199 Years of Politics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 янв 2015
- This video covers the political history of the world from 1815 to 2014. This period experienced such changes as the birth of modern Germany & Italy, the world wars, the Cold War and decolonisation.
-------------------------------------------------------
The previous 199 years: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvrKP...
-------------------------------------------------------
Music:
Audiomachine - Helios
Soundcritters - Colonisation 
Развлечения
![Finesse2Tymes - Pretty Ricky [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xIoP_mhYRT0/mqdefault.jpg)
Laos is a Socialist State, not a Constitutional Monarchy.
Yeah, I noticed that too. They were a monarchy under France for a while, but it's been years since France had any hegemony over Laos.
britain has been a constitutional monarchy since 1688 in the glorious revolution
Andy Morris I'm sorry, but I've explained this too many times already. If you want to know why I only made so in 1867, you can find your answer in replies to people who said the same thing.
England stopped being an absolute monarchy in 1215 when the magma carta was signed by King John, please think before speaking
Mark Alex Who are you directing that at?
To Andy Morris, btw I love your videos, history of the world: every year is one of the best videos on yt, I hope it reaches 1 million soon
I thought it was since the Magna Carta in 1215.
this is one of my fav. videos of yours! :D
One correction, the State of Brazil, in the year 1937, there was the so-called "New State Coup", which implanted a tendency of Authoritarian Republic of Fascist. This regime lasted until 1945, when Getúlio Vargas was overthrown by soldiers who largely fought against Fascism in Italy.
I enjoy you're videoes !! continue it is very very very good !! :D
Alix Boulange *your
The second song name is "Soundcritters Celsius Rising".
Some mistakes regarding Spain: between 1820 and 1823 we had a constitutional monarchy ("Trienio Liberal"), the Second Republic started in 1931 (in the map the colour changes to blue a year before, in 1930), and we didn't have any republican regime in 1975 and 1977. Theoretically, the regime we had between November 1975 and June 1977 could be defined as an absolute monarchy, as the King inherited all the powers from General Franco until the first democratic elections.
Ollie Bye is the best geography mapper ever!
music at 2:25 SoundCritters - Celsius Rising
Your videos are very nice
Well, I don't know if somebody said this, but Brazil between 1930-1945 was a authoritarian republic. It is called Vargas Era: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vargas_Era
amadeuac wasn't him fascist?
What's the music starting at 2:58? I checked the description but Soundcritters - Colonisation sounds nothing like it.
read the description
Edit country in Southeast Asia
amm
Laos is socialist
Cambodia is constitutional monarchy
Where can I download the song "Soundcritters Colonisation?"
+Miguel Benitez I went by Wikipedia's definitions. If you believe they've made a mistake, then please edit the page.
England was a constitutional monarchy in 1815, and Australia gained it's independence in 1901 as a commonwealth and then it's full independence from Britain, some of your colors/facts are wrong
John Harrison They're not wrong. These kinds of things aren't even objective. Anyway, I'll deal with each point separately.
1) Not only in 1815, but far back as 1215, was England a constitutional monarchy. The issue with that was that it's a bit of a special case, and I couldn't create a new category just for one nation. Calling it a constitutional monarchy before 1867 would make it seem like it was run similarly to the other such nations, which is untrue. This is a common thing to do with this kind of video, as shown here: ruclips.net/video/oCU12VrsVKs/видео.html
2) This comes down to what a Dominion was. A Dominion was supposed to be, as the Balfour Declaration put it, "Autonomous Communities within the empire." This does not equate to independence, it just means they partially governed themselves. What Australia gained in 1901 wasn't independence, it was a parliament. This is true of all five of the original dominions, but not the ones created after WW1, because they were Commonwealth Dominions, which is different.
If you base this video out of Wikipedia then im afraid i cant believe you
illyrian eagle What a response, 10/10.
He's got a point bro, Wikipedia isn't always trust worthy never base your historical facts off of it
I'm curious as to why the US territories that later became states (the plains states in the 1800's, Alaska up until 1959) are shown as territories, but the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut in Canada are not similarly shown? Is it a different governmental structure?
The second music doesn't match the one in the description. What's the name?
What is the music starting at 2:25 ?
SoundCritters - Celsius Rising
Whats the outro music?
even if this video is a little bit old, I feel to be the only who noticed that you mixed up the 2 Congos(RDC and RoC), it was RoC which were communist/socialist(the former french colony) and not the RDC(the former Belgian colony). And you can clearly noticed that by the flag which RoC used.
song at 2:25?
