Quite. And it conveniently skips over how the Africans were captured as slaves in the first place - they were taken by other Africans, as they had been for centuries before the Europeans arrived, and just as Europeans were taken as slaves by Africans.
I mean, for a short time we did, but it is unfair to blame the British entirely, especially when you consider slavery was ubiquitous between every country on earth and that it was the British empire that spent 100+ years fighting to end slavery world wide
@@DaVultureTTG we didn’t, it was ALWAYS a shared activity and involved the African dominant tribes selling the slaves, the dominant trading European nations (including British), and the colonies actually purchasing the slaves…you can easily argue the end-buyers were the group driving slavery. The suppliers were simply answering the requirements. And before some bigot with limited education (typically as example, an American) starts spouting about black slavery blah blah and looks for a modern day apology…slavery was ubiquitous across Earth from the beginning of time and is still happening now. Only the BRITISH decided this should stop and were the first…hardly the worst as is believed by today’s sound bite people.
@@Cloudminster all I said was we had a monopoly on transporting slaves, which after the fall of the Spanish and Portuguese empires, we did have a monopoly on the trade as we ruled the seas.
It mentions that Britain was extremely efficient at transporting Slaves but only briefly mentions that Britain outlawed Slavery, but didn't state the fact that the UK, through the Royal navy's dominance at sea , basically ended the Slave Trade for all European nations. Indeed, slavery was outlawed by William the conquer.
Part of the reason the Empire couldn't fund itself any more was the debt it got itself into 1. Fighting Slavery (paid off in 2013) 2. Defending the World against Napoleon 3. Defending the World against the Kaiser 4. Defending the World against Hitler (and the loan from the US which took until about 2003 to pay off).
@@patthepelvisful actually in most of those cases it was defending smaller nations. It was no benefit to spend so much defending "interests" which were so obviously not worth the cost since the Empire ended up much the poorer afterwards. In the three cases of war Britain's involvement, to at least some extent was based on duty, the duty of strong nations to protect poorer Nations in these cases Belgium (primarily). Incidentally, all three of these wars were due to centuries.of conflict between France and what bece Germany. There was absolutely nothing advantageous to the interests of the Empire in the fight against slavery, which cost the most.
@@stevenbreach2561 actually the USA made the UK pay through the nose for the help it received, this was the main reason we needed a loan at very high interest rates. This despite a massive transfer of technology at the start of the war, much of which became the reason for the USA's economic advancement in the period after the war, up to this day. Pretty much why Germany recovered, in some ways, quicker than we did.
The Domesday Book was pretty much a census. A survey carried out by William the Conqueror. Listing lands livestock and peoples of Most of England and parts of Wales, They still have the book.
@@joeconnolly89 Richard Fitzneal Treasurer to King Henry ii, a Norman is credited with naming it the Domesday Book. About 100 years after it was written. He named it The Domesday Book. Because it's decisions were unalterable . Like those of the judgement day.
As well as the doomsday book he also outlawed slavery within the country ( in 1066 ) which led to the Somerset case in 1772 where it was stated that any slave sets foot on English soil becomes free…. How cool was that 👍🏻
@@frankbevan413 That was the Portuguese, they called them people of interest 👍🏻. You could not own a slave in England under fine payment in full to the king … the east Indian trading company was a company they were the nasty bastards. In 200 years time when we talk about the slaves, making electronics and children making clothes and picking coffee for nasty companies like Apple and all those others will they blame the companies or will they blame America?
Human zoos were exhibits of black and indigenous peoples caged and displayed in a ‘makeshift natural habitat.’ They were popularised during the 1870s, and continued to be popular into the 20th century. Warsaw, Milan, London, New York, Antwerp, Hamburg, Norway, Belgium and Paris are only a few of the places that had human zoo exhibits - Channel 4’s programme ‘Race: Science’s Last Taboo’ noted that ‘hundreds of thousands of people visited these exhibitions.’ Although humans have been exhibited before - for example the notorious exhibition of Saarjtie Baartman in South Africa, known as ‘the Hottentot Venus’, human zoos were the first exhibitions of humans on a grand scale. They drew crowds of ‘tens of millions.’
There were a lot of issues with the war of independence, I would argue that taxes were the excuse, not the reason, the taxes were much higher in England. As I understand it, one of the reason for the War of Independence was that the Empire had made treaties with the native people in America not to colonise west of the Appalachians, a treaty the colonists wanted to break.
@@johnlewis9158 Yeah then there's Britain footing the bill for the whole French Indian war then suggesting the colonies might want to cover their own defense costs in the future....
@@neuralwarp the US Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to their Constitution occurring almost directly after the constitution itself was adopted. Ergo, Magna Carta was what the constitution was based on among other things, such as the work of JS Mills, Thomas Payne, and John Locke.
No it wasn't. It was based on Scotland's Declaration of Arbroath (our declaration of Independence from the time of Robert Bruce) some passages are almost identical.
Funnily enough trial by combat is still part of British law even today, and only recently a man facing a speeding ticket for driving demanded a trial by combat when challenging the fine, although he was told to not be so stupid and made to pay his fine
Trial by combat was made illegal in the UK in 1819, and like many antiquated laws it would have been superseded by new legistlation anyway, or in this case trial by jury when it was introduced around 1300. The last documented 'trial by combat' was in 1597 and the victor was accused of murder.
Love that you’re interested in our little island. The history of the UK is definitely difficult to compress into a 20 minute video. After WW2 the whole of the UK went through drastic changes in terms of social reform. Even now, nearly a quarter of the way into the 21st century, the UK is still evolving and trying to figure out who it is as we emerge from Brexit, Covid, passing of the queen, a crumbling economy and a series of strikes. In regards to this video, the magna carter is the foundation for most constitutions around the world, including the United States of America. The Doomsday book was the first census conducted if you will. An amazing inventory of all the land and its people living on it and what they owned. And finally, tea is the best drink in the world. #fact 😂 Loving your videos. Subscribing and eagerly awaiting your next upload. 😊
Very oversimplified but a fairly good overview of our history. The War of the Roses which resulted in the Tudors taking the throne was the inspiration for George R R Martins Game of Thrones.
@@susanlodges48 Could you cover 4,500 years and hit most of the important points in ten minutes Susan? I spent 35 years as a secondary school history teacher and I don't think I could in that time limit. Yes they missed loads and it was oversimplified but they got the important parts in the time line and thats about all you can ask if you're trying to cover the history of the British Isles and you don't have a couple of hours.
I've read that the Romans didn't think Caledonia was worth occupying. They absolutely slaughtered the Picts at the Battle of Mons Graupius, so I believe it. Also, the concerntration camps in the Second Boer War were intended as refugee camps. British tactics involved a policy of dividing territory with fences and blockhouses to deny guerillas freedom of movement, then burning farms and confiscating supplies and clearing each sector in turn. In decades past, the civilians would simply have been left to starve, but the British made an effort to care for them. Unfortunately, supplying the camps was difficult, in part because of Boer attacks on the caravans carrying food, so many civilians (and the soldiers guarding them) died. When people back in the UK became aware of the conditions within the camps, they were transferred to civilian control, and conditiions improved somewhat. It's often forgotten that part of the reason for the animosity between the Boers and the British was that the Boers disapproved of Britain's more liberal treatment of the natives, especially their being given the right to vote. The other reason, admittedly, was British interest in Boer resources.
@@PianoDentist As opposed to the not as successful slave trading counties (virtually every country to ever exist). We took a stand. Other countries didn't.
@@PianoDentist we get the blame but if we didn't buy the slaves their own people or the Arabs would have, so they would have been castrated and or killed. We get all the blame when it was a global norm just because we were so successful at so many things.
@@PianoDentist Slavery was endemic, practiced the world over. From the Far East to the Americas, it was considered, a legitimate and lawful business arrangement. When the British found themselves the most powerful nation on earth, it took that wealth and power, and used it to impose abolition, in the face of universal and worldwide opposition. Yet people like you, still seek to belittle this achievement, with disingenuous and puerile comments like this.
@@PianoDentist With many others, who are strangely hardly ever mentioned, especially Arabs,Portuguese, (who started it in Europe,) plus most European countries.most as business transactions, Some if not hands on.As most of it just as most in Great Britain.Dont forget the the sellers, the Africans themselves, who got super rich selling their fellow people.
Well done, you can see the flaw in the producer's bias in this video. He was keen to educate everyone on the bad of the UK and fleetingly mentioned a small percentage of good, if he mentioned it at all.
There were also some inaccuracies that paint Britain in a negative light - such as; Britain having a Monopoly on the slave trade, The colonies having to pay high taxes to pay for European wars, Indian independence being a forced uprising rather than something agreed during the war years in advance. Also mentions how bad conditions were in the colonies without mentioning how bad conditions were in the home islands with debtors prisons, workhouses etc.
17:14 Quite a few reasons. One reason being Britain had agreed treaties with the natives in the US not to expand further west, the colonists still wanted to.
Alan Turing can be ranked amongst those few that saved so many, as per Churchill's Battle of Britain speech. Kinda heart breaking how he was treated after the war, you'd have thought he fought on the other side..
16:55 There was a famous court case (Somerset v Stewart) just before the Revolutionary war that basically said that any slave who sets foot on English soil is immediately free. There's some suggestion that this was one of the factors that encouraged the (mostly slave owning) founding fathers to rebel. In practice, the judgement only applied to Britain itself and not the colonies, but many believed the colonies would eventually be required to follow suit. Pro-slavery colonists wanted independence so they could keep their slaves, but abolitionist colonists also wanted independence because Britain wasn't granting the same rights to the colonies.
It is to do with the Bill of Rights of 1688.The colonists wanted the Bill to apply in America but George III said the Bill only applied in England.The Somerset judgement complicated it.
