Was Britain's 18th Century Army Europe's Finest?

Was Britain's 18th Century Army Europe's Finest? | Animated History

Рет қаралды 511,927

Күн бұрын

Get 75% off NordVPN! Only $2.99/mo, plus you get an additional month FREE at nordvpn.org/history
Use codeword: history
Sign up for The Armchair Historian website today:
www.thearmchairhistorian.com/
Ironside Computers - Click here to customize your own PC: ironsidecomputers.com/ *USE DISCOUNT CODE "History" FOR 5% OFF!*
Gilbert, Arthur N. "Law and honour among eighteenth-century British army officers." The Historical Journal 19, no. 1 (1976): 75-87.
Kopperman, Paul E. "" The Cheapest Pay": Alcohol Abuse in the Eighteenth-Century British Army." Journal of Military History 60 (1996): 445-470.
Conway, Stephen. "War and national identity in the mid-eighteenth-century British Isles." The English Historical Review 116, no. 468 (2001): 863-893.
Roberts, N. A., J. W. Brown, and B. Hammett. "A detailed study of the effectiveness and capabilities of 18th century musketry on the battlefield." In Bastions and Barbed Wire, pp. 1-22. Brill, 2009.
Chandler, David G., and Ian Frederick William Beckett, eds. The Oxford history of the British army. Oxford University Press, USA, 2003.
Young, Peter, and James Philip Lawford, eds. History of the British army. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970.
Holmes, Richard. Redcoat: the British soldier in the age of horse and musket. WW Norton & Company, 2002.
Colley, Linda. Britons: forging the nation, 1707-1837. Yale University Press, 2005.
Mallinson, Allan. The Making of the British Army. Random House, 2009.
Athale, Anil A. Struggle for Empire: Anglo-Maratha Wars, 1679-1818. Reliance Publishing House, 2001.‏
Music:
Gustav Holst - Jupiter
The British Grenadiers
Victoria II. Copyright © 2018 Paradox Interactive AB. www.paradoxplaza.com
Antonio Salieri, Twenty six variations on La Folia de Spagna
London Mozart Players
Matthias Bamert, as conductor

Пікірлер: 2 300

@TheArmchairHistorian 5 жыл бұрын

Get 75% off NordVPN! Only $2.99/mo, plus you get an additional month FREE at nordvpn.org/history Use codeword: history ***My cartoon character intro's and conclusions will be replaced in our next video.

@mitchverr9330 5 жыл бұрын

Why did you count the first coalition war as a defeat for the British? They didnt give up, only the mainland nations did and their surrender is why the wars are split as they rejoined and left, the british arguably didnt lose that war because they continued to fight through to the ones after, no?

@daniellastuart3145 5 жыл бұрын

@@arthus4261 which regularly got beat by the British from 1808 to 1815

@Kodiak-on-a-Kayak 5 жыл бұрын

I like how if this was posted by anyone other than the video uploader it'd be spam and the user would get reported. Now on youtube it's the norm to shill out links and spam their users in order to make any money. Thanks KZfaq policy makers!

@robertjarman3703 5 жыл бұрын

The Armchair Historian A professional army was also viewed with skepticism, as it was associated with authoritarian monarchs and wannabe kings like Oliver Cromwell. The navy was fine, but trying to repress the British population with a standing army was not tolerated, not least by Parliament. The UK was mostly peaceful within itself, except for Ireland, and so a large army wasn't that useful for domestic security. When Robert Peel's police were created, a great deal of effort went into making sure that they were not seen as soldiers, because the typical lack of a military in cities was regarded as a longstanding freedom of the British constitution.

@keirgaming8783 5 жыл бұрын

All I’m gonna say is who controlled the ‘British’ empire which was argued to be the biggest empire in human existence

@InquisitorThomas 5 жыл бұрын

Clearly Lichtenstein had Europe's finest army, no other nation has a negative kill death ratio.

@toymationstudios8613 5 жыл бұрын

Yeah they came back with a friend Instead of their men dieing they got a soldier *NEGATIVE CASUALTIES*

@hf3923 5 жыл бұрын

@British National Conservative mate enjoy the joke and stop trying to ruin our fun

@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin 5 жыл бұрын

360 no scoping ALL OVER the sprawling 10 acres of their glorious MAJESTIC territory of splendor.

@Jay-vy5jg 5 жыл бұрын

Negative KDR okay...

@dontuseyourcellulardata7599 5 жыл бұрын

Inquisitor Thomas one could argue that the mongols had a negative k/d

@Doominator99 5 жыл бұрын

*Angrily sips tea while eyeing Prussia*

@boahkeinbockmehr 5 жыл бұрын

*Angrily sips beer while eyeing back*

@karandullet380 5 жыл бұрын

Doominator99 *Angrily Ships Spices while.....getting ready for a revolution*

@tclem14 5 жыл бұрын

Pooping in fine French porcelain regretting things

@ganqian3234 5 жыл бұрын

Great English comment

@trygveblacktiger597 5 жыл бұрын

*Laughs in Prussian*

@aquilatempestate9527 5 жыл бұрын

"The British Army should be a projectile to be fired by the British Navy"

@karandullet380 5 жыл бұрын

Simon Brian 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@wtpiv6041 5 жыл бұрын

Sorry all I picture is a soldier being rammed into a canon yelling “tally ho lads” and being fired across the channel.

@andystrachan598 5 жыл бұрын

"The British Army is a bullet fired by the Royal Navy." - Admiral Sir John 'Jackie' Fisher

@delondestan8961 5 жыл бұрын

For the American Revolution, without the French, nothing could be possible.

@GAndreC 5 жыл бұрын

Not to mention other european trainers since the largest American army would had died of dysentery without them

@paologarcia2138 5 жыл бұрын

Don't forget the mighty Spanish

@ChristianAuditore14 5 жыл бұрын

France lost themselves to help america

@josemiguelcaballerorestrep2101 5 жыл бұрын

America: France help me. France: can't, I'm broke. America: it's against the British. France: *rushes across the Atlantic*

@dumbdeep3036 5 жыл бұрын

@@josemiguelcaballerorestrep2101 Then proceeds to economically collapse after the war and French Revolution!

@evaristegalois6282 5 жыл бұрын

“Was Britain's Army Europe's Finest?” _Sir Savage the 21st is typing..._

@anthonyt7673 5 жыл бұрын

Evariste Galois why do i keep seeing you everywhere, first misinformed, then drew durnil, now the armchair historian. This is getting out of hand.

@AntiTMG 5 жыл бұрын

Are you the new Justin Y and Guy with a mustache

@Novusod 5 жыл бұрын

Britain's 18th century army was "good" but their 19th century army was much better. England's high water mark was between 1815 to 1939. When England defeated Napoleon at Waterloo it proved the British army was the best in the world. That pretty much remained the case until Dunkirk. The title of World's best army briefly shifted to the Nazis at the start of WW2 and then power shifted to America and the USSR as the war drew to a close.

@boahkeinbockmehr 5 жыл бұрын

@@Novusod i disagree with that assessment. In the second half of the mentioned time frame prussia defeated 2 world powers and Denmark, which wasn't to shabby either at the time, in rapid succession and had the most modernized army and infrastructure for it in the world. From the 1860s onward the prussian/ imperial army was probably the best in the world, revolutionizing and creating modern warfare by observing closely and deducting the lessons learned of the U.S. civil war. Also Napoleon wasn't defeated by the british alone (though they admittedly took on the leading role in the final battle and some prior), but, just like with hitler more than a century later, by a coalition of pretty much all other major European powers including russia, prussia and eventually even austria.

@RickonAndShaggydog 5 жыл бұрын

@@boahkeinbockmehr Yes for the latter quarter of the 19th century, the Prussian Army definitely takes the lead in doctrine and modernisation. Whether it was overall better than the British Army at the time was hard to tell. But bring it forward to just after the Boer Wars and the British Army takes the lead again in tactical modernisation learning from the mistakes of those wars. This showed in 1914 when the British Expeditionary Force inflicted huge casualties on the Germans. The British Army prior to WW1 and in the initial year was considered the best army in the world.

@BrandonF 5 жыл бұрын

American Textbooks: "The British army at the start of the Revolution was the most disciplined and British regulars were effectively emotionless robots following their orders" Battle of Lexington: *Happens*

@hanz2904 5 жыл бұрын

Eeh i mean the fact that the british had to send soldiers to a colony half across the world really downgrades their effectiveness because reinforcements would have to arrive late

@AustonMatthewsFitnessOfficial 5 жыл бұрын

Greetings Brandon, I love your videos.

