I think...I think they were being sarcastic. Because literally that's all they go over in history class when discussing this war, unless you live in America in which they do touch on the American theater cause, you know, we have to learn about the history of our country.
JazzyNym I live in America, and all I was ever taught about the European part of the war was basically "Fighting also happened in Europe, but that doesn't matter."
Collin Buckman Really? Not even during world history? I mean, you may have gone over it but not in much detail so you don't remember it. Granted I may be biased cause I have also lived in more states than most people so I've been exposed to more school systems.
JazzyNym World History was in my opinion the most bare bones history class I've had so far. Like, all we really learned about medieval times was what feudalism is, then we just jumped to the Protestant Reformation.
Well that small talk about the war in Europe sounded real interesting. I understand that World history in the west is often pretty Euro- centric, but when a war or any other historical subject is about Europe, you might wanna let go of your white guilt and just talk about Europe.
Harrison Holt I think the point is that Europe gets talked about a lot, and 'the rest' not enough (definitely here in the UK), so I'm glad to get a more complete view of the story.
William Burke I'd still like a complete retelling. But like, they gloss over wars all the time on crashcourse and always go for the "You never thought of this" route on them. And it's kinda annoying.
There might be a reason why Europe gets talked about a lot, namely that for much of modern history Europe was the most significant and influential region of the globe and had the greatest effect on how the world is now.
"We have been so Eurocentric on crashcourse that all we are gonna say about the war in Europe is that Prussia and Great Britain..."...*cough*AndHannover*cough* "Fought France and Austria"...*Cough*AndRussiaAndSwedenAndSaxony*cough* "It was mainly fought by the british and french"...*cough*PRUSSIAandAUSTRIA*cough* "And as previously noted, the Prussians were fighting the French and the British were fighting the Austrian"...*cough*BritainNeverEngagedInBattleAgainstAustria,PrussiaFoughtAustria,France,RussiaAndSwedenPracticallyAloneOnTheContinentWithTheExceptionOfHannoverThatFoughtAgainstTheFrench*cough* "But the war wasn't really about land, it was about our old friend trade"...*cough*ItWasAboutLandAndGeopolitics,LandWasDesiredForEconomicReasonsAndAlsoForPoliticalReasons*cough* Ah, yeah, this was a bad history video about the SEVEN YEARS WAR, cannot wait for the video where you talk about the thirty years war and never mention Gustav Adolfus and rather talk about how the English participated...sort of...oh wait, I forgot, the thirty years war doesn't get a video because there was no way to turn it into a narrative about trade and it took place in Europe.
Ethan Davidson You mean in this video where he erases the entire European theater in a European war that started in Europe with the main fighting in Europe with all major participants being European. Oh, lets we not forget that the entire video still talks about FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN, TWO EUROPEAN POWERS THAT WERE SECONDARY PARTICIPANTS OF THIS WAR. He had at most made ten videos prior to this one about Europe and about three/four/five after depending after how you count it, and even then many of them had huge portions talking about other parts of the world (often America) or dismissing European accomplishments (remember when he dismissed the European Renaissance because 'only the high class actually got to enjoy the Renaissance' and then later in the next world history series continually praises classical Japan's cultural works even though the issue of only the highest of high class got to enjoy it was even greater), or when he talked about the dark ages where Europe only got a minute or two before rest of the world got praised. Hell, we literally went from only talking a bit about the Spanish empire straight into the seven years war, ignoring such wars for example the thirty years war, which you can thank largely for the rise of modern nation states, secularism and lowered looting in warfare. This is not to mention the inaccuracies in the video, some of them hilariously horrible and bad, such as saying that Spain 'gained' Cuba and the Philippines, when in reality they just got to keep it. He isn't somehow giving you a wider view on the oversea theater either, he spend more time on America than anything else, even emphasizing that the most important thing being that it set up for the american revolution, trying to turn one of the biggest and most major European wars prior to Napoleon into some kind of trivial matter, the Indian theater was left incredibly vague and unclear beyond 'Britain won and a trade company pushed the battles, also one event was used for propaganda' Tell me simply this before you respond, have you actually studied the seven years war? And no, this video does not count.
+100aegir You know that when he say he wont speak about Europe, he has the right not to mention every participant but only the MAIN ones, especially the ones that started it. He didn't want to do the conflict in Europe, so don't blame him for not doing it ! Clearly he wants to insist on the fact that this war was also OUTSIDE Europe, that it was a kind of "first world war". And yes they might be inaccuracies, the videos are 10 min long. It's not years of academic studies in 10 min. It's just brief notions so you can get a idea of what happened. That's all. "CRASHcourse". Yes, he likes trade. That's his little bias, or a different point of view of the situation. I wonder if he did work on that subject for a time. That being said, I like it. As a French I've learn the history with the French bias, and as a scientist / agronomy student I've learn it with the science/agricultural "bias"/point of view.
***** "You know that when he say he wont speak about Europe, he has the right not to mention every participant but only the MAIN ones, especially the ones that started it" Maybe so, but that isn't what he did. He ignored Russia, one of the five main participants of the war and the largest nation in that war, meanwhile Spain, which came into the war very late and is almost never considered to be one of the main participants gets mentioned and is talked more about than even Prussia, who was the main participant of the war and the one who started it. "He didn't want to do the conflict in Europe, so don't blame him for not doing it !" He chose to talk about a war that was mainly and primarily set in Europe, and then he chooses to completely ignore the European theater. And again, the video was very Americacentric instead, as I have already addressed. "Clearly he wants to insist on the fact that this war was also OUTSIDE Europe, that it was a kind of "first world war"." He didn't need to erase and dismiss the European theater to do so. "And yes they might be inaccuracies, the videos are 10 min long. It's not years of academic studies in 10 min. It's just brief notions so you can get a idea of what happened. That's all. "CRASHcourse"." Inaccuracies such as saying that Spain gained Cuba and the Philippines, despite the fact they had it prior to the war by over a century is a pretty fucking stupid mistake to make if you are making videos about history. Not to mention another inaccuracy that is in your next point. "Yes, he likes trade. That's his little bias, or a different point of view of the situation. I wonder if he did work on that subject for a time. That being said, I like it. As a French I've learn the history with the French bias, and as a scientist / agronomy student I've learn it with the science/agricultural "bias"/point of view." The problem is the fact the war wasn't about trade, it was fought over land, more specifically Silesia, aka in Europe. That is what started the freaking war. The British were also looking to get land in the colonies, because you need land to produce more stuff. John Green instead insisted it wasn't about land but trade, ignoring the fact that it was about land that they could use to produce more stuff. Hell, his over focus on trade really gets fucking annoying, especially in one of his later videos about the vikings were he tries to twist the entire thing into a story that "Trade is inevitable and is what brought end to the viking age", which is just very ignorant (not to mention bunch of other inaccuracies there and ignoring viking culture almost completely besides a brief talk about Norse Paganism). John Green frequently has failed to come to grasps the complexity of history and in this video a lot of his flaws are glaringly obvious to anyone who studied the seven years war properly.
100aegir Like I said : 10 minutes videos. You wont learn history here, juste a few things. And if he want to develop something through his video such as "trade is important" I'm pretty sure he can. I'll just react to that "the video was very Americacentric instead" Well, if you forgot the part about Africa and India... yes. I'll say that this war seems more Frenchcentric to me. We always like to remember this war, how we were friend to the nice Indians, and how we sadly lose north America and our future in India to the Brits
I've wanted to watch this series in its entirety since it first came out. Took me 10 years, but I finally got around to it and it's amazing to watch a few of the same videos 10 years apart. A better grasp of the scale and complexity of history has made me realize how impressive it is that you managed to make this entertaining, relatively short, and still give a coherent outline of world history.
A few points of correction; Most of the Acadians were actually from what is now Nova Scotia. While many Acadians were deported, thousands were killed. That tends to get glossed over a lot. A lot of Acadians actually returned to Atlantic Canada, and Acadian culture is very much a thing today, distinct from Cajun culture. The province of New Brunswick is basically bilingual because of the ongoing Acadian population there. Credit to you though for mentioning the Acadians at all. They tend to get passed over a lot when talking about that era of North American history.
Agreed. Mr. Green is using some mighty American-centric sources if all of the Acadians supposedly come from Maine. If he had gotten it right he could of mentioned the detail about the British not only deporting the French out of the highly fertile Annapolis Valley, but then stealing the land and repopulating it with... wait for it... the Mongols..., err, I mean New Englanders. But yes, great that the Acadians even got a mention.
I think you would find the Acadian story very interesting and I would love to see a video on it. A good book on this story is the Melanson family story Acadian Family. Acadian Times
You have to consider the relative impact of each theater of war to the international system. At the end of the day, not a whole lot changed in Europe. In contrast, the Seven Years War gave Britan de facto control of the North American continent - and set in motion the conditions that would lead to the American Revolution, an even bigger deal.
OptimusWombat Bigger deal for Americans, the rest of the world including Britain were not that bothered, you need to check your personal interest before you start making sweeping comments.
tigerwa "Bigger deal for Americans, the rest of the world including Britain were not that bothered" - isn't that just a rephrasing of what I said? Or were you trying to be sarcastic? It's really hard to tell.
tigerwa how stupid are you if it weren’t for the American Revolution the most powerful country in the world would have never existed. It is a big deal for everyone, just like if America never existed the whole course of history would be different
Not even a single mention of Frederick the Great? Probably the most important man in the 7 years war. His name alone would shadow over Robert clives name. This crash course is lacking.
You should have mentioned more of the continental fight and particularly the man of the war, Frederick of Prussia and his space marines, running from one side of prussia to the other to fend off attackers. Hell, the guy deserves his own episode. Who's with me?
You missed a chance for a joke about how the French named everything after king Louis like: Louisville Louisiana That fort you mentioned King Louis the II-XIV (I think)
Lol. The European field of conflict was the most crucial and historically significant theatre of the Seven Years War. Yeah, just ignore Frederick The Great-- the guy was a clown. Not like he won any decisive battles that shaped history or anything. Americans make me laugh, but I'm sure you laugh at us too, so we form a good partnership.
I wouldn't go as far as calling Prussia "one of the most successful countries on Earth" but it surely stayed on the European Stage of politics and military power for the next 200 years after Fritz, even under the little corporal from Braunau. And I also wouldn't go as far as calling the European Theater unimportant just because the 7 years war in America led directly to the Revolution and Independence thus creating the US either, had the british won in America but lost in Europe and/or India the aftermath of the war would still have looked VERY different than it did. Basically the overseas theaters were more important for Britain and France as they had more to win or loose there, Britain had not even real territorial gains to hope for even if they won, they just kept up an alliance. But Austria and Prussia fought ultimately for survival. Had Frederick won too decisively the power of Maria Theresia might have been endangered, while a loss in the war might have shattered his still vulnerable and rather small kingdom beyond hopes of ever mattering again. It was the success in this war that left Prussia powerful enough to oppose France even after they lost against Napoleon in 1804 and in the long term to be able to dominate german politics at the end of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. A lost war and the accompanying territorial losses would have cost them that power and Silesia was from them on the industrial powerhouse of Prussia with its coal and iron mines and metalworking capabilities. A ruffled core Prussia with only Brandernburg and the "true" Prussia at the baltic end of europe left to its name would have looked VERY differently.
can i use this as a resource for my university paper? i have to do a presentation in my 2nd year history course on the 7 years war focusing on France and this has the most digestible and useful information for the north American part of it. not sure if title fly because its a video on youtube....
