A slave is someone who can be bought and sold; separated from their families etc. A serf is a person who is tied to the land they live on and are not free too move or anything like that, the land A serf lives can be bought and sold but they as an individual cannot. Generally serfs had more rights than slaves but the rights of slaves and serfs and what each of those terms even meant can vary greatly depending on when and where we're talking about and even just who the slaves master was; for example a slave in ancient egypt would have had a pretty different experience to a slave in 19th century America. Hope that makes sense lol
Italy was rich. But it was split up into tiny states. It's why the Great Powers (France and Austria mainly, and Spain when they were one) were so keen on taking bits of it. The strongest state in Italy was probably the Republic of Venice, because it was also the richest. They dominated the northeast of Italy, and had holdings in Croatia and Greece. The other wealthy state was the Republic of Genoa, which too was a maritime merchant republic that held land as far as Crimea at one point. These two had strong navies and massive economies, and Venice also had a decent-ish army. The Pope held central Italy, and was protected by his status as "Pope". But other than that, the region was easy picking. Southern Italy was inherited by Spain, while the north was the site for constant war between Great Powers, Venice and Genoa, the Pope and the other minor Italian states. Napoleon's invasion of Italy destroyed basically all of the states in the north. The west was incorporated into France, the rest became his satellite states. After the Napoleonic Wars, the borders were entirely redrawn. Austria annexed the Veneto region (where the Venetian Republic used to be), and new principalities and duchies were created. Neither of the old powerhouses, Venice and Genoa, were restored, and the region was populated by small monarchies. Sardinia-Piedmont would rise to be the pre-eminent one, and eventually unite Italy under its own monarch in 1860.
The HRE ostensibly started out as a "state" (as much as you can say that about any polity that existed in the early and high middle ages). It was a pretty standard kingdom with smaller Vassals much like France and the Holy Roman Emperor was also just the King of Germany. Those Vassals would often devide their own lands up among the sons because primogeniture wasn't really a thing. In the late middle ages, most other European kingdoms began to centralize and form coherent nation states. The HRE however went the opposite direction. The HRE was an elective monarchy and the Emperor was elected by a number of powerful vassals. In order to make sure to be elected, Candidates would promise those electors more and more freedoms and so the emperor didn't have the power to consolidate those tiny vassal states in the same way France could. The early holy roman empire (By which i mean the empire after otto the great up until the 13th century) was actually an increadibly powerful state and a direct successor state of the Frankish empire. Also, yes he could have gonne on. Since Habsburg also ruled Spain in the 16th and 17th century and protugal between 1580 and 1640, they also ruled over their colonies in Africa, asia and America. The saying "The Empire on which the sun never sets" is now mostly associated with the british empire but it was originally used to refer to the empire of Charles V, who was a habsburg (though the Portuguese stuff happened under his son Philipp II.)
The problem with the Netherlands imho is that it was part of the continent and too small to defend itself from large land armies. No matter how lucrative the colonies were and how good was the navy, in the long run that weakness wasn't overcome. If the Netherlands had been an island (the best geostrategic location for a pure "colonial" power), who knows what would have happened. edit2: Tomato juice. edit: And yeah aside from France, as great powers Britain and Russia were considered above Austria and Prussia (which were great but kind of second tier). Then the third tier would be considered Spain and Sweden I guess. Worldwide (even if I'm a little off topic) Qing China would be a big question mark, they were relatively backward and instable, but the large population alone meant something (the biggest cities in the world were still chinese at this point). Militarily at this point they were weak though. As for the "being chosen by god thing", it wasn't only Alexander, it was a very widespread view (and a old one) that monarchs were chosen by god. It was a way to legitimize power.
@@williambranch4283 Yes it's true, but difficult for them to manage several enemies at the same time whether on the sea or on the continent. If it had been an island, Netherlands could have done better like Britain. Base its policy on the Navy, and make armies smaller, but more professional. Then play on commercial alliances in order to contain the Great continental powers such as France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, Germany under Bismarck and the Third Reich, or even Russia under the USSR.