@eldorados_lost_searcher 5 жыл бұрын

@@AustonMatthewsFitnessOfficial Your Majesty, are you in the mood to wear your teapot or crown today?

@joseph.wolf. 5 жыл бұрын

Brandon, the British WON at Lexington...

@jed-henrywitkowski6470 5 жыл бұрын

@Daniel Byrne *Liberal, Commie sympathizing college kids.

@404Dannyboy 5 жыл бұрын

The British had one of the most disciplined and professional armies in the world but it was also one of the smallest European armies as most of Britians focus went into their navy. High quality with low quantity.

@kanegreen7677 4 жыл бұрын

It's still High quality low quantity to this day

@britshseniorsergeant2099 3 жыл бұрын

Prussia:*pathetic*

@bebased1785 3 жыл бұрын

It’s pure common sense why the British invested more in their navy. And it payed off. Without Britain’s grand navy Napoleon would have trampled over the British army.

@AeneasGemini 3 жыл бұрын

@@bebased1785 Not that simple mate, but yeah the navy was a huge asset

@shakes.dontknowwhatyergettin 2 жыл бұрын

More like low quality and low quality.

@guntherdoesaliltrolling5757 5 жыл бұрын

Britain's army is no match for Prussia 150% discipline

@jaywilliams9294 5 жыл бұрын

Prussian army are no match to British Tea *150%*

@alganhar1 5 жыл бұрын

@hu1a121 Though people do like to forget that America mobilised a total of 400,000 men to fight and defeat a force that never numbered more than 45,000 at its height....

@warmonster12345 5 жыл бұрын

Like that amount of discipline will do anything when you can't even reach the Isles.

@toymationstudios8613 5 жыл бұрын

@@alganhar1 I know this and plus the British couldn't go to far from the coast

@7000_Skeletons 5 жыл бұрын

Because one small aspect of an army is all you need...?

@villageintheshire 5 жыл бұрын

There is a well used maxim ... "During the war's Britain has been involved in, they never win a battle ... until the last one"

@feliscorax 3 жыл бұрын

This speaks to the great ability of the British Army to learn - from its own mistakes as well as its enemies’ successes. That’s the secret to its success, really.

@Elongated_Muskrat 5 жыл бұрын

They were the best dressed at least.

@OTEP1234567891011 5 жыл бұрын

mr guderian Absolutely not. The best dressed military of all time was the SS officers.

@AustonMatthewsFitnessOfficial 5 жыл бұрын

@@OTEP1234567891011 Fuck germany

@mitamajr 5 жыл бұрын

@@OTEP1234567891011 Totenkopf hussar beats both in terms of looks.

@Elongated_Muskrat 5 жыл бұрын

@@OTEP1234567891011 Talking about the 18th Century, like the video.

@tonytouchzz 5 жыл бұрын

chemistrycounts got to agree ss were pretty cool, their cloths were designed and made by Hugo Boss too though.

@peterosborne8315 5 жыл бұрын

I mean I'm a pretty patriotic brit and even I don't think we had the best in the world. I think it's just America trying to make themselves feel better about themselves.

@prouddegenerates9056 5 жыл бұрын

Nope, we won because of France/Spain supports and astonishing British incompetence, your leadership was so focused on prestige and tradition, they became openly disobedient.

@peterosborne8315 5 жыл бұрын

Michael Rogers Yeah but the point is the majority of both our populations don't know that...

@cruzefrank 5 жыл бұрын

It's kind of crazy how the tables have turned. A couple centuries later the US becomes the nation with the most powerful military. In the US infancy if France and Spain didn't help the US, the US would have lost and the world would be a different place today.

@maximumfun1078 5 жыл бұрын

Maybe they just thought of the prussian mercenaries who fought for britain in the war and the statement is just a simplification of that?

@hottestcheese7973 5 жыл бұрын

Peter Osborne I think we definitely had by far the best navy

@playboygoss 5 жыл бұрын

Certainly not, Britain had the most powerful fleet in the world, but certainly not the army. The French army, the Prussian army, the Russian army (under catherine II) were much better.

@hanz2904 5 жыл бұрын

Idk what is it with russia after Peter the great and Catherine they never managed to modernize even in soviet times it was lacking

@dogestranding5047 5 жыл бұрын

Alpha Ultima 1st French Empire Grande Armée was best

@MrKILLINOOBZ 5 жыл бұрын

@@hanz2904 yes but they were hot on the heels of modernizing the entire time. Russian artillery was especially powerful during the 18th century

@MrKILLINOOBZ 5 жыл бұрын

@@hanz2904 and the Soviets were one of the most modern and powerful militaries in the world next to the US. Where the US won the cold war was with economics, communism just isn't viable for economic growth.

@IRTG2006 5 жыл бұрын

I completely agree with you, although Britain had a vast empire and great fleet the actual army itself was lacking. Prussia, France and other nations had much better militaries.

@Raz.C 5 жыл бұрын

Hi Mr. Historian My name is Random Person and I'd like to complain about your clickbait-y channel!! I've gone through and watched every one of your videos and I haven't seen a single one in which you espouse the rich and storied history of armchairs

@daveharrison7707 4 жыл бұрын

I agree. I am an armchair enthusiast, I have watched many of your videos and you make no reference to armchairs in any of them.

@jamestownsend2095 3 жыл бұрын

😂🤣

@j.b.708 4 жыл бұрын

the claim was "the British Soldier was the finest." not the army, not the leadership, or organization. You said yourself that the British Soldier was one of the best trained at the time.

@vanlao6367 4 жыл бұрын

British soldier was one of the best trained of the time, that is true. The problem is that most people only look at that aspect and think " that's why the whole British army of the 18th century must have been the best in the world to create an Empire ", when it was the Royal Navy who do the heavy works.

@cseijifja 4 жыл бұрын

@@vanlao6367 and every time it met the french conscript in the napoleonic wars it got quite the tussle, battles were more often than not not really down to the quality of the soldier, the officers were not anything to write home about, quite a bunch of imbeciles actually, even if the infatryman was good.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- 3 жыл бұрын

@Akshay 786 And we don't? 17 years in Iraq, 13 years in Afghanistan?

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- 3 жыл бұрын

@Akshay 786 It's also the British who were deployed to both theatres so no.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- 3 жыл бұрын

@Paul Thomas Johnson It's all about context really, the best trained yes, not the largest though.

@peoplesyoutubechannels5379 3 жыл бұрын

"THE FRENCH ARMY IS STRONGER, BUT I BELIEVE THE ROYAL NAVY WILL TURN THE TIDE !"-Some random red coat soldier in Assassins creed Rouge.

@XXXTENTAClON227 3 жыл бұрын

Glad someone mentioned this. Can’t believe me and Shay weren’t credited with singlehandedly winning the seven years war, awful video.

@IronClover15 5 жыл бұрын

Prussia would like to have a word with you

@scriba5777 5 жыл бұрын

You stole my comment

@JjjCDsjsjshs 5 жыл бұрын

@Caped Crusader yeah they were really good at shooting natives who were armed with spears

@Schmidty1 5 жыл бұрын

@Caped Crusader did you even watch the video? Land conquered doesn't relate to quality on it's own.

@mabussubam512 5 жыл бұрын

@Caped Crusader Mongolian empire might have a word with your statement.

@iranianazerbaijani9060 5 жыл бұрын

@Caped Crusader it's good to conquer savages, but against a European army it's something else.

@ILikedGooglePlus 5 жыл бұрын

I think it's just the USA wanting to feel even better on their success, you know, a real underdog story. Much like how the West sees Germany in WWII. It real makes victory feel that much better, when in fact it was pretty much guaranteed from the start

@user-tk9fm2sw5g 3 жыл бұрын

Are you saying it was guaranteed because of the seven year war debt and the french sponsor

@cseijifja 2 жыл бұрын

it was very likely when the french joined, it was guaranteed once spained joined, The brtiish couldnt evne reinforce their own armies in america after it, and american spanairds (who would be latin americans in the future) ripped trough the missipi and tore open the western front from the british. The french uncharacteristically defeatd the british at chesapeak bay, wich allowed wht happened in yorktown to happen.

@NoName-hg6cc 2 жыл бұрын

You mean like uk, claiming it was the lonely underdog vs Nazi Germany when its victory was guaranteed by USA?

