The biggest reason for the success of the British empire which is overlooked - its an island. Not bogged down by land conflicts in Europe, forced them to develop their navy.
@@olivertaylor8682 people often point out the returning failure of the English armada is overlooked. But what is really overlooked is that there were three failed Spanish Armadas
was not that small anyway look at belgium holland portugal even smaller nations had overseas countries fact is at the time the power was in europe.. england , ireland , scotland ,wales were not that small
"...given that the nation was an island the likelihood of being invaded or conquered was somewhat lower that a country that was surrounded on all sides by foreign powers." Me: cries in Polish :'(
A major brilliance of the British Empire, and one that makes it very unique, was the creation of the Dominions: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland. What better way to keep people far away loyal to you than to create nations for them to self-govern? Other empires were constantly at odds with their far-away subjects; Britain made her subjects partners (at least in theory).
The 13 colonies revolted after 160 years of rule, because they had a mix of European civilization and respectable population numbers. More than 2 million, when the United Kingdom had 9 million. Australia and Canada were very late conquered domains, and have always had a very low population, negligible in 1900, spread over very large territories. It is easy for them to reach peaceful agreements in the 20th century, in the context of world wars. The rest of the British empire (90% of the population) was very poor, and has another civilization, not British. The Spanish empire was very peaceful for 300 years, with some indigenous revolts. The Belgian, French, German and Italian subjects of the Spanish empire in Europe were very loyal to the King of Spain, between 200 and 450 years, fighting in the Spanish army. Spanish America had universities, hospitals, European civilization, like the 13 colonies.
@@legendaryking913 gdp is per capita is not annual income but gdp/population. India has a very poor economy for its size and a low standard of living on average
Libs Hate Montesquieu India is the fastest growing major economy in the world, with nuclear triad capability; something not even the UK is capable of. You know nothing of the world, so don’t speak about it. Also, “third world” is such a dated term, the third world merely means any nation that had not sided with either the US or the Soviet Union
Another point to add is that steam power (industrialization) originated in England out of the discovery/necessity of coal. Coal was used for heat during winter but only so much could be mined. As people tried to dig deeper they started to hit water- the Newcomen steam engine was invented to burn coal and pump water out of these mines which meant they could dig for coal even further than before and thus the first engine was born and converted into other uses.
Totally agree with you on that, "necessity" was the initial driving force of Britain's industrialization, the weather was very poor in the winter this forced people to come up with inventions like the Steam engine, the light bulb etc to make their lives better. Contrast that with tropical countries where the weather was naturally great, you can see why they never thought of inventing anything. Instead they worshiped the sun, ha ha ha.
@@MrPereiraAdriano That's nonsense, Britain had a very established economy and had been trading globally for nearly 200yrs before the Industrial revolution.
"Another point to add is that steam power (industrialization) originated in England" --> I'm English and have very good friends in other countries(!!) of the UK. With that said, I see you are still in early school. While there, you will definitely want to take extra classes in basic geography. You'll also want to look up a certain 'James Watt', and you realise your rather large blunder, you might want to sit down and reflect.
In 1815 UK’s productivity was greater than the rest of Europe combined, thanks to early lead in Industrialization. It still had this edge in 1850. Economically it was a “continental” power, which allowed it to build a huge navy. The control of India after 1857 gave it the military manpower of a superpower to go with its economic and naval superpower. After 1850 industrial policy in continental European nations began to close the gap. Germany’s industrial policy combined with combined high quality universal education helped Germany to close the gap by the end of the 19th century - and obtain big leads in new industries in electronics, machinery and chemistry (the British couldn’t keep up because their education was insufficient for their working classes). But Germany was too late to come to this power to establish much of a foot print outside Europe or even, for that matter, in Europe as the two World Wars demonstrate.
Nate Chaps One of the best books ever written is “Economic History: A Very Short Introduction” by Robert Allen. It’s very accessible, short, cheap. It is published by Oxford University Press. Highly, highly, highly recommended.
Whatever development Britishers have done in India, they have done it only for their own advancements, the british literally looted us, draining our wealth. The british power was cruel, rotten to its core, but there were some who were benovolent too, those who worked for our education, tried to abolish the cruel practices of our society and the ones who became the voice of the voicelesses, like Lord Ripon, Lord William Bentink, Sir Charles Metcalfe, Lord Ellenborough.
@@kaneinkansas ..your comment is incredibly ignorant. Economic figures state that India controlled 25% of the worlds GDP at the time the British landed on its shores. Historical accounts say that the only reason they were even able to take control of India was due to the weakening of the Mughal Empire attributed to constant invasions by the Afghans, draining them of their resources. And even then the British didnt have the ability to take on India with all its might..which is exactly why they pretended to establish themselves as traders..setting up small factories and such and bribing local rubbers to collect 'Jiziya' as tax and issue land owners witg Auraunzebs permission. The Mughal Empires tax revenues alone were greater than that of every single European country at the time, including Britain. India was looted, pillaged. To write this comment and insinuate that India was ever beneath Britain prior to colonisation is complete rubbish. I honestly suggest you stop reading material written by Churchill sympathisers and Ex Conservative party members..try reading "Inglorious Empire' by Shashi Tharoor.
@@Nate-uf4xk By the first line of your comment I can already tell you dont know an ounce of Colonial history..Britain built their industrial economy by deindustrialising India, do some research into economic figures and facts before you sit there making comments like that, if you want me to point you to credible sources I absolutely can do, just ask.
Britain: Hey China trade with us, we like tea China: Nah dude we got everything we need Britain: Ok we hear what you saying..... we're gonna sell you loads of opium
@@jedijournal9159 Britain ruled Somalia and Italy ruled Somaliland there is difference between these two currently there is only Somalia but Somaliland wanted to gain independence
Can you imagine the forests that once covered England, now most of it all gone to make all those ships. It must have been like Mirkwood in Lord of The Rings at one point.
Not really. Mirkwood was based on the German forests. The Celts in Britain and Gaul were a more densely-settled agrarian people and cleared a lot of their primeval forest earlier. I could bang on for hours about how the lack of readily available wood in England shaped its history. Highlights include: the Norfolk Broads nature preserve (think temperate bayous) being entirely the result of medieval peat harvesting; the paucity of charcoal and relatively early use of fossil coals across the UK as kickstarter of industrialisation; the Baltic timber import trade in the 1600s being a driver of English (later British) foreign policy, etc.
Unlike French, Portuguese, Spanish & Russia the British were about trade, wealth and strategic chokehold over just land grab and saying i own this land, this was the secret to their success
@@OnlyGrafting Brits certainly learnt that strategy from the Vikings, and later got lucky vs the Spanish. If I was a religious person I'd say that God favoured the British even winning both world wars. And on a "morals" perspective, if there is a God then young innocent children wouldn't die from natural diseases. The Italians conquered and basically obliterated England. Yet somehow the English learnt how to adapt, and without any resentment against Italians throughout all of its recorded history in any way shape or form.
@@TomGB-81 Please do not equate 'The Italians'; (Italy didn't exist until the Risorgimento of 1849-1871; the peninsula was a collection of essentially 'independent' states before that...) with the ROMANS who conquered Britain - chalk and cheese, mate!
@@GenghisKhan-Shaman If you want be specific then you're partly wrong, lol... the Romans didn't conquer Britain, albeit some people argue Scotland isn't Britain other than it makes it Great Britain, though Britain is an English translation of Britannia which covers all of the British Isles. But then you could argue England was never conquered by the Romans because England didn't exist back then.
@@sumitsingh7835 but will they really love them? are you 100% sure that Europe and its governments/rulers will become righteous in the future? how many generations gap?
@@shawngarratt2887 britain and france wouldnt be pressured to get rid of their colonies they would still have their empires today if it hadnt happened also prussia would still technically be a thing
You forgot Wales as part of Britain. The key to the empire was threefold: 1. Royal Navy - both defense and later control of the oceans. 2. Technologically superior. Most scientific advances, the first to industrialised meant that Britain was wealthier and better able to trade than other countries by the 29th century. Dominating the world by 1850. 3. Pragmatism- the empire was purely for trade and from that the empire arose. The Pragmatism meant that the British ran the empire primarily through locals or via other races within the empire. As such the number of British required to run the empire was minimal as was the cost until the 20th century when the quality of life improved and the cost to bring these improvements outweighed the benefit of trade.
Yeah I feel like the British were comparitively less keen on Baptizing their colonies specially if you compare to countries like France and Spain. This made sure the local people's cultures were relatively respected and Britain could hold on her empire longer.
Speaking of expansion, Kate Middleton has had more pricks than a dart board. Luckily she can afford procedures to tighten up down there. Much to the delight of a certain lucky Saint Bernard, when and if England gets invaded.
Mongol Empire and British Empire are quite similar. Both had revolutionary new weapons technology which enabled fast conquers. They spread fast around the world, then fractured to smaller realms, like Golden Horde, USA, Chagatai Khanate and Australia or people they have conquered became independent.
@@Freedom_-oc5le well Scotland seems to be split 50/50 according to opinion polls, Wales is 75/25 in favour of staying and Northern Ireland is basically just a matter of time (with most young people wanting to unify with Ireland while most old people don’t)
You are implying that Britain conquered the empire by military means, and this is absolutely wrong. Trade, and giving the important locals a share of the action was the principal means to establishing control. Military was only used to protect trade and in some cases build railways.
I am mongol,writing from Mongolia.Mongol empire was most powerful military super power in all human history.It was much more strong in military aspect than all great empires-Romans,Arab Khalifat,British empire,Nazy Germany,Soviet Union & USA.
très juste! nous les français étions des "paysans", alors que les anglais étaient des navigateurs! les anglais se sont implantés un peu partout à travers le monde!
British empire saved the world Twice we owe so much to British empire as we owe to roman empire yes, a lot of our modern problem is cause of british decolonisation i'm pretty sure, if britai never decolonised we wouldn't be bother withthe same shit
Bud it was a different time a different world from now you passing judgement like as if you lived in the 1800 . People behavior and acted different m...
Britiain didn't rule the world 🤦♂️ It amazes me that Mongolia such a small population of 1 million ruled the world between 1200s - 1400s. 1 in every 200 men alive today are descendants of Genghis Khan 🇲🇳
@@conspiracytheorista8988 they did heavily unethically shit but in terms of all the global superpowers to exist in history definitely did the least horrid shit
@@Admiral_Jezza I don't know why you're mentioning that it's a tiny island nation when the places and people they conquered consisted of even smaller kingdoms and tribes.
The quality of this ancient history documentary is outstanding. The way it balances facts with engaging storytelling makes it a must-watch for anyone interested in history
In short, they had a really strong navy and were able to defend their colonies and take more from other nations. They also had enough money to sustain them till they had to let them go.
A few more details that may help explain the initial expansion:- 1. The geographic advantage did not mention the location of the island in the age of sail. The UK is at a great location to sail south to pick up the "Trade winds" (the name gives us a clue here!), sail to Caribbean, up the US East coast and pick up the Westerlies to return to UK. All easily doable in square rigged sailing boats. 2. The UK has a plethora of deep water ports. This means that as boats got bigger the UK could continue to be a naval power - wiki Lisbon to see why this is important. 3. The commentary mentions the Navy as a reason for the expansion, this is the wrong way around. The trade existed to pay for the navy, it could not have existed before the trade. Not a bad summary for a huge subject.
Trade fed the navy which fed the trade which further fed the navy which further fed the trade and so on. Putting trade above everything built the British empire into the most powerful superpower in history, America learnt this, and adopted a similar strategy to create its power and wealth. Germany, France, Spain, Russia, etc. put prestige above trade and it cost them their prestige and their trade. Everyone has a price, and Britain learnt to be the leading power they needed to be able to pay everyones price.
@@jugg9140 yes, as trade is easier over sea than land especially 100 plus years ago, the military presence in India was only necessary to maintain order most of the time, if someone was capable of a naval blockade of India that would have cost both Britain and India a fortune due to the lack of overseas trade. Control of the seas kept trade flowing and the money rolling in. Napoleon hat the strongest army by comparison to all others at the time, in all history including up until the present day, but the British naval blockade of France and its allies crippled Europe's economy, and because most of British trade was with its own empire, the USA, and across Asia, no trade between Britain and most of Europe cost Britain a lot of profit, but still in profit non the less, but cost France and Spain their ability to maintain themselves and wage war.
The primary reason Britain was the most successful empire was that it tended to work with(trade) other countries rather than invade and conquer them. That made a massive difference. Clearly, the most well-developed naval force helped too etc etc.
You have forgotten to mention New Zealand. You could make a comment for the key role of Meditterenean Sea in middle 1800 's for the british trade. Great video btw!!
@@RichARock Spaniards and Portuguese were the first to explore both, they left little to nor register to avoid other powers but there are evidences in form of helmets, coins etc...
@Lucky wasn’t that disproven ? Either way it doesn’t matter because the actual first people to find and explore Australia and New Zealand were its native inhabitance.
