Thank god for a Dutch perspective because as a Catholic Scotsmen who always says that yes it was an invasion the proddys think he saved them when infact he ransacked London Durham and York before marching to the coast met his armada and then headed straight to the boyne to smash both sides given that the Dutch had both catholics and proddys in there ranks they can't take that fact that the Dutch did invade conquer and then became the new monarchs
@@globalincident694 aye .ate I'm scottish Catholic bt I know Dutch folks in Edinburgh and they've told me that's the version they are told there are also letters from English churches begging the Scots for relief against W.o.O bt they never got the aid request due to the ongoing crisis in Ireland I also know Irish who say the same things about the battle of the boyne taht the Dutch smashed the blockade then ran down both army's while their navy destroyed the relief force sent to finish of the proddys
As an Englishman who had no idea this ever happened until 5 minutes ago, I am proud to acknowledge our Dutch overlords and hope they will return to rid us of our current British-based leaders.
If we approach this subject seriously though, I believe we are too biased by viewing history from modern nation-state and empire perspectives. It should not be viewed as "one nation conquering another" but rather as a monarch extending his realm; European monarchy was much more complicated than we think today, and a monarch who conquered or inherited several kingdoms had to engage in all sorts of political calculations to keep everyone happy. In some ways it was more a curse than a blessing (see: Holy Roman Emperor Charles the 5th). It wasn't like, I conquered this new kingdom, so now I can automatically treat it as a colony for my old kingdom; ummm no, you had to make sure that everybody is happy or you would be putting down loads of rebellions.
As a Dutch history teacher, I can tell you we don't teach this as an invasion, although it is seen as a critical strategical move to protect the Republic.
@@alanpennie8013 Well if that was the case of protecting Western Europe from Louis XIV, he did a bad job since Louis in the 1660's will eat away some parts of Wallonia,...
Me too. Never heard the concurred line. In Dutch school I was told he was asked to come over because he was protestant and it was beneficial to the people asking him.
Fellow dutch man i always saw it as a just another intervention of a foreign monarch into a allied country’s politics inorder to strengthen relations. Just like when the prussians tried to put a pussian on the throne of spain in to 19th century.
As a Dutch I can't say I was ever taught or told by anyone that we totally conquered England that one time. Such discussion of it that I heard was more of a "there was this thing that happened" then "Go Orange!" That said, if any British are not liking their current rulers, you can send me an invite to become your king. I'm fine with some constitutional limitations, and if you got a cute single girl handy I'm willing to share power too.
Find it hilarious that theres alot of Dutch in comments like "I didn't even know that happend" meanwhile people In scotland are still trying to join Billy's army
@@walsh9080 most of Scotland were in support of William because most of Scotland was and still is protestant and James believed that because he as a catholic, becoming king of two majority protestant and one majority catholic kingdoms, sum how meant that it was Gods will for him to convert both England and Scotland back to their ancient allegiances to the Roman Catholic Church... which was unpalatable for any liberty loving English man and also scots man. It just ended up being The English that acted first. Also a lot of Catholic's favoured William over James because William was a great general and leader and James was not and also because William was not going to nor did he want to convert the Catholic's in Ireland and nor was he setting him self up to be nor aspiring to be despotic which James in all three was trying to do... which is why The Glorious Revolution happened.
British Kings (in an incredibly simplified nutshell) : Frenchmen (Plantegenats) turned Englishmen, Welshmen (Tudors) turned Englishmen, Scotsmen (Stuarts) turned Englishmen, that one time a Dutch guy ruled, and then Germans (Hanovers/Windsors) turned Englishmen.
@@Dave_Sisson Still a bit more German. That line was Danish-Germans turned Greek. The monarchies of Europe are pretty much: Germans turned British, Germans turned Belgian, Danes, Danes turned Norwegian, Frenchmen turned Swedish, Frenchmen turned Spanish and Dutch.
@@jonaszwozniak3490 it was not... it was quite conservative as what needed to change was changed (Absolute Monarchy to Constitutional Monarchy) and what did not need to change was not changed (overall society and institutions did not change) it basically was a relatively bloodless coup or a relatively Nonviolent Revolution... if you like. It was the only successful proper Revolution... and it was nothing to do with communism nor was it communist in nature... it was conservative... which is why it was so successful... Unlike The French Revolution which was quite liberal and as a result... it was a disaster for everyone not just for The French... they could have tried copying England... (as this was before 1707) instead they decided not to... and look what happened... it was just an utter disaster.
Which probably has something to do with the perception that it arguably brought little in the way of actual benefits for the Republic. I knew of the revolution but was never mentioned in the history lessons at school either.
To my knowledge the only noteworthy thing we did to the Brits was the Raid on the Medway, which was by no means a conquer but still an ingenious show of force. I still laugh at it when I see the Stern piece hanging in the Rijksmuseum.
@@GulliNL The Medway raid was awesome - and I say that as Briton! It showed up just what a bunch of amateurs the Royal Navy was in the 17th century and deserved the absolute kicking the Dutch delivered to them. It forced the RN to deal with their shortcomings and institute a raft of reforms which gradually transformed them into the formidable power they would become in the 18th century. So every victory the RN went on to win, was basically all because they didn't want to see the Dutch sailing by laughing at them and shouting rude things again!
George III's children had a similar problem. He had many, many children, who in turn had produced many many grandchildren, though few of the grandchildren were legitimate. Worse still the one legitimate granddaughter died in child birth. This meant that his sons had to put away their mistresses, get married for real and have children. Edward Duke of Kent finally produced a legitimate heir like a year before his death. That heir would become Queen Victoria.
You think they could at least produce a few legitimate heirs while focusing on God knows how many mistresses. To be fair, Charles II's illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, was put forward as a potential king in earlier plots but was executed by James as a result.
I've never in my 40 years as a Dutchman heard anyone claim that we conquered Britain. And in fact, if any of my English friends needs a needling I'd sooner use the Raid on the Medway then this. Good video though.
@2manynegativewaves Thanks, that's a nice anecdote. I must say that the raid on the Medway isn't even taught in history lessons over here. I know of it because I'm a bit of a history nerd and I have lot of Navy personel among my Dutch and English friends. Our 2 navies are actually very close these days so there's all kinds of good natured rivalry going on. There's a story, most likely false*, that after the raid, Admiral De Ruijter hung a broom in the mast as a sign he swept the Medway clean of the English. But to this day, whenever a ship of the Dutch navy arrives in a port at that side of England they hang a broom in the mast as a good natured dig at the Royal Navy. * The real story about the broom concerns the Dutch Admiral Tromp at the Battle of Dungeness, and even that is very likely false. But you shouldn't let facts spoil a nice tradition. :)
@Johan Jacobs Thanks for the compliment and the reminder. I changed it ages ago to to rile someone up. (It seems it still works) :-) But I really should go and find something better. Have a nice day.
I did extensive research on the decline Dutch Republic for a paper in university and the Glorious Revolution played a huge part of its decline. William saw the securing of the British thrones as essential for the republic’s survival as it would theoretically secure an Anglo-Dutch alliance. However, this hastened its decline as William prioritised the running of England and Scotland given that England was a rapidly strengthening nation compared to the stagnating Republic and the Dutch were made the junior partner and extensively reliant on England and later Britain. In addition to that when William relocated to England, many of the Dutch merchants and financiers left for England as well, further bolstering the English economy and causing a collapse of the Dutch economy in the 18th century.
Too simple explanation. The Netherlands lost its power, because the European wars were too expensive for the reduced colonial income from the Dutch Indies. The Dutch Indies spice products lost their monopoly, like all monopolies do. Note that at least for half of the 18th century the UK and the Dutch Republic fought on the same side. So the Glorious Revolution organized by William III was a big success.
I have never heard anyone say 'we conquered England'. I doubt many even know what the Glorious Revolution is. It isn't taught in the regular school curriculum.
I think it"s also worth mentioning that William was also James' nephew, so he was technically next in line to the throne after James' children, (which also happened to include his wife/cousin Mary). Despite being the head of state of the Netherlands, he also had a legitimate claim in his own right, without being married to James' daughter.
@@soultrax101 Mary Stuart, mother of Willem of Orange, claimed that he had more right to the English throne then the daughters of her brother James, as she herself was a daughter of French royalty and Mary and Anne were daughters of Anne Hyde which was low class mobility.
@@a.vanwijk2268 While the Netherlands is specifically used to reference the country today, the term definitely existed at the time. From a historiographic sense, United Provinces, or the Dutch Republic (in English) is used to differentiate the country from the current Kingdom, but it is the same country for all intents and purposes. Also at this point in time, the position of stadhouder was absolutely the de facto head of state. Initially, this wasn't the case, but by the late 17th century and up until the Revolution, it was. It's like how constitutionally, Amsterdam is the capital, but the de facto capital is The Hague since it serves as the seat of the government.
