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

[@RevanLiviana]

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]

@@V_For_Vigilante do you know what a meme is?

[@NotFur-3]

@@V_For_Vigilante bruh it you again...

[@R2R5-g3b]

Her* France in French is a feminine word.

[@everardoarana3786]

@@R2R5-g3b 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

[@highaquatic]

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

[@highaquatic]

@@zylnexxd842 fr

[@skyler1887]

Call of Duty.

[@saltgamer7895]

@@zylnexxd842 Stay mad brit

[@chickennugget1415]

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

[@BalekduNom]

Thank you it's very interesting for my Timeline 👌

[@КузьминАртём-е2з]

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.

[@crxsh3rrr]

*I love your videos!*

[@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

[@justarobloxnoob2678]

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

[@mlgfrog4154]

U are fake britain

[@mamta6029]

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[@mamta6029]

Uk is begger always takes others land

[@officialJoebiden]

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

[@_su0p]

@Johan Faust nice pfp

[@henryludena4887]

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

[@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

[@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.💪

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@glaceonthesnowfoxpokemon8289]

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

[@jasoncornthwaite8387]

a viking smirks

[@СергейБехтерев-у9ы]

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!

[@Detetive00000]

Argentina: pass by me

[@jack6604]

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

[@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

[@G_1237]

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

[@ThemoonsFullofgoons-qn9xl]

Pretty much the story of our life look at our history with France 😂

[@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

[@guillevizcarroserrano7766]

Make the spain military in the next video please

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@empirehistory7626]

Congrats on 17k subs!!!

[@norwegianforestgirl8964]

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

[@Not_Reed11]

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.

[@plsdontcorrectmygrammar8369]

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

[@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?

[@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*

[@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..

[@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.

[@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.

[@Manhunt-e9j]

and laso many war fought by nepal and uk

[@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.

[@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

[@theskiypdee]

US, Portugal, Spain...

[@thevoiceless8567]

@@theskiypdee 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.

[@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

[@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

[@vatsal7640]

​​@@Mark-nx5pkFrance, spain, germany weak nations?? Sure pal😂😂

[@Typical_Human549]

@vatsal7640 He’s talking about The British colonization of Africa and India, and yes a lot of wars and the natives were very outclassed

[@lorenzomarchetto2809]

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

[@baransinanaltay4523]

he did

[@jjawesome1803]

Man, the early 1800s were crazy...

[@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

[@theskiypdee]

What

[@unseatedtree3955]

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

[@JohnDoe-sw1rs]

War of 1812, capital burned down, all objectives failed and heavy casualties USA: Ah, yes. So it’s inconclusive

[@TheIceman567]

The US goals were achieved . End of impressment end of British native support and the end of the trade embargo. Please study you sound dumb after that comment.

[@мувн-ш4ы]

@@TheIceman567 well the US lost that war

[@TheIceman567]

@@мувн-ш4ы nope it didn’t as I stated. End of impressment end of British native support and the end of the trade embargo. Please study you sound dumb after that comment. Jealously gets you nowhere.🤷‍♂️

[@мувн-ш4ы]

@@TheIceman567 just because USA is the strongest country today it doesn't mean that they were always the strongest country since they gained their independence. stop letting your emotions and patriotism get in the way of knowing actual history.

[@TheIceman567]

@@мувн-ш4ы I’m not, the objective of the USA was to end impressment, British support for the natives. Even the USA won the majority of battle on land and sea. Please study you keep making yourself look dumb🤷‍♂️ please tell me where I’m wrong, take your own advice and don’t let your emotions and patriotism get in the way 🤷‍♂️

[@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.

[@GigaTrap6000]

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

[@detlev8246]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@hubdata3088]

This video is super cool!

[@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

[@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

[@Я_Яша]

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

[@lar_t_paiaobuv]

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!

[@HQUNIG]

Hello, I'm Thai ฉันไม่เคยเห็นเลยว่าอังกฤษจะมีการรบมากขนาดนั้น สุดยอดเลยครับ จากไทย 🇬🇧

[@Jordan-bb4xt]

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

[@treeguy8812]

Love from spain

[@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

[@HikaruCh.]

As a country which protected our land rather than sending soldiers to fight, i'd say we never lost a war.

[@de-ddwyrain4888]

Just wondering, where are you from? I don't know if your name is Chinese or Japanese.

