@@elschaetty Hi El Schaett, I'm glad you "enjoyed" the video and thank you for the feedback. As I said before in another comment, when I uploaded *my* video to RUclips from when I edited it, the quality reduced and I am sorry for that. I'm not a dedicated, professional RUclipsr or editor. I just did this for fun and to appreciate an amazing movie. I wasn't expecting it be viewed so much. I think you are thinking about the edit from Bootstrap Jones? I stated that I'd used their video as inspiration for my edit. If you don't know, there is a huge issue right now with copyright. I think that is my only answer to why the "original video" you like is not visible. I really hope Bootstrap Jones can upload his video again because his other edits are flawless. There's only one answer to your question and that is the movie. I'm not on here to create or take part in a conflict so this is all I'm going to say. I hope you have a good day...
@@napalmhotdog4365 considered the world greatest military commander, won more battles than some countries just himself. Then you call him history’s greatest loser🤣
Outstanding movie. Bondarchuk was such a great director...sadly forgotten now. Imagine to handle a production like that...big respect to him and Dino De Laurentiis.
Agreed! I just watched his War/Peace series recently (its free on youtube). I believe that the Red Army were employed to be actors in the battle scenes, it looks fantastic.
@@The_Christian_Cavalier I'm not political in anyway. But it still gets me in the feels seeing those boys waving the hammer and sickle from the top of the Reichstag.
Minus the cannons ripping off limbs and heads, spilling guts and organs across the field, turning dozens of men to pulp in an instant. Or muskets and rifles tearing golf-ball sized holes in people. Or sabers splitting bodies open, and horses crushing them into mangled corpses underfoot. Or men shitting themselves to death due to disease, and starving agonizingly slowly, or freezing to death with no hope or care from their commanders. Minus all of those things, it was very honorable indeed.
@@West_Coast_Mainline That’s because that’s how modern media portray the period . In reality the British rankers were mostly the scum of society, thieves, rapists, murderers and so on while other European armies were the same plus conscripts that took out their frustration on the local populace. Definitely not much honour there. Not to mention the officers although technically gentlemen are usually a third child or something where their fathers bought them a commission to be rid of them not much honour in those fellas too, most took to drink and they were more scared of their men than the enemy.
Hey I love the video, I need some help though, how did you make it so that the video didn’t get blocked from viewers because of copyright? That Keeps happening to me when I try to make a little dark age edit.
Hello, glad you like the video. Copyright is really frustrating! I found the best way is to add links to the videos used in the description and say that if you do not own the videos, pictures, or music say you don't, it's better to be honest! I had to wait a couple of days as well so the video could become public. Good luck!
@@freyalw326 thank you, I did that last night so it’s just a waiting game, I filed a dispute for fair use since I added clips and it was only 1 minute and 16 seconds of the 5 minute music video, I made sure to include the link to the original video, thank you so much and this has really taken a bunch of stress off my shoulders.
@@freyalw326 edit: I just checked my channel and it worked!!! It’s public!!! Thank you so much, I’m gonna link your channel in the comments because of the tremendous help!!
I am working on improving it! I created this on a different device and when I transferred it to be uploaded, it ruined the quality. On my new video, the quality has improved slightly but it is quite an old movie too. I'm very sorry.