I just finished watching the British history video series. I was around during the 10 minute days, but just accepted the new format. However, after watching your former content, I really have to conclude that the longer running time was just better. I felt so much more informed, and your videos have educated me immensely over the years, which is why I'm not sure if the shorter run time is better.
Agree, proper bike lanes, and car drivers not jumping red lights, speeding routinely and forcing pedestrians to jump for their lives when they turn onto a side road, would be much more civilised.
The fact that William was Dutch is almost totally inconsequential. What matters is that he was Protestant and had a claim to the crown through marriage. The English had a complicated history with the Dutch state, as they were Protestant allies but commercial rivals - the two nations were at war as recently as 1674, as France and England unsuccessfully sought to undermine Dutch commercial hegemony. But they were more than willing to accept a Dutch monarch, and William was willing to allow English interests to supersede Dutch interests; he ordered that any Anglo-Dutch fleet would be under the command of English admirals, and arguably his accession to the throne precipitated the downfall of the Dutch Golden Age, as many eminent scholars, financiers, and nobles settled in London rather than Amsterdam as the result of his premiership. Catherine the Great was Prussian/Pomeranian by birth, but her becoming Empress of Russia was not a Prussian conquest. European history is complicated and requires a nuanced assessment. I'm glad to hear our Dutch friends in the comments disavowing this idea that the Glorious Revolution was a Dutch conquest, as to me it appears to be a very massive oversimplification of historical events. The Dutch have many reasons to be proud of their historical accomplishments despite the size of their nation and the fact that it's mostly underwater, but they didn't conquer Britain.
We did not conquer Britain (could not imagen why anyone would want to anyway) We were however the last who succesfully raided the English in the Medway raid and the first to introduce mariniers.
@@archeiskotia2764 Yes even Rutte a school teacher beside Prime Minister makes this mistake Portugal beat the Dutch with their marines founding in 1618 while the Korps Mariniers was founded in 1665.
I guess the invasion of William III with 40.000 troups didn't occur. The Dutch propaganda to make the British embrace an invader is effective even today.
2:30 what Dutch interpretation? I’ve never heard anyone in the Netherlands claim such a thing, nor have I ever read an article claiming it was Dutch conquest.
Regarding the bit at 1:19 about William's claim to the English and Scottish thrones: this didn't just come from his wife Mary. William was himself a grandson of Charles I through his mother Mary, sister of Charles II and James II. And yes, that means he and his wife were first cousins.
Conquering Brittain really is the ultimate fashion/power move, actually. The Romans did it, the Angles and Saxons, the Danes, the Normans, the Dutch...
@@Valandix 1066 was the Franks. Of course English will claim it was a Viking invasion because the duke of Normandy that led the invasion had a great-great-grandfather that came from Denmark" XD
@@lastprussian71 : Yes, Normandy was called Vexin before Vikings took over. It was really an invasion by Vikings who spoke a French dialect and their coastal allies (Flemish and Bretons).
Sorry. But we Dutch did not see this as conquest at all in any way. Also at uni, we were taught that it was rather a collaboration of rulers, with of course huge benefits than a coquest...
Well, some of the Germanic tribes who were later lumped into the designation "Anglo-Saxons" probably came from what's now the Netherlands. And Dutch and Frisian are the closest-related mainland languages to the English language.
@@boll2001 no, as a Frisian I can savely say that the majority of us see ourselves as Dutch, it is the rest of the Netherlands however, who seem to want to get rid of us (provincie afsteken en de Noordzee in duwen) 🤷
@@FeeriiEekii Ah, ja. Ik zei het alleen omdat ik nog wel een paar friezen ken en ze vinden dat ze helemaal niet bij Nederland horen, daarom had ik die opinie. Maar Ik zelf, (een nederlander) vind dat jullie gewoon bij ons horen, maakt niet uit wat die andere gladiolen denken.
I love your videos, but as a Dutchman I have to say: sadly, most Dutch people don't even know about his becoming the English king. In Dutch history, we mostly focus on his role in the Anglo Dutch wars (as with Michiel de Ruyter) and internal orangist vs republican tensions.
Toon Holman If the story was fiction it would rejected as too weird to believe. The Fact that this Dutch Armada was exactly 100 years after the Spanish one was just ridiculously on the nose for example.
I dont think its an invasion if the victim wants to be invaded. He didnt even fight any battles in England. He seems like a normal king of england to me and unified Two kingdoms scotland and ireland do not count they always revolt no matter who subjugates them
"So you weren't conquered for 622 years and that's a sensitive subject? Well, in that case I'll make it look like you did it yourself to avoid unnecessary resistance, bloodshed and instability." Greetz, Billy
Hernando Malinche It’s more that his wife was infertile than him. I can’t remember the details but I heard that the main wife he had for most of his reign suffered a miscarriage earlier in their marriage and was unable to have children since then. Charles did have quite a lot of children, they just weren’t legitimate, which made them unable to inherit the throne.
He did have quite a lot of surviving children, just not legitimate. His main wife Catherine of Braganza had loads of miscarriages and that was one of his only 3 marriages
This reminds me of a BBC doc that I watched where some Oxbridge guy spent an hour trying to convince the viewer that whenever a foreigner stepped onto the shores of Britain it constituted an 'invasion'. I didn't find it convincing tbh, and I'm not the huzzah type but he was really pulling at strings. Anyway, cool video as always.
James II was actually captured on the way out of England. He was turned over the the Dutch troops who somehow (hint: William's orders) let him escape to France. That avoided having another martyr like his father Charles I. His son and grandson both invaded Scotland, but the rebellions they incited were put down hard.
I (Dutch) always kind of felt betrayed by that. Like Willie was just like "f this tiny swampland. I'll rule England instead" and that he just abandoned the country to rule a foreign land. Not that this was extensively taught in school though. More of a 5 minute explanation during one of the weekly history classes.
@@doglover31418 So they got to go and rule a wet, cold and misserable land instead. Sorry, thats how englismen described their own country, but I think its kind of funny.
Well two Anglo-Dutch Wars that Dutch did win may helped asking William to becoming King, as if you cannot win the Dutch, ask one of them to join you. This Anglo-Dutch alliance would be unstoppable so long this marriage will product an heir... Georg Ludwig: "What a nice throne your have!"
@@TrustInTheShepherd William ran a whole campaign in Ireland, 1690 and 1691 winning at in the field Aughrim, having fought siege warfare at Derry and Limerick, where he agreed a Treaty...The Boyne is notable as you had King facing King in battle, but it was not decisive in the Williamite war.
In the Netherlands I mostly hear about the Raid on the Medway as a 'that time we beat them up' moment. But even that event isn't so well known. I've only ever heard this particular event described as "They liked our dude better because of religion" and the whole event going something like: English: Hey. You're protestant, right? William: Uh. Yes? For a while now. English: You married one of us, right? William: Yep! And mother was English too. English: Busy with anything? William: Kinda bored tbh. Engish: Aigh't ... Here's the deal. William & English: *Glorious revolution*
Slight correction at 0:46. King Charles II did have children, 14 in fact, but they were all illegitimate and thus could not inherit the throne. Quite a few European rulers throughout the eras had a lot of illegitimate children but few or no surviving ones. Emperor Charlemagne for example had 18 children with various wives and concubines but only 4 sons were legitimate. King William IV had eleven illegitimate children, but all four of his legitimate children died at or soon after birth, with only one making it past two months. This resulted in his niece, Victoria becoming queen after his passing. King Charles II's virility earned him the nickname, the "merry monarch". His many descendants include actor Kit Harrington with Charles being Kit's eighth-great-grandfather on his father's side.
The second Stuart period also saw Dutch naval victories at sea and even in the Thames estuary and the Medway. Contrasted poorly with the military and naval successes of the Commonwealth. Two other post-1688 reforms cemented the British parliamentary system - for the first time, transparent parliamentary control of the public accounts, expenditure as well as revenue. Finally gave the nation confidence in the government’s management of money, enabling the first government bond market to develop. This went hand-in-hand with a shift of the cabinet into the Commons as the new financial management and accountability role of the parliament required ministers to be on hand as MPs, and parliament to sit more or less permanently. Access to a stable system of revenue and debt financing allowed England (soon after, the UK) to rapidly shift into the top league of military and naval powers, as shown in the War of the Spanish Succession. The previous system of mistrust and conflict between a secretive Stuart king and a suspicious parliament, which had resumed after the Restoration, left the army and navy starved of funds and little more than minimal wartime levies. Thus the Dutch were able to burn the fleet laid-up in the Medway and tow off the flagship, much to Pepys’ horror.