@ILikedGooglePlus 2 жыл бұрын

@@NoName-hg6cc By the Soviet Union, but sure. Maybe if US public schools were funded and not just the military, you'd have the reading comprehension to see the line: "Much like how the West sees Germany in WWII". Nationalism rots the brain.

@NoName-hg6cc 2 жыл бұрын

@@ILikedGooglePlus maybe YOU should learn how to read: I specifically refereed to uk, who's the only one who boast this narrative ps: I'm not American

@TheCJUN 5 жыл бұрын

When asked what he would do if British troops landed, Otto Von Bismarck replied 'I shall have them arrested'.

@hottestcheese7973 5 жыл бұрын

Ha I don’t think the old cunt would still be saying that at the end of WW1 and 2

@orphydianhistory7822 5 жыл бұрын

When more exactly said that ?

@hottestcheese7973 5 жыл бұрын

Pepe the Frog what the British do huge attacks to during WW1 look at Gallipoli, the Somme or Pashendale

@GAndreC 5 жыл бұрын

@Luke Harvey flip that around they were superior at the beginning as they were professional soldiers while the other powers were composed mainly of levies. By the end they were on par or slightly below par with the continental nations

@ScouserLegend 5 жыл бұрын

@@GAndreC The BEF was a very small but professional fighting army at the start of WW1. By the end of it I would say the British had one of the best, if not thee best army after years of trial and error. They brought about tank warfare and the Germans developed the Blitzkrieg from British tactics but the British never perfected the rolling artillery barrage before advancing troops till late on in the war.

@cahoutcharles961 4 жыл бұрын

Jeffery Amherst is actually an important figure in Canadian history. He was a general in the British Army who was put in charge of a temporary government in the early 1760's after Canada was handed over to the British by the French. All freshmen in high schools in Quebec learn about him.

@domitiusseverus1 5 жыл бұрын

Minden, 1759 is one of the British Army’s greatest achievements to my mind - very often overlooked

@exundfluriba 5 жыл бұрын

Fauntenoy not so much...lol

@doug6500 5 жыл бұрын

@@exundfluriba Lol. Feature that in amongst a host of victories that would not have been possible without the resolute and stoic robustness of British infantry and even Fauntenoy doesn't look that bad. The Anglo-Allied force had to attack up hill into a morass of positions defended in depth and very nearly broke through and won. Compare that with Minden for example where in British infantry in LINE FORMATION stopped and defeated 3 massive lines of France's best and most elite cavalry... yeah you can keep your Fauntenoy.

@originalkk882 4 жыл бұрын

@@doug6500 True about Minden, but it is Fontenay, not Fauntenoy (or Fauntleroy!).

@keithorbell8946 4 жыл бұрын

Yes, infantry charging and breaking cavalry was unheard of. The French could believe it.

@keithorbell8946 4 жыл бұрын

Mind you, the British Cavalry commander at Minden didn’t exactly cover himself in glory (he refused to advance in support of the British and Hanoverian infantry who were turning some of the best French infantry and cavalry regiments into mincemeat!)

@7000_Skeletons 5 жыл бұрын

What a lot of people forget is that the peak of the British Empire was actually during the early 20th century. The competition between the European powers at the time of the American Revolution was much tighter than it was during the Victorian era which is probably the UK's golden age.

@DiplexHeated 5 жыл бұрын

Didnt Sweden have the most capable army during the early 18th century?

@TheArmchairHistorian 5 жыл бұрын

Hi Duplex. Sweden did have an exceptional army during the 17th and 18th centuries. Unfortunately, when Gustavus Adolphus fell, so too did Sweden’s military record. Although their decline was gradual, it was solidified by their defeat against Russia in the great northern war.

@arrielradja5522 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheArmchairHistorian ahh when people invade Russia ded

@axel-fu9hx 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheArmchairHistorian What a bunch of horseshit. Did you just make that up?

@paul_5848 3 жыл бұрын

@@axel-fu9hx Pre & during Gustavo, establishment of a Baltic and Eastern European hegemony. Defeating rivals of Poland and Denmark the previous regional powers peaking in the middle of the Great Northern War. Post Gustavo 2 new rivals in the rising powers of Russia & Prussia which lead to Sweden losing the majority of wars against these and with that their baltic possessions even though Sweden most performed well during these wars the rivals were just too much.

@michealohaodha9351 3 жыл бұрын

@@paul_5848 "peaking in the middle of the Great Northern War" - I think this is the point axel is trying to make. Regardless of the end result Swedish armies were comprehensively defeating Russians, Poles, Danes etc during the early-mid part of the Great Northern war (Narwa, Kliszow, Fraustadt etc) showing great efficiency. In the face of this while Swedish military capacity declined during the latter stages of the war to say that " when Gustavus Adolphus fell, so too did Sweden’s military record" seems a bit odd.

@eldorados_lost_searcher 5 жыл бұрын

Your animation quality is improving by leaps and bounds. I especially liked the musket drill. The individual movements were exceptionally rendered. Keep up the great work!

@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns 5 жыл бұрын

The answer is really yes and no. A century is 100 years long and many nations were the best some time in the 19th century at different times. The British Army was the best in Europe for much of the War of the Spanish Succession but at varying levels of competence at other times, generally getting worse as the century progressed. During the American War of Independence it's considered to have been at a low, so much so it had a major reform after the war. In fact it was John Moore's 1790s reforms that made it so effective in the Napoleonic Wars.

@francisgilbert6982 4 жыл бұрын

British power was not at a low during the War of Insurrection, but American Historians have painted that picture as a way to misdirect from the truth. Do you honestly think that a bunch of Farmers could have single handedly defeated the most powerful force on earth? Keep in mind that the British defeated other powerful European Armies beforehand. They defeated the Dutch for New York. They defeated the French for Canada and some of the Caribbean. They defeated Spain for the majority of the Caribbean. When Washington crossed the Delaware he decided to attack a small regiment size force not any of the other full sized armies in the Area Remember Washington was an officer in the British army, he delivered the Eviction letter to France. The reason they chose him to lead the rebels is because of his position in the regular army. He knew that the only chance he had to to attack the small regiment. And with the French help he won the Battle.

@rickwalker2 4 жыл бұрын

It was the Duke of York when he took the post as Commander in Chief who really reformed the Army, especially the Officer Corps. He should take much of the credit for providing the effective fighting force Wellesley was able to wield during the Iberian Peninsular War.

@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns 4 жыл бұрын

@@rickwalker2 Duke of York definitely modernised the antiquated establishment, Moore's contribution was more on how soldiers were trained and were organised tactically.

@lahire4943 2 жыл бұрын

The British army was not the best in Europe for much of the War of the Spanish Succession, at all. Unless you call the Austrian-Prussian-Hanoverian-Hessian-Dutch-British army the British army. At Oudenarde, there were only 12 squadrons of English and Scottish horsemen on a total of 72 squadrons and only 8 battalion out of 45. At Malplaquet, the British losses were 2,000, on a total of up to 25,000 allied losses. Same proportions for Ramillies and Oudenarde. Also, the allied army was dominant between 1704 and 1708. The French were dominant between 1701 and 1703, and 1709 and 1714. That's much of the war.

@noidea5984 2 жыл бұрын

The best but needed to be 4 against France... Doubt

@rohancook8588 5 жыл бұрын

You 'coincidentally' forgot to mention the French and Spanish support to America in the War of Independence which in the long run was a huge factor in the victory. Lots of money and supplies as well as providing troops. And in all fairness you've made a general statement that the British Army was not the best period, but only cite one period to maintain this...I think it always fluctuated but there's no doubt that the majority of the time Britain won all our battles esp. 19th century.

@julianerikson4191 5 жыл бұрын

It wasn't the best.

@comradedangerfield 5 жыл бұрын

this video isnt talking about the 19th century numbnuts

@lyndoncmp5751 4 жыл бұрын

@@julianerikson4191 There were none better.

@paulfitz-george881 4 жыл бұрын

There's also the small matter that France actually bankrupted itself with the amount it spent propping up the American insurrection, so it was a Pyrrhic victory for them. And of course 1812 saw a British army of Canadian citizens push the Americans back across the border and we burnt their capital to the ground to boot. I smell the whiff of revisionist history here, totally amazing we actually controlled 1/3 of the world? Some even say it was an accident? Good job we were there later in 1914 and 1939 or those clever Prussians you keep going about would be writing this missive?

