Great job my friend this is one of your best video, I propose you guys to watch my Denmark video ! Thanks for Ollie for helping me with it !

Awesome video congratulations loved the intro

Length of intro just about right unlike the old one that lasted half a minute

Can you put 3rd part of 30 years wars to your channel(sorry for my bad english)

@@jordanhe7509 Yeah, that's why I stopped using the old one.

I'm really not sure where they're getting the stats from; I suspect it is pure conjecture.

@@dawnof-the-triffids601 I Guess the population status are taked in streech relation with historical events like the rise an fall of the roman empire,the black death atc

Honestly it’s horrifying to see half of Irelands population disappear while England sprints ahead

@Daniel Crutcher with the current state of housing costs in London we could use a snap

Song at 3:30?

Solid trivia find. :)

murat reis was turkish pirate

Check out about the Barbary pirates.. the sack of Baltimore in cork Ireland and how they had an island in the Severn estuary as essentially their own country to launch attacks ...this was 350-400 years ago They triggered the development of the Royal Navy and the creation of the US navy

Sale Republic, ja bro

What did he occupy? I couldn't see it. Google didn't help either

Some of the decrease was due to people emigrating to places like Australia and the US.

@@SxVaNm345 Yeah, but they probably didn't want to leave, they were fighting for survivial.

Evan B I know :(, most of them left because of the potato famine. A very sad time for the Irish, but luckily some of them were able to escape to safety and a new home.

@@SxVaNm345 they emigrated because of the famine

Hurts to see Wales disappear from the map and just be labelled as England.

This video is widely misleading on that score. There was a massive population slump in the few decades following the Roman withdrawal.

Britannia was struck by a plague prior to the invasion of Europeans who could not rebuild the infrastructure.

I mean, Ireland is mainly farmland whereas Scotland is mainly mountains, so... It's a bit like comparing Norway and Sweden. Similar land Area, way different geography, half the population.

genocide, massacres*

@@TheOghuz78 *brutal, horrific famine

Thx

Noticed that too. Great production.

So THAT'S why Salé was briefly on there! I, as an American who knows nothing, was just sitting here wondering why a republic based in Morocco appeared for a split second for the past three years (Also can we just acknowledge the fact that 2020 was three years ago?).

@@Hunter_Gr33n It gets even better, the guy in charge of that whole operation was Jan Janszoon, who was originally a Dutch privateer captured by pirates from North Africa and after converting to Islam became a Muslim Corsair (pirate). The wiki page on him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Janszoon My video with crappy audio if you want a more story style summary based on the wiki page: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ptV0apqmstzYk6s.htmlsi=1krgTfrMcT9BhXtV

bro its not long at all compared to China or the middle east

​@@votesus9819Yeah. China definately have the most complex and interesting history of all countries in the world. One of the oldest civilizations that still exist and better yet, the second most powerful civilization in the curent time 😊

@@votesus9819No shit? An area 32 times the size has a bit more to it? I for one am amazed.

@@TheDrumstickEmpire yes. Ur just agreeing

Good coment 🍀

Prime minister is not the head of state of the UK, The monarch is the head of state so it should be the monarch first followed by the prime ministers above, not only the prime ministers.

@@DavBlc7 totally agreed

@@Dunno1999 Yep, that's why the Queen said in opening of Parliament "My government....etc" in her speech. He is officially called Her Majesty's Prime Minister and Labour leader is called Her Majesty's leader of the Opposition in Parliament. That's why Boris is not the head of state, only head of her Majesty's government.

+

Also it already counts as the UK by that period

According to BBC news report yesterday, Welsh demanding for independence is growing!

@@DavBlc7 It is. Really, it's hovered around one third for the last 500 years (!) The 'second third' are generally undecided - 'it'd be nice but is there really a chance?' Of course, we've always seen the English state as more of a suggestion than an actual government anywhere west of the Severn. It's like ball-lightning or spontaneous combustion. 'I know someone who saw it, it's real'. 'I don't know - did he have a few drinks in him?' :)

I'd have perhaps included representation of Devolution in 1997 as well. Not that momentous back then, but in hindsight I'd argue it has been.