Yes but you also had to sign up to be in the British military what is now Canada was a route for slaves wanting freedom and many got it one of those became the wealthiest man in Nova Scotia and owned more land than anyone in Canada Samuel Ball
@@garysimpson1486 well the Spanish brutalised then colonised South Americas the French & English Canada, and good old George Washington of English grandparents.
The doomsday book despite it's ominous name is one of the most valuable historical documents ever written. It's not a chronicle to glorify some king or hero. It's not some treaties justifying a religious or political idea. Its simply a complete catalogue of every citizen and every piece of property they owned giving an astoundingly detailed insight into the life of people in every strata of society.
Although the Domesday Book's etymology is judgement, which people assume is related to the Biblical Judgement Day, it's actually closer to 'final authority', or the definitive catalogue or census of the British Isles.
You should react to ‘Know your Ally, Britain, it was documentary made for US soldiers deployed to Britain in WW2 in order for them to understand British culture and norms. It’s a great video I’m sure you’ll enjoy and find interesting!👌💯
Alan Turing was a great man who deserved more from the nation he helped save. The mans genius saved probably millions of lives with the work he did for the enigma machine. Yet after the war they found out he was a homosexual and had him chemically castrated. He later died from cyanide poisioning ruled as a suicide. A great injustice was done to Turing, its shameful as a Brit.
Stonehenge was built over a span of over 1500 years, That's roughly the same timespan as between the fall of the Roman Empire and now. It's probably safe to presume that the peoples who started it were not the same as the ones who finished it.
The Butler Did It, Stonehenge Is About 3,000 Thousand Year's Old, The Hugh Sarsons Stone's And The Blue Stone's Are From South West Wales, / CYRMU 🏴🏴🏴🏴, And The Moronic Bloody Krouts Are Now Saying That The True Celt's Copyed It From Kroutland, When Their Lousy Country Didn't Even Exist, !!!!!!! There Was Just Bavaria, !!!!!!!! Not Even The Rhineland, Was Named,!!!!!!!!!,.
This is a great start, now you know what to look for if you want to delve deeper into not only European history, but American history, After all American history is European history as well.
Little poem I learnt to remember what happened to Henry VIII's wives: "Divorced, Beheaded, Died. Divorced, Beheaded, Survived." Wife #1 started the whole mess, with the split from the Catholic Church. Wife #2 was accused of treason (I think) and lost her head over the matter. Wife #3 died 6 days after the birth of Henry's only surviving male heir, and he grieved her loss for the rest of his life. Wife #4 was ousted. Wife #5 was shortened by a head for some reason or another. Wife #6 managed to survive, by outliving Henry.
In 1939 Winston Churchill loaned a copy of the Magna carta to the USA, it was on display next to the declaration of independence in the library of Congress.
Elizabeth 1st "nickname" was "the virgin queen", a name still alive today in the American state of Virginia which was named that by Walter Raleigh in her honour.
Yep, they harassed the English with raids (especially Robert the Bruce) for hundreds of years, and made innumerable treaties with France against England, but were outraged when Edward I retaliated. It was as much about keeping the French at bay as subduing Scotland. Philip IV of France worked tirelessly to take the English throne for the French. This was in the thirteenth century.
Few notable errors (oversight of facts). 1, slavery was not a British idea or started by the British, nor was the African Slave Trade to the Americas a British idea or started by the British. It was also the British in 1807 that FORCED the rest of the world to end slavery, without that British law and power of the Britsh Royal Navy, slavery would probably still be common place today. As a Brit I'm angered to be slated and blamed for slavery taking place when as a Brit my heritage were those ending it, while those benefiting in the Americas continued, and as late as the 1970's segregation and racism towards blacks was typical in he Americas. (So don't point a finger at the UK demanding we apologise for slavery until you have sorted the US problems out first). The truth is that Portugal started the African slave trade to the Americas in the 1480's over 200 years before Britain got involved. Side note, The Dutch operated 10 Coastal fortresses along what is now Ghana from where slaves were traded. 2, Tea was introduced much sooner than stated in this video, tea was introduced to the UK in the 1650's during the reign of Charles II.
They failed to mention that before “William and Mary”( Mary being the daughter of James 2nd) could ascend the throne of “Englan”, they had to sign “the act of settlement”, the “Declaration of Rights”, most importantly (and where the American “Bill of Rights” comes directly from) the “Bill of Rights”, Scotland who also petitioned the king was granted “the Claim of Rights”.
Doing history here in the UK is difficult due to the long history and especially the way to many wars, then we add the commonwealth to our history it make it impossible to know it all. This missed out on many of the wars Britain has been involved with and didn't even mention Italy and Russia who Britain had many wars with and only touched on the many wars with France and Spain.
The main reason for the American war of Independence was Expansion. The British signed a treaty with Native Americans after the Pontiac war, promising not to expand outside of the 13 colonies. The British Crown made it illegal for American settlers to establish settlements west of the Appalachians. This angered a lot of Americans, especially George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who has purchased a large amount of land In native territory, but could not sell or settle in the land due to the new laws. The raising of taxes was just the tip of the iceberg for the cause of the revolutionary war.
Winston Churchill was a young war correspondent in the Boar War. He was captured but managed to escape. One of his officer colleagues needed a skin graft so Winston let them use his skin of his own backside, without anaesthetic.
Turing and Flowers did SO much more than just crack Enigma and Tunny. They invented the electronic digital computer and ushered in the Information Age.
He forgotten to mention the UK is a permanent member of the UN security council. May I go on to say and the first country in the world to spilt the atom .
Note: concentration camps were Supposed to be a peaceful, civilized method of Reducing casualties, especially among civilians, while also encouraging the rebels to surrender so they could see their families again. the horrific consequences were due to a combination of underestimating the logistical requirements and general mismanagement. Once the newspapers back in Britain found out and reported on the problems, the practice was discontinued and much effort put into making things right, in so far as was possible. It was generally considered a failure not to be repeated. Then the Nazis got hold of the idea...
Addendum: Camp custodians (the solders stationed there) received the same ration allowance as the people in the camp and many of the camp guards died. By the end of the war, as a child/infant you had better chances of living a healthy life in a British concentration camp than in London. To be fair the Nazi used forced labour and death camps rather than concentration camps, they just used the term as a euphemism.
Some of the very worst concentration camps EVER were in the American Civil War, especially in the South. Nothing, but nothing....excuses the British camps though. It is true that imperialism did breed many atrocities. We can only be thankful that the BE did some good as well. We were often asked to intervene in conflicts in other countries. For instance, our presence in India became more forceful after the fall of the Mughal empire, when the country disintegrated into innumerable tribal armed conflicts which took a huge toll on local populations in themselves.
Richard The Lionheart, absolute legendary English figure in history. The war of the roses rivalry still exists today between the Counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire in sports like cricket, fortunately I'm from the winning side (Lancashire) although I do like Yorkshire as the people are very similar to us Lancastrians.
Nice though the rivalry is, it doesn't actually bear any geographical reference to the factions in the Wars of the Roses. That was between the houses of York and Lancaster rather than the regions. In point of fact, York was mostly a Lancastrian stronghold during the conflict and Lancaster tended towards the Yorkist faction.
You are more or less correct on the "Great" in Great Britain. It was used by the Romans to name the biggest single island in all the British Isles and the area of Brittany.
A correction in the video, one of the first English colonies in the American continent was Virginia, named after Queen Elizabeth I also known as "the virgin queen" at the time
Henry VIII's paranoia, was likely the result of an accident he had while jousting, from which he never properly recovered and he became a different person after the event, suspicious and mistrustful of those around him, where he had previously been a very popular king.
When you look into how they tried to cure his leg, it's no f+cking wonder he had a bit of an anger issue! 😳 Not that I'm making excuses for him, he was an egotistical bully before the accident, but my God he suffered for that accident! He hurt his leg in one jousting accident where they thought he was gonna die because the lance whacked him straight in the face. He'd forgotten to pull the helmet visor down! He was unconscious for quite a while and it's probably likely he sustained brain damage, which was actually the MOST likely explanation for his personality change. This wasn't the leg injury though, per se. It was a second jousting accident where he fell off the horse and the horse rolled onto him on the ground, which had "opened up an older leg wound" ...
Correction: The Angles, Saxons and Jutes didn't push the Britons out to the west. It's a common misconception, but modern DNA evidence shows us that though rulers changed, the population stayed. Gradually, as often happens, the people adopted some of the ways of the ruling class. So, there wasn't a mass migration of Germanic tribes into Britain, it was more limited. The 'English' remain more Brittonic than Anglo-Saxon - most areas of England only show 10-40% Germanic DNA, much of which may have come from interbreeding, not replacement. Cymru (Wales), and for a time, other western areas kept their ruling class, and so kept their language and traditions for much longer. There are some similarities with France in that France is named after the Frankish ruling class, but the population remained more Gaul. The difference is that people accordingly refer to the French as Gallic, not Frankish, but incorrectly call the English Anglo-Saxon, rather than (the more correct) Brittonic.
actual taxes applied to the 13 colonies were Very low compared to what everyone else was paying, and were only instituted after the colonists refused to pay a one off levy that covered only the cost of maintaining the defensive garrisons in the colonies during the war. of note is that one of the main causes of the war was said colonists raiding French colonies (without any sort of permission or authorization). Also, the King was barely involved in any of that, it was mostly parliament. extra bonus: upon attaining independence, taxes in the 13 colonies skyrocketed, as even with the "heavy" taxes, their administration, defence, and infrastructure was still paid for entirely by taxes taken from the workers in the British Isles. oh. and the "no taxation without representation" thing? pure recruitment propaganda. the colonies "negotiating" position was "no taxes at all. ever.". representation only came up when someone realized that parliament was never going to accept their (nonsensical) position unless they had their own MPs to "play the game" rather than being a random delefation. Too bad this realization came After the begining of armed hostilities in the colonies. incidentally, that initial organized refusal to pay the levy was, by the standards of the day, open rebellion. the usual practice when such happened was to send in the army. of course, that's expensive and the whole point was that Britain needed money, so they instead instituted the stamp tax, which was much more easily collected (being an import/export tax collected at ports). it was "punitive" pretty much entirely by way of being permanent. also, at the time, the colonies that would become Canada were only lightly inhabited (and many only recently acquired from the French). before open combat began, the soon to be rebels (comprising 1/3rd or less of the population of the colonies) set about a campaign of murder and arson against loyalist colonists (also about 1/3rd or so of the population. the rest didn't care much). This lead to most of the surviving loyalists fleeing to what would later become Canada. This, fyi, wasn't any sort of warfare, there were no armies yet involved, it was just flat out terrorism (at best). It wasn't about slavery, that only became a big deal later. It was about rich bastards not wanting to pay taxes (to cover expenses They created (their raiding French colonies was a major cause of the war that lead to the taxes) or have anyone above them able to hold them responsible for their terrible behaviour. Something that's shaped US politics and culture ever since.