@afisto6647 3 жыл бұрын

@@paulfitz-george881 I wonder who is the revisionist here. Next time what you will say ? British colonial empire was the largest one ? What a joke. 1/3 ? This is what they teach in your North Korea like History classes ? In reality 21%, in your head 35%. 3 empires actually are empires were the sun never set, the French one (even today) the British one and Spanish one, and of course in Britain they said only the British one... In Europe they said than the Mongol Empire in the largest one, and of course the British said the complete otherwise. I know how it works, you lose a battle, in 20 years this is a draw and in 40 years this is a victory. You cowardly retreat from a battle, in 20 years this is a withdraw, and in 40 this is the allies who were the cowards...

@nap0038 5 жыл бұрын

That orchestral version of “I Vow Thee to my Country” woke something in me. And I’m not even british

@lordcharles9786 3 жыл бұрын

It’ll do that to you

@playboygoss 5 жыл бұрын

Certainly not, Britain had the most powerful fleet in the world, but certainly not the army.

@playboygoss 5 жыл бұрын

@I liek eggs No. No. No., Napoleon was defeated by a coalition, and especially by Russia and Prussia (Battle of Leipzig 1813) Even during the Napoleonic Wars the power of Great Britain was its fleet, not its army

@playboygoss 5 жыл бұрын

@I liek eggs When Napoleon came to Spain, he easily defeated the British and Spanish (the British even fled several times, Moore and Wellington left Spain to go back to Britain), it started to go wrong because of the intense guerrilla warfare and the failed Russian campaign, Napoleon was already in danger in Germany, since the Russian campaign he started losing, his defeat was largely due to Prussia and Russia, as well as to Austria. It can also be noted that Great Britain never fights alone against a European power, for example the Crimean War, Great Britain's performance was horrible, while France's was very good, it was the French who took sebastopol.

@1lordho 5 жыл бұрын

@@playboygoss Not True. Moore had to leave spain with his army, not Wellington. Wellington won every battle against the french during the campaign, only once did he outnumber them every other battle he was outnumbered. Every French marshal that was sent to spain/portugal lost to him.

@playboygoss 5 жыл бұрын

@@1lordho That's not true, He lost a lot of battles, but which was not decisive He was at the Battle of Boxtel (French victory) He lost the Battle of Pombal He lost the Battle of Tordesillas The second Siege of Badajoz, but his worst defeat is the siege of burgos. The battle of tordesillas was a big tactical and strategic defeat for Wellington Wellington struggled in carrying out his retreat because he had not secured Tordesillas nor the bridge over the Douro River. The 1812 campaign was one of Wellington's worst campaigns and his retreat from Madrid was disastrous. The only reason it did not break Wellington was because Soult was being extremely overcautious. Had Soult made a general pursuit then Wellington's army would have likely been destroyed because Wellington had not accounted for supply depots even nearby within Portugal. But to the fury of the French soldiers and officers, Soult failed to order an attack So yes, the battle of Tordesillas was a major defeat, and it had great consequences, but the French failed to exploit this defeat. At the same time, most of the French army was in Germany (not in spain) fighting against the Russians and Prussians.

@GAndreC 5 жыл бұрын

The Peninsular War shifted against France due to the inability to deal with the guerrila conflict. The battles were markers but the small actions played a more significant role in the overall campaign

@AEIOU05 5 жыл бұрын

Could you do a video about the Austrian and the French armies of the 18th century too? The french was pretty much the role model on how to run an army before the Prussian army took over that role and the Austrian army achieved astonishing victories against the Ottomans and even Fredrick II and the army reforms of Maria Theresia are also quite interesting.

@brokenbridge6316 4 жыл бұрын

Loved this video. It was really informative. I liked it a lot. That and I'm really starting to love the animation aspects too. Nice job guy.

@gaiuscaligula2229 4 жыл бұрын

The main thing that makes the British Army stand apart from other continental armies of the 18th century is that it was filled with volunteers rather than conscripts. The army had some major short comings though, in particular the chain of command was filled almost exclusively with people who purchased their commission rather than earning it (as opposed to the Royal Navy who was staffed with officers who achieved their posistion through merit).

@gaiuscaligula2229 4 жыл бұрын

@Dod o Sure, though the best soldier in the world wouldn't have been able to get very far if they couldn't purchase their commission. Being "verified" isn't a substitute for proper military training.

@FieldMarshalYT 5 жыл бұрын

The British army was no doubt well defined, but it couldn't match up to the far more rigorous and disciplined French and Prussian armies at the time. Often Britain had foreign troops alongside them as well. Edit: Also, the Spanish Succession was more of a stalemate than a victory for either alliance involved.

@James-st9uu 3 жыл бұрын

Gibraltar suggests otherwise.

@RUNtvHD 3 жыл бұрын

Didn’t the British end the Napoleonic Empire?

@zeitscar1486 3 жыл бұрын

@@RUNtvHD with the help of the Coalition ofc

@lahire4943 2 жыл бұрын

@@RUNtvHD They ended it by financing coalitions yes

@robertevbayekha6639 2 жыл бұрын

@@zeitscar1486 7 years war?

@stringer-ik1pc 3 жыл бұрын

When you look at that little island on a map of the world and realise its achievements. Wow.

@blomakranz 5 жыл бұрын

I've been watching you for quite a long time now and I must say this intro you have now is just amazing. Looking back on your old videos you can see that your animations have gotten better and better, but the best part you always manage to deliver topics and spesific battles in interesting detailed way and it's getting better over time

@cheshirecatastrophe9089 5 жыл бұрын

Reads title. "Yes it was." Continues to sip tea.

@Janoip 4 жыл бұрын

lel no

@imbetterthanyou6927 5 жыл бұрын

Man, I love Britain and Prussia so much.

@matthewdavies2945 3 жыл бұрын

Britain's navy and prussian army would be unstoppable

@Swift-mr5zi 3 жыл бұрын

@@matthewdavies2945 7 years war boiiiii

@drunkcatphil9911 3 жыл бұрын

Imagine a pan Germanic Union. Insanely OP.

@robertevbayekha6639 3 жыл бұрын

Wait what about France

@robertevbayekha6639 2 жыл бұрын

Nvm

@SuperLusername 5 жыл бұрын

As a continental European I wasn't even aware of the fact that there is a myth of British army dominance at any point in history. I as Croatian have always been taught of French, German (Prussian/Austrian), Russian and Ottoman army might. I mean, never, at any point in European history have the British ever come close to dominating at least portions of (continental) Europe, let alone threatening to conquer all of it like the French, Germans, Austrians (trough war and diplomacy), Russians or Ottomans have.

@mitchverr9330 5 жыл бұрын

The British (well English) at one point owned more of France then France did, however got a little unlucky in that the king that won that died on campaign taking the other half then the kings after him were.... well, really really really bad, like, so bad that a good 50-100 years of consistant infighting happened. As for later, the British never wanted to rule in Europe, it had the stratagem of keeping it disunited and thus would side with anyone against anyone else whom was getting too strong, in this they helped cripple or curb the power of most superpowers of Europe, they are forgotten in this because they would fight at sea embargoing the nations they didnt like mostly and only landed on the mainland when it was in defence of an ally like Portugal or the Dutch.

@bilbobaggins4785 5 жыл бұрын

We didn't, we just had a superb navy. The myth come from Americans patting themselves on the back over the revolution. That's why the myth only exists in America

@justafaniv1097 5 жыл бұрын

I think it has more to do with the fact Britain focused more on a "professional" army vs. Conscript army. So 1v1 I think there is a perception that the average British soldier was better, but most continental armies were far larger, with far more conquest under their belt (European conquest, that is)

@ea.fitz216 5 жыл бұрын

Look up the Angevin Empire.

@DudeOnYutube 5 жыл бұрын

I consider the 100 years war to be a french civil war. The king of England was a vassal of the king of France, spoke french and used both french and english soldier. Also at the time France had 15+ millions people while England had like 3 millions. If the english crown had won the 100 years war, it would have means the assimilation of England into France and you would probably be speaking french today.

@yourlocalt72 5 жыл бұрын

Prussia is always best long live %150 discipline

@kimok4716 5 жыл бұрын

@@Fyrdman Well you have to be bad tongued to say that holding against Austria Russia and France for years is piss poor.