It's also very important to note that the Dutch *Republic* was... weird. William was a Prince, but in no official capacity was he a Dutch prince. He was stadholder, which is more of a foreign affairs military role. His position within the Republic was... divisive at best.
It was a function from the time of the Burgundian empire, first introduced when the dukes of Burgundy acquired Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut by marriage around 1400.
As an English student I was taught more about the Glorious Revolution, the changes to Monarchy and power in Britain and the consequences it had on the future and The state of Britain before vs after and then a little a bit at the end of how James escaped and her briefly who replaced him
I´m Dutch, but cannot remember ever been taught or ever having heard that "we" conquered Britain. Willem was asked to come in and take the crown, so pretty much the english version.
Do a Short Animated Documentary which attempts to answer this question: was the 'History Matter's RUclips channel better when it was called Ten Minute History?
The answer is 'no' because handcuffing yourself to a specific amount of time for every video is unwise. You should take as much time as you need to tell the story you're trying to tell... no more, no less. When it was "10 Minute History" he was unnecessarily stretching things out just to fill the time.
Yet another great video, thanks. This debate will rage on, but I cannot imagine anyone launching a major hostile invasion, whilst surrounded by enemies ready to pounce, who know that if they didn't strike now, William would be in a stronger position in years to come. We have precedents in the 'King Louis' episode during the reign of King John, and the 'invasion' of Isabella and Mortimer during the reign of Edward II. That William of Orange arrived with an army and a fleet might merely show he was expecting more trouble than he got, and that he did not entirely believe how much support he had been promised would materialise.
The English army under James II was actually very large and professional which was one of the grievances against him, as standing armies were considered abhorrent by the English people. Upon William's landing, most of James' protestant officers deserted his army and joined William including John Churchill who was James' best commander. Only the catholic elements of James army offered any resistance to William at the Battle of Reading
And then add to that massive popular revolts, disaffection of the gentry etc etc. While the army stuff was happening like the entire north and multiple major towns were simultaneously revolting. Moral of the story: don't alienate literally everyone in your kingdom-people, military, elite, church, etc etc.
For those not in the know, John Churchill became Duke of Marlborough and in conjunction with the Dutch and other allies did a lot to restrict French power in the early 1700s. He got Blenheim Palace as a reward, and was of course an ancestor of Winston, who was accidentally born there when his mother was at a dance.
And crucially William of Orange was a Stuart by his mum. He was 4th in line for the British throne at the time of the GR. James francis Edward Stuart was 1st Then Mary II The Anne Then William of orange. So he wasn’t a “random Dutchman”
Seriously though, that point could be argued to be true, if you'd consider the suppression of resistance in Ireland and Scotland to be a conquest. So a coup followed by conquest.
@@sorcererberoll4641 nah, i think it was this large because dutch Merchants had to fight alongside the state with their ships (im not 100% sure). that would make alot of ships, but not nessecarily alot of true warships
@@tammesikkema5322 well the Dutch had the biggest warfleet during the golden age. As they had the money to fund it. They stepped off of using merchant ships after the first or 2nd Anglo Dutch war iirc.
No, I was never told that Billyboy "conquered" the british throne. We're taught pretty much the exact same story you're telling us now. And this is coming from at least 35-ish years ago. Don't know about the years before that. The "army" that William had btw was largely a bit of a show army with all kind of exotic mercenaries dressed up for spectacle.
Loads of my countrymen saying us Dutchies don't see it as conquering, and that's very true because I'm sad to tell you: unless they've seen the Michiel de Ruyter movie, I hardly think most Dutchmen even know this happened 😅
1066: was the last time we were conquered Culloden: was the last battle on British soil Blitz: was the last attack by another nation on British mainland Falklands: the last time one of our territories were attacked
Fun Facts: 1. James II (and VII) did lead an army against William, but kept refusing to order it to attack. A severe persistent nosebleed (I kid you not!) was the reason!! Eventually his army got fed up and changed sides!! 2. The Scots hummed and haa'ed and hawed about siding with William. But when James Of Claverhouse, 'Bonnie Dundee' failed to convert either the Scottish Parliament or the armed ex-Covenanters, the "Cameronians", named after a fanatical Presbyterian, to support James, he flounced off to the Highlands to raise an army. The Earl of Huntly held Edinburgh Castle until disease and a lack of water-every time they fired cannon, the water level in the Wells dropped several inches-forced them to give up! 3. When William III (King Billy of DUP mythology) defeated James at the Battle of the Boyne, the loudest applause was from the Vatican!! This was because Louis XIV backed James and liked nothing better than kicking around the Papacy!
Can someone confirm whether the use of the maps of the Netherlands in many of these slides is historically accurate or just a little inconsistent? I swear I saw Flevoland appear in some scenes when I I’m fairly sure it was still underwater at the time.
"They turned up with an army, but faced little resistance [...]" I know Great Britain didn't become part of the Netherlands after that, but there are some Anschluss similarities there.
This didn't exist until the 20th century but the statute of Westminister in 1931 clarified how we should refer to regnal numbers, we should call him James VII. When Elizabeth took the throne, it was pointed out she can't be called Elizabeth II of Scotland because there is no Elizabeth I (nor did Australia etc). It was agreed that monarchs will be referred to by whichever number is higher to prevent being double named. To apply that logic retroactively, then James VII he is. I'm English and I have no problem with this convention, I'm happy to refer to James II as James VII.
One fact seems to be overlooked. William III's mother was the sister of both Charles II and James II. So he had as much English royal blood as his wife Mary, who was -- yes -- his first cousin.
Riksa Johannes well lately hes been doing videos about very specific things rather than a whole topic, so theyve been shorter. hes already covered a lot of the big picture things, so its likely they wont coming back soon or if they do then they will probably be rare
@@AbbeyRoadkill1 No it just confirms that UK parliament is full of self serving no good traitors that don't want to carry out the will of the people. We very much do not need Europe but Europe does seem to need our many billions of £££'s that we send to you all.
@@Oxley016 🤔💩 You probably not aware of this but the Netherlands sends more money per capita ( nett) to the EU then the UK. If the UK should pay the same amount per capita it should pay 4 times the current amount....Stop whining like a little bitch 😁
something like this happened to me while playing Crusader Kings 2: I was playing a Danish Count minded my own business fabricating claims on Swedish, Baltic and Pomeranian Counties, had several Duchies on my name too but then Then Polish King Declare De jure War on all of my holdings, and my own king couldn't helped me because he was conquering France because he had a claim on the French crown himself. I simply surrender because I couldn't defeated the entire Polish armies be myself, But decided to be a useful banner man to my new Liege, and for 2 generation I defended The Polish Kingdom from Horse Nomads and Pagans from the East and rebellious cousins Becoming Marshall and later my successor Grandson Prime Minister, But I strictly kept all my Children Culturally Danish by married them to Danish Noble families expect from my Heir That I married to the one of the Daughters of the King of Norway because "why not". meanwhile I upgraded my Holding to grew my Levies and Tax revenue. Then all of the Sudden one of my Son-in-laws sent me a message that he and other Danish and French Noblemen are conspiring to overthrow the Danish King who at this time also ruled France (the Whole of France is within the Danish Kingdom at this point), and they wanted me to become their King, But first I had to declare an Independence War on the my Liege, The King of Poland who after several "Cousin wars" was very weak. so I started saving Money, gave gift to my bannermen to keep them happy before raising their Levies obligations, borrow money from the Jews, quit my position in the Polish Council, raised all of my Levies and Hired Mercenaries. My Son-in-Law and his conspirators had already rebelled to deposed their King, I declare an Independence war to secede from Poland, and gather all my armies into one massive Unit and had the Mercenaries (horsemen) eliminate any Polish levy units before they met each other. Nobody liked the Current Polish king that much, his Bannerman didn't provide him with a lot of units, I managed to win the Independence war by letting the Clock ran out, and took the the whole of Pomerania with me, and even afterwards I still had a positive opinion from the Polish King then I sent my entire army to Denmark proper, Captured Copenhagen, then sent my army to France before I ran out of money and my Bannerman start getting angry for having their Levies raised for too long. France was on a stalemate , I just had to swept what was left of the loyalist forces. after that I was Crowned King of Denmark with a realm stretching from the Baltic to the to the Mediterranean, and gain the Title of "King Knut The Great" but It doesn't end their. My mother was the daughter of the King Of Norway and she end up inheriting the Crown of Norway, so when She died I Also Became "King Of Norway" BUT WAIT their is More! after the conquest of France I inherited claims on the Duchy Of Barcelona who was at this point control by the Moors, so I declare a "Holy war" recruited a Holy Order of Mercenaries and Conquer Barcelona too. So after 3 Generations of being both a conqueror and a conquered, Loyalist and a Rebel, a Usurper and a Rightful Heir, a Man of War and A Man Of God, fighting Pagans from the East and Muslims from The South, I had And Realm consisting of the Duchy of Barcelona, France Most Of Scandinavia, Pomerania, and a nice chunk of the Baltic and two King Titles. I wanted to go all out at my old age wanting to go on Crusade to The Holy Land but that was too much already for old King Knut The Great. died of all age around 70 after that I decided to quit because the "rebellious cousins" was happening to me as well my bannermen were jealous of the new guy having too many titles and their were too many cultural differences to keep everyone happy.... and besides everything goes to shit when the Aztec arrive
Well i remember taking a class that focused on the tudors and stuarts period, in the end the catholics lose and the protestants win. u should do a video about the catholic minorities in England at this time, its not something thats talked about a lot. One good book is "Tudor and Stuart" third edition by Roger Lockyer
Nobody in the Netherlands sees this as a conquest. In fact, it hardly gets any attention in our national history. When it's about the 17th century, it's about the 80 Years War, the Golden Age (Rembrandt etc.), the VOC, the Anglo-Dutch Wars and Michiel de Ruyter, Louis XIV and the disaster year of 1672, but most Dutch have no idea what the Glorious Revolution was.