[@HikaruCh.]

@@de-ddwyrain4888 it's my future vtuber name, i'm from S. America

[@treeguy8812]

@@HikaruCh. one day i wanna see my whole country getting nuked

[@yigit436]

@@HikaruCh. The Romans Taken Don't Make You Empty

[@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.

[@uncle_winnie1998]

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.

[@ikko4107]

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

[@ヘタリア-c8h]

完敗でもないのにな

[@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 ?

[@deanpanton1719]

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

[@Somerandombritishperson]

you're missing SOOO much information if you want British military history, this isn't even scraping the surface

[@gerardotarifaskorpian]

They are forgetting the English defeats against the Spanish army during the 18th century, and of course, the British defeat in Buenos Aires in the 19th century.

[@rafaelhuarte9645]

And the anglo french fleet defeat in the Parana's war (1844)

[@ChrisCrossClash]

We should list how we kicked your armada's butt trying to invade the UK in that case? 😂😂

[@BrianLeon99]

​@@ChrisCrossClashfueron las tormentas las que derrotaron a los españoles, ustedes no hicieron nada y después ustedes fueron pateados por los españoles jajajaja

[@Mark-nx5pk]

@@ChrisCrossClashI’m pretty sure the armadas won the battle

[@artguy1169]

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

[@grzegorzpawowski2076]

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

[@jjawesome1803]

Yeah, that confused the heck out of me 😅

[@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 $$$

[@kevinhansford3929]

Wasn't important enough to make the cut

[@AmericanEmpire2345]

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

[@glaceonthesnowfoxpokemon8289]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@JedAnimationStudios]

U can add Defeated in Afgan considering these past few weeks events 😑

[@archdornan3068]

Yep every western nation has a new lost to its record

[@ajjennings3745]

It isn’t a defeat we have been fighting for 17 years

[@archdornan3068]

@@ajjennings3745 lad just because we were fighting there for a long time doesn’t mean we haven’t lost that’s like saying Vietnam isn’t a lose for the Americans or the Hundred Years’ War wasn’t a lose for us English

[@phoenixrose1192]

Nope, it was American led. So it was an American defeat.

[@ajjennings3745]

@@phoenixrose1192 ok but US troops are still in Afghanistan until the 31st

[@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

[@AngloMango]

@@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.

[@agentperry115]

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

[@nosequeponersi184]

The War of 1812 was a British victory, only the United States does not accept its defeat and takes it as a draw.

[@UserName-om6ft]

no the British didnt even come close to winning the war of 1812 how badly did you fail history, the historical facts state the war of 1812 was another US victory educate your self

[@DavideKuras]

@@UserName-om6ft white house burned L

[@UserName-om6ft]

@@DavideKuras after the US burnt down the Canadian capital York (Toronto) in 1813 so it cancels out L

[@DavideKuras]

@@UserName-om6ft yes but that wasn't the main government

[@UserName-om6ft]

@@DavideKuras doesnt matter it was still the Canadian capital, the British couldnt even win the war

[@erictheytdude9812]

You just ignored first opium war and second

[@jasonoconnor2064]

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

[@Punk_On_Demand]

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

[@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?

[@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

[@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

[@NeilLindsaySutherland]

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.

[@NPaviationYT]

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

[@NPaviationYT]

@@rolandzarka5191 Have you ever heard of Jokes

[@Flash-sy4ul]

@@TNNR666 napoleon did

[@apollocreed5391]

Lots of angry and jealous people hating us british here 🤷🏻‍♂️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@apollocreed5391]

@yeetus fetus come back to me when you can construct a coherent sentence. That did not make any sense. Read it out loud and you will see. PS. It's quite funny you liked your own comment.

[@phoenixrose1192]

@yeetus fetus They didn’t fight with bows and arrows in Mysore or the Maratha empire, did they? I think you’re confusing the British empire with the Spanish one…

[@apollocreed5391]

@yeetus fetus OK babe

[@apollocreed5391]

@yeetus fetus what's wrong with that 😘

[@apollocreed5391]

@yeetus fetus we arguing? X

[@edthebumblingfool]

Bit mixed up with conclsions on some of the "peace keeping" type missions, I was also unaware that napolean ever beat Britain even if he did defeat some of the Alliances with the flip flopping continental Europeans

[@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

[@millimilli1755]

Most wars fought of any nation. The English love it(war) the most. True Warlords!