True. How would the modern world function without a common language? How would some countries like India function without a common language? How could a local tribal langbe fairly chosen.
It has done both good and bad but people blaming history for their current plight can be quite stupid. Be cautious yes, but move on and work together if I were they.
@James Evans - Lol, what? America doesn't rule shit. It can't even rule itself at the minute. And if you don't think a tiny island ruling a quarter of the world, fighting on multiple fronts and having the largest empire in history isn't impressive then you're either bitter and lying or your standards are unrealistically high. No other country in history has achieved what the British did.
@@badger1858 Maybe he is aiming to say dominating poor region wasn't an impressive thing. Regardless if they had conquered the first world countries (Modern Europe) it would be impressive [For him]
I think the British Empires success was a mixture of the Industrial Revolution which was enabled by Englands unique political-culture (Magna Carta, for example). I think the IR had such a greater effect in England because of the greater personal and economic freedoms people had at least in the mid & upper classes. Also they say due to the low population in the British Isle it incentivized the invention of machinery to increase production. Then the composite nations particularly Scotland, as I understand it the motivation for the Union was (in part) to avoid having an enemy nation to Englands north that could ally with, say the French, the Scots motivation was debt I think. And, viola, a political union made without war but a trade of sorts. And that was a pattern that played out through the empire, there was no invasion date for the British entry into India for example, British business interest would go around the world and the Crown would be obliged to ensure their security. So the British conquer the world through economics accidentally and then built the national mythos around that haphazard. Now to watch the video.
@@yevz6360 Magna Carta, which meant the king (John) couldn’t do as he pleased without baron consent (sort of anyway) is recognised as one of the world’s most important legal charters but the Oxford provisions are just as important. De Montfort fought against the king (Henry III) won, and called the first parliaments, through a document known as the Oxford provisions. The king’s son (Prince Edward, later Edward I) would overthrow De Montfort a year later but only on the promise to his men that he would keep De Montfort’s reforms. In the English Civil War, the king’s apparent divine right to rule with absolutist power was proven false as the Parliamentary army beat the Royalist forces and the king, Charles I, was executed . England became a republic for ten years but it was still pretty much a monarch under its leader, Oliver Cromwell. Once Cromwell died, the son of the executed King Charles I, became King Charles II. Charles II was the last king of England who ever acted supreme over parliament. Once he died, his brother became James II, but was kicked out in what is known as the Glorious Revolution, which was parliament’s way of getting rid of any Catholic and absolutist kings. The guy they replaced James II with was a Protestant and he was the first constitutional monarch of England. So through Magna Carta 1215 Oxford Provisions 1264 English Civil War 1642-1651 Glorious Revolution 1688 The power of the monarch began to decrease, and by 1688 absolutism was completely gone in England/Britain. Over one hundred years before France did, over two hundred years before Russia did (perhaps they never did thinking about it) and even about 90 years before the creation of the USA.
@@archivesoffantasy5560 the glorious revolution was key to the expansion of England, later GB, since it was the "cause" of the transition of capital, banks, economic systems, craftsmen, stock marketing etc., from Amsterdam to London.
Yeah , it's mainly due to my belief that most countries have "imperialistic" goals no matter the country you're ancestors too would love to expand their land and culture. For instance the Tagalog empire of modern day Philippines (my homeland) was a huge empire and took parts of modern day Malaysia Before the Spanish came. I can't see myself complementing my ancestors for they're "empire" while also hating on Spain for they're "empire" that be hypocritical of me. A such I'd like to judge countries with the mentality "all is fait game in the real world" having no bias regardless if a country was a conqueror or a conquered one. It didn't matter for Britain an ex colony of Rome before becoming an empire greater than Rome itself it wouldn't matter if it happens to another region of the world.
Does anyone here Believe in Brit collapse? Just look around the globe: • what language we use here • Maritime Laws • key infrastructure of global network communication • Banking, Finance , Investment • Hi-Tech enterprises and many other Dominations Please tell US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand isn't just different part of one BIG Machine?
To this day, the British empire still exists, but it is less obvious than before. The UK is one of the most if not the most influential country in the world.
@The Loner Millionaire The US has more overt influence on the world. It can do that since it has the money and military might to prove its status. The UK has a more covert influence. As with France, they are somewhat influential, but in a different way, you know, economy and military not as strong as the US.
@@PandaBear-qy8oq the US won't be what it is if it was not for the European colonists as you pointed out. And then, the constitution. The US population, nation is build around a set of ideas. A migrant from Africa, Asia, etc can become American. Good luck with that in Europe. It ain't gonna happen.
The system of using trade outposts was also used by the Portuguese earlier (contrary to the Spanish and French), which is an interesting fact, since Portugal and England have been allies since the XIV century! ~The more you know~
The English wanted that treaty so they could easily marry into our Portuguese royal family then without firing a bullet take our colonies, us Portuguese could have been bigger than England but we got manipulated . . . The British with a kind smile take your wallet . . . 👋🇵🇹
Great job. Go ahead . I got many detailed information about throughout history from one clip that lasts roughly 11 minute. I can say I ever comprehend history of Great Britain in school class
The always made sure they had a bigger navy than the next 2 countries combined (this was usually france and spain, but holland might have been up there early on)
Yeah they proved their utter dominance of the seas in winning the most during the 7 years war. Which was arguably the first global war. They also embarrassed the French and the Spanish (traditional naval superpowers) at Trafalgar in 1805.
but in reality British empire has helped the the world to reach today's modern world... All the policies , discoveries , social and political reform were damn great thats how the British ruled the world and rest by other European powers Just a example of my south asia south asia was divided in many kindoms before British arrival.. the south asian kingdoms were very "poor comparin to Western power at that time" and majority tax revenue was from agriculture So then many kings there decided to let Westerners "portugees , etc to open the trade and industries in large scale where British empire not only opened the industries but also ruled over subcontinent ( very clever ) and created utilities and employment then economy rises for both Britain and south asian From the beginning , south asian had been rising voice against British empire for governing the country except British ( as British didn't hav ancestral history) which resulted today's independent countries "india , pakistan, etc After gaining independence, we can clearly see the downfall in economy where the new countries again fought in the name of land and government was higly corrupted ( i'm talkin abt after the independence but today is different ) All the colonized counties had gained many utilities and great social and political reform bcz of British empire yah but no one appreciate " cuz there's a word which is pretty well known ie. LOOT Which is baseless cuz All those colonized countries were part of British empire so the wealth is also part of it where british took many ancient stuffs in their mainland Britain ( central government) now some countries want to claim and want britain to put them back where they actually belong I guess its their "colonized countries" own fault that they wanted full independence which make them new independent countries so baseless to claim those stuffs as We human also belong to "one" civilisation so then why dont we all live together ?? It was better to be part of Britian where the ancient history could be shared as one country Or Gaining independence and do some development and learning the history instead of scratchin history ....
@@manojvukkem2318 "other side of coin" well wat if i say that the coin you have is nth but fake paper material .. go through the history Thats all Btw i hav added more thin in my reply "so u can read more
@@nanilama7016 u seem to be the ignorant one I guess, u praise British policies sooo much which made failed croping seasons into a more severe famines as the farmers would not be given any concessions during hard times and forced to grow commercial crops and even export food in times of famines. Just giving the reason that we colonised them because we had the power makes them no less than the nazis. And that's one of the reasons people in South Asia hate British more than the nazis U know that the EIC is a private company ryt and what do they do, only work for profit they hardly used the money for investing in the subcontinent unlike the previous rulers and exported them to uk. About technology we could have even done that without their help and much more better. The jobs offered by the British to Indians were of very little significance and never had our opinion in important matters as most of the high level jobs were taken by British. Railways u say what kind of administration would take 9 times the original price to lay a mile of tracks. And brits never introduced railway for benifit of people but for their own trade purposes. British unfair and shitty trade deals really killed industries and made more people unemployed than the employment they have provided. Judiciary is just a legitimacy for the British people in India to do whatever they wanted and escape them claiming to be innocent. Humans are one civilization then why do you have to attack, suppress them. And finally Looting I can't even stop myself if I have to specifically list out every single thing. Just look at your British Museum And about United india we may have been like Europe which is divided but still have a better quality of life, and much advanced
Q: "How did the British Empire rule the world?" A. "Divide and rule". It did not "start" with the Roman Empire, and it did not end when the Brits left India. It is alive and well, and surrounds all aspects of society and politics, and flows like dirty water always looking for a "crack" somewhere...
Well, I'm an Iraqi, my country literally had been made up by British from nothing, it wasn't exist, they made its borders, and they did set up its government, and put on a king on it, and of course they made the first laws one of them "English as a second language" which we still study it in schools until today, all wanna say that I'm GLAD WE WERE A BRITISH COLONY INSTEAD OF FROGS (FRENCH) COLONY. 🇬🇧 🇮🇶
@@waterbuffalo867 Still OUR language though. I've been to international business conferences where people don't speak each others languages, but even in France and Netherlands, the conferences are conducted in English. We ruled to world so we wouldn't have to learn anyone else's language 🙂
@Libs Hate Montesquieu Or the teachers use online resources that are engaging and easy to understand to make teaching easy then go over afterwards. And the politics of the channel with history doesnt matter because for schools theyre jus looking for the facts and ignore the opinions...
@@jack0nn12 i think school should just teach the facts and ignore politics, if peopel learn based off what offened some snowflake history will be totally messed up in 100years and we be thinking like ww2 was a war against rainbow ponys or something intill someone offened by ponys then we have to change it again
Mughals were long gone before the British arrived. It was the Hindu Maratha empire who was in control of much of India. 3 wars were fought against the depleted Maratha forces who were ready tired after long drawn wars with the mughals. You made NO mention of Anglo-marathas wars, british lost the first but won the 2nd and 3rd battle.
Wouldnt call that long gone. The last effective Mughal Emperor was Aurangzeb who died in 1707. The brits arrived some time during the reign of Jahangir but only seized control of parts of the subcontinent during the later half of the 18th century
Aayush jha ! English came to india at Jahanger era. They were traders till 1757. After the war of Plasy with Siraj u dull , EIC started expanding. Marathas and Rajputs started expanding after that.
I disagree with quite a lot of what the empire done. However I've always found it fascinating that it was the Union of England and Scotland which spearheaded it, 2 countries that had fought for hundreds and hundreds of years, uniting and dominating the world. From a tiny island.
You cant judge the empire based off today's standards, we created the modern world, the impact on the quality of life, transport, medicine, infrastructure we created has helped billions, this far out weighs the atrocities for me. We helped spread democracy around the world and the royal navy stopped the Atlantic slave trade (at it's own cost) effectively bringing it to an end. We introduced laws in the colonies to stop savage outdated practices in india etc
Only the Scottish could hold the the English back and when they unionised the whole world trembled in fear. The only downside to the union was never before in human history has a language been butchered so crudely
Chris Franklin I agree it's hard to compare between different eras etc. But for all the good the empire did do, advances in technology etc, there was still a lot of true evil committed. India, Ireland, Kenya and all of Africa really.
@@chrisfranklinguitar7105 oh does it lol the millions who died of famine and torture might beg to differ .. also its a little arrogant to assume the indigenous populations might not have built the same infrastructure in time themselves anyway
Yes, let's just gloss over the fact that it was the British Empire that abolished slavery in its dominions. Even the Dutch settlers of South Africa ran away from that rule. We had to pay the Portuguese and the Sultan of Muscat to stop it. It didn't work.