The Glorious Revolution isn't part of the standard history curriculum in Dutch high schools. At best, it's discussed as a part the decline of Dutch importance after 1972. It certainly isn't taught as a Dutch conquest of Britain. If anything, Stadholder William III's ascension to the British throne is seen as something of a betrayal of the Dutch republic. It seemed that William wanted to be king of a hereditary monarchy. That wasn't going to happen in the Netherlands for another 127 years, so he set his eyes on Britain where he had a credible claim to the throne because of his mother. Treating ruling the Dutch republic as a consolation prize or a stepping stone isn't going to garner you a lot of sympathy from historian trying to craft a national historic narrative.
It has existed since at least roman times... according to the map of Europe used by the game Caesar III anyway. That's the oldest evidence I've been able to find of it so far.
@@postscript67 They were only similar in the sense they conquered vast swathes of Europe. Ideologically they were pretty far apart. After all Napoleon emancipated the Jews.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Dutch person who had no idea this ever happened until 5 minutes ago, yes we totally conquered Britain.
Thank god for a Dutch perspective because as a Catholic Scotsmen who always says that yes it was an invasion the proddys think he saved them when infact he ransacked London Durham and York before marching to the coast met his armada and then headed straight to the boyne to smash both sides given that the Dutch had both catholics and proddys in there ranks they can't take that fact that the Dutch did invade conquer and then became the new monarchs
oh, proddy means protestant. that confused me for a moment
@@globalincident694 aye .ate I'm scottish Catholic bt I know Dutch folks in Edinburgh and they've told me that's the version they are told there are also letters from English churches begging the Scots for relief against W.o.O bt they never got the aid request due to the ongoing crisis in Ireland I also know Irish who say the same things about the battle of the boyne taht the Dutch smashed the blockade then ran down both army's while their navy destroyed the relief force sent to finish of the proddys
As an Englishman who had no idea this ever happened until 5 minutes ago, I am proud to acknowledge our Dutch overlords and hope they will return to rid us of our current British-based leaders.
If we approach this subject seriously though, I believe we are too biased by viewing history from modern nation-state and empire perspectives. It should not be viewed as "one nation conquering another" but rather as a monarch extending his realm; European monarchy was much more complicated than we think today, and a monarch who conquered or inherited several kingdoms had to engage in all sorts of political calculations to keep everyone happy. In some ways it was more a curse than a blessing (see: Holy Roman Emperor Charles the 5th).
It wasn't like, I conquered this new kingdom, so now I can automatically treat it as a colony for my old kingdom; ummm no, you had to make sure that everybody is happy or you would be putting down loads of rebellions.
Re-uploaded because I made an oopsie. Sorry about that. Next episode is 'Why does Russia own Kaliningrad?'.
Thanks!
What was the oopsie
What was the oopsie
What was the oopsie? It looked fine
@@kylec6676 I said that Mary was James II's sister when she's his daughter.
As a Dutch history teacher, I can tell you we don't teach this as an invasion, although it is seen as a critical strategical move to protect the Republic.
Martijn Boot
It was seen by William as a move to protect The Republic (and Western Europe generally) from Louis XIV.
@@alanpennie8013 Well if that was the case of protecting Western Europe from Louis XIV, he did a bad job since Louis in the 1660's will eat away some parts of Wallonia,...
@@Valandix
True. But that was before our hero took power.
@@alanpennie8013 Which hero is that?
@@walsh9080
William. He was the hero fighting the tyrant Louis in the great drama scripted by himself.
In the Netherlands it’s viewed as the English preferring our guy over theirs. Almost none of us view it as a conquest of Britain.
I can second this.
In school I have been thought that William III did indeedly conquer England
Only wen my english frends get uppity
Me too. Never heard the concurred line. In Dutch school I was told he was asked to come over because he was protestant and it was beneficial to the people asking him.
Fellow dutch man i always saw it as a just another intervention of a foreign monarch into a allied country’s politics inorder to strengthen relations. Just like when the prussians tried to put a pussian on the throne of spain in to 19th century.
It's a simple personal union which didn't last, every EU4 player knows this.
Ruler died before reaching positive relations with Britain and so, pu broke
That development liberty desire was just too high
Perfectly Fine does anyone want to mp?
And the Netherlands was the junior partner
but it's more like the loss of the personal union over Hanover in Victoria 2
Edgar Rätsep No, you are very wrong. It was his lack of an heir that caused England and the Dutch to go their separate ways.
As a Dutch I can't say I was ever taught or told by anyone that we totally conquered England that one time. Such discussion of it that I heard was more of a "there was this thing that happened" then "Go Orange!"
That said, if any British are not liking their current rulers, you can send me an invite to become your king. I'm fine with some constitutional limitations, and if you got a cute single girl handy I'm willing to share power too.
At this point I'm sure the British would take anything over their current parliament lol.
Can I invite you to become the king of Bohemia?
Can't wait for the Second Glorious Revolution!
Hey, America here.
germany would welcome you with open arms.
Find it hilarious that theres alot of Dutch in comments like "I didn't even know that happend" meanwhile people In scotland are still trying to join Billy's army
The most famous act of internal violence in William's name was against the Scottish. The massacre of Glencoe.
@@walsh9080 well you can't blame the guy for having crappy staff. They just had the plague, try getting good help after that
50% of Northern Ireland is with you
lmao
@@walsh9080 most of Scotland were in support of William because most of Scotland was and still is protestant and James believed that because he as a catholic, becoming king of two majority protestant and one majority catholic kingdoms, sum how meant that it was Gods will for him to convert both England and Scotland back to their ancient allegiances to the Roman Catholic Church... which was unpalatable for any liberty loving English man and also scots man.
It just ended up being The English that acted first.
Also a lot of Catholic's favoured William over James because William was a great general and leader and James was not and also because William was not going to nor did he want to convert the Catholic's in Ireland and nor was he setting him self up to be nor aspiring to be despotic which James in all three was trying to do... which is why The Glorious Revolution happened.
British Kings (in an incredibly simplified nutshell) : Frenchmen (Plantegenats) turned Englishmen, Welshmen (Tudors) turned Englishmen, Scotsmen (Stuarts) turned Englishmen, that one time a Dutch guy ruled, and then Germans (Hanovers/Windsors) turned Englishmen.
So on your basis on male line descent, their next king will be Greek.
You missed the Danes
@@Dave_Sisson Still a bit more German. That line was Danish-Germans turned Greek.
The monarchies of Europe are pretty much: Germans turned British, Germans turned Belgian, Danes, Danes turned Norwegian, Frenchmen turned Swedish, Frenchmen turned Spanish and Dutch.
@abcdef Everyone knows that there wasn't any English history before 1066.
@@Dave_Sisson: No, but he will have Greek blood from his father Prince Philip :-)
“English and British history part 21: The Glorious Revolution”
I'm still a big fan of Mr. TenMinuteHistory, but personally, I take 'here's a brief overview of events' as a 'fuck you' to us. : p
It sounds very communist
@@jonaszwozniak3490 funny thing is, it was actually revolution as all that changed was a king or a jaunta to a king to another queen so a 360 lop
@@jonaszwozniak3490 it was not... it was quite conservative as what needed to change was changed (Absolute Monarchy to Constitutional Monarchy) and what did not need to change was not changed (overall society and institutions did not change) it basically was a relatively bloodless coup or a relatively Nonviolent Revolution... if you like.