British “Dark Age” that industrialized the world and kept you alive to type your drivel. From a lecture given by economist von Mises: _The difference between the less developed and the more developed nations is a function of time: the British started to save sooner than all other nations: they also started sooner to accumulate capital and to invest it in business. Because they started sooner, there was a higher standard of living in Great Britain when, in all other European countries, there was still a lower standard of living. Gradually, all the other nations began to study British conditions, and it was not difficult for them to discover the reason for Great Britain's wealth. So they began to imitate the methods of British business._ _Since other nations started later, and since the British did not stop investing capital, there remained a large difference between conditions in England and conditions in those other countries. But something happened which caused the headstart of Great Britain to disappear._ _What happened was the greatest event in the history of the nineteenth century, and this means not only in the history of an individual country. This great event was the development, in the nineteenth century, of foreign investment. In 1817, the great British economist Ricardo still took it for granted that capital could be invested only within the borders of a country. He took it for granted that capitalists would not try to invest abroad. But a few decades later, capital investment abroad began to play a most important role in world affairs._ _Without capital investment it would have been necessary for nations less developed than Great Britain to start with the methods and the technology with which the British had started in the beginning and middle of the eighteenth century, and slowly, step by step - always far below the technological level of the British economy - try to imitate what the British had done._ _It would have taken many, many decades for these countries to attain the standard of technological development which Great Britain had reached a hundred years or more before them. But the great event that helped all these countries was foreign investment._ _Foreign investment meant that British capitalists invested British capital in other parts of the world. They first invested it in those European countries which, from the point of view of Great Britain, were short of capital and backward in their development. It is a well-known fact that the railroads of most European countries, and also of the United States, were built with the aid of British capital. You know that the same happened in this country, in Argentina._ _The gas companies in all the cities of Europe were also British. In the mid 1870s, a British author and poet criticized his countrymen. He said, "The British have lost their old vigor and they have no longer any new ideas. They are no longer an important or leading nation in the world." To which Herbert Spencer, the great sociologist, answered, "Look at the European continent. All European capitals have light because a British gas company provides them with gas." This was, of course, in what seems to us the "remote" age of gas lighting. Further answering this British critic, Herbert Spencer added, "You say that the Germans are far ahead of Great Britain. But look at Germany. Even Berlin, the capital of the German Reich, the capital of Geist, would be in the dark if a British gas company had not invaded the country and lighted the streets."_ _In the same way, British capital developed the railroads and many branches of industry in the United States. And, of course, as long as a country imports capital its balance of trade is what the noneconomists call "unfavorable." That means that it has an excess of imports over exports. The reason for the "favorable balance of trade" of Great Britain was that the British factories sent many types of equipment to the United States, and this equipment was not paid for by anything other than shares of American corporations. This period in the history of the United States lasted, by and large, until the 1890s._ _But when the United States, with the aid of British capital - and later with the aid of its own procapitalistic policies - developed its own economic system in an unprecedented way, the Americans began to buy back the capital stocks they had once sold to foreigners. Then the United States had a surplus of exports over imports. The difference was paid by the importation - by the repatriation, as one called it - of American common stock._ _This period lasted until the First World War. What happened later is another story. It is the story of the American subsidies for the belligerent countries in between and after two world wars: the loans, the investments the United States made in Europe, in addition to lend-lease, foreign aid, the Marshall Plan, food that was sent overseas, and other subsidies. I emphasize this because people sometimes believe that it is shameful or degrading to have foreign capital working in their country. You have to realize that, in all countries except England, foreign capital investment played a considerable part in the development of modern industries._ _If I say that foreign investment was the greatest historical event of the nineteenth century, you must think of all those things that would not have come into being if there had not been any foreign investment. All the railroads, the harbors, the factories and mines in Asia, and the Suez Canal and many other things in the Western hemisphere, would not have been constructed had there been no foreign investment._
@@johnpeate4544 It's amazing how much Britons heads are up their asses about their actions. The Opium Wars were a literal war against a sovereign nation to force them to allow massive drug usage all over their soil. You didn't industrialise anything, you literally slaughtered with the goal to drug up people. You didn't make the Suez Canal, France did. You fought against it. You didn't industrialise anything except yourselves, and then you used it against the rest of the world. Cannons to bomb cities that had none from far away. Drugs to poison China. You used infighting to conquer lands all over by playing Princes against Princes, instigating civil wars everywhere. There isn't one conquest by Britain that wasn't about making more money or acquiring more servants. Britain is the first country in History to enforce anti-industralisation policies on other nations because you were afraid they would catch up to you (German naval arms race). Your entire fantasy is a lie. All you did was feed yourselves at the expense of the world and try to make sure they wouldn't catch up.