Indeed Elizabeth I never married, her nickname was ‘The Virgin Queen’ which is why in America you have a State called Virginia (and West V also) because the original British colony there was named Virginia in honour of the Queen.
This video is highly inaccurate in a number of areas. The Irish Famine for instance was due to a Potato Blight present throughout Europe, including England, Wales and Scotland. It affected Ireland in the way it did because of particular laws in Ireland. The land was owned by the rich, both Protestant AND Catholic. The land was worked by the peasants, any potatoes they grew they could eat but the other crops belonged to the land owners. It was not the British government that prevented the peasants from eating the food grown (parliament had tried to change the nlaw a number of times with the Land Reform act, but it failed to pass until after the famine). The British government sent famine relief. This was available to everyone under the Tory government. The Wigs placed a constraint on the relief, if you had land to grow food you couldn't receive relief. Unfortunately, they included the tenant farmers, who had land to grow potatoes but couldn't grow other crops, else they were taken by the landlords.
Well said. The correction was badly needed, I suspect an American or Irish historian wrote the script. A British historian would have mentioned the Enlightenment, the Lunar Society (invention of scientific method), the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians, and the Metropolitan Meat Market, and the Metropolitan Waterworks, all of which are as important as Bazalgette's sewers to the world history of public health.
Elizabeth 1 didn't have much choice in executing Mary, Queen of Scots, not because of the Catholic religion but because Catholics did not consider Elizabeth to be the rightful Queen of England because her father divorced his first wife and married Elizabeth's mother, Ann Boleyn. As Catholics do not believe in divorce Elizabeth was considered illegitimate so they thought Mary should be Queen. There were numerous plots to assassinate Elizabeth and make Mary queen and she was mixed up in the plot to make her queen, leaving Elizabeth with no choice but to execute her, which she did reluctantly. The UK has such a complicated history (hence Hollywood's obsession with it and using it to make films. Most of which are inaccurate and some are dreadful.
You have heard of the Doomsday book before from when you reacted to the video about "The British Crusade Against Slavery" it's where William the conqueror kept a record of things including every person that lives on the land in order to abolish slavery to make a profit (I don't know if that's ringing any bells). Elizabeth I was the virgin queen.
William kept records of property in order to tax people, BUT in the ensuing feudal system most of the population was enslaved, forced to work on the land for their lord
This video basically shows everything that inspired George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series (Game of Thrones) : A wall to keep the barbarians out, seven kingdoms, invasion from the east (William the Conqueror and Aegon the Conqueror), trial by combat etc. etc.
"Concentration camp" is such a loaded term especially in regards to those created and used by the British army in south Africa in the Boer wars, when you hear this term today you can be forgiven for thinking about the Nazis in WW2, The major difference between those and the ones used by the British is that the British never drew up a plan to exterminate an entire people with the concentration camps they made, the premeditated Malus just isn't there in the British example,, just as it wasn't there in the American example of the concentration camp with the American Japanese families who were around in the 1940's. The chap in the video reacted strongly to the mention of these camps and it wasn't made clear enough that there is a huge difference.
Furthermore: When people casually mention the 'concentration camps' (initially, _refugee camps_ ) set up by the British during the Boer War - an ugly and shaming episode, to be sure - it should _also_ be pointed out that a) they were NOT _intended_ to cause _harm_ to the Afrikaaners in the same way that the later _German_ 'camps' most definitely were designed to do to _their_ inmates, and that b) when the British public and MPs found out about the appalling hardships suffered by the internees, there was a huge uproar - which led pretty soon to questions in Parliament, the setting-up of a commission of inquiry, and the rapid amelioration of conditions. In short, Bloemfontein was not Dachau, and Krugersdorp was not Auschwitz.
The following 4 men are those who we have to thank for Steam power Thomas Newcomen ( He re-tamed Steam) James Watt ( the external Condenser) Richard Trevithick ( the high pressure) Sir Charles Algernon Parsons ( The Turbine)
There are few things which they got wrong here but the majority of it was accurate. Edward III did have an heir in his grandson Richard II (by his eldest son), but he was usurped by his cousin who became Henry IV. While Henry VIII was paranoid, he executed Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard because he had signed confessions of adultery which was classed as treason. Also Elizabeth I executed Mary Queen of Scots because she was involved in a plot to overthrow her not because she didn’t want Scotland to have a catholic monarch. There is also important stuff missing (I know you can’t do a lot in 20 mins but still) like how George I introduced the idea of a prime minister as he couldn’t speak English and needed a representative which did. Fun facts:
When you say "isn't that the basics of the US constitution", this is why whenever an american tells us that the US fought and died so people across the had their rights and freedom. We just nod and smile . IT is to much to explain we got there a few 100 years before US existed. And much of it still existing in British law, only a few of the original wording are still in statute. One of these written over 800 years ago. "NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right" Does that not sound a little like the right to "life and liberty"? oh and for good measures we slipped in the outlaw of slavery at the same time.
3:44: Shame about the mispronunciation of the Welsh kingdoms, the whole point is that the peoples and countries of United Kingdom and Britain are not just the English.
Doomsday book is an inventory of England just under 900 years ago when we outlawed slavery in England - Their have been no slaves in England since then
Hadrians Wall.....parts of which are still highly visible today, in fact I live literally alongside it for much of my youth. Well worth a visit it is too...
My village in N.East England appears in the Domesday book. It was a book that was basically a census so William the Conqueror could figure out who he could tax
Despite the dissolution of the British Empire the UK still owns many overseas territories like Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Saint Helena and South Georgia
12:02 The Armada cause was confused. Mary Queen of Scots fled to England, the Presbyterian Scots replaced her with her Protestant son James VI. Mary was executed as she became the focus of a number of Catholic plots to overthrow Elizabeth.
In the last few years it's been confirmed that the stones were actually moved from Wales to Salisbury where they now stand, and they think that they stood in Wales for possibly a thousand years before being moved to Salisbury,
Do we get reparations from Denmark, Iceland and Noric countries then? I mean, this seems to be popular right now, or do you have to look a certain way to demand such Reparations?
In the same sentiment, should the Welsh have reparations from the Italian Roman's , the Angles Saxon's Jutes Flemish Vikings and countless mercenary hordes. The Normans Norman French, Norman English and eventually the English? That's 2000 years of subjugation. Perhaps they should also have their stones back from Salisbury plain and their Arthur legend. Oh, and the coal and flooded valley reservoirs where they once lived.🤐
reasonably accurate, apart from the mispronunciation of welsh words and confusing a Motte (a big fucking hill) with a Moat ( a big fucking ditch filled with water)
Domesday books (2), were an inventory of the conquered lands. Magna Carta is one of many, sealed by King John at Runnymead. It gave rights to "freemen" and your constitution has lose connections with it. Gave the basis of legislation, rights of ownership and freedom, trial by jury etc. One thing not mentioned is that Ireland was given, by the Pope, to John as his kingdom before he became King on the death of King Richard the lion heart. You have got it on the war of Independence, history has sanitised it to tax. Can't beat rewriting history.
Hi Catherine, depending upon which letter is missing ('c' or 'o' ?) can have a very different meaning to what you wrote, thus: "...your constitution has LOSE connections...". Did you intend to write 'Close' or loOse' ? Please clarify, thanks.
The civil war caused by the intended secession by the southern states. The slave issue was thrown into the mix until today many Amrecans think that the main issue was slavery.
Re Roman withdrawal from Caledonia (Scotland). There were policy decisions made in Rome to stop the expansion of the Empire. There were insufficient resources (tin, gold, lead, wheat, slaves) in Caledonia to justify the occupation. The landscape was unfavourable to having small semi self-sufficient garrisons dotted about. The warrior/hunter culture was less able to be moulded to a productive subservient agricultural society. There was not the establishment of agriculture sufficient to feed large Roman garrisons.
Nothing really to do with the video but I heard a saying recently that sticks with me "The difference between Americans and British is that Americans think 100 years is a long time and the British think 100 miles is a long way"
You can not compare 'Concentration camps' between South Africa and WW2 Germany. The first was due to ignorance and stupidity, the second was deliberate. It's like comparing current US and Norwegian prisons?
This is a bit harsh on the Irish famine. Britain did what it could to try & relieve it, but conditions in Ireland made this difficult, The things Ireland had to export would not have fed the Irish, but. help provide an income. As in India things were run by private companies & individuals not the British government. The South Africa situation was not as described here. Hundreds & thousands were not put in concentration camps (certainly not like the later Nazi ones) to force the Boars to surrender, but detained to remove them from areas of fighting, where settlements were destroyed. The British government outlawed slavery throughout the Empire in 1833, & set about forcing other nations to do the same thereafter. Again slavery had been private enterprise, not government run, & was universal, but had been illegal in England since c. 1066.