@@SamAronow samoyed is a group of languages not a language in itself. Anyway if we are talking tiny minority languages its Khanty spoken near Tomsk is much closer than any of the Samoyed tongues
Alexander was educated by Catherine the Great (his grandmother), rather than by his father, Paul. Catherine too had a streak of being a contradiction between Enlightenment and Despotism. It's no doubt he picked it up from her. Additionally, he came to power because a group of generals murdered his dad in a coup, so I don't think that would have done much good for his mental state. He also never showed much inclination for rule, so maybe the stress overwhelmed him and made him behave erratically. Early in his reign he made significant steps to political and social modernisation (even had a constitutional project prepared) but suddenly had a change of heart and sent the main architect of his reforms, Mikhail Speransky, into internal exile. He recognised Poland and Finland as autonomous parts of his Empire, but constantly intervened when the autonomous parliaments did something he didn't like. He banned secret organisations and was paranoid about potential revolution, but when he was informed about the beginnings of the Decembrist plot, he simply ignored them saying something to the effect of "I was the same when I was young". Very conflicted figure.
About Netherlands history: we were most powerful in the 17th century. We started colonising by stealing the colonies of Portugal and Spain (Spain and Portugal were in personal Union) during 80 years war (1568-1648 our independence war). After this war we controlled the spice trade in Asia (we took that from Portugal) from our base in Java island (nowadays Indonesia). Also we had some islands and areas in Americas that were changing during the times but from the beginning of the 18th century we controlled Suriname and current day Guyana and those Caribbean islands we still have today. Also we had Cape Town in current day South Africa. During the 18th century we declined and when France captured the Dutch republic Britain took all of our colonies because we were on France his side. After the Napoleonic wars Britain gave back Suriname (but took current day Guyana). Took South Africa, Sri Lanka and some areas in India. And give back most areas in current day Indonesia. In the 19th century we weren’t a big power anymore but were still respected. We only had Belgium and Luxembourg because Britain had good relations with our royal family. But when Belgium rebelled in 1830 Britain supported Belgium independence. After that the Netherlands just focused on themselves and the areas they controlled. We only expanded our control in the Indonesian islands during the time the rest of Western Europe was taking Africa.
Slave - each individual tied to a particular farm owner, can be arbitrarily bred, bought and sold regardless of family. Serf - each family tied to a particular piece of land, not to the farm owner. Cannot be bred, bought and sold. Their own family is means of breeding. Serf land was often controlled by a monarch, aristocrat or church.
Yes, but serfs technicaly could be sold or bought. As you said they were tied to a land, so they could be "sold" with the land. Of course it is not the same as selling slaves...
I'm late to the party but great video, great reaction. This is a period of history which I know little about and I am learning with you and enjoying it. Please do go on to the second video. Oh, and tomato juice!
The US since 1933 has been a Whig polity .. a uni-party, where each side is actually a faction. And most definitely a controlling oligarchy, not a democracy. Kissinger's hero is Metternich.
During the British occupation of N France, a British officer made the first archeological excavation of the battlefield of Agincourt ;-) The Rothschilds developed out of Jewish banking/pawn brokering of the early modern period. They made a killing by insider info with the monarchies (who owed them money). First killing: Glorious Revolution 1688 in GB (followed by the creation of the first central bank (the Bank of England)). Second killing: Battle of Waterloo 1815. They probably made money off of the War of Spanish Succession, Seven Years War, American Revolution, early British colonization of India, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars in between. War profiteering was and remains one of the most lucrative banking enterprises. Insider info was used to make a temporary profit (and maybe they spread the false rumor that GB had been defeated) from the temporary return of Napoleon. Insider political and commercial info is still the greatest engine of corruption the world has ever known ... everyone does it. It was British victory everywhere, and the Rothschilds, that allowed the British Empire to go onto a gold standard for the first time (pound silver sterling earlier) that lasted until 1914, when the Europeans committed suicide.
Your interpretation, knowledge & interest is captivating and quite extraordinary! I too have Irish roots, my grandmother is from County Cork, her maiden name being O’Hara. Love your history programmes keep up the great work!
Czechia is Slavic yes. Hungary isn't; Hungary is closer ethnically and especially linguistically to Finland, Estonia and the various Uralic and Finno-Ugric peoples who currently live within Russia than they are to any of their neighbours. Hungary was founded by the Magyar people, a nomadic group that invaded and migrated their way from the Ural mountains into where Hungary is now today, before adopting Christianity and settling down.
Slight Correction; the American idea of freedom is a distinctly British idea, it was birthed from the English individualistic ideas and self governance brought about after the English civil war
Historia Civilis is such a brilliant channel! Marvelous storytelling, and funny too, with a unique art style. Please watch their "Assassination of Julius Caesar" video if you haven't yet. One of my favourites. Next to "Can animals commit crimes?" which is funny in it's absurdity!