[@znightmxrepg3d577]

That's not right what 9+10

[@myhonorwasloyalty]

@@znightmxrepg3d577 france has the most wins

[@Yesunfortunately-r1x]

@@myhonorwasloyalty although the English like declaring wars, they certainly don't like winning all of them

[@Crimsrn]

@@myhonorwasloyalty yeah, by 10, but that's because they fought in more battles, so when it comes to defeat to victory ratio britain wins

[@brentw0681]

@@myhonorwasloyalty yes France fought many weak opponents.. not something to brag about.. 😁

[@rodrigues2793101]

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

[@thevoiceless8567]

Why are there insecure Americans on here saying the War of 1812 was a British loss?

[@Epsa_]

They need to make sure their 200 year old ancestors know that their descendants enjoy arguing about the worst time of their life.

[@elijahespiritu7315]

Tell Americas and British historians

[@Epsa_]

@@thevoiceless8567 the empire still prospered. Even if it was a stalemate we still benefited greatly from the result.

[@tl9223]

@@thevoiceless8567I think 1812 was the one where napoleon also attacked Britain at the same time? I think the British retreated to Canada and defended for a few years until they had killed napoleon? Then they advanced on the US forces again after. That’s pretty bad ass!

[@redhunter8034]

As an American I wish to let you know those people do NOT know what they are saying, as the war of 1812 was tie. No land was gained, no land was lost. It was pretty pointless and all it resulted in was a burned down Canadian Governor building and a burned down white house.

[@栄佑介-n1r]

Satsuma British war was draw. Satsuma didn’t lose to British.

[@user-eb6vc2gs9e]

this video has inaccuracies, some of inconclusive wars are actually british defeat. Biased video

[@jasonoconnor2064]

Britain beat Japan anyways.

[@jasonoconnor2064]

Lancaster Bombers.

[@栄佑介-n1r]

@@jasonoconnor2064 Prince of whales

[@phoenixrose1192]

@@栄佑介-n1r Imphal and Kohima

[@WeberAreiv]

If Switzerland joined the war against Gaddafi, they would be at war for the first time in 200 years! The reason was, Gaddafi had the idea and told NATO, if he won the war, Switzerland must be partitioned.

[@jasonoconnor2064]

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

[@brentw0681]

Explain

[@abrahammelano3495]

And biased

[@abasmkl3880]

Afghans(=Talibans)defeated british at three time 🇦🇫❤

[@Lorddonen]

We could easily destroy Afghanistan, lets be honest. We left only because America and other allied decided they wanted to leave.

[@abasmkl3880]

@@Lorddonen That's why you lose at three time, it's not like afghan were lucky, we defeated arabs, Ottomans, Russians, Indians, Persians and now america

[@Charlietolemy]

@Debayan Bagchi the mughal empire started in Afghanistan, the Afghan armies went an conquered India, later on the empire would split

[@abasmkl3880]

@Debayan Bagchi and what about durrani empire, hoatk empire, ghaznévides empire, kilji dynastie, Sury dynastie, they were all afghans and defeated indians 🤭🤭🤭😹🤙🤙🤙

[@rabiahmed2780]

@@abasmkl3880 I agree with everything but defeating ottoman empire is a straight up myth Really don't know where u got that from

[@CountryballsAnimationPemula]

Fun fact: anglo Zanzibar war is only for 40 minutes

[@UserName-om6ft]

lol Spanish guy ran away, just like 1898 😂

[@Perseus-k1d-n1o]

No

[@rebornasrusso]

@@Perseus-k1d-n1o LOL

[@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.

[@muteli7391]

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

[@spaceyankee99]

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

[@Kallum-Bone]

1812 wasn't really a tie, America failed to complete their objective and we successfully completed ours, not really a tie

[@spiderduckpig]

It was because of the Battle of New Orleans

[@TheIceman567]

Not really, the US achieved all of its objectives

[@Kallum-Bone]

@@TheIceman567 Americas objective was to take Canada which was one of our colonies and we stopped them, we also won the most battles in the war and burnt down the white house, so America didn't complete their objective

[@TheIceman567]