@ryan7864 5 жыл бұрын

@@Fyrdman Eh...not entirely fair characterization. The Prussian Army under Frederick the Great was undeniably the greatest of the 18th century in overall categories. There performance in the Seven years war was remarkable considering the odds against them. However, they did get trounced by Napoleon in 1806, but he was a legitimate genius who was borderline super human. It wasn't really a fair fight.

@kimok4716 5 жыл бұрын

@@Fyrdman Prussia was on the brink of collapse true. And it started the war to prevent an attempt of Austria from taking Silesia back (I think). But had any other nation at this time faced such a coalition in continental europe, it would have fell before the Czar died. I am not event german btw

@Sandouras 5 жыл бұрын

Prussia's manpower and wealth were exhausted after Frederick's wars. Also, France was much more powerful, populated and wealthy than tiny Prussia and Napoleon was a superhuman genius, unmatched at this time. His armies walked circles around anything Austria, Prussia, England and Russia threw at him.

@goughrmp 5 жыл бұрын

Napoleon rang. He wants half your territory

@justAlbert_ 5 жыл бұрын

"it could use its navy to starve its enemy" *ww1 turnip winter flashbacks*

@briancline7349 5 жыл бұрын

I’d always thought of France’s army as the best army during the time period in question.

@hadrianbuiltawall9531 5 жыл бұрын

The German soldiers in the American war of independance where not actually mercenaries. The English King George was the king of Britain and also (reliatively independantly) the king of Hanover, a german state. They served him as their liege just the same as the british troops did. Even during the Napoleonic wars that ended in 1815, the was still german soldiers (kings german legion) serving in the british army. The british army STILL has non-british units in it who don't fall under the UN rules for mercenaries.

@matthewmelange 5 жыл бұрын

Was it really more efficient to have a non talking animation of yourself versus just filming yourself talking to the camera?

@capnceltblood5347 5 жыл бұрын

It was said that the "British Army is merely a projectile to be fire by the British Navy"

@doug6500 5 жыл бұрын

Given that the British Army existed on a shoe string budget, was seconded to the navy in technology, resources and quality man power, had an elitist commissioning system and was deliberately kept small to align with internal politics stemming from an innate fear of a military government..., I think it did pretty fucking well in all honesty. What other army can boast to have spearheaded the defeat of Napoleons best Marshall's in something like 10 straight pitched battles? Or defeated 3 attacks of some of France's BEST cavalry at Minden in LINE FORMATION? Or defended North America with barely a garrison in 1812? Or held Gibraltar indefinitely right under the nose of an enemy power? But like any Army worth mentioning in the 'Age of Empire' it suffered reverses and harsh learning lessons. The British Army was never, by design, meant to sweep all before it on the European continent; it was meant to facilitate the projection of British diplomatic/political policy which was primarily based around establishing a worldwide (trade) Empire and maintaining a balance of power on the European continent. I do laugh at all these butt hurt people that get so upset about the British. It is unlike any other army; it's development and utilisation was and is wholly unique and I honesty think that some people are just so bitter about that.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- 5 жыл бұрын

@Doug Spencer If Britain had armies the size of Napoleons, Britain would have seized all of the continent!

@louish8943 3 жыл бұрын

This is one of the greatest comments I have ever read!

@jerec1267 5 жыл бұрын

so americans are being hyperbolic to try and make their struggle seem more difficult and heroic than it actually was? shocking

@brando1919 5 жыл бұрын

Guy, it was a few centuries ago, let it go.

@blackerpanther3329 5 жыл бұрын

Man, brits are still so angry that they got butt fucked by big American penis

@CrazyNikel 5 жыл бұрын

Oh man you lazy spoiled western eurostans are just embarrasing yourselves. You guys all stalk U.S. videos on a *U.S. site* Ahaha

@ENoob 5 жыл бұрын

@@blackerpanther3329 Actually no. In my 9 years of history classes we didn't cover the american war of independence even once. It's not even a small part of British history, or even a part of British Identity today. Obviously it is central to American Identity.

@blackerpanther3329 5 жыл бұрын

LJAR of course you wouldn’t, it would be embarrassing to the English to study such a devastating loss to the empire, and to a bunch of untrained yet a strong willed people. Your nation would rather live in ignorant bliss than face the truth. Enjoy living in the shadow of the US and not being a relevant nation on the world stage :)

@luisfernandosantosn 5 жыл бұрын

Poor french, prussian and austrian armies for not speaking or to be written of in english

@unbonfrancophone1539 4 жыл бұрын

What ?

@niklasmorningstar4301 3 жыл бұрын

What?

@BelleroseQC 3 жыл бұрын

What ?

@HenningGu 5 жыл бұрын

When we literall call a Prussian king "Soldatenkönig" - soldier king you know Britain's army certainly wasn't the best

@Siegberg91 5 жыл бұрын

he was good at fighting just he problem he fought everybody at the same time he lacked the polictal skill of bismark

@skyworm8006 5 жыл бұрын

That was an insult. Placing him as a soldier was to imply he was lowclass, unaristocratic, and a poor leader/politician. Most soldiers at the time in Europe were not willing or of good background/character, hence the harsh discipline to keep them obeying as if they were dogs.

@lordedmundblackadder9321 3 жыл бұрын

I hate when British soldiers are called "Redcoats", like the French had blue uniforms but they aren't called "Bluecoats". Even the Swiss weren't called "Redcoats" despite their red uniforms.

@kurukblackflame 5 жыл бұрын

The British Empire was primarily one of commerce and therefore the army was kept as small as possible by design (armies do not normally generate a profit). Judging the Red Coat by the 18th century seems foolish when the 19th century was the period of 'Pax Britanica'-Of Britain's un-challenged dominion and therefore should be seen as the golden age of the British army. Even this period has peaks and troughs of course. By the end of the Napoleonic wars Britain probably had the best (and scruffiest) land army in Europe. By the Crimean war this was no longer so. As stated before, the British army was kept as small as possible by design. Therefore between periods of conflict it tended to fall behind nations that kept larger standing armies.

@Hope-om1kc Жыл бұрын

You are crazy. Britain never had Europe's finest land army

@cseijifja Жыл бұрын

By the end of the napoleonic wars prussian soldiers had better quality and austrians were better comanded, and the russians had quantity, wich had a quality of its own.

@RatfoughtaCat 3 жыл бұрын

How dare you say a musket can't help me in this digital age just because I don't have one doesn't mean I can't virtually use one

@DerekIngoe 3 жыл бұрын

**shows 2 out of 2 historians making the same claim** Griffin: "No historian can make the same claim."

@lauramackinnon6393 5 жыл бұрын

There is a reason britain conquered half the world, their army was still pretty decent.

@m.cuongnguyen7475 4 жыл бұрын

Only 1/4

@Sundara229 4 жыл бұрын

Its because they sit on an island and dont have to worry land invasions

@RUNtvHD 3 жыл бұрын

@@Sundara229 repelled a number of attempted invasions

@Hope-om1kc Жыл бұрын

@@RUNtvHD thanks to a navy not an army

@rsquires9599 5 жыл бұрын

"Forward Guards, they won't stand."

@DaDunge 5 жыл бұрын

I the 18th century France had a colonial empire, Louisana wasn't sold to the US until Napoleon right at the end of the century and before the 7 years war France had even more north american holdings. There's also Spain to consider who had a way larger colonial empire than the British did at this point.

@NPJGlobal 5 жыл бұрын

This man speaks the truth

@GeorgeSemel 5 жыл бұрын

Most issues on land are settled at sea, And the Royal Navy was second to none on that score. The Army may have had its issues but they were also spread thin over long distances. I doubt that the Prussians if they were as spread out as the British Army was would have faired any better. If anything that makes the British Army so legendary is how they did it will so few soldiers and when you rule the wave- that makes your transport and trade pretty secure. That meant that your soldiers would get to where ever it is they were going to. No mention of Colonial Forces attached the British Army or units like the Ghurkas that would come to be and gain legendary status!

@hanz2904 5 жыл бұрын

Well France and germany certainly beats them but not the navy

@jeffbenton6183 5 жыл бұрын

Good points, George! But considering that this video is mostly a response to US propaganda, Ghurkas and other militias are off topic for him. When he says "British Army" he seems to means the Regulars specifically (especially since he doesn't consider the Hessian mercenaries part of "the British Army")

@vangorp9056 5 жыл бұрын

Seriously ? British Army is not legendary...but british Might Be The Most Delusional People On Earth.

