United Kingdom Military History

This video shows the History of United Kingdom Military History
Historically, the United Kingdom relied most heavily on the Royal Navy and maintained relatively small land protectors. Most of the events listed happened in the various colonies of the British Empire.
During its history, the United Kingdom's had some control over 171 of the world's 193 countries that are currently UN member states, or nine out of ten of all countries.
The visualization shows the following things:-
1.Pictorial Representation of the Event
2.Year of the Event
3.The map of the Event
4.The bottom line indicates the result of that Event
The following Periods have been covered in the Video
1.Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1801)
2.United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922)
3.United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1922-present)
Music:-
1.Civilization 5 OST - Elizabeth War - England - I Vow to Thee, My Country
2.The crusade by Kevin MacLeod. Available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
Download link: incompetech.co....
*************************************
Hello fellas this is Ricktopus, I like to formulate dynamic Data visualization out of historical data.
Help us to reach 20,000 Subscribers
Please review the contents. Your opinion matters
Thank you for your support.

[@DecodingData]

Different Versions:- Soviet Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/gHWneX2CnJKEqac United States Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/i3_LmZSQfaqch9U France Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZpjCq3-jqdt6g7s United Kingdom Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/iX-Zo62VqpWeidU Russia Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpm8qGqnhdubl7c Germany Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJXHfZ-qrd6AaZI Italy Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKe1dKGkismFpMU Spain Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/amTXZZKeh7dkjrs Portugal Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/imeUmKWFa72snKc Brazil Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXS5gGVtds2GaKc Turkey Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIm2lGh9mZ1qhqM Indonesia Version:-kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4Oae5ShqNR9mJY

[@treethepsriruang2006]

Thailand #Decoding Data

[@nichokun4211]

Timeline of Byzantium?

[@treethepsriruang2006]

@@jol1498 No

[@shedayanti3233]

@@treethepsriruang2006 SHUT UP

[@shedayanti3233]

Canada

[@noah95v99]

UK : Everywhere i go i see his face ... *France*

[@acatwithwiskers9273]

XD

[@Sonofcowbell509]

@@abovethelaw4417 do you know what a meme is?

[@NotFur-3]

@@abovethelaw4417 bruh it you again...

[@multiverse-u6q]

Her* France in French is a feminine word.

[@everardoarana3786]

@@multiverse-u6q thats like saying every country has a gender

[@r_dcruz1394]

Iceland: *exists* UK: Don’t go near. He bites. EU: Iceland sus.

[@rome316ae3]

Iceland is not I'm eu

[@nibiru27]

😬

[@mrcool2107]

UK: I hate you France: I hate you too UK: But Germany looks scary, so friends?? France: Sure

[@ThePalaeontologist]

Jokes aside, this isn't _entirely_ true. Or, it wasn't, initially. The Franco-Russian Alliance/Dual Alliance of 1894 between France and Tsarist Russia, was signed previously to the Entente Cordiale between the British and the French, signed 8th April 1904. Essentially, the British had spent about >15-30 years, if not longer (depending on how you look at it) basically refusing to get too involved in European affairs and being somewhat detached. Britain had fought a series of colonial wars or wars involving it's particular 'Great Game' with Tsarist Russia, in which Britain went out of it's way to check the expansion of the Russian Empire (to an almost unbelievably paranoid extent, literally invading Afghanistan repeatedly over the initially overblown notions of the Russians trying to get at British India via Central Asia) In reality, the likelihood of this was low, and the British need not have gotten into a series of messes in Afghanistan (though the Second Afghan War was arguably, generally favourable to Britain, as it got what it wanted for a while; a buffer zone, against Russia, as well as winning almost all the battles, albeit with the Afghans not caring how many battles they actually lost and persisting with guerrilla tactics anyway; but yes, the First Anglo-Afghan War was a disaster that started well, and the later Third Anglo-Afghan War was a mess which ended inconclusively, which was 'as good as' a British loss in all but name) The crass myth is that Britain lost all three, but that isn't really true. It is clear that the Second Anglo-Afghan War was _acceptable_ from a British Imperial perspective. It did effectively get it's objectives (although, as I say, how relevant this was to the situation with Russia, was questionable; all the British _really_ needed to do was sit back and watch the fireworks if Imperial Russia tried to force passage through Afghanistan, against the will of the Afghans) Britain was so determined to contain the potential of Imperial Russia getting a warm-water port on the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf, that they went _into Afghanistan three times_ in a rather serious way. In any case, the 'Second Concert of Europe' which kept the European Empires and Kingdoms busy vying with each other's power during the late 19th century, was not really something Britain wanted to get embroiled in. It was content to grow the Empire, let the continental Europeans keep squabbling and staying out of it as much as possible. Their gunboat diplomacy was now more reserved for unfortunate colonial theatre opponents whom did not know with whom they were messing with (cue clusterfuck hilarity with the likes of the Anglo-Zanzibar War) The early 19th century British gunboat diplomacy in Europe, had royally upset France (Britain blockaded France, repeatedly in the 18th and 19th centuries) It also upset Denmark (Britain dealt with the Danish Navy harshly, and swiftly, twice, to stop it falling into French hands - even though, it probably wasn't going to, at least according to the Danish) But trying telling that to the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic Wars. Britain had also fought the Spanish tooth and nail in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic as well. Post-Trafalgar, Britain had an air of naval invincibility about it, because it had essentially just done what can only be described as a pro-gamer move against the combined Franco-Spanish fleets (the 2nd and 3rd strongest navies in the world, respectively, at the time; and the British annihilated them) This left Britain uncomfortably, almost hilariously overpowered at sea immediately following Trafalgar. It was Trafalgar Day just a few days ago, yayyy! Huzzah! (lol) The Concert of Europe/First Concert of Europe, tried to establish a balance of power and fair balance between the powers of Europe, big and small. Alliance networks, intermarriages of houses, grand overtures and gestures to solidarity and political unity in the face of this or that perceived affront to the natures of this or that faction(s), bubbled away for decades. Britain was focusing on consolidating naval power after Trafalgar, and 55 years after the Battle of Trafalgar, the British Royal Navy was x4 stronger than the next nearest rival, France. It wasn't even funny anymore for the rivals of Britain. It was just pointless even trying to fight Britain at sea anymore. They were doing pretty good at sea since the early 18th century and arguably well back through the 17th century to perhaps the late 16th century (events of 1588, cough, Spanish Armada, cough) But post-Trafalgar, Britain had basically flipped the gaming table and then proceeded to _walk off with it laughing_ while France cried. There was now zero doubt that Britain was in control in naval strategy. For now, of course (nothing lasts forever) While Britain busied itself expanding the Royal Navy, the Empire and fighting colonial wars from the Anglo-Zulu War to the Second Anglo-Afghan War (literally fought in the same year of 1879, though the fighting in Afghanistan lasted into 1880, due to it's difficulty), the Europeans leapfrogged each other in power in what was the Second Concert of Europe. Prussia's impressive successes against the Austrians and the French, in the Austro-Prussian War and the Franco-Prussian War, indicated that if the Germanic states unified, led by the Prussians, this would create a credible rival to the economic and military might of the British Empire. This concerned Britain, especially seeing how rapidly the Prussians battered France into submission in the extremely one-sided Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Yet still, Britain was busy doing it's own thing. There had been a series of serious uprisings, strong rebellions and colonial wars to deal with, as well as the continuing feud with Russia. After the Franco-Prussian War, the slowly recovering France was determined that it would not be in such a situation again, and made an alliance with Russia, _against_ the strategic imbalance that the unified German Empire of the Second Reich, now presented to the French. Still, Britain sat on the sidelines, largely happy to bask in the 'Imperial Century', the Golden Century; the heyday of the British Empire, before things/general excreta, well and truly hit the fan in the 20th century. But as Germany geared up for another war with France, and as France vowed revenge for the humiliations at Paris, Sedan and elsewhere, the British attitude to 'Splendid Isolationism', could not continue. It had become detrimental, politically and strategically. It wasn't that they buried their head in the sand, it was that they just wanted to be left alone from the European rivals to Britain. Increasingly violent conflicts across the far-flung corners of the British Empire and it's adjacent periphery, such as the Boer Wars and the Boxer Rebellion, at the turn of the century near the very end of Queen Victoria's reign, cast a poor reflection on the British Empire, even if they won (which, in fairness, they did) The British were still going strong, and the first decade of the 20th century saw their power go from strength to strength. Increasing cooperation with France (not only in Europe, but in the colonial Empires they both had as neighbours abroad with one another), was natural. Yet my point initially here, was that France had first allied with Russia, against Germany, not with Britain. The alliance with Britain was simply inevitable. France couldn't fight Germany _and_ Britain to it's back. It had to accept that fighting as allies with the British, was really the only way, in the face of the land power that was the German Empire. Even before the British made 'friends' (frenemies?) with the France, they had already signed an alliance with Japan in 1902 (the Anglo-Japanese Alliance) Yes, Britain and Japan were firmly allied in this time, and Britain even built battleships for Japan (e.g. the _Mikasa_ which is still preserved in Japan; an old pre-dreadnought) The Americans had started to be more active on the world stage, in 1907-1909, with their 'Great White Fleet' of President Theodore Roosevelt's tenure in office. The US Navy sent a fairly modern battle fleet around the world, promoting the USA, for the first time; though in many regards, and in many naval stations, at the absolute expressed clemency, generosity and cordiality of the British Empire. For example, the Suez Canal; if the Americans wanted to use it in that time, they had to ask the British very politely! More than this, British colliers (British coal ships) were helping refuel the Great White Fleet at many points on the voyage. The USA was showing off it's strength and promoting American might, though in reality, the Royal Navy could have crushed them if they wanted to. But, there was little perceived need for that to take place. Instead, Britain was more interested in staying ahead in total hulls and tonnage, and in not letting Germany out build them. Besides, even as the Great White Fleet set off, it was already rendered obsolete the previous year, by the introduction of HMS _Dreadnought_ (1906) Britain entered into an industrial and naval arms race with Germany, from the 1870's to the 1910's.