After they genocided millions of indians and destroyed the economy of that whole country in the span of 200 years. Yeah they really where the good guys
@@Dushmann_ We don't stick together we are doomed, each day the Communist get stronger - the Americans just added yet another space force (militarily) so there is some weird stuff going on up there & down here, Churchill & Roosevelt didn't fight the Communist in 45 now western society will unfortunately pay . . . 👋🇵🇹
@@kevinyoung42 Early in WW2 H offered Churchill a very generous peace treaty - England could keep it's colonies/ending western war . . . At the time even Oswald Mosley said H "just wanted to go East" many European countries joined in to fight the Communist like the Vichy French government . . . Instead Churchill had Mosley arrested and did his best to get FDR involved in destroying Europe by helping the Communist - really incredible that Churchill was so short sighted - that's why Churchill lost the 45 election, he had no long term plan after the war . . . H wanted Europe to control the world for another "1,000 years" and like I said today we can't even control our own streets, what happened to Lee Rigby is a European tragedy even a small memorial to Rigby was removed - to not offend the local London Africans . . . 👋🇵🇹
@@jaylopes8489 personally, both guys we're terrible. That guy you call "H" was a totalitarian military ruler, and as a latino american, I can tell you those guys are some of the worst scum from earth. Only looking after Their own good while making its own people to suffer. Same goes to Stalin.
the mughal empire was succeded by the maratha empire which controlled most of the subcontinent for almost a century,the british then succeded the marathas after they defeated the marathas in the third anglo maratha war in 1818
Marathas were defeated by abdalis in 1762 I guess you forget so marathas never succeeded mughals as whole other states in India never never accept Maratha overlordship like mughals
@@ShubhamMishrabro it wasn't even an empire!!!it was more like a confederation!!!!there's a difference in two Mughals had an empire THE emperor controlled almost all the territory in subcontinent not just northern parts of subcontinent but pretty much all of it I say northern part cuz that was the heart of the empire like Punjab region and Delhi they did it just controlled it but Marathas were not great conquerors like Mongols and Timurids or Delhi sultanate they were just fighting a dying empire that had reached its limits and was about to collapse Marathas basically defeated Mughals again and again denying them control over the Deccan plateau but right after Mughals were thrown back at Delhi everyone under them was like no we will not submit to the Marathas we will be independent won't be part of another empire!!!now what can happen now they r basically rebelling against their new conquerors BUT here's a difference they were no empire builders!!!!they could not go to war with the whole Deccan plateau because then everyone will unite just like they united to defeat Mughals previously!!!and then they never tried to built an empire a confederation was basically it!!! After some time they started becoming stronger again and they had the capabilities to conquer the Deccan plateau as part of their Maratha empire!!and scrap the confederation that is when the Durrani empire came they fought the Marathas and defeated them now Marathas were weaker than ever and only now the idea of confederation was basically in everyone's mind cuz there was no conquer there no one was the predator no one was strong and then comes the 👏👏fUCKIN British assholes cuz they saw weakness in the subcontinent so they started hunting there was a new predator and after some wars they won any idea of Maratha confederation was throw out of the window !!!cuz now if anyone rebel British can just subdue them now everything truly ended Marathas never built an empire to begin with it was confederation and this thing became their downfall!!!!had Marathas bulit an empire in the subcontinent British would have had a very hard time conquering the subcontinent!!!!no empire no emperor no strength!!!that's why British conquered them it's just an illusion that British were great conquerors like Mongols !!!!no they were not they attacked only weaker places !!!!the day Marathas decided to break free from the Mughals they doomed themselves!!!!
Here some history for u bout the end of empires in subcontinent!!!and the reality of Marathas!!!!many Indians think they were great empire builders but no they were just great warriors !!!and they were the one who doomed the subcontinent to those asshole British colonizers!!!
Fascinating look into how Britain managed to build such a vast empire. It's incredible to see how a small island nation was able to exert control over so much of the globe through a combination of naval power, economic strategies, and diplomacy. But it’s also important to acknowledge the darker side of imperialism-colonization had devastating effects on many nations and cultures. History like this teaches us a lot about both the strengths and consequences of power.
After the 100 year war, England was dependent on its colonial conquests to survive, and then became gradually Britain. Its overseas gains made it a maritim power. Moreover, the english elites were more mercantiles, since the middle ages. While the french aristocracy, for example, descended more from the Romans, didn't work and preffered to spend on the pageantry (Versailles...). Britain became gradually a diplomatic leader during the 18 th (with the Spain succession war and later the 7 years war) , dominating the sea. Britain was developing its capitalism the first, almost one century before France (slowly in 19 th), and Germany (strongly and quickly in the end of 19th)...
Great Britain is an island, and it was protected from the invasions that devastated continental Europe, such as the armies of Philip II, Napoleon, Prussia or Germany. It is the same case as Japan, which was never invaded by the Mongol empire, and could have had stability. All the capitals of continental Europe were invaded several times and were infiltrated by revolutionary and communist agents: Paris, Moscow, Madrid, Berlin, Rome, Amsterdam, Lisbon... with 60-80% destruction of the economy in the wars. That is why the budget of countries like Spain and France was divided between the fleet and land (infantry, artillery, cavalry) to protect the borders. The British could live with small armies and put almost all of it into the fleet. Almost all of Asia had revolutions, wars, and colonial invasions. Japan, without invasions, could have had a period of prosperity and stability, which paved the way for the expansion of the Japanese empire in the 20th century.
America would be never superpower if WWI and WWII never happend. US is strong because Eupope was destroyed twice and US was far for this conflict and can involved in this in its own terms in time when they can benefit on this.
They'd still become a superpower now. Just like Asia, South America and Africa are rising. So would the US and the rest of North America. Although much earlier.
Vatras888 well ww1 they cake late but in the early part of ww1 they were supplying the shit out of them and in ww2 they were giving the people of Britain food and supplies and the Army’s guns and then japan brought them into it then you know how it goes
@@mudra5114 they devide the people in the name of religion, language ethnicity.... they divert the people by their devide and rule policies when people protest against British crown 👑
@@mudra5114 Pakistan and Bangladesh are the true evidence... they created because of these policies of British and they leave long lasting conflict and border disputes between us
Guyana in South America,most of Central and south Africa, Australia, Fiji, New Zealand and Tuvalu (at least of the union Jack symbol) in Oceania, and some stuff in Asia which i forgot
The rise of the European empires occurred due to centuries of fighting and competition. This led to the advancement of military technology and seafaring capability, so much so that it was inevitable that the competition would become global. The empire enriched the few and just gave average Brit new ways to die i.e. through conflict or in industrial accidents.
And this only applies to Europeans? Have you ever read up on Chinese history for instance? People were fighting each other everywhere in the world, even native american tribes were always in conflict, and in the 19th century they were still using bows and arrows.
@@henryviii2091 I think the whole world was in a total mess,void and no form at all..😂😂cos this conflicts and wars was everywhere not Europe alone ..Africa was worst😂😂 it something that happened in the whole world..the fittest survives that is what I call it ..you conquer your friend then you posses his land… nature is powerful😂😂when I Listen to history like this I just laugh..cos you can’t blame anyone in particular..it was everywhere even brothers killed themselves…may Cain and Abel started it😂😂
India was literally just that throughout its history.and just like Britain, srilanka was also an island just offshore from the subcontinent. Why didn't it become a global superpower? Where is the great empire of ilankai????
As usual from the USA, there’s a lot of confusion here about the name “Great Britain”. It is, and always has been, the island comprising England, Scotland and Wales,. It is not synonymous with “the United Kingdom”. Yet at 2:12 and elsewhere your map suggests that it includes the island of Ireland. Until 1801, the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” was just that. In 1801 the island of Ireland was incorporated (along with the cross of St Patrick to form the Union Flag), and the U.K. became “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. In 1922 the 22 counties of the Republic of Northern Ireland seceded from the UK, which then became the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
Hate on the Brits all you want, you have to admit, they pulled this off brilliantly. Just impressive as hell. Don’t hate the player, y’all. Hate the game.
@@szarekhostwind Survival of the fittest has been a law of nature as long as life has existed. Besides, why do you judge 1700s Brits with 2021 values? This might come to surprise you, but people back then weren’t raised to think the way people today do. Shocking, right?
@@jacobr8063 yeah survival of the fittest at its finest if people will just always abide by that principle then all of this was just smoke and mirrors then.. or should I say peace was just an illusion all along.
@@szarekhostwind I’m not saying survival of the fittest is a law we humans should abide by. We should rise above it and in some ways we are, but for millennia we didn’t. That doesn’t mean we modern humans should judge people who lived back in those when they didn’t have the knowledge and values we do today. That’s not fair to them. One may disagree with the morality of the British Empire while simultaneously admiring the accomplishment of building the largest empire in human history.
Hi. Good work. Carrying on, Britain expanded into a trading empire because it was the first nation to equip its mariners with marine chronometers, super-accurate timepieces that allowed the navigator to find his position of longitude at sea. They were invented by John Harrison, who sought to win the Board of Longitude's 20,000 pound prize for finding a way to find longitude. From 1761 on, Britain had a huge navigational advantage over competing trading nations, such as the Dutch, of "Dutch East Indies" fame, the French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Belgians, whose ships, lacking accurate navigation, often foundered on reefs, or just got lost and sank. As an example, Dutch captain Abel J. Tasman discovered New Zealand in 1642, and made approximate maps of parts of its coastline. When captain James Cook rediscovered it in 1769, he had on board a John Arnold copy of Harrison's chronometer, which enabled him to produce a map so accurate that it is still occasionally used today. Britain's advantage wasn't in guns or ships, but in the safer and more reliable navigation produced by a small investment in technology. Britain ruled the waves, so she was the only nation capable of forming a world-wide empire. Britain's second advantage was also technological. Robert Stephenson's invention of the steam locomotive and railway, enabled transport and therefore trading over whole continents. Like the chronometer, it joined people together. The countries "colonized" weren't about to resist Britain's presence when it "got them in on the ground floor" of future technical developments. The history of science tells us "why", better than the history of battles and atrocities. Cheers, P.R.
That makes no sense. The Spanish fleet of the Indies made 1,200 voyages between Spain-America and America-Spain, in 300 years. The English captured 2 fleets in the 17th century, without a declaration of war, and in port. The Dutch captured 2 fleets. 4 wrecks. Success of the Spanish fleet, which changed the world, of 99.75%, which allowed Spain to be for centuries in some European countries, which we filled with universities, baroque cities and palaces. The British never had an empire in Europe. There are hundreds of Spanish ships sunk in all the seas, but we sent more than a hundred thousand ships around the world, and more than 99% were successful. They discovered almost all the archipelagos of the Pacific Ocean and recognized the coasts of America from Tierra del Fuego to Alaska, and from Antarctica to Newfoundland. The same in Asia. The Spanish empire was the largest in the world between 1500-1800, and was in the five continents between 1521-1898. In the seventeenth century, Spain was present in 90 current countries, in all seas (first world globalization). The United States, Germany, Italy, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, China, Kenya, France, Indonesia, the Netherlands... All the important ones except Russia. That was 200 years before the British. Spanish silver (real of 8 Spanish dollars) was the most important currency in the world for 300 years, mother of the currency of the United States, China, Japan, the Philippines and 30 other countries. In the eighteenth century and in 1800 the British empire was very little developed, compared to the Spanish. The British had half a million Western people living in some cities in Canada and Australia. Spain had more than 20 million people living in cities in America, the Philippines and Italy, with 40 universities. Only after the Napoleonic wars, which destroyed continental Europe, were the British able to have a great empire, 1815, because they were an island. That's the only reason they weren't invaded by Napoleon. Among the British atrocities is removing food crops from some regions of India, to plant cotton for the English textile industry, which caused 7 famines, with 30-40 million deaths in India. The English industrial revolution was made with children aged 5-12 working in the coal mines for a plate of food, without earning money, many times, until 1850, when the British reacted to that atrocity. The rest is the 300-year British monopoly on African slavery, and the 20 tax havens, which steal money for social services from other countries (21st century). That created a lot of money for science. I'm glad about it, because the whole planet benefits, but you can't dirty other countries. We all have good and bad things.
@@Gloriaimperial1 Hi. The rise of China from third world status to "next super-power" in just 70 years was done by embracing science and technology. We reached the moon the same way. Your comment that my claim "makes no sense" makes no sense. An ancestor of mine was Spanish. He arrived in Ireland in 1588, a deserter from the tattered remains of Philip of Spain's "invincible Armada", sent to colonize the British isles and Holland by force of arms. He was a fisherman press-ganged into military service, just like the English manned their ships using this form of slavery. (The Brits called it "taking the king's shilling".) He stayed, despite the weather, so the fishing must have been good. Today we'd call him a war refugee. As a result of his genes, I've inherited a penchant for stuffed green Spanish olives. Cheers, P.R.
@@philliprobinson7724 I have an English, Dutch and Irish family. They came to Cádiz, where my family is from, fleeing from the British and Dutch persecutions against Catholics, in the 17th-18th centuries. One of my ancestors (although I have more Spanish ancestors, of course, and some Italian and Portuguese) is the writer María Gertrudis Hore Ley, an Irish Catholic. They were integrated into Spanish society. Remember that Spain sent 4 invasion fleets to England, of more than 130 ships. 1588, 1596, 1597 and 1718. All were stopped by storms. A sunny day and... In 1589, Drake's invincible English fleet (without storms) was crushed by Spain. It was the year that Elisabeth made Drake lighthouse keeper, because of that failure. When he left the lighthouse trade, he lost five battles in the Caribbean and died. At that time Spain invaded Germany (1588) and Paris (1590). Even with the island, and the storms, Felipe II of Spain arrived with a fleet in England in 1554, under the command of the Duke of Alba, and married María Tudor, the half-Spanish queen of England. He spared the life of Elisabeth, Mary Tudor's maid. If they had had a child... The British ships or 15 miracles? Among the best stuffed olives in Spain is the world globalization that takes England and all of Europe out of the feudal era, the first patented steam machines for industrial use (Ayanz, 16th century), the first influential liberal ideas (Francisco Suárez, school of Salamanca), the first natural expeditions, and the first ideas of evolution, which are 300 years ahead of Darwin. The first international human rights (1512 Burgos Laws and 1542 New Laws), the current calendar (16th century, which the British adopted in 1752), the golden age of Spanish culture, with Don Quixote (best literary work in history ) or the Spanish theater (Lope de Vega, Calderón, Tirso de Molina) influential in Italy and romantic Germany, 18th-19th centuries, long before Shakespeare, international law, our participation in the Renaissance (450 years in Italy), the first trip around the world, the discovery of three continents, the first world vaccination, the first parliament in Europe (León 1118) and various schools of intellectuals, philosophers, writers, poets, musicians (Silver Age of Spanish culture) who lived in the 19th and 20th centuries, and are known throughout the world: Picasso, Dalí, García Lorca, Unamuno, Ortega y Gasset, Gaudí, Manuel de Falla, Rosa Chacel, and many more. When you go out, don't forget your umbrella.
