ExoTitan300 jk :) i'm not argentinian though but i admire the capability of the british nation to regain the falklands even though they were maybe 8000 miles apart
Everyone makes fun of the British, but what about the Spanish? In lots of the New World, they were oppressive as well, and their empire died in like 160 years.
Unlike the Roman Empire that lasted 507 years (31 BC to 476 AD/CE) and left little trace of its original governance in Rome, the British Empire that lasted 500 years (1497 to 1997) left much of its original Imperial era governance intact at home. Of course, Britain wasn’t sacked... and to be fair over 1,000 years had passed since the fall of Rome’s empire and the beginning of the British Empire. Which makes me wonder, which empire will be dominant 1,000 years from Britain’s final retreat from Hong Kong in the year 2997?
The power of Rome had 713 years of life in Europe. The Romans gave civilization to almost the entire continent: laws, architecture, writing, religion, theater. We are all children of Rome. The legacy of Rome continues, transforming. The pope of the church has been in Rome for 1,800 years, and Rome is the capital of Italy. It is true that the political structure has changed. 1000 years is a long time. In 1000 years the British and all of Europe will be very different. Spain had a worldwide expansion of 690 years (conquest of Sicily 1282-Sahara 1975) that closely resembles Romanization. The discovery of three continents, the romanization of America and the Philippines and an empire in Europe that filled Italy, for 450 years, with universities, churches and palaces. Spain made 800 million Catholics today (200 million in Europe, 500 million in America and 100 million in Asia). The Spanish language is the second mother tongue in the world, after Chinese. Spain gave the Spanish dollar to the United States, China, Japan... It doesn't matter if the political structure changes. The world legacy remains, which is transformed. The British had a slow global expansion. The hegemonic British power begins in 1815, with the acquisition of the most extensive empire. Industrial revolution and great science. In 1945 the United States became the first world power. Military, economically, popular culture, dollar, NATO. In the 2030s, China will become the hegemonic power, influencing technology, economy, with military power, currency or other forms of currency, space travel. Perhaps India will join that power before the end of the 21st century. Asia will take over, with some sort of European Union type organization. The countries of each continent will unite, like the European Union, to form more powerful organizations. Perhaps there is a division between West and East, in two blocks. Not aggressive. But yes competitive. On one side the legacy of Rome and Europe. And in another China-Russia-India-Arabs. The technological transformation will dilute the national spirit, probably before 1,000 or 2,000 years.
@@strasbourgeois1 in ww1 it was britain that made the us the richest country in the world, paying so much to them that they were knocked off by them in 1916
They were still in many ways a superpower in the 1950s though, if you look at the map as well as the events of that time: Britain was basically fighting an all-out war against Communism in the 1950s, with the Malaya Emergency and especially with the Korean War. We also must remember that the British started exploding nuclear bombs in 1952, so until they decolonized Africa and the Americas around a decade later, the British Empire was VERY much alive and the undisputed number two power of the "free world" nations, behind only the United States.
This might be a dumb question but I noticed the video was published in 2015 and the video ends at 2000, is that because they gave up land somewhere or they stopped "conquering". What gives?
The formal end to the British empire was when the British handed over hong Kong to the people's republic of China in 1999 . And I guess 2000 is just a nice number to end on.
By the 1850, the empire turn to grab African lands. It started in 1790s in the foundation of coast colony in the Gambia and sierra lone. By 1805 cape coast in South african was captured. 20 years later, 1825 ,a coast colony was formed in Ghana. 1871, colonies in kenya , Tanzania and Nigeria has been formed. In 1882, Egypt began to experience colonialism. By 1885, the south africa lands were in total control. At this time also, the incursion into Nigeria was going deeper but was slow. However faster progress were made in South and East Africa.By 1890 Botswana ,Zimbabwe Zambia, Kenya were all under Britain empire 1890s saw many African empirè in Nigeria, Sudan,Uganda, fell one after the other
They left fond memories in each of these former colonies I'm sure, haha . . I wonder is one of the reasons for the collapse of the empire due to the influence of democracy in the UK and worldwide, and the end of the royal family having absolute power and decision making.
You should have put the years on a fixed place so they do not appear to waltz around while the time progresses. Besides this annoying visual feature, the video is great.
It's only a claim. It'll take a while for us to actually colonise Antarctica. I may not know when but what I do know is, when the day comes, we'll be the first to do so
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as *"purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit."* Zaremba, A. J. (2010). Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..." *Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.* Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet. In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire, rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire. The most compelling argument (on the surface) *against* renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false. At the time, the issue was mainly China. *Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.* It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option. Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure"). *The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.* In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles. According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..." True. The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for *all* races. Machiavelli... What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding? *"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505* Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of... Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals". They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals". The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes. Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire). "The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire". The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure. *Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.* You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad". You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ". You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid". You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
Once a time you all Britishers said that British empire is a empire from whose sun never sets off but now we all can see that you goddam people are thrown back to your small island.😂😂😂😂😂
The pink means that those areas (Canada, Australia, etc.) became self-governing territories and were more or less independent even though they were still technically a part of the British Empire. The orange colors represent occupied territory.
England didn't 'get' Scotland qnd it wasnt 1707. The Scottish monarch James VI or James I of England unified them as he took to the throne in 1603 and the land he now reigned over was called the 'union of the crowns', and Great Britian was introduced in 1707 after many attempts to merge into one nation had failed. Both the parliaments of England and Scottland agreed on merging into one nation so England didn't at all 'get' Scotland
*So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.* London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances. The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf... In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power. In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win. That is how the lords "played". Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists. After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule. Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States). Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else... Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule. Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule... Seperating families. Divide and rule. Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule... Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent. These are the "tools" of "divide and rule". *Never a "price tag" for own actions...* Right? WRONG Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..." Right? WRONG To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere... "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals.... Right? WRONG After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint. What could possibly go wrong? "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets. *No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".* US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt. They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE. Right? WRONG... A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: *"Empires" don't have "friends".* Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"... And after the war ended? They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL Of course not. Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner... So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC. That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting. Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next. Hop, hop, hop...into extinction. Sad... A "nation" which needs to bomb women and kids to "have hope" or inspiration even during hard times, does not deserve to "rule the world". The post-WW2 bankrupcy was not only financial, but also moral... Good riddance to "ruling the world" then.
I