[@ThePalaeontologist]

Splendid Isolation was clearly coming to an end, for Britain; the world was getting too perilous to sequester themselves defensively on the British Isles, and act like they didn't have to intervene. In a way, Britain can't win; if we stay out of things, we get/and historically got accused of being cold and distant, and unfriendly. But if Britain picked a side, and jumped in, then we'd get an escalation in the slaughter of WWI. Criticism on Britain can be too ridiculous sometimes. Hindsight is all very well and good, just as it is cheap and easy. Too easy. In prodding the masses of the mainland, with information, the British helped to play off Europeans and keep a balance of power that way. Growing pragmatic alignments between the powers of Western Europe, such as the French and British fighting alongside each other in the Boxer Rebellion, and several others including the Russians, did happen, so very ironically (consider those Anglo-Afghan Wars again, then smash-cut to the Boxer Rebellion, where British and Russian troops are literally on the same side; what a waste) Britain did sign the Entente Cordiale with France, though it did not bind Britain to a bilateral military interventionism clause, unlike the one signed with Russia in earlier years. Still, British and French had fought together in the Crimean War, and now in the Boxer Rebellion. In other words, if France got attacked by the Central Powers, then it's was written into decree that Russia would declare war on France's assailant. The same was true in the reverse, supposedly. The British, meanwhile, were merrily sailing about looking for fresh trouble. Ironically, the British were largely unconcerned with this, even as Germany grew stronger and stronger. Yet with Victoria's passing in 1901, and the growing turmoil across the world, the British moved to make alliances with factions all around the globe. The 1904 Entente Cordial between Britain and France, was important, yes, though Britain more reluctantly accepted it. Unlike with the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894, the British didn't necessarily have to act if say, a French outpost was attacked. No, in this case, the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale, was acting in contradictions to him. The 2nd Concert of Europe was being slowly brought to an end. Britain went to war over the rights of it's allies and the self-determination of Belgian people. Out of the main Western Powers, Britain was spoiling for a fight with Germany (some French were eager to fight Germany, after France's humiliation in the Franco-Prussian War, a generation or so previously) That said, the Entente Cordiale did _not_ make the British Declare War on Germany. That was down to Germany illegally invading in the Schlieffen Plan attacks. German was shocked when this occurred although. Britain had a bilateral defence agreement with Belgian, ensuring their neutrality and promising to support them if this was violated in some way. Germany just charged through Belgium guns blazing. The BEF fought initially to cover the retreating Belgian Army, before then being overwhelmed itself until settling at Ypres (after Mons) and then being pushed to the Marne with the French, where they held fast together. That was as far as Germany got towards Paris in WWI, in Winter 1914. Then they realised the Schlieffen Plan was a failure. In the name of shielding Belgium, Britain threw herself into WWI. History now shows us that it wasn't just a failure, the Schlieffen Plan; it was plain dumb on couple-dozen levels. The sheer arrogance of it alone was staggering. The British weren't ganging up on Germany with France, as is often mischaracterised; in most regards, the French and Russians were closely allied, and then Britain did their own thing. Superficially, it looks like Britain was very eager for it, but I'd argue otherwise. So ended Britain's Splendid Isolation (or stagnation) So it is and isn't true. Yes, they _did_ team up against Germany, but it didn't have to be that way. That is just how things did transpire. Britain had to make some friends in the 1890's and 1900-1914 etc. Britain did have allies and dominions of course, but their own refusal to be dragged into the ballroom dance of the Concert of Europe, made them seem aloof and disinterested, because they absolutely were both. And for reasonable causations, too. Moreover, Britain wasn't scared of Germany; it was actively annoyed that German spies had stolen the plans to the dreadnoughts and that Germany had been funding and arming the Boers with modern repeating pistols, repeating rifles, sniper rifles and heavy artillery field howitzers. It was a problem in Africa. Plus Admiral Tirpitz's insistence on trying to build such a massive German navy, that it would cost many British lives to get rid of it, only added to Britain's reasons to get a bit annoyed with Germany going into 1914. Obviously things would get much, much worse. But Britain never feared Germany. If anything, it ran headlong into nightmares because of playing it by the book so keenly. It was an alliance of pragmatism, not fear. Everyone else had allies, so Britain just wanted to make some. Britain spent so long basking in the Splendid Isolation, it needed a lot of catching up to do e.g. allying with the Japanese, was outright 100% supporting them against Imperial Russia. It was convenient and expedient to do so, for the British Empire. Supporting France against Germany, too. Because why wouldn't they? France was shown to be the weaker of the two (France and Germany) in recent history at that time, and needed some help. And plucky little Belgium definitely needed help. Though the BEF began with only a few divisions, it eventually operated with over 70 at any given time. It was big. But the point is, France needed the help. Britain could have just sat in the British Isles while the Royal Navy blockaded the Germans, and done nothing else save for fight German U-boats. We didn't need to lose over a million lives helping France and Belgium. But there you go. WWI was mental.

[@rome316ae3]

@@ThePalaeontologist bruh u wrote whole story

[@ThePalaeontologist]