@@Kallum-Bone incorrect, the US had no plans to take Canada. That in fact is an old war myth(started by your side). The US had no other option of how to attack Britain since the US navy had only 17 ships compared to the Royal Navy’s 1,000+ ships. Today historians generally agree that an invasion and seizure of Canada was the central American military strategy once the war began. Given British control of the oceans, there was no other way to actively fight against British interests. President Madison believed that food supplies from Canada were essential to the British overseas empire in the West Indies, and that an American seizure would be an excellent bargaining chip at the peace conference. During the war, some Americans speculated that they might as well keep all of Canada. Thomas Jefferson, for example, although now out of power, argued that expulsion of British interests from nearby Canada would remove a long-term threat to American republicanism. New Zealand historian J.G.A. Stagg argues that Madison and his advisers believed that conquest of Canada would be easy and that economic coercion would force the British to come to terms by cutting off the food supply for their highly valuable West Indies sugar colonies. Furthermore, possession of Canada would be a valuable bargaining chip. Stagg suggests frontiersmen demanded the seizure of Canada not because they wanted the land (they had plenty), but because the British were thought to be arming the Indians and thereby blocking settlement of the west. As Reginald Horsman concludes, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it." Donald Hickey flatly states, "The desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war." George Brown (1964) concludes, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve negotiation not to annex Canada." John A. Burt, a Canadian scholar, but also a professor at an American university, agrees completely, noting that Augustus Foster, the British minister to Washington, also rejected the argument that annexation of Canada was a war goal. In fact here is historian Donald Hickey on that subject kzbin.info/www/bejne/faOmq5Z_ZcR9l7s In fact the only nation that demanded any land was the British, an Indian buffer state, Maine (which the British occupied east port Maine until 1818) and Minnesota to control the upper Mississippi. There is even a famous quote from the Duke of Wellington on that if you’d like it? Wellington also wondered how victory could be achieved in the vast expanses of North America. Regardless of any military or naval successes, the British might do no “more than secure the points on those lakes at which the Americans would have access.” Most significantly, Wellington observed, even if the British committed sufficient forces and established control of the lakes and waterways, there was no readily apparent key objective that could win the war “I do not know where you could carry on such an operation which would be so injurious to the Americans as to force them to sue for peace, which is what one would wish to see.” US objectives during the war… End impressment (achieved) End British support for the natives (achieved) End the trade embargo (achieved) Also, the burning of Washington had no impact and later lead to the Battle of Baltimore which forced the British to retreat from the Chesapeake and the US national anthem. And you also seem to forget the Americans burning York first, capital of Upper Canada. Even Canadian\British historians state otherwise.. “The United States, meanwhile, could claim to have won the war because they didn’t lose any territory in the Treaty of Ghent, says Wesley Turner, a retired associate professor of history at Brock University. “But more importantly, the British ceased supporting First Nations people in their fight against American settlement in the Midwest.” Although this goal was “barely mentioned by U.S. President James Madison in his War Message,” Turner says, it was central to U.S. ambitions and the reason why U.S. interior states supported the war. Up to 1812, the British had been arming natives defending their lands against U.S. encroachment. Afterwards, the British dropped this support and deserted their allies. With the Treaty of Ghent in place, the United States could move into native lands without fear of British opposition - and they seized the opportunity.” Also…. The Americans also looked on the conflict as a victorious second war of Independence against Britain, says Peter Macleod, pre-Confederation historian and curator of the Canadian War Museum’s 1812 exhibition. “Seeing themselves as bullied and oppressed by the British Empire, they resorted to war and compelled Britain and the world to acknowledge American sovereignty and American power.” And… “According to Canadian Historian Pierre Berton, “Colonel Van Rensselaer was hit in the thigh by a musket ball as soon as he stepped out of his boat on the Canadian shore. As he tried to form up his troops, he was promptly hit five more times in the heel, thighs and calf, and though he survived, he spent most of the battle out of action, weak from loss of blood.” The Battle was a decisive victory for the British but may have lost them the War. Commanding the English forces was General Isaac Brock. Brock is considered one the best leaders of the war. Brock made a fatal mistake that day. Even though the Americans were pinned down and the assault failing, Brock apparently took a page out of the Van Rensselaer play book. He personally led a charge. He was six foot four inches tall and dressed in a bright red General’s uniform complete with a plumed hat, sash and silver and brass trim. The American’s couldn’t miss. Brock was killed and the English war effort never recovered.” Even as Wellington noted. Wellington also wondered how victory could be achieved in the vast expanses of North America. Regardless of any military or naval successes, the British might do no “more than secure the points on those lakes at which the Americans would have access.” Most significantly, Wellington observed, even if the British committed sufficient forces and established control of the lakes and waterways, there was no readily apparent key objective that could win the war “I do not know where you could carry on such an operation which would be so injurious to the Americans as to force them to sue for peace, which is what one would wish to see.” Even the great Winston Churchill concluded: "The lessons of the war were taken to heart. Anti-American feeling in Great Britain ran high for several years, but the United States were never again refused proper treatment as an independent power.” And British historian Timothy Pickles “The War of 1812 would start over seemingly small issues but end up defining not fern America.” Donald Hickey “Did the cost in blood and treasure justify the U.S. decision to go to war? Most Republicans thought it did. In the beginning they called the contest a 'second war of independence', and while Britain's maritime practices never truly threatened the Republic's independence, the war did in a broad sense vindicate U.S. sovereignty. But it ended in a draw on the battlefield" “the Edinburgh Review, a British newspaper, who had remained silent about the war with the United States for two years, writing that "the British government had embarked on a war of conquest, after the American government had dropped its maritime demands, and the British had lost. It was folly to attempt to invade and conquer the United States. To do so would result in the same tragedy as the first war against them, and with the same result". “Maass argued in 2015 that the expansionist theme is a myth that goes against the "relative consensus among experts that the primary U.S. objective was the repeal of British maritime restrictions." He argued the consensus among scholars to be that the US went to war "because six years of economic sanctions had failed to bring Britain to the negotiating table, and threatening the Royal Navy's Canadian supply base was their last hope." David Pratt “There is ample proof that the British authorities did all in their power to hold or win the allegiance of the Indians of the Northwest with the expectation of using them as allies in the event of war. Indian allegiance could be held only by gifts, and to an Indian no gift was as acceptable as a lethal weapon. Guns and ammunition, tomahawks and scalping knives were dealt out with some liberality by British agents. Raiding grew more common in 1810 and 1811. Westerners in Congress found the raids intolerable and wanted them to be permanently ended” “George C. Daughan argues that the United States achieved enough of its war goals to claim a victorious result of the conflict and subsequent impact it had on the negotiations in Ghent. “ “We have retired from combat with the stripes yet bleeding on our back..with the bravest seamen and most powerful navy in the world , we retire from the contest with the balance of defeat so heavily against us.” -London Times December 1814. Come on man, if you’re gonna try at least study first.