It was the only successful proper Revolution... and it was nothing to do with communism nor was it communist in nature... it was conservative... which is why it was so successful...
Unlike The French Revolution which was quite liberal and as a result... it was a disaster for everyone not just for The French... they could have tried copying England... (as this was before 1707) instead they decided not to... and look what happened... it was just an utter disaster.
@@foundationofBritain Non-violent if you didn't live in Scotland or Ireland.
*_Unconquered since 1066_*
The Dutch: *G E K O L O N I S E E R D*
Ancient Accounts - Animated History I saw you edited this. It didn’t say gekoloniseerd....nice try normie
@@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un i changed it to something different. So? besides it does say edited
*G E N O R M A L I S E E R D* (Normie)
Video about Dutch history, it wouldn't be normal if a normie don't G E K O L O N I S E E R D
Not really true, because England was part of the Angevin Empire.
I once heard a fellow Dutchman jokingly saying that "we conquered England" but in the general way it is not viewed like that.
Which probably has something to do with the perception that it arguably brought little in the way of actual benefits for the Republic. I knew of the revolution but was never mentioned in the history lessons at school either.
To my knowledge the only noteworthy thing we did to the Brits was the Raid on the Medway, which was by no means a conquer but still an ingenious show of force. I still laugh at it when I see the Stern piece hanging in the Rijksmuseum.
@@GulliNL The Medway raid was awesome - and I say that as Briton! It showed up just what a bunch of amateurs the Royal Navy was in the 17th century and deserved the absolute kicking the Dutch delivered to them. It forced the RN to deal with their shortcomings and institute a raft of reforms which gradually transformed them into the formidable power they would become in the 18th century. So every victory the RN went on to win, was basically all because they didn't want to see the Dutch sailing by laughing at them and shouting rude things again!
Maybe we spoke 😂
Small correction here:
Charles II (according to Wikipedia) had at least 14 children.
His WIFE, however... Oh, that's awkward.
George III's children had a similar problem. He had many, many children, who in turn had produced many many grandchildren, though few of the grandchildren were legitimate. Worse still the one legitimate granddaughter died in child birth. This meant that his sons had to put away their mistresses, get married for real and have children. Edward Duke of Kent finally produced a legitimate heir like a year before his death. That heir would become Queen Victoria.
You think they could at least produce a few legitimate heirs while focusing on God knows how many mistresses. To be fair, Charles II's illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, was put forward as a potential king in earlier plots but was executed by James as a result.
@@HerewardWake I took that as implied from the last line, about his wife but yeah. One of the illegitimate children tried to seize power in 1685.
@@HerewardWake Royal? Don't you mean noble - one rank down from royal.
Polish-Lithuanian King August II had at least 16 children with different women.
I've never in my 40 years as a Dutchman heard anyone claim that we conquered Britain. And in fact, if any of my English friends needs a needling I'd sooner use the Raid on the Medway then this. Good video though.
de Ruyter was a pretty cool dude
@2manynegativewaves Thanks, that's a nice anecdote. I must say that the raid on the Medway isn't even taught in history lessons over here. I know of it because I'm a bit of a history nerd and I have lot of Navy personel among my Dutch and English friends. Our 2 navies are actually very close these days so there's all kinds of good natured rivalry going on.
There's a story, most likely false*, that after the raid, Admiral De Ruijter hung a broom in the mast as a sign he swept the Medway clean of the English. But to this day, whenever a ship of the Dutch navy arrives in a port at that side of England they hang a broom in the mast as a good natured dig at the Royal Navy.
* The real story about the broom concerns the Dutch Admiral Tromp at the Battle of Dungeness, and even that is very likely false. But you shouldn't let facts spoil a nice tradition. :)
@Johan Jacobs Thanks for the compliment and the reminder. I changed it ages ago to to rile someone up. (It seems it still works) :-) But I really should go and find something better. Have a nice day.
Johan Jacobs his profile pic is literally a picture of the character that he based his name off of
No! Not my wonderful joint authoritarian union (That is what Medway essentially is)!
I did extensive research on the decline Dutch Republic for a paper in university and the Glorious Revolution played a huge part of its decline. William saw the securing of the British thrones as essential for the republic’s survival as it would theoretically secure an Anglo-Dutch alliance. However, this hastened its decline as William prioritised the running of England and Scotland given that England was a rapidly strengthening nation compared to the stagnating Republic and the Dutch were made the junior partner and extensively reliant on England and later Britain. In addition to that when William relocated to England, many of the Dutch merchants and financiers left for England as well, further bolstering the English economy and causing a collapse of the Dutch economy in the 18th century.
This explains why I remember learning about this as "nobody likes this (guy)"
@@rivkavermeij Especially Louis XIV boy the Sun king HATED that guy real hard considering how often they were at war with each other
So that's what made it GLORIOUS: ka ching!
Too simple explanation. The Netherlands lost its power, because the European wars were too expensive for the reduced colonial income from the Dutch Indies. The Dutch Indies spice products lost their monopoly, like all monopolies do. Note that at least for half of the 18th century the UK and the Dutch Republic fought on the same side. So the Glorious Revolution organized by William III was a big success.
@@bertnijhof5413In the short term, yes. Long term though, it did play a large factor in the Republic’s decline and collapse
I have never heard anyone say 'we conquered England'. I doubt many even know what the Glorious Revolution is. It isn't taught in the regular school curriculum.
as a man of the nether lands, same
The glorious revolution was taught in my school :S
Except it's taught in HAVO and VWO so you're wrong.
Blah b being taught about the horrors of the trans-atlantic slave trade = being taught that all white people are evil. ok edgelord.
@@hugh4035 not the regular curriculum, which prepares you for the CSE's, I picked history at both Havo and VWO 4-5th year.
I think it"s also worth mentioning that William was also James' nephew, so he was technically next in line to the throne after James' children, (which also happened to include his wife/cousin Mary). Despite being the head of state of the Netherlands, he also had a legitimate claim in his own right, without being married to James' daughter.
Not ahead of King James III & VIII he didn't!
@@Ggdivhjkjl What? James III was a child of James II. I specifically said William was next in line after James' children (James, Mary and Anne)
@@soultrax101 Mary Stuart, mother of Willem of Orange, claimed that he had more right to the English throne then the daughters of her brother James,
as she herself was a daughter of French royalty and Mary and Anne were daughters of Anne Hyde which was low class mobility.
There was no Netherlands at that time, there were the Seven United Provinces. Besides, William was stadhouder, which is not a head of state.
@@a.vanwijk2268 While the Netherlands is specifically used to reference the country today, the term definitely existed at the time. From a historiographic sense, United Provinces, or the Dutch Republic (in English) is used to differentiate the country from the current Kingdom, but it is the same country for all intents and purposes.
Also at this point in time, the position of stadhouder was absolutely the de facto head of state. Initially, this wasn't the case, but by the late 17th century and up until the Revolution, it was. It's like how constitutionally, Amsterdam is the capital, but the de facto capital is The Hague since it serves as the seat of the government.
The Glorious Revolution was a glorious revolution comrades
A hero of our era
huraah
The true glorious revolution is the Korean War
wow we have Kim Jong-un and Pol Pot in these comments
Good for you Asians that your respective revolutions succeeded..
I just finished watching the British history video series. I was around during the 10 minute days, but just accepted the new format. However, after watching your former content, I really have to conclude that the longer running time was just better. I felt so much more informed, and your videos have educated me immensely over the years, which is why I'm not sure if the shorter run time is better.
I think he moved to the shorter format to appeal to more ppl
@@snazzle9764 Also it's probably a lot easier production wise
0:41 I’ve seen many of your videos but this is finally what got me subscribe
Your short series is easily among the best few things to have ever happened to RUclips! ^^ Thank you!
England before the dutch came
England:100% tea
After the dutch came
England:50% weed and 50% water
Underrated
50% tea, 50% weed*
حلوة
@@hendrikdependrik1891 thats probably a really good way to describe England hahaha
Still 100% tea. Anyone who says otherwise is a foreigner.
Can someone invite the Dutch back to sort a few things out?
🤔 Ehmm.Thanks but no Thanks...
Agree, proper bike lanes, and car drivers not jumping red lights, speeding routinely and forcing pedestrians to jump for their lives when they turn onto a side road, would be much more civilised.
Sure, on one condition, London needs to be burned to the ground
UW UITNODIGING IS GEACCEPTEERD !
yeah, we have our own shit to uhh handle.
What is this? Well, very simple.
This is *K O L O N I S A T I E*
Personal opinion: it was an 'event' that 'happened', which was 'mutually beneficial'
Least it ain't from your sister
fulcrum 29 you mean your wife?