​@Hawaiian Monk Seal Well it was with Prussia, as German Unification was not until 1871, but there were other connections Britain had to Germanic states e.g. Hanover and the Hessian Kingdoms. Variably over history, Saxony also fought alongside the British (e.g. during the War of the Spanish Succession) Though in later eras, they fought for the French (though they turned on the French during the Battle of Leipzig during the Napoleonic Wars, seeing how things were going) During the Seven Years War, Britain was pouring massive amounts of money, supplies and equipment into Prussia, helping them keep solvent and keep fighting with actual resources to do so. In some regards, Britain helped to save Prussia. Of course, the Prussians fought heroically against massive invasion forces from Russian _and_ French armies. Britain's ability to help Prussia in terms of sending land forces was limited especially earlier in the war, as it struggled through a couple of tough years in the Americas suffering serious setbacks. However, the British did send armies into what we'd now call West Germany (e.g. Saxony, West Germany proper) They fought side by side with the Prussians in battles like the Battle of Minden (1759) and the Battle of Warburg (1760) In spite of the British contribution in the West only taking _some_ pressure off the Prussians (pretty much entirely against the French in a direct, tactical sense; though British supplies and money helped Prussia against Russia too) the Prussians really needed all the help they could get to be honest. Berlin changed hands repeatedly. The Russian numbers in the East were predictably huge for the period, so the Prussians had to fight a series of determined defences against numerically superior opposition. It wasn't just the Russians and French, either. Britain was tying down the global colonial and maritime scale of the war, fighting in North America, India, the Caribbean, West Africa, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and even as far away as Manila and it's surrounding hinterland in the Philippines. Prussia could not do this. But similarly, Britain could not fight the Russians and French all out on the land, like the Prussians were (while elite, the British Army could not numerically continue without massive expansion, against such opposition, though I suspect the British Army would stand a good chance of beating the Russians of the era in a protracted war) France would be a different matter though. Prussia had a much bigger land army than Britain, with over 300,000 men (similar to French and Russian numbers) The entire British Army was about 87,000 men (practically around 1% of the entire British population at the time, or close to it aka 0.8-0.9%) Britain was able to fight a lot of peripheral campaigns but campaigns which tied up lots of French as well as Spanish troops around the world. Moreover, the British East India Company, with it's own private armies in redcoats (not counted among the British Army, though with some crossover with ex-British Army and Royal Navy officers often turning up there later in life, or second sons going down that root sometimes) and even it's own warships (often old Royal Navy ships or privately paid for commissions, built more locally in India), were fighting an array of factions in the Indian subcontinent. The Mysoreans and Marathas were major opponents, often fighting with the French against the British. Britain is sometimes accused of not helping Prussia enough in the earlier years of the Seven Years War, or sometimes in the total context of the entire Seven Years War itself. I think that is unfair. Britain had a lot of miles on the clock so to speak in it's wide ranging, globe spanning strategic fighting. They captured Manila from Spain, they fought in the Caribbean against both France and Spain, they fought France and massive native forces in the Indian subcontinent in the Carnatic Wars, they fought the French in West Africa (e.g. capturing the Gambia) They fought outside Quebec and Montreal in colder climes in Lower Canada. They fought in the American wilderness of the Ohio Valley, against the French and the Huron (and other French allied native tribes; also aided by some tribes on the British side, after they made gestures and gifts of friendship) They fought a far more 'exotic' form of colonial war across the world, whereas Prussia was fighting a straight up fight for survival on all sides clawing around like a cornered beast fending off one attacker and the next. Britain did send armies that did in some way go to taking the pressure off. The British had their finest moments in the fighting in West Germany, in places like Minden, where the British infantry stood fast against repeated French cavalry squadron charges and _broke them in line not square_ which was a major achievement. The tale of the Minden Roses, the flowers in their cocked hats/tricorns, the bravery of the common British line regiments against the aloof French Royalists, spearheading the victory at Minden. At Warburg also, the British fought gallantly alongside their Germanic friends. Of course, King George I, King George II and King George III were all of the House of Hanover; Hanoverian monarchs, with George I invited to take the throne in Britain, after Queen Anne died childless (he was a distant relative of her, but religion mattered so much to people then that they needed a Protestant Monarch in fear of sectarian war or civil war/or both in the British Isles, if they just picked some closer to home Catholic) So perhaps the Anglo-Germanic friendship wasn't 'natural' in that it was fabricated on religious grounds, and forced on the English especially and the British people in general. It's been over three centuries since King George I became the King of Great Britain. And guess what? He couldn't speak a word of English, even dying in 1727 during a state visit back in Hanover, apparently hating England (out of his sheer ignorance of what beauty England really has, preferring his homeland of course, out of in-group preference) His son George II could at least, you know, _speak English_ and took 'becoming English' more seriously. But still, when _his_ son George III took the throne in 1760, there was a lot to do. George III disliked his father and the two didn't get on well towards the end. George III had different ideas on how the monarchy should be. He cared more about becoming more English than his father or grandfather. George III reigned until 1820. George IV, also Hanoverian, was a bad King and only reigned until 1830, eating himself silly in a gluttonous and exuberant manner; also draining public coffers to fund his own lavish lifestyle and his own gambling, womanising and greed. However, eventually Parliament denied George IV any more money. He'd been annoying them all since 10 years _before_ he came to the throne, as Prince Regent. His father was considered 'insane' or 'mad' (he probably just had undiagnosed - because of course it was back then, in less medically and neurologically developed times - Schizophrenia etc) and from around 1810 his son the Prince Regent was the one handling state affairs as de facto Head of State, while the 'Madness of King George (III)' rendered his father side-lined, kept under a form of house arrest and force fed at times (his treatment was actually quite cruel at times, by politicians revelling in their newfound power) Cue the Prince Regent to come along and nearly drive the British Monarchy _into the ground_ because of his excesses and stupidity. Later monarchs outright looked back to George IV as a prime example of _how not to be the monarch_ because of how close he came to ending it by arrogance and poor leadership. Few if any at all, mourned his passing. Everyone was quietly - or not so quietly - relieved when the corpulent King passed. He was a national embarrassment, often satirically mocked in cartoons and etching artwork from the period, as a fat, indolent and promiscuous fop with no brain. Queen Victoria would later be the last of the House of Hanover. Then, arguably, the monarchy became even more 'Germanic', by essentially becoming Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. King George V was smart enough to rebrand them, taking advice from a politician on the name of 'Windsor' (it was seen as a perfect suggestion; a combination of English sounding grandeur, poetic connection to English history and the ability to tie the Royalty and it's ceremonies in part, to Windsor Castle; pageantry and pomp, the English way) 'Windsor' encapsulated it all. It was ideal. And deliberately idealised, for PR purposes. The reasons for doing so were obvious; Britain was fighting Germany in WWI, and anti-German sentiments were at fever pitch at that time, a little more than somewhat understandably, considering the death toll of the war. But more than that, George V had his Royally related aristocrats with Germanic sounding names - like the 'Battenburgs' - change their names. The 'Battenburgs', for instance, became the 'Mountbattens' e.g. Lord Louis Mountbatten, Last Viceroy of India. It was clever rebranding if nothing else. Mountbatten had a more 'Anglican' ring to it, whereas Battenburg was more blatantly German. Germanophobia was a thing, though again, it was the time of the World Wars. I can hardly blame them for having strong feelings. Entire communities' worth of British menfolk had been lost in battles of the Great War. There was a lot of mending to do post-World Wars, of course. But now, the EU is a Franco-German racket entirely opposed to British independence as a sovereign state. It's a sad state of affairs, and one made all the more ironic because Britain had joined the Entente Cordiale (allying with France 1904/1905) to essentially off-set the French fear of Prussia/later Germany. [1/4]

[@ThePalaeontologist]