@robertwesolowski2383 5 жыл бұрын

I think I’m the revolution they talk up the redcoats in order to make it a more legendary feat

@PalleRasmussen 4 жыл бұрын

"The greatest army in the world!" Friedrich Der Größe and Preußen; "am I nothing to you?"

@jmccallion2394 Жыл бұрын

There has always been a fear of the army, especially after the English Civil Wars and the rule of Cromwell in the 1650s! This was also seen with the suspicion of using the army to impose arbitrary rule, as hinted at by the reign of James II 1685-88. The navy was seen as more acceptable, given its defeat of the Armada in 1588, that it was a defense of liberties and a Protestant ascendancy.

@tjo4087 5 жыл бұрын

I love your videos. Well presented

@adig7569 5 жыл бұрын

But the British army carved out the biggest empire in human history, with a rather small army and from a tiny island? So logistically it was impressive! The armies must of been led well in battle, due to the many famous battles still talked about today? They rarely fielded grand armies like the French or Prussians. They had small, battle hardened ( best training in the world ) armies and fleets dotted around the world. If the other Armies were better? Why didn't the business language of the world end up in being spoken in French, Dutch, Spanish or German? Because at the end of the day, war after war, battle after battle, they were mainly defeated by a British army...... Or a Fleet!

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- 5 жыл бұрын

@Somarik Green "when we won land battles against France etc it was usually in conjunction with other armies " You mean like Agincourt, Verneuill, Crecy, Potiers?

@Siegberg91 5 жыл бұрын

being a island helped a lot your superior navy could stop any attempt of land invasion in mainland britain so you could continue to conquer the world while mainland europe fought bloody wars with each other and civil wars in there own.

@adig7569 5 жыл бұрын

@@Siegberg91 Agreed the Navy was a huge part of the success.. But when you do look at the land battles. We often won when out numbered?

@Siegberg91 5 жыл бұрын

@@adig7569 you were good at divide and conquer picking your battles its more importent. then anything else. Napelon wasted his troops in endless conquest the same happened to the other major poweres even when they won they got greedy.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- 5 жыл бұрын

@@adig7569 Of course, Henry V, Edward the Black prince, Duke of Marlborough and Duke of Wellington etc are evidence of that.

@scriba5777 5 жыл бұрын

*Prussia looks at you*

@scriba5777 5 жыл бұрын

Caped Crusader overall power doesn’t equal military skill. Prussia reformed Europe forever and fought Napoleon tooth and nail. Britain actually lost a large amount of stuff is the 18th century

@scriba5777 5 жыл бұрын

Caped Crusader they also kicked the Austrians around

@iranianazerbaijani9060 5 жыл бұрын

@Caped Crusader it's good to conquer savages, but against a European army it's something else.

@fancy_hulk 5 жыл бұрын

@Caped Crusader But reformed europe.. and the British colonies weren't so stable.

@KaiserFranzJosefI 5 жыл бұрын

@@scriba5777 When did Prussia fight Napoleon tooth and nail? Napoleon obliterated Prussia within three weeks of the start of the Fourth Coalition.

@andycopland3179 5 жыл бұрын

Subscribed. Fantastic videos.

@jonathansanchez8802 4 жыл бұрын

Always love your content.

@dustman0048 5 жыл бұрын

LOL Cette chaine ne cesse pas de faire l'apologie des Anglais et des Allemands....C'est incroyable...."Pourquoi la Prusse a dominé le monde ??" "Pourquoi l'Angleterre est la nation la plus forte de l'Univers??" "Pourquoi les anglais sont les plus forts et les plus intelligent homme de TOUT l'Univers ??" De plus, vous ne parlez pas des autres nations comme l'Espagne, le Portugal, la Russie , la Chine, le Japon...Et quand vous parlez de L'Italie ou la France c'est pour mettre en valeur leur défaites les plus importantes... En fait , vous avez cette vision Anglo-Saxonne du monde, vous pensez que le monde n'a pas eu d'histoire sans vous et que toute les autres nations sont "inferieurs" a vous... Je vous invitent a lire des livres SVP : L'Italie est le berceau de la civilisation occidentale, la France a dominé le Moyen-Age avec le HRE puis durant l'epoque moderne La France a dominé le monde avec les Habsbourgs (d'ou leur rivalité) puis la France a même eu son age d'or avec Louis 14...Je vous épargne aussi l'influence française dans le monde avec la Revolution puis au 19-20 siècle...Puis pourquoi ne pas parlez du "Siecle d'or Espagnol" ?? Ou de la superpuissance des MING ?? Pourquoi ne pas mettre avant les victoires d'autres pays que celle du Royaume-Unie et l'Allemagne ?? Par exemple, voici de grandes victoire francaise comme Rocroi, Castillon , Iéna , Austerlitz, Bouvines etc... Cette chaîne a clairement un partie pris , alors faites uniquement des vidéos consacrés a l'histoire Anglo-Saxonne et arrêtés d'en faire sur d'autre nation car c'est clairement pour "humilier" ces autres nations comme l'Italie ou la France...

@messire9837 5 жыл бұрын

Laisse tomber, c'est des coucouilles. L'existence d'une telle chaine de propagande à deux balles prouve justement à quel point ils ont besoin d'entendre en masse qu'ils ne passent pas pour les navrets de l'histoire de l'Europe, since Henri Bauclair. "Vous autres français vous battez pour l'argent, alors que nous autre anglais feraillons pour l'honneur! - Fort bien, chacun devrait se battre pour ce qui lui manque le plus, après tout" Robert Surcouf ;)

@dustman0048 5 жыл бұрын

@@messire9837 Je connaissais cette citation mais sa fait du bien de la rappelez ;) Sinon il y a une chaine pas mal sur "L'Histoire de France" qui met surtout en avant des faits marquant mais oubliez de tous....La voici : kzfaq.infovideos

@messire9837 5 жыл бұрын

@@dustman0048 Cette citation, c'est comme d'Artagnan à Londres: Il faut toujours la rappeler. Pour ce qui est des faits oubliés de tous, ça fait bien longtemps qu'on ne me surprend plus, hélas... Je suis fan de l'émission "des Racines sur nos Pelles" depuis ma plus tendre enfance. Et j'ai horreur d'écouter des néo-humanistes lacher leur parti pris libertaire et démocratique sur l'histoire ancienne et glorieuse que celle de mes anciens rois & reines de Numé-nord (l'Artois, donc!) Et j'ai beaucoup de mal avec les vulgarisateurs qui confondent les colosses du passé avec les cafard du présent (progressif, si je puis dire...) Mais je vais voir quand même, parce que je suis curieux de tout, depuis le songe de Clothaire jusqu'à la collection de lunettes de Charles X, parce que j'ai pu placer ici ma tirade misantrope en bon terme. A mon tour, pour les trucs cachés: tapez "le secret de François 1er" sur google pour voir.. On trouve des versions de meilleure qualité que celle du toob, cependant... Salutations, maistre Austin! (Austin Dustman, ha, ha, ha...)

@messire9837 5 жыл бұрын

@@dustman0048 Et ça commence avec une video sur Malplaquet...

@Uvejeje 5 жыл бұрын

Bravo, Dustman! Bien dit!

@skiteufr 5 жыл бұрын

American historians call the 18th British army the best to magnify the american (with a lot of French help) victory. In fact, the British army was not the best and was very small. So despite having the best navy, they had to call other major countries in coalitions to fight their enemies, mostly the French. France, from Louis XIV to Napoleon had by far the largest and best army of Europe, and France was the political and military dominant force in the world

@FiveLiver 5 жыл бұрын

A standing army has always been frowned upon in Britain, and most resources went into the 'senior service' who could do no damage at home.

@tig3662 5 жыл бұрын

The British never and don't need a big land army because they are an island nation. Island nations don't have big lans army, they developed state of the art navy like the British did. And yes, while France was a dominate power in Europe comparing that to the length of Britain's power, that's tiny. Britain expanded across the world thanks to its own innovations and technology. Technology and innovations were the tools that built the British Empire, not nessarasy military.

@tigerbw3361 5 жыл бұрын

@@tig3662 Add to that the innovations Britain produced with its navy that allowed it to expand so greatly. Uk always has had a small land army, nothing new, but as you said an island nation doesn't need one. They've always had a good navy to protect their waters and eventually even patrolled the entire oceans as a ''global police force'' known as Pax Britannia. France, on the other hand, struggled to build an empire at the UK's strength due to not having the navy power that Britain archived.