[@TheIceman567]

@@Kallum-Bone also, btw the US won the majority of battles on land and sea would you like a list? ... American victories over the British in 1812-15 19 July 1812 1st Sackets 21 Sept 1812 Raid on Gananoque 7 Feb 1813 Raid on Elizabethtown 27 Apr 1813 1st burning of York 31 July 1813 2nd burning of York 28-29 May 1813 2nd Sackets May 29 1813 Big Sandy Creek June 1 1813 US repulse of Royal Marine raid north of Sackets 6-11 Sept 1814 Plattsburgh 28 Nov 1812 Frenchman's Creek 25-27 May 1813 Capture of Ft George 14-16 May 1814 Raid on Port Dover 3 July 1814 Capture of Fort Erie 5 July 1814 Chippewa Aug-Sept 1814 Siege of Fort Erie 5-15 Sept 1812 Siege of Ft Harrison 5-12 Sept 1812 Siege of Ft Wayne 17-18 Dec 1812 Mississinewa 28 Apr-9May 1813 Siege of Ft Meigs 2 Aug 1813 Ft Stephenson 10 Sept 1813 Victory on Lake Erie 5 Oct 1813 Thames 4 March 1814 Longwoods 29 April 1813 Elk's Landing 6 Nov 1814 Malcom's Mills 22 June 1813 Craney Island 10 August 1813 St Michaels 12 Sept 1814 North Point 31 Aug 1814 Caulk's Field 12-15 Sept 1814 Baltimore 1814 Battle of Rock Harbor - HMS Newcastle party thrown back 6 Dec 1814 Farnham church 7-9 Nov 1814 Pensacola 14-16 Sept 1814 1st Ft Bowyer 13 Dec 1814 - Jackson's probe 8 Jan 1815 New Orleans 9-18 Jan 1815 Ft St Phillip 13 Aug 1812 capture of the Alert 19 Aug 1812 capture of the Guerriere 18 Oct 1812 capture of the Frolic 25 Oct 1812 capture of the Macedonian 29 Dec 1812 capture of the Java 24 Feb 1813 sinking of the Peacock 5 Aug 1813 capture of the Dominica 5 Sept 1813 capture of the Boxer 28 Apr 1814 capture of the Epervier 28 Jun 1814 sinking of the Reindeer 1 Sept 1814 sinking of the Avon 20 Feb 1815 capture of the Levant 20 Feb 1815 capture of the Cyane 23 Mar 1815 capture of the Penguin 11 Dec 1812 capture of the Rachel 25 Mar 1813 privateer Nereyda captured 28 Mar 1813 whaler Barclay 29-Apr - 15 Sep 1813 armed whaler Montezuma Georgiana captured Policy captured Atlantic captured armed whaler Greenwich captured Catherine captured whaler Rose whaler Hector armed privateer Seringapatam Charlton New Zealander whaler Sir Andrew Hammond October 8-11 1813 US raids - Twenty Mile Creek November 26 1813 repeat US raid Twenty Mile Creek September 20 1814 US raids settlements in the Western District July 31-August 1 1813 US re-raids York, burns barracks August 28 1813 British ships detect US raiding party at York, British flee to Burlington October 27 1813 US raid on Frelighsburg October 12 1813 US raid in Missisiquoi Bay October 20 1812 US raid on Odelltown September 20 1813 US skirmishes at Odelltown August 10 1814 officer captured in Odelltown during skirmish October 11-13 1813 US raids in Philippsburg, Mississiquoi bay area January 22 1814 US raids Philippsburg March 22 1814 US captures and occupies Philippsburg October 23 1812 US attacks captures St Regis and 28 guns (artillery) October 4 1812 British revenge attack for Gananoque is repulsed June 26 1813 US repulse of British attack at Pagan Creek July 2 1813 repeat British attack at Pagan creek repulsed March 18 1813 US capture of RN seamen June 10 1813 US repulse of British landing on island on the York river June 22 1813 US repulses landing at Wise Creek July 31 1812 US privateer captures Royal Bounty off Newfoundland September 23 1813 British withdraw from Fort Malden- subsequent US