New to your channel and loving binge-festing past content👏👏👏 Please consider reacting to: 1) Jeremy Clarkson and the Victoria Cross (Medal of Honor equivalent) - it’s a long one (approx 1hr), but know you’ll love it 2) Al Murray Nations of the World Thanks 👍
It is interesting how the individual doing the video chose to leave out a lot of the good outcomes and biproducts of Britain and instead chose to almost exclusively talk about the worst of it all
Concentration camps back then didn't have quite the same meaning as they do now. The idea was to put the people displaced by war in to one place so they can be fed and kept out of harm's way (and also prevent them from doing any harm to the British) however without proper food or medical supplies they weren't particularly pleasant places to be. They weren't sent there to die, but they are still pretty awful. I think now they'd be called refugee camps but it's hard to say.
Yep, you hit the nail on the head...the main reasons for the American revolution were, abolition of slavery and colonial settlements expansion beyond the applachia.
Stonehenge was built by people in the Neolithic period. The Bell Beakers brought possibly an Indo European language and culture, and were a later Bronze Age people. It's possible that they may have added some extra elements, but they were not the primary builders of Stonehenge. Neolithic people of Britain were a combination of hunter gatherers who had populated Britain well after the Younger Dryas, merged with people whose ancestors brought agriculture (crop growing) from the area now known as Turkey several thousand years later. For reasons unknown (though it's tempting to guess!!!), the males of the Neolithic culture in Britain were entirely replaced by the Bell Beaker warrior-pastoralists in the Bronze Age. They brought with them domesticated horses and chariot warfare, as well as a new wide-ranging proto-language, Indo European.🙂
Save giving yourself a headache all you need to know is, it all runs on a shoestring and we have a knack of Wallis & Grommeting our way out of trouble 👍😂
As you asked about slavery, you should watch, The British Crusade Against Slavery, - Basically, Britain went to wars over slavery and Britain literally bought slaves to free them, we didn't finish paying off the debt for the money we borrowed to do that until 2015, what this means is if you are a taxpayer in the UK you have paid for freeing slaves and the abolition of slavery. Not many people learnt this but it was the Arabs that introduced slavery first to the world, they used to castrate every black male they enslaved
Domesday is Britain's earliest public record. It contains the results of a huge survey of land and landholding from 1085. Domesday is by the far the most complete record of pre-industrial society to survive anywhere in the world and provides a unique window on the medieval world.
Spot on; Great Bretagne to differentiate it from just Bretagne. The West Country (Cornwall - Cornovii; and Devon - Dumnonia) and Brittany were essentially made up of the same kin, the same tribes, brothers by blood and traditions and connected by trade and seafaring. We must remember travel and trade in very ancient times was by large seagoing sail boats. A few years ago I was shown a full size replica of a Bronze Age boat in the storage yard in a Maritime Museum, it was fully some 60 feet long and standing under the vessel it looked massive, staggeringly amazing; was based on remains of an actual Bronze Age wreck!
The doomsday book isn't what is sounds like, it was a collection of information. That information was a note of every town, village and city in the land, how many people lived there and other administrative figures. It was a smart idea, utilised to control and rule the land which the Normans had newly acquired. We get much of our historical understanding about life at the time from the doomsday book
And England too. I know that's not the accepted narrative, but modern DNA evidence shows us the truth. Modern England, Cornwall and Wales all show more Brittonic DNA than Germanic. England is the region where the Angles, Saxon and Jutes took over as the ruling class. Wales and for a time Cornwall, are the regions where the Brittonic ruling class held on for longer. Some fled to Brittany, as I'm sure you know already. In what would become England, people adopted the language of the rulers, though those rulers adopted so much from the Britons, and intermarried with them. Around the Saxon Kings you will often find women with clearly Britonnic names. So, if you are defining the idea of a 'Celtic nation' based on the people, the genetics, the DNA, then you should also include England. If instead, you are basing it on the areas where the 'Celtic' languages continued and many of the traditions were able to persist, then you should maybe remove Cornwall from your list. The Cornish language is near extinct in common usage, though I support efforts to bring it back to life, especially if it contributes to changing this inaccurate, monolithic perception of England being 'Anglo-Saxon'.
@Anglo Saxon No, that's just not true. The rulers changed. The people stayed and adapted. The Saxons adapted to. And they married Britons too. The Saxon kings frequently had Britonnic wives. The reality is far more interesting.
@Anglo Saxon Not exactly. The Romano Britons (who were themselves Celtic) invited the Saxons in as mercenaries to help defend Britannia from the Picts to the North, and other raiders. Not to push 'Celts out'. Over time, these Saxon Warbands saw the gradual weakening of Roman Britannia, with no legions anymore, and seized the opportunity to extract more and more out of them, then eventually take over power entirely. But the general population of Britons stayed - that's not an opinion, that's simply what happened.
@Anglo Saxon I'm sorry, but you've got it wrong. We know that Vortigern, King of the Britons, struggling with Picts in the north and with Rome's legions long withdrawn and a limited military, invited two Saxon warlords, brothers, Hengest and Horsa, as mercenaries to defend them. They turned on the Britons in 455ad. We know Horsa died. We know Hengest manage to take control in a small region and founded Kent as the first Saxon ruled Kingdom in 473. We know they extended control in parts of the East, but that for much of the 6th century, the Britons halted the carving up of Britain by the Saxons, and remained in control of much of what is now England, and Wales. We know that by the end of the 6th century, the Saxon warlords pushed again and the south of England's and the Midlands fell to them. Cornwall remained under Britonnic leaders for a time. Don't take my word for it, just look it all up if you are interested - you don't need to invent the history, it's all there.
To say that British ships had a monopoly on transporting West African slaves is wildly and offensively inaccurate.
Quite. And it conveniently skips over how the Africans were captured as slaves in the first place - they were taken by other Africans, as they had been for centuries before the Europeans arrived, and just as Europeans were taken as slaves by Africans.
I mean, for a short time we did, but it is unfair to blame the British entirely, especially when you consider slavery was ubiquitous between every country on earth and that it was the British empire that spent 100+ years fighting to end slavery world wide
@@DaVultureTTG we didn’t, it was ALWAYS a shared activity and involved the African dominant tribes selling the slaves, the dominant trading European nations (including British), and the colonies actually purchasing the slaves…you can easily argue the end-buyers were the group driving slavery. The suppliers were simply answering the requirements. And before some bigot with limited education (typically as example, an American) starts spouting about black slavery blah blah and looks for a modern day apology…slavery was ubiquitous across Earth from the beginning of time and is still happening now. Only the BRITISH decided this should stop and were the first…hardly the worst as is believed by today’s sound bite people.
@@Cloudminster all I said was we had a monopoly on transporting slaves, which after the fall of the Spanish and Portuguese empires, we did have a monopoly on the trade as we ruled the seas.
It mentions that Britain was extremely efficient at transporting Slaves but only briefly mentions that Britain outlawed Slavery, but didn't state the fact that the UK, through the Royal navy's dominance at sea , basically ended the Slave Trade for all European nations. Indeed, slavery was outlawed by William the conquer.
Part of the reason the Empire couldn't fund itself any more was the debt it got itself into
1. Fighting Slavery (paid off in 2013)
2. Defending the World against Napoleon
3. Defending the World against the Kaiser
4. Defending the World against Hitler (and the loan from the US which took until about 2003 to pay off).
As opposed to the USA which finished WW2 richer than when it started
Not defending the World, defending your own interests. Fair thing.
@@patthepelvisful actually in most of those cases it was defending smaller nations.
It was no benefit to spend so much defending "interests" which were so obviously not worth the cost since the Empire ended up much the poorer afterwards.
In the three cases of war Britain's involvement, to at least some extent was based on duty, the duty of strong nations to protect poorer Nations in these cases Belgium (primarily). Incidentally, all three of these wars were due to centuries.of conflict between France and what bece Germany.
There was absolutely nothing advantageous to the interests of the Empire in the fight against slavery, which cost the most.
@@stevenbreach2561 actually the USA made the UK pay through the nose for the help it received, this was the main reason we needed a loan at very high interest rates. This despite a massive transfer of technology at the start of the war, much of which became the reason for the USA's economic advancement in the period after the war, up to this day. Pretty much why Germany recovered, in some ways, quicker than we did.
@@markhutton6055 no argument there.
The Domesday Book was pretty much a census. A survey carried out by William the Conqueror. Listing lands livestock and peoples of Most of England and parts of Wales, They still have the book.
it was called the doomsday book by the anglo saxons as they knew it was thier end and the beginning of a new era
@@joeconnolly89 Richard Fitzneal Treasurer to King Henry ii, a Norman is credited with naming it the Domesday Book. About 100 years after it was written. He named it The Domesday Book. Because it's decisions were unalterable . Like those of the judgement day.
@@stephenwaters3515 I've seen it :)
My surname is in the Doomsday book. We're currently trying to trace our family back to the book.
It also recorded that 10% of the population were slaves and the massive destruction of villages in the north of England by the Harrowing of the North.
As well as the doomsday book he also outlawed slavery within the country ( in 1066 ) which led to the Somerset case in 1772 where it was stated that any slave sets foot on English soil becomes free…. How cool was that 👍🏻
apart from the people of color they put in cages in a zoo and let people come look at them
@@frankbevan413 That was the Portuguese, they called them people of interest 👍🏻. You could not own a slave in England under fine payment in full to the king … the east Indian trading company was a company they were the nasty bastards. In 200 years time when we talk about the slaves, making electronics and children making clothes and picking coffee for nasty companies like Apple and all those others will they blame the companies or will they blame America?