@Hawaiian Monk Seal [2/4] Britain had enjoyed the 'Splendid Isolation' period of Victorian Britain in it's imperial golden age, for _a little too long_ becoming considerably 'detached' from mainland European squabbles. They had taken keen note of France's humiliation in the Franco-Prussian War, being astonished at how Prussia had singularly crushed France. The Prussian military had improved to the point that it caught the French napping and in a state of military stagnation, resting on it's laurels and thinking itself strong enough. The Prussians hammered them at places like Sedan and Paris. They were soundly defeated, the French. Meanwhile, Britain was more interested in it's own colonial struggles, and the 'Great Games' against Tsarist Russia. I cannot emphasise enough how ironic and weird the changes were in the early 20th century, as new alliances and superblocks formed against each other. British strategic control was pushed to breaking point; they could no longer sit by and watch the 'Concert of Europe' (technically there were two, one earlier in the 19th century, one later in the 19th century tip-toeing into the early 20th) Britain and France fought against Tsarist Russia in the Crimean War. Britain invaded Afghanistan twice in the 19th century (initially failing in one of their worst colonial defeats, then succeeding convincingly four decades later; you'll see people claiming Afghanistan is the graveyard of Empires, something I disagree with though understand the reasoning behind; but Britain did legit win a war in Afghanistan in 1880, whether people like this or not, tough they did) But guess why Britain was so determined to control at least some portions of Afghanistan? To stop Russia from getting to India, via Central Asia aka Afghanistan. In reality,. this was a simply rather paranoid and unnecessary state of affairs, as Tsarist Russia was _very unlikely_ to succeed even if they did try to go that way (sooner or later, the Russians would - if they did try that - end up getting attacked by the Afghan tribesmen anyway, no matter how much the Tsar tried to pay them off) I just think it was paranoia on the British Imperial's part. I strongly doubt Russia could even manage it at that time. Look at how much of a state the Russians were in even a quarter of a century later, against the Japanese Empire (they lost) I simply don't believe they'd do it, and if they did, it'd be a huge failure. Hindsight is easy, though; foresight is hard. You can see their logic, but it was still a bit excessive going into Afghanistan on such grounds. Britain was really concerned about Russia gaining a port on the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf. Warm water ports. Britain was countering Russia in the original Cold War; but in places like Crimea, it went 'hot' with British forces directly engaged in bitter fighting with the Tsarist armies. Yet the point was, back in the timeline of WWI, and the 20 or so years leading up to it since around 1894, that the state of affairs in Europe had shifted massively. Four decades after fighting and dying alongside the British against the Russians, the French signed the Fracno-Russian Entente/Alliance in the year 1894. The rules of the dance, so to speak, in the Second Concert of Europe, had changed, because France wanted to secure herself via alliance pacts, against Germany. France was seething after 1870, and what Prussia did to them. Britain was left in a situation where the French were now making friends with Russia, and Germany was now making friends with the Austro-Hungarian Empire building up to WWI. Prussia had literally defeated Austria in the Austro-Prussian War, but now they too were being friendly? The British were somewhat aloof and distant, so happy in their 'Imperial Century', their golden age. They allowed the concert to play out, the balance of power to self-sort and select it's own hierarchy, with minimal British interference and intervention, to prod and move the concert the way they wanted. Britain had been calling this, 'the Balance of Power in Europe Strategy' since the time of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough (ancestral to Winston himself) But now the world was changing massively, faster than anyone had ever known. Certainly too fast for Victorian Imperials to fully gainsay or stop. It was beyond them to fully comprehend, and even now with a century plus hindsight, ironing out all the twists and turns to read the full story, is hard. It is complex, geopolitically, and demands more thought by far than simply saying they fell out or things went downhill. It was worse than that. It was a comedy of errors in many ways, a tragic dark comedy if anything. It need never have happened, WWI; though at the same time, I can't help but feel that sooner or later the cauldron would burst and the intense changes in Europe would spill over into total war, even were Archduke Franz Ferdinand never assassinated the way he was. Britain was rapidly being isolated and needed to make more alliances. It had neglected this out of it's own pride and imperial vainglory for too long. They were partly, a victim of their own success. The Industrial Revolution they had created and lead for over 150 years since the mid 18th century, already by the turn of the century going into the last years of Queen Victoria's reign in the earliest 20th century, was now shared globally and rivals were using it to empower themselves and pose a serious threat to Britain herself. The Boer Wars had warned Britain of the way Germany had supplied the Boers with Krupp howitzers, repeating pistols and sniper rifles (this contributed to heavy British losses in the Boer Wars) The British Army was reforming because of the Boer Wars, focusing on musketry and marksmanship drill (as well as doing that with rate of fire practice/drill) British troops in WWI were mistaken by German troops, for being a machine nest, because of their rate of punishing fire (they inflicted 5 times as many casualties on the Germans at Mons; although being overwhelmed and pushed back by sheer German 1st Army conscript numbers, they still gave the Germans a severe lesson that they were not pushovers as the Germans joked; laughing at the initial size of the BEF, then stopping that laughter when realising how good the British soldiers were) 'The Mad Minute' where a single British soldier could lay down 23-24 rounds of relatively accurate Lee-Enfield fire (now multiply that by all the men in a regiment holding defensive positions; that's why the Germans thought they were being shot at by machine guns sometimes, when it was just platoons of British infantrymen with rifles. Meanwhile, Japan defeated Russia, a shock to the world; as Europeans held certain views about Asians, that hardly need explaining, and the Japanese proved them wrong. Britain had been wanting a 'new Trafalgar' for a hundred years; and it wasn't the British who won the new Trafalgar; Japan did, at the naval battle of Tsushima 1905. Britain had looked for the new Trafalgar reassertion of their dominance, for a century. In the Crimean War, they'd sent large fleets of the Royal Navy right up to the coast of Russia, bombarding Russian forts, daring the Russians to come out and play. They did not oblige, aware they'd get crushed, refusing to feed the Royal Navy a symbolic victory. Britain had been so powerful at sea, everyone was scared of us. Too good, for our own good. Nobody dared challenge us in our prime. And so ironically, Britain was starved of naval battles. It sounds macabre, but Britain _did_ want a good fight to prove it 'still had it'. England was sat on centuries of naval glory already, from 1588 to 1905. But seeing Japan win against the Russians must have been bittersweet for certain British Imperials. On the one hand, Britain directly helped make Japan a modern naval power, with many Japanese officer cadets training in Britain directly, and British shipbuilders literally making warships for Japan e.g. _Mikasa_ which survives (albeit built into a harbour wall) to this day. A pre-dreadnought battleship, still around in 2021, in Japan. Technically Britain's last battleship too, unless we count HMS _Victory_ as the OG Fast Battleship of the Age of Sail (a 1st rate ship of the line from1757, but still, it was the closest thing to a battleship in that era) It's still upsetting how Britain scrapped HMS _Vanguard_ and even HMS _Warspite_ and tbh they should have kept both, money be damned. We have nothing left of that size as a museum ship. If only they kept them. Some legacy of our past. We just have light ships like light cruiser HMS _Belfast_ preserved. Good but not the same. Anyway, before I start welling up about those two, I'll get back to the point. I digress. The British in 1902 allied with Japan. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance. In part, this was to make another friend in a world which was rapidly changing, and Britain had just concluded the Second Boer War (the 'Great Boer War') victoriously (though bloodily) Britain wanted to have an alliance with Japan to contain Russia; but as it turned out, Japan _crushed_ Russia and did so well that even the British might have thought they did, _too well_ so to speak. Nobody thought it possible, again, for somewhat dodgy reasons. Not going into why (the racial stuff) but you know why Edwardian Britons and Americans alike, would be shocked. It was not just about the Russians losing. It was about who they lost to and how one-sided it was. But anyway...attitudes and standards were different then. Iffy area.

[@elliotttheneko]

"(Rule Brittania plays softly, in the background) The British army is special, because every British man fights knowing that behind them... (Rule Brittania hits chorus) *is the Royal Navy.* " - Lindybeige

[@omarriad3577]

Yes and fighting natives with bows and swords while the british are armed with cannons and gunpowder, instead of making the world a better place they legit just started killing everyone who said no to them and merged cultures together for their own benefit. Kinda selfish idk 🙄

[@kingdogethell6774]

@@omarriad3577 imagine acting as if the british are the only ones who did that.

[@faisalbachri8756]

@@kingdogethell6774 well this is indeed a video about british history

[@fakexanax3218]

@@omarriad3577 cope harder

[@predragjovanovic925]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaKldXx9q91nmbc

[@keymacaroon-uh7kj]

Going from fighting France every other year to fighting shoulder to shoulder with them on pretty much every occasion in the span of a 100 or so years. What a weird twist of fate. Edit: I made a comment about how two rival countries became partners and the comment section decides to instead have an argument over Napoleon and... Vikings?

[@makharena5553]

In this video they didn’t even mention England since its start, go watch the same video for france, they’ve won 18 wars against the english for 2 draws and only 3 defeats

[@RandomMoments0]

@@makharena5553 Thanks Mr. Napoleon for free wins lmao

[@makharena5553]

@@RandomMoments0 "free" nothing is free, every war is hard to win, especially when all Europe is against you, it shows how much France is the best military power of all time with 1115 victories

[@RandomMoments0]

@@makharena5553 i know that every war has it's price, my previous comment was meant to point out that Napoleon was a great leader and he won *many* battles

[@makharena5553]

@@RandomMoments0 yes; France has the greatest leader of history, most battles won and most wars won. English revisionist also claiming 1066 that they were "Norman" who invaded England because they’re too ashamed that their biggest rival humiliated them

[@highaquatic3055]

7:20 Love how the war with Iceland's over fishing area was just named "Cod"

[@zylnexxd842]

It wasn't even an actual war. Iceland doesn't even have a navy or a military

[@highaquatic3055]

@@zylnexxd842 fr

[@skyler1887]

Call of Duty.

[@saltgamer7895]

@@zylnexxd842 Stay mad brit

[@chickennugget1415]

@@saltgamer7895 he's not mad he's stating facts.

[@TNNR666]

It’s kind of amusing, and more than a little badass how whenever the British lost a war, they often went back there after having learned from their mistakes and ended up winning the second war. It’s like they never took “no” for an answer! They must have been incredibly determined and brave.💪

[@user-yz8gk7tz7l]

The land where the sun never sets! Hello from Russia 🇷🇺♥️🇬🇧

[@Lorddonen]

Love Russia 🇷🇺 From Wales, UK 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇬🇧 Edit- Okay... I no longer like Russia after the invasion of Ukraine, but I still respect Russian people.