@@OneAngrehCat Drivel. _The 1840-42 Anglo-Chinese war (the so-called “Opium War”) is almost universally believed to have been triggered by British imperial rapacity and determination to sell more and more opium into China. That belief is mistaken. The British went to war because of Chinese military threats to defenseless British civilians, including women and children; because China refused to negotiate on terms of diplomatic equality and because China refused to open more ports than Canton to trade, not just with Britain but with everybody. The belief about British “guilt” came later, as part of China’s long catalogue of alleged Western “exploitation and aggression.”_ _Even the enforced confiscation by the Chinese of opium stocks managed by the Canton merchants4 brought no hostile reaction from London. When news of Commis- sioner Lin’s March 18, 1839, confiscation order to those merchants reached London, there was no reaction. Only in September did London became alarmed, with the arrival of a Canton dispatch of May 29 relating China’s military threats against defenseless British civilians. Only then did the great British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, begin to talk about military action. Those public feelings turned to anger and outrage at the end of 1839 when there were further reports of traders and their families having to seek refuge on board British merchant ships at sea, deprived - at least officially - of food and water supplies from shore. When somewhat embellished reports reached Lon- don of English women and children being threatened by Chinese soldiers, there was real fury. For British politics the issue ceased to be opium - about which many people sympathized with China - and became the fate of not just opium traders but innocent men, women and children threatened by armed Chinese soldiers._ OMG what a Dark Age!!
@@OneAngrehCat It took a little over 30,000 men to police the world’s largest empire ever. There are more policemen in New York. In 1857 the British East India Company maintained a private army of 357,000 men - more than twice as large as the entire official British Army! Around 46,000 of those troops were Europeans, the other 311,000 were locally-recruited Indians. They were divided into the three 'Presidency Armies' (Bengal, Madras, Bombay) with local garrison responsibilities. The British relied on the cooperation of the people in the Empire, rather than controlling them by force. The British, by and large, offered better government than anything which most people in the Empire had previously known. Fewer wars, more stability, less corruption, more trade. For the average citizen, it seemed as though launching a revolution to kick out the British would make things worse for them, not better. One of colonial rule’s most valuable achievements was order. Chinua Achebe, Nigerian novelist and anti-colonialist hero in his final work, There Was a Country, published the year before he died in 2013, Achebe wrote: _”Here is a piece of heresy. The British governed their colony of Nigeria with considerable care. There was a very highly competent cadre of government officials imbued with a high level of knowledge of how to run a country . . . British colonies were, more or less, expertly run.”_ _”One was not consumed by fear of abduction or armed robbery,”_ Achebe recalled. _”One had a great deal of confidence and faith in British institutions.”_ While British justice might have been fierce, it could not be bought or sold. _”Now,”_ he lamented, _”all that is changed.”_ _Some African chiefs pleaded to join the British Empire, knowing the advantages a British Protectorate would bring._ _In 1876 King Khama, Chief of the Bamangwato people from northern Bechuanaland, wrote to Sir Henry Barkly to plead for a British protectorate. The letter contained the following passage:_ _’I write to you, Sir Henry, in order that your queen may preserve for me my country, it being in her hands. The Boers are coming into it, and I do not like them. Their actions are cruel among us black people. We are like money, they sell us and our children. I ask Her Majesty to defend me, as she defends all her people. There are three things which distress me very much: war, selling people, and drink. All these things I shall find in the Boers, and it is these things which destroy people to make an end of them in the country. The custom of the Boers has always been to cause people to be sold, and to-day they are still selling people.’_ Montsioa Toane, Chief of the Barolong, also requested that Great Britain take his people under imperial protection, just as the Sotho king had. In a letter flamboyantly addressed to ‘*His Excellency Her Britannic Majesty’s High Commissioner, Sir P. Wodehouse, KCB’, the chief requested ‘refuge under your protecting wings from the injustice of the Transvaal Republic, whose government have lately, by proclamation, included our country within the possessions of the said Republic’. He went on to explain:_ _’....without the least provocation on our side, though the Boers have from time to time murdered some of my people and enslaved several Balala villages, the Transvaal Republic deprives us, by said proclamation, of our land and our liberty, against which we would protest in the strongest terms, and entreat your Excellency, as Her Britannic Majesty’s High Commissioner, to protect us._
Thank you for all of the love on this video! I have created a new one on 1960s Cinema!