Historia Civilis unfairly maligned Alexander in this. There was some order to the Tsar's thoughts. He believed the ideals of enlightenment like his grandmother Catherine II, but understood that their wanton implementation would destroy Russia like it did to France. The man struck a balance between autocracy and liberalism.
The comparison with the post WWII situation makes sense, but as often in history, it's also a trap, since even if there are similarities, nothing is the same. And I do agree with an other commentator here : don't be too bismarckian before Bismarck. At the end, old Otto used an idea that was already existing (germanity, big military, weakened and isolated Austria) for Prussia's advantage... Of course, he did much, but not from nothing. And one of those thing that served him well was the German national feeling that Napoleonic wars vivified
German is a Germanic language, Hungarian is an Uralic language and Czech is a Slavic language so all of these don't understand each other at all. While Czech is Western Slavic, Croatian and Serbian are Southern Slavic languages, meaning that they all share certain linguistic features.
Czech is a western slavic language, meaning it's closest to Polish and especially Slovak. Hungarian is an ugrofinnic language, it is remarkably different from all other european languages, except perhaps for Estonian and Finnish. Czech is not a germanic language, meaning that except for influences from being neighbor to german speaking peoples, it has nothing to do with it. Czechs themselves are western Slavs, by no means eastern-europeans, but central-europeans.
Czech is a Slavic language, but Hungarian and Romanian are not. Romanian is a Romance language closely related to Italian, and Hungarian isn’t Indo-European at all.
Czech is a slavic language. Hungarian has absolutely nothing (exept for loan words of course) to do with slavic languages. Hungarian is a finno-ugric language and more specifically the ugric side and the most closely related languages in europe are finnish and estonian who are on the "finno" side
I’ll raise my glass of tomato juice to this video! The Netherlands or the Dutch Republic was one of the great powers in the 1600s. But that was all done after the year 1672 when it was attacked by England, France and 2 German states at the same time. Though it was still the wealthiest part of Europe and Napoleon invaded at the end of the 1700s.
This worship of Bismarck is silly, especially in a video about this period. Look into how Prussia reformed itself after the humiliations of the Napoleonic wars. It was a team of really talented people that made Prussia what it was in his time+ the state itself and the army were strong. It also helps that everyone else during that time was in weird transitional period during the collapse of the Meternich system and didn't know what they wanted. Look more into structural forces, not so much individuals. (Napoleon is one of the rare exceptions.)
As someone that loves history you may like the British film The History Boys. Set in north of England in the 80’s, it follows a group of lads preparing for entrance exams to Oxford and Cambridge. A tragicomedy using history studies to drive the narrative ruclips.net/video/xEzzV4aF5Qk/видео.html
You ask about Conservative, they are to the right, the Whiggs would become the Liberal Party, the "Tories " would become the Conservative Party. Both are fluid in their beliefs. A right wing Liberal could be at home as a Conservative. Winston Churchill was in Both parties. During this period only a select few had voting rights, era of the rotten boroughs, where there was representation on old boundaries, where some places had 4 MPs and no residents and Areas with large population had no MPs. Interesting times in Politics.