@Anglo Commando first
Replies=Alabama
...unless you were Catholic or a Celt...
The fact that William was Dutch is almost totally inconsequential. What matters is that he was Protestant and had a claim to the crown through marriage. The English had a complicated history with the Dutch state, as they were Protestant allies but commercial rivals - the two nations were at war as recently as 1674, as France and England unsuccessfully sought to undermine Dutch commercial hegemony. But they were more than willing to accept a Dutch monarch, and William was willing to allow English interests to supersede Dutch interests; he ordered that any Anglo-Dutch fleet would be under the command of English admirals, and arguably his accession to the throne precipitated the downfall of the Dutch Golden Age, as many eminent scholars, financiers, and nobles settled in London rather than Amsterdam as the result of his premiership.
Catherine the Great was Prussian/Pomeranian by birth, but her becoming Empress of Russia was not a Prussian conquest. European history is complicated and requires a nuanced assessment. I'm glad to hear our Dutch friends in the comments disavowing this idea that the Glorious Revolution was a Dutch conquest, as to me it appears to be a very massive oversimplification of historical events. The Dutch have many reasons to be proud of their historical accomplishments despite the size of their nation and the fact that it's mostly underwater, but they didn't conquer Britain.
Sounds to me like you're demanding some Ten Minute History on the subject.....
We did not conquer Britain (could not imagen why anyone would want to anyway) We were however the last who succesfully raided the English in the Medway raid and the first to introduce mariniers.
@@archeiskotia2764 Yes even Rutte a school teacher beside Prime Minister makes this mistake Portugal beat the Dutch with their marines founding in 1618 while the Korps Mariniers was founded in 1665.
I guess the invasion of William III with 40.000 troups didn't occur. The Dutch propaganda to make the British embrace an invader is effective even today.
You can take away from this what you want. Personally I will forever remember that Catherine the Great was part Pomeranian. 🐕
Definetly conquered them in age of empires 3
AOE 3 Sucks AOE 2 was the best.
Let us appreciate all AOE.
I don't care about the view, i just like the Dutch, i think we have more in common culturally than most people realise. :)
Yes, we both make bland food even though being spice traders.
@@jochemvanrens8938 like real dealers we never use our own product
🤔 Hmmm yeeah love to drink...
@@jochemvanrens8938
You’re just a dog shit cook, don’t project your shit onto others 😉
Many Saxon tribes not only invaded Britain 5ad from Germany but also Netherlands you 2 have similar culture except for weed
"The test won't be confusing", they said...
"It's about late 17th century; it will be fun", they said...
2:30 what Dutch interpretation? I’ve never heard anyone in the Netherlands claim such a thing, nor have I ever read an article claiming it was Dutch conquest.
It's an anti British interpretation, which this channel constantly leaves little hints of.
Maybe you’re in a bubble
I recommand Lisa Gardine's Going Dutch. 2008
Same
Regarding the bit at 1:19 about William's claim to the English and Scottish thrones: this didn't just come from his wife Mary. William was himself a grandson of Charles I through his mother Mary, sister of Charles II and James II. And yes, that means he and his wife were first cousins.
"ill try my best to speak less dutch"
2:18
Had me rolling 🤣
Conquering Brittain really is the ultimate fashion/power move, actually. The Romans did it, the Angles and Saxons, the Danes, the Normans, the Dutch...
*France and Germany has left the chat*
@@Valandix
1066 was the Franks. Of course English will claim it was a Viking invasion because the duke of Normandy that led the invasion had a great-great-grandfather that came from Denmark" XD
@@gontrandjojo9747 I think the English are right because of the viking raiders being given land and populated Kingdom of Normandy
@@lastprussian71 : Yes, Normandy was called Vexin before Vikings took over. It was really an invasion by Vikings who spoke a French dialect and their coastal allies (Flemish and Bretons).
Sorry. But we Dutch did not see this as conquest at all in any way. Also at uni, we were taught that it was rather a collaboration of rulers, with of course huge benefits than a coquest...
@Nunovia Gottdamnedbizzness I hope you're not comparing William of Orange to Hitler lmao
God, i love how you say thank You for watching, and the content of your work!
Thanks!
Well, some of the Germanic tribes who were later lumped into the designation "Anglo-Saxons" probably came from what's now the Netherlands. And Dutch and Frisian are the closest-related mainland languages to the English language.
Frisian is even closer to English than it is to Dutch
England was invaded by the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, and many more. (Also the Vikings and Normans)
England is as Germanic as can be.
the frisians think that they dont belong to the netherlands, which i find weird.
@@boll2001 no, as a Frisian I can savely say that the majority of us see ourselves as Dutch, it is the rest of the Netherlands however, who seem to want to get rid of us (provincie afsteken en de Noordzee in duwen) 🤷
@@FeeriiEekii Ah, ja. Ik zei het alleen omdat ik nog wel een paar friezen ken en ze vinden dat ze helemaal niet bij Nederland horen, daarom had ik die opinie. Maar Ik zelf, (een nederlander) vind dat jullie gewoon bij ons horen, maakt niet uit wat die andere gladiolen denken.
I love your videos, but as a Dutchman I have to say: sadly, most Dutch people don't even know about his becoming the English king. In Dutch history, we mostly focus on his role in the Anglo Dutch wars (as with Michiel de Ruyter) and internal orangist vs republican tensions.
Toon Holman
If the story was fiction it would rejected as too weird to believe.
The Fact that this Dutch Armada was exactly 100 years after the Spanish one was just ridiculously on the nose for example.
I love how happy they look when William comes over
"not conquered since 1066"
The Dutch: *let me introduce myself*
" I'm a man with a very big army."
Wrong.
@@ehs1452 kind of
I dont think its an invasion if the victim wants to be invaded. He didnt even fight any battles in England. He seems like a normal king of england to me and unified Two kingdoms scotland and ireland do not count they always revolt no matter who subjugates them
"So you weren't conquered for 622 years and that's a sensitive subject? Well, in that case I'll make it look like you did it yourself to avoid unnecessary resistance, bloodshed and instability."
Greetz, Billy
0:55 i have been waiting for that to happen for too long already.
Charles II had 3 wives and 14 YES YOU HEARD THAT CORRECTLY, 14 partners and produced no legitimate children🤦♂️oof
Hernando Malinche It’s more that his wife was infertile than him. I can’t remember the details but I heard that the main wife he had for most of his reign suffered a miscarriage earlier in their marriage and was unable to have children since then. Charles did have quite a lot of children, they just weren’t legitimate, which made them unable to inherit the throne.
@Hernando Malinche if there is one thing you could say abt Charles II, he was definitely NOT infertile
It was said that "A King is supposed to be the father of his people and Charles II was a father to a good many of them"
He did have quite a lot of surviving children, just not legitimate. His main wife Catherine of Braganza had loads of miscarriages and that was one of his only 3 marriages
@2manynegativewaves
I read once that aspirin would have prevented Anne's tragedies.
This reminds me of a BBC doc that I watched where some Oxbridge guy spent an hour trying to convince the viewer that whenever a foreigner stepped onto the shores of Britain it constituted an 'invasion'. I didn't find it convincing tbh, and I'm not the huzzah type but he was really pulling at strings.
Anyway, cool video as always.
With that logic it must mean that every school trip my highschool performed was an invasion of England?
I love that the map colors on these videos (incidentally or not) are the same ones used from Empire: Total War. Keeps it easy!
James II was actually captured on the way out of England. He was turned over the the Dutch troops who somehow (hint: William's orders) let him escape to France. That avoided having another martyr like his father Charles I. His son and grandson both invaded Scotland, but the rebellions they incited were put down hard.
I (Dutch) always kind of felt betrayed by that. Like Willie was just like "f this tiny swampland. I'll rule England instead" and that he just abandoned the country to rule a foreign land. Not that this was extensively taught in school though. More of a 5 minute explanation during one of the weekly history classes.
Willie was just like "f this tiny swampland. I'll rule England instead"
What a coincidence! That's exactly what King James VI of Scotland said.
@@doglover31418 So they got to go and rule a wet, cold and misserable land instead.
Sorry, thats how englismen described their own country, but I think its kind of funny.
@@Mitaka.Kotsuka well the Netherlands is also wet and cold, miserable is debatable, but as to weather, not much difference 😂
Well two Anglo-Dutch Wars that Dutch did win may helped asking William to becoming King, as if you cannot win the Dutch, ask one of them to join you.
This Anglo-Dutch alliance would be unstoppable so long this marriage will product an heir...
Georg Ludwig: "What a nice throne your have!"
Faced little resistance and the king ran away.
The Boyne : "am I nothing to you?"
Well it was little resistance wasn't it? Didn't the battle last 1 day?