recapture September 29, 1813 recapture of Fort Shelby December 20 1813 US raid at Arnolds Mill July 26 1814 US destroys Burch's Mills May 14-16 1814 US raids at Charlotteville July 25 1814 US raids Charlotteville July 7th 1813 US victory at Butler's Farm (Niagara) July 29 1813 US burns the King George Inn at Burlington October 19 1814 US burns Cook's Mills, destroys 200 bushels of wheat October 6 1813 US captures 6 British schooners in troop convoy - False Ducks August 20-September 6 1814 skirmishes around Fort Erie October 9 1812 US destroys MP brig Detroit, captures PM brig Caledonia December 10 1813 - burning of Newark July 1814, British withdraw from Ft St Joseph, US moves in and burns it, captures schooner November 7 1813 British failure to stop US flotilla at Fort Wellington March 4 1814 US repulse of British attack at De French River October 21 1812 US raid on Gray's Mills November 10 1813 US wins skirmish at Hoople's Creek November 10 1812 Burlington Races August 10-31 1814 Burlington is blockaded May 10 1813 US party overcomes guards, burns supply building - Lake Ontario US schooner Lady of the Lakes captures Lady Murray June 16 1813 US boats capture HM gunboat Blacksnake June 19 1813 May 14-15 1814 US raids Long Point November 6 1814 US raids Malcom's Mills October 7 1813 US burns Moraviantown June 27 1814 US burns newly finished schooner at New Castle December 10 1813 US burns Newark and St David May 28 1813 The British evacuates all posts on the Niagara river August 14 1814 US squadron destroys blockhouse and HM schoon Nancy on the Nottawasaga April 5 1814 US raid on Oxford May 14-15 1814 US raids at Patterson's Creek May 14-15 1814 US raids and burns Dover and Port Ryerse February 1814 US raid on Port Talbot - burned and never rebuilt May 19 1814 US raid on Port Talbot July 20 1814 US raid on Port Talbot August 16 1814 US raid on Port Talbot September 20 1814 US raid on Port Talbot May 26 1813 US seizes British post at Queenston December 11 1813 US burns parts of Queenston July 7 1814 US occupies Queenston July 18 1814 2 US gunboats capture 15 British supply boats and rebel counterattack Rockport July 5 1812 US bombs Windsor July 12 1812 US invades burns Sandwich September 29 1813 US occupies Sandwich, British flee a second time July 21 1814 US burns NW Co Trading Post, captured merchantman Sault Ste Marie July 18 1814 US burns St David July 22 1814 US repulses counterattack at St David July 27 1812 US schoon Julia drives of PM schoons Moira and Gloucester July 31 1812 3 US gigs capture British vessel of the PM RC St Lawrence November 17 1814 US captures 2 gunboats St Lawrence September 14 1813 US raids Sugar Loaf October 2 1813 British fail in the attempt to destroy a bridges on the Thames October 5 1813 US captures British supply boats on the Thames July 9 1814 US skirmish at Thames river January 31 1814 US skirmish captures British detachment October 23-November 16 1814 McArthur's raids in the Thames Valley July-August 1812 privateer Rosie captures Princess Royal, Kitty, Fame, Devonshire, Squid, Brothers, Henry, Race-horse, Halifax, William, Two Brothers, and Jeanie off Nova Scotia June 18 1813 US barges repulse British attempt to take sloops James river June 22 1813 British feint at Lynnhaven Bay repulsed Bet this is only half the list. Now let’s see your list. I’ll wait.