Wouldn't Japan still be an empire because it has an emperor?
monarchy isn't necessarly a kingdom, monarchy can also be an Empire
1. Japan no longer calls itself an "Empire."
2. Empires tend to be monarchical in nature. But also multicultural and authoritarian.
Lewa, Toa of Air japan is a multicultural country
@@ahmetmuratakalin it's a homogenous state
No because by name it isn’t an empire, the official name is “State of Japan”
Well done, suggestions:
- include South Sudan on the map
- Turkey should become an authoritarian republic by the end
Why are Britain and France considered absolute monarchies at the beginning? They stopped being absolute in 1649 and 1791, respectively.
Also, is the end music Vocaloid?
*****
I see. Thanks.
+Gogol d'Argol And what about Bhutan? I thought they were an absolute monarchy until 2008, but this video says 1956.
Nice
La Chine n'est plus socialiste sauf le nom. On devrait la considérer en tant que République autoritaire.
Why does Finland in this video have her 1947 borders in 1815???
FFulmenTheFinnish When I made this, I didn't know it had different borders.
In 1816 Argentina or whatever its name was back then, controlled Buenos Aires which was (and still is) its capital. By the way Great video!
second video that the malvina/falkland island are wrong, berfore the english ocupation, the islands were argentinian, and also, what do you meant by autoritarian republic?
2:25 Song name please?
+Stone Chen I don't actually know what it is, I've try to find it, but I can't. Sorry about that.
What's the difference beetwen 'Dependent Territory/Tributary' from 'Colonial Administration'?
+TomaSxARG Well it depends on the case, but if you look at a few examples, you'll see. For example, before US states became states, they were territories - this makes them yellow in the video. But when Britain starts to take over parts of India, it's green. Do you see the difference? I suppose I could say yellow dependent states are partially integrated with their parent states, whilst green ones are just controlled by the parent state without any integration.
And what's a tribal state?
TomaSxARG One that isn't properly organised and centralised like the ones in Europe or elsewhere.
Ollie Bye Thanks
wait... Britain is not a constitutional monarchy during 1800's?
It technically had been since 1215 - it gradually evolved into one from then. There's no one date as to when it happened.
I would have marked it since the Restoration, but yes, it has been an ebb and flow of monarchical power.
The the brazilian empire was constitutional monarchy aswell
Britain wasn't a democracy yet by any means in 1820, but it was definitely constitutional. The balance of power was decidedly in the favor of Parliament.
*****
1) It doesn't need a constitution to be a constitutional monarchy, at least in practice. The UK is still regarded as one usually.
2) I'm pretty sure you know why Australia remained green until 1944.
Umm I think you messed up on Nekamerun, it was taken by Germany during the Morrocan Crisis, but you added it on the year it was colonized.
the first song is super epic.
What do you mean by "Tribal State" in this video? A tribe and a state or two completely different things.
Cartman: RESPECT MY AUTHORITY REPUBLIC
Portugal (United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves) in 1815 was an absolute monarchy, only after the revolution of 1820 did it become a constitutional monarchy (albeit with interruptions).🇵🇹🇵🇹🇵🇹
Jesus christ dude, how long did it take you to make this?
I like how Sweden barely changed lol xD
Great video but a bit unsure why Australia becomes a constitutional monarchy in 1944? I would have thought it would be 1901 when the six British colonies united to form the Commonwealth of Australia with its own national government but ultimate ceremonial power rested in the King/Queen.
+TrailBlazer65 Between 1901 and 1944, many of Australia's institutions were still controlled by Britain. It wasn't really a fully independent state until 1944 when its parliament ratified the Statute of Westminster.
Afghanistan is a republic before 2001?
赤血千里日間
一下全局翻紅
吹嗎？
Why does it seem like every form of government is a type of oligarchy?
Sweden has been a constitutional monarchy since 1809. Why did you point it out as an absolute monarchy until the 1920's?
I'm sorry, but where is British EMPIRE on the map? And can you give me a link to the constitution of Britain?
Юлиан Гантман You need to read the colour scheme at the bottom. All the green territories are colonies of other nations, many of which are British. If you want to know more about what the British controlled, then feel free to have a look at my Rise and Fall of the British Empire video - ruclips.net/video/jq62eClYbwU/видео.html
As for the Constitution, there isn't one. The UK doesn't actually have a Constitution, it has a series of separate documents that have built up over time, which form something similar to a Constitution when compiled together.
Ollie Bye That's a very good video, but i mean that Brittain and all its political subentities became a unified Empire in 1876 (after German Reich and Napoleon's III French Empire). So they are technically Empire by name. Also what are UAE? Democratical federation of absolute monrchies? And why Russia is Empire by name, but not an absolute monarchy?
"UK doesn't actually have a Constitution" ))) bingo. So why is it a constitutional monarchy?
Also, since 1905 Russian Empire may be considered as constitutional monarchy as well as Brittain. And German Empire had a proper constitution since 1871.
There is a difference between form of rule and empire-colony dichotomy. Korea was part of constitutional monarchy Japanese empire. Now Japan is still an Empire.
