@mayorhammondsmustache9551 awkwardly both Kings had 4 sons, it really comes down to their grandsons. Henry II had just one, Edward III had a lot more.
@@quintuscrinisooh, but Henry DID have another grandson! It was Geoffrey's son Arthur of Brittany. He died at the orders of John, possibly even by his own hand, because not only did Arthur technically stand before him in the succession after Richard's death, but most people favoured the nephew over the uncle. Time would prove John to be a terrible king and his son Henry to be an ineffectual one, but Arthur never got the chance to prove himself like they did.
Well-written, well-narrated, with clever animations. The background track occasionally competes with the terrific voice of Dan Snow. I thought the use of "Carol of the Bells" a little bit comical, but still better than the repetitive and vapid BBC background music.
Dan Jones' books on this era are must reads to understand the big picture of how William the Conqueror taking England in 1066 leads directly to Henry Tudor winning at Bosworth Fields centuries later.
His tv documentaries are great, too. My favorite is Britain’s Bloody Crown, about the Wars of the Roses. His utter disdain for Henry VI is palpable throughout, and the episode about Margaret Beaufort is terrific.
@@kathyastrom1315 I loved that episode especially. The way it was framed as "By the way, while the events in those other episodes were happening, here's who wins and how she did it" was brilliant.
I love that I know the battles of Agincourt and Crecy but never learned of the battle of Castillon or the battle of Formigny despite the fact that Canada is theoretically a country of two nations England and France.
We didn't start with their history before covering our own. Canada's history education in school when I was going through stuck to focusing on French/British settlement in North America and stuck with pre-Canada history in the colonies. I would recommend most Canadians and Americans for that matter, review conflicts in colonial history in the context of what's also happening in Europe, because it regularly lines up and we're a smaller theatre. In English speaking Canada anyway, we've got more exposure to British history, and obviously they're going to play up their successes rather than their defeats.
@@Zraknul True but that was grade 5-6 where I started with Canada's history. When I was in 7-9 there was a dedicated geography course and a history class that did cover the explorers and not much else memorable. I guess some early Canadian history. I did Louis Riel at some point. Family Compact and Joe Howe was big. Real history seemed to start in grade 10 with classical Greece and Roman History. Grade 11 was European history with an English Canadian Bent. I just took science classes in grade 12 so no history that year. Canadian History was a choice but if you didnt take it you didn't get the opening of north america shoved at you.
While writing my MA dissertation on the politics and battles of the Wars I have found that Margaret of Anjou has been such a vilified figure, simply because she was a woman, a French woman no less. All she wanted to do was to protect the interests of her son, Edward of Westminster, as heir to the throne. The rumours about her affair with Beaufort were likely spread by York allies to try and undermine the queen, and her position, and she proved to be more politically adept than most, like York himself. I think she was a leading cause the Lancastrians lasted as long as they did before war broke out and is a seriously underrated historical figure in this time period.
That is all very true, but also, don't forget the fact that in the end, she lost. History is cruel to losers. If her family had won, history would no doubt remember her more favorably.
Nope. She is vilified because she alienated important magnates of England to the point of crisis. She was not well versed in England's politics and came into a delicate scene already alocating honors and resources at the will of her whims and prejudices to her favourites. She was an atrocious politician and was ignorant to what she was getting into when she arrived to England as a Queen, being a douch to the yorkists at every chance she got because she herself was being advised by rivals of yorkists. All of that was avoidable if her faction confered the minimal amount of respect to them. They didn't. And the king was a bitch, she basically reigned England in his place, so what happened happened.