@@DavBlc7 Nah

Correct 100%🇷🇸🦄

Well the name dublin comes from the name Dubh Linn meaning black lake later on leading to the name Dublin

Thanks for coment 🍀 for beutifull islands 🦄🇷🇸

English belongs to the West Germanic branch of the Indo European family. English Milk, Tocharian malke, Latin mulgeo Old Irish melg, Russian moloko, Greek amelgo and so forth. Linguistic, textual, genetic and archaeological evidence for the Out of India Theory of Indo European Languages Baghpat Chariots, Weapons and the Horse in the Harappan Civilization - Dr. BK Manjul kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nMCmftObz7rUl5s.html Findings from the latest genetic study conducted by ASI in collaboration withe Reich Lab at Harvard using the ancient DNA from Rakhigarhi slides at 29:00 mark kzfaq.info/get/bejne/es-fZqihldTQpmg.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pJqHec5hzquvZZ8.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nJZ8mpSTxJ6yZWg.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y915qJaVutnRpI0.html Here are the tribes that spread the Indo European languages from South Asia to West Asia, Central Asia and to Europe Avestan) Afghanistan: Proto-Iranian: Sairima (Śimyu), Dahi (Dāsa). NE Afghanistan: Proto-Iranian: Nuristani/Piśācin (Viṣāṇin). Pakhtoonistan (NW Pakistan), South Afghanistan: Iranian: Pakhtoon/Pashtu (Paktha). Baluchistan (SW Pakistan), SE Iran: Iranian: Bolan/Baluchi (Bhalāna). NE Iran: Iranian: Parthian/Parthava (Pṛthu/Pārthava). SW Iran: Iranian: Parsua/Persian (Parśu/Parśava). NW Iran: Iranian: Madai/Mede (Madra). Uzbekistan: Iranian: Khiva/Khwarezmian (Śiva). W. Turkmenistan: Iranian: Dahae (Dāsa). Ukraine, S, Russia: Iranian: Alan (Alina), Sarmatian (Śimyu). Turkey: Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian: Phryge/Phrygian (Bhṛgu). Romania, Bulgaria: Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian: Dacian (Dāsa). Greece: Greek: Hellene (Alina). Albania: Albanian: Sirmio (Śimyu). Shrikant Gangadhar Talageri talageri.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-rigveda-and-aryan-theory-rational_27.html Five waves of Indo-European expansion: a preliminary model (2018) Igor A Tonoyan-Belyayev I. Tonoyan-Belyayev www.academia.edu/36998766/Five_waves_of_Indo-European_expansion_a_preliminary_model_2018_

@@mkelkar1 j

"English" is a language, not a nation or a race. The language spread on the east coast because it faces our new Germanic and Norse trading partners. It is a pidgin invented to facilitate trade, news and travel in the Baltic region. The earliest work in English is set in Sweden. The main eastern centre for centuries was Edinburgh. As it spreads (much later) it acquires Roman-British phonetics (because the British people who adopted it carried on pronouncing letters the way they were used to) and it turns into "Middle English". For centuries, anyone who could speak english WAS english, because that is all it meant. The "anglo saxon invasion" is a myth. "England" is a myth.

@@kubhlaikhan2015 That theory was insane to begin with and has been utterly discredited by ancient DNA research published a couple of months ago.

@@D.A.99740 Some people desperately want to believe in "race" where all that really exists is perpetual division and unification. Languages are invented by those who need to communicate with strangers, therefore they are evidence of our cultural diversity not uniformity. This is surely self-evident.

I was surprised too when I saw it.

VoidViper Mapping Animation Production lol I am a huge fan of you

and it may soon turn blue again in next few years if SNP win election this year and then win a yes vote for independance.

@@DavBlc7 🇬🇧

i wonder how many times are the Scottish going to hold a referendum that always fails

@@DavBlc7 Pretty unlikely. i think most people in scotland are educated enough to realise leaving the UK wont give them any more freedom. they will just be even more at the beck and call of london because they wont be able to do anything without them. a huge portion of scottish trade comes through mainland england and you really dont want to be leaving the union because all that will happen is london will start to completely ignore scotland and cover it in Tarriffs untill its economy is dead. scotland just doesn't have the population figures to establish its own trade networks.

There was a drop in the English population around the time that the Vikings appeared, and again a drop in population because of the bubonic plague.

@@rainluna9765 and the black death, and ww1 and ww2 and the Spanish flu

Charles Ball It lasted a lot longer then that. QE2 is the high king (queen) of Ireland. Of course that’s not recognised by the RoI though.

Ireland first unified roughly 4th century at the latest but the dates arent certain. Ireland had a strange government system with a High King at the top and beneath him there were 5 provinces with a petty king who controlled the land in their province. Then there was lots of small cheiftens inside these provincs who kept control of there small area of land. And there was no royal family either for the High King, if a small cheiften defeated other small cheiftens in infighting wars ( which often happened ), the chieftan could rise to petty king of the province and then High King if the 4 other petty kings submitted to him. Ireland at this time had the same langage, culture, laws across the country at this stage. Ireland became a very powerful country too around 5th-8th century as the Irish monasteries was the place for people across europe to go to be educated and this is why the Vikings raided the rich monastries so much in the 9th century. Ireland also invaded counties around this time like as you can see in the video western scotland and the Isle of man was Irish territory. Not included in the video was the Irish invasion of wales and cornwall in the 5th century. Ireland also owned Iceland at this time but due to the harsh conditions there it was primarily used for monks to hermit instead of people settling there.