[@EllieEleonora]

@Debayan Bagchi Are you idiot? He hasn't any fault, he didn't rob your country. So stfu please, don't blame modern British generations for events that happened in the past centuries. There is no guilt on them, that's what were happening in the past, not in modern days. Wars were in India before the British colonization. And Indian states looted, conquered other Indian states. Wars were everywhere.

[@Effy_Beefy]

@Debayan Bagchi ok

[@wildfoxman8935]

@@Lorddonen I hate ur past expansion in india UK

[@Lorddonen]

@@EllieEleonora Thanks for telling him that, I am 15 years old and have no reason to like British colonisation. I completely disagree and hate it, I was never involved in what my country formally did.

[@troopergamer4987]

8:30 spoiler alert, it was a defeat

[@chozzers2637]

what the taliban one?

[@bears9055]

An embarrassing one at best.

[@phoenixrose1192]

@@bears9055 It was a defeat for the west, not just the British.

[@cloaker1619]

It was more of an embarrassment for america they lost a shitton of items and if britain had more time they could have gotten most of if not all of it out of their.

[@cjfireblast5458]

At least we stayed to help evacuate the people unlike some other country cough cough America cough cough

[@iv1323]

they have fought with so many different nations from all over the world its insane

[@fdkua2499]

They also ruined India ( probably

[@iv1323]

@@fdkua2499 maybe

[@thegermaniccrusader8826]

@FenriZz Trash Bin I quite honestly don't care because they are obsessed with us

[@mrcool2107]

@FenriZz Trash Bin loving them

[@BRITISHFURY_1664]

@@fdkua2499 who hasn't ruined a country

[@crxsh3rrr]

*I love your videos!*

[@BalekduNom]

Thank you it's very interesting for my Timeline 👌

[@eggieboi14]

*The sun never sets on the British Empire*

[@theanglo-lithuanian1768]

@Fíonán Murphy Owning Ireland for 800 years and still owning Northern Ireland doesn't really sound a loss 😉

[@thevoiceless8567]

@Fíonán Murphy But they didn’t lose all of it, so they didn’t lose.

[@colacao6065]

Phrase copied from the Spanish Empire

[@eggieboi14]

@@colacao6065 S pain

[@colacao6065]

@@eggieboi14 Un mexicano que es angñófilo y además hispanófobo, no hay otra manera mejor de renegar del propio origen suyo y de su país lol

[@jack6604]

Meanwhile British in ww2 and Napoleonic wars: **epicly trolling in the sea**

[@guillevizcarroserrano7766]

Make the spain military in the next video please

[@norwegianforestgirl8964]

The British SAS liberated my village in 1945. The Germans surrendered because the SAS were everywhere in secret

[@zacha4812]

Battle of ashdown, battle of brunanburh (where England kinda used a blitzkreig tactic) battle of Stamford bridge, Battle of agincourt, battle of crecy, battle of Poitiers, battle of sluys, battle of Calais, battle of gravelines, battle of falkirk, battle of the dunes, battle of Quebec, battle of Quebec City, battle of Camden, battle of queenston heights, battle of trafalgar, battle of cape st Vincent, battle of Waterloo, battle of Vitoria, battle of rorkes drift, battle of the Falkland Islands, Battle of Britain, second battle of El Alamein, Burma campaign, and battle of imjin river. Some of England and Britains most epic battles won.

[@fredbarker9201]

Some more include: Battle of Lincoln Battle of sandwich Three Spanish Armadas Battle of Quiberon Bay Battle of Blenheim Battle of Ramillies Battle of Oudenarde Siege of Bouchain Siege of Gibraltar Battle of Cape St Vincent Battle of Nile Battle of Basque Roads Battle of Inkerman Operation compass Battle of Imphal

[@fredbarker9201]

@Alfred the Great hadn’t heard of that one. Also battle of meddigo and aleppo which essentially ended the Ottoman Empire

[@zacha4812]

@@fredbarker9201 right I forgot about the great siege of Gibraltar, that was without a doubt one of Britains most epic battles won.

[@zacha4812]

@Alfred the Great wow I can’t believe I haven’t heard of that, I should do some research on that.

[@zacha4812]

@Alfred the Great yup lol, Richard O’Conner was without a doubt one of the best generals.

[@phoenixrose1192]

The Anglo-Russian War was actually a victory though, the British got everything they wanted; The collapse of the “Northern alliance”.

[@thevoiceless8567]

Correct! 👍 I don’t think Napoleon could have been defeated without the Royal Navy.

[@williamregnier7245]

Not only that if it wasn’t for British millitary support in Spain Napoleon probably would have broke the will of the Spanish people and let’s not forget about there victory in Belgium against napoleon

[@phoenixrose1192]

@@williamregnier7245 Just a heads up, I think someone deleted one of your comments on ‘Ptb2008’s thread.

[@BrianLeon99]

​@@williamregnier7245jajajaja España hizo todo en esa guerra, los británicos no hicieron nada, fueron las guerrillas españolas las que destrozaron a los franceses

[@Mark-nx5pk]

No it wasn’t, stop being biased

[@traiver6685]

The past was bitter, the future will be brighter. Regardless, Britain is a glorious nation. 🇮🇳🤝🇬🇧

[@treeguy8812]

Yeah

[@molamola8305]

Finally some sensible Indian

[@rome316ae3]

Actually uk was not responsible . It was British who was responsible

[@bdwell3516]

@@rome316ae3 So you're saying Northern Ireland makes a huge difference

[@leanman6282]

@@rome316ae3 ??

[@TGamesTmedia01]

The British never lost a "Canadian revolution" beacuse there never was one Edit it was in the thumbnail and there was a Canadian revolution but it didn't go well

[@Suleimaan104]

Exactly. Most Canadians were against the "Canadian revolution" lol

[@65mcman]

There were actually 2 revolutions happening at the same time. In lower and upper Canada

[@williamregnier7245]

Yep that resulted in their White House being burnt if I’m not mistaken

[@glaceonthesnowfoxpokemon8289]

British history: 🍵 British military history: conquer the world.

[@jasoncornthwaite8387]

a viking smirks

[@user-xp5hc6us2i]

Yes, I myself am shocked at how many wars Great Britain has participated in and how many countries it has captured in its history! Why do your Western smugglers accuse Russia of aggressive actions and imperial thinking all their lives? How is Britain different from Russia? Or Britain had the right to seize territories in the sphere of its interests, and Russia had no right. F&&&ing Western hypocrites!

[@Patriarcademanassés12]

Argentina: pass by me

[@plsdontcorrectmygrammar8369]

Imagine if the Cod wars were solved by a Call of duty tournament

[@onarestark3827]

Congratulations for the excellent track record of British military beeing second in most battles won according to Wikipedia and very close to 1 st place. Britain or UK was our best ennemy/ rival but is now a very loyal friend and can thank the Entente Cordiale in 1905. It is great to have the UK as an ally and the honor to fight with them. The Brexit won’t remove this alliance. Love hate relations with France. Respect and admiration for the British military. Brothers in arms. Ok for a friendly rivalry in rugby or football as long as we don’t go back to the good old days…

[@lilbrit1019]

i hear that! the anglo-franco alliance is strong! We will never forget the sacrifices france made to make sure dunkirk was a success

[@zayn2241]

@@lilbrit1019 happy to see europeans united 🇩🇪🇪🇺🇫🇷🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@lilbrit1019]

@@zayn2241 British did step away from the EU out of hatred, we will always try our best to Cooperate in defence ect but we have obligations to the canzuk nations what seemed impossible inside the EU unfortunately. I voted remain but I am happy our old ties with Canada, Australia and New Zealand are being renewed

[@RonaldTrumpOfficial]

“Good” Heyyy, might wanna REWORD THAT

[@onarestark3827]

@@lilbrit1019 Good that you voted to remain.

[@oldfunnystuff1902]

Proud to have these countries as an ally 🇺🇲🇫🇷🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿🇩🇪🇩🇰🇳🇴🇸🇪🇫🇮 love from the U.K

[@christophermichaelclarence6003]

We French are not really ally to you British Redcoat

[@TheIceman567]

Love back to the UK 🇬🇧 🤝🇺🇸

[@thomaswoolcott9541]

@@christophermichaelclarence6003 blue coats

[@subtheman2136]

Yes, I’m an American blue coat.