Not being too Eurocentric: great! I would love to see a different pov! Completely forgetting that Europe exists: uhm... Instead of finding a good balance between not being Eurocentric but still showing some important things, he decided to almost completely ignore Europe. I must admit that I'm disappointed. I know very well that not everything in history is about Europe, but he seems very bitter that some things are. That's really small-minded for someone thinking they're so broad-minded. Sad, 'cause this series had potential to be both fun and informative about ALL parts of the world.
The UK is England (a country), Scotland (a country), Wales (which, as a principality, is technically part of the Kingdom of England but don't mention that to the Welsh!) and Northern Ireland (which is a province. Not part of Britain but part of the UK). Great Britain is Scotland, England and Wales; UK is Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney-all of Norman heritage) and the Isle of Man (Viking heritage) are not part of the UK. They are British Crown Dependencies. Cornwall, a county in England, has a Celtic heritage and was was once called West Wales. It feels different to the other English counties. There's more but i'll stop now. Please learn.
7 лет назад
Yeahyeahyeah, and all that together forms England, just like I've said.
I didn't learn about the seven years war in school (and I'm British). The first time I had heard of it was after watching the film Barry Lyndon, in which the character of Barry Lyndon serves in the Prussian army for a brief period, so I thought the Prussians did have a big part in it after seeing that.
randomsamno9 Yup. Of course the prussians did not fight in america, but in europe they fought for seven years against France, Russia and Austria (and Sweden) and only had help from GB and some smaller german duchys and states, and although they lost some battles they managed to hold their own until the russian empress died and the new emperor decided to make peace because he admired frederick
While I super appreciate the inclusion of the acadian deportation in the video, acadian settlements weren't just limited to Maine, but mostly what is now know as Nova-Scotia, Cape-Breton, southern New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Speaking as not only an acadian but also as someone who studies La Francophonie as a whole, it would be really cool to have a Crash Course on the acadian diaspora today, as well as francophone states and minorities across the world!
I love this hi my name is John Green this is crash 00:02 course world this Rio my gosh today 00:05 we're gonna talk about war clothes 00:07 everywhere 00:08 so traditionally historians are pretty 00:09 keen on wars because they feature 00:11 clearly delineated beginnings and 00:13 middles and ends and because they always 00:14 have a fair bit of death and drama and 00:16 mortally wounded generals who have great 00:18 last words like let us cross over the 00:21 river and rest under the shade of those 00:23 trees whereas the last words of plague 00:25 victims are always like oh sorry plague 00:28 victims as if you don't have enough 00:29 troubles now you've got me teasing you 00:31 about your uninspired death throes wars 00:34 have easy wins where's whose and why's 00:37 1861 to 1865 the United States the North 00:41 versus the South to end slavery and save 00:44 the Union there's a great marine are you 00:45 gonna show us the hidden complexities 00:47 behind something we already think we 00:49 understand again sorry me from the past 00:51 but yes however to placate you here are 00:53 some more explosions below the 17th and 00:56 18th century saw a bunch of top-notch 00:58 Wars but today we're gonna focus on the 01:00 Seven Years War also called the French 01:01 and Indian Wars because it was the first 01:03 truly global war in fact no less a 01:06 historian than Winston Churchill called 01:08 it the first world war but we've been so 01:10 Eurocentric here on crash course that 01:11 all we are going to say about the entire 01:13 war in Europe is that Prussia and Great 01:16 Britain fought France and Austria and 01:18 that the Austrian Hapsburgs wanted to 01:20 win back Silesia which they failed to do 01:22 there that's all you get Europe so the 01:24 Seven Years War lasted for anyone anyone 01:26 23 years I hate you me from the past but 01:30 as it happens by sheer coincidence you 01:32 are not necessarily wrong 01:34 [Music] 01:42 so the when the Seven Years War began in 01:45 1756 and ended in 1763 unless you 01:49 believe as many historians do that the 01:50 Seven Years War lasted 23 years because 01:52 it was really a continuation of the war 01:54 for Austrian succession many of the fact 01:56 that much of the information in today's 01:58 episode is taken from a book called the 02:00 global Seven Years War 1754 to 1763 a 02:04 nine-year period as for the who it was 02:06 mainly fought between the British and 02:08 the French seen here re-enacting the 02:10 knife fight from either beat it or West 02:12 Side Story depending on your age but 02:14 some of the British were actually 02:15 Americans and both the British and the 02:17 French were supported by American 02:19 Indians and I was fighting in India 02:20 between Indian Indians the British and 02:22 the French and as previously noted the 02:24 French were fighting the Prussians and 02:25 the British were fighting the Austrians 02:27 the where Europe the continental US the 02:29 Caribbean Sea off the coast of Africa 02:31 India basically the world and the why 02:33 ostensibly land British colonists wanted 02:36 to expand and to land west of the 02:38 original 13 colonies and that land was 02:40 technically held by the French who left 02:41 it alone except for a bunch of Trading 02:43 Post and they were like June of 02:44 appallingly 02:45 thank you four years of high school 02:47 French anyway the war wasn't really 02:49 about land it was really about our old 02:50 friend trade the British wanted to 02:53 expand into the American interior to 02:55 allow for more colonists because the 02:56 British benefited both from the export 02:58 of raw materials from the Americas and 03:01 the import of British consumer goods to 03:03 the America some more colonists meant 03:05 more trade which meant more wealth which 03:07 meant ever fancier hats and the French 03:10 realized that this British Atlantic 03:11 maritime trade was making Britain so 03:13 rich that Britain might come for 03:14 France's actually valuable colonies 03:17 which were not in the continental US but 03:19 those slave based sugar plantations in 03:21 the Caribbean so the fighting began 03:22 around here and while the British did 03:24 send over actual British troops much of 03:26 the early fighting was done by colonial 03:28 militias probably the most famous 03:29 commander of British troops was a 03:30 Virginia colonel named George Washington 03:33 in fact he may have actually started the 03:35 shooting at the Battle of Fort Necessity 03:36 in May of 1754 Washington was captured 03:39 in that battle but then he was 03:40 immediately released because 03:41 eighteenth-century war was super weird 03:44 anyway the real North American action 03:45 was in New York and Canada at the battle 03:48 at the plains of Abraham in 1759 for 03:50 instance the British defeated the French 03:52 and captured the city of Quebec both 03:54 the British commander general wolf and 03:55 the French commander general Montcalm 03:57 were killed in that battle with the 03:59 death of the former being immortalized 04:00 and this famous painting by Benjamin 04:02 West has indicated by the picture almost 04:04 all the battles in North America 04:05 featured significant participation by 04:07 Native Americans different native tribes 04:09 sided with both the British and the 04:11 French but as a broad generalization 04:12 Native Americans were more likely to 04:14 support the French up to this point 04:15 shrewd Indian tribes had been able to 04:17 play the British and the French off each 04:19 other and maintain a degree of autonomy 04:20 for themselves and as long as the French 04:22 were present the British were prevented 04:24 from encroaching too much on lands 04:25 Native Americans were using for hunting 04:27 and agriculture now we haven't talked 04:28 much about American Indians mostly 04:30 because they were geographically 04:31 isolated and didn't have a written 04:33 language but let's at least give them a 04:34 thought bubble before the arrival of the 04:36 Europeans most Native Americans lived in 04:37 tribal groups and they subsisted on a 04:39 combination of small-scale agriculture 04:41 and hunting and gathering depending on 04:43 where they were situated there were too 04:44 many tribes to generalize about specific 04:46 social structures but it's probably safe 04:48 to say that in terms of gender they were 04:49 much more egalitarian than the Europeans 04:52 who they met up with which may explain 04:53 why European women who were taken 04:55 captive by Indians sometimes preferred 04:57 to stay with the tribe rather than be 05:00 rescued although that's somewhat 05:01 controversial one thing we can say about 05:03 the Indians their notions of what it 05:05 meant to hold property were very 05:07 different from those of the Europeans 05:09 individual Indians did not own land in 05:13 the European sense they used it and not 05:15 always particularly intensively 05:17 Europeans when they came to North 05:19 America had a hard time even recognizing 05:21 that the Indians were raising crops 05:23 because their forms of farming were so 05:25 different from European agriculture so 05:28 the French and especially the English 05:29 just assumed that the Indians weren't 05:31 improving the land which meant that they 05:33 didn't own the land so that meant that 05:35 it was okay for Europeans to take it as 05:37 you might imagine that was problematic 05:39 for the Indians in general Indian tribes 05:41 initially got along better with the 05:42 French than with the Dutch or English 05:43 because one the French did not settle in 05:46 large numbers as they were mostly 05:47 traders and fur trappers and two French 05:49 missionaries who made the journey to the 05:51 Americas were Catholic often Jesuits who 05:53 were so intent on converting the Indians 05:55 that they took the time to learn Indian 05:57 languages and try to make Catholicism 05:59 more amenable to Indian religion the end 06:01 result of the war a greatly reduced 06:03 French presence on the American mainland 06:05 meant that Indians too 06:06 easily played the British and French off 06:08 each other which opened the floodgates 06:10 of British settlers in the end the 06:12 American Indians were perhaps the 06:13 biggest losers of the seven years here 06:16 thanks thought-bubble so 2,000 miles 06:17 south in the Caribbean there was also 06:19 quite a lot of fighting between the 06:20 British and the French over sugar 06:22 colonies most of these were naval 06:23 battles and by 1761 Spain got involved 06:25 because you know they had some sugar 06:27 colonies of their own while these 06:28 battles get a lot of ink it's 06:29 interesting to note that by far the 06:30 greatest threat to combatants was 06:33 disease by October of 1761 the British 06:35 had lost about a thousand men to war and 06:38 5,000 to disease meanwhile in West 06:41 Africa the British and the French were 06:42 fighting there too because you know why 06:44 not the British attacked the French had 06:45 a trading post called st. Louis stand up 06:48 made me say all right fine San Louie and 06:51 at a town called Garre both in Senegal 06:53 why well trade of course Senegal was the 06:56 main source of gum arabic which is 06:57 notable for many reasons but most 06:59 importantly it is a key ingredient in 07:01 the diet coke and mentos phenomenon so 07:04 of course the British wanted lots of it 07:06 and the French were also fighting the 07:07 British in India in the 18th century 07:09 India was nominally ruled by the Mughal 07:11 Empire but I'm saying that wrong aren't 07:12 I oh yeah that sounds more plausible but 07:15 as throughout most of its history the 07:16 real power in India lay with local kings 07:18 and princes sometimes called Nawab and 07:20 these princes just like their European 07:22 counterparts were constantly vying for 07:23 power and control over more territory 07:25 and to ge
To Europe, this was just another war but for Canada, this was a major turning point for the country. As you know, even two centuries after that war, Canada is still bilingual. To quebeckers, the battle of the plains of Abraham are as significant and emotional as the Alamo can be to Texas and the deportation of the Acadians is still used by Quebec separatists as a reason why Quebec and English canadians just can't work together (even though separatists don't have a very smooth relationship with modern acadians (like me!) who still live mainly in New-Brunswick and would be left behind if Quebec separated). To this day, Quebeckers still celebrate their national holiday by a huge bonfire and concert on the plains of Abraham. As recent as 1967, when Charles de Gaulle visited Montreal for Expo 67 and famously offered his support to the Quebec independence movement, it was the culmination of a major show trip meant to avenge the humiliation of 1763. His slogan in Montreal, "Vive le Québec Libre!" did not give Quebec independence, it gave Canada independance since the federal government had to make a wide left turn in order to keep Quebec with new ideas like universal healthcare, separation of church and State, multiculturalism and taking its distance from the British crown (with our own flag, national anthem and constitution) to become a country with an identity of its own instead of just another british colony.