i can see your point but I support the Yorkist claim to the throne from Anne Mortimer, as shown in video who is descended from Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III, and next in line after Edward the Black Prince. Anne Mortimer is next in line, she is mother of Richard Duke of York, grandmother to Edward IV, and therefore brings the Yorkists ahead of the Lancastrians, ahead of Henry IV , Henry V , and Henry VI ( and wife Margaret of Anjou ) who are descended from John of Gaunt, third son , and younger than Lionel of Antwerp i always feel that despite the terrible behavior of Richard II in exiling and robbing the Lancastrians and Henry Bolingbroke, that they crown was stolen by them it was a grave mistake during the time of Henry Bolingbrokes or Henry IV reign that he permitted Anne Mortimer to marry into the Yorkist faction and bring her claim to the Yorkists... women are entitled to pass their claim to inheritance and Anne also brought huge fortune and lands of the Mortimers to the already powerful Yorkists a fortune which helped fund their cause greatly as Yorkists were cash strapped in part due to the commitment to support large armies in retainer Margaret of Anjou may have demonstrated some leadership but the power of the Lancastrians lay already in huge wealth, land and private armies on both sides, both factions had huge armies
4:40 I love the Carol of the Bells being used to build suspense. Though now I feel even warmer here in August. And want some presents under the tree. And maybe missed what was said there, haha
Edward III although known as one of the greatest kings of England enforced policies and made many decisions that contributed largely to the War of Rose 1. Edward planned only partially successfully for a huge international empire in order to keep his sons occupied, successful and from fighting each other with the Black Prince Duke of Aquitaine, Lionel lord of Ireland and Scotland, John of Gaunt lord of Brittany etc. etc. He made his four oldest sons into Dukes, with huge lands, income, and armies of retainers he planned for them to be mini kings and he raised the bar for ambition before this Dukes we're not common and many princes were made simply Earls, a slightly lowe rank 2. Edward was so anxious about marriage alliances of his children and the issue that they would incur that he basically put off marrying the first two kids off Edward the Black Prince and the first daughter. This created a situation where Richard II, The Black Princes son , was way too young and immature, a teenager whereas Richard II s uncles like John of Gaunt were much more mature and powerful, with children who were similar ages to Richard II , a competitive issue, instead of being much younger as they should have been ( The black prince was much older than the other sons ) 3. Edward III disinherited Philippa from the crown of England because she was a female and the only child of Lionel, Edwards second son, older than John of Gaunt patriarch of the Lancastrians However, Edward married Philippa to extremely rich and landed Mortimer family who did not like being disinherited and who privately thought that they should be the next kings of england, after Richard II. 4. The final coup is that Henry IV , Lancastrian, king who deposed Richard II, permitted Anne of Mortimer, descended from Philippa and Mortimer family , to marry into Yorkist faction, giving the Yorkist claim to throne over the Lancastrians . this is one of the most crucial points in the war. Henry IV was older and ill and he made a huge error for his line . 5. one must remember that these rivalries and wars lasted over such a long period that people simply made some bad choices possibly losing track of rivalries ... from 1399 the deposition of Richard II by Henry IV , Lancastrian all the way to the 1460's with Henry IV s grandson Henry VI, married to Margaret of Anjou fighting Edward IV , Yorkist king ...who triumphed . 6. Henry V, Lancastrian son of Henry IV basically made the mistake of permitting Richard Duke of York to inherit both Mortimer an dYorkist fortune despite the plots of Richards father against the throne. Henry V chose forgiveness and this fortune and power permitted Richard of York to rival
This channel is actually nuts right… whatever I happen to be looking at in history, they seem to post a video on it very soon afterwards. They say Alexa doesn’t listen… but not complaining honestly because I’ve never understood the wars of the roses, was struggling to write a book review on it when this popped up. Just awesome, thanks guys.
I thought it was just me 😭 I’ve fully had this with at leaste 4 or 5 of there videos, I have the feeling of finding out more about something and they go and drop a video on the subject
I thought it was just me 😭 I’ve fully had this with at leaste 4 or 5 of there videos, I have the feeling of finding out more about something and they go and drop a video on the subject
Great video. We often see docs on the War of the Roses but nothing on what had lead to this period. The only thing I found was that the incidental music and sound effects often obscured the voice-over. Thank you for posting.