"A Serf" is "technically" ("by the mere object of his body") - NOT a PROPERTY of his Master. (Slave - is) - in most serfdom systems - is considered to be "inhabitant of masters land (estate)" - compelled by law to perform some kinds of free mandatory labour - for the master - in exchange for right to live and have some own economy - on the land of the master. Dependency of Serfdom varied across space and time. When principle of "terram adscripti" ("written to the estate") was in place (making leaving of the estate without permission - virtually impossible) - it was literally a slavery - by all - but it's name.. Also "normally" a peasant could have his OWN livestock - independently from herds of the master.. but - bcs of exclusive land ownership of the master.. (where to feed it ? and - with what ?). Sometimes "own" livestock was legally confiscated on the occasion of any transgression, especially when serf was "about to leave". At some points - peasant families were so dependent - that landowners were "illegaly" trading them between estates (mostly - between over-populated and under-populated, or because of particular profession (i need a barrel-maker, or a blacksmith..). At some instances and in some countries "Ius primae nocti" was also - in place.. (Anyway - landowners were also Arranging - Marriages..) 🤷♂️😏😑😞
It is worth to add that "legal obligations" were not "That One-Sided" - for example (in my country) - Servitutae was an issue (legal allowance for serfs - to collect berries, small pieces of wood in master's forest, or - to fish in the near-by stream) and interestingly - were in some places abolished - after setting serfs free.. Support for the humanitarian assistance of peasants - in case of famine (bad harvest) or epidemy - was also master's legal obligation. Anyway - imagine beeing "freed" serf - when all the land was still owned by the landlord.. 😉😏
My only problem with this video is regarding who exactly defeated Napoleon. Historia Civilis says it was a team effort and it sure was to a certain extent, but I doubt things would've gone differently if it was only Russia fighting Napoleon. Once you start to read about the subject you see just how much resources the Russians were pouring into central and western Europe in 1812/13/14. If we look around looking for someone else doing what was happening in Poland and Germany we can't really find it. In Iberia you had 3 countries (Portugal, Spain and Britain) battling second rate French troops and generals (I exclude Suchet because he didn't serve on decisive fronts). Prussia and Sweden until late 1813 and into 1814 contributed more in leadership than they did in soldiers (heck some "Prussian" corps were mostly Russian). The only other country that could claim to have contributed to Napoleon's fall by actual military action is Austria. Though we shouldn't forget that Austria only joined after the armistice of Plaswitz and by that time, though he had pushed back the allies, Napoleon was seeing that his army couldn't press on much further. My point being that even though Napoleon beat the allies in early 1813 he would still lose the war. Napoleon's army was destroyed in Russia (not to mention the absolute annihilation of his cavalry) and no amount of young conscripts would win the war. I listened to a lecture about this topic specifically and the Russian cavalry is what will end Napoleon one way or the other. In January 1813 there are about 30k horses in all of France that are fit for military service, meanwhile just 2 Russian provinces provide 10k horses. During the 1812/13 campaign the Russians will send around 80k cavalry horses west (that's excluding transport, supply and artillery horses). In 1813 alone 200 squadrons of reserve cavalry (45k men) are sent to Germany and by universal consent these are the best cavalry in the world. Napoleon can take his army and defeat the other great powers (Prussia and Sweden without question, Austria with greater difficulty since they have a big trained army too, but they don't have good commanders) but he can throw as many conscripts as he wants at the Russians and he can win as many battles as he wants, but the sheer incompatibility in horsepower will eventually overwhelm him.
Your theory about Holy Roman Empire was interesting and probably partly true, but it didn´t work. Member states of HRE had a lots of wars between them. Often because of succesion.
No, Russia in the Napoleonic wars and the Soviet Union's victory in WW2 are not similar. The Soviet Union defeated single handedly the nazi horde, pushing them back for years from Moscow to Berlin.
I think it is a shame from US-narrated videos on RUclips that the narrators obviously never take any advice about words which might trouble them. In this case it is ‘Veecount’ for ‘Vyecount’. I know that you do not have any Viscounts (‘Damn right, buddy, in 1776 ….’ ) Yes, we’ve heard all that before, thank you, but surely unfamiliarity with a word should make its pronunciation a subject for study beforehand? I remember not long ago there was a question about the ranks of the aristocracy and when it came to the plural of Marquess (Markwiss) the US narrator said “Markeezes”. Ugh!
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
A slave is someone who can be bought and sold; separated from their families etc. A serf is a person who is tied to the land they live on and are not free too move or anything like that, the land A serf lives can be bought and sold but they as an individual cannot. Generally serfs had more rights than slaves but the rights of slaves and serfs and what each of those terms even meant can vary greatly depending on when and where we're talking about and even just who the slaves master was; for example a slave in ancient egypt would have had a pretty different experience to a slave in 19th century America. Hope that makes sense lol
Your obsession with Bismarck does not make sense for the context of this video. He wasn’t even alive at this point lol.
I will accept the people’s thanks for my intense lobbying efforts on this one.
Merci, mon maréchal
lol
Italy was rich. But it was split up into tiny states. It's why the Great Powers (France and Austria mainly, and Spain when they were one) were so keen on taking bits of it. The strongest state in Italy was probably the Republic of Venice, because it was also the richest. They dominated the northeast of Italy, and had holdings in Croatia and Greece. The other wealthy state was the Republic of Genoa, which too was a maritime merchant republic that held land as far as Crimea at one point. These two had strong navies and massive economies, and Venice also had a decent-ish army. The Pope held central Italy, and was protected by his status as "Pope". But other than that, the region was easy picking. Southern Italy was inherited by Spain, while the north was the site for constant war between Great Powers, Venice and Genoa, the Pope and the other minor Italian states.