MCFC Fan Yes Ireland had a strange union. It was united but at the same time not united. Hence why Diarmait Mac Murchadha solicited help from the King Henry II of England who refused and then from Earl of Pembroke (Strongbow) who accepted without Henry’s permission.

@@britopia1341 Diarmait didnt do that to unite Ireland, he did it only to regain his throne as king of Leinster. Interesting that king henry II, rejected the request from Diarmait, though. The High-King of Ireland at the time, Ruidarí O'Conchubair, was a very good high-king as well and was undisputed high king of Ireland, like brian boru. He ruled all of connacht and had Lienster, breifne, ossory and meath, strongly part of his High-Kingship. Submissions from thommond and desmond ment he was high-king of all of Ireland except for a portion of ulster but since they did not reject Ruaidarí's Ruaidarí's High-Kingship or put forward their own candidate for high-king this ment Ruaidarí was completly undisputed as high-king bu the time of the english/anglo-norman invasion and he even led an army of 60,000 men to push the english from west-meath back to dublin. He was the last high-king of Ireland and abdicated his position to become a monk.

MCFC Fan You’ve misinterpreted me. I’m not saying he did it to unite Ireland. I’m saying Ireland was already shaky (i.e united but not totally united). Yes King Henry II refused. He had too much on his plate. This opened the door for Strongbow who pretty much went to Ireland behind Henrys back. Once Strongbow plans were kicking in Henry II sanctioned it. But then that meant Henry had to then send his own force. Henry couldn’t afford to let Strongbow gain too much power and influence as it meant there’d be a new kid on the block and a new rival. Thus began the troubles.

It's because of Irish explosive growth in the 18th century.

@@g-rexsaurus794 and the potato famine stopped that growth right?

Bejoy Sen Indeed

@@g-rexsaurus794 the Irish migrants also helped Scotland and England's population grow.

@@brendanhickey2556 But mostly England. Like holy shit they grew fast

Yeah, I noticed Mary II’s absence as well.

Yes under 4 million is untenable for England in 1300-1350. I also have doubts that the Dark age demographic decline continued into the Christian Anglo-Saxon and Viking period. United England in 1000 BCE having less/roughly the same population as divided and largely chiefdom-dominated Celtic England? BTW, shouldn't higher wages mean people marry earlier? Also I imagine the war of the roses also slowed growth.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England

@@g-rexsaurus794 I agree with most of what you said, except that the War of the Roses had a negligible effect on the population. Four or five large pitched battles (and half-a-dozen smaller ones) spread across a quarter of a century, resulting in well under 100,000 deaths, isn't going to make much difference.

I wonder what figures were used for this video. I believe Russell estimated 3.7 million pre black death.

what I didn't understand was why the population of England was falling during the Anglo-Saxon migration/invasion?

The fact that we have soo much historical and archeological information on these tiny states in general is amazing, small states tend to get forgotten, assimilated or lost to time. The only issue is the exact historic formation of advanced states within Scotland and Ireland between the 400s-600s, which is a tricky conclusion to decide upon. I’m a big fan of your channel btw, what upcoming projects do you have planned?

@@SxVaNm345 We have next to no historical information (and only some archaeological evidence) about the petty kingdoms between 410 and c.560, (quite probably because they didn't exist).

He included the Glyndŵr Rising in his first version of this video, I don't know why there's no evidence of it here

Sakkra101 then maybe if a power out of them had united ireland and Britain they would truly be a United Kingdom, with their Common Celtic culture.

@Basil II A British Charlemagne?

And so much chaos, Anglo-Saxons who replaced most of the original Celtic populations, Vikings who were much more brutal, and finally Normans. I can imagine the constant warfare in a rainy medieval Realm.

Prins van Oranje the Anglo saxons ,vikings and Norman were actually the same people, all from the Germanic tribes, but arrived to England in different times.

@@markhenley3097 How the fuck were the vikings MORE brutal then the Anglo-Saxons? The DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of the Anglo-Saxons is their massacres and genocide of the local celtic population to completely replace them! Even the vikings werent this cruel! A Celtic person in Anglo-Saxon kingdoms was equivalent to a Jew in Nazi Germany!

