British-born, he may have seen Hanover as less of a prize and it may have been less of a trade-off. I do not know, presumably Britain would also commit something there.

[@AverageDoomFan7804]

Life is Roblox -Thomas Jefferson