Napoleon's invasion of Italy destroyed basically all of the states in the north. The west was incorporated into France, the rest became his satellite states. After the Napoleonic Wars, the borders were entirely redrawn. Austria annexed the Veneto region (where the Venetian Republic used to be), and new principalities and duchies were created. Neither of the old powerhouses, Venice and Genoa, were restored, and the region was populated by small monarchies. Sardinia-Piedmont would rise to be the pre-eminent one, and eventually unite Italy under its own monarch in 1860.
The HRE ostensibly started out as a "state" (as much as you can say that about any polity that existed in the early and high middle ages). It was a pretty standard kingdom with smaller Vassals much like France and the Holy Roman Emperor was also just the King of Germany. Those Vassals would often devide their own lands up among the sons because primogeniture wasn't really a thing. In the late middle ages, most other European kingdoms began to centralize and form coherent nation states. The HRE however went the opposite direction. The HRE was an elective monarchy and the Emperor was elected by a number of powerful vassals. In order to make sure to be elected, Candidates would promise those electors more and more freedoms and so the emperor didn't have the power to consolidate those tiny vassal states in the same way France could. The early holy roman empire (By which i mean the empire after otto the great up until the 13th century) was actually an increadibly powerful state and a direct successor state of the Frankish empire.
Also, yes he could have gonne on. Since Habsburg also ruled Spain in the 16th and 17th century and protugal between 1580 and 1640, they also ruled over their colonies in Africa, asia and America. The saying "The Empire on which the sun never sets" is now mostly associated with the british empire but it was originally used to refer to the empire of Charles V, who was a habsburg (though the Portuguese stuff happened under his son Philipp II.)
The problem with the Netherlands imho is that it was part of the continent and too small to defend itself from large land armies. No matter how lucrative the colonies were and how good was the navy, in the long run that weakness wasn't overcome. If the Netherlands had been an island (the best geostrategic location for a pure "colonial" power), who knows what would have happened.
edit2: Tomato juice.
edit: And yeah aside from France, as great powers Britain and Russia were considered above Austria and Prussia (which were great but kind of second tier). Then the third tier would be considered Spain and Sweden I guess. Worldwide (even if I'm a little off topic) Qing China would be a big question mark, they were relatively backward and instable, but the large population alone meant something (the biggest cities in the world were still chinese at this point). Militarily at this point they were weak though.
As for the "being chosen by god thing", it wasn't only Alexander, it was a very widespread view (and a old one) that monarchs were chosen by god. It was a way to legitimize power.
Netherlands was a contender in the 1600s, and technically took over the British Empire under William & Mary.
@@williambranch4283 Yes it's true, but difficult for them to manage several enemies at the same time whether on the sea or on the continent. If it had been an island, Netherlands could have done better like Britain. Base its policy on the Navy, and make armies smaller, but more professional. Then play on commercial alliances in order to contain the Great continental powers such as France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, Germany under Bismarck and the Third Reich, or even Russia under the USSR.
@@tibsky1396 Correct, all you have to remember is ... the Eighty Years War ;-(
The Duke of Wellington is supposed to have said that Napoleon's presence on the battlefield was worth 50,000 men.
Hungarian is not a Slavic language. Its nearest (distant) relatives are Finnish, Estonian and Mordvian
Hungarian’s nearest relative is Samoyed, deep in Siberia along the Arctic coast. Finnish snd Estonian are more distant.
@@SamAronow samoyed is a group of languages not a language in itself. Anyway if we are talking tiny minority languages its Khanty spoken near Tomsk is much closer than any of the Samoyed tongues
Alexander was educated by Catherine the Great (his grandmother), rather than by his father, Paul. Catherine too had a streak of being a contradiction between Enlightenment and Despotism. It's no doubt he picked it up from her. Additionally, he came to power because a group of generals murdered his dad in a coup, so I don't think that would have done much good for his mental state. He also never showed much inclination for rule, so maybe the stress overwhelmed him and made him behave erratically. Early in his reign he made significant steps to political and social modernisation (even had a constitutional project prepared) but suddenly had a change of heart and sent the main architect of his reforms, Mikhail Speransky, into internal exile. He recognised Poland and Finland as autonomous parts of his Empire, but constantly intervened when the autonomous parliaments did something he didn't like. He banned secret organisations and was paranoid about potential revolution, but when he was informed about the beginnings of the Decembrist plot, he simply ignored them saying something to the effect of "I was the same when I was young". Very conflicted figure.