[@bbpoItergeist]

Love To the Uk🇺🇸

[@G_1237]

Love how Ottomans and Britains fight with each other but also help each other in a War lmao

[@exoticdachoo007]

How high is the win rate for the British holy shit

[@theanglo-lithuanian1768]

Tea does amazing things

[@thesuperintendent4290]

I think it is the second most wins out of anyone and the highest win ratio. France bet them by 2 wars and that includes internal fighting which is why I think the UK is the final boss to fight at any point in history.

[@Mark-nx5pk]

Alot of these victories were against small weak nations so probably high

[@sdmchannel8609]

6:25 yes, that's the fact. After Indonesia proclaimed its independence on August 17, 1945, the Dutch wanted to reclaim this precious colony. Then the Dutch allied themselves with the British to seize the Dutch East Indies or Indonesia. An example of a battle involving the British is the Battle of Surabaya on November 10, 1945 or the year of Indonesian independence. I knew that because... yeah, Im Indonesian. Edit : wow, i can't believe the likes. Thx guys :D

[@justarobloxnoob2678]

Ayy ada org indo jg

[@joshgardner2477]

Ya put a paragraph into Indonesia

[@Thenifa]

extraordinary for the struggle of the Indonesian people at that time, rising from foreign colonies, and becoming a great nation now

[@dukeofselangor3723]

@@Thenifa great nation? lmfao

[@fadhil2831]

@Johan Jeivick Domrique no its after war of independce

[@ronin7732]

This is so amazing! Can you please do the Italian Military next! I would be so happy! For Italia!! ❤️👑🇮🇹😍

[@joshgardner2477]

U mean guys who hate pineapple

[@giulioballadore366]

@@joshgardner2477 we do other things, but yes, we hate pineapple on pizza

[@kittengamer1915]

Everyone hates pineapple on pizza

[@joshgardner2477]

@@giulioballadore366 why do ya hate pineapple on pizza

[@Fluxx_edits]

@@joshgardner2477 tastes like shit

[@pilot_howie237]

So many Victories, proud to be British 😝🇬🇧

[@externecolerique2977]

We have more victories proud to be French😁🇫🇷🇫🇷

[@externecolerique2977]

@OVERCHARGED CREEPER which country has the most military victories?

[@externecolerique2977]

@OVERCHARGED CREEPER which country paid other armies to substitue them?

[@externecolerique2977]

@OVERCHARGED CREEPER France had the best infantry in human history

[@externecolerique2977]

@OVERCHARGED CREEPER you don’t know what are you talking about the French revolution was a pretext for the bourgeoisie to take power from the nobles

[@jjawesome1803]

Man, the early 1800s were crazy...

[@justarobloxnoob2678]

Random land: * exist * UK: *M I N E*

[@mlgfrog4154]

U are fake britain

[@mamta6029]

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[@mamta6029]

Uk is begger always takes others land

[@Brxwn9]

@@mamta6029 They’re not begged they are greedy colonizers who want to invade everyone and say that they own them. And British people are still proud of that yet they want us to be their ally like shut up you colonizing triscit.

[@officialJoebiden]

@@Brxwn9 not true uk has lost 70% of what they have taken as they gave the countrys back

[@empirehistory7626]

Congrats on 17k subs!!!

[@henryludena4887]

Can you do the military history about Spain? That would be amazing

[@heidi_bavarian1725]

Well done England you defeated every contry good video I am impressed

[@Lorddonen]

Britain*

[@heidi_bavarian1725]

@@Lorddonen yes 🇬🇧

[@Mark-nx5pk]

france has left the chat*

[@ilovechickennuggets648]

Missed the American Revolution…..

[@patrickpet7905]

He didn't miss it... these youtubers make mistakes on purpose to increase comment activity. That's why most of these types of videos/posts pull obvious mistakes. More engagement level = more $$$

[@76456]

Didn't knew UK took part of Portuguese civil war. Could you do Portuguese military history?

[@jasonoconnor2064]

We are old allies and comrades through many wars, beloved Portugal.

[@cambs0181]

Portugal is Britains oldest ally. Dated back to 1370, both countries had a bit of beef with Spain now and then.

[@questionmaker5666]

Good video, shows how Britain's interests shifted from one region to another, then finally into a peacekeeping force. Only mistake, GB won the Fourth Anglo-Mysore war allowing the East India Company to spread across India.

[@thunderbird1921]

My gracious, looks like the British were just in constant warfare throughout the whole darn 19th Century. Whether Europe, Africa, Asia or the North/South American continents, somewhere a British war was happening.

[@Aftermath-News]

@@amitm1993 where not Indians to get defeated like that and we’re not INDIANS to lose war. We Squashed your empire with 1 Battle and we beat you by just using a Supermarket (East india company)🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. India lost to some Islamic tribes. They lost to Portugal 😂😂😂😂

[@JJaqn05]

@@amitm1993 You are making excuses. The only truth is Britain was the most powerful country in the world. India was not

[@scholaroftheworldalternatehist]

Well 96% of the East India company were native Indians. It's better to say British-allied Indians defeated other Indians

[@AG-vb6vv]

@@Aftermath-News India never lost to Islamic invaders, that’s why we aren’t Islamic. We resisted: be it the Gurkhas, the Ahoms, the Sikhs, the Rajputs, the Southern Empires and greatest of all, the Marathas who destroyed what was at the time the greatest empire at the time despite being severely outnumbered, starting only with one fort and 2000 men. You know nothing of India, don’t know why you’re so angry?

[@detlev8246]

he contado 66 victorias en este video, más las 22 de inglaterra

[@theambitiousjet9193]

Good thing this didn't just include England before the uk or this would be a 1hour video

[@blendermyles]

Of mostly France and England fighting each other for 100 years 😂

[@cambs0181]

Then before that Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex. Add another hour.

[@lorenzomarchetto2809]

Can you make Turkish military history (from Ottoman Empire to the modern Turkish republic)?

[@baransinanaltay4523]

he did

[@bruceli9094]

A Mongolian, Spanish, Romanian and German asked "Which Empire is the Greatest in all of history"? British: The language from the Empire you're asking the question with.

[@juangdo9220]

400 years ago the biggest empire was the spanish

[@juangdo9220]

@yeetus fetus the only british word i use is "WO'AH"

[@bruceli9094]

@yeetus fetus Well the British Empire gave Rise to the USA.

[@bruceli9094]

I love all the replies in Engrish. Kong flu wuhan do.

[@HazzaSrz]

@yeetus fetus What’re you talking about? If you think Hollywood is the reason everyone speaks English, you’re delusional. Everyone speaks English as a result of England. If the USA is a product of England, the founding fathers were all of British heritage.

[@grzegorzpawowski2076]

Using Confederate flag for the forces of rebelling SLAVES? Bold move

[@jjawesome1803]

Yeah, that confused the heck out of me 😅

[@GigaTrap6000]

*united kingdom history* Me: this video will be long and i knew it

[@bruceli9094]

China: We are gonna to invade Taiwan for real now. Believe us, this time it's real! British Empire: noobs lol

[@Longey9000]

@Имя Фамилия the real chin-

[@nines5968]

@Имя Фамилия nope, real China is Taiwan with it's capital in Taipei.

[@bruceli9094]

@Имя Фамилия Ask china lol

[@everdale4609]

@Имя Фамилия real china is Taiwan if look at the civil war..

[@fluteofthepreussens5339]

The Brits won the war of 1812

[@TheCaptainSplatter]

Pretty much. Cant remember if USA won anything out of it. Maby embargo lifting.

[@TheIceman567]

@@TheCaptainSplatter end of British support for the natives and end of impressment. The USA got what it wanted.

[@DiscipleSneaky4134]

No

[@gaymermoment]

What

[@unseatedtree3955]

They didn't take Canada and push Britain out of North America which was the primary objective

[@ThatVegasTeen]

Proud to have these countries as an ally 🇬🇧🇫🇷🇮🇪🇺🇦🇵🇱🇫🇮🇸🇪🇮🇳 love from USA

[@despair3437]

Neither Ireland nor Ukraine are allies of Britain

[@Hobbstopper]

Indie is not our ally now

[@HOGoLaO]

..

[@Shadowcat561]

India ain't your Ally

[@phoenixrose1192]

@@despair3437Ukraine definitely is.