Matthew Lewis has LOADS of content on this subject on his “Gone Medieval” podcast and also on his UA-cam channel. Matthew is the lead expert on this period 👌
It can be tough when announcers have deeper voices, they seem to blend more easily into bass notes of music. I've noticed this constantly while speaking to friends at concerts - the lower their voice, the less likely I'll be able to hear them over the subs.
That's was the best version of The War of the Roses so far I've seen I'm from the USA but my ancestors are from England Scotland France and Italy so this is very interesting
4:48 it's likely that Henry caught dysentery during the siege of Meaux when the English stubbornly set out to conquer the town during the winter instead of the more appropriate campaigning seasons. The health conditions were notably bad even for a medieval siege camp. Now, obviously dysentery wasn't a rare occurrence (another royal prince died from dysentery complications already in this video!), but it's one of those What-If moments in history. If the English hadn't fixated on taking Meaux, perhaps an entirely different 15th century would have unfolded.
I also knew something that MOST hypocrite "Historians" do NOT admit!!!! The YORKISTS had a MUCH BETTER CLAIM to the throne than the USURPER Lancastrians who STOLE the Crown by KILLING Richard II (the YORKISTS were descended from the SECOND SON of Edward III)!!!!
I can't follow a rapid listing of name after name, keeping score of when a name changed or when we were still talking about the same person... I would suggest adding visuals, even in the corner somewhere depicting who is reigning or the topic of discussion and when you move on to speak of a new person. If I've heard of the mention of a "Henry" just a few seconds ago and then I'm trying to absorb what then happened under his reign if you only bring up a new name I can't remember if it was "Henry" or "George" or just the next "Henry" who you were talking about just a moment ago. Also, if you mention that someone challenged the throne or went into battle, I often didn't understand from your narration what happened in that battle as you then only mentioned a name and weren't even clear about if they're the victor and new king or what had happened exactly, especially as you've just mentioned two names who were both parties in the battle but having just heard them a few seconds ago how can I always keep track of which was which? So the short version of all this is: just rattling out names and years so fast doesn't stick and is too hard to follow. Utilising the available visuals would make it massively better in my opinion. And no, I'm not an old guy. I've been able to follow demanding lectures and seminars in university and professional life. You have otherwise excellent visuals and narration.
Henry VI was crowned Henri II of France. He lost his crown soon after, but he was crowned and is still recognised as a king of France. This omission sounds like a typical Dan Snow "documentary".
Recognised by whom? The treaty of Troyes gave the french throne to Henry V after Charles VI. But Henry V died before Charles VI: Henry V wasn't king of France, thus his son can't be king of France either. Charles VII is the right king after Charles VI in 1422, not Henry VI. Thats precisely why Charles VII fought him until he took all the english possession in the continent, even Normandy and Aquitaine which were rightful possession of the King of England.
The White Queen (about Elizabeth Woodville), The White Princess (about Elizabeth of York), and The Spanish Princess (about Catherine of Aragon) on HBO Max are all really good. I don't know how accurate they are, but they are interesting to watch.
P. Gregory took a lot of artistic license with all of her books, for example having Elizabeth of York sleeping/being in love with her uncle who locked her brothers up in the tower never to be seen again.
I think the white queen is the best one, Richard and Anne steal the show but I hate that Gregory went the route of Richard having an affair with his niece. It’s ridiculous and he was always so true to brother Edward unlike George. The casting is great too. I think Richard took the crown from the boy king to keep it in York hands because he resented the Woodvilles because the were Lancastrians. I wonder how different it would have been had Richard been Edward V’s lord protector and he had been raised in a Yorkist home. I can’t see Richard killing those boys but when it came to having the crown, all bets are off.
Every video I watch on the War of the Roses starts further and further back in time! Eventually, I'm sure I'll come across a video that will start with, "During the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt in 284BCE..."