About Netherlands history: we were most powerful in the 17th century. We started colonising by stealing the colonies of Portugal and Spain (Spain and Portugal were in personal Union) during 80 years war (1568-1648 our independence war). After this war we controlled the spice trade in Asia (we took that from Portugal) from our base in Java island (nowadays Indonesia). Also we had some islands and areas in Americas that were changing during the times but from the beginning of the 18th century we controlled Suriname and current day Guyana and those Caribbean islands we still have today. Also we had Cape Town in current day South Africa. During the 18th century we declined and when France captured the Dutch republic Britain took all of our colonies because we were on France his side. After the Napoleonic wars Britain gave back Suriname (but took current day Guyana). Took South Africa, Sri Lanka and some areas in India. And give back most areas in current day Indonesia. In the 19th century we weren’t a big power anymore but were still respected. We only had Belgium and Luxembourg because Britain had good relations with our royal family. But when Belgium rebelled in 1830 Britain supported Belgium independence. After that the Netherlands just focused on themselves and the areas they controlled. We only expanded our control in the Indonesian islands during the time the rest of Western Europe was taking Africa.
Slave - each individual tied to a particular farm owner, can be arbitrarily bred, bought and sold regardless of family.
Serf - each family tied to a particular piece of land, not to the farm owner. Cannot be bred, bought and sold. Their own family is means of breeding. Serf land was often controlled by a monarch, aristocrat or church.
Yes, but serfs technicaly could be sold or bought. As you said they were tied to a land, so they could be "sold" with the land. Of course it is not the same as selling slaves...
More Historia Civilis reactions, love it. I highly recommend watching his uploads in order.
"How much better?" Hm - Napoleon has had a nick-name "10000" within his army..
I'm late to the party but great video, great reaction. This is a period of history which I know little about and I am learning with you and enjoying it. Please do go on to the second video.
Oh, and tomato juice!
The US since 1933 has been a Whig polity .. a uni-party, where each side is actually a faction. And most definitely a controlling oligarchy, not a democracy. Kissinger's hero is Metternich.
During the British occupation of N France, a British officer made the first archeological excavation of the battlefield of Agincourt ;-) The Rothschilds developed out of Jewish banking/pawn brokering of the early modern period. They made a killing by insider info with the monarchies (who owed them money). First killing: Glorious Revolution 1688 in GB (followed by the creation of the first central bank (the Bank of England)). Second killing: Battle of Waterloo 1815. They probably made money off of the War of Spanish Succession, Seven Years War, American Revolution, early British colonization of India, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars in between. War profiteering was and remains one of the most lucrative banking enterprises. Insider info was used to make a temporary profit (and maybe they spread the false rumor that GB had been defeated) from the temporary return of Napoleon. Insider political and commercial info is still the greatest engine of corruption the world has ever known ... everyone does it. It was British victory everywhere, and the Rothschilds, that allowed the British Empire to go onto a gold standard for the first time (pound silver sterling earlier) that lasted until 1914, when the Europeans committed suicide.
Your interpretation, knowledge & interest is captivating and quite extraordinary!
I too have Irish roots, my grandmother is from County Cork, her maiden name being O’Hara.
Love your history programmes keep up the great work!
Czechia is Slavic yes. Hungary isn't; Hungary is closer ethnically and especially linguistically to Finland, Estonia and the various Uralic and Finno-Ugric peoples who currently live within Russia than they are to any of their neighbours. Hungary was founded by the Magyar people, a nomadic group that invaded and migrated their way from the Ural mountains into where Hungary is now today, before adopting Christianity and settling down.
Slight Correction; the American idea of freedom is a distinctly British idea, it was birthed from the English individualistic ideas and self governance brought about after the English civil war
Historia Civilis is such a brilliant channel! Marvelous storytelling, and funny too, with a unique art style. Please watch their "Assassination of Julius Caesar" video if you haven't yet. One of my favourites. Next to "Can animals commit crimes?" which is funny in it's absurdity!
The original video link is not there in the description!
Treaty of Versailles - bad feelings all around!
Congress of Vienna - that Napoleon fellow is back!
Treaty of Westphalia - hold my German beer!
Historia Civilis unfairly maligned Alexander in this. There was some order to the Tsar's thoughts. He believed the ideals of enlightenment like his grandmother Catherine II, but understood that their wanton implementation would destroy Russia like it did to France. The man struck a balance between autocracy and liberalism.