For living in Canada, one of the major fronts of the war, I have learned way too little about the war. All that I learned from school is that Britain and France were at war and Britain won and got New France.
I recently watched your Atlantic Slave Trade course and I thought its nice that he let up on the humor or jokes. Yet here speaking about Native Americans you think its ok to show them being shot and make a joke about it. So hypocritical of you and crash course. That part was completely unnecessary. I will no longer be watching your videos. Shame on you!!!!!
I like how the one time I know less about what was happening in Europe and was looking forward to finding out more about Europe was the one time you decided to almost completely ignore Europe lmao
Here's what most people don't see though. Had France won in North America there would have been a Canadian Revolution instead of an American one because the French Crown would have had to raise taxes to control New York and some of New England. And they would have needed new manpower to control the British Caribbean as well. So France would have been in the winning/losing scheme too. And had the British and French sat down and talked about the borders and trade disputes, it would have saved more lives in the long run. But meh, I'm just talking smack.
@@Raisonnance. Rich? France was brought to the edge of bankrupcy by the Seven Years' War, and the support guven to the Americans during the War for Independence completed that process. That's the main medium cause of the French Revolution in 1789: the king had to call the Estates Generals to determine new ways of securing public finances, and the Third Estate was so ignored it went and made itself into a National Assembly.
I think the whole concept of "owning" land is really frickin' strange actually; the only way you can really "own" something is if you create it yourself, but still people decide that when they find some land that's either uninhabited, inhabited by people who in their opinions aren't equipped to own it, or inhabited by people that they fought and killed and thus now have gained "ownership" over it, it is then "theirs" and they have the right to give it to someone else. But it was never "theirs" in the first place! The whole concept of owning land is abstract--even if the intentions of the people who thought it up were good (which they kind of weren't), it is still something we thought up that is not real in any way but our own minds, and yet people think it gives them liberty to do whatever they want with the land and those who simply want to exist peacefully on it, even destroy them all. This is my feelings on the subject, feel free to say whatever you want, I just wanted to say this.
I ave to disagree with you on the urocintricity when studying the 7 yers war: I barely know anything about it. Every time my teachers ever talk about it, they always talk about the North American debacle..... Where were you taught about the Euro theater?
Is there anything on the British Empire on CrashCourse? I mean maybe I'm biased but he's done the Russian and Ottoman and Mongol Empires, and the British Empire was larger than any of them, the largest in history in fact.
DoneAnd Dusted It's boring? The largest empire in the world, who ruled so many areas that "the sun never set", had an unsurpassable navy which beat the French, Spanish and Germans and had its standard infantry provoke fear into almost all enemies was boring? Seems more interesting than half the stuff on here, and that stuff is pretty interesting anyway.
DoneAnd Dusted We don't know about them, name one of his videos where there's an episode on it. "Oh but there's a bit on episode x". You can't know everything about the biggest empire the world has every seen in a few minutes.
In fear of being too euro centric they didn't talk much about Europe at all in the entire course. Yes, many people are being taught about Europe more than anything else but that doesn't mean that it wasn't important or that you can leave it out entirely. The Seven Year War was a euro centric war and he only talked about the US.
As a descended French Acadian, I'm rather insulted that you claim the expulsion was from "Maine to Louisiana", which I can only assume you picked up from Wikipedia. While many families moved to Maine AFTER the expulsion, the Acadian peninsula was predominantly in Nova Scotia. My family moved to Gaspe Quebec while many of my relatives left for the American south. Fact checking. It's a thing.
Wikipedia cannot be expected to say and as well does not say that the expulsion of the Acadians is from "Maine to Louisiana." I add "cannot be expected," (or should not?) because Wikipedia, in spite of being open to edit by anyone, tends to be far more technical and perfectionistic than any other source online besides ones from universities.
The article on the expulsion is correct, but I'll wager he took his info from the original 'acadians' page that reads; "The colony was located in what is now Eastern Canada's Maritime provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island), as well as part of Quebec, and present-day Maine to the Kennebec River." The insult was that he omitted everything else and focused on Maine which represented less than 1% of Acadian culture, and is even in dispute over whether they could even be considered Acadian, having arrived 50 years after the last migration. Here's the Link. I've tried changing it in the past, but it always gets shifted back; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadians
antagonizerr I was surprised to hear him say that as well. I am Canadian and I have never heard that the Acadians were from Maine. It's quite clear they were primarily from Nova Scotia. It gets rather tiring sometimes, hearing Americans claiming that Canadian inventions, events, and even people were actually American. (I know, there was no USA at the time of the Seven Year's War, but still.)
Laura B Maine was one of the dozen destinations AFTER the expulsion. There were, however, french settlers there before, but only 50 years after the primary recorded migrations, tho their numbers could be counted on one hand. Hardly a 'colony'. Americans love to take credit for other cultures, but they can suck it if they think they can take my lineage from me. Make no mistake, I like Americans, especially since I have plenty of distant blood down south, but my family was one of the first on these shores and I'm damn proud of that.
I actually liked the idea, that this is mostly colony centric after almost only Europe before, but looking back on this now, it's kind of sad that we have two videos about mostly the american theatre (this and the one in US-history) and none in the European theatre (although my fingers continue to eb crossed for Europe history). Because it would have been kind of cool to hear about the Austro-Prussian conflicts and Friedrich II and his warfare the crash course style and the two videos would compliment each other better.
i know this doesn't have much to do with the actual lesson but i love all of the little easter eggs in the thought bubble. finding cows in trees during the dark ages and a star fox arwing in this episode just shows how much fun people have making this series. thank you very much to all who make this possible.
Just a minor point of correction (because as an historian, I'm a bit nit picky...). John states that the Acadians are deported in 1755 from Main. In reality, they were deported mostly from the French settlements in what is today Nova Scotia around the Bay of Fundy. While there are some Acadians who did later settle in Main and other parts of New England, most francophones were from Quebec and settled in the mid-1800s during the textile boom in towns (for example at Lowell, Massachusetts).
Ugh... research of the last thirty years or so has really put this idea of a "second British empire" to bed. We need to stop seeing the empire "fall" in the mid to late eighteenth century because it just doesn't do justice to the broader narrative of British imperialism. It's so American-centric because it makes the American Revolution seem like the event that shook the empire to its foundations and made it restart. Plus if you're an Indianist it becomes very hard to separate the empire into two parts.
If you are going to teach world history try not to do it from a purely American-centric point of view. Most Acadian's were from modern day New Brunswick, Quebec and Nova Scotia, Maine was a very small part of Acadia, there still are Acadiens living in Canada, and only like what a couple thousand if any in Maine? Sorry but it's just annoying, no wonder American's are ignorant of the world if they can't even get the history of their geographic neighbours correct... I mean it's Canada it's easy history. Kind of annoying you called "Maine" Acadia, and completely ignored the fact most Acadians were from Canada and again, Acadien identity still exists in Canada. I mean Maine has very little to do with Acadia.
Although I agree, typing such a long negative comment over such a micro detail (or more likely, something everyone will forget by tomorrow) isn't needed
I love this topic. Such an underrated event in human history. Wished we talked more about it in school, not everything is all about the American civil war and ww2
I really like these video's but I'm starting to find John's determination to avoid a European context slightly exasperating. I'm all for seeing history in a different light, and exploring world cultures from their own perspective as opposed to the Western Anglo-Saxon view which ruled supreme pretty much from the time of Macaulay... That being said, when John said he wasn't going to look at Europe because previous video's had been too "Eurocentric" I had to slap my forehead. I have no idea how he could come to that conclusion, seeing as his video's are so keen to avoid Western Europe. Only a handful of his video's look at Western Europe post the Roman Empire; the Dark Ages, the Renaissance and the Spanish Empire spring to mind. But even these video's only look at Europe for half the time or less. The Dark Ages covered Europe in a minute or so, and the Renascence video did its best to downplay Europe and the renaissance entirely in favour of the Ottoman Empire. The fact is, some import things did happen in Europe, the credit for which must overwhelmingly be given to those European countries who took part, they should be covered in full. It just seems strange that this video bypasses the European element to the 7 years War. Not mentioning the rivalry between Prussia and Austria is bizarre, since if you see the 7YW as an extension of the War of the Austrian Succession (Which John alludes to at the beginning) then their conflict is at the heart of that later war. Also something that needs more emphasising is that the 7YW established Britain's position (though not uncontested) as the Western World's leading superpower (certainly financially), and all that meant in turns of the growth of commercialisation, globalisation, industrialisation not just in Europe, but Worldwide.
SuperSuperdude7 American Indians? Oh, I never realized people from India moved to the US back in the day and helped the French fight us. Oh wait, Columbus never found the India he was looking for, but called them Indians anyways and we all look like a bunch of goobers for keeping up with the same nonsense.
Rev0lutionIsMyName And your point is what? The abhorrent use of an antiquated name by past populations? Do you expect the name of the war just to change? Native Americans were referred to as Indians at the time. That is not the fault of modern historians who now refer to the war as it was referred to at the time (or as it was referred to by the most contemporary historians who commented on it). It's called the French and Indian War. If you want, call it the Seven Years' War. There is really no need to complain about the use of the term "indian" in those days.
actually, at the end of the war, france had to give louisiana to spain, but spain gave it back in 1802, and then napoleon sold it to the usa in 1803 because he didn't want to expand into the americas
I am loving crash course history. It's been a great review for my A.P. Modern European History class and great for background about the wars we are studying! THANK YOU!!!!
This video is ridiculous and not as "world history" as it truly is. You talk about America and Native Americans' involvement in the war for almost half the video and the British and the French for another. The Seven Years' War, although global, was a war started in Europe with major European countries as the real instigators in this war. Yet you fail to mention Prussia's invasion of Saxony and the result of that an alliance between France, Austria, Sweden, Russia, and how Russia and Sweden withdrawal and Britain's financial support of Prussia ultimately divided French resources, leading to G.B.'s takeover of North America and the American and the even more pivotal, French Revolution. You also fail to mention the establishment of Prussia as a powerful state after the war and the draining of the Austrian Habsburgs' control of the Holy Roman Empire and making them focus more on Austria and Hungary than the German states.
I really love your videos, thank you John Green, they teach history in a fun and interesting way. However, sometimes it's hard to keep up with you because of how fast the videos are. Keep making videos! Can you do more Meso-American stuff please?
As a person whose ancestors are *all* actually from India, I find your use of the term 'Indian' to describe native/indigenous Americans rather irritating. The Europeans called them Indians when they landed because they thought they'd sailed all the way around the world to India. Surely enough time has passed that we shouldn't be still paying for this mistake? (I'm really enjoying the CC World History series though. DFTBA :))
nickynak3 Though I'm not sure how common it is for americans to call Native Americans, "Indians", but I think he was simply referring them to indians so as to not confuse one of the titles of the war, which was The French Indian War. Though to honest, considering at the time Native Americans were being called indians, it's confusing to know which they were referring to. Either way, don't blame Hank! D: Blame the writer! lol
nickynak3 The Native Americans were called Indians because they thought they were in the West Indies or Indonesia but never India.He said this in an earlier video though I can't remember which.
KoalaFaceGuy You're quite right, and I realised this after I posted the OP (then couldn't be bothered to change it). I think my point still stands that although they are called 'Indians' they have pretty much nothing to do with India :)
In the US (at least in south and south western) Native Americans are always called Indians, unless you are a Native American. It’s awful and gross, but it’s prominent
A re-telling of a significantly European war with very little mention of the European theatres for fear of being Eurocentric and and a disproportionate focus on the American theatre... on a topic that would later be re-visited completely from the American perspective in the CrashCourse US History series. Not CrashCourse's best work.