Human zoos were exhibits of black and indigenous peoples caged and displayed in a ‘makeshift natural habitat.’ They were popularised during the 1870s, and continued to be popular into the 20th century. Warsaw, Milan, London, New York, Antwerp, Hamburg, Norway, Belgium and Paris are only a few of the places that had human zoo exhibits - Channel 4’s programme ‘Race: Science’s Last Taboo’ noted that ‘hundreds of thousands of people visited these exhibitions.’ Although humans have been exhibited before - for example the notorious exhibition of Saarjtie Baartman in South Africa, known as ‘the Hottentot Venus’, human zoos were the first exhibitions of humans on a grand scale. They drew crowds of ‘tens of millions.’
Okay your right and history is wrong
@@frankbevan413 They weren’t forced, more like exhibitions or circuses
There were a lot of issues with the war of independence, I would argue that taxes were the excuse, not the reason, the taxes were much higher in England. As I understand it,
one of the reason for the War of Independence was that the Empire had made treaties with the native people in America not to colonise west of the Appalachians, a treaty the colonists wanted to break.
Prior to the war of independence those American's who were paying tax were paying sixpence in the pound
@@johnlewis9158 Yeah then there's Britain footing the bill for the whole French Indian war then suggesting the colonies might want to cover their own defense costs in the future....
@@johnlewis9158 THE John Lewis?
@@BikersDoItSittingDown yip. He just gave me the keys to his shop.
@@randommadness1021 hahahaha
A small country that ruled the world 🌎.. invented more things than any other country.. discovered more than any country.. 🇬🇧
ruled the world.... forcibly taking over other countries by military force.
Do we think that's a good thing?
That would be Scotland that invented more things than any other facts! Just saying lol
Unless we have proof, was you there? I'm British from Middlesbrough all we have is propaganda like what Russia is using now in Ukraine
@@lalaloopzmacstar658 precisely, and we want oot of the "Union" 🤘🏴🤘
@@andrewwatson5545 could I ask why you want out?
The Magna Carta was indeed the document that your Constitution was based on. It was writen 800 years ago.
A copy of which is displayed in the headquarters of the American law society!
No, the it is the US Bill of Rights that was based on Magna Carta, which says almost nothing about our UK constitution.
@@neuralwarp the US Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to their Constitution occurring almost directly after the constitution itself was adopted.
Ergo, Magna Carta was what the constitution was based on among other things, such as the work of JS Mills, Thomas Payne, and John Locke.
@@alanthomas2064 There is an Original copy just up the road from me, In Lincoln.
No it wasn't. It was based on Scotland's Declaration of Arbroath (our declaration of Independence from the time of Robert Bruce) some passages are almost identical.
Funnily enough trial by combat is still part of British law even today, and only recently a man facing a speeding ticket for driving demanded a trial by combat when challenging the fine, although he was told to not be so stupid and made to pay his fine
Funny how the police pick and choose the law.
Trial by combat was made illegal in the UK in 1819, and like many antiquated laws it would have been superseded by new legistlation anyway, or in this case trial by jury when it was introduced around 1300. The last documented 'trial by combat' was in 1597 and the victor was accused of murder.
Ha Ha, Typical british humour. Love it. :-)
Love that you’re interested in our little island.
The history of the UK is definitely difficult to compress into a 20 minute video. After WW2 the whole of the UK went through drastic changes in terms of social reform.
Even now, nearly a quarter of the way into the 21st century, the UK is still evolving and trying to figure out who it is as we emerge from Brexit, Covid, passing of the queen, a crumbling economy and a series of strikes.
In regards to this video, the magna carter is the foundation for most constitutions around the world, including the United States of America.
The Doomsday book was the first census conducted if you will. An amazing inventory of all the land and its people living on it and what they owned.
And finally, tea is the best drink in the world. #fact 😂
Loving your videos. Subscribing and eagerly awaiting your next upload. 😊
Tea. Disgusting stuff. Not fit for man nor beast, except our dogs love it. LOL.
@@johnlevey8357 Hahaha! Your dogs have great taste. Lol
Tea. Yes, always start the day witha 'cupa' or 2. :-)
Very oversimplified but a fairly good overview of our history. The War of the Roses which resulted in the Tudors taking the throne was the inspiration for George R R Martins Game of Thrones.
Just beat me to it. HaHa.
It is NOT a good overview. It is a very poor account.
@@susanlodges48 Could you cover 4,500 years and hit most of the important points in ten minutes Susan? I spent 35 years as a secondary school history teacher and I don't think I could in that time limit. Yes they missed loads and it was oversimplified but they got the important parts in the time line and thats about all you can ask if you're trying to cover the history of the British Isles and you don't have a couple of hours.
@@tonybmw5785 I agree with Susan Lodges. He could have selected some good but decided to vilify the UK
@@susanlodges48 was a 20min review of more then 4000 years of history aint gona be perfect lol but it does the job
I've read that the Romans didn't think Caledonia was worth occupying. They absolutely slaughtered the Picts at the Battle of Mons Graupius, so I believe it.
Also, the concerntration camps in the Second Boer War were intended as refugee camps. British tactics involved a policy of dividing territory with fences and blockhouses to deny guerillas freedom of movement, then burning farms and confiscating supplies and clearing each sector in turn. In decades past, the civilians would simply have been left to starve, but the British made an effort to care for them. Unfortunately, supplying the camps was difficult, in part because of Boer attacks on the caravans carrying food, so many civilians (and the soldiers guarding them) died. When people back in the UK became aware of the conditions within the camps, they were transferred to civilian control, and conditiions improved somewhat.
It's often forgotten that part of the reason for the animosity between the Boers and the British was that the Boers disapproved of Britain's more liberal treatment of the natives, especially their being given the right to vote. The other reason, admittedly, was British interest in Boer resources.
Yes we stood against slavery and our navy enforced the freedom of slaves
.... eventually and to a degree, respectively, only after being one of the most successful slave-trading countries.
@@PianoDentist As opposed to the not as successful slave trading counties (virtually every country to ever exist). We took a stand. Other countries didn't.
@@PianoDentist we get the blame but if we didn't buy the slaves their own people or the Arabs would have, so they would have been castrated and or killed. We get all the blame when it was a global norm just because we were so successful at so many things.
@@PianoDentist Slavery was endemic, practiced the world over. From the Far East to the Americas, it was considered, a legitimate and lawful business arrangement. When the British found themselves the most powerful nation on earth, it took that wealth and power, and used it to impose abolition, in the face of universal and worldwide opposition. Yet people like you, still seek to belittle this achievement, with disingenuous and puerile comments like this.
@@PianoDentist With many others, who are strangely hardly ever mentioned, especially Arabs,Portuguese, (who started it in Europe,) plus most European countries.most as business transactions, Some if not hands on.As most of it just as most in Great Britain.Dont forget the the sellers, the Africans themselves, who got super rich selling their fellow people.
Well done, you can see the flaw in the producer's bias in this video. He was keen to educate everyone on the bad of the UK and fleetingly mentioned a small percentage of good, if he mentioned it at all.
Yes, completely missed Britain's leading role in ending slavery.
There were also some inaccuracies that paint Britain in a negative light - such as; Britain having a Monopoly on the slave trade, The colonies having to pay high taxes to pay for European wars, Indian independence being a forced uprising rather than something agreed during the war years in advance.
Also mentions how bad conditions were in the colonies without mentioning how bad conditions were in the home islands with debtors prisons, workhouses etc.
@@tomasdawe4423 And also he skates over the fact that Africans captured and sold fellow Africans into slavery. They also used slaves themselves.
great video Britain is thousands of years old fighting all the way even today
We are the descendants of the strongest murderers!
Britain was survival of the fittest, the best murderers won.
It's in the blood! 😂
17:14 Quite a few reasons. One reason being Britain had agreed treaties with the natives in the US not to expand further west, the colonists still wanted to.
Alan Turing can be ranked amongst those few that saved so many, as per Churchill's Battle of Britain speech. Kinda heart breaking how he was treated after the war, you'd have thought he fought on the other side..
16:55 There was a famous court case (Somerset v Stewart) just before the Revolutionary war that basically said that any slave who sets foot on English soil is immediately free.
There's some suggestion that this was one of the factors that encouraged the (mostly slave owning) founding fathers to rebel.
In practice, the judgement only applied to Britain itself and not the colonies, but many believed the colonies would eventually be required to follow suit.
Pro-slavery colonists wanted independence so they could keep their slaves, but abolitionist colonists also wanted independence because Britain wasn't granting the same rights to the colonies.
It is to do with the Bill of Rights of 1688.The colonists wanted the Bill to apply in America but George III said the Bill only applied in England.The Somerset judgement complicated it.
My town in Somerset was one of the first few to ban slavery and declare any slave who enters for residency within the town is free.
Yes but you also had to sign up to be in the British military what is now Canada was a route for slaves wanting freedom and many got it one of those became the wealthiest man in Nova Scotia and owned more land than anyone in Canada Samuel Ball
Small Island - big heart. We have and always will defend our Island!
You could probably do the history of the USA in this format in about 45 seconds.
They become cunts the end
What it would not exist without England . before they mention Irish Italian heritage on English colonised the new America's .
@@garysimpson1486 well the Spanish brutalised then colonised South Americas the French & English Canada, and good old George Washington of English grandparents.
The doomsday book despite it's ominous name is one of the most valuable historical documents ever written. It's not a chronicle to glorify some king or hero. It's not some treaties justifying a religious or political idea. Its simply a complete catalogue of every citizen and every piece of property they owned giving an astoundingly detailed insight into the life of people in every strata of society.