Tomato Juice lol Great Vids today pal Bravo
Czech is as Slavic a language as they get, very close to Slovak and Polish.
The comparison with the post WWII situation makes sense, but as often in history, it's also a trap, since even if there are similarities, nothing is the same.
And I do agree with an other commentator here : don't be too bismarckian before Bismarck. At the end, old Otto used an idea that was already existing (germanity, big military, weakened and isolated Austria) for Prussia's advantage... Of course, he did much, but not from nothing. And one of those thing that served him well was the German national feeling that Napoleonic wars vivified
German is a Germanic language, Hungarian is an Uralic language and Czech is a Slavic language so all of these don't understand each other at all. While Czech is Western Slavic, Croatian and Serbian are Southern Slavic languages, meaning that they all share certain linguistic features.
Czech is a western slavic language, meaning it's closest to Polish and especially Slovak. Hungarian is an ugrofinnic language, it is remarkably different from all other european languages, except perhaps for Estonian and Finnish. Czech is not a germanic language, meaning that except for influences from being neighbor to german speaking peoples, it has nothing to do with it. Czechs themselves are western Slavs, by no means eastern-europeans, but central-europeans.
Otto von Bismarck was't even born yet
Czech is a Slavic language, but Hungarian and Romanian are not. Romanian is a Romance language closely related to Italian, and Hungarian isn’t Indo-European at all.
Austria / Habsburg Monarchy was definitely the most powerful nation in europe at certain points: it just grew weaker over time after the 30 years war
Czech is a slavic language. Hungarian has absolutely nothing (exept for loan words of course) to do with slavic languages. Hungarian is a finno-ugric language and more specifically the ugric side and the most closely related languages in europe are finnish and estonian who are on the "finno" side
I’ll raise my glass of tomato juice to this video! The Netherlands or the Dutch Republic was one of the great powers in the 1600s. But that was all done after the year 1672 when it was attacked by England, France and 2 German states at the same time. Though it was still the wealthiest part of Europe and Napoleon invaded at the end of the 1700s.
This worship of Bismarck is silly, especially in a video about this period. Look into how Prussia reformed itself after the humiliations of the Napoleonic wars. It was a team of really talented people that made Prussia what it was in his time+ the state itself and the army were strong. It also helps that everyone else during that time was in weird transitional period during the collapse of the Meternich system and didn't know what they wanted. Look more into structural forces, not so much individuals. (Napoleon is one of the rare exceptions.)
Alexander I is Trump. Impossible to tell if it's a genius tactic or if he has lost his marbles.
As someone that loves history you may like the British film The History Boys. Set in north of England in the 80’s, it follows a group of lads preparing for entrance exams to Oxford and Cambridge. A tragicomedy using history studies to drive the narrative
ruclips.net/video/xEzzV4aF5Qk/видео.html
You ask about Conservative, they are to the right, the Whiggs would become the Liberal Party, the "Tories " would become the Conservative Party. Both are fluid in their beliefs. A right wing Liberal could be at home as a Conservative. Winston Churchill was in Both parties. During this period only a select few had voting rights, era of the rotten boroughs, where there was representation on old boundaries, where some places had 4 MPs and no residents and Areas with large population had no MPs. Interesting times in Politics.
Tomato Juice. There. I did it. Yes Saxony is green and Bavaria was light blue
I'll raise my tomatojuice for this reaction video and are looking forward to the next.
will he accept ketchup as proof too ? :-)
Why are you so fixated on otto von Bismarck in a video about the congress of Vienna. Bismarck wasn't even born at the time.
"A Serf" is "technically" ("by the mere object of his body") - NOT a PROPERTY of his Master. (Slave - is) - in most serfdom systems - is considered to be "inhabitant of masters land (estate)" - compelled by law to perform some kinds of free mandatory labour - for the master - in exchange for right to live and have some own economy - on the land of the master. Dependency of Serfdom varied across space and time. When principle of "terram adscripti" ("written to the estate") was in place (making leaving of the estate without permission - virtually impossible) - it was literally a slavery - by all - but it's name..
Also "normally" a peasant could have his OWN livestock - independently from herds of the master.. but - bcs of exclusive land ownership of the master.. (where to feed it ? and - with what ?). Sometimes "own" livestock was legally confiscated on the occasion of any transgression, especially when serf was "about to leave". At some points - peasant families were so dependent - that landowners were "illegaly" trading them between estates (mostly - between over-populated and under-populated, or because of particular profession (i need a barrel-maker, or a blacksmith..). At some instances and in some countries "Ius primae nocti" was also - in place..