[@Midwayy10]

britain chill bro

[@winchester3751]

in Indonesian Revolution, Japan is on Indonesian side, not because they were their ally but Japan just wanted to see the Allies burn. UK won every single battle against Indonesia, but they later withdrawed and let the Dutch did the rest.

[@deanpanton1719]

I am watching this video because I live in England and I want to know the history of the UK military

[@hubdata3088]

This video is super cool!

[@nanilama7016]

Me finding Anglo-Nepal war held in 1814 - 1816 where Nepal ( Gorkhas ) alone fought against British East India company, Patiala state , kingdom of Sikkim , Gharwal kingdom and didn't lose the independence Brother You forgot N🇳🇵PAL

[@gold.nheart]

I was waiting to :((( 🇳🇵❤ jai gorkha

[@retardcapital2976]

@@BigAsianMan1999 afterword's they joined the british soldiers, there is a still a ghurka unit in the British army.

[@rajtimsina947]

and laso many war fought by nepal and uk

[@glaceonthesnowfoxpokemon8289]

You should have put battles from the 1100's -1600's AD.

[@mEmEzMaN...]

Loved how most of our battles ended in victory

[@AlexThe5th1733]

Let me guess you live in the UK

[@JJaqn05]

@@AlexThe5th1733 Why does that matter? What he said is true

[@JJaqn05]

@@AlexThe5th1733 Let me guess you're an Indian?

[@AlexThe5th1733]

Also I am not an Indian

[@AlexThe5th1733]

i’m American

[@Beleth420]

Considering how small the country is, that record is elite.

[@Mark-nx5pk]

Size dont matter, this ain’t human boxing match

[@nicolapapa5711]

Nice video, even if in reality the United Kingdom also participated in the War of the First and Second Coalition, in 1828 France was a Kingdom and not an Empire and it was not an Empire until 1852 and in the suppression of the Boxer Revolt it participated. also the Kingdom of Italy. For the rest, excellent video

[@ikko4107]

The British Empire vs. Satsuma Domain (Japanese Domain) was a draw.

[@user-oe3tt1sv1e]

完敗でもないのにな

[@ptb2008]

There has never been a nation in history that can fight multiple wars on all continents and oceans simultaneously like the British did.

[@hugodonstetter7959]

France

[@gaymermoment]

US, Portugal, Spain...

[@thevoiceless8567]

@@gaymermoment The majority of wars in US history happened in North America against Native Americans. When did they fight on different continents simultaneously? For instance, during the American war of independence the British were fighting in North America, South America, Caribbean, India and Europe in this war alone.

[@BRITISHFURY_1664]

Yessss

[@arthurwellesley1stdukeofwe890]

@@thevoiceless8567 In WWII America was on the American, African Asian and European theatre so yeah.

[@tbh7436]

And that's how English became the most common language in the world.

[@purehyper164]

wrong it's third mandarin I'd first and Spanish is second

[@archivesoffantasy5560]

@@purehyper164 when you include people who know it as a second language (which is more than who know it as a first) then English is the most common language. But You’re right about mandarin being top in terms of most people speaking it as a first language.

[@Я_Яша]

Italy : Was formed in 1861 This video : Italy fought wars occurred between 1803 and 1809

[@biscuitbandit2302]

Nice!

[@mrdisrespect5283]

Proud to be a British🇬🇧💪

[@urdad8]

you wouldnt have won ww2 without us

[@DANNY-om7cu]

@@urdad8 they definatly wouldn't have lost either, worse case for the british was a peace deal with germany, which would have been a better option in my opinion.

[@urdad8]

@@DANNY-om7cu cap cap cap

[@thomaswoolcott9541]

@@urdad8 shut your bitch ass up you wouldn’t have won ww1 without us and you wouldn’t have even got close to Germany if it wasn’t for us

[@urdad8]

@@thomaswoolcott9541 говорит ты, тот, кто проиграл войну, когда у тебя была лучшая армия для кучки фермеров, сука

[@r_h0h152]

8:26 Yep , that's deffinetly the yugoslav flag if i've ever seen one , yep , deffinetly not the Czech republic flag.. or Czechoslovakia's flag.... DEFFINETLY not one of those... Great job!

[@nakeemblackman2379]

Did you know that britain was part of the first and second opium war in China and they won.

[@universenerdd]

I’m sorry but you can’t just put “did you know” next to universal knowledge

[@anglo-aspidmapping8870]

@@universenerdd Yeah.

[@cambs0181]

Say what you like about that war, but you find me a drug dealer today who will sell to you in exchange for teabags!

[@nakeemblackman2379]

@@cambs0181 Maybe you should read more about British history so that you will know what I mean.

[@nakeemblackman2379]

@@universenerdd There is nothing wrong with letting somebody know what you know.

[@Vivenk88]

I think Britain won the Anglo-Mysore wars. They lost the first and stalemate on the second, but they won the third and fourth Anglo-Mysore wars. Also, you left out the American War of Independence.

[@HQUNIG]

Hello, I'm Thai ฉันไม่เคยเห็นเลยว่าอังกฤษจะมีการรบมากขนาดนั้น สุดยอดเลยครับ จากไทย 🇬🇧

[@Jordan-bb4xt]

Love Thailand 🇹🇭 From Wales, UK 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇬🇧

[@treeguy8812]

Love from spain

[@gimmethegepgun]

Shouldn't this have started in 1801, when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed? Or, failing that, 1707, when the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed?

[@maxdavis7722]

No, 1801 was just when Ireland joined, the UK existed before Ireland joined.

[@gimmethegepgun]

@@maxdavis7722 When England and Scotland combined, it was known as the Kingdom of Great Britain. Some called it the United Kingdom but that's not its official name. And, regardless, the video timeline doesn't go back to 1707 anyway.

[@oicz]

@@gimmethegepgun This video is a mixed bag. Mistakes such as the wrong union flag being used on occasion (sometimes uses the GB flag after 1801), wars such as the American Independence War being absent, and of course the mistake you highlighted which was the bizarre timeline of including Great Britain along with the United Kingdom.

[@artguy1169]

Great video it’s just I think you missed at the boer wars and the 7yrs war

[@Komnenos83]

Greatest army in history probably

[@Raisonnance.]

😬😬 You don't know too much history then ahaha. Don't take these videos like exact history, they are full of mistakes.

[@Komnenos83]

@@Raisonnance. An army that's capable of conquering a third of the earth's landmass is probably a good contestant for no1

[@englishmanlee6119]

@@Raisonnance. we all have our own opinion, frenchmen

[@onarestark3827]

I would think more greatest navy.

[@rome316ae3]

@@Raisonnance. well we know history that's why we said British army is great

[@mamta6029]

Britishers are very powerful

[@niranjandesai6766]

were mate:( Sadly, corrupt politicians sold the country. We have so many issues in our country.

[@tsloo1620]

yeah bro

[@bruceli9094]

@A revolutionary Communist It gave birth to the USA. The son is more powerful than the father.

[@phoenixrose1192]

@କଳିଙ୍ଗ ସଂସ୍କୃତି A constitutional monarchy is a democracy, Britain actually ranks higher in the democracy index than both France and the US: republics.

[@phoenixrose1192]

@@bruceli9094 Until China takes over.

[@AmericanEmpire2345]

Those alliances were the original world wars before 2 famous world wars happened

[@spaceyankee99]

In Sierra Leone civil, you forgot guinean army in the allies of U-K

[@UserName-om6ft]

lol Spanish guy ran away, just like 1898 😂

[@Perseus-k1d-n1o]

No

[@rebornasrusso]

@@Perseus-k1d-n1o LOL

[@mardhatilah45]

Plis make French military

[@plumebrisee6206]

Oui vu qu'il a fait l'Allemagne et le RU ,les 2 rivaux historiques

[@Anton-kl5xq]

vive la France 🇲🇫🇷🇺Salutations de Russie;)

[@rooshovhannes7592]

vive la france!!

[@mardhatilah45]

@@buf6203 what ok im call Napoleon

[@mardhatilah45]

@@buf6203 ok im hack france for 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 power

[@jeanpierrereynoso-fournel005]

love history thank you

[@erictheytdude9812]

You just ignored first opium war and second

[@jasonoconnor2064]

They ignored most ;) yet they counted many decisive successions.