Come on! This is a European war! You have Crash Course US History for a reason, so talk about US History in that and what happened elsewhere in this, or are you people just too self centered to talk about anything but yourselves.
Thanks for mentioning the Acadians! Their expulsion and the general badass-ness (not sure where to put the "trait d'union" in that word) of the fur-traders (a.k.a. the voyageurs) are the coolest parts of french-canadian history, in my humble, misguided opinion.
I'm sorry but this is quite American centric. I'm usually a big fan but you failed to mention that the Seven Years War meant the French and British's battle over who would get Canada went to the British. It was a monumental moment in Canadian history and would change it forever. Could have warranted a mention, I think. Also, the majority of Acadians came from Acadia - in the maritime Canadian provinces and eastern Quebec. I'm afraid I'm quite disappointed with this summary of the Seven Years War.
I'm going to disagree about the monumental importance of the Seven Year War was to us Canadians. Remember, we were staunch British or French colonists, who remained as loyal to the monarchy after the SYW, with the only difference that the French colonists now were subject to a loose British rule. I define our thought as an independent country to start with the American Revolution with the battle of Quebec, and as a knee jerk reaction to the American Civil War in where the US made several threats to take the British colonies to the north if they lost the south, and as reparations for the damage the CSS Alabama (confederate ship build by the British) did against the Union. Any reason for the US to take the British colonies could and was made by the Americans, specifically William H Seward, the leading voice for Manifest Destiny in regards to the British colonies and Rupert's Land. Also the Fenian raids didn't help matters either. I'm not trying to suggest the SYW wasn't important to the eventual development of Canada, just not as important as you suggest, but rather a smaller step of many towards that goal. The Acadians I can agree with, being from the Maritimes and eastern Quebec, but also Maine. John could have clarified that better, but I was happy with the summary.
@@ShennonLoker However, that "loose British rule" has led to the Quebec question that has dictated so much of Canadian politics right up to the present day. It has a huge role to play in the development in Canada.
@@MKPiatkowski That begs the question then, should we have assimilated the French colonies, force them to speak, read and write English and forcing them to abandon their French culture as the Americans would have done, or carry on as they were? If the English did, how would the newly formed Canada be any different than the USA in the eyes of the french? Hindsight is 20/20, but in 1867, they didn't have the luxury of 150 years of Canadian history to help with that decision. Hopefully this is clear, maybe, 1/2 cup of coffee so far.
It is so strange tha you talk so much time about Amercia in that war. I know, that is your national history, but that is fucking WORLD HISTORY. I think that you must talk about Battle of Kune...Kunre...Kuner(how hard is it to say)sdorf, about occupation of Prussia, about Frederick the Great etc. On my lessons of World History i do not teach Seven Years War on actions of Saltykov in Prussia(not only on it), not on betrayal of Motherland by the Pyotr III, not on stories about Anna Ioannovna's bed friends. That would be disrespectful to the other participating countries of the war.
Im pretty sure at the beginning of the episode he clarified that he was going to focus on the Americas...simply because of the Eurocentric perspective presented from other episodes. No disrespect was meant towards other participants.
You can't expect everything to be Eurocentric in this series. after all it IS called "Crash Course WORLD HISTORY," not "Crash Course EUROPEAN history".
True. The british had at best 42,000 men TOTAL (regulars and militia peak strength, 1758) in northern america. i couldnt find numbers of others, but alone the prussians LOST 180,000 men in the conflict, that says a lot about where the real fighting was.
The best part is that he LITERALLY doesn't mention Russia ONCE, but devotes an entire two-minute segment to the lives of Native Americans. What a joke this guy is.
So an american way of teaching: a big sum up, let's deal only with the US, and it ends up with a very partisan point of view shown as a universal truth.
didnt you hear him say a lot of his previous videos had a very eurocentric point of view ? he said he was going to focus mostly on the american side.....stupid lol...youre not stupid but yeah
Geno Atkins The Seven Years War was by definition a EUROCENTRIC WAR, which spilled over into other theatres. It's like this idiot doing a 'Crash Course' on the American Revolutionary War, then spending the majority of the segment on the siege of Gibraltar.
SD78 He did kind of say at the start that he'd say almost nothing about the European side of it. If you wanted to hear about the European side of it then you should have stopped there and gone to another video.
So the British won the 7 Years War, but lost the peace, because of the war debt and the french were sour, because of their defeat, but when they won the War of the American Revolution, against the British, they had such a huge debt, that it lead to the French Revolution. Prussia seemed to be the only one to really capitalise on their victory and they were pretty battered from fighting half of Europe or more.
a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. that's the definition of revolution. i'm pretty sure there has been a revolution in the us.
+Bardocks Father That's the name Americans have given the rebellion against the British. That's not a revolution, that's a rebellion to keep slavery legal and to keep wealthy merchants from having to pay taxes.
Blah b And when the "united states of America" was made. They weren't part of Great Britain anymore. So they overthrew the British government in favor of a new system/government.
+ Blah b pointless semantics, dude. I agree that the term is not completely accurate, but I decided to use it because everybody knows what I am talking about and otherwise many might not have gotten what I meant. You just sound butthurt and picky, because "muh american revisionist terms", but who cares. The 100 Year War did not last 100 years and not the entire world participated in the World Wars either.
They may have removed it, bit I recall there being a time when John Green admits to having the wrong flag or something. Dude, Iade this comment months ago
I'm french and i didn't know about this war. Probably because the events in France at that time were bigger, but thank you so much for this show! I never stop learning
I remember watching these four years ago during my freshman year. I'm rewatching this one because I was curious about what happened in the war in Europe. I was sadly disappointed. Why the hate on Europe? It was an increadibly important war for Europe.
Does video on seven years war, only briefly mentions the most important and influential theatre of war, the theatre that continued the rise of Prussia as well as the decline of France
Wait, Prussia and GB against France and Austria? Try Sweden, most of the other German states, and I believe Russia. It was an amazing military feat by the prussians and cemented them as the highest quality army in Europe.
Interesting but the reality of the Native people's and their world has been very generalized here. Native men fought as warriors and hunted only and did nothing else domestically as they saw it as unmasculine to do any task a woman would do. Women could be stolen in war or traded for goods as they did not have a high social standing in the North Eastern tribes as a general rule. That is unless they came from a powerful family or tribe with strong social ties. Also, Native nations fought each other over control of territory all of the time and often dominated their neighbors through conquest. From the Powhatan wars to dominate their neighbors in the east to the Iroquois league seeking control of the Ohio country against the tribes of the Great Lakes. Land could be owned as a hunting ground or cultivated even if you didn't build permanent settlements.
Basically his effort to be politically correct makes the Natives out to be peacefully ignorant to their own world. They had fought Colonials since 1607 and each other since time began. The greatest ambition for a Warrior was to be victorious or die in battle. If he was captured he saved his honor by enduring a slow torture to the death by other tribes. Land and influence mattered as a question of honor and power and they knew it.
Petition to change the lame (and inaccurate) "Seven Years War" to the better "World War Zero"
Omg yusssss
Actually, it's World War -1. Napoleonic Wars are World War 0.
@@amortality999so let's just rename them all
Make an online petition PLEASE
"The Muggle Empire."
Everyone else had magic.
I like what you said, made me laugh.
Best last words, John Sedgwick; "they couldn't hit an elephant from this dista-"
lol yesh.
I love that quote
^ thug life
Drew Trevaskus g
Isn't that from looking for Alaska
"The first treaty was signed in Paris"
*Arrow points to Western Spain*
Is there a Paris in Spain now?
SuperHamsterhuey Of course there is a Paris in Spain, didn't you also hear that Lisbon became the capital of Britain?
Giant Dad I'm not that great with Australian history. That's why I watch these videos
Of course there was once a Paris in Spain. Crashcourse can't possibly be wrong at anything.
candleinthewind Exactly, just as the Seven Years War wasn't actually a war. As the description says, it was a was. A very confusing one at that.
+SuperHamsterhuey I was just about to comment that.
"Winning is losing and losing is winning is losing. Such is life, and such is history."
This show makes me happy.
I'm annoyed you skipped the European part of this war, nobody ever talks about it in history classes.
Probably skipped it due to the European theatre's complexity, and this show's trying a bit too hard to ignore Europe.
I think...I think they were being sarcastic. Because literally that's all they go over in history class when discussing this war, unless you live in America in which they do touch on the American theater cause, you know, we have to learn about the history of our country.
JazzyNym I live in America, and all I was ever taught about the European part of the war was basically "Fighting also happened in Europe, but that doesn't matter."
Collin Buckman
Really? Not even during world history? I mean, you may have gone over it but not in much detail so you don't remember it. Granted I may be biased cause I have also lived in more states than most people so I've been exposed to more school systems.
JazzyNym World History was in my opinion the most bare bones history class I've had so far. Like, all we really learned about medieval times was what feudalism is, then we just jumped to the Protestant Reformation.
Well that small talk about the war in Europe sounded real interesting. I understand that World history in the west is often pretty Euro- centric, but when a war or any other historical subject is about Europe, you might wanna let go of your white guilt and just talk about Europe.
Harrison Holt I think the point is that Europe gets talked about a lot, and 'the rest' not enough (definitely here in the UK), so I'm glad to get a more complete view of the story.
white guilt....fascinating concept, unfortunately i don;t feel it. I feel white pride.
He never talks about Prussia....They are the bad asses of the 7-years war, fighting the much larger Austrians and French
William Burke I'd still like a complete retelling. But like, they gloss over wars all the time on crashcourse and always go for the "You never thought of this" route on them. And it's kinda annoying.
There might be a reason why Europe gets talked about a lot, namely that for much of modern history Europe was the most significant and influential region of the globe and had the greatest effect on how the world is now.
"We have been so Eurocentric on crashcourse that all we are gonna say about the war in Europe is that Prussia and Great Britain..."...*cough*AndHannover*cough*
"Fought France and Austria"...*Cough*AndRussiaAndSwedenAndSaxony*cough*
"It was mainly fought by the british and french"...*cough*PRUSSIAandAUSTRIA*cough*
"And as previously noted, the Prussians were fighting the French and the British were fighting the Austrian"...*cough*BritainNeverEngagedInBattleAgainstAustria,PrussiaFoughtAustria,France,RussiaAndSwedenPracticallyAloneOnTheContinentWithTheExceptionOfHannoverThatFoughtAgainstTheFrench*cough*
"But the war wasn't really about land, it was about our old friend trade"...*cough*ItWasAboutLandAndGeopolitics,LandWasDesiredForEconomicReasonsAndAlsoForPoliticalReasons*cough*
Ah, yeah, this was a bad history video about the SEVEN YEARS WAR, cannot wait for the video where you talk about the thirty years war and never mention Gustav Adolfus and rather talk about how the English participated...sort of...oh wait, I forgot, the thirty years war doesn't get a video because there was no way to turn it into a narrative about trade and it took place in Europe.
+100aegir Lots of his videos took place in Europe. That's why he chose in this one to deemphasise it.
Ethan Davidson You mean in this video where he erases the entire European theater in a European war that started in Europe with the main fighting in Europe with all major participants being European. Oh, lets we not forget that the entire video still talks about FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN, TWO EUROPEAN POWERS THAT WERE SECONDARY PARTICIPANTS OF THIS WAR.