Although the Domesday Book's etymology is judgement, which people assume is related to the Biblical Judgement Day, it's actually closer to 'final authority', or the definitive catalogue or census of the British Isles.
You should react to ‘Know your Ally, Britain, it was documentary made for US soldiers deployed to Britain in WW2 in order for them to understand British culture and norms. It’s a great video I’m sure you’ll enjoy and find interesting!👌💯
Yes, this.
Alan Turing was a great man who deserved more from the nation he helped save. The mans genius saved probably millions of lives with the work he did for the enigma machine. Yet after the war they found out he was a homosexual and had him chemically castrated. He later died from cyanide poisioning ruled as a suicide. A great injustice was done to Turing, its shameful as a Brit.
Stonehenge was built over a span of over 1500 years, That's roughly the same timespan as between the fall of the Roman Empire and now. It's probably safe to presume that the peoples who started it were not the same as the ones who finished it.
The Butler Did It,
Stonehenge Is About 3,000 Thousand Year's Old, The Hugh Sarsons Stone's And The Blue Stone's Are From South West Wales, / CYRMU 🏴🏴🏴🏴, And The Moronic Bloody Krouts Are Now Saying That The True Celt's Copyed It From Kroutland, When Their Lousy Country Didn't Even Exist, !!!!!!! There Was Just Bavaria, !!!!!!!! Not Even The Rhineland, Was Named,!!!!!!!!!,.
It's also been redesigned several times. The Beaker People probable brought in the big stones the smaller blue stones had been there for a while.
Typical builders - never complete a job in the time they estimate. 🙂
This is a great start, now you know what to look for if you want to delve deeper into not only European history, but American history, After all American history is European history as well.
Little poem I learnt to remember what happened to Henry VIII's wives:
"Divorced, Beheaded, Died. Divorced, Beheaded, Survived."
Wife #1 started the whole mess, with the split from the Catholic Church. Wife #2 was accused of treason (I think) and lost her head over the matter. Wife #3 died 6 days after the birth of Henry's only surviving male heir, and he grieved her loss for the rest of his life. Wife #4 was ousted. Wife #5 was shortened by a head for some reason or another. Wife #6 managed to survive, by outliving Henry.
And #6 remarried, and had children, leading eventually to my friend.
@@neuralwarp Really? You know someone descended from Henry's 6th wife? Awesome!
In 1939 Winston Churchill loaned a copy of the Magna carta to the USA, it was on display next to the declaration of independence in the library of Congress.
Elizabeth 1st "nickname" was "the virgin queen", a name still alive today in the American state of Virginia which was named that by Walter Raleigh in her honour.
Michaela Francis: Many historians don't believe that she deserved that nickname.....apparently she had many "gentlemen friends" at court 😕
@@paganphil100 A tad disrespectful - Queen Elizabeth I was known to take a bath once a year, whether she needed one or not! 😁
Scotland always say the English attacked them, but they invaded England many times and suffered the repercussions.
Yep, they harassed the English with raids (especially Robert the Bruce) for hundreds of years, and made innumerable treaties with France against England, but were outraged when Edward I retaliated. It was as much about keeping the French at bay as subduing Scotland. Philip IV of France worked tirelessly to take the English throne for the French. This was in the thirteenth century.
@@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej Absolutely, Corinne!
Few notable errors (oversight of facts).
1, slavery was not a British idea or started by the British, nor was the African Slave Trade to the Americas a British idea or started by the British. It was also the British in 1807 that FORCED the rest of the world to end slavery, without that British law and power of the Britsh Royal Navy, slavery would probably still be common place today. As a Brit I'm angered to be slated and blamed for slavery taking place when as a Brit my heritage were those ending it, while those benefiting in the Americas continued, and as late as the 1970's segregation and racism towards blacks was typical in he Americas. (So don't point a finger at the UK demanding we apologise for slavery until you have sorted the US problems out first).
The truth is that Portugal started the African slave trade to the Americas in the 1480's over 200 years before Britain got involved. Side note, The Dutch operated 10 Coastal fortresses along what is now Ghana from where slaves were traded.
2, Tea was introduced much sooner than stated in this video, tea was introduced to the UK in the 1650's during the reign of Charles II.
They failed to mention that before “William and Mary”( Mary being the daughter of James 2nd) could ascend the throne of “Englan”, they had to sign “the act of settlement”, the “Declaration of Rights”, most importantly (and where the American “Bill of Rights” comes directly from) the “Bill of Rights”, Scotland who also petitioned the king was granted “the Claim of Rights”.
Doing history here in the UK is difficult due to the long history and especially the way to many wars, then we add the commonwealth to our history it make it impossible to know it all. This missed out on many of the wars Britain has been involved with and didn't even mention Italy and Russia who Britain had many wars with and only touched on the many wars with France and Spain.
The main reason for the American war of Independence was Expansion. The British signed a treaty with Native Americans after the Pontiac war, promising not to expand outside of the 13 colonies. The British Crown made it illegal for American settlers to establish settlements west of the Appalachians. This angered a lot of Americans, especially George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who has purchased a large amount of land In native territory, but could not sell or settle in the land due to the new laws.
The raising of taxes was just the tip of the iceberg for the cause of the revolutionary war.
Winston Churchill was a young war correspondent in the Boar War. He was captured but managed to escape. One of his officer colleagues needed a skin graft so Winston let them use his skin of his own backside, without anaesthetic.
Turing and Flowers did SO much more than just crack Enigma and Tunny.
They invented the electronic digital computer and ushered in the Information Age.
He forgotten to mention the UK is a permanent member of the UN security council. May I go on to say and the first country in the world to spilt the atom .
Tube Alloys wasn't even mentioned.
@@PatGilliland Big Inventions like the Telephone, Television, the World Wide Web and Penicillin.
And a member of AUKUS and Five Eyes. We, Russia and the USA were FOUNDER members of Nato.
Note: concentration camps were Supposed to be a peaceful, civilized method of Reducing casualties, especially among civilians, while also encouraging the rebels to surrender so they could see their families again. the horrific consequences were due to a combination of underestimating the logistical requirements and general mismanagement. Once the newspapers back in Britain found out and reported on the problems, the practice was discontinued and much effort put into making things right, in so far as was possible.
It was generally considered a failure not to be repeated.
Then the Nazis got hold of the idea...
Addendum: Camp custodians (the solders stationed there) received the same ration allowance as the people in the camp and many of the camp guards died.
By the end of the war, as a child/infant you had better chances of living a healthy life in a British concentration camp than in London.
To be fair the Nazi used forced labour and death camps rather than concentration camps, they just used the term as a euphemism.
Some of the very worst concentration camps EVER were in the American Civil War, especially in the South.
Nothing, but nothing....excuses the British camps though. It is true that imperialism did breed many atrocities. We can only be thankful that the BE did some good as well.
We were often asked to intervene in conflicts in other countries. For instance, our presence in India became more forceful after the fall of the Mughal empire, when the country disintegrated into innumerable tribal armed conflicts which took a huge toll on local populations in themselves.
Richard The Lionheart, absolute legendary English figure in history.
The war of the roses rivalry still exists today between the Counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire in sports like cricket, fortunately I'm from the winning side (Lancashire) although I do like Yorkshire as the people are very similar to us Lancastrians.
Me too however when it comes to south north the rivalry dissipates and we are one from the north to the midlands
He only spoke French, lived for war which he was good at but bankrupted the country.
@@sirnigeloffarage9255 Is this a Yorkshire joke?
The "houses" fighting do not really equate to the modern counties. Henry VII, the winner, was Welsh for example, not from Lancashire at all.
Nice though the rivalry is, it doesn't actually bear any geographical reference to the factions in the Wars of the Roses. That was between the houses of York and Lancaster rather than the regions. In point of fact, York was mostly a Lancastrian stronghold during the conflict and Lancaster tended towards the Yorkist faction.
Elizabeth the 1st knickname was The Virgin Queen
Nickname or you make it sound like it is something to do with the Queen's knickers!
You are more or less correct on the "Great" in Great Britain. It was used by the Romans to name the biggest single island in all the British Isles and the area of Brittany.
A correction in the video, one of the first English colonies in the American continent was Virginia, named after Queen Elizabeth I also known as "the virgin queen" at the time
Henry VIII's paranoia, was likely the result of an accident he had while jousting, from which he never properly recovered and he became a different person after the event, suspicious and mistrustful of those around him, where he had previously been a very popular king.
When you look into how they tried to cure his leg, it's no f+cking wonder he had a bit of an anger issue! 😳
Not that I'm making excuses for him, he was an egotistical bully before the accident, but my God he suffered for that accident!
He hurt his leg in one jousting accident where they thought he was gonna die because the lance whacked him straight in the face. He'd forgotten to pull the helmet visor down! He was unconscious for quite a while and it's probably likely he sustained brain damage, which was actually the MOST likely explanation for his personality change.
This wasn't the leg injury though, per se. It was a second jousting accident where he fell off the horse and the horse rolled onto him on the ground, which had "opened up an older leg wound" ...
Correction: The Angles, Saxons and Jutes didn't push the Britons out to the west. It's a common misconception, but modern DNA evidence shows us that though rulers changed, the population stayed. Gradually, as often happens, the people adopted some of the ways of the ruling class. So, there wasn't a mass migration of Germanic tribes into Britain, it was more limited. The 'English' remain more Brittonic than Anglo-Saxon - most areas of England only show 10-40% Germanic DNA, much of which may have come from interbreeding, not replacement. Cymru (Wales), and for a time, other western areas kept their ruling class, and so kept their language and traditions for much longer.