I'd say the root cause of this war is the system of hereditary monarchy. If you look in particular at the English history, a strong king is usually succeeded by a weak one for various reasons. But instead of questioning whether such a system is suitable for "determining" the leader of a country, they fought over decisions that had been made decades prior simply due to a very weak/tyrannic king.
Dudes who invented heraldry : "So, the idea is to have a simple symbol painted on a flag or a shield in order to be easily identified on the battlefield." York : "Say no more !"
All of the inbreeding within the royals of Europe clearly didn't have problem on their lack of mental stability to realize that all of this fighting served 0 purpose other than pure ego.
Why you got almost Timothy-Iee-Timlee,De La Willhiem-Edmound De-Lee,By-The Poole-Poolee,pool coat of arms, as-still not right on richard plantagenet me
@@thestrategos4710 indeed House of the Dragon and the dance of the dragons is also inspired by the earlier period of unrest around the english Throne termed the Anarchy from 1138-1153
Please please please - I've enjoyed this but try to be a bit clearer for dummies like myself! This seems like a well researched piece - but I'm a novice and need clearer writing. EG: At the beginning you're talking about the achievements of Edward the 3rd, then you transition awkwardly. "With [these next 3 achievements] Edward the Black suddenly died." I'm a bit tired - so I only vaguely sensed there was something I was not getting there and had to listen to it a few times. It was NOT clear you had changed to talk about a new King until AFTER 3 facts of his reign were already divulged. I would just reorder your words "His son, Edward the black was equally as brilliant. In his reign he .... but he suddenly died, before his father."
Both Henry II and Edward III demonstrate that having too many sons can be almost as bad as having too few.
I’ve never thought about it that way, but yeah, really good observation! It can also apply to William the Conqueror
Henry II had the right amount, it was just unfortunate that the youngest was the worst.
@mayorhammondsmustache9551 awkwardly both Kings had 4 sons, it really comes down to their grandsons. Henry II had just one, Edward III had a lot more.
You could add Duke Richard to that list 😂 considering the politics of the time, the man should have known what sort of viper's nest he was breeding
@@quintuscrinisooh, but Henry DID have another grandson! It was Geoffrey's son Arthur of Brittany. He died at the orders of John, possibly even by his own hand, because not only did Arthur technically stand before him in the succession after Richard's death, but most people favoured the nephew over the uncle. Time would prove John to be a terrible king and his son Henry to be an ineffectual one, but Arthur never got the chance to prove himself like they did.
“Woe to that land that’s govern’d by a child!” Richard III by William Shakespeare
Well-written, well-narrated, with clever animations. The background track occasionally competes with the terrific voice of Dan Snow. I thought the use of "Carol of the Bells" a little bit comical, but still better than the repetitive and vapid BBC background music.
Fascinating stuff, such a rich & powerful history we have.
Your voice is quite enjoyable even in telling the path’s leading to war. Thank you.😊
hell of a cliffhanger you left us on there.
Kidding aside, great content as usual.
Dan Jones' books on this era are must reads to understand the big picture of how William the Conqueror taking England in 1066 leads directly to Henry Tudor winning at Bosworth Fields centuries later.
His tv documentaries are great, too. My favorite is Britain’s Bloody Crown, about the Wars of the Roses. His utter disdain for Henry VI is palpable throughout, and the episode about Margaret Beaufort is terrific.
@@kathyastrom1315 where do you watch his documentaries?
@@fandrade06 You can find most of them here on UA-cam-just search for them.
@@fandrade06 Britains Bloodiest Dynasty and The Crown are free on UA-cam right now in a lot of countries and they're absolutely incredible
@@kathyastrom1315 I loved that episode especially. The way it was framed as "By the way, while the events in those other episodes were happening, here's who wins and how she did it" was brilliant.
This is a well done explanation
Really succinct and well done. Nice one Dan! 👍
I love that I know the battles of Agincourt and Crecy but never learned of the battle of Castillon or the battle of Formigny despite the fact that Canada is theoretically a country of two nations England and France.