It amazes me that Mongolia such a small population of 1 million ruled the world between 1200s - 1400s. 1 in every 200 men alive today are descendants of Genghis Khan 🇲🇳
@@silveriver9 Hi. Superior technology is again the answer. The Mongols were expert horsemen and could ride "no hands" which freed them to use bows and arrows while riding fast. They were unhittable by enemy archers. They also used stirrups, which gave a smoother ride, and more accurate aim. They were the first to develop "blitzkreig" tactics and were fearsome foes to opposing foot-sloggers armed with mere spears. It's possible they are the source of the "centaur" myth, a human head and torso on a horse's body. Cheers, P.R.
Looking at the thumbnail, you see why India was the crown jewel of the British colonies The rest of the colonies were either sparsely inhibited places like Australia or Canada, or undeveloped places like Africa or Borneo India, otoh, was an entire civilization that was colonized and brought into the empire
Not with British might but because they were able to raise sepoys from imperial magadh . The British completely obliterated all it's records after 1857 war of independence.
How did the British empire rule world, The answer is pretty simple. For many centuries, they had a strong unbeatable, far better navy than any other nation. No one could able to match the Royal Navy on the high seas. With this strong navy and technical advancements, Brits spread all around the world and establish many trade companies along with local governments.
The secret was the island. Spain invaded all Western capitals in the 16th-17th centuries. Rome, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Genoa, Milan, Florence, Cologne... England was an island, and Spain could not send a large army. Only on ships. We sent 4 invasion fleets of over 130 ships, in 1588, 1596, 1597 and 1718. All 4 had storms. In 3 of them the British fleet was absolutely clueless and useless on the high seas. Napoleon invaded all of Western Europe, destroying European economies by 60-80%, with more than 5 million dead. The British were an island, and they did not have to see London besieged, as was Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Vienna and Moscow. That allowed the British to expand in the world after 1815. Europe could not react, we had to rebuild ourselves. The Prussian army invaded Paris in a month, in 1870. The British, hiding on their island (and also with a fleet) were not disturbed. The same happens in the first world war and the second world war. France destroyed, Paris invaded. Even Russia full of dead. The British could expect the island the help of the United States, and the sacrifice of 27 million Russians. Japan, another island, was also safe from the colonialism that impoverished China, and from communism, and from the Mongol invasions. Any successful invasion would have destroyed the British's chances of creating an empire. A single sunny day, during 1588, 1596, 1597 or 1718, and the United Kingdom would be very different. Even though it was a stormy island, Felipe II of Spain arrived in England with a fleet in 1554, under the command of the Duke of Alba, and married María Tudor, the half-Spanish queen of England. If they had had a son (something so simple) England would be Catholic and part of the Spanish empire for centuries, without being able to build an empire. On those advantages and stability, which also stopped the revolutionary and communist agents, who bloodied Europe with civil wars, the British were very effective. But not without the island.
@@Gloriaimperial1 Hi. Well put. Britain would still be a world power today if it hadn't wasted its substance fighting WW's 1 & 2. Today we see Putin making the same mistake. Cheers, P.R.
''You either have an Empire or you're in someone else's''
True that the UK is like a state of the US now and not the richest either.
@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 In what way is the UK like a 'state?'
@@CIMAmotor It follows the US.
It plays a back seat role.
@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 do u have an example?
Tell that to the USA
“He who commands the sea has command of everything” Themistocles (524-459 BC)
nowadays.... if you rule the media n money you rule the world......
That was before planes now who controls t'he sky wins.
@@josepablitoaurar7051 true
Now is who command the air command everything becouse yes is true 70% is water but 100% is air and space !
@@josepablitoaurar7051 nah actually a good ship is better then a good jet or plane
British: We want peace........just a peace of everyone's country.
Shut up karelin
Piece and peace are spelled different but I get the idea
@@deepikasingh8825 funny
"piece" you mean
@@amalakram8755 aw don’t ruin it
The biggest reason for the success of the British empire which is overlooked - its an island. Not bogged down by land conflicts in Europe, forced them to develop their navy.
yep, incredibly hard to get to via ocean. english channel is notoriously dangerous. e.g the spanish armarda
@@olivertaylor8682 people often point out the returning failure of the English armada is overlooked. But what is really overlooked is that there were three failed Spanish Armadas
The British created the largest navy to defend themselves from europe because europe had to unite to fight Britain in wars
He literally stated that at the beginning of the video, pay attention
Overlooked ? Being an island is the main reason for our success lol
Still find it amazing that such a small country could have such a large empire!
so did mongolia (mongolian), turkey (ottoman) and italy (roman)
was not that small anyway look at belgium holland portugal even smaller nations had overseas countries fact is at the time the power was in europe..
england , ireland , scotland ,wales were not that small
yes a large empire of of few peoples like australia and canada! not many colonies left only scotland wales and giberaltar SAOR ALBA
@@imedi still incredible what they can achieve. They're all small.
@@franciscruickshank8794 Scotland is not a colony
"...given that the nation was an island the likelihood of being invaded or conquered was somewhat lower that a country that was surrounded on all sides by foreign powers." Me: cries in Polish :'(
Poor poland surrounded by 2 aggressive strong powers
How many times were you invaded poland
@@lavkmr1 I checked - apparently 43 times between 1600 and 1945.
@@plawskiphoto have you ever heard of India? Edit: it has been invaded more 200 times :-(
*Germany: Fatherland*
*Russia: Motherland*
*Poland: Abused Child*
Joke not mine.
Land: Exist
British: Hippity hoppity that's my property
Oil: exist
US: Hippity hoppity that's my property
Spice : Exist
Dutch : Hippity hoppity that's my property
Resources: exist
Japanese: hippity hoppity that’s my property
Money: exists
UAE: Hippity hoppity thats my property
fitz !!
A major brilliance of the British Empire, and one that makes it very unique, was the creation of the Dominions: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland. What better way to keep people far away loyal to you than to create nations for them to self-govern? Other empires were constantly at odds with their far-away subjects; Britain made her subjects partners (at least in theory).
Something I think they learned after the Americas were lost
You need to read about Mongol and Chinese empire systems of brilliance.
Spanish Viceroyalties?
What about the Raj'?
The 13 colonies revolted after 160 years of rule, because they had a mix of European civilization and respectable population numbers. More than 2 million, when the United Kingdom had 9 million.
Australia and Canada were very late conquered domains, and have always had a very low population, negligible in 1900, spread over very large territories. It is easy for them to reach peaceful agreements in the 20th century, in the context of world wars. The rest of the British empire (90% of the population) was very poor, and has another civilization, not British.
The Spanish empire was very peaceful for 300 years, with some indigenous revolts. The Belgian, French, German and Italian subjects of the Spanish empire in Europe were very loyal to the King of Spain, between 200 and 450 years, fighting in the Spanish army. Spanish America had universities, hospitals, European civilization, like the 13 colonies.
What is amazing was how few British people were involved in ruling this Empire. The government department that "ran" India had about 3000 people!
many locals had a stake as well, commerce was a force multiplier
Check the pub landlord - the British ruled India with two blokes and a bicycle.
@@legendaryking913 heard of a thing called per capita?
@@legendaryking913 gdp is per capita is not annual income but gdp/population. India has a very poor economy for its size and a low standard of living on average
@@legendaryking913 nigeria gdp per capita is 2,229.86 USD while uk Is 42,330.12 USD
bottom line: Superior navy.
The Royal Navy was established by the English King Henry the Vlll over 500 years ago its known as the senior service.
Being an island + superior navy + economy focus to maintain.
And looting
Who defeated Spanish Armada
@@chrisholland7367 yes thus becoming a superior navy unmatched till ww1.
'if u see fish fighting each other
that means an Englishman passed by'
an old proverb
ua-cam.com/video/2qkVo_GxKAU/v-deo.html
Ha ha ha
Joke that is painfully living fact for india even in 2020 but enjoyable none the less.
Libs Hate Montesquieu India is the fastest growing major economy in the world, with nuclear triad capability; something not even the UK is capable of. You know nothing of the world, so don’t speak about it. Also, “third world” is such a dated term, the third world merely means any nation that had not sided with either the US or the Soviet Union
yogesh jog Just keep your ignorant mouth shut, you fool.
Shivam Oza that’s not what it means mate
Another point to add is that steam power (industrialization) originated in England out of the discovery/necessity of coal. Coal was used for heat during winter but only so much could be mined. As people tried to dig deeper they started to hit water- the Newcomen steam engine was invented to burn coal and pump water out of these mines which meant they could dig for coal even further than before and thus the first engine was born and converted into other uses.
Totally agree with you on that, "necessity" was the initial driving force of Britain's industrialization, the weather was very poor in the winter this forced people to come up with inventions like the Steam engine, the light bulb etc to make their lives better. Contrast that with tropical countries where the weather was naturally great, you can see why they never thought of inventing anything. Instead they worshiped the sun, ha ha ha.
Eric Hobsbawm explains that the capital acumulated in the slave trade catapulted the british industrial revolution
James Watt 🤔
@@MrPereiraAdriano That's nonsense, Britain had a very established economy and had been trading globally for nearly 200yrs before the Industrial revolution.
"Another point to add is that steam power (industrialization) originated in England"
--> I'm English and have very good friends in other countries(!!) of the UK. With that said, I see you are still in early school. While there, you will definitely want to take extra classes in basic geography. You'll also want to look up a certain 'James Watt', and you realise your rather large blunder, you might want to sit down and reflect.
In 1815 UK’s productivity was greater than the rest of Europe combined, thanks to early lead in Industrialization. It still had this edge in 1850. Economically it was a “continental” power, which allowed it to build a huge navy. The control of India after 1857 gave it the military manpower of a superpower to go with its economic and naval superpower. After 1850 industrial policy in continental European nations began to close the gap. Germany’s industrial policy combined with combined high quality universal education helped Germany to close the gap by the end of the 19th century - and obtain big leads in new industries in electronics, machinery and chemistry (the British couldn’t keep up because their education was insufficient for their working classes). But Germany was too late to come to this power to establish much of a foot print outside Europe or even, for that matter, in Europe as the two World Wars demonstrate.
@@Nate-uf4xk na they probably would have just demanded independance much earlier than when they historically did
Nate Chaps One of the best books ever written is “Economic History: A Very Short Introduction” by Robert Allen. It’s very accessible, short, cheap. It is published by Oxford University Press. Highly, highly, highly recommended.
Whatever development Britishers have done in India, they have done it only for their own advancements, the british literally looted us, draining our wealth. The british power was cruel, rotten to its core, but there were some who were benovolent too, those who worked for our education, tried to abolish the cruel practices of our society and the ones who became the voice of the voicelesses, like Lord Ripon, Lord William Bentink, Sir Charles Metcalfe, Lord Ellenborough.
@@kaneinkansas ..your comment is incredibly ignorant.
Economic figures state that India controlled 25% of the worlds GDP at the time the British landed on its shores. Historical accounts say that the only reason they were even able to take control of India was due to the weakening of the Mughal Empire attributed to constant invasions by the Afghans, draining them of their resources.
And even then the British didnt have the ability to take on India with all its might..which is exactly why they pretended to establish themselves as traders..setting up small factories and such and bribing local rubbers to collect 'Jiziya' as tax and issue land owners witg Auraunzebs permission.
The Mughal Empires tax revenues alone were greater than that of every single European country at the time, including Britain.
India was looted, pillaged. To write this comment and insinuate that India was ever beneath Britain prior to colonisation is complete rubbish. I honestly suggest you stop reading material written by Churchill sympathisers and Ex Conservative party members..try reading "Inglorious Empire' by Shashi Tharoor.
@@Nate-uf4xk By the first line of your comment I can already tell you dont know an ounce of Colonial history..Britain built their industrial economy by deindustrialising India, do some research into economic figures and facts before you sit there making comments like that, if you want me to point you to credible sources I absolutely can do, just ask.
New Zealand - 'Am I invisible to you?'
Wait did they have an empire
@@ericseal2275
New Zealand was apart of the British Empire...
Why do you not think about mine ? Mine is not that bad
@@kaiserwilhelmtheii9682Ok
Britain -‘China has you now’
Britain: Hey China trade with us, we like tea
China: Nah dude we got everything we need
Britain: Ok we hear what you saying..... we're gonna sell you loads of opium
No one likes a sore loser.
@@Torus2112 he's just a regular loser
The British Philippines (British Manila 1762-1764).