@skiteufr 5 жыл бұрын

@@tigerbw3361 France has land borders to defend against powerfull continental countried in Europe. It could not commit so much resources to its navy. But did quite well to build a large colonial empire on all continents while having huge commitments to answer in Europe that threatened its existence unlike Britain

@lokischeissmessiah5749 4 жыл бұрын

@@skiteufr France also had 10x the population of England for most of it's history. It dwarved Britain in sheer population size in the napoleonic wars. So to say " It could not commit so much resources to its navy", that it cannot keep up with the resource commitments of an island with a fraction of its population? How embarassing.

@moritzgschnell6147 5 жыл бұрын

PLEASE make a video on the Tiroler Schützen! They are quite intersting and where very successful!

@Welshhobbits 5 жыл бұрын

Britain’s army was literally there to tip the balance on continental Europe to prevent anyone nation from dominating the continent. The navy was important but Britain also bankrolled many major powers including Prussia to encourage them to continue fighting the French. Because of its intermittent role it never fully “got off the ground”, when it did have time to come together it was a very effective force (Peninsula Campaign) and every so often good leadership would appear (Duke Marlborough, Wolfe, etc.). :-)

@talhakarsloglu4278 5 жыл бұрын

Nothing beats the %150 Prussian discipline. Preußens Gloria intensifies.

@edwardaugustus9680 5 жыл бұрын

Prussian Space Marines.

@paulinotou 5 жыл бұрын

Thought you were going to do that corny Shaggy meme.Thank you for not doing it

@talhakarsloglu4278 5 жыл бұрын

@@paulinotou Actually I don't understand that meme.It's not funny.

@timothyphillips5043 5 жыл бұрын

Britain did in two world wars.

@talhakarsloglu4278 5 жыл бұрын

@@timothyphillips5043 It was not the Britain. It was the whole world winning against Germany.

@grahamgausden3799 5 жыл бұрын

The logistics problems described in this video were standard to all European armies of the day. The officer Corp in the British army did have to buy commissions, but in a day when only the wealthy were educated this was not necessarily a draw back. Also the only winning three of the 7 wars bit is not a great indicator as the British were fighting as part of an alliance against another group of countries so their contribution is not isolated. I understand the video has time restriction but this is a lazy analysis at best.

@Indylimburg 5 жыл бұрын

Right, and of the 7 wars listed, the Brits won (or at least didn't lose) the 4 wars preceding the Revolution. So it stands to reason that at the time of the Revolution the British Army was viewed as unbeatable.

@TheAustin1985a 5 жыл бұрын

Quick comment on production, I think having the live hosting works a little bit more than the animated host. Absolutely great channel though, so no worries either way!

@kaczynskis5721 5 жыл бұрын

Some of the best manpower during 18th and Napoleonic Wars did not go into the British Army but rather various volunteer units, yeomanry or militia. They were meant for emergencies like foreign invasion but rarely had to fight, except during rebellions like the '45 or the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland. Their conditions of service were also often better than those of soldiers.

@InternetMameluq 5 жыл бұрын

0:50: I've noticed these claims too, I'm like: WTF, did France fall down a black hole in history??

@InternetMameluq 3 жыл бұрын

@Danzard The 2500 years that comes before wwii doesn't count apparently.

@wonderbread7327 3 жыл бұрын

@Danzard military success? France has looked the same for 500 years. The only exception was Napoleon and he wasn’t even French. Winning the most battles doesn’t mean anything when you don’t win the wars. If France was so good militarily, how did they get conquered in 2 weeks by a country that didn’t even exist until 1870? They only won big wars when they had powerful allies, if not for the British and Americans, Paris would be in Germany right now.

@Joker-yw9hl 3 жыл бұрын

Brit here and under no illusion that British armies were the best in the world or anything. But they were always very drilled, brave and professional, got to give them that. I would say they were top tier and respected, but far too small to ever be a serious threat on their own

@bazza945 Жыл бұрын

IE: The Grand old Duke of York, He had 10,000 men, He marched up to the Top of the Hill, And He marched them Down again. Now, when they're Up they're Up, and when they're Down they're Down, but when they're only Halfway Up, they're neither Up, nor Down. A ditty of the era.7

@johnkilmartin5101 5 жыл бұрын

The contingents from the German states were auxiliaries and not mercenaries. The British made use of auxiliaries in every one of the conflicts mentioned. The success of the British in the early part of the 18th century has more to do with Churchill's ability to keep a coalition together than the troops under him. While the purchase system has negative effects it also has advantages an example of this is the rise of Wellington which wouldn't happen in a system of strict seniority and merit. It is interesting to note he had trained at a French military academy prior to purchasing his commission. One of the points you fail to mention is the separate establishments.If I recall correctly the American establishment consisted of five regiments for example. There was also an Irish establishment that was better balanced than the American but still not to the standard of the British establishment. It's important to note as a percentage of its establishment the Irish disproportionately served in America during the Revolution.

@davitxenko 5 жыл бұрын

Watches this video... Laughs in Blas de Lezo.

@alberto8295 5 жыл бұрын

Jajaj sure

@robertsreconquista8273 3 жыл бұрын

Im an American and was always under the impression that the French fielded the best armies

@DH.2016 4 жыл бұрын

Having an interest in 18th century European history, I've often been amazed by those U.S. authors who claim that the British army was "the finest in the world." One of the most successful, "Yes." But after its performance in the Seven Years War, Frederick the Great's Prussian Army was always the one everyone looked up to. France, Russia and Spain were no push-overs either. By the time of the raid on Concorde at the start of the American Revolutionary War (there was a war immediately after called the French Revolutionary War), most of the veterans from the Seven Years War had left the British Army and so, many of the soldiers were raw recruits. It is kind of pathetic that these authors claim to be real historians. There is no doubt 18th century American revolutionaries did very well considering their limited resources but they did have the help of France and Spain which diverted British resources elsewhere (e.g., it is arguable that Siege of Gibraltar contributed to the British defeat at Yorktown when a Royal Navy blockading fleet was withdrawn to escort a relief convoy to "The Rock" thus releasing a French fleet to sail over the pond and decisively drive another British fleet away at the Battle of Chesapeake Bay). What 18th century American revolutionaries accomplished was tremendous and does not need to be embellished by what we would call "fake news" today. Thankfully, the good thing nowadays is that more and more U.S. historians are becoming more scholarly and able to take a step back, letting the facts speak for themselves.

@matthewkuchinski1769 5 жыл бұрын

One of the best books written about the American Revolution is by Michael Stephenson and it is titled "Patriot Battles: How the War for Independence was Fought." In this book, Mister Stephenson not only provides great comparisons of troop strengths between different armies that existed during the 18th century, but also highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the British Army compared to those of their American foes. He also highlights how battles of the Revolution never truly followed the orthodox teachings of 18th century conventional warfare, and he displaces the myth of British soldiers being stupid by fighting in the open instead of using terrain features for cover.

@battlefieldcustoms873 3 жыл бұрын

yeah its crazy how no matter how many plays you attend or tea you drink an arrow still hurts alot who knew

@Yusf.Q8 5 жыл бұрын

Hi love your videos keep up the great work 🇰🇼🇺🇸

@TheCarloza 5 жыл бұрын

Check out my video yousif

@ascalon9913 5 жыл бұрын

Like all of the major powers British (and earlier the English) army has occupied the top position several times in europe. But like all the major powers it tended to stagnate at the top and be eventually overtaken by more innovative armies.

@FilmGaming21 5 жыл бұрын

Hello I’m quite interested in history and i might convert my channel to a history based channel but i don’t know how to animate do you have any tips or anything about animating or just creating history videos

@cahoutcharles961 4 жыл бұрын

I know this is nitpicky but the Union Jack wasn't adopted until the early 19th century.

@johanjonsson6504 4 жыл бұрын

What about the Swedish Caroleans in the early 18th century? :)

@caroline7648 3 жыл бұрын

They were better, but they only existed for 27 years More if you count the small amount that survived until 1718 The average carolean soldier had extreme discipline and insane morale. The morale would keep them from breaking in the face of the enemy. Their discipline is what made them able to move forwards to the enemy Where the british soldier had discipline the carolean had both discipline and morale

@Yoyle-jq9ul 5 жыл бұрын

*insert british grenadier*

@azharhaq5537 5 жыл бұрын

Which software you use brother for creating animations in your videos . Please TELL me about the software which you use for making animation. Thanks

@IronDragon-2143 4 жыл бұрын

Would you consider doing a video on the Sack of Rome and the Last Stand of the Swiss Guard in 1527?