Юлиан Гантман 1) For it to be in _Empire by name_ category, it has to be fully integrated with the UK. An empire of where this isn't case, even after 1876, can be found here -en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_of_New_South_Wales
2) Russia was both, so I could choose
3) A constitutional monarchy, in practice, simply means that the Monarchy is bound by the nations laws, and doesn't have absolute power.
4) Korea was a dependency of Japan
5) Japan may have an emperor now, but it is no longer called the _Empire of Japan_
Ollie Bye Also you've missed Chiva and Buchara as russian protectorates being dependent territories, absolute monarchies and practicaly colonies all at once.
Юлиан Гантман Well, Peru was a colony, because it was a territory subservient to Spain. And Spain itself was at first an absolute Monarchy, and then a Constitutional one. This makes Peru Green, and Spain red.
I don't understand what your question involving the HRE is about, could you rephrase it?
Korea was Japanese from 1910, and before that, it was a Chinese tributary, which is why it was yellow for so long.
You got Indonesia's Authoritarian and Democracy mixed up, Indonesia was more democratic in the 40s and early 50's compared to the mid 50's till 1998.
What about the central african empire?
After 2003,Rose Revolution,Georgia is a very democratic country with high freedom and democracy
Very cool video. But why are the nations of North America excluded? In 1820 the bulk of the continent was still unceded land. Not all of that was "tribal states", but the "Five Civilized Tribes" of the southeast most certainly were. They were forced to remove to what is now Oklahoma between 1831 and 1838. Once they're removed, they could probably be considered "dependent territory"; the US had a lot of say in their governance.
because a lot of that territory wasn't recognized.. For instance both Mexico and the US thought that Comancheria, the Dine, Tonoho O'dam, and Apache were their sovereign territory but those tribes/empires did not consider themselves as subjects of the US or Mexico...
Ireland became a Republic in 1949. 1938 was when UK returned the treaty ports
Did you really put the wrong Congo as socialist?
Millitary Goverment in iraq 2003 ?
Northern Algeria wasn't under a colonial administration, it was considered as part of the mainland territory and had the same administration and territorial management than mainland France
Finally a video where they have Central America accurate
Brazil was technically a Constitutional Monarchy, albeit of unique kind (The king still had immense power)
In 1930 it suffered from a short civil war/coup and was a dictatorship from 1930 to 1945.
There is no room left in the world for absolute monarchies.
they need freedom and democracy
Perhaps a distinction between 'colonial administration' and 'sovereign dominion' should be shown. There is, I believe, a significant enough difference.
You have the Boer republics wrong - they were never authoritarian. If anything, many Voortrekkers were anarchists. The FreeState was described as a model republic.
Also, your map does not show Rhodesia's UDI in 1965.
I am not an expert on the subject, but I think that french algeria was a french department, thus, it wasn't ruled by a colonial administration.
Australia became a federation in 1901 - Meaning we were our own sovereign state within the British Empire
Britain wasn't an absolute monarchy at 1800, there was already the Magma Charta and the Bill of Rights
You put Cambodia as a democracy even though it's a monarchy and you put Laos as a monarchy even though it's a socialist state
Mexico, 1860's. It was not a Colonial Administration. It was an Empire. A foreign emperor (from the House of Habsburg) but it did not depend of other countries.
Portugal isn't a dictatorship since 1974
I find it irritating that "Empire" and "Constitutional Monarchy" don't really say a whole lot about a particular nation's political status. For instance, if say Spain (as it is today) didn't have a monarch, it would be a "Republican Democracy." Whereas pre-WW2 Yugoslavia would be an "Authoritarian Republic" if you were to take away their crown. Although the way law is exercised is different in a Monarchy than in a Republic (which means "rule of law"), there's clearly so much that isn't said with the way these were classified. "Empire," meanwhile, is a term that I find too vague. The best I can usually asses from it are elements of Authoritarianism and Monarchism. Sometimes some cultural diversity, though not always (Ahem, post-Napolean France). Kind of wish this term had more depth to it (unless what I described is all that there is).
Either way, great concept and execution.
Lewa, Toa of Air Espanha é republicana??? Kkkkkk
You didn't show Russia becoming a republic in 1917.
Excellent achievement. From my point of view, I am surprised to see Russia as an authoritarian democracy while Turkey seems a mere democracy.
Not anymore, especially after the Prime Minister was abolished.
SpAiN wAs NeO-fAcIsT?!
True, he could have gotten-maybe-5 reliable sources, for every country (~175), for every year covered (199). But that would amount to:
5 x 175 x 199 = 174,125
Significantly rounding down that is 150,000 reliable sources for each country, every year. Considering it takes at least 5 minutes to read each source-again-significantly rounding down. That would amount to:
150,000 x 5 = 750,000 minutes or,
750,000 / 60 = 12,500 hours or,
12,500 / 24 = 520.8 days or,
520.8 / 365 = 1.42 years.