There are some similarities with France in that France is named after the Frankish ruling class, but the population remained more Gaul. The difference is that people accordingly refer to the French as Gallic, not Frankish, but incorrectly call the English Anglo-Saxon, rather than (the more correct) Brittonic.
actual taxes applied to the 13 colonies were Very low compared to what everyone else was paying, and were only instituted after the colonists refused to pay a one off levy that covered only the cost of maintaining the defensive garrisons in the colonies during the war.
of note is that one of the main causes of the war was said colonists raiding French colonies (without any sort of permission or authorization).
Also, the King was barely involved in any of that, it was mostly parliament.
extra bonus: upon attaining independence, taxes in the 13 colonies skyrocketed, as even with the "heavy" taxes, their administration, defence, and infrastructure was still paid for entirely by taxes taken from the workers in the British Isles.
oh. and the "no taxation without representation" thing?
pure recruitment propaganda. the colonies "negotiating" position was "no taxes at all. ever.". representation only came up when someone realized that parliament was never going to accept their (nonsensical) position unless they had their own MPs to "play the game" rather than being a random delefation. Too bad this realization came After the begining of armed hostilities in the colonies.
incidentally, that initial organized refusal to pay the levy was, by the standards of the day, open rebellion. the usual practice when such happened was to send in the army. of course, that's expensive and the whole point was that Britain needed money, so they instead instituted the stamp tax, which was much more easily collected (being an import/export tax collected at ports). it was "punitive" pretty much entirely by way of being permanent.
also, at the time, the colonies that would become Canada were only lightly inhabited (and many only recently acquired from the French). before open combat began, the soon to be rebels (comprising 1/3rd or less of the population of the colonies) set about a campaign of murder and arson against loyalist colonists (also about 1/3rd or so of the population. the rest didn't care much). This lead to most of the surviving loyalists fleeing to what would later become Canada. This, fyi, wasn't any sort of warfare, there were no armies yet involved, it was just flat out terrorism (at best).
It wasn't about slavery, that only became a big deal later. It was about rich bastards not wanting to pay taxes (to cover expenses They created (their raiding French colonies was a major cause of the war that lead to the taxes) or have anyone above them able to hold them responsible for their terrible behaviour. Something that's shaped US politics and culture ever since.
Indeed Elizabeth I never married, her nickname was ‘The Virgin Queen’ which is why in America you have a State called Virginia (and West V also) because the original British colony there was named Virginia in honour of the Queen.
This video is highly inaccurate in a number of areas.
The Irish Famine for instance was due to a Potato Blight present throughout Europe, including England, Wales and Scotland. It affected Ireland in the way it did because of particular laws in Ireland. The land was owned by the rich, both Protestant AND Catholic. The land was worked by the peasants, any potatoes they grew they could eat but the other crops belonged to the land owners.
It was not the British government that prevented the peasants from eating the food grown (parliament had tried to change the nlaw a number of times with the Land Reform act, but it failed to pass until after the famine). The British government sent famine relief. This was available to everyone under the Tory government. The Wigs placed a constraint on the relief, if you had land to grow food you couldn't receive relief. Unfortunately, they included the tenant farmers, who had land to grow potatoes but couldn't grow other crops, else they were taken by the landlords.
Well said. The correction was badly needed, I suspect an American or Irish historian wrote the script. A British historian would have mentioned the Enlightenment, the Lunar Society (invention of scientific method), the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians, and the Metropolitan Meat Market, and the Metropolitan Waterworks, all of which are as important as Bazalgette's sewers to the world history of public health.
Elizabeth 1 didn't have much choice in executing Mary, Queen of Scots, not because of the Catholic religion but because Catholics did not consider Elizabeth to be the rightful Queen of England because her father divorced his first wife and married Elizabeth's mother, Ann Boleyn. As Catholics do not believe in divorce Elizabeth was considered illegitimate so they thought Mary should be Queen. There were numerous plots to assassinate Elizabeth and make Mary queen and she was mixed up in the plot to make her queen, leaving Elizabeth with no choice but to execute her, which she did reluctantly.
The UK has such a complicated history (hence Hollywood's obsession with it and using it to make films. Most of which are inaccurate and some are dreadful.
"some" are dreadful?
@@IUsedToBeSomeoneElseX She was being kind. She really meant almost all of them.
You have heard of the Doomsday book before from when you reacted to the video about "The British Crusade Against Slavery" it's where William the conqueror kept a record of things including every person that lives on the land in order to abolish slavery to make a profit (I don't know if that's ringing any bells). Elizabeth I was the virgin queen.
William kept records of property in order to tax people, BUT in the ensuing feudal system most of the population was enslaved, forced to work on the land for their lord
ALL BRITISH PEOPLE ARE NOT OBSESSED WITH TEA!!!!
•haves a cup of tea to calm down• 😂
100% we are not obsessed with tea
*finishes my 15th cup that day*
Not at all
Couod you imagine if the importation of tea was blocked to the UK?
We’d have an army of 38 million aged 18-64 overnight
@@cloric1 I think blocking tea imports to the UK would start world war 3 😂
This video basically shows everything that inspired George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series (Game of Thrones) :
A wall to keep the barbarians out, seven kingdoms, invasion from the east (William the Conqueror and Aegon the Conqueror), trial by combat etc. etc.
"Concentration camp" is such a loaded term especially in regards to those created and used by the British army in south Africa in the Boer wars, when you hear this term today you can be forgiven for thinking about the Nazis in WW2,
The major difference between those and the ones used by the British is that the British never drew up a plan to exterminate an entire people with the concentration camps they made, the premeditated Malus just isn't there in the British example,, just as it wasn't there in the American example of the concentration camp with the American Japanese families who were around in the 1940's.
The chap in the video reacted strongly to the mention of these camps and it wasn't made clear enough that there is a huge difference.
Furthermore:
When people casually mention the 'concentration camps' (initially, _refugee camps_ ) set up by the British during the Boer War - an ugly and shaming episode, to be sure - it should _also_ be pointed out that a) they were NOT _intended_ to cause _harm_ to the Afrikaaners in the same way that the later _German_ 'camps' most definitely were designed to do to _their_ inmates, and that b) when the British public and MPs found out about the appalling hardships suffered by the internees, there was a huge uproar - which led pretty soon to questions in Parliament, the setting-up of a commission of inquiry, and the rapid amelioration of conditions. In short, Bloemfontein was not Dachau, and Krugersdorp was not Auschwitz.
When the mentioned Napoleon Bonapart, the tune played was "Prussia Glory"
La Marseillaise would be right.
That's fair - Boney did lose after all. Could have just as easily been the 1812 Overture.
The following 4 men are those who we have to thank for Steam power
Thomas Newcomen ( He re-tamed Steam)
James Watt ( the external Condenser)
Richard Trevithick ( the high pressure)
Sir Charles Algernon Parsons ( The Turbine)
your reaction to our history is priceless - you look really shocked, made me laugh
There are few things which they got wrong here but the majority of it was accurate. Edward III did have an heir in his grandson Richard II (by his eldest son), but he was usurped by his cousin who became Henry IV. While Henry VIII was paranoid, he executed Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard because he had signed confessions of adultery which was classed as treason. Also Elizabeth I executed Mary Queen of Scots because she was involved in a plot to overthrow her not because she didn’t want Scotland to have a catholic monarch. There is also important stuff missing (I know you can’t do a lot in 20 mins but still) like how George I introduced the idea of a prime minister as he couldn’t speak English and needed a representative which did.
Fun facts:
When you say "isn't that the basics of the US constitution", this is why whenever an american tells us that the US fought and died so people across the had their rights and freedom. We just nod and smile . IT is to much to explain we got there a few 100 years before US existed.
And much of it still existing in British law, only a few of the original wording are still in statute. One of these written over 800 years ago.
"NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right"
Does that not sound a little like the right to "life and liberty"? oh and for good measures we slipped in the outlaw of slavery at the same time.
3:44: Shame about the mispronunciation of the Welsh kingdoms, the whole point is that the peoples and countries of United Kingdom and Britain are not just the English.
Doomsday book is an inventory of England just under 900 years ago when we outlawed slavery in England - Their have been no slaves in England since then
Hadrians Wall.....parts of which are still highly visible today, in fact I live literally alongside it for much of my youth. Well worth a visit it is too...
Aye it is a great place to live.
It's a shame you tend not to hear about the Antonine Wall too.
yes the US cons is based on the English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta
The Bell Beakers did not build Stonehenge. A previous Neolithic culture set up a large sacred landscape there.
My village in N.East England appears in the Domesday book. It was a book that was basically a census so William the Conqueror could figure out who he could tax
Despite the dissolution of the British Empire the UK still owns many overseas territories like Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Saint Helena and South Georgia
Every person living today has benefited from the British Empire. 🇬🇧🇦🇺🇺🇸🇳🇿🏴🇨🇦
That look of confusion is priceless 😅😂😅😂
12:02 The Armada cause was confused. Mary Queen of Scots fled to England, the Presbyterian Scots replaced her with her Protestant son James VI. Mary was executed as she became the focus of a number of Catholic plots to overthrow Elizabeth.
The concentration camp was an American concept first used during the American civil war.
I love how i learnt all of this in school
Yh same this was just GCSE history for us Ha
Just a thought in that the most common phrase used by scientists and so called experts is..."Not what we believed before".
That's how science works. When new evidence is found the theories are adjusted. It would be crazy to have it any other way.
In the last few years it's been confirmed that the stones were actually moved from Wales to Salisbury where they now stand, and they think that they stood in Wales for possibly a thousand years before being moved to Salisbury,
Nah, definitely aliens👽👽🛸🛸😂✌️
@@martindunstan8043 Merlin sneezed and....well there they are.
"It's only a model" - Patsy
Do we get reparations from Denmark, Iceland and Noric countries then? I mean, this seems to be popular right now, or do you have to look a certain way to demand such Reparations?