We didn't start with their history before covering our own. Canada's history education in school when I was going through stuck to focusing on French/British settlement in North America and stuck with pre-Canada history in the colonies. I would recommend most Canadians and Americans for that matter, review conflicts in colonial history in the context of what's also happening in Europe, because it regularly lines up and we're a smaller theatre.
In English speaking Canada anyway, we've got more exposure to British history, and obviously they're going to play up their successes rather than their defeats.
@@Zraknul True but that was grade 5-6 where I started with Canada's history. When I was in 7-9 there was a dedicated geography course and a history class that did cover the explorers and not much else memorable. I guess some early Canadian history. I did Louis Riel at some point. Family Compact and Joe Howe was big. Real history seemed to start in grade 10 with classical Greece and Roman History. Grade 11 was European history with an English Canadian Bent. I just took science classes in grade 12 so no history that year. Canadian History was a choice but if you didnt take it you didn't get the opening of north america shoved at you.
Basically because of the Anglo-Saxon POV on History that has been spread through the whole world because of their colonies.
While writing my MA dissertation on the politics and battles of the Wars I have found that Margaret of Anjou has been such a vilified figure, simply because she was a woman, a French woman no less. All she wanted to do was to protect the interests of her son, Edward of Westminster, as heir to the throne. The rumours about her affair with Beaufort were likely spread by York allies to try and undermine the queen, and her position, and she proved to be more politically adept than most, like York himself. I think she was a leading cause the Lancastrians lasted as long as they did before war broke out and is a seriously underrated historical figure in this time period.
Agreed
That is all very true, but also, don't forget the fact that in the end, she lost. History is cruel to losers. If her family had won, history would no doubt remember her more favorably.
Nope. She is vilified because she alienated important magnates of England to the point of crisis. She was not well versed in England's politics and came into a delicate scene already alocating honors and resources at the will of her whims and prejudices to her favourites. She was an atrocious politician and was ignorant to what she was getting into when she arrived to England as a Queen, being a douch to the yorkists at every chance she got because she herself was being advised by rivals of yorkists. All of that was avoidable if her faction confered the minimal amount of respect to them. They didn't. And the king was a bitch, she basically reigned England in his place, so what happened happened.
I’m not sure how “wanting to protect the interests of her son” absolves her from being vilified.
i can see your point but I support the Yorkist claim to the throne from Anne Mortimer,
as shown in video
who is descended from Lionel of Antwerp,
second son of Edward III, and next in line after Edward the Black Prince.
Anne Mortimer is next in line,
she is mother of Richard Duke of York, grandmother to Edward IV,
and therefore brings the Yorkists ahead of the Lancastrians,
ahead of Henry IV ,
Henry V , and Henry VI ( and wife Margaret of Anjou )
who are descended from John of Gaunt, third son ,
and younger than Lionel of Antwerp
i always feel that despite the terrible behavior of Richard II in exiling and robbing the Lancastrians and Henry Bolingbroke,
that they crown was stolen by them
it was a grave mistake during the time of Henry Bolingbrokes or
Henry IV reign
that he permitted Anne Mortimer to marry into the Yorkist
faction
and bring her claim to the Yorkists...
women are entitled to pass their claim to inheritance
and Anne also brought huge fortune and lands of the Mortimers
to the already powerful Yorkists
a fortune which helped fund their cause greatly
as Yorkists were cash strapped in part due to the commitment to support large armies in retainer
Margaret of Anjou may have demonstrated some leadership
but the power of the Lancastrians lay already in huge wealth, land
and private armies
on both sides, both factions had huge armies
Awesome video. Very informative. These wars were so pointless and wasteful. Keep up the good work.
As usual you make us wanting for more! Awesome!
4:40 I love the Carol of the Bells being used to build suspense. Though now I feel even warmer here in August. And want some presents under the tree. And maybe missed what was said there, haha
Edward III although known as one of the greatest kings of England
enforced policies and made many decisions that contributed largely to the War of Rose
1. Edward planned only partially successfully for a huge international empire
in order to keep his sons occupied, successful and from fighting each other
with the Black Prince Duke of Aquitaine,
Lionel lord of Ireland and Scotland,
John of Gaunt lord of Brittany etc. etc.