He had at most made ten videos prior to this one about Europe and about three/four/five after depending after how you count it, and even then many of them had huge portions talking about other parts of the world (often America) or dismissing European accomplishments (remember when he dismissed the European Renaissance because 'only the high class actually got to enjoy the Renaissance' and then later in the next world history series continually praises classical Japan's cultural works even though the issue of only the highest of high class got to enjoy it was even greater), or when he talked about the dark ages where Europe only got a minute or two before rest of the world got praised.
Hell, we literally went from only talking a bit about the Spanish empire straight into the seven years war, ignoring such wars for example the thirty years war, which you can thank largely for the rise of modern nation states, secularism and lowered looting in warfare.
This is not to mention the inaccuracies in the video, some of them hilariously horrible and bad, such as saying that Spain 'gained' Cuba and the Philippines, when in reality they just got to keep it.
He isn't somehow giving you a wider view on the oversea theater either, he spend more time on America than anything else, even emphasizing that the most important thing being that it set up for the american revolution, trying to turn one of the biggest and most major European wars prior to Napoleon into some kind of trivial matter, the Indian theater was left incredibly vague and unclear beyond 'Britain won and a trade company pushed the battles, also one event was used for propaganda'
Tell me simply this before you respond, have you actually studied the seven years war? And no, this video does not count.
+100aegir You know that when he say he wont speak about Europe, he has the right not to mention every participant but only the MAIN ones, especially the ones that started it. He didn't want to do the conflict in Europe, so don't blame him for not doing it ! Clearly he wants to insist on the fact that this war was also OUTSIDE Europe, that it was a kind of "first world war".
And yes they might be inaccuracies, the videos are 10 min long. It's not years of academic studies in 10 min. It's just brief notions so you can get a idea of what happened. That's all. "CRASHcourse".
Yes, he likes trade. That's his little bias, or a different point of view of the situation. I wonder if he did work on that subject for a time. That being said, I like it. As a French I've learn the history with the French bias, and as a scientist / agronomy student I've learn it with the science/agricultural "bias"/point of view.
***** "You know that when he say he wont speak about Europe, he has the right not to mention every participant but only the MAIN ones, especially the ones that started it"
Maybe so, but that isn't what he did. He ignored Russia, one of the five main participants of the war and the largest nation in that war, meanwhile Spain, which came into the war very late and is almost never considered to be one of the main participants gets mentioned and is talked more about than even Prussia, who was the main participant of the war and the one who started it.
"He didn't want to do the conflict in Europe, so don't blame him for not doing it !"
He chose to talk about a war that was mainly and primarily set in Europe, and then he chooses to completely ignore the European theater. And again, the video was very Americacentric instead, as I have already addressed.
"Clearly he wants to insist on the fact that this war was also OUTSIDE Europe, that it was a kind of "first world war"."
He didn't need to erase and dismiss the European theater to do so.
"And yes they might be inaccuracies, the videos are 10 min long. It's not years of academic studies in 10 min. It's just brief notions so you can get a idea of what happened. That's all. "CRASHcourse"."
Inaccuracies such as saying that Spain gained Cuba and the Philippines, despite the fact they had it prior to the war by over a century is a pretty fucking stupid mistake to make if you are making videos about history. Not to mention another inaccuracy that is in your next point.
"Yes, he likes trade. That's his little bias, or a different point of view of the situation. I wonder if he did work on that subject for a time. That being said, I like it. As a French I've learn the history with the French bias, and as a scientist / agronomy student I've learn it with the science/agricultural "bias"/point of view."
The problem is the fact the war wasn't about trade, it was fought over land, more specifically Silesia, aka in Europe. That is what started the freaking war. The British were also looking to get land in the colonies, because you need land to produce more stuff. John Green instead insisted it wasn't about land but trade, ignoring the fact that it was about land that they could use to produce more stuff.
Hell, his over focus on trade really gets fucking annoying, especially in one of his later videos about the vikings were he tries to twist the entire thing into a story that "Trade is inevitable and is what brought end to the viking age", which is just very ignorant (not to mention bunch of other inaccuracies there and ignoring viking culture almost completely besides a brief talk about Norse Paganism).
John Green frequently has failed to come to grasps the complexity of history and in this video a lot of his flaws are glaringly obvious to anyone who studied the seven years war properly.
100aegir
Like I said : 10 minutes videos. You wont learn history here, juste a few things. And if he want to develop something through his video such as "trade is important" I'm pretty sure he can.
I'll just react to that "the video was very Americacentric instead"
Well, if you forgot the part about Africa and India... yes.
I'll say that this war seems more Frenchcentric to me. We always like to remember this war, how we were friend to the nice Indians, and how we sadly lose north America and our future in India to the Brits
I've wanted to watch this series in its entirety since it first came out. Took me 10 years, but I finally got around to it and it's amazing to watch a few of the same videos 10 years apart. A better grasp of the scale and complexity of history has made me realize how impressive it is that you managed to make this entertaining, relatively short, and still give a coherent outline of world history.
John! You should do a video about the history about Prussia, which then became Germany! It'd be so interesting!!
+Kaya Anyoti Franco-Prussian War for Alsace-Lorraine
+Tremens Delirius A war that lasted like what? 7 Weeks? Pfft
+Aerunn Allado it was still cool man!!
***** I was being sarcastic my friend, the Franco-Prussian War did decide alot of things.
A 12 minutes video about 7 years war and he only mentioned Prussia TWICE... I am not amused...
A few points of correction;
Most of the Acadians were actually from what is now Nova Scotia.
While many Acadians were deported, thousands were killed. That tends to get glossed over a lot.
A lot of Acadians actually returned to Atlantic Canada, and Acadian culture is very much a thing today, distinct from Cajun culture. The province of New Brunswick is basically bilingual because of the ongoing Acadian population there.
Credit to you though for mentioning the Acadians at all. They tend to get passed over a lot when talking about that era of North American history.
Agreed. Mr. Green is using some mighty American-centric sources if all of the Acadians supposedly come from Maine. If he had gotten it right he could of mentioned the detail about the British not only deporting the French out of the highly fertile Annapolis Valley, but then stealing the land and repopulating it with... wait for it... the Mongols..., err, I mean New Englanders. But yes, great that the Acadians even got a mention.
Un acadien ! On vous oublie pas ici en France !
I think you would find the Acadian story very interesting and I would love to see a video on it. A good book on this story is the Melanson family story
Acadian Family. Acadian Times
Have you listened to The Band's song Acadian Driftwood? It tells the story of the Acadians
You don't want to be too Eurocentric, so you basically miss out the entire European theatre of this European war? Slightly odd.
You have to consider the relative impact of each theater of war to the international system. At the end of the day, not a whole lot changed in Europe. In contrast, the Seven Years War gave Britan de facto control of the North American continent - and set in motion the conditions that would lead to the American Revolution, an even bigger deal.
OptimusWombat Bigger deal for Americans, the rest of the world including Britain were not that bothered, you need to check your personal interest before you start making sweeping comments.
tigerwa "Bigger deal for Americans, the rest of the world including Britain were not that bothered" - isn't that just a rephrasing of what I said? Or were you trying to be sarcastic? It's really hard to tell.
OptimusWombat so because a front wasn’t that important, we should forget about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that died. Great history
tigerwa how stupid are you if it weren’t for the American Revolution the most powerful country in the world would have never existed. It is a big deal for everyone, just like if America never existed the whole course of history would be different
Not even a single mention of Frederick the Great? Probably the most important man in the 7 years war. His name alone would shadow over Robert clives name. This crash course is lacking.
TheHarslord he did categorically state he was going to ignore the european war
cant talk about everything
redblueredblue100 Robert Clive was taught in schools pretty much throughout South Asia
Americans...
better than theresa
You should have mentioned more of the continental fight and particularly the man of the war, Frederick of Prussia and his space marines, running from one side of prussia to the other to fend off attackers. Hell, the guy deserves his own episode. Who's with me?
Sandouras I dunno, I kinda like crash course history because its a lot less Eurocentric....
*braces for flame comments*
+Fvalen1 It's been a month and none so far.
+Sandouras I Frderick the Great Episode would be awesome.
+Sandouras Space marines...?
Ghost7856 Space marines from Warhammer 40.000. Superhuman soldiers that can take on entire armies. Basically Prussians - Spartans in space.
You missed a chance for a joke about how the French named everything after king Louis like:
Louisville
Louisiana
That fort you mentioned
King Louis the II-XIV (I think)
XV* There's your American, I would guess, education... Also II? As in the 2nd? A "bit" earlier.
Lol. The European field of conflict was the most crucial and historically significant theatre of the Seven Years War. Yeah, just ignore Frederick The Great-- the guy was a clown. Not like he won any decisive battles that shaped history or anything. Americans make me laugh, but I'm sure you laugh at us too, so we form a good partnership.
yeah not like he gave birth to one of the most sucsecful countrys on earth
I wouldn't go as far as calling Prussia "one of the most successful countries on Earth" but it surely stayed on the European Stage of politics and military power for the next 200 years after Fritz, even under the little corporal from Braunau.
And I also wouldn't go as far as calling the European Theater unimportant just because the 7 years war in America led directly to the Revolution and Independence thus creating the US either, had the british won in America but lost in Europe and/or India the aftermath of the war would still have looked VERY different than it did.
Basically the overseas theaters were more important for Britain and France as they had more to win or loose there, Britain had not even real territorial gains to hope for even if they won, they just kept up an alliance. But Austria and Prussia fought ultimately for survival. Had Frederick won too decisively the power of Maria Theresia might have been endangered, while a loss in the war might have shattered his still vulnerable and rather small kingdom beyond hopes of ever mattering again. It was the success in this war that left Prussia powerful enough to oppose France even after they lost against Napoleon in 1804 and in the long term to be able to dominate german politics at the end of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. A lost war and the accompanying territorial losses would have cost them that power and Silesia was from them on the industrial powerhouse of Prussia with its coal and iron mines and metalworking capabilities. A ruffled core Prussia with only Brandernburg and the "true" Prussia at the baltic end of europe left to its name would have looked VERY differently.
damn right george
George Bailey its not all of us americans who ignore european history. i personally am with you
the flag more likely represent the napoleonic war rather than seven-years war.
can i use this as a resource for my university paper? i have to do a presentation in my 2nd year history course on the 7 years war focusing on France and this has the most digestible and useful information for the north American part of it. not sure if title fly because its a video on youtube....
Not being too Eurocentric: great! I would love to see a different pov!
Completely forgetting that Europe exists: uhm...
Instead of finding a good balance between not being Eurocentric but still showing some important things, he decided to almost completely ignore Europe. I must admit that I'm disappointed. I know very well that not everything in history is about Europe, but he seems very bitter that some things are. That's really small-minded for someone thinking they're so broad-minded. Sad, 'cause this series had potential to be both fun and informative about ALL parts of the world.
+Bear in the Woods Maybe he'll come back on that later ? For the record, it's a "crash" course. Not an 3 year academic course of the war...
Crybaby 👶 😢
@@yj9032 this is not a "roast me", this is an educational history video. if you want to throw around pointless insults, do it somewhere else.
The names England and Great Britain aren't interchangeable. GB is England, Scotland and Wales.
The UK is England (a country), Scotland (a country), Wales (which, as a principality, is technically part of the Kingdom of England but don't mention that to the Welsh!) and Northern Ireland (which is a province. Not part of Britain but part of the UK). Great Britain is Scotland, England and Wales; UK is Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney-all of Norman heritage) and the Isle of Man (Viking heritage) are not part of the UK. They are British Crown Dependencies. Cornwall, a county in England, has a Celtic heritage and was was once called West Wales. It feels different to the other English counties. There's more but i'll stop now. Please learn.
Yeahyeahyeah, and all that together forms England, just like I've said.
so untrue but i guess you are a foreigner so your ignorance is understandable.