ruclips.net/video/UIDZ5PfpU2E/видео.html
Why Russian troops attack under British flag? Lolololol
Where'd you get the original vid? I know this is just a dogshit reupload of an actually good edit
@@elschaetty Hi El Schaett, I'm glad you "enjoyed" the video and thank you for the feedback. As I said before in another comment, when I uploaded *my* video to RUclips from when I edited it, the quality reduced and I am sorry for that. I'm not a dedicated, professional RUclipsr or editor. I just did this for fun and to appreciate an amazing movie. I wasn't expecting it be viewed so much. I think you are thinking about the edit from Bootstrap Jones? I stated that I'd used their video as inspiration for my edit. If you don't know, there is a huge issue right now with copyright. I think that is my only answer to why the "original video" you like is not visible. I really hope Bootstrap Jones can upload his video again because his other edits are flawless. There's only one answer to your question and that is the movie. I'm not on here to create or take part in a conflict so this is all I'm going to say. I hope you have a good day...
Never forget me
Never
Histories greatest loser
@@napalmhotdog4365 considered the world greatest military commander, won more battles than some countries just himself. Then you call him history’s greatest loser🤣
I never shall
Viva le emperor!
Outstanding movie. Bondarchuk was such a great director...sadly forgotten now. Imagine to handle a production like that...big respect to him and Dino De Laurentiis.
Agreed! I just watched his War/Peace series recently (its free on youtube). I believe that the Red Army were employed to be actors in the battle scenes, it looks fantastic.
a unique masterpeice, no cgi or tech would master the masive extra's army that make all real
We will probably never see this amount of extras ever again.
@@trager8933 I think ghandi had a lot
@@West_Coast_Mainline you'll need a lot of extras if your trying to represent India, there's tons of them...
If only more war movies were like waterloo
Thank you to the USSR for making this film's production possible
It wasn’t the ussr it was just a Russian man
One of the few good things they did lol
@@The_Christian_Cavalier You here 💀
@@BrasilNacionalista0001 😈
@@The_Christian_Cavalier I'm not political in anyway. But it still gets me in the feels seeing those boys waving the hammer and sickle from the top of the Reichstag.
and their great grandson's going to experience a horrible war instead of an honourable one:/
If only we could see movies as glorious as this one nowadays...
The last time when the war was an honorific act, the 20th century........ I don't want to say more
Minus the cannons ripping off limbs and heads, spilling guts and organs across the field, turning dozens of men to pulp in an instant. Or muskets and rifles tearing golf-ball sized holes in people. Or sabers splitting bodies open, and horses crushing them into mangled corpses underfoot. Or men shitting themselves to death due to disease, and starving agonizingly slowly, or freezing to death with no hope or care from their commanders.
Minus all of those things, it was very honorable indeed.
@@LordVader1094 it was brutal, but brutal in a honorly way
@@LordVader1094 Not as bad as having a bomb dropped on you out of nowhere and dying just like that
@@West_Coast_Mainline That’s because that’s how modern media portray the period . In reality the British rankers were mostly the scum of society, thieves, rapists, murderers and so on while other European armies were the same plus conscripts that took out their frustration on the local populace. Definitely not much honour there. Not to mention the officers although technically gentlemen are usually a third child or something where their fathers bought them a commission to be rid of them not much honour in those fellas too, most took to drink and they were more scared of their men than the enemy.
@@imadeanaccounttocomment7800 it all depends on who is commanding. You'd be hung for plunder etc
Love this
😭Long live the Emperor
No
@@theowatchnerd little British 🤡
@@axoul3431 big things come in small packeges, such as the worlds biggest empire for example.
@Nayer Yayer where are you from?