He made his four oldest sons into Dukes,
with huge lands, income, and armies of retainers
he planned for them to be mini kings
and he raised the bar for ambition
before this Dukes we're not common
and many princes were made simply Earls, a slightly lowe rank
2. Edward was so anxious about marriage alliances of his children and the issue that they would incur
that he basically put off marrying the first two kids off
Edward the Black Prince
and the first daughter.
This created a situation where Richard II,
The Black Princes son ,
was way too young and immature, a teenager
whereas Richard II s uncles like John of Gaunt were much more mature and powerful,
with children who were similar ages to Richard II ,
a competitive issue,
instead of being much younger as they should have been
( The black prince was much older than the other sons )
3. Edward III disinherited Philippa from the crown of England because she was a female
and the only child of Lionel, Edwards second son, older than John of Gaunt patriarch of the Lancastrians
However, Edward married Philippa to extremely rich and landed Mortimer family
who did not like being disinherited
and who privately thought that they should be the next kings of england,
after Richard II.
4. The final coup is that Henry IV , Lancastrian,
king who deposed Richard II,
permitted Anne of Mortimer,
descended from Philippa and Mortimer family ,
to marry into Yorkist faction,
giving the Yorkist claim to throne
over the Lancastrians .
this is one of the most crucial points in the war.
Henry IV was older and ill
and he made a huge error for his line .
5. one must remember that these rivalries and wars lasted over such a long period
that people simply made some bad choices
possibly losing track of rivalries ...
from 1399 the deposition of Richard II by Henry IV , Lancastrian
all the way to the 1460's
with Henry IV s grandson Henry VI, married to Margaret of Anjou
fighting Edward IV , Yorkist king ...who triumphed .
6. Henry V, Lancastrian son of Henry IV
basically made the mistake of permitting Richard Duke of York to inherit both Mortimer an dYorkist fortune
despite the plots of Richards father against the throne.
Henry V chose forgiveness
and this fortune and power permitted Richard of York to rival
Great video! Informative and entertaining with good writing
This channel is actually nuts right… whatever I happen to be looking at in history, they seem to post a video on it very soon afterwards. They say Alexa doesn’t listen… but not complaining honestly because I’ve never understood the wars of the roses, was struggling to write a book review on it when this popped up. Just awesome, thanks guys.
Same! Was literally explaining the war of the roses to some Dutch friends last night
I Am Assuming You Are A Younger Man, Either Way Read All The History You Can.
I thought it was just me 😭 I’ve fully had this with at leaste 4 or 5 of there videos, I have the feeling of finding out more about something and they go and drop a video on the subject
I thought it was just me 😭 I’ve fully had this with at leaste 4 or 5 of there videos, I have the feeling of finding out more about something and they go and drop a video on the subject
@@saltyreesescup3104 basically ancient now… nearly 18 I can’t believe it! But yes History is my fav alevel subject
Great video. We often see docs on the War of the Roses but nothing on what had lead to this period. The only thing I found was that the incidental music and sound effects often obscured the voice-over. Thank you for posting.
Matthew Lewis has LOADS of content on this subject on his “Gone Medieval” podcast and also on his UA-cam channel. Matthew is the lead expert on this period 👌
It can be tough when announcers have deeper voices, they seem to blend more easily into bass notes of music. I've noticed this constantly while speaking to friends at concerts - the lower their voice, the less likely I'll be able to hear them over the subs.
Love your work 👍
Great content but the mix is poor. Need to dial back the sound effects/music as they drown out the voice over.
That's was the best version of The War of the Roses so far I've seen
I'm from the USA but my ancestors are from England Scotland France and Italy so this is very interesting
That was awesome, thanks :)
Putting it ridiculously simply so many young men died so someone that isn’t them can become king.