@@chessonso2610 *British occupation of Manila
And now it's payback time. Who do you think sends all the damn fentanyl to North America and Europe?
How one island country ruled a quarter of the world is just mind boggling.
Now look at us it’s a disgrace
So you would rather not give Canada, Australia and many other countries their independence?
They're looters. They were armed robbers.
@@RootGroves-hl8ktyes,just autonomy.
@@никита-д2ч7э All these countries would request independence anyway
I was watching this video with my audio jack
Now it's the union jack.
😂
@@Knowledgia Britain mever ruled Somalia or cameroon. They were french and Italian colonies respectivly.
@@jedijournal9159 Britain ruled Somalia and Italy ruled Somaliland there is difference between these two currently there is only Somalia but Somaliland wanted to gain independence
Wrong way round Italy controlled Somalia and Britain somaliland
bvgwww.faithfreedom.org/ffiprologue/
Can you imagine the forests that once covered England, now most of it all gone to make all those ships. It must have been like Mirkwood in Lord of The Rings at one point.
Poor Ents were deported to Australia for unionism
Just as the ancient Greeks had cut down their trees for their navies [the Athenian navy being a prime example].
They built there ships with timber from the new world. They cut down Canada’s trees.
Not really. Mirkwood was based on the German forests. The Celts in Britain and Gaul were a more densely-settled agrarian people and cleared a lot of their primeval forest earlier.
I could bang on for hours about how the lack of readily available wood in England shaped its history. Highlights include: the Norfolk Broads nature preserve (think temperate bayous) being entirely the result of medieval peat harvesting; the paucity of charcoal and relatively early use of fossil coals across the UK as kickstarter of industrialisation; the Baltic timber import trade in the 1600s being a driver of English (later British) foreign policy, etc.
@[BosS] HITMAN 20 no
France i control the ground
British : I control the world
Spain: Finally a worthy opponent
Napoleon: I'm about to end this man's Career
Hitler: and i will be the one who will make EU decline for the rest of 20th and 21st century onwardsl
Why not combine that into single point of interest.
Debt: Aww you two are so cute.
God: I control space
Unlike French, Portuguese, Spanish & Russia the British were about trade, wealth and strategic chokehold over just land grab and saying i own this land, this was the secret to their success
Truly a colonial Empire of all time 👌
@@debasishgoswami9896 Empire, Nations or People is about wealth and Trade.
@@dennis771 indeed
With the cunning use of flags.
false flags
Do u have a flag?
Do you have a FLAAAAAAG?
Huge flags!
@@Torus2112 Eddie izzard
''You see this land here? This is ours now. Go and put the kettle on.''
Surprising how often that worked...
I guess that's what happens when you rock up to vast shorelines in boats armed to the teeth.
@@OnlyGrafting Brits certainly learnt that strategy from the Vikings, and later got lucky vs the Spanish. If I was a religious person I'd say that God favoured the British even winning both world wars.
And on a "morals" perspective, if there is a God then young innocent children wouldn't die from natural diseases.
The Italians conquered and basically obliterated England. Yet somehow the English learnt how to adapt, and without any resentment against Italians throughout all of its recorded history in any way shape or form.
@@TomGB-81 Please do not equate 'The Italians'; (Italy didn't exist until the Risorgimento of 1849-1871; the peninsula was a collection of essentially 'independent' states before that...) with the ROMANS who conquered Britain - chalk and cheese, mate!
@@GenghisKhan-Shaman If you want be specific then you're partly wrong, lol... the Romans didn't conquer Britain, albeit some people argue Scotland isn't Britain other than it makes it Great Britain, though Britain is an English translation of Britannia which covers all of the British Isles. But then you could argue England was never conquered by the Romans because England didn't exist back then.
Never underestimate the power of a pukka accent.
The world : "Why do you want everyone's land?"
Britain: "Yes"
Muslims : Alhimdullah , We love Europe .
Britain/France /Germany: (year2050) 40 percernt Muslims .
@@sumitsingh7835 yeah I do
For such a simple joke, I bursted out in laughter to the point that I had tears. Jolly good joke, mate.
@@sumitsingh7835 but will they really love them? are you 100% sure that Europe and its governments/rulers will become righteous in the future? how many generations gap?
@Julian Collante cuz God hasn’t blessed the brits with a good land like most countries. They are reduced to their lousy small island today.😏
Thanks!
You need to remember, if world war 2 was never a thing, British Empire would still exist
No it would not !
@@shawngarratt2887 britain and france wouldnt be pressured to get rid of their colonies they would still have their empires today if it hadnt happened also prussia would still technically be a thing
Ok im going back in time
Gaming Dinosaur nah. Strong independence movement were already in their way.
@@accountspayable7671 the independence movements wouldn't do anything tbh
You forgot Wales as part of Britain. The key to the empire was threefold:
1. Royal Navy - both defense and later control of the oceans.
2. Technologically superior. Most scientific advances, the first to industrialised meant that Britain was wealthier and better able to trade than other countries by the 29th century. Dominating the world by 1850.
3. Pragmatism- the empire was purely for trade and from that the empire arose. The Pragmatism meant that the British ran the empire primarily through locals or via other races within the empire. As such the number of British required to run the empire was minimal as was the cost until the 20th century when the quality of life improved and the cost to bring these improvements outweighed the benefit of trade.
4. Also influenced English around the world
What have Whales got to do with the British Empire? 🐋
@@Calmdown1354 tell me you are joking
You are correct in your analysis!
Yeah I feel like the British were comparitively less keen on Baptizing their colonies specially if you compare to countries like France and Spain. This made sure the local people's cultures were relatively respected and Britain could hold on her empire longer.
British empire is just like Carthaginian empire in the way of expanding, and in the tactics of gaining wealth. so amazing how things repeat it self.
Can you elaborate on those techniques ?
Minus the child sacrifices...
@@TheJeremyHolloway thought Britain wasn't above killing children
Speaking of expansion, Kate Middleton has had more pricks than a dart board. Luckily she can afford procedures to tighten up down there. Much to the delight of a certain lucky Saint Bernard, when and if England gets invaded.
@@TheJeremyHolloway let me guess you're a fan of the romans?
Mongol Empire and British Empire are quite similar. Both had revolutionary new weapons technology which enabled fast conquers. They spread fast around the world, then fractured to smaller realms, like Golden Horde, USA, Chagatai Khanate and Australia or people they have conquered became independent.
Fractured to smaller realms? Are you referring to the future full independence of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Mongol empire expanded through wars.
UK empire through drugs.
@@Freedom_-oc5le well Scotland seems to be split 50/50 according to opinion polls, Wales is 75/25 in favour of staying and Northern Ireland is basically just a matter of time (with most young people wanting to unify with Ireland while most old people don’t)
You are implying that Britain conquered the empire by military means, and this is absolutely wrong. Trade, and giving the important locals a share of the action was the principal means to establishing control. Military was only used to protect trade and in some cases build railways.
I am mongol,writing from Mongolia.Mongol empire was most powerful military super power in all human history.It was much more strong in military aspect than all great empires-Romans,Arab Khalifat,British empire,Nazy Germany,Soviet Union & USA.
Several nation states on 4 continents tried (and succeeded) in building Empires. Just none as successfully as the British.
Bruh, the Spanish Empire was better than the British, they lasted a lot longer and they were superior in terms of military
Juan Espinar explain the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588
@@samuelumtiti3327 u mean the ARMADA THEN.lol......
@@__-kn3rh lol...
If you mean successful as mass looting genocide and slavery, then yes non was as successful as the colonial British.
I was watching this while drinking tea.
Now it's good ol' spot o' tea!
Me too
"I used to rule the world"
-Britain
"Seas would rise when i gave the word"
now in the morning I sleep alone
@@abbynady i used to rolled the dice
Not rule plunder the world .......enslave and exploit the people
@@MrTheHafizz feel the fear in my enemies eyes
What a great time to be alive. Thank you for the video.
N.A.V.Y.
"Whoever rules the waves, rules the world." Alfred Thayer Mahan, 1890
très juste! nous les français étions des "paysans", alors que les anglais étaient des navigateurs! les anglais se sont implantés un peu partout à travers le monde!
now its the sky
Thats all rubbish...the person who stays immortal will rule the world .
@Unknown name u must b smart to knw dat...bt ru?
Now is air superiority better than "Naval supremacy"
British Empire: That was when I ruled the world.
British empire saved the world Twice
we owe so much to British empire
as we owe to roman empire
yes, a lot of our modern problem is cause of british decolonisation
i'm pretty sure, if britai never decolonised
we wouldn't be bother withthe same shit
@Mark Aguilera you don't wanna know
@Mark Aguilera cause you'd be confused, and you'd regret asking me,
you'd say, ow jeezus
so sorry for you 🙏
@@gutsjoestar7450 which 2 times?
@@elmo319 british empire didn’t save the world in ww2 lmao.
‘The sun will probably never set on the British empire, because even god can’t trust them in the dark’
Agreed
Bud it was a different time a different world from now you passing judgement like as if you lived in the 1800 . People behavior and acted different m...
True
Very true
@@abramslion1 and that’s true also
It still amazes me that Britain as such a small country basically ruled the world at somepoint 🇬🇧
Britiain didn't rule the world 🤦♂️
It amazes me that Mongolia such a small population of 1 million ruled the world between 1200s - 1400s.
1 in every 200 men alive today are descendants of Genghis Khan 🇲🇳
The most ethical of history's greatest empires in my opinion
@@accidiaet ETHICAL?
You must be joking.
@@conspiracytheorista8988 they did heavily unethically shit but in terms of all the global superpowers to exist in history definitely did the least horrid shit
@@accidiaet
Ottomans were better by far
no wonder our Universal Language is ENGLISH 😂😂😂
Exactly my point
It's international language not universal bud
And is younger than your language, have around 1500 years...Is a evil language...
@DL2R yes they were...but colonization and industrial revolution changed the whole game....
@@robzonefire very true...we don't know in which language the aliens speak...😅😅😅😅 Never ever had met one of those and never even wanna meet
9:58 I love the transition =D
swiggidy swag
ua-cam.com/video/2qkVo_GxKAU/v-deo.html
America doesn't have an empire & the countries it does control are a fraction of what the UK controlled
1-By deceiving.
2-By disguising as traders.
3- Most imporatnt rule "Divide and conquer".
Honestly I say bring it back 🇿🇦👉👈🇬🇧
4. Largest navy
You're just mad that your ancestors got clapped by a tiny Island nation thousands of miles away.
@@Admiral_Jezza I don't know why you're mentioning that it's a tiny island nation when the places and people they conquered consisted of even smaller kingdoms and tribes.
EVERY nation did that! Literally. The British were just better at it.
The quality of this ancient history documentary is outstanding. The way it balances facts with engaging storytelling makes it a must-watch for anyone interested in history
In short, they had a really strong navy and were able to defend their colonies and take more from other nations. They also had enough money to sustain them till they had to let them go.
they industrialized early and fast
They ruled and controlled 35.5 million sq km of land on the 🌍
@@scambammer6102 at the cost of millions of indians
@@surfacepro3328 uhh ...
No, industrialization started way before the conquest of india.
A few more details that may help explain the initial expansion:-
1. The geographic advantage did not mention the location of the island in the age of sail. The UK is at a great location to sail south to pick up the "Trade winds" (the name gives us a clue here!), sail to Caribbean, up the US East coast and pick up the Westerlies to return to UK. All easily doable in square rigged sailing boats.
2. The UK has a plethora of deep water ports. This means that as boats got bigger the UK could continue to be a naval power - wiki Lisbon to see why this is important.
3. The commentary mentions the Navy as a reason for the expansion, this is the wrong way around. The trade existed to pay for the navy, it could not have existed before the trade.
Not a bad summary for a huge subject.
Trade fed the navy which fed the trade which further fed the navy which further fed the trade and so on.
Putting trade above everything built the British empire into the most powerful superpower in history, America learnt this, and adopted a similar strategy to create its power and wealth.
Germany, France, Spain, Russia, etc. put prestige above trade and it cost them their prestige and their trade.
Everyone has a price, and Britain learnt to be the leading power they needed to be able to pay everyones price.
One question, is navy really important in ruling india or other countries where you could go by land?
One question, is navy really important in ruling india or other countries where you could go by land?
@@jugg9140 yes, as trade is easier over sea than land especially 100 plus years ago, the military presence in India was only necessary to maintain order most of the time, if someone was capable of a naval blockade of India that would have cost both Britain and India a fortune due to the lack of overseas trade. Control of the seas kept trade flowing and the money rolling in.
Napoleon hat the strongest army by comparison to all others at the time, in all history including up until the present day, but the British naval blockade of France and its allies crippled Europe's economy, and because most of British trade was with its own empire, the USA, and across Asia, no trade between Britain and most of Europe cost Britain a lot of profit, but still in profit non the less, but cost France and Spain their ability to maintain themselves and wage war.