In the same sentiment, should the Welsh have reparations from the Italian Roman's , the Angles Saxon's Jutes Flemish Vikings and countless mercenary hordes. The Normans Norman French, Norman English and eventually the English? That's 2000 years of subjugation. Perhaps they should also have their stones back from Salisbury plain and their Arthur legend. Oh, and the coal and flooded valley reservoirs where they once lived.🤐
reasonably accurate, apart from the mispronunciation of welsh words and confusing a Motte (a big fucking hill) with a Moat ( a big fucking ditch filled with water)
The original video was necessarily simplistic, but it was also wrong in several respects. It's ok for getting a rough idea of the chronology.
for instance by the time George the first became the king the Spanish war of the Spanish succession was over
Domesday books (2), were an inventory of the conquered lands. Magna Carta is one of many, sealed by King John at Runnymead. It gave rights to "freemen" and your constitution has lose connections with it. Gave the basis of legislation, rights of ownership and freedom, trial by jury etc. One thing not mentioned is that Ireland was given, by the Pope, to John as his kingdom before he became King on the death of King Richard the lion heart. You have got it on the war of Independence, history has sanitised it to tax. Can't beat rewriting history.
Hi Catherine, depending upon which letter is missing ('c' or 'o' ?) can have a very different meaning to what you wrote, thus: "...your constitution has LOSE connections...". Did you intend to write 'Close' or loOse' ? Please clarify, thanks.
The civil war caused by the intended secession by the southern states. The slave issue was thrown into the mix until today many Amrecans think that the main issue was slavery.
Re Roman withdrawal from Caledonia (Scotland). There were policy decisions made in Rome to stop the expansion of the Empire. There were insufficient resources (tin, gold, lead, wheat, slaves) in Caledonia to justify the occupation. The landscape was unfavourable to having small semi self-sufficient garrisons dotted about. The warrior/hunter culture was less able to be moulded to a productive subservient agricultural society. There was not the establishment of agriculture sufficient to feed large Roman garrisons.
Nothing really to do with the video but I heard a saying recently that sticks with me
"The difference between Americans and British is that Americans think 100 years is a long time and the British think 100 miles is a long way"
You can not compare 'Concentration camps' between South Africa and WW2 Germany. The first was due to ignorance and stupidity, the second was deliberate. It's like comparing current US and Norwegian prisons?
This is a bit harsh on the Irish famine. Britain did what it could to try & relieve it, but conditions in Ireland made this difficult, The things Ireland had to export would not have fed the Irish, but. help provide an income. As in India things were run by private companies & individuals not the British government. The South Africa situation was not as described here. Hundreds & thousands were not put in concentration camps (certainly not like the later Nazi ones) to force the Boars to surrender, but detained to remove them from areas of fighting, where settlements were destroyed. The British government outlawed slavery throughout the Empire in 1833, & set about forcing other nations to do the same thereafter. Again slavery had been private enterprise, not government run, & was universal, but had been illegal in England since c. 1066.
New to your channel and loving binge-festing past content👏👏👏
Please consider reacting to:
1) Jeremy Clarkson and the Victoria Cross (Medal of Honor equivalent) - it’s a long one (approx 1hr), but know you’ll love it
2) Al Murray Nations of the World
Thanks 👍
It is interesting how the individual doing the video chose to leave out a lot of the good outcomes and biproducts of Britain and instead chose to almost exclusively talk about the worst of it all
So now it becomes clear why Britain is so good at war !
Britain and Portugal have been allies since the 12th century (I think - it may have been the 13th).
Yes, goddamit! Beaker from the muppets was Bri'ish. And he's the best muppet, I think we'll all agree!
Concentration camps back then didn't have quite the same meaning as they do now. The idea was to put the people displaced by war in to one place so they can be fed and kept out of harm's way (and also prevent them from doing any harm to the British) however without proper food or medical supplies they weren't particularly pleasant places to be. They weren't sent there to die, but they are still pretty awful. I think now they'd be called refugee camps but it's hard to say.
Yep, you hit the nail on the head...the main reasons for the American revolution were, abolition of slavery and colonial settlements expansion beyond the applachia.
Perhaps the wealthy Americans having to pay their share too? How many ordinary working Americans would the new taxation have affected?
The abolition of slavery was a cause for the American Civil War, not the Revolution, which was about ceasing to be a colony and become the USA..
Now you know what we had to take in and study as school kids!!!
FYI - the Portuguese transported over twice as many slaves as the British
18:50 that march music is actually Preubens Gloria, or Prussia's Glory (Germany wasn't a country yet) so is definitely not French.
Stonehenge was built by people in the Neolithic period. The Bell Beakers brought possibly an Indo European language and culture, and were a later Bronze Age people. It's possible that they may have added some extra elements, but they were not the primary builders of Stonehenge.
Neolithic people of Britain were a combination of hunter gatherers who had populated Britain well after the Younger Dryas, merged with people whose ancestors brought agriculture (crop growing) from the area now known as Turkey several thousand years later.
For reasons unknown (though it's tempting to guess!!!), the males of the Neolithic culture in Britain were entirely replaced by the Bell Beaker warrior-pastoralists in the Bronze Age. They brought with them domesticated horses and chariot warfare, as well as a new wide-ranging proto-language, Indo European.🙂
Save giving yourself a headache all you need to know is, it all runs on a shoestring and we have a knack of Wallis & Grommeting our way out of trouble 👍😂
As you asked about slavery, you should watch, The British Crusade Against Slavery, - Basically, Britain went to wars over slavery and Britain literally bought slaves to free them, we didn't finish paying off the debt for the money we borrowed to do that until 2015, what this means is if you are a taxpayer in the UK you have paid for freeing slaves and the abolition of slavery. Not many people learnt this but it was the Arabs that introduced slavery first to the world, they used to castrate every black male they enslaved
I actually reacted to that one as well. It's on the channel. Hope you watch it
@@SimplySavageReactions Oh, thanks i will
I did all this at school but over several years so I can understand your bemusement. Keep at it as it is interesting. Regards, Jim in NI
The fact that courts used Anglo and Norman words simultaneously is the origin of the phrase "cease and desist".
Domesday is Britain's earliest public record. It contains the results of a huge survey of land and landholding from 1085. Domesday is by the far the most complete record of pre-industrial society to survive anywhere in the world and provides a unique window on the medieval world.
Love it that a Parmo was mentioned
Spot on; Great Bretagne to differentiate it from just Bretagne. The West Country (Cornwall - Cornovii; and Devon - Dumnonia) and Brittany were essentially made up of the same kin, the same tribes, brothers by blood and traditions and connected by trade and seafaring. We must remember travel and trade in very ancient times was by large seagoing sail boats. A few years ago I was shown a full size replica of a Bronze Age boat in the storage yard in a Maritime Museum, it was fully some 60 feet long and standing under the vessel it looked massive, staggeringly amazing; was based on remains of an actual Bronze Age wreck!
The doomsday book isn't what is sounds like, it was a collection of information. That information was a note of every town, village and city in the land, how many people lived there and other administrative figures. It was a smart idea, utilised to control and rule the land which the Normans had newly acquired. We get much of our historical understanding about life at the time from the doomsday book
Brittany is one of the six Celtic nations the others being Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Isle of man and Cornwall
And England too. I know that's not the accepted narrative, but modern DNA evidence shows us the truth. Modern England, Cornwall and Wales all show more Brittonic DNA than Germanic. England is the region where the Angles, Saxon and Jutes took over as the ruling class. Wales and for a time Cornwall, are the regions where the Brittonic ruling class held on for longer. Some fled to Brittany, as I'm sure you know already. In what would become England, people adopted the language of the rulers, though those rulers adopted so much from the Britons, and intermarried with them. Around the Saxon Kings you will often find women with clearly Britonnic names.
So, if you are defining the idea of a 'Celtic nation' based on the people, the genetics, the DNA, then you should also include England. If instead, you are basing it on the areas where the 'Celtic' languages continued and many of the traditions were able to persist, then you should maybe remove Cornwall from your list. The Cornish language is near extinct in common usage, though I support efforts to bring it back to life, especially if it contributes to changing this inaccurate, monolithic perception of England being 'Anglo-Saxon'.
@Anglo Saxon Source?
@Anglo Saxon No, that's just not true. The rulers changed. The people stayed and adapted. The Saxons adapted to. And they married Britons too. The Saxon kings frequently had Britonnic wives. The reality is far more interesting.
@Anglo Saxon Not exactly. The Romano Britons (who were themselves Celtic) invited the Saxons in as mercenaries to help defend Britannia from the Picts to the North, and other raiders. Not to push 'Celts out'. Over time, these Saxon Warbands saw the gradual weakening of Roman Britannia, with no legions anymore, and seized the opportunity to extract more and more out of them, then eventually take over power entirely. But the general population of Britons stayed - that's not an opinion, that's simply what happened.
@Anglo Saxon I'm sorry, but you've got it wrong. We know that Vortigern, King of the Britons, struggling with Picts in the north and with Rome's legions long withdrawn and a limited military, invited two Saxon warlords, brothers, Hengest and Horsa, as mercenaries to defend them. They turned on the Britons in 455ad. We know Horsa died. We know Hengest manage to take control in a small region and founded Kent as the first Saxon ruled Kingdom in 473. We know they extended control in parts of the East, but that for much of the 6th century, the Britons halted the carving up of Britain by the Saxons, and remained in control of much of what is now England, and Wales. We know that by the end of the 6th century, the Saxon warlords pushed again and the south of England's and the Midlands fell to them. Cornwall remained under Britonnic leaders for a time. Don't take my word for it, just look it all up if you are interested - you don't need to invent the history, it's all there.
Its broadly correct but hugely truncated so many nuances and complexities to be covered but I really enjoyed this