He is just trolling
teviottilehurst, Great Britain uk and England are the same thing
Crash Course directed by Michael bay
Well the seven years war not mainly fought by the british and the french. The prussians played a huge role as well.
I didn't learn about the seven years war in school (and I'm British). The first time I had heard of it was after watching the film Barry Lyndon, in which the character of Barry Lyndon serves in the Prussian army for a brief period, so I thought the Prussians did have a big part in it after seeing that.
randomsamno9 Yup. Of course the prussians did not fight in america, but in europe they fought for seven years against France, Russia and Austria (and Sweden) and only had help from GB and some smaller german duchys and states, and although they lost some battles they managed to hold their own until the russian empress died and the new emperor decided to make peace because he admired frederick
***** - an now they no longer exist - hahah.
+pewpew pew in europe
he talks way too fast 😭
While I super appreciate the inclusion of the acadian deportation in the video, acadian settlements weren't just limited to Maine, but mostly what is now know as Nova-Scotia, Cape-Breton, southern New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Speaking as not only an acadian but also as someone who studies La Francophonie as a whole, it would be really cool to have a Crash Course on the acadian diaspora today, as well as francophone states and minorities across the world!
Imagine the first poor soul who accidently found out coke + mentos = EXPLOSION!
I love this
hi my name is John Green this is crash
00:02
course world this Rio my gosh today
00:05
we're gonna talk about war clothes
00:07
everywhere
00:08
so traditionally historians are pretty
00:09
keen on wars because they feature
00:11
clearly delineated beginnings and
00:13
middles and ends and because they always
00:14
have a fair bit of death and drama and
00:16
mortally wounded generals who have great
00:18
last words like let us cross over the
00:21
river and rest under the shade of those
00:23
trees whereas the last words of plague
00:25
victims are always like oh sorry plague
00:28
victims as if you don't have enough
00:29
troubles now you've got me teasing you
00:31
about your uninspired death throes wars
00:34
have easy wins where's whose and why's
00:37
1861 to 1865 the United States the North
00:41
versus the South to end slavery and save
00:44
the Union there's a great marine are you
00:45
gonna show us the hidden complexities
00:47
behind something we already think we
00:49
understand again sorry me from the past
00:51
but yes however to placate you here are
00:53
some more explosions below the 17th and
00:56
18th century saw a bunch of top-notch
00:58
Wars but today we're gonna focus on the
01:00
Seven Years War also called the French
01:01
and Indian Wars because it was the first
01:03
truly global war in fact no less a
01:06
historian than Winston Churchill called
01:08
it the first world war but we've been so
01:10
Eurocentric here on crash course that
01:11
all we are going to say about the entire
01:13
war in Europe is that Prussia and Great
01:16
Britain fought France and Austria and
01:18
that the Austrian Hapsburgs wanted to
01:20
win back Silesia which they failed to do
01:22
there that's all you get Europe so the
01:24
Seven Years War lasted for anyone anyone
01:26
23 years I hate you me from the past but
01:30
as it happens by sheer coincidence you
01:32
are not necessarily wrong
01:34
[Music]
01:42
so the when the Seven Years War began in
01:45
1756 and ended in 1763 unless you
01:49
believe as many historians do that the
01:50
Seven Years War lasted 23 years because
01:52
it was really a continuation of the war
01:54
for Austrian succession many of the fact
01:56
that much of the information in today's
01:58
episode is taken from a book called the
02:00
global Seven Years War 1754 to 1763 a
02:04
nine-year period as for the who it was
02:06
mainly fought between the British and
02:08
the French seen here re-enacting the
02:10
knife fight from either beat it or West
02:12
Side Story depending on your age but
02:14
some of the British were actually
02:15
Americans and both the British and the
02:17
French were supported by American
02:19
Indians and I was fighting in India
02:20
between Indian Indians the British and
02:22
the French and as previously noted the
02:24
French were fighting the Prussians and
02:25
the British were fighting the Austrians
02:27
the where Europe the continental US the
02:29
Caribbean Sea off the coast of Africa
02:31
India basically the world and the why
02:33
ostensibly land British colonists wanted
02:36
to expand and to land west of the
02:38
original 13 colonies and that land was
02:40
technically held by the French who left
02:41
it alone except for a bunch of Trading
02:43
Post and they were like June of
02:44
appallingly
02:45
thank you four years of high school
02:47
French anyway the war wasn't really
02:49
about land it was really about our old
02:50
friend trade the British wanted to
02:53
expand into the American interior to
02:55
allow for more colonists because the
02:56
British benefited both from the export
02:58
of raw materials from the Americas and
03:01
the import of British consumer goods to
03:03
the America some more colonists meant
03:05
more trade which meant more wealth which
03:07
meant ever fancier hats and the French
03:10
realized that this British Atlantic
03:11
maritime trade was making Britain so
03:13
rich that Britain might come for
03:14
France's actually valuable colonies
03:17
which were not in the continental US but
03:19
those slave based sugar plantations in
03:21
the Caribbean so the fighting began
03:22
around here and while the British did
03:24
send over actual British troops much of
03:26
the early fighting was done by colonial
03:28
militias probably the most famous
03:29
commander of British troops was a
03:30
Virginia colonel named George Washington
03:33
in fact he may have actually started the
03:35
shooting at the Battle of Fort Necessity
03:36
in May of 1754 Washington was captured
03:39
in that battle but then he was
03:40
immediately released because
03:41
eighteenth-century war was super weird
03:44
anyway the real North American action
03:45
was in New York and Canada at the battle
03:48
at the plains of Abraham in 1759 for
03:50
instance the British defeated the French
03:52
and captured the city of Quebec both
03:54
the British commander general wolf and
03:55
the French commander general Montcalm
03:57
were killed in that battle with the
03:59
death of the former being immortalized
04:00
and this famous painting by Benjamin
04:02
West has indicated by the picture almost
04:04
all the battles in North America
04:05
featured significant participation by
04:07
Native Americans different native tribes
04:09
sided with both the British and the
04:11
French but as a broad generalization
04:12
Native Americans were more likely to
04:14
support the French up to this point
04:15
shrewd Indian tribes had been able to
04:17
play the British and the French off each
04:19
other and maintain a degree of autonomy
04:20
for themselves and as long as the French
04:22
were present the British were prevented
04:24
from encroaching too much on lands
04:25
Native Americans were using for hunting
04:27
and agriculture now we haven't talked
04:28
much about American Indians mostly
04:30
because they were geographically
04:31
isolated and didn't have a written
04:33
language but let's at least give them a
04:34
thought bubble before the arrival of the
04:36
Europeans most Native Americans lived in
04:37
tribal groups and they subsisted on a
04:39
combination of small-scale agriculture
04:41
and hunting and gathering depending on
04:43
where they were situated there were too
04:44
many tribes to generalize about specific
04:46
social structures but it's probably safe
04:48
to say that in terms of gender they were
04:49
much more egalitarian than the Europeans
04:52
who they met up with which may explain
04:53
why European women who were taken
04:55
captive by Indians sometimes preferred
04:57
to stay with the tribe rather than be
05:00
rescued although that's somewhat
05:01
controversial one thing we can say about
05:03
the Indians their notions of what it
05:05
meant to hold property were very
05:07
different from those of the Europeans
05:09
individual Indians did not own land in
05:13
the European sense they used it and not
05:15
always particularly intensively
05:17
Europeans when they came to North
05:19
America had a hard time even recognizing
05:21
that the Indians were raising crops
05:23
because their forms of farming were so
05:25
different from European agriculture so
05:28
the French and especially the English
05:29
just assumed that the Indians weren't
05:31
improving the land which meant that they
05:33
didn't own the land so that meant that
05:35
it was okay for Europeans to take it as
05:37
you might imagine that was problematic
05:39
for the Indians in general Indian tribes
05:41
initially got along better with the
05:42
French than with the Dutch or English
05:43
because one the French did not settle in
05:46
large numbers as they were mostly
05:47
traders and fur trappers and two French
05:49
missionaries who made the journey to the
05:51
Americas were Catholic often Jesuits who
05:53
were so intent on converting the Indians
05:55
that they took the time to learn Indian
05:57
languages and try to make Catholicism
05:59
more amenable to Indian religion the end
06:01
result of the war a greatly reduced
06:03
French presence on the American mainland
06:05
meant that Indians too
06:06
easily played the British and French off
06:08
each other which opened the floodgates
06:10
of British settlers in the end the
06:12
American Indians were perhaps the
06:13
biggest losers of the seven years here
06:16
thanks thought-bubble so 2,000 miles
06:17
south in the Caribbean there was also
06:19
quite a lot of fighting between the
06:20
British and the French over sugar
06:22
colonies most of these were naval
06:23
battles and by 1761 Spain got involved
06:25
because you know they had some sugar
06:27
colonies of their own while these
06:28
battles get a lot of ink it's
06:29
interesting to note that by far the
06:30
greatest threat to combatants was
06:33
disease by October of 1761 the British
06:35
had lost about a thousand men to war and
06:38
5,000 to disease meanwhile in West
06:41
Africa the British and the French were
06:42
fighting there too because you know why
06:44
not the British attacked the French had
06:45
a trading post called st. Louis stand up
06:48
made me say all right fine San Louie and
06:51
at a town called Garre both in Senegal
06:53
why well trade of course Senegal was the
06:56
main source of gum arabic which is
06:57
notable for many reasons but most
06:59
importantly it is a key ingredient in
07:01
the diet coke and mentos phenomenon so
07:04
of course the British wanted lots of it
07:06
and the French were also fighting the
07:07
British in India in the 18th century
07:09
India was nominally ruled by the Mughal
07:11
Empire but I'm saying that wrong aren't
07:12
I oh yeah that sounds more plausible but
07:15
as throughout most of its history the
07:16
real power in India lay with local kings
07:18
and princes sometimes called Nawab and
07:20
these princes just like their European
07:22
counterparts were constantly vying for
07:23
power and control over more territory
07:25
and to ge
THE HECK!!!!! WHY is that so funny
that's commitment dude
I don’t get it, why is that supposed to be funny?
@@katarzynawadyszewska3149 the bad captions
lalaithan oh ok thx
To Europe, this was just another war but for Canada, this was a major turning point for the country.
As you know, even two centuries after that war, Canada is still bilingual. To quebeckers, the battle of the plains of Abraham are as significant and emotional as the Alamo can be to Texas and the deportation of the Acadians is still used by Quebec separatists as a reason why Quebec and English canadians just can't work together (even though separatists don't have a very smooth relationship with modern acadians (like me!) who still live mainly in New-Brunswick and would be left behind if Quebec separated). To this day, Quebeckers still celebrate their national holiday by a huge bonfire and concert on the plains of Abraham.
As recent as 1967, when Charles de Gaulle visited Montreal for Expo 67 and famously offered his support to the Quebec independence movement, it was the culmination of a major show trip meant to avenge the humiliation of 1763. His slogan in Montreal, "Vive le Québec Libre!" did not give Quebec independence, it gave Canada independance since the federal government had to make a wide left turn in order to keep Quebec with new ideas like universal healthcare, separation of church and State, multiculturalism and taking its distance from the British crown (with our own flag, national anthem and constitution) to become a country with an identity of its own instead of just another british colony.
Cynthia Sonier One of the biggest things in our (assuming your're Canadian) history.