The primary reason Britain was the most successful empire was that it tended to work with(trade) other countries rather than invade and conquer them. That made a massive difference. Clearly, the most well-developed naval force helped too etc etc.
You have forgotten to mention New Zealand. You could make a comment for the key role of Meditterenean Sea in middle 1800 's for the british trade. Great video btw!!
Because New Zealand doesn't exist 😁
@Sigmund Falkner new Zealand knew that Australia and New Zealand were there before the UK but they didn't want them
@@RichARock Spaniards and Portuguese were the first to explore both, they left little to nor register to avoid other powers but there are evidences in form of helmets, coins etc...
@erick meyer cyprus too. We still have British military bases over here
@Lucky wasn’t that disproven ? Either way it doesn’t matter because the actual first people to find and explore Australia and New Zealand were its native inhabitance.
The largest empire as well as the most spoken language in history.
Nobody pronounces the words correctly though, shame.
True. How would the modern world function without a common language?
How would some countries like India function without a common language?
How could a local tribal langbe fairly chosen.
No matter what you think of the British Empire, you can't deny how impressive it was.
It has done both good and bad but people blaming history for their current plight can be quite stupid. Be cautious yes, but move on and work together if I were they.
James Evans I hope that comment was a joke
James Evans rule Britannia Britannia rule the waves
@James Evans - Lol, what?
America doesn't rule shit. It can't even rule itself at the minute. And if you don't think a tiny island ruling a quarter of the world, fighting on multiple fronts and having the largest empire in history isn't impressive then you're either bitter and lying or your standards are unrealistically high. No other country in history has achieved what the British did.
@@badger1858 Maybe he is aiming to say dominating poor region wasn't an impressive thing. Regardless if they had conquered the first world countries (Modern Europe) it would be impressive [For him]
I think the British Empires success was a mixture of the Industrial Revolution which was enabled by Englands unique political-culture (Magna Carta, for example). I think the IR had such a greater effect in England because of the greater personal and economic freedoms people had at least in the mid & upper classes. Also they say due to the low population in the British Isle it incentivized the invention of machinery to increase production. Then the composite nations particularly Scotland, as I understand it the motivation for the Union was (in part) to avoid having an enemy nation to Englands north that could ally with, say the French, the Scots motivation was debt I think.
And, viola, a political union made without war but a trade of sorts.
And that was a pattern that played out through the empire, there was no invasion date for the British entry into India for example, British business interest would go around the world and the Crown would be obliged to ensure their security. So the British conquer the world through economics accidentally and then built the national mythos around that haphazard.
Now to watch the video.
Magna Carta may be the start, but Simon De Montford, The English Civil War and Glorious Revolution of 1688 are just as important
@@archivesoffantasy5560 Expand, I’m interested.
@@yevz6360
Magna Carta, which meant the king (John) couldn’t do as he pleased without baron consent (sort of anyway) is recognised as one of the world’s most important legal charters but the Oxford provisions are just as important.
De Montfort fought against the king (Henry III) won, and called the first parliaments, through a document known as the Oxford provisions.
The king’s son (Prince Edward, later Edward I) would overthrow De Montfort a year later but only on the promise to his men that he would keep De Montfort’s reforms.
In the English Civil War, the king’s apparent divine right to rule with absolutist power was proven false as the Parliamentary army beat the Royalist forces and the king, Charles I, was executed . England became a republic for ten years but it was still pretty much a monarch under its leader, Oliver Cromwell. Once Cromwell died, the son of the executed King Charles I, became King Charles II. Charles II was the last king of England who ever acted supreme over parliament. Once he died, his brother became James II, but was kicked out in what is known as the Glorious Revolution, which was parliament’s way of getting rid of any Catholic and absolutist kings. The guy they replaced James II with was a Protestant and he was the first constitutional monarch of England. So through
Magna Carta 1215
Oxford Provisions 1264
English Civil War 1642-1651
Glorious Revolution 1688
The power of the monarch began to decrease, and by 1688 absolutism was completely gone in England/Britain. Over one hundred years before France did, over two hundred years before Russia did (perhaps they never did thinking about it) and even about 90 years before the creation of the USA.
Also Scotland had 5 universities to England's 2 so education was a key facter
@@archivesoffantasy5560 the glorious revolution was key to the expansion of England, later GB, since it was the "cause" of the transition of capital, banks, economic systems, craftsmen, stock marketing etc., from Amsterdam to London.
I know how they ruled
I came here just to see the comments 😂
So did I
Same
@Ynwa6 sure, mate
@Shubham Arya Laughs in Brexit and superior german engineering
@Shubham Arya So much for 'ruling' europe
Does anyone else also find empires and colonizing pretty interesting?
Not me. I don’t find gangsters and looting (empires & colonizing) interesting at all.
It's not to the subjugated masses
@@Crazy-Clown-In-Townthen why watch this video in the first place??😂😂
Yeah , it's mainly due to my belief that most countries have "imperialistic" goals no matter the country you're ancestors too would love to expand their land and culture.
For instance the Tagalog empire of modern day Philippines (my homeland) was a huge empire and took parts of modern day Malaysia
Before the Spanish came. I can't see myself complementing my ancestors for they're "empire" while also hating on Spain for they're "empire" that be hypocritical of me.
A such I'd like to judge countries with the mentality "all is fait game in the real world" having no bias regardless if a country was a conqueror or a conquered one.
It didn't matter for Britain an ex colony of Rome before becoming an empire greater than Rome itself it wouldn't matter if it happens to another region of the world.
Does anyone here Believe in Brit collapse?
Just look around the globe:
• what language we use here
• Maritime Laws
• key infrastructure of global network communication
• Banking, Finance , Investment
• Hi-Tech enterprises
and many other Dominations
Please tell
US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand isn't just different part of one BIG Machine?
To this day, the British empire still exists, but it is less obvious than before.
The UK is one of the most if not the most influential country in the world.
@The Loner Millionaire usa is the only superpower. Soon china will become one as wellm
one word. canzuk
@The Loner Millionaire The US has more overt influence on the world. It can do that since it has the money and military might to prove its status.
The UK has a more covert influence. As with France, they are somewhat influential, but in a different way, you know, economy and military not as strong as the US.
@@PandaBear-qy8oq the US won't be what it is if it was not for the European colonists as you pointed out.
And then, the constitution.
The US population, nation is build around a set of ideas. A migrant from Africa, Asia, etc can become American. Good luck with that in Europe. It ain't gonna happen.
The system of using trade outposts was also used by the Portuguese earlier (contrary to the Spanish and French), which is an interesting fact, since Portugal and England have been allies since the XIV century! ~The more you know~
The English wanted that treaty so they could easily marry into our Portuguese royal family then without firing a bullet take our colonies, us Portuguese could have been bigger than England but we got manipulated . . . The British with a kind smile take your wallet . . .
👋🇵🇹
"Some peoples saw the oceans as a barrier, some as a roadway."
My university teacher said, anyway.
Great job. Go ahead . I got many detailed information about throughout history from one clip that lasts roughly 11 minute. I can say I ever comprehend history of Great Britain in school class
but the folk the crazy folk of great britain only needs 11 minutes to let gobshites of modern world have there say then let lose the sas,lol
'Cuz they literally rule the waves as they have the most powerful navy at that time..
The always made sure they had a bigger navy than the next 2 countries combined (this was usually france and spain, but holland might have been up there early on)
All Hail Britannia
The Alchemist all hail lelouch
Yeah they proved their utter dominance of the seas in winning the most during the 7 years war. Which was arguably the first global war. They also embarrassed the French and the Spanish (traditional naval superpowers) at Trafalgar in 1805.
@@godlovesyou1995 At some point during the Napoleanic wars I believe it was the larger than the entire globe's navies combined. Might be wrong though
Great video! I had no idea they were that powerful at one point!
I know I am going to be popular
How.................How is that possible?
British Empire : Ah those good old days
Colonised nations: What the heck man
Realistically it helped their economy
but in reality British empire has helped the the world to reach today's modern world...
All the policies , discoveries , social and political reform were damn great thats how the British ruled the world and rest by other European powers
Just a example of my south asia
south asia was divided in many kindoms before British arrival.. the south asian kingdoms were very "poor comparin to Western power at that time" and majority tax revenue was from agriculture
So then many kings there decided to let Westerners "portugees , etc to open the trade and industries in large scale where British empire not only opened the industries but also ruled over subcontinent ( very clever ) and created utilities and employment then economy rises for both Britain and south asian
From the beginning , south asian had been rising voice against British empire for governing the country except British ( as British didn't hav ancestral history) which resulted today's independent countries "india , pakistan, etc
After gaining independence, we can clearly see the downfall in economy where the new countries again fought in the name of land and government was higly corrupted ( i'm talkin abt after the independence but today is different )
All the colonized counties had gained many utilities and great social and political reform bcz of British empire yah but no one appreciate " cuz there's a word which is pretty well known ie. LOOT
Which is baseless cuz All those colonized countries were part of British empire so the wealth is also part of it where british took many ancient stuffs in their mainland Britain ( central government) now some countries want to claim and want britain to put them back where they actually belong
I guess its their "colonized countries" own fault that they wanted full independence which make them new independent countries so baseless to claim those stuffs as We human also belong to "one" civilisation so then why dont we all live together ?? It was better to be part of Britian where the ancient history could be shared as one country Or Gaining independence and do some development and learning the history instead of scratchin history
....
@@nanilama7016 I guess you are blind or ignorant enough not to notice the other side of the coin
@@manojvukkem2318
"other side of coin"
well wat if i say that the coin you have is nth but fake paper material .. go through the history
Thats all
Btw i hav added more thin in my reply "so u can read more
@@nanilama7016 u seem to be the ignorant one I guess, u praise British policies sooo much which made failed croping seasons into a more severe famines as the farmers would not be given any concessions during hard times and forced to grow commercial crops and even export food in times of famines. Just giving the reason that we colonised them because we had the power makes them no less than the nazis. And that's one of the reasons people in South Asia hate British more than the nazis
U know that the EIC is a private company ryt and what do they do, only work for profit they hardly used the money for investing in the subcontinent unlike the previous rulers and exported them to uk. About technology we could have even done that without their help and much more better. The jobs offered by the British to Indians were of very little significance and never had our opinion in important matters as most of the high level jobs were taken by British. Railways u say what kind of administration would take 9 times the original price to lay a mile of tracks. And brits never introduced railway for benifit of people but for their own trade purposes. British unfair and shitty trade deals really killed industries and made more people unemployed than the employment they have provided. Judiciary is just a legitimacy for the British people in India to do whatever they wanted and escape them claiming to be innocent. Humans are one civilization then why do you have to attack, suppress them. And finally Looting I can't even stop myself if I have to specifically list out every single thing. Just look at your British Museum
And about United india we may have been like Europe which is divided but still have a better quality of life, and much advanced
Q: "How did the British Empire rule the world?"
A. "Divide and rule".
It did not "start" with the Roman Empire, and it did not end when the Brits left India.
It is alive and well, and surrounds all aspects of society and politics, and flows like dirty water always looking for a "crack" somewhere...
When you realise that the HMS Victory is older than every country that was once in british rule
Well, I'm an Iraqi, my country literally had been made up by British from nothing, it wasn't exist, they made its borders, and they did set up its government, and put on a king on it, and of course they made the first laws one of them "English as a second language" which we still study it in schools until today, all wanna say that I'm GLAD WE WERE A BRITISH COLONY INSTEAD OF FROGS (FRENCH) COLONY. 🇬🇧 🇮🇶
First bit of common sense on this thread.
I have an exam in 2hours, that's my last chance 😂😂🍻
HAHAHAHA OMG THIS IS THE REASON WHY I AM HERE TOO HAHAHAHAHA
@@zainabnaim9647 Lmao Good luck 😆🔥
@@rainsnow4486 Thanks! I hope your exam went well too.
@@zainabnaim9647 yes it did 😊
@@rainsnow4486 p
We are still part of The Britain we are all speaking English
As a second language 😂🤣
@@waterbuffalo867 Still OUR language though. I've been to international business conferences where people don't speak each others languages, but even in France and Netherlands, the conferences are conducted in English. We ruled to world so we wouldn't have to learn anyone else's language 🙂
Britain never ruled Somalia south of Berbera, that would be Italy.
That's only one of the numerous mistakes in this video. Hopefully, no school kid relies on it for any kind of report.
markmh835 Dang I was given this video’s link by my teacher for reference on a research project-
@Libs Hate Montesquieu Or the teachers use online resources that are engaging and easy to understand to make teaching easy then go over afterwards. And the politics of the channel with history doesnt matter because for schools theyre jus looking for the facts and ignore the opinions...
@Libs Hate Montesquieu maybe read the comment above i donno
@@jack0nn12 i think school should just teach the facts and ignore politics, if peopel learn based off what offened some snowflake history will be totally messed up in 100years and we be thinking like ww2 was a war against rainbow ponys or something intill someone offened by ponys then we have to change it again
Mughals were long gone before the British arrived. It was the Hindu Maratha empire who was in control of much of India. 3 wars were fought against the depleted Maratha forces who were ready tired after long drawn wars with the mughals. You made NO mention of Anglo-marathas wars, british lost the first but won the 2nd and 3rd battle.