Vive l'Empereur! 🇫🇷🇪🇺
My phone is listening to my conversations. Was literally just talking about this movie
The Iron Duke, Your Grace The Duke of Wellington🇬🇧
Ye
If Napoleon had won half of the world would speak french now.
Thank god he lost then
Like Hitler won 🏆
Depends on which war, If he won Waterloo he would lose somewhere else because he was at war with almost every nation in Europe.
@@danwhowatches707 for like the 6th time
@@NeroPh.D 7th
The Greatest Film on this good Earth
bruh, you here wth
@@BrasilNacionalista0001 I am everywhere
@@The_Christian_Cavalier i see
Night approaches,and death also , the guarde die but never surrenders
Hey I love the video, I need some help though, how did you make it so that the video didn’t get blocked from viewers because of copyright? That Keeps happening to me when I try to make a little dark age edit.
Hello, glad you like the video. Copyright is really frustrating! I found the best way is to add links to the videos used in the description and say that if you do not own the videos, pictures, or music say you don't, it's better to be honest! I had to wait a couple of days as well so the video could become public.
Good luck!
@@freyalw326 thank you, I did that last night so it’s just a waiting game, I filed a dispute for fair use since I added clips and it was only 1 minute and 16 seconds of the 5 minute music video, I made sure to include the link to the original video, thank you so much and this has really taken a bunch of stress off my shoulders.
@@freyalw326 edit: I just checked my channel and it worked!!! It’s public!!! Thank you so much, I’m gonna link your channel in the comments because of the tremendous help!!
@@capitalistdoggo3222 I'm glad I could help!
le epic, someone should do this for war and peace
Uurraa 🔥
He was average height for the time..
It's good to be a commander. But war turning men into numbers. I don't want such fate for me neither for my friends or family. And you?
Vive l'empereur !
Where is the higher quality version?????
I am working on improving it! I created this on a different device and when I transferred it to be uploaded, it ruined the quality. On my new video, the quality has improved slightly but it is quite an old movie too. I'm very sorry.
Where did the og edit go? I miss it
Yess man , before edit is so good
What version of the song did you use
It's the slowed Tik Tok remix.
Link: ruclips.net/video/ximLklP59cs/видео.html
S stands for stuka
I congratulate Britain who stopped the occupying France. But England also invaded other countries :)
Should thank the Austrians and Russians too if we're talking about who stopped the French. Europe was coalitioned against Napoleon.
Film name?
Waterloo
Le jour ou Wellington a perdu la face ! Vive l'empereur du Monde !!!!
AYE' WOPLAYS' THRE?
you did not make a little dark age edit of waterloo
This is all just aesthetic, for glory sake,
but aesthetic nonetheless
based
Beginning of the long Dark Age of Britain's evil empire.
British “Dark Age” that industrialized the world and kept you alive to type your drivel.
From a lecture given by economist von Mises:
_The difference between the less developed and the more developed nations is a function of time: the British started to save sooner than all other nations: they also started sooner to accumulate capital and to invest it in business. Because they started sooner, there was a higher standard of living in Great Britain when, in all other European countries, there was still a lower standard of living. Gradually, all the other nations began to study British conditions, and it was not difficult for them to discover the reason for Great Britain's wealth. So they began to imitate the methods of British business._
_Since other nations started later, and since the British did not stop investing capital, there remained a large difference between conditions in England and conditions in those other countries. But something happened which caused the headstart of Great Britain to disappear._
_What happened was the greatest event in the history of the nineteenth century, and this means not only in the history of an individual country. This great event was the development, in the nineteenth century, of foreign investment. In 1817, the great British economist Ricardo still took it for granted that capital could be invested only within the borders of a country. He took it for granted that capitalists would not try to invest abroad. But a few decades later, capital investment abroad began to play a most important role in world affairs._
_Without capital investment it would have been necessary for nations less developed than Great Britain to start with the methods and the technology with which the British had started in the beginning and middle of the eighteenth century, and slowly, step by step - always far below the technological level of the British economy - try to imitate what the British had done._