A young Winston Churchill makes me question my sexuality
Wh... what.
ah yes the legend comment
When he said "thank you four years of high school French" I felt that
I know this sounds odd but this is the first time I have heard someone talk about the Seven years war in english
I'm in French Immersion and all my life I have learned history in french, so ya
***** same here... so much better in your first language... and with John Green
This is the first time I've heard about it
Embot1998 wow
For living in Canada, one of the major fronts of the war, I have learned way too little about the war. All that I learned from school is that Britain and France were at war and Britain won and got New France.
I recently watched your Atlantic Slave Trade course and I thought its nice that he let up on the humor or jokes. Yet here speaking about Native Americans you think its ok to show them being shot and make a joke about it. So hypocritical of you and crash course. That part was completely unnecessary. I will no longer be watching your videos. Shame on you!!!!!
I like how the one time I know less about what was happening in Europe and was looking forward to finding out more about Europe was the one time you decided to almost completely ignore Europe lmao
Once there was a seven years war...🎶🎶
Here's what most people don't see though. Had France won in North America there would have been a Canadian Revolution instead of an American one because the French Crown would have had to raise taxes to control New York and some of New England. And they would have needed new manpower to control the British Caribbean as well. So France would have been in the winning/losing scheme too. And had the British and French sat down and talked about the borders and trade disputes, it would have saved more lives in the long run. But meh, I'm just talking smack.
I dont think a révolution would happen because France was so rich at this time
@@Raisonnance. Rich? France was brought to the edge of bankrupcy by the Seven Years' War, and the support guven to the Americans during the War for Independence completed that process. That's the main medium cause of the French Revolution in 1789: the king had to call the Estates Generals to determine new ways of securing public finances, and the Third Estate was so ignored it went and made itself into a National Assembly.
I think the whole concept of "owning" land is really frickin' strange actually; the only way you can really "own" something is if you create it yourself, but still people decide that when they find some land that's either uninhabited, inhabited by people who in their opinions aren't equipped to own it, or inhabited by people that they fought and killed and thus now have gained "ownership" over it, it is then "theirs" and they have the right to give it to someone else. But it was never "theirs" in the first place! The whole concept of owning land is abstract--even if the intentions of the people who thought it up were good (which they kind of weren't), it is still something we thought up that is not real in any way but our own minds, and yet people think it gives them liberty to do whatever they want with the land and those who simply want to exist peacefully on it, even destroy them all.
This is my feelings on the subject, feel free to say whatever you want, I just wanted to say this.
For being "Eurocentric" Crash course hasn't even explored the vast history of Germany or pre empire Britain, and by the way, where's NAPOLEON!!!
valcrum321 Napoleon is in the later episode. Just be patient
Azzinotica Napoleon fought in the napoleonic wars... Not the seven year war..
Napoleon wasn't even alive during the seven years war.
I ave to disagree with you on the urocintricity when studying the 7 yers war: I barely know anything about it. Every time my teachers ever talk about it, they always talk about the North American debacle..... Where were you taught about the Euro theater?
Is there anything on the British Empire on CrashCourse? I mean maybe I'm biased but he's done the Russian and Ottoman and Mongol Empires, and the British Empire was larger than any of them, the largest in history in fact.
but we already know about them. They are boring.
plus this is going in chronological order, we will get there eventually.
DoneAnd Dusted It's boring? The largest empire in the world, who ruled so many areas that "the sun never set", had an unsurpassable navy which beat the French, Spanish and Germans and had its standard infantry provoke fear into almost all enemies was boring?
Seems more interesting than half the stuff on here, and that stuff is pretty interesting anyway.
SD78 Unlike every other Empire in history right? *Sarcasm*
british weren't bad, they were an admirable empire, but we already know about them, that's why they are boring, we will be told things we already know
DoneAnd Dusted We don't know about them, name one of his videos where there's an episode on it. "Oh but there's a bit on episode x". You can't know everything about the biggest empire the world has every seen in a few minutes.
In fear of being too euro centric they didn't talk much about Europe at all in the entire course. Yes, many people are being taught about Europe more than anything else but that doesn't mean that it wasn't important or that you can leave it out entirely. The Seven Year War was a euro centric war and he only talked about the US.
As a descended French Acadian, I'm rather insulted that you claim the expulsion was from "Maine to Louisiana", which I can only assume you picked up from Wikipedia. While many families moved to Maine AFTER the expulsion, the Acadian peninsula was predominantly in Nova Scotia. My family moved to Gaspe Quebec while many of my relatives left for the American south. Fact checking. It's a thing.
Wikipedia cannot be expected to say and as well does not say that the expulsion of the Acadians is from "Maine to Louisiana." I add "cannot be expected," (or should not?) because Wikipedia, in spite of being open to edit by anyone, tends to be far more technical and perfectionistic than any other source online besides ones from universities.
Sol Pacificus indeed.
The article on the expulsion is correct, but I'll wager he took his info from the original 'acadians' page that reads; "The colony was located in what is now Eastern Canada's Maritime provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island), as well as part of Quebec, and present-day Maine to the Kennebec River."
The insult was that he omitted everything else and focused on Maine which represented less than 1% of Acadian culture, and is even in dispute over whether they could even be considered Acadian, having arrived 50 years after the last migration.
Here's the Link. I've tried changing it in the past, but it always gets shifted back; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadians
antagonizerr I was surprised to hear him say that as well. I am Canadian and I have never heard that the Acadians were from Maine. It's quite clear they were primarily from Nova Scotia. It gets rather tiring sometimes, hearing Americans claiming that Canadian inventions, events, and even people were actually American. (I know, there was no USA at the time of the Seven Year's War, but still.)
Laura B
Maine was one of the dozen destinations AFTER the expulsion. There were, however, french settlers there before, but only 50 years after the primary recorded migrations, tho their numbers could be counted on one hand. Hardly a 'colony'. Americans love to take credit for other cultures, but they can suck it if they think they can take my lineage from me. Make no mistake, I like Americans, especially since I have plenty of distant blood down south, but my family was one of the first on these shores and I'm damn proud of that.
I literally came here JUST for Prussia, I thought it and the rest of Europe would be explained
I actually liked the idea, that this is mostly colony centric after almost only Europe before, but looking back on this now, it's kind of sad that we have two videos about mostly the american theatre (this and the one in US-history) and none in the European theatre (although my fingers continue to eb crossed for Europe history). Because it would have been kind of cool to hear about the Austro-Prussian conflicts and Friedrich II and his warfare the crash course style and the two videos would compliment each other better.
If you put the speed to 0.5, John sounds very drunk hahahaha
+Kylee Bush OMG HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
+Kylee Bush add some shrooms and you get 11:31
OH MY GOSHHHH
This made my homework so much better
i know this doesn't have much to do with the actual lesson but i love all of the little easter eggs in the thought bubble. finding cows in trees during the dark ages and a star fox arwing in this episode just shows how much fun people have making this series. thank you very much to all who make this possible.
0:53 that one kid when the teacher leaves the classroom for a little bit
Just a minor point of correction (because as an historian, I'm a bit nit picky...). John states that the Acadians are deported in 1755 from Main. In reality, they were deported mostly from the French settlements in what is today Nova Scotia around the Bay of Fundy. While there are some Acadians who did later settle in Main and other parts of New England, most francophones were from Quebec and settled in the mid-1800s during the textile boom in towns (for example at Lowell, Massachusetts).
Ugh... research of the last thirty years or so has really put this idea of a "second British empire" to bed. We need to stop seeing the empire "fall" in the mid to late eighteenth century because it just doesn't do justice to the broader narrative of British imperialism. It's so American-centric because it makes the American Revolution seem like the event that shook the empire to its foundations and made it restart. Plus if you're an Indianist it becomes very hard to separate the empire into two parts.
Hail the Wolf
If you are going to teach world history try not to do it from a purely American-centric point of view.
Most Acadian's were from modern day New Brunswick, Quebec and Nova Scotia, Maine was a very small part of Acadia, there still are Acadiens living in Canada, and only like what a couple thousand if any in Maine?
Sorry but it's just annoying, no wonder American's are ignorant of the world if they can't even get the history of their geographic neighbours correct... I mean it's Canada it's easy history.
Kind of annoying you called "Maine" Acadia, and completely ignored the fact most Acadians were from Canada and again, Acadien identity still exists in Canada.
I mean Maine has very little to do with Acadia.
+K Bevin Shut up Canada, come back when you're relevant
k Bevin I know it is so frustrating that important information is left out because it didn't take place south of the boarder
Brian Gabriele So never basically
why did you type all of that because he said of Maine not American centric lol your just another American hater that probably thinks bush did 9/11
Although I agree, typing such a long negative comment over such a micro detail (or more likely, something everyone will forget by tomorrow) isn't needed
I love this topic. Such an underrated event in human history. Wished we talked more about it in school, not everything is all about the American civil war and ww2
Looking at this in hindsight, Maria Theresa may have been awesome, but Frederick the Great was far superior.
"so basically the whole world" Asia: what am I chopped liver?
India ?
I really like these video's but I'm starting to find John's determination to avoid a European context slightly exasperating. I'm all for seeing history in a different light, and exploring world cultures from their own perspective as opposed to the Western Anglo-Saxon view which ruled supreme pretty much from the time of Macaulay...
That being said, when John said he wasn't going to look at Europe because previous video's had been too "Eurocentric" I had to slap my forehead. I have no idea how he could come to that conclusion, seeing as his video's are so keen to avoid Western Europe. Only a handful of his video's look at Western Europe post the Roman Empire; the Dark Ages, the Renaissance and the Spanish Empire spring to mind. But even these video's only look at Europe for half the time or less. The Dark Ages covered Europe in a minute or so, and the Renascence video did its best to downplay Europe and the renaissance entirely in favour of the Ottoman Empire. The fact is, some import things did happen in Europe, the credit for which must overwhelmingly be given to those European countries who took part, they should be covered in full.
It just seems strange that this video bypasses the European element to the 7 years War. Not mentioning the rivalry between Prussia and Austria is bizarre, since if you see the 7YW as an extension of the War of the Austrian Succession (Which John alludes to at the beginning) then their conflict is at the heart of that later war. Also something that needs more emphasising is that the 7YW established Britain's position (though not uncontested) as the Western World's leading superpower (certainly financially), and all that meant in turns of the growth of commercialisation, globalisation, industrialisation not just in Europe, but Worldwide.
Who is here from online history class...
Here because of middle school nostalgia
7:06 "And the French were also fighting the British in India"
oh cool, so India actually had something to do with the French & INDIAN war.
The only reason its called the French & Indian war is because the the French and the American Indians were fighting the British and the Colonists
SuperSuperdude7 American Indians? Oh, I never realized people from India moved to the US back in the day and helped the French fight us.
Oh wait, Columbus never found the India he was looking for, but called them Indians anyways and we all look like a bunch of goobers for keeping up with the same nonsense.
Rev0lutionIsMyName And your point is what? The abhorrent use of an antiquated name by past populations? Do you expect the name of the war just to change? Native Americans were referred to as Indians at the time. That is not the fault of modern historians who now refer to the war as it was referred to at the time (or as it was referred to by the most contemporary historians who commented on it). It's called the French and Indian War. If you want, call it the Seven Years' War. There is really no need to complain about the use of the term "indian" in those days.
Rev0lutionIsMyName The people in the 1700s didn't care about being politically correct.
I know why you did it, but your French and British flags are both wrong. 😢
actually, at the end of the war, france had to give louisiana to spain, but spain gave it back in 1802, and then napoleon sold it to the usa in 1803 because he didn't want to expand into the americas
I am loving crash course history. It's been a great review for my A.P. Modern European History class and great for background about the wars we are studying! THANK YOU!!!!
I have always loved these history lessons, but now it's even better because I watched Hetalia. Haha!
true xD
Yep lol.