(Anyway - landowners were also Arranging - Marriages..) 🤷♂️😏😑😞
It is worth to add that "legal obligations" were not "That One-Sided" - for example (in my country) - Servitutae was an issue (legal allowance for serfs - to collect berries, small pieces of wood in master's forest, or - to fish in the near-by stream) and interestingly - were in some places abolished - after setting serfs free..
Support for the humanitarian assistance of peasants - in case of famine (bad harvest) or epidemy - was also master's legal obligation. Anyway - imagine beeing "freed" serf - when all the land was still owned by the landlord.. 😉😏
My only problem with this video is regarding who exactly defeated Napoleon. Historia Civilis says it was a team effort and it sure was to a certain extent, but I doubt things would've gone differently if it was only Russia fighting Napoleon. Once you start to read about the subject you see just how much resources the Russians were pouring into central and western Europe in 1812/13/14. If we look around looking for someone else doing what was happening in Poland and Germany we can't really find it. In Iberia you had 3 countries (Portugal, Spain and Britain) battling second rate French troops and generals (I exclude Suchet because he didn't serve on decisive fronts). Prussia and Sweden until late 1813 and into 1814 contributed more in leadership than they did in soldiers (heck some "Prussian" corps were mostly Russian). The only other country that could claim to have contributed to Napoleon's fall by actual military action is Austria. Though we shouldn't forget that Austria only joined after the armistice of Plaswitz and by that time, though he had pushed back the allies, Napoleon was seeing that his army couldn't press on much further.
My point being that even though Napoleon beat the allies in early 1813 he would still lose the war. Napoleon's army was destroyed in Russia (not to mention the absolute annihilation of his cavalry) and no amount of young conscripts would win the war. I listened to a lecture about this topic specifically and the Russian cavalry is what will end Napoleon one way or the other. In January 1813 there are about 30k horses in all of France that are fit for military service, meanwhile just 2 Russian provinces provide 10k horses. During the 1812/13 campaign the Russians will send around 80k cavalry horses west (that's excluding transport, supply and artillery horses). In 1813 alone 200 squadrons of reserve cavalry (45k men) are sent to Germany and by universal consent these are the best cavalry in the world. Napoleon can take his army and defeat the other great powers (Prussia and Sweden without question, Austria with greater difficulty since they have a big trained army too, but they don't have good commanders) but he can throw as many conscripts as he wants at the Russians and he can win as many battles as he wants, but the sheer incompatibility in horsepower will eventually overwhelm him.
your def russian lol France wouldve absolutely slammed russia if it wasnt for the rest of europe teaming up on France
Tomato juice. You're just inquisitive Connor.
Your theory about Holy Roman Empire was interesting and probably partly true, but it didn´t work. Member states of HRE had a lots of wars between them. Often because of succesion.
Viscount - Vis ryhmes with die.
No, Russia in the Napoleonic wars and the Soviet Union's victory in WW2 are not similar. The Soviet Union defeated single handedly the nazi horde, pushing them back for years from Moscow to Berlin.
yes
Tomato juice :D, kinda old now.
You should watch Harry Enfield Homophobic Dad. Very funny 👏
Tomato juice, great reaction
Tomato Juice :)
Tomato juice goodnight
tomato juice :)
Tomato juice! :)
Historia Civilis is amazing, but in this one he is so obviously picking sides it's not even funny.
Tomato Juice
Tomato juice :D :D
Romanians are not slavic...
Tomato juice lol
Tomato juice haha
I think it is a shame from US-narrated videos on RUclips that the narrators obviously never take any advice about words which might trouble them. In this case it is ‘Veecount’ for ‘Vyecount’. I know that you do not have any Viscounts (‘Damn right, buddy, in 1776 ….’ ) Yes, we’ve heard all that before, thank you, but surely unfamiliarity with a word should make its pronunciation a subject for study beforehand?
I remember not long ago there was a question about the ranks of the aristocracy and when it came to the plural of Marquess (Markwiss) the US narrator said “Markeezes”. Ugh!
Tomato juice. x
Tomato juice
Can’t watch it when they even cant pronounce the names correct. Tallyrand like Valley rant??? It’s Tully-raw. Sure it goes on that way
Tomato Juice ;)
Tomato juice