_It would have taken many, many decades for these countries to attain the standard of technological development which Great Britain had reached a hundred years or more before them. But the great event that helped all these countries was foreign investment._
_Foreign investment meant that British capitalists invested British capital in other parts of the world. They first invested it in those European countries which, from the point of view of Great Britain, were short of capital and backward in their development. It is a well-known fact that the railroads of most European countries, and also of the United States, were built with the aid of British capital. You know that the same happened in this country, in Argentina._
_The gas companies in all the cities of Europe were also British. In the mid 1870s, a British author and poet criticized his countrymen. He said, "The British have lost their old vigor and they have no longer any new ideas. They are no longer an important or leading nation in the world." To which Herbert Spencer, the great sociologist, answered, "Look at the European continent. All European capitals have light because a British gas company provides them with gas." This was, of course, in what seems to us the "remote" age of gas lighting. Further answering this British critic, Herbert Spencer added, "You say that the Germans are far ahead of Great Britain. But look at Germany. Even Berlin, the capital of the German Reich, the capital of Geist, would be in the dark if a British gas company had not invaded the country and lighted the streets."_
_In the same way, British capital developed the railroads and many branches of industry in the United States. And, of course, as long as a country imports capital its balance of trade is what the noneconomists call "unfavorable." That means that it has an excess of imports over exports. The reason for the "favorable balance of trade" of Great Britain was that the British factories sent many types of equipment to the United States, and this equipment was not paid for by anything other than shares of American corporations. This period in the history of the United States lasted, by and large, until the 1890s._
_But when the United States, with the aid of British capital - and later with the aid of its own procapitalistic policies - developed its own economic system in an unprecedented way, the Americans began to buy back the capital stocks they had once sold to foreigners. Then the United States had a surplus of exports over imports. The difference was paid by the importation - by the repatriation, as one called it - of American common stock._
_This period lasted until the First World War. What happened later is another story. It is the story of the American subsidies for the belligerent countries in between and after two world wars: the loans, the investments the United States made in Europe, in addition to lend-lease, foreign aid, the Marshall Plan, food that was sent overseas, and other subsidies. I emphasize this because people sometimes believe that it is shameful or degrading to have foreign capital working in their country. You have to realize that, in all countries except England, foreign capital investment played a considerable part in the development of modern industries._
_If I say that foreign investment was the greatest historical event of the nineteenth century, you must think of all those things that would not have come into being if there had not been any foreign investment. All the railroads, the harbors, the factories and mines in Asia, and the Suez Canal and many other things in the Western hemisphere, would not have been constructed had there been no foreign investment._
@@johnpeate4544 It's amazing how much Britons heads are up their asses about their actions.
The Opium Wars were a literal war against a sovereign nation to force them to allow massive drug usage all over their soil. You didn't industrialise anything, you literally slaughtered with the goal to drug up people.
You didn't make the Suez Canal, France did. You fought against it.
You didn't industrialise anything except yourselves, and then you used it against the rest of the world. Cannons to bomb cities that had none from far away. Drugs to poison China. You used infighting to conquer lands all over by playing Princes against Princes, instigating civil wars everywhere.
There isn't one conquest by Britain that wasn't about making more money or acquiring more servants.
Britain is the first country in History to enforce anti-industralisation policies on other nations because you were afraid they would catch up to you (German naval arms race).
Your entire fantasy is a lie. All you did was feed yourselves at the expense of the world and try to make sure they wouldn't catch up.
Tfw you grow up in Britain's world, never having to learn a word of anything except English. Feels good man.
@@OneAngrehCat
Drivel.