Not so different from wars today.
That was the politics of the time
Not much different to how politics happen today. Look at the Tory massacre that just happened today!
@@bsangel93 Hasn't it always been that way?
Great video, loved this!
Very interesting, thanks for posting
On second viewing I'd say that this is perfect for the non expert such as I, to revisit.. Very useful indeed! ❤️👍
Oh my gosh pure english pure information pure true of course one the best channel
4:48 it's likely that Henry caught dysentery during the siege of Meaux when the English stubbornly set out to conquer the town during the winter instead of the more appropriate campaigning seasons. The health conditions were notably bad even for a medieval siege camp. Now, obviously dysentery wasn't a rare occurrence (another royal prince died from dysentery complications already in this video!), but it's one of those What-If moments in history. If the English hadn't fixated on taking Meaux, perhaps an entirely different 15th century would have unfolded.
Team York. The wrong man won at bosworth
I also knew something that MOST hypocrite "Historians" do NOT admit!!!! The YORKISTS had a MUCH BETTER CLAIM to the throne than the USURPER Lancastrians who STOLE the Crown by KILLING Richard II (the YORKISTS were descended from the SECOND SON of Edward III)!!!!
Great video
Jack Cade must've really shook the tree. Love history - always a surprise!
Thank you.
Subscribed.
I can't follow a rapid listing of name after name, keeping score of when a name changed or when we were still talking about the same person... I would suggest adding visuals, even in the corner somewhere depicting who is reigning or the topic of discussion and when you move on to speak of a new person.
If I've heard of the mention of a "Henry" just a few seconds ago and then I'm trying to absorb what then happened under his reign if you only bring up a new name I can't remember if it was "Henry" or "George" or just the next "Henry" who you were talking about just a moment ago. Also, if you mention that someone challenged the throne or went into battle, I often didn't understand from your narration what happened in that battle as you then only mentioned a name and weren't even clear about if they're the victor and new king or what had happened exactly, especially as you've just mentioned two names who were both parties in the battle but having just heard them a few seconds ago how can I always keep track of which was which?
So the short version of all this is: just rattling out names and years so fast doesn't stick and is too hard to follow. Utilising the available visuals would make it massively better in my opinion. And no, I'm not an old guy. I've been able to follow demanding lectures and seminars in university and professional life.
You have otherwise excellent visuals and narration.
lf only there was a book or something you could read, but nobody has ever written about this period of history.
Hard times make strong men. Strong men make good times. Good times make weak men. This is basically the theme of the war of Roses
Love it!
But, then again, WHO doesn't love history? 🤨🤔😉
Excellent vid
Awesome vid.
The quick and only answer to the title is GREED for power, land, money. That’s it.
Henry VI was crowned Henri II of France. He lost his crown soon after, but he was crowned and is still recognised as a king of France. This omission sounds like a typical Dan Snow "documentary".
Recognised by whom? The treaty of Troyes gave the french throne to Henry V after Charles VI. But Henry V died before Charles VI: Henry V wasn't king of France, thus his son can't be king of France either. Charles VII is the right king after Charles VI in 1422, not Henry VI. Thats precisely why Charles VII fought him until he took all the english possession in the continent, even Normandy and Aquitaine which were rightful possession of the King of England.
The White Queen (about Elizabeth Woodville), The White Princess (about Elizabeth of York), and The Spanish Princess (about Catherine of Aragon) on HBO Max are all really good. I don't know how accurate they are, but they are interesting to watch.
P. Gregory took a lot of artistic license with all of her books, for example having Elizabeth of York sleeping/being in love with her uncle who locked her brothers up in the tower never to be seen again.
I think the white queen is the best one, Richard and Anne steal the show but I hate that Gregory went the route of Richard having an affair with his niece. It’s ridiculous and he was always so true to brother Edward unlike George. The casting is great too. I think Richard took the crown from the boy king to keep it in York hands because he resented the Woodvilles because the were Lancastrians. I wonder how different it would have been had Richard been Edward V’s lord protector and he had been raised in a Yorkist home. I can’t see Richard killing those boys but when it came to having the crown, all bets are off.