I'll round up this time, to 1.5 years of work, not overall duration. Even if he spends an eighth of every day (3hours) this would mean the video would take:
12,500 x 8 = 100,000 hours or,
100,000 x 24 = 4166,6 days or,
4166,6 / 365 = 11.4 years.
It would take over a decade, where every single day sources are read for every year, for every country, so that every fact is correct beyond any reasonable doubt. Have some respect for the work he has already put in, and realize what you are asking for, is close to impossible.
*11. 4 years*
And that's not even including the time it takes to animate the video.
you could use a team of 1000 ppl (jk)
Also Brazil wasn't painted fascist during Vargas era
Small error: In 1975, the king of Laos (the tiny nation on the left of North Vietnam) was forced to abdicate by the communists, thus making it a Socialist country instead since then.
The UK was definitely not an absolute monarchy in the 19th century. It hasn't been an absolute monarchy in centuries. Parliament held most of the power.
The Philippines was a territory of the united states from 1898 to 1946
Correction u forgot to include authoritarian reign of Indira Gandhi during 1975-1977 emergency in india
Why Venezuela remains as an autoritharian republic in the late xx century?
+Darth Cronos Because it has a democracy index of below 6.00
Mmm, well i'm am Venezuelan, and seriously no one here or in south america will doubt that during that time we had a democracy, it was really dirty, but still a democracy with two parties. I'm curious, where do you got those numbers?
Pd:Sorry for my bad english
Darth Cronos From here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Well, there says today, in the XXI century, and that's correct... But in the period 1958 to 1999 was a democracy, one of the most stable of latin america in fact, today is the contrary.
What exactly is an authoritarian Republic?
A republic where the opposition parties have no powers, where freedom of speech is not very clear, where the same president can rule during 20 years...
Laos was a "socialist state" since the period of the Vietnam war and still is according to (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laos) not a constitutional monarcy.
The UK was most definitely a constitutional monarchy by 1815.
laos is a socialist state , not monarchy
and mongolia is now a democracy
I'm pretty sure just having a monarch doesn't make it a monarchy. The monarchs hold very little to no power.
0.1M views! congrats
Parliamentary monarchy, not constitutional.
Australia federated in 1901, not 1945
What made Mexico a democracy in 1953?
Should just be: Western Sahara: No data available
what would you define as a "tribal state"
Albania wasn't painted socialist and neither was Laos
Laos is socialist state after 1975 and Cambodia is constitutional monarchy since 1993.
>italy
>democracy
?
1 - russia didn't invaid all of the caucasus until 1864 (1750 ossetia,1800 georgia,1830 kabardays,1859 dagestan,checenya,lezgia..,1860 karacays,1864 circassians)
2- ottoman empire system was conditional monarchy between 1876-77
and 1908-1919
3- ıran occupied by russia and england many times
Before WWI Romania wasn't an absolute monarchy. it was a constitutional one.
world now is red vs blue
I don't think it being an empire says much about politics.
I am argentinian and Argentina (the big country at the south of Brazil) was a democracy since 1862
No confundir república con democracia, desde el momento en que gobierna una dictadura deja de ser una democracia aunque siga siendo una república. "República autoritaría" me parece correcto, Argentina ha pasado por muchas dictaduras.
Romania is shown as a "socialist state" since 1945 but it didn't officially become one until the end of 1947 (although since 1945 the communists did indeed have a lot of power, it was still officially a monarchy)
At this point, we may as well call China an "Authoritarian Republic" as well. There's not much in the way of socialism left. They have elections too (even if they don't matter realistically).
Laos is consitute monarchy? I though it was still socialist replubic with leader that is actually from monarch house...?
Laos is a communist country but they allowed monarchy to exist
I don't think Dem Rep Congo was a communist state at any point, but I'm pretty sure Rep Congo was
+Zavierism is the answer right.Dem Rep Congo was not communist .Mobutu sese seko was anti-communist.But in 1997 a communist took the country laurent desire kabila
Britain had a constitutional monarchy since 1215, or 1724 at the very latest
Dwarven sphere This was the problem with this video - making umbrella terms that fit a large amount of nations. Britain didn't quite fit any of them, because what I meant by a constitutional monarchy was a monarchy where there a significant suffrage rights, because this is what they result in, in practice. I understand this is confusing, because, despite being a constitutional monarchy since 1215, Britain didn't meet these requirements, and was therefore labeled as an absolute monarchy. I'll try and make the categories more clear in the next one, which I will hopefully be able to upload today.
I agree by technicalities on most of the constitutional monarchies. But not Sweden and Japan, who have taken action to remove the Queen, or Emperor as the chief executive...
No European king/queen has any real power anymore
Except in Lichtenstein.