AW YEAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!
0:51
"However, to placate you, here are some more explosions BO BO BO BO BO BO " AHAHAHAHAHA I DIED
I listened to the beginning and started flipping out.
I learned this in Hetalia. X3
So I'm not the only one who thought Hetalia XD
+bordercollienerd nope XD
Hetalia teaches you so much - and then makes those same things unbearably hilarious.
hell yes
I was looking for this
This video is ridiculous and not as "world history" as it truly is. You talk about America and Native Americans' involvement in the war for almost half the video and the British and the French for another. The Seven Years' War, although global, was a war started in Europe with major European countries as the real instigators in this war. Yet you fail to mention Prussia's invasion of Saxony and the result of that an alliance between France, Austria, Sweden, Russia, and how Russia and Sweden withdrawal and Britain's financial support of Prussia ultimately divided French resources, leading to G.B.'s takeover of North America and the American and the even more pivotal, French Revolution. You also fail to mention the establishment of Prussia as a powerful state after the war and the draining of the Austrian Habsburgs' control of the Holy Roman Empire and making them focus more on Austria and Hungary than the German states.
I really love your videos, thank you John Green, they teach history in a fun and interesting way. However, sometimes it's hard to keep up with you because of how fast the videos are. Keep making videos! Can you do more Meso-American stuff please?
As a person whose ancestors are *all* actually from India, I find your use of the term 'Indian' to describe native/indigenous Americans rather irritating. The Europeans called them Indians when they landed because they thought they'd sailed all the way around the world to India. Surely enough time has passed that we shouldn't be still paying for this mistake?
(I'm really enjoying the CC World History series though. DFTBA :))
***** Haha! If I watched cricket, that would indeed annoy me ;)
nickynak3 Though I'm not sure how common it is for americans to call Native Americans, "Indians", but I think he was simply referring them to indians so as to not confuse one of the titles of the war, which was The French Indian War. Though to honest, considering at the time Native Americans were being called indians, it's confusing to know which they were referring to.
Either way, don't blame Hank! D: Blame the writer! lol
nickynak3 The Native Americans were called Indians because they thought they were in the West Indies or Indonesia but never India.He said this in an earlier video though I can't remember which.
KoalaFaceGuy You're quite right, and I realised this after I posted the OP (then couldn't be bothered to change it).
I think my point still stands that although they are called 'Indians' they have pretty much nothing to do with India :)
In the US (at least in south and south western) Native Americans are always called Indians, unless you are a Native American. It’s awful and gross, but it’s prominent
History abridged!
Glad I read the comments before I used this video to study for my ap Euro exam
Wow thanks !!!! Seriously, I'm British and French and I've never heard of this war. HOW??!
DNA confluct
A re-telling of a significantly European war with very little mention of the European theatres for fear of being Eurocentric and and a disproportionate focus on the American theatre... on a topic that would later be re-visited completely from the American perspective in the CrashCourse US History series. Not CrashCourse's best work.
chill they did their best
Come on! This is a European war! You have Crash Course US History for a reason, so talk about US History in that and what happened elsewhere in this, or are you people just too self centered to talk about anything but yourselves.
Joe Kennally The French Indian war IS the 7 years war. being the fact that this war was a major cause of US succession, I feel that it belongs here.
Thanks for mentioning the Acadians! Their expulsion and the general badass-ness (not sure where to put the "trait d'union" in that word) of the fur-traders (a.k.a. the voyageurs) are the coolest parts of french-canadian history, in my humble, misguided opinion.
WHY do people, especially history people, review Native American history WITHOUT ONCE mentioning treaties??
I'm sorry but this is quite American centric. I'm usually a big fan but you failed to mention that the Seven Years War meant the French and British's battle over who would get Canada went to the British. It was a monumental moment in Canadian history and would change it forever. Could have warranted a mention, I think. Also, the majority of Acadians came from Acadia - in the maritime Canadian provinces and eastern Quebec. I'm afraid I'm quite disappointed with this summary of the Seven Years War.
I'm going to disagree about the monumental importance of the Seven Year War was to us Canadians. Remember, we were staunch British or French colonists, who remained as loyal to the monarchy after the SYW, with the only difference that the French colonists now were subject to a loose British rule. I define our thought as an independent country to start with the American Revolution with the battle of Quebec, and as a knee jerk reaction to the American Civil War in where the US made several threats to take the British colonies to the north if they lost the south, and as reparations for the damage the CSS Alabama (confederate ship build by the British) did against the Union. Any reason for the US to take the British colonies could and was made by the Americans, specifically William H Seward, the leading voice for Manifest Destiny in regards to the British colonies and Rupert's Land. Also the Fenian raids didn't help matters either.
I'm not trying to suggest the SYW wasn't important to the eventual development of Canada, just not as important as you suggest, but rather a smaller step of many towards that goal.
The Acadians I can agree with, being from the Maritimes and eastern Quebec, but also Maine. John could have clarified that better, but I was happy with the summary.
@@ShennonLoker However, that "loose British rule" has led to the Quebec question that has dictated so much of Canadian politics right up to the present day. It has a huge role to play in the development in Canada.
@@MKPiatkowski That begs the question then, should we have assimilated the French colonies, force them to speak, read and write English and forcing them to abandon their French culture as the Americans would have done, or carry on as they were? If the English did, how would the newly formed Canada be any different than the USA in the eyes of the french? Hindsight is 20/20, but in 1867, they didn't have the luxury of 150 years of Canadian history to help with that decision.
Hopefully this is clear, maybe, 1/2 cup of coffee so far.
It is so strange tha you talk so much time about Amercia in that war. I know, that is your national history, but that is fucking WORLD HISTORY. I think that you must talk about Battle of Kune...Kunre...Kuner(how hard is it to say)sdorf, about occupation of Prussia, about Frederick the Great etc.
On my lessons of World History i do not teach Seven Years War on actions of Saltykov in Prussia(not only on it), not on betrayal of Motherland by the Pyotr III, not on stories about Anna Ioannovna's bed friends. That would be disrespectful to the other participating countries of the war.
Im pretty sure at the beginning of the episode he clarified that he was going to focus on the Americas...simply because of the Eurocentric perspective presented from other episodes. No disrespect was meant towards other participants.
wow.
You can't expect everything to be Eurocentric in this series. after all it IS called "Crash Course WORLD HISTORY," not "Crash Course EUROPEAN history".
True.
The british had at best 42,000 men TOTAL (regulars and militia peak strength, 1758) in northern america. i couldnt find numbers of others, but alone the prussians LOST 180,000 men in the conflict, that says a lot about where the real fighting was.
The best part is that he LITERALLY doesn't mention Russia ONCE, but devotes an entire two-minute segment to the lives of Native Americans.
What a joke this guy is.
John i really like you but talking about the seven years war without even mentiining frederick is just wrong
So an american way of teaching: a big sum up, let's deal only with the US, and it ends up with a very partisan point of view shown as a universal truth.
and the Caribbean Islands, or did you miss that part? I don't understand why he didn't go into any of the battles on the other continents though...
didnt you hear him say a lot of his previous videos had a very eurocentric point of view ? he said he was going to focus mostly on the american side.....stupid lol...youre not stupid but yeah
coug*itscalledcrashscourse*cough
Geno Atkins
The Seven Years War was by definition a EUROCENTRIC WAR, which spilled over into other theatres.
It's like this idiot doing a 'Crash Course' on the American Revolutionary War, then spending the majority of the segment on the siege of Gibraltar.
SD78 He did kind of say at the start that he'd say almost nothing about the European side of it. If you wanted to hear about the European side of it then you should have stopped there and gone to another video.
Do more on Britain, its history is as deep and rich as any in the world.
Thank you, you vastly helped me do my US history homework about this war ^^
So the British won the 7 Years War, but lost the peace, because of the war debt and the french were sour, because of their defeat, but when they won the War of the American Revolution, against the British, they had such a huge debt, that it lead to the French Revolution. Prussia seemed to be the only one to really capitalise on their victory and they were pretty battered from fighting half of Europe or more.
a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. that's the definition of revolution. i'm pretty sure there has been a revolution in the us.
Blah b
Every heard of the "revolutionary war?"
+Bardocks Father
That's the name Americans have given the rebellion against the British. That's not a revolution, that's a rebellion to keep slavery legal and to keep wealthy merchants from having to pay taxes.
Blah b
And when the "united states of America" was made. They weren't part of Great Britain anymore. So they overthrew the British government in favor of a new system/government.
+ Blah b pointless semantics, dude. I agree that the term is not completely accurate, but I decided to use it because everybody knows what I am talking about and otherwise many might not have gotten what I meant. You just sound butthurt and picky, because "muh american revisionist terms", but who cares. The 100 Year War did not last 100 years and not the entire world participated in the World Wars either.
That little quip at the start about you guys knowing the history of the flags made me realize how annoying viewers are lol
I'm gonna be _that_ guy and complain about the flags
What's wrong with them?
Did you watch the video
yes
They may have removed it, bit I recall there being a time when John Green admits to having the wrong flag or something. Dude, Iade this comment months ago
OK
I'm french and i didn't know about this war. Probably because the events in France at that time were bigger, but thank you so much for this show! I never stop learning
I remember watching these four years ago during my freshman year. I'm rewatching this one because I was curious about what happened in the war in Europe. I was sadly disappointed. Why the hate on Europe? It was an increadibly important war for Europe.
The first world war: 1754 - 1763. Can’t wait until I tell my history teacher that! ☺
the gunshot at the beginning scared me.
Please do CrashCourse British History!
George Washington "I die hard, but I am not afraid to go."
Does video on seven years war, only briefly mentions the most important and influential theatre of war, the theatre that continued the rise of Prussia as well as the decline of France
I don't think the Acadians were from Maine, but instead Nova Scotia
Not much about the Prussians and Frederick the Great.
Skip to 1:42
I really wish you would have said "Native American" rather than "Indian"
Elizabeth Zimmerman I really wish you wouldn’t be so easily offended
I don't necessarily care for the pc way to say it, but it would be less confusing to refer to Natives and Indians differently
That's all we get? B-b--b-b-b-but Fredrick the Great! :(
IM SORRY WAS I NOT GREAT ENOUGH FOR THIS EPISODE
explosions everywhere..... did you film this on a Wednesday?
Wait, Prussia and GB against France and Austria? Try Sweden, most of the other German states, and I believe Russia. It was an amazing military feat by the prussians and cemented them as the highest quality army in Europe.
John, can you talk about prussia i need to learn about this country ?
Okay this was the second front of 7 years war. i want to know about the first front i.e. the war b/w Prussia and Austria. why nobody talks about that?
Interesting but the reality of the Native people's and their world has been very generalized here.
Native men fought as warriors and hunted only and did nothing else domestically as they saw it as unmasculine to do any task a woman would do. Women could be stolen in war or traded for goods as they did not have a high social standing in the North Eastern tribes as a general rule. That is unless they came from a powerful family or tribe with strong social ties.
Also, Native nations fought each other over control of territory all of the time and often dominated their neighbors through conquest. From the Powhatan wars to dominate their neighbors in the east to the Iroquois league seeking control of the Ohio country against the tribes of the Great Lakes. Land could be owned as a hunting ground or cultivated even if you didn't build permanent settlements.
Basically his effort to be politically correct makes the Natives out to be peacefully ignorant to their own world. They had fought Colonials since 1607 and each other since time began. The greatest ambition for a Warrior was to be victorious or die in battle. If he was captured he saved his honor by enduring a slow torture to the death by other tribes. Land and influence mattered as a question of honor and power and they knew it.
He never said they were not fighting.