Wouldnt call that long gone. The last effective Mughal Emperor was Aurangzeb who died in 1707. The brits arrived some time during the reign of Jahangir but only seized control of parts of the subcontinent during the later half of the 18th century
@@nayeemhaider8367 that Mughl were no longer an empire. They were still there but small player. The marathas were ruling much of India then.
@@woffydo True, by the end the Mughals were just nominal.
Aayush jha ! English came to india at Jahanger era. They were traders till 1757. After the war of Plasy with Siraj u dull , EIC started expanding. Marathas and Rajputs started expanding after that.
It’s pretty uninteresting at this point
I’m tried of everything in Bombay being named after shiva ji
I disagree with quite a lot of what the empire done. However I've always found it fascinating that it was the Union of England and Scotland which spearheaded it, 2 countries that had fought for hundreds and hundreds of years, uniting and dominating the world. From a tiny island.
You cant judge the empire based off today's standards, we created the modern world, the impact on the quality of life, transport, medicine, infrastructure we created has helped billions, this far out weighs the atrocities for me. We helped spread democracy around the world and the royal navy stopped the Atlantic slave trade (at it's own cost) effectively bringing it to an end. We introduced laws in the colonies to stop savage outdated practices in india etc
Only the Scottish could hold the the English back and when they unionised the whole world trembled in fear.
The only downside to the union was never before in human history has a language been butchered so crudely
Chris Franklin I agree it's hard to compare between different eras etc. But for all the good the empire did do, advances in technology etc, there was still a lot of true evil committed. India, Ireland, Kenya and all of Africa really.
Kino63 I take that as a compliment
@@chrisfranklinguitar7105 oh does it lol the millions who died of famine and torture might beg to differ ..
also its a little arrogant to assume the indigenous populations might not have built the same infrastructure in time themselves anyway
Britain went from conquered to conquer, and one hell of a conquer at that
Yes, let's just gloss over the fact that it was the British Empire that abolished slavery in its dominions.
Even the Dutch settlers of South Africa ran away from that rule.
We had to pay the Portuguese and the Sultan of Muscat to stop it. It didn't work.
XD i mean like, every single person i see just forgets this important thing they did
Yes, the Rule of Law abolished slavery - the system that had enriched the empire for hundreds of years. True British Justice!
After they genocided millions of indians and destroyed the economy of that whole country in the span of 200 years. Yeah they really where the good guys
Belize was a part of the empire. Your map has inconsistencies.
The Gambia, Sri lanka, Bhutan and a few others were also not on the map.
Some parts of this map are wrong. For example, Italy controlled most of the Somali region of Africa. Britain only held a relatively smaller region.
if im not mistaken Britain seized control during wwii
I love your channel keep up the great stuff!
A time when w people controlled the world, today we can't even control our own streets . . . 👋🇵🇹
Lee Rigby - RIP
stay based, oldest ally
@@Dushmann_ We don't stick together we are doomed, each day the Communist get stronger - the Americans just added yet another space force (militarily) so there is some weird stuff going on up there & down here, Churchill & Roosevelt didn't fight the Communist in 45 now western society will unfortunately pay . . .
👋🇵🇹
Because Britain totally controlled the streets of their 13 colonies. Yes. I see your point.
@@kevinyoung42 Early in WW2 H offered Churchill a very generous peace treaty - England could keep it's colonies/ending western war . . . At the time even Oswald Mosley said H "just wanted to go East" many European countries joined in to fight the Communist like the Vichy French government . . .
Instead Churchill had Mosley arrested and did his best to get FDR involved in destroying Europe by helping the Communist - really incredible that Churchill was so short sighted - that's why Churchill lost the 45 election, he had no long term plan after the war . . .
H wanted Europe to control the world for another "1,000 years" and like I said today we can't even control our own streets, what happened to Lee Rigby is a European tragedy even a small memorial to Rigby was removed - to not offend the local London Africans . . .
👋🇵🇹
@@jaylopes8489 personally, both guys we're terrible.
That guy you call "H" was a totalitarian military ruler, and as a latino american, I can tell you those guys are some of the worst scum from earth. Only looking after Their own good while making its own people to suffer.
Same goes to Stalin.
Only if this was actually taught in British history lessons
It is. I finished up a 2 year history course in college about the British Empire, the War of the Roses, and the US, last year.
it is. that's all we bloody learned about in school. That, and Henry VIII, WW2 and maybe a bit about the Romans.
@@Delete240 Did you learn about the British concentration camps in Africa?
@@robertcarson3116 you mean the concentration camps held in the second boer war? Yep.
I never learned anything about the Empire in school, only on the internet
the mughal empire was succeded by the maratha empire which controlled most of the subcontinent for almost a century,the british then succeded the marathas after they defeated the marathas in the third anglo maratha war in 1818
It was mentioned in their earlier video on Mughal Empire
Marathas were defeated by abdalis in 1762 I guess you forget so marathas never succeeded mughals as whole other states in India never never accept Maratha overlordship like mughals
@@shahzebsultan5509 yes they did they big territory but it was not stable Empire
@@ShubhamMishrabro it wasn't even an empire!!!it was more like a confederation!!!!there's a difference in two Mughals had an empire THE emperor controlled almost all the territory in subcontinent not just northern parts of subcontinent but pretty much all of it I say northern part cuz that was the heart of the empire like Punjab region and Delhi they did it just controlled it but Marathas were not great conquerors like Mongols and Timurids or Delhi sultanate they were just fighting a dying empire that had reached its limits and was about to collapse Marathas basically defeated Mughals again and again denying them control over the Deccan plateau but right after Mughals were thrown back at Delhi everyone under them was like no we will not submit to the Marathas we will be independent won't be part of another empire!!!now what can happen now they r basically rebelling against their new conquerors BUT here's a difference they were no empire builders!!!!they could not go to war with the whole Deccan plateau because then everyone will unite just like they united to defeat Mughals previously!!!and then they never tried to built an empire a confederation was basically it!!! After some time they started becoming stronger again and they had the capabilities to conquer the Deccan plateau as part of their Maratha empire!!and scrap the confederation that is when the Durrani empire came they fought the Marathas and defeated them now Marathas were weaker than ever and only now the idea of confederation was basically in everyone's mind cuz there was no conquer there no one was the predator no one was strong and then comes the 👏👏fUCKIN British assholes cuz they saw weakness in the subcontinent so they started hunting there was a new predator and after some wars they won any idea of Maratha confederation was throw out of the window !!!cuz now if anyone rebel British can just subdue them now everything truly ended Marathas never built an empire to begin with it was confederation and this thing became their downfall!!!!had Marathas bulit an empire in the subcontinent British would have had a very hard time conquering the subcontinent!!!!no empire no emperor no strength!!!that's why British conquered them it's just an illusion that British were great conquerors like Mongols !!!!no they were not they attacked only weaker places !!!!the day Marathas decided to break free from the Mughals they doomed themselves!!!!
Here some history for u bout the end of empires in subcontinent!!!and the reality of Marathas!!!!many Indians think they were great empire builders but no they were just great warriors !!!and they were the one who doomed the subcontinent to those asshole British colonizers!!!
Fascinating look into how Britain managed to build such a vast empire. It's incredible to see how a small island nation was able to exert control over so much of the globe through a combination of naval power, economic strategies, and diplomacy. But it’s also important to acknowledge the darker side of imperialism-colonization had devastating effects on many nations and cultures. History like this teaches us a lot about both the strengths and consequences of power.
After the 100 year war, England was dependent on its colonial conquests to survive, and then became gradually Britain. Its overseas gains made it a maritim power. Moreover, the english elites were more mercantiles, since the middle ages. While the french aristocracy, for example, descended more from the Romans, didn't work and preffered to spend on the pageantry (Versailles...). Britain became gradually a diplomatic leader during the 18 th (with the Spain succession war and later the 7 years war) , dominating the sea. Britain was developing its capitalism the first, almost one century before France (slowly in 19 th), and Germany (strongly and quickly in the end of 19th)...
Great Britain is an island, and it was protected from the invasions that devastated continental Europe, such as the armies of Philip II, Napoleon, Prussia or Germany. It is the same case as Japan, which was never invaded by the Mongol empire, and could have had stability. All the capitals of continental Europe were invaded several times and were infiltrated by revolutionary and communist agents: Paris, Moscow, Madrid, Berlin, Rome, Amsterdam, Lisbon... with 60-80% destruction of the economy in the wars. That is why the budget of countries like Spain and France was divided between the fleet and land (infantry, artillery, cavalry) to protect the borders. The British could live with small armies and put almost all of it into the fleet. Almost all of Asia had revolutions, wars, and colonial invasions. Japan, without invasions, could have had a period of prosperity and stability, which paved the way for the expansion of the Japanese empire in the 20th century.
Britain: Back in my day I used to rule the seas and had an empire the size of-
America: Ok Boomer
America is what brits could be if they r that big and full of resources. But with less empire things and monarchs
@@tugg3024 Yes because how delightful it would be to be like America.
America would be never superpower if WWI and WWII never happend. US is strong because Eupope was destroyed twice and US was far for this conflict and can involved in this in its own terms in time when they can benefit on this.
They'd still become a superpower now.
Just like Asia, South America and Africa are rising. So would the US and the rest of North America. Although much earlier.
Vatras888 well ww1 they cake late but in the early part of ww1 they were supplying the shit out of them and in ww2 they were giving the people of Britain food and supplies and the Army’s guns and then japan brought them into it then you know how it goes
A very famous napoleon quote " on every floating piece of wood you will find a Brit on it"
WOW,,,,Home run again,. I love this CHANNEL.
They have always been the rulers of the seas thats why! Love Uk from Albania! 🇦🇱❤🇬🇧
Not anymore
Thanks bro love u too .
Thank you 👍🏼✌🏼
How's the Albanian navy getting on - get those sails up.
@@philipm06 lol
Land : *EXISTS*
British : Do you wanna join us?
*YES* or *YES*
Divide and rule policy was also a major factor in the expansion of British empire
As in any empire.
What divide and rule policy?
@@mudra5114 they devide the people in the name of religion, language ethnicity.... they divert the people by their devide and rule policies when people protest against British crown 👑
@@chethusetty_chethu There was no divide and rule. It is just made up bullshit. Divisions existed before British Empire, the British United India.
@@mudra5114 Pakistan and Bangladesh are the true evidence... they created because of these policies of British and they leave long lasting conflict and border disputes between us
Nice excellent work thanks brother
Fun fact: the British has had colonies/land in every single continent
Still do
@Your Majesty, Antarctica is not a continent.
@@Jean_Jacques148 Antarctica is in fact a continent.
@@senpeeyt6153 yes they still own land in Antarctica
Guyana in South America,most of Central and south Africa, Australia, Fiji, New Zealand and Tuvalu (at least of the union Jack symbol) in Oceania, and some stuff in Asia which i forgot
Britain stronk 🇬🇧💪🏻😎😤
Respect from 🇭🇷
The rise of the European empires occurred due to centuries of fighting and competition. This led to the advancement of military technology and seafaring capability, so much so that it was inevitable that the competition would become global. The empire enriched the few and just gave average Brit new ways to die i.e. through conflict or in industrial accidents.
And this only applies to Europeans? Have you ever read up on Chinese history for instance? People were fighting each other everywhere in the world, even native american tribes were always in conflict, and in the 19th century they were still using bows and arrows.
Good comment.
@@henryviii2091 I think the whole world was in a total mess,void and no form at all..😂😂cos this conflicts and wars was everywhere not Europe alone ..Africa was worst😂😂 it something that happened in the whole world..the fittest survives that is what I call it ..you conquer your friend then you posses his land… nature is powerful😂😂when I Listen to history like this I just laugh..cos you can’t blame anyone in particular..it was everywhere even brothers killed themselves…may Cain and Abel started it😂😂
@@henryviii2091 your royal majesty 😂😂you are still alive..GOD save the King
India was literally just that throughout its history.and just like Britain, srilanka was also an island just offshore from the subcontinent. Why didn't it become a global superpower? Where is the great empire of ilankai????
I’d say that was an incredible achievement of logistics above all else.
Given they had no electricity, telephone’s , airoplanes , radio or internet.
they had steam ships and railroads before anybody else
We invented telegraphs and submarine cables to connect the empire to communicate.
”The British army should be a projectile fired by the British navy”
Underrated comment
Thats what they invented the Royal Marines for..
@@dopeyb218 thats why we renew trident.
@@Bensonbadger The way Marines launch from a carrier craft in Rib's pretty much is a projectile.
5:58 this is inaccurate mughal empire was literally dead they had control over only delhi
The maratha at the time ruled the india.