@@TrustInTheShepherd William ran a whole campaign in Ireland, 1690 and 1691 winning at in the field Aughrim, having fought siege warfare at Derry and Limerick, where he agreed a Treaty...The Boyne is notable as you had King facing King in battle, but it was not decisive in the Williamite war.
In the Netherlands I mostly hear about the Raid on the Medway as a 'that time we beat them up' moment. But even that event isn't so well known. I've only ever heard this particular event described as "They liked our dude better because of religion" and the whole event going something like:
English: Hey. You're protestant, right?
William: Uh. Yes? For a while now.
English: You married one of us, right?
William: Yep! And mother was English too.
English: Busy with anything?
William: Kinda bored tbh.
Engish: Aigh't ... Here's the deal.
William & English: *Glorious revolution*
Slight correction at 0:46. King Charles II did have children, 14 in fact, but they were all illegitimate and thus could not inherit the throne. Quite a few European rulers throughout the eras had a lot of illegitimate children but few or no surviving ones. Emperor Charlemagne for example had 18 children with various wives and concubines but only 4 sons were legitimate. King William IV had eleven illegitimate children, but all four of his legitimate children died at or soon after birth, with only one making it past two months. This resulted in his niece, Victoria becoming queen after his passing.
King Charles II's virility earned him the nickname, the "merry monarch". His many descendants include actor Kit Harrington with Charles being Kit's eighth-great-grandfather on his father's side.
The second Stuart period also saw Dutch naval victories at sea and even in the Thames estuary and the Medway. Contrasted poorly with the military and naval successes of the Commonwealth.
Two other post-1688 reforms cemented the British parliamentary system - for the first time, transparent parliamentary control of the public accounts, expenditure as well as revenue. Finally gave the nation confidence in the government’s management of money, enabling the first government bond market to develop. This went hand-in-hand with a shift of the cabinet into the Commons as the new financial management and accountability role of the parliament required ministers to be on hand as MPs, and parliament to sit more or less permanently. Access to a stable system of revenue and debt financing allowed England (soon after, the UK) to rapidly shift into the top league of military and naval powers, as shown in the War of the Spanish Succession.
The previous system of mistrust and conflict between a secretive Stuart king and a suspicious parliament, which had resumed after the Restoration, left the army and navy starved of funds and little more than minimal wartime levies. Thus the Dutch were able to burn the fleet laid-up in the Medway and tow off the flagship, much to Pepys’ horror.
It's also very important to note that the Dutch *Republic* was... weird. William was a Prince, but in no official capacity was he a Dutch prince. He was stadholder, which is more of a foreign affairs military role. His position within the Republic was... divisive at best.
Just like the "KIngs" of Sparta. wich only role consisted in taking the armies, and go to war....
@@Mitaka.Kotsuka Nice comparison. First time i see it.
It was a function from the time of the Burgundian empire, first introduced when the dukes of Burgundy acquired Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut by marriage around 1400.
1688: stuff happened.
As an English student I was taught more about the Glorious Revolution, the changes to Monarchy and power in Britain and the consequences it had on the future and The state of Britain before vs after and then a little a bit at the end of how James escaped and her briefly who replaced him
I´m Dutch, but cannot remember ever been taught or ever having heard that "we" conquered Britain. Willem was asked to come in and take the crown, so pretty much the english version.
Dude youre probably the funniest history RUclipsr out there!
Do a Short Animated Documentary which attempts to answer this question: was the 'History Matter's RUclips channel better when it was called Ten Minute History?
The answer is 'no' because handcuffing yourself to a specific amount of time for every video is unwise. You should take as much time as you need to tell the story you're trying to tell... no more, no less. When it was "10 Minute History" he was unnecessarily stretching things out just to fill the time.
Yet another great video, thanks.
This debate will rage on, but I cannot imagine anyone launching a major hostile invasion, whilst surrounded by enemies ready to pounce, who know that if they didn't strike now, William would be in a stronger position in years to come. We have precedents in the 'King Louis' episode during the reign of King John, and the 'invasion' of Isabella and Mortimer during the reign of Edward II.
That William of Orange arrived with an army and a fleet might merely show he was expecting more trouble than he got, and that he did not entirely believe how much support he had been promised would materialise.
The English army under James II was actually very large and professional which was one of the grievances against him, as standing armies were considered abhorrent by the English people. Upon William's landing, most of James' protestant officers deserted his army and joined William including John Churchill who was James' best commander. Only the catholic elements of James army offered any resistance to William at the Battle of Reading
declared PT
William seems to have calculated that James' army wouldn't put up a serious fight. He was right but it was a huge gamble.
And then add to that massive popular revolts, disaffection of the gentry etc etc. While the army stuff was happening like the entire north and multiple major towns were simultaneously revolting. Moral of the story: don't alienate literally everyone in your kingdom-people, military, elite, church, etc etc.
For those not in the know, John Churchill became Duke of Marlborough and in conjunction with the Dutch and other allies did a lot to restrict French power in the early 1700s. He got Blenheim Palace as a reward, and was of course an ancestor of Winston, who was accidentally born there when his mother was at a dance.
Yup this is the closest we’re getting to British history part 21
I cant tell which I like more
The signs or abrupt deaths or signs about abrupt deaths
And crucially William of Orange was a Stuart by his mum. He was 4th in line for the British throne at the time of the GR.
James francis Edward Stuart was 1st
Then Mary II
The Anne
Then William of orange.
So he wasn’t a “random Dutchman”
Is it a conquest or is it a coup?
It is *BOTH*
Coupquest
Planned Coup
Seriously though, that point could be argued to be true, if you'd consider the suppression of resistance in Ireland and Scotland to be a conquest.
So a coup followed by conquest.
"A fleet larger then the Spanish Armada" *G E K O L O N I S E E R D*
Eru Ilúvatar fucking hell where did they get the fleet Venice
@@sorcererberoll4641 nah, i think it was this large because dutch Merchants had to fight alongside the state with their ships (im not 100% sure). that would make alot of ships, but not nessecarily alot of true warships
@@tammesikkema5322 well the Dutch had the biggest warfleet during the golden age. As they had the money to fund it. They stepped off of using merchant ships after the first or 2nd Anglo Dutch war iirc.
Could you do one on the war of the Austrian succession
No, I was never told that Billyboy "conquered" the british throne. We're taught pretty much the exact same story you're telling us now. And this is coming from at least 35-ish years ago. Don't know about the years before that. The "army" that William had btw was largely a bit of a show army with all kind of exotic mercenaries dressed up for spectacle.
Wrong
It was one of the best trained armies in Europe at the time
He's so fucking mad
Loads of my countrymen saying us Dutchies don't see it as conquering, and that's very true because I'm sad to tell you: unless they've seen the Michiel de Ruyter movie, I hardly think most Dutchmen even know this happened 😅
Michiel de Ruyter was earlier than the Glorious revolution
He stands so high, he shines so bright.
1066: was the last time we were conquered
Culloden: was the last battle on British soil
Blitz: was the last attack by another nation on British mainland
Falklands: the last time one of our territories were attacked
Battle of Fishguard is after Culloden.
Fun Facts:
1. James II (and VII) did lead an army against William, but kept refusing to order it to attack.
A severe persistent nosebleed (I kid you not!) was the reason!! Eventually his army got fed up and changed sides!!
2. The Scots hummed and haa'ed and hawed about siding with William. But when James Of Claverhouse, 'Bonnie Dundee' failed to convert either the Scottish Parliament or the armed ex-Covenanters, the "Cameronians", named after a fanatical Presbyterian, to support James, he flounced off to the Highlands to raise an army. The Earl of Huntly held Edinburgh Castle until disease and a lack of water-every time they fired cannon, the water level in the Wells dropped several inches-forced them to give up!
3. When William III (King Billy of DUP mythology) defeated James at the Battle of the Boyne, the loudest applause was from the Vatican!! This was because Louis XIV backed James and liked nothing better than kicking around the Papacy!
I never knew this happened. Thanks for this history!
Can someone confirm whether the use of the maps of the Netherlands in many of these slides is historically accurate or just a little inconsistent? I swear I saw Flevoland appear in some scenes when I I’m fairly sure it was still underwater at the time.
"They turned up with an army, but faced little resistance [...]" I know Great Britain didn't become part of the Netherlands after that, but there are some Anschluss similarities there.
0:01 I actually never really thought it was Serbia.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
You said that you would make the World War 2 video on the 80th anniversary so... where is it?
Let's just say he said an awful _lot_ of things he would do within a very specific timeframe... and he never did.
It's more like "That time we were hired to take over England rule".
0:58 James II Stewart of England / James VII of Scotland : *_"Well yes, but actually no."_*
Aleksandr Vil
Ok.