_The 1840-42 Anglo-Chinese war (the so-called “Opium War”) is almost universally believed to have been triggered by British imperial rapacity and determination to sell more and more opium into China. That belief is mistaken. The British went to war because of Chinese military threats to defenseless British civilians, including women and children; because China refused to negotiate on terms of diplomatic equality and because China refused to open more ports than Canton to trade, not just with Britain but with everybody. The belief about British “guilt” came later, as part of China’s long catalogue of alleged Western “exploitation and aggression.”_
_Even the enforced confiscation by the Chinese of opium stocks managed by the Canton merchants4 brought no hostile reaction from London. When news of Commis- sioner Lin’s March 18, 1839, confiscation order to those merchants reached London, there was no reaction. Only in September did London became alarmed, with the arrival of a Canton dispatch of May 29 relating China’s military threats against defenseless British civilians. Only then did the great British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, begin to talk about military action. Those public feelings turned to anger and outrage at the end of 1839 when there were further reports of traders and their families having to seek refuge on board British merchant ships at sea, deprived - at least officially - of food and water supplies from shore. When somewhat embellished reports reached Lon- don of English women and children being threatened by Chinese soldiers, there was real fury. For British politics the issue ceased to be opium - about which many people sympathized with China - and became the fate of not just opium traders but innocent men, women and children threatened by armed Chinese soldiers._
OMG what a Dark Age!!
@@OneAngrehCat
It took a little over 30,000 men to police the world’s largest empire ever. There are more policemen in New York.
In 1857 the British East India Company maintained a private army of 357,000 men - more than twice as large as the entire official British Army! Around 46,000 of those troops were Europeans, the other 311,000 were locally-recruited Indians. They were divided into the three 'Presidency Armies' (Bengal, Madras, Bombay) with local garrison responsibilities.
The British relied on the cooperation of the people in the Empire, rather than controlling them by force.
The British, by and large, offered better government than anything which most people in the Empire had previously known. Fewer wars, more stability, less corruption, more trade. For the average citizen, it seemed as though launching a revolution to kick out the British would make things worse for them, not better.
One of colonial rule’s most valuable achievements was order.
Chinua Achebe, Nigerian novelist and anti-colonialist hero in his final work, There Was a Country, published the year before he died in 2013, Achebe wrote: _”Here is a piece of heresy. The British governed their colony of Nigeria with considerable care. There was a very highly competent cadre of government officials imbued with a high level of knowledge of how to run a country . . . British colonies were, more or less, expertly run.”_
_”One was not consumed by fear of abduction or armed robbery,”_ Achebe recalled. _”One had a great deal of confidence and faith in British institutions.”_ While British justice might have been fierce, it could not be bought or sold. _”Now,”_ he lamented, _”all that is changed.”_
_Some African chiefs pleaded to join the British Empire, knowing the advantages a British Protectorate would bring._
_In 1876 King Khama, Chief of the Bamangwato people from northern Bechuanaland, wrote to Sir Henry Barkly to plead for a British protectorate. The letter contained the following passage:_
_’I write to you, Sir Henry, in order that your queen may preserve for me my country, it being in her hands. The Boers are coming into it, and I do not like them. Their actions are cruel among us black people. We are like money, they sell us and our children. I ask Her Majesty to defend me, as she defends all her people. There are three things which distress me very much: war, selling people, and drink. All these things I shall find in the Boers, and it is these things which destroy people to make an end of them in the country. The custom of the Boers has always been to cause people to be sold, and to-day they are still selling people.’_
Montsioa Toane, Chief of the Barolong, also requested that Great Britain take his people under imperial protection, just as the Sotho king had. In a letter flamboyantly addressed to ‘*His Excellency Her Britannic Majesty’s High Commissioner, Sir P. Wodehouse, KCB’, the chief requested ‘refuge under your protecting wings from the injustice of the Transvaal Republic, whose government have lately, by proclamation, included our country within the possessions of the said Republic’. He went on to explain:_
_’....without the least provocation on our side, though the Boers have from time to time murdered some of my people and enslaved several Balala villages, the Transvaal Republic deprives us, by said proclamation, of our land and our liberty, against which we would protest in the strongest terms, and entreat your Excellency, as Her Britannic Majesty’s High Commissioner, to protect us._
Formula 1 horses...
It's not 1970 it's 1815. But video cool
Thank you! The movie "Waterloo" was made in 1970 which is the movie I used in the video.
Ok
🤦♂️🤦♂️
🤣😭🤣
AYE' WOPLAYS' THRE?