[@norwegianforestgirl8964]

Britain is ASNAC. As islanders, they are a Celtic people but the best Germanic tribes from Norway and Germany moved there so they mixed and became British to make the largest empire

[@TNNR666]

The English are predominantly Germanic with a bit of Brythonic mixed in due to the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians migrating here then intermarrying with the Britons (well those who *didn’t flee to Brittany, Wales and Cornwall). But the rest of the British Isles are predominantly Celtic though, it’s like *we’re* the odd one out in a jigsaw surrounded by Celtic pieces. 😂

[@norwegianforestgirl8964]

@@TNNR666 Scotland has Norwegian dna

[@TNNR666]

@@norwegianforestgirl8964 You’re right! I think the Vikings settled in the Shetland Islands.

[@TNNR666]

@@Redrum7 Not a common myth, but an actual fact supported by recent DNA studies, including Ancestry DNA and a study from Oxford university a few years ago. It varies from region to region, but overall we’re certainly not exactly the same as the Welsh and the Irish who have no Anglo-Saxon influences in their ancestry at all or the Scots. We do have a unique English identity and I never saw this as a bad thing.

[@TNNR666]

@@Redrum7 You’ve just contradicted yourself there, the Brythonic peoples only settled in Wales and England before the Germanic tribes migrated here. They didn’t settle in Ireland or Scotland, so we’re still not the same as you say, are we? And between 10%-40% of AS DNA is a hell of a high number when we consider all the modern migrations that have happened for over a millennium, particularly from within the British Isles. And certainly a lot higher than it is in Wales and Ireland! It’s only as low as 10% in the SW of England in places like Cornwall which means it’s rarer than the 40% figure. That’s what I meant when I said it varies between the regions, but on a national scale it’s much higher. So again, we don’t have exactly the same DNA as the rest of the British Isles. Many more studies support this, England is the least “Celtic” nation of the British Isles and the most Germanic. And you do realise “Scandinavians” were Germanic, right? I think you were thinking about the Vikings, but some of the Anglo-Saxons came from Denmark anyway, so… By your logic, there’s no distinction between either the Britons or the Germanic peoples, right? Cos we’re all from Africa anyway…😂 You don’t know what you’re talking about. England may well have been reformed by the Tudors though I don’t see the relevance of this tbh, but England was its own nation and had its own identity well before that. It was founded by the Anglo-Saxons, who still make up a chunk of our heritage today way more than the Brythonic figure if you read the Oxford study again. It certainly wasn’t a matter of an “entire people being ruled by a foreign monarch who caused divisions” during this period of our history, they *were* the English, especially since the concept of Englishness originated from those tribes. So your Anglophobic argument falls flat to say the least, if anything, the so called “Celtic nations” are more Germanic than they realise, not the other way round…

[@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. 🙄