I have watched ALL THREE (before they were on HBO Max) ALL THREE are GREAT!!!!
Thankyou
Brilliant!
The sound effects are drowning out the nar
Which version of Stabat Mater Dolorosa is that playing in the background?
Can’t hear the narrator at times be the voiceover is drowned out by the sound effects. You need to adjust your mix and compression levels.
Superb
AND INCORRECT
The drumming is so loud in this video it's hard to hear the speaker.
I remember learning about saint albans and I thought that was a weird place for it to start
Issue with the mixing because battle noises drown out the presenter
Every video I watch on the War of the Roses starts further and further back in time!
Eventually, I'm sure I'll come across a video that will start with, "During the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt in 284BCE..."
That's not a diss on this video by the way. This video is very factual and easy to follow!!!
I'd say the root cause of this war is the system of hereditary monarchy. If you look in particular at the English history, a strong king is usually succeeded by a weak one for various reasons. But instead of questioning whether such a system is suitable for "determining" the leader of a country, they fought over decisions that had been made decades prior simply due to a very weak/tyrannic king.
Thanks for the moments where the narrator could be heard clearly above the (supposedly) background audio...
When the background soundtrack is as loud of the narration
I became interested in war of the roses because of game of thrones
Channel pure information history
The Imperial boomrang played a role. Wars of conquest seem to almost always lead to political violence at home.
The voice is badly recorded: high and low volume.
I blame Henry VI
Dudes who invented heraldry : "So, the idea is to have a simple symbol painted on a flag or a shield in order to be easily identified on the battlefield."
York : "Say no more !"
All of the inbreeding within the royals of Europe clearly didn't have problem on their lack of mental stability to realize that all of this fighting served 0 purpose other than pure ego.
Why you got almost Timothy-Iee-Timlee,De La Willhiem-Edmound De-Lee,By-The Poole-Poolee,pool coat of arms, as-still not right on richard plantagenet me
The wars of the roses seems like such a rich period for a trash tv period show
GoT was based loosely on WotR.
The series has a SIGNIFICANT similarity to the Plantagenet dynasty and its people and events.
@@thestrategos4710 indeed House of the Dragon and the dance of the dragons is also inspired by the earlier period of unrest around the english Throne termed the Anarchy from 1138-1153
Please please please - I've enjoyed this but try to be a bit clearer for dummies like myself! This seems like a well researched piece - but I'm a novice and need clearer writing. EG: At the beginning you're talking about the achievements of Edward the 3rd, then you transition awkwardly. "With [these next 3 achievements] Edward the Black suddenly died." I'm a bit tired - so I only vaguely sensed there was something I was not getting there and had to listen to it a few times. It was NOT clear you had changed to talk about a new King until AFTER 3 facts of his reign were already divulged. I would just reorder your words "His son, Edward the black was equally as brilliant. In his reign he .... but he suddenly died, before his father."
We need a video explaining the similarities between Game of Thrones and the war of the roses :D
Sooo house work fairies exist. There was me thinking it was the wife. 😏
All I can say is go France.
what
tf does an english civil war has to do with france ?
why are anglos so obsessed with this country ?
I give up. The excessive voice modulation combined with the too loud battle noises and music made this too difficult to follow.
You may have hearing problems.
I agree. The background sound mix is far too high against the narration. Poorly done.
I agree, I had to put the subtitles on to help me out as I kept missing bits. It's not my hearing, had it tested recently and it's fine 😒
There is no proof that Henry intended usurpation
Is it a battle or a war.
They are not the same thing.
There are many battles fought during a war.
The real reason for the war was a disagreement on the best rose to represent love....the red had one
Jesus this is beyond annoying.
UA-cam ought to block this kind of very dangerous content
Game of thrones is heavily inspired by this