@AFT_05G 4 жыл бұрын

British Army certainly had well quality and officers but he lacked size so ı would say French Army was just most powerful.

@tibsky1396 3 жыл бұрын

@The Death Star You only name two Battles in a defined period of history. At that time, the Prussians had Frederick II ... An army is competent when it has a competent leader. During this battle, the French had a leader who was bad at strategy, that's all. Since the middle of the 17th century and Louis XIV, it was the major power, whether at the cultural, diplomatic, demographic and ... military level. It often took coalitions to face France, and they had quite talented commanders (Turenne, Vauban, Condé, Villars, Maurice de Saxe, Rochambeau etc...). During the Seven Years' War, France was just losing momentum at this point. Only reforms will be made to make them competitive again (Anglo-French War 1778-1783, French Revolutionnary Wars, Napoleonic Wars etc...)

@tibsky1396 3 жыл бұрын

@The Death Star The Battle of Malplaquet in 1709 was disastrous for Malborough, and Great Britain even ended up withdrawing on their island because the losses were so enormous. Which left their allies in a bind. This gave a boost of enthusiasm to the French (especially after a very difficult winter in terms of temperature). In the end, it was the French Victory at the Battle of Denain in 1712 that ended this war of Spanish succession. And that still does not take away my point, the British still needed a European coalition to face France. All that was needed was a good commander facing a less good commander for a time, that is to say little to hold out against a power which had held the dragee in Europe for nearly fifty years.

@davidchardon1303 3 жыл бұрын

@The Death Star Blenheim : Coalition victory with Prussian, Austrian, Germans, Holland, Danish and British Troops commanded by Eugene of Savoy, the best General of Austria. The French Marshal was mediocre. Ramilies : Coalition Victory with Germans, Prussian, Danish, Holland an British Troops against the worst Marshal of France. Audernade : Coalition Victory with Prussian, Germans, Holland and British Troops by Eugene of Savoy against one average French Marshal Malplaquet : French Victory and British defeat.

@davidchardon1303 3 жыл бұрын

@The Death Star The British Army was always fighting along side coalition. This is why they "won" more wars. The Austrian Succession war was carried by France The Spanish Succesion War was carried by Austria The 7 years War was carried by Prussia.

@davidchardon1303 3 жыл бұрын

@The Death Star Malboro wouldn't be able to win without Eugene of Savoy doing the heavy work. Malplaquet was a tactical and strategical victory. Malboro won Bouchain yes ... It is one battle of siege among dozens ... so it not relevant. In the seven years war : we don't care. The land battle was done by Prussia. In the Spanish Succesion, the Spanish didn't fight outside Spain.

@luispp8110 5 жыл бұрын

Could you make a video about the Spainsh army and history? We defeat the English many times (Blas de Lezo )as well as the French and had a big part of Europe with the Austrias monarchy ( especially with Carlos V ) .

@nobbynobbs3418 3 жыл бұрын

How did armada work out for you ;)

@Hope-om1kc Жыл бұрын

@@nobbynobbs3418 u also failed so

@mcribb2163 5 жыл бұрын

Love the dig at "Ancient Aliens". Lol

@schatzkammerein 5 жыл бұрын

i quite admire the tenacity of British Redcoats, but the fact that they were unable to gain any foothold on the European continent shows they were 2nd rate in contrast to the Prussians and French.

@devilmanscott 5 жыл бұрын

It's more the fact that Britain never saw real reason to invade mainland Europe, but only play them off each-other, hence very little resources were devoted to mainland Europe, far more in Asia, Africa and the Americas. Also with your reasoning the Prussians and French weren't any good because they could never gain a foothold in the UK.

@NapoleonTrotski 5 жыл бұрын

@@devilmanscott that false britain tries multiple times to keep a foothold in europe (in France ) but the failed to keep it. And europe is continent not like britain

@Sandvich48 5 жыл бұрын

I think it’s more that Britain knew it’s limitations. It took a coalition to defeat Napoleon. At one point the North of France was British lands that couldn’t be held. I imagine though they saw less strategic value on the main continent versus other places.

@arthurfisher1857 5 жыл бұрын

You also have to consider population size and money. Britain's population was smaller than that of France for most of its history, so it could never field an army as large as the French. So if you're an island nation, where do you stick your limited resource? If you said in to the army, congrats, you're an idiot... England, and later Britain, has typically always maintained a small, but well trained, army. Capable of expeditions and to act in conjuction with European allies on the continent, but not a grand army to seize and occupy other modern nations. It's foolish to compare it to the army's of France, Russia, Spain, Prussia (and Germany), etc.. different requirements. If anything people should respect what they were able to achieve given their limitations and size of their opponents

@historiand9473 5 жыл бұрын

@@devilmanscott buddy something named navy is their

@AndrewBaker-ym3mk 5 жыл бұрын

They were not mercenaries as so often stated, but rather German troops of Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Hannau that local rulers rented out to foreign powers in a soldier industry.

@totocaca7035 5 жыл бұрын

Isn't that exactly what a mercenary is, a rented soldier?

@totocaca7035 5 жыл бұрын

@Ivan Ricaña Well, mercenaries tended to be part of "companies", which were easier to hire and to command. Look at the swiss for instance. If you enroll a person and pay him directly, that's a conventional soldier. Look at the french foreign legion for an exemple of that. They're considered soldiers, not mercenaries.

@KaiserFranzJosefI 5 жыл бұрын

@@totocaca7035 Slave is a more appropriate term. The Hessian Soldiers were rented out my their masters against their will and weren't not paid for it.

@totocaca7035 5 жыл бұрын

@@KaiserFranzJosefI Must have been the worst troops imaginable.

@KaiserFranzJosefI 5 жыл бұрын

@@totocaca7035 They defected at incredible rates. Most Pennsylvanian Germans are descendants of Hessian defectors.

@yolakin8210 4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the honesty.

@ceoaalp 4 ай бұрын

Keep in mind that with blackpowder weapons the standard in the British army was you had to fire 3 shots in 60 seconds. That’s pretty good and I don’t see anyone doing it faster.

@etiennepace9340 5 жыл бұрын

In the seas yes but on land Prussia by historic evidence. 19th century French was the best. No one says that in Waterloo the British was a coalition of army and not just British and they won only because Prussia came to help them and Napoleon had to use the reserves to battle them. Without Prussia intervention we might be speaking all French now a days.

@KaiserFranzJosefI 5 жыл бұрын

Yeah no. France was definitely the most powerful army of the 18th century. Waterloo may have ended in French victory but the war was not. The coalition of some 800,000 men were marching towards France and Napoleon's mere 200,000 was not going to stop them.

@johnanth 5 жыл бұрын

@@KaiserFranzJosefI Waterloo happened in the 19th century, but anyway, the premise of this video is far fetched, you cannot make judgements like this over a full century

@mstarmix9795 5 жыл бұрын

The Battle of Waterloo was lost by Napoleon’s indecisiveness. The Prussians did very little in the whole campaign. However, regardless of that battles result, France would have been smashed by Austria and Russia.

@etiennepace9340 5 жыл бұрын

@@mstarmix9795 victors write history as they say so since he lost we cannot say for sure what would have happened even though it looks almost certain in our eyes.

@thomasbaagaard 5 жыл бұрын

@@mstarmix9795 You really need to read more books. Napoleon lost men he could not afford to loose at Ligny. The Prussians than ran a huge risk, retreating North instead of east. It was the Prussians that saved Wellingtons army from destruction at Waterloo. If they had no showed up wellington would have lost.. and he knew it. (But had the Prussians retreated east, he would not have fought there but fallen back on Brussels)

@mausklick1635 5 жыл бұрын

Very superficial, doesn't go into any detail.

@mattyb7183 5 жыл бұрын

On the subject of numbers. Fredrick the Great once made an estimate about the number of troops major European powers had available to send to a European war. Prussia: about 150,000 France: about 180,000 Britain: about 20,000 And towards the end of the 18th century the King of Sardinia was able to boast that he had an army equal in size to the British King George III. The British Army in this period is really interesting, at their best when commanded by good generals and with good logistical support, they could (and did) defeat anything any other country could throw at them. Often in parts of the world that few other European troops had ever been. But that was balanced out by far too many bad generals, frequently poor logistics and an incredibly muddled command and support system. It's sometimes amazing the 18th century British Army was able to fight any wars!