[@h.stephenpaul7810]

1837-38 "Canadian Revolution" No - not a revolution but a couple of minor , but significant, rebellions, one in Lower Canada (Quebec) and one in Upper Canada (Ontario). A revolution is "forcible overthrow of government or social order" whereas a rebellion is a " open resistance to authority". Neither rebellion was immediately successful but ultimately caused changes to be made towards representative government. The authority of the "Chateau Clique" and "Family Compact" was eventually removed as the legislatures became more democratic. The same applies to the 1869 Red River "Rebellion". Louis Riel led the Metis against the abuses of federal government of Canada. The following year the province of Manitoba was created, but because the Metis were not represented in the legislature they continued to be ill-treated.

[@rickdoronila5093]

Bro please make philippine military history

[@Gretel1236]

philliphine american war, ww2, korean war and vietnam war.

[@maiahkatrinaminahotbabes6943]

@@Gretel1236 also mindanao insurgent.

[@Gretel1236]

@@maiahkatrinaminahotbabes6943 That was a insurgency, not a full scale war.

[@hamzad5755]

How many wars do you want? Uk: YES YES YEEESSS

[@uniteddreams7065]

Curious what about the Opium War and Second Opium War? China (Qing Dynasty) lost both wars severely and handing more territory to the British Empire.

[@shawnwing-kovarik9762]

I think you forgot a few wars: The three Crusades (correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the United Kingdom apart of the crusades?), the 100 years war, which was fought between Great Britain and France, the Queen Anne's War, which was fought in the Caribbean and would later lead into the Golden Age of Piracy (As all of the privateers that the British, French and the Spanish hired would end up without a job), the French and Indian War which was fought over the Ohio territories I think? And the American Revolution, which was a war fought over American Independence. (Also could you do a video of the United States Military History, starting with the American Revolution as that was the starting point to the Start of the United States, as before then, the United States were once a colony of the United Kingdom.)

[@onarestark3827]

These wars were fought by England, UK existed in 1708 if my memory is correct. At one point Scotland and Wales were independent.

[@TheIceman567]

@@onarestark3827 1707

[@cambs0181]

No the crusades were about seven hundred years before the UK was a thing and England was ruled by French overlords who did go and fight in the crusades, but not as a nation. The Hundred years war was thought between England and France, not Great Britain. No the United States was not a colony of the United Kingdom, it was thirteen colonies of Great Britain around thirty years before the UK.

[@TheCaptainSplatter]

War of 1812 was kind of an American loss.

[@Idontsupportlgbtq]

meh both sides got what they wanted

[@TheIceman567]

Incorrect

[@JT-de5jr]

@@Idontsupportlgbtq US invaded Canada and got repelled? How it that inconclusive?

[@ryanschrum9872]

@@JT-de5jr it’s more complicated than that. One of the main reasons the war started was because the Royal Navy was kidnapping Americans and making them serve in the navy. The US also won a series of victories like: the naval battles in the Great Lakes, the battle of fort Mchenry, and the battle of New Orleans. The US definitely did not win the war but it also didn’t loose it

[@JT-de5jr]

@@ryanschrum9872 just because you win battles it doesn’t mean you don’t lose. Just look at Germany in WW1, they won many battles yet nobody refutes that they lost the war.

[@shadow2000]

Greek Independence --> France : - I'm a joke to you ?

[@TNNR666]

🤔Not bad for a small island in Northwestern Europe, we’re a resilient bunch, or fvckin’ mad like a box of frogs.🇬🇧💪 (I haven’t decided which yet)

[@soggyturbo6431]

Thank god these types of war isnt on the 21st century

[@goodpies2085]

They are still kinda out there I think

[@marcello3888]

I wish

[@3zge]

لا تستعجل لانك لاتعرف احداث المتواجدة في الشرق الاوسط التي تشير لحرب كارثية💔

[@treeguy8812]

Soon

[@rome316ae3]

Ww3 noises

[@stefanturvey2361]

Just saying think you forgot to add the Anglo Boer war

[@phoenixrose1192]

There were 2 Boer Wars...

[@jasonoconnor2064]

Many wars are missing, the guy spent all that time collecting data on the UK and not the British Empire, big doh.

[@Rouge_Gems]

Great Britain/United Kingdom has been around since 1707 AD.

[@agentperry115]

Man acts as if every military in the world at any given time is the most powerful

[@thestaffordshireiv4943]

Both the Anglo-Turkish, and 1812 , were British victories.

[@UserName-om6ft]

Anglo-Turkish war in 1807-1809 the Ottomans won and UK lost? and war of 1812 the US won and the UK lost again? what are you on about lol

[@tallerstond8105]

1812 was not a British nor American victory, it’s inconclusive and the Anglo-Turkish war was an ottoman victory

[@JJaqn05]

@@UserName-om6ft The War of 1812 was never a US victory. It was a stalemate and neither side got any land

[@UserName-om6ft]

@@JJaqn05 the US did end up getting land in the west and then Florida in the south during the war of 1812

[@JJaqn05]

@@UserName-om6ft They got nothing from Britain during the war

[@user-tw4xs8hi2v]

Victories: 64 Defeats: 12 Inconclusive: 11 Withdrawals: 1 Stalemates: 1 Ongoing: 2

[@UserName-om6ft]

seething name you have angry about 1776

[@Aftermath-News]

Actually British won more then a 1K Battles and lost 9

[@UserName-om6ft]

@@Aftermath-News the British lost around 70+ wars, probably more

[@Aftermath-News]

@@UserName-om6ft nah never

[@UserName-om6ft]

@@Aftermath-News then explain the 70+ wars Britain and England lost?

[@jasonoconnor2064]

This list is heavily incomplete and this information is heavily unfinished.

[@brentw0681]

Explain

[@abrahammelano3495]

And biased

[@muteli7391]

3:22 British Empire:We are Winner!! Satsuma Domain:We are winner!!

[@andersonfec9314]

Brazil military history? Please

[@DecodingData]

Soon on Decoding History....my 2nd channel

[@rooshovhannes7592]

Russia pls

[@jasonoconnor2064]

@@DecodingData Why have you only got a few hundred years of our wars? Half of the British wars are missing, countless more English wars also. You seem to have collected data of only the UK title.. and why have you added so many decisive acts of succession and bestowments of independence as loses? What a sad shame to share such horrendus false information disguised as history to so many. Great Britain was fighting wars under the name England long before the UK was established, and the UK was not our imperial power, the British Empire was a seperate entity, you have spent all of this time studying and collecting only half of the data, you are missing hundreds of years of Imperial wars and a great many wars inbetween the years that you have already declared! What a mess brother!

[@connora3319]

Franco-Spanish bourbon Union *terminated* French North American empire *terminated* First French empire *terminated* German empire *terminated* Third reich *terminated*

[@archivesoffantasy5560]

3 Spanish Armadas: *can’t cross channel* Napoleon’s army: *can’t cross channel* H1tler’s war-machine: *can’t cross channel*

[@bob_0146]

Ottoman Empire *terminated*

[@las_espannas]

​@@archivesoffantasy5560arguably , England was invaded by Spain in 1595.

[@Mark-nx5pk]

Yeah like you guys totally didn’t need other nations to save you in all of those wars 😂

[@phoenixrose1192]

@@Mark-nx5pk They didn’t, that’s why the British were instrumental in the outcome of those wars. 🙄

[@jackbassett9365]

The Upper Canada and Lower Canada Rebellions of 1838 were put down mainly by Canadian Militia. They were not extremely popular rebellions and by no means revolutions. They did result in reforms and more power to local government.

[@Punk_On_Demand]

I’m sitting here wondering why the American Revolution and War of 1812 ain’t featured??

[@Qoorky]

Basically England’s Military History: Victory, Victory, Victory

[@rolandzarka5191]

No England, many defeats during the Middle Ages, and badly lost mainly against the French. But Britain allowed the new hegemony since the 7 years war until 1945.

[@TNNR666]

@@rolandzarka5191 Well no nation wins them all, including France.

[@yapperbird]

@@rolandzarka5191uMmn aactulaly england dInt wiinnN allLll War rthey lost soMe wArr

[@yapperbird]

@@rolandzarka5191 Have you ever heard of Jokes

[@Flash-sy4ul]

@@TNNR666 napoleon did

[@shadowmonarch2128]

Maybe you dont know this but the British attacked the Philippines on 1762 to 1764

[@playboiucup7727]

Other country 2 mins duration Britain :

[@rodrigues2793101]

No better music. Good old civ V times with lizzy saying "We'll not surrender!!".