I'm Pole so i can feel that a lot .

The English bring turmoil wherever they go. They split Ireland and they split (Israel/Palestine).Not to mention, the millions they murdered and raped all over the world. May God bring peace and balance to the whole world.

Graham Mullen yeah.... god...

Taping rebellion killed 150 million the Irish famine is nothing

Crazy, if the great famine did not happen in the 19th century, will Ireland have like, 30 million people now?

XD

Idk this reference Can someone tell me plz?

Sounds like a anime

Its a fascinating history , many do not understand or appreciate how Parliament , the right to vote, which was gradually expanded to whole population and individual liberies such as common law improved overtime to promote equality and innovation that benefitted the world

@@TheRst2001 this voting concept is from greece

@@TheRst2001 uk democracy is rigged, the parties pick the candidates, most western democracy is sham, only the US let's ppl pick candidates

But, I have a one question. Where did you had investigated the population?

@@Anwoo yes thanks!. #Rosalina

This is the Metatron speaking

That's what I was thinking. I was wondering where that representation was. And also, I don't think it's fair to just label it all as "United Kingdom" because we are separate countries and that should be represented imo.

@@xotbirdox it is fair. that's what we are called on the world stage

@@andrewmccloud8581 When talking about the history of the British Isles, it's important to make a distinction. We have different histories that yes, sometimes overlap, but if you want to do a timelapse video like this justice, you need to make distinctions between the different countries in order to give every country's history the attention it deserves. Forgetting Owain is just one example of how lumping us together in this video isn't helpful.

​@@xotbirdox Except the overlap here is that we are currently one nation and have been for three hundred years. The Glyndwr's Rising is a separate matter, it was a rebellion; not a constituent state of a nation being represented. Colouring in the map differently doesn't qualify as doing justice to different people or cultures. "Forgetting Owain is just one example of how lumping us together in this video isn't helpful". The rebellion took place three hundred years prior to the Acts of the Union, so I'm not sure if we were really 'lumped together' at this time. You say it is not helpful, but I imagine a considerable amount of confusion would be caused if the Principality of Wales was a different colour to England, who held the area at the time. That is not how these videos are made. The reason the United Kingdom is in this video and not the constituent states is because we share a royal family, a government, laws, and piles of legislation corroborating the inception of the United Kingdom. Everyone watching this knows from the video that these countries came together to form the UK, we don't need to separate them, it'd be more confusing.

@@andrewmccloud8581 We're not one country. We're 4, 5 if you count Cornwall but they unfortunately are not officially recognised in the way that everyone else is. There's a reason it's called the *United* Kingdom because it's meant to be a union of countries, not one country. Wales isn't a principality, it's a country. England had illegally annexed us at the time of Owain and Owain and his followers' uprising should have been portrayed because it was Wales attempting to gain independence. It's important to a history video. We haven't been unbreakably the UK for hundreds of years like you might think, there has been plenty of back and forth, rebellions, close calls, etc. Wales hasn't been a principality since the 1500s but nowhere is that represented either. Wales had no say in the Acts of Union of Scotland and England either because England had illegal control of us without our consent. As for today, we have different governments, different laws, etc. We are a union of 4-5 countries, not one country called the UK. For example, England stupidly lifted all COVID restrictions today but a mask and social distancing are still required in Wales. Wales' vaccine drive is miles ahead of the rest of the UK bc our NHS is an entirely different organisation to the NHSes of England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. We are all different, we are all countries in our own right, and that should be represented. As I'm sure you've guessed, I'm a supporter of Welsh independence but despite the bias, my point still stands. England is not Wales, Wales is not England, and the same goes for Scotland and NI too. We all differ and, especially when showing the history of these isles, that should be made clear, and EVERY uprising, riot, and/or bid for independence should be shown bc otherwise, I don't see it as accurate tbh.

Do you want Scottish independence?

Beetlejuice at the moment I'm neither in favour of against. I just want honesty from the SNP and Tories regarding it, after that I would make my mind up. If there was a referendum tomorrow I probably would vote yes.

Callum McGregor Enthusiast true, there’s stuff being promised which won’t happen should independence happen

What do you mean we havent? Making English the first global language, bringing half the world into the modern era, starting the Industrial Revolution and inventing most things in the world. At least our expansion didnt kill 40 million people around the world and cause the global population to shrink for the first time in history( the mongols). We didnt have a Timurlane. We didnt have a Hitler.

He was there

Went to the site of their old capital (Wheathampstead, Herts) today. Just saw this in my reccomendations, what a coincidence!