James VII and II.
This didn't exist until the 20th century but the statute of Westminister in 1931 clarified how we should refer to regnal numbers, we should call him James VII. When Elizabeth took the throne, it was pointed out she can't be called Elizabeth II of Scotland because there is no Elizabeth I (nor did Australia etc). It was agreed that monarchs will be referred to by whichever number is higher to prevent being double named. To apply that logic retroactively, then James VII he is.
I'm English and I have no problem with this convention, I'm happy to refer to James II as James VII.
As a Dutchman, I see it as a temporary personal union between the two.
@ the stateholder died heirless, so they're not our royalties anymore.
One fact seems to be overlooked. William III's mother was the sister of both Charles II and James II. So he had as much English royal blood as his wife Mary, who was -- yes -- his first cousin.
Churchill holding a sign "He was a proto-Hitler" made me my day 🤣
When you will do another 10 minute history?
This.
Fun fact:
No.
Riksa Johannes well lately hes been doing videos about very specific things rather than a whole topic, so theyve been shorter. hes already covered a lot of the big picture things, so its likely they wont coming back soon or if they do then they will probably be rare
@@cocker3050 No need to speculate, he already said in his Q&A video that he wasn't going to continue with this series due to little viewership.
yarpen26 oh, well that kinda sucks i liked 10 minute history
This might even be a better solution for the Brexit. Just let the Dutch clean up the mess.
sven vogelaar that’s like, the opposite of what is trying to be achieved by brexit....
@@Oxley016... um, that's the joke. The brexit mess confirms that Britain does need Europe, just like they did in 1688.
@@AbbeyRoadkill1 haha no thank you.
@@AbbeyRoadkill1 No it just confirms that UK parliament is full of self serving no good traitors that don't want to carry out the will of the people. We very much do not need Europe but Europe does seem to need our many billions of £££'s that we send to you all.
@@Oxley016 🤔💩 You probably not aware of this but the Netherlands sends more money per capita ( nett) to the EU then the UK. If the UK should pay the same amount per capita it should pay 4 times the current amount....Stop whining like a little bitch 😁
To answer your question, no it they didn’t conquer England because we invited them here.
RAAAAAAH 🗣️🇳🇱 GEKOLONISEERD
I've thought about this, great video!
William of Orange: What a Glorious Revolution it was!
Vladimir Lenin: Am I a joke to you?
something like this happened to me while playing Crusader Kings 2: I was playing a Danish Count minded my own business fabricating claims on Swedish, Baltic and Pomeranian Counties, had several Duchies on my name too but then Then Polish King Declare De jure War on all of my holdings, and my own king couldn't helped me because he was conquering France because he had a claim on the French crown himself. I simply surrender because I couldn't defeated the entire Polish armies be myself, But decided to be a useful banner man to my new Liege, and for 2 generation I defended The Polish Kingdom from Horse Nomads and Pagans from the East and rebellious cousins Becoming Marshall and later my successor Grandson Prime Minister, But I strictly kept all my Children Culturally Danish by married them to Danish Noble families expect from my Heir That I married to the one of the Daughters of the King of Norway because "why not". meanwhile I upgraded my Holding to grew my Levies and Tax revenue. Then all of the Sudden one of my Son-in-laws sent me a message that he and other Danish and French Noblemen are conspiring to overthrow the Danish King who at this time also ruled France (the Whole of France is within the Danish Kingdom at this point), and they wanted me to become their King, But first I had to declare an Independence War on the my Liege, The King of Poland who after several "Cousin wars" was very weak. so I started saving Money, gave gift to my bannermen to keep them happy before raising their Levies obligations, borrow money from the Jews, quit my position in the Polish Council, raised all of my Levies and Hired Mercenaries. My Son-in-Law and his conspirators had already rebelled to deposed their King, I declare an Independence war to secede from Poland, and gather all my armies into one massive Unit and had the Mercenaries (horsemen) eliminate any Polish levy units before they met each other. Nobody liked the Current Polish king that much, his Bannerman didn't provide him with a lot of units, I managed to win the Independence war by letting the Clock ran out, and took the the whole of Pomerania with me, and even afterwards I still had a positive opinion from the Polish King then I sent my entire army to Denmark proper, Captured Copenhagen, then sent my army to France before I ran out of money and my Bannerman start getting angry for having their Levies raised for too long. France was on a stalemate , I just had to swept what was left of the loyalist forces. after that I was Crowned King of Denmark with a realm stretching from the Baltic to the to the Mediterranean, and gain the Title of "King Knut The Great" but It doesn't end their. My mother was the daughter of the King Of Norway and she end up inheriting the Crown of Norway, so when She died I Also Became "King Of Norway" BUT WAIT their is More! after the conquest of France I inherited claims on the Duchy Of Barcelona who was at this point control by the Moors, so I declare a "Holy war" recruited a Holy Order of Mercenaries and Conquer Barcelona too. So after 3 Generations of being both a conqueror and a conquered, Loyalist and a Rebel, a Usurper and a Rightful Heir, a Man of War and A Man Of God, fighting Pagans from the East and Muslims from The South, I had And Realm consisting of the Duchy of Barcelona, France Most Of Scandinavia, Pomerania, and a nice chunk of the Baltic and two King Titles. I wanted to go all out at my old age wanting to go on Crusade to The Holy Land but that was too much already for old King Knut The Great. died of all age around 70 after that I decided to quit because the "rebellious cousins" was happening to me as well my bannermen were jealous of the new guy having too many titles and their were too many cultural differences to keep everyone happy.... and besides everything goes to shit when the Aztec arrive
Ricardo Guanipa sometimes it amazes me how often the game will suddenly decide to make you a king.
How many hours did you spent writing this?
@@reinatr4848 several days actually was quite an epic campaign
@@ricardoguanipa8275 okay.
Quote:"That time we conquered britain and ireland"
Well i remember taking a class that focused on the tudors and stuarts period, in the end the catholics lose and the protestants win. u should do a video about the catholic minorities in England at this time, its not something thats talked about a lot. One good book is "Tudor and Stuart" third edition by Roger Lockyer
Nobody in the Netherlands sees this as a conquest. In fact, it hardly gets any attention in our national history. When it's about the 17th century, it's about the 80 Years War, the Golden Age (Rembrandt etc.), the VOC, the Anglo-Dutch Wars and Michiel de Ruyter, Louis XIV and the disaster year of 1672, but most Dutch have no idea what the Glorious Revolution was.
But it actually was a conquest
1:13 and not to be confused with:
Stadtholder William II, IV and the V
- Or King William I, II, III and Alexander.
The Glorious Revolution isn't part of the standard history curriculum in Dutch high schools. At best, it's discussed as a part the decline of Dutch importance after 1972. It certainly isn't taught as a Dutch conquest of Britain. If anything, Stadholder William III's ascension to the British throne is seen as something of a betrayal of the Dutch republic. It seemed that William wanted to be king of a hereditary monarchy. That wasn't going to happen in the Netherlands for another 127 years, so he set his eyes on Britain where he had a credible claim to the throne because of his mother. Treating ruling the Dutch republic as a consolation prize or a stepping stone isn't going to garner you a lot of sympathy from historian trying to craft a national historic narrative.
2:31 hold on! sinds when was Flevoland born!?!?!
It has existed since at least roman times... according to the map of Europe used by the game Caesar III anyway.
That's the oldest evidence I've been able to find of it so far.
0:07 What ? Churchill never compared Napoleon to Hitler, on the contrary he hated the comparison
Indeed. Churchill even had a bust of Napoleon on his desk. A strange attitude when you see how similar Napoleon and Hitler were!
@@postscript67 They were only similar in the sense they conquered vast swathes of Europe. Ideologically they were pretty far apart. After all Napoleon emancipated the Jews.
Though Napoleon was pretty terrible in many ways, I get the impression that he wasn't as racist or genocidal as Hitler.
@@postscript67 what you said is completely idiotic Napoleon is nothing like Hitler
And Napoleon is not considered a hero by everyone in France
Such interesting history, to know that Northern Europe's peoples, histories ,cultures and Religion are so deeply intertwined. I love my ancestry.
I gotta say, "Procreation" is the funniest field of flowers in this series.
Napoleon was Chruchill's greatest hero along with his ancestor, the Duke of Malborough, and did not think of him as a Proto-Hitler, so......
I'm bout to donate to this guys channel. I love these video's plus I would like to hear him say my name with his English accent. lol
1:12 W I L L E M D E Z W I J G E R
Imagine being the french emperor and one day getting a map that shows that huge orange blob on your doorstep out-of-fucking-nowhere
French were aghast and went to war with the UP. (Nine-year war)
Great work!