@F U B ready about the third battle of panipat on Wikipedia and what happened after that....half knowledge is dangerous buddy
@F U B you have absolutely no knowledge about true Indian history....try searching maratha empire on google or wikipedia.
As usual from the USA, there’s a lot of confusion here about the name “Great Britain”. It is, and always has been, the island comprising England, Scotland and Wales,. It is not synonymous with “the United Kingdom”. Yet at 2:12 and elsewhere your map suggests that it includes the island of Ireland. Until 1801, the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” was just that. In 1801 the island of Ireland was incorporated (along with the cross of St Patrick to form the Union Flag), and the U.K. became “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. In 1922 the 22 counties of the Republic of Northern Ireland seceded from the UK, which then became the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
You must be Irish.
John Popham ?
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ulster.
Brian Sheehan Er, no... the ancient Province of Ulster includes three counties which are not in Northern Ireland.
Great Britian is a shortening and whst it's referred to by. Same as the United Kingdom
VERY, VERY WELL-PRESENTED 👌☺️
4:03
Wooh.....
Sounds like someone said " British east India company"
Cue the Leonardo Decaprio “that’s me!” Meme
A disguting revolting company, that is
Tea selling people , british people
What kind of product you selling
Misykat Rahman whatever, says the loser
this proves just how vital a strong navy is
WAS.
@@Rottnwoman still is.
@@shononoyeetus8866 but lacking compared to US, China, Russia, India..etc
@@lil_lavender8467navies are still needed to control world trade as the USA mostly does today. Still very important
Love and support UK from South Korea
🇰🇷🇰🇷🇰🇷🇰🇷🇰🇷🇰🇷🇰🇷🇰🇷❤❤❤❤🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Very good explanation👍
They are so GREEDY the stole the ASIAN gold
Bro it britan what can they do
Bro that's why they have an empire
Then what will they do to the colonies if they are not gonna have any profits?
@@aureliousI profit can be gained without harming the others it's something like a win win but they were more selfish to do that
@@amalakram8755 u know a lot of other empires existed right that did they exact same thing. Not just britain.
At 1:13 Irland looks like a little man with wings trying to kiss Scottland
You’re not wrong 😂
Hate on the Brits all you want, you have to admit, they pulled this off brilliantly. Just impressive as hell. Don’t hate the player, y’all. Hate the game.
yeah lets see what's your reaction when you are the one being invaded,pal
@@szarekhostwind Survival of the fittest has been a law of nature as long as life has existed. Besides, why do you judge 1700s Brits with 2021 values? This might come to surprise you, but people back then weren’t raised to think the way people today do. Shocking, right?
@@jacobr8063 yeah survival of the fittest at its finest if people will just always abide by that principle then all of this was just smoke and mirrors then.. or should I say peace was just an illusion all along.
@@szarekhostwind I’m not saying survival of the fittest is a law we humans should abide by. We should rise above it and in some ways we are, but for millennia we didn’t. That doesn’t mean we modern humans should judge people who lived back in those when they didn’t have the knowledge and values we do today. That’s not fair to them. One may disagree with the morality of the British Empire while simultaneously admiring the accomplishment of building the largest empire in human history.
I'm kinda proud and I'm not when I hear how bad people where treated
Hi. Good work. Carrying on, Britain expanded into a trading empire because it was the first nation to equip its mariners with marine chronometers, super-accurate timepieces that allowed the navigator to find his position of longitude at sea. They were invented by John Harrison, who sought to win the Board of Longitude's 20,000 pound prize for finding a way to find longitude. From 1761 on, Britain had a huge navigational advantage over competing trading nations, such as the Dutch, of "Dutch East Indies" fame, the French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Belgians, whose ships, lacking accurate navigation, often foundered on reefs, or just got lost and sank.
As an example, Dutch captain Abel J. Tasman discovered New Zealand in 1642, and made approximate maps of parts of its coastline. When captain James Cook rediscovered it in 1769, he had on board a John Arnold copy of Harrison's chronometer, which enabled him to produce a map so accurate that it is still occasionally used today. Britain's advantage wasn't in guns or ships, but in the safer and more reliable navigation produced by a small investment in technology. Britain ruled the waves, so she was the only nation capable of forming a world-wide empire.
Britain's second advantage was also technological. Robert Stephenson's invention of the steam locomotive and railway, enabled transport and therefore trading over whole continents. Like the chronometer, it joined people together. The countries "colonized" weren't about to resist Britain's presence when it "got them in on the ground floor" of future technical developments. The history of science tells us "why", better than the history of battles and atrocities. Cheers, P.R.
That makes no sense. The Spanish fleet of the Indies made 1,200 voyages between Spain-America and America-Spain, in 300 years. The English captured 2 fleets in the 17th century, without a declaration of war, and in port. The Dutch captured 2 fleets. 4 wrecks. Success of the Spanish fleet, which changed the world, of 99.75%, which allowed Spain to be for centuries in some European countries, which we filled with universities, baroque cities and palaces. The British never had an empire in Europe. There are hundreds of Spanish ships sunk in all the seas, but we sent more than a hundred thousand ships around the world, and more than 99% were successful. They discovered almost all the archipelagos of the Pacific Ocean and recognized the coasts of America from Tierra del Fuego to Alaska, and from Antarctica to Newfoundland. The same in Asia.
The Spanish empire was the largest in the world between 1500-1800, and was in the five continents between 1521-1898. In the seventeenth century, Spain was present in 90 current countries, in all seas (first world globalization). The United States, Germany, Italy, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, China, Kenya, France, Indonesia, the Netherlands... All the important ones except Russia. That was 200 years before the British. Spanish silver (real of 8 Spanish dollars) was the most important currency in the world for 300 years, mother of the currency of the United States, China, Japan, the Philippines and 30 other countries. In the eighteenth century and in 1800 the British empire was very little developed, compared to the Spanish. The British had half a million Western people living in some cities in Canada and Australia. Spain had more than 20 million people living in cities in America, the Philippines and Italy, with 40 universities. Only after the Napoleonic wars, which destroyed continental Europe, were the British able to have a great empire, 1815, because they were an island. That's the only reason they weren't invaded by Napoleon. Among the British atrocities is removing food crops from some regions of India, to plant cotton for the English textile industry, which caused 7 famines, with 30-40 million deaths in India. The English industrial revolution was made with children aged 5-12 working in the coal mines for a plate of food, without earning money, many times, until 1850, when the British reacted to that atrocity. The rest is the 300-year British monopoly on African slavery, and the 20 tax havens, which steal money for social services from other countries (21st century). That created a lot of money for science. I'm glad about it, because the whole planet benefits, but you can't dirty other countries. We all have good and bad things.
@@Gloriaimperial1 Hi. The rise of China from third world status to "next super-power" in just 70 years was done by embracing science and technology. We reached the moon the same way. Your comment that my claim "makes no sense" makes no sense.
An ancestor of mine was Spanish. He arrived in Ireland in 1588, a deserter from the tattered remains of Philip of Spain's "invincible Armada", sent to colonize the British isles and Holland by force of arms. He was a fisherman press-ganged into military service, just like the English manned their ships using this form of slavery. (The Brits called it "taking the king's shilling".) He stayed, despite the weather, so the fishing must have been good. Today we'd call him a war refugee. As a result of his genes, I've inherited a penchant for stuffed green Spanish olives.
Cheers, P.R.
@@philliprobinson7724
I have an English, Dutch and Irish family. They came to Cádiz, where my family is from, fleeing from the British and Dutch persecutions against Catholics, in the 17th-18th centuries. One of my ancestors (although I have more Spanish ancestors, of course, and some Italian and Portuguese) is the writer María Gertrudis Hore Ley, an Irish Catholic. They were integrated into Spanish society.
Remember that Spain sent 4 invasion fleets to England, of more than 130 ships. 1588, 1596, 1597 and 1718. All were stopped by storms. A sunny day and...
In 1589, Drake's invincible English fleet (without storms) was crushed by Spain. It was the year that Elisabeth made Drake lighthouse keeper, because of that failure. When he left the lighthouse trade, he lost five battles in the Caribbean and died. At that time Spain invaded Germany (1588) and Paris (1590).
Even with the island, and the storms, Felipe II of Spain arrived with a fleet in England in 1554, under the command of the Duke of Alba, and married María Tudor, the half-Spanish queen of England. He spared the life of Elisabeth, Mary Tudor's maid. If they had had a child... The British ships or 15 miracles?
Among the best stuffed olives in Spain is the world globalization that takes England and all of Europe out of the feudal era, the first patented steam machines for industrial use (Ayanz, 16th century), the first influential liberal ideas (Francisco Suárez, school of Salamanca), the first natural expeditions, and the first ideas of evolution, which are 300 years ahead of Darwin. The first international human rights (1512 Burgos Laws and 1542 New Laws), the current calendar (16th century, which the British adopted in 1752), the golden age of Spanish culture, with Don Quixote (best literary work in history ) or the Spanish theater (Lope de Vega, Calderón, Tirso de Molina) influential in Italy and romantic Germany, 18th-19th centuries, long before Shakespeare, international law, our participation in the Renaissance (450 years in Italy), the first trip around the world, the discovery of three continents, the first world vaccination, the first parliament in Europe (León 1118) and various schools of intellectuals, philosophers, writers, poets, musicians (Silver Age of Spanish culture) who lived in the 19th and 20th centuries, and are known throughout the world: Picasso, Dalí, García Lorca, Unamuno, Ortega y Gasset, Gaudí, Manuel de Falla, Rosa Chacel, and many more. When you go out, don't forget your umbrella.
It amazes me that Mongolia such a small population of 1 million ruled the world between 1200s - 1400s.
1 in every 200 men alive today are descendants of Genghis Khan 🇲🇳
@@silveriver9 Hi. Superior technology is again the answer. The Mongols were expert horsemen and could ride "no hands" which freed them to use bows and arrows while riding fast. They were unhittable by enemy archers. They also used stirrups, which gave a smoother ride, and more accurate aim. They were the first to develop "blitzkreig" tactics and were fearsome foes to opposing foot-sloggers armed with mere spears. It's possible they are the source of the "centaur" myth, a human head and torso on a horse's body. Cheers, P.R.
Looking at the thumbnail, you see why India was the crown jewel of the British colonies
The rest of the colonies were either sparsely inhibited places like Australia or Canada, or undeveloped places like Africa or Borneo
India, otoh, was an entire civilization that was colonized and brought into the empire
Not with British might but because they were able to raise sepoys from imperial magadh . The British completely obliterated all it's records after 1857 war of independence.
India was the jewel in the crown of the British Empire.
Opium and hatchish , trafficking through the royal navy!!!
India was a jewel since ancient times...u can read about it in roman writings of those times.
The opening of Suez Canal in 1869 has facilitated British Empire trade routes to parts of the Asia’s country
How did the British empire rule world,
The answer is pretty simple. For many centuries, they had a strong unbeatable, far better navy than any other nation. No one could able to match the Royal Navy on the high seas. With this strong navy and technical advancements, Brits spread all around the world and establish many trade companies along with local governments.
ua-cam.com/video/-zT9pa5AOuE/v-deo.html (....still rules the world )
The secret was the island. Spain invaded all Western capitals in the 16th-17th centuries. Rome, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Genoa, Milan, Florence, Cologne...
England was an island, and Spain could not send a large army. Only on ships. We sent 4 invasion fleets of over 130 ships, in 1588, 1596, 1597 and 1718. All 4 had storms. In 3 of them the British fleet was absolutely clueless and useless on the high seas.
Napoleon invaded all of Western Europe, destroying European economies by 60-80%, with more than 5 million dead. The British were an island, and they did not have to see London besieged, as was Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Vienna and Moscow. That allowed the British to expand in the world after 1815. Europe could not react, we had to rebuild ourselves.
The Prussian army invaded Paris in a month, in 1870. The British, hiding on their island (and also with a fleet) were not disturbed.
The same happens in the first world war and the second world war. France destroyed, Paris invaded. Even Russia full of dead. The British could expect the island the help of the United States, and the sacrifice of 27 million Russians.
Japan, another island, was also safe from the colonialism that impoverished China, and from communism, and from the Mongol invasions. Any successful invasion would have destroyed the British's chances of creating an empire. A single sunny day, during 1588, 1596, 1597 or 1718, and the United Kingdom would be very different. Even though it was a stormy island, Felipe II of Spain arrived in England with a fleet in 1554, under the command of the Duke of Alba, and married María Tudor, the half-Spanish queen of England. If they had had a son (something so simple) England would be Catholic and part of the Spanish empire for centuries, without being able to build an empire. On those advantages and stability, which also stopped the revolutionary and communist agents, who bloodied Europe with civil wars, the British were very effective. But not without the island.
@@Gloriaimperial1 Hi. Well put. Britain would still be a world power today if it hadn't wasted its substance fighting WW's 1 & 2. Today we see Putin making the same mistake. Cheers, P.R.
I like how you tried to briefly squeeze in the a 2-second segment about the slave trade at the end. That should have been a focal point of this video