Khedive Abbas Hilmi II of Egypt you have to consider things like culture when accounting for things of this nature, history isn't just "Britain was always meant to conquer India" it was a whole series of events and circumstances leading up to that point

I've lost the motivation to continue with it. From now on I'll try not to do series of more than a couple of episodes.

Ollie Bye will you ever go back to it?

@@xaph5575 probably in another thirty years

You forgot the Angevin Empire and North Sea Empire. Also, if you include the colonies, there would be also "English Empire" and later British Empire. Another thing was although Southern Great Britain is accepted, "South Britain" is more appropriate since there's already a term like that in the Internet. You use southERN on a provincial/regional level (ex. Southern United States) while it's only north, east, west, and south on country level (North/South Korea, North/South Vietnam, West/East Pakistan, South Africa, South Sudan, South Ossetia, West/East Germany, etc.)

​@@olidojosephd.9054 "Angevin Empire" is a term that did not exist at that time, it is actually a neologism that historians sometimes use, so it was never an official name for the sovereign state in question. Furthermore, the so-called "Angevin Empire" was a personal union of which the Kingdom of England was a part, not a real union, meaning that the House of Anjou ruled not only over the Kingdom of England, but over other states as well, the point being that the identity of the state referred to in my original comment at that time was still the Kingdom of England, which had never ceased to exist. In other words, "Angevin Empire" is a term applied by historians to the territories pertaining to the House of Anjou that were not the Kingdom of England alone, and not all historians agree with the term. The same happens with the North Sea Empire, it was a personal union, which means that the Kingdom of England did not cease to exist when it was a part of it, it was still the Kingdom of England. Under the argument that a personal union has the status of a sovereign state, then all current Commonwealth realms would necessarily be one sovereign state because they share the same monarch and it would need to be included in the list of my original comment too, which is absurd of course. "English Colonial Empire" and "British Empire" are informal terms applied to the English and British territories throughout history and, even though those terms did exist at that time, they were never used as official names either. The purpose of my comment is to illustrate the evolution of the official name of the state in question, not its territories. If I had used the term "British Empire", then the names of "Kingdom of Great Britain", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" would be suppressed, because they all existed simultaneously with one form or another of the "British Empire". That was not the point obviously. The Internet is not necessarily source of accuracy, in fact, the vox populi is most of the time ignorant, they may prefer "South Britain" instead of "Southern Great Britain" just because it is more esthetic than the former. The most appropriate thing to do is to be consistent in the naming. You say that the terminology of "northern, southern, western and eastern" is applied on a regional level and that of "north, south, west and east" are applied on the national level. This is not always true, but it is most of the time true, you gave good examples, but you forgot, for instance, Northern Cyprus, a de facto state that exists to the north of the island of Cyprus, and even though its existence is illegal, it is nevertheless a state with the term "northern" within its official name. Now, ignoring the case of Northern Cyprus, it is true that "north, south, west and south" are mostly used on the national level and the other terminology on the regional level. You already know that Northern Ireland has such a name because it is a reference to the island and not the state that goes by the same name. Likewise, Great Britain is not a reference to the state, but to the region, in this case, the island of Great Britain, so the terminology of "Southern Great Britain" is more than accurate according to that logic. You may use "South Britan", since "Britain" has always been used as an abbreviation for the entire state, being "South Britain" a reference to England and Wales, excluding Scotland, but it would need to include in the name the term "Northern Ireland, this is, the "United Kingdom of South Britain and Northern Ireland". Even though that would be equally accurate, I still believe that consistency is important and a hypothetical United Kingdom without Scotland would be officially named the "United Kingdom of Southern Great Britain and Northern Ireland", since "Great Britain and Ireland" in this context were always used as reference to the regions, in this case, the islands.

Never going to happen. Expect the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, though.

@@DaDARKPass Well, it almost happened some years ago... Scotland has a right to secede, so it will eventually happen some day, whether one likes it or not.

@@rhinarium3984 it doesn't have a right to secede. no place in the world has a right to secede from their country.

Anglo-Saxon massacres

Watch the documentary 536 - The Worst Year in History. The first outbreak of the bubonic plague, known also as the Plague of Justinian, hit the British Isles via Wales and Cornwall as they were still trading with the Roman/Byzantine Empire. It's considered a factor in how the Anglo-Saxons were able to defeat the Celts.

Not for lack of England's trying.

@@denismawe4394 England trying what? Under British rule both England and Ireland's populations were booming until the famine hit

Almost? England was still far bigger before the famine.

@@DaDARKPass yes but it really exploded after the industrial revolution

@@micahistory And England would've still exploded far more than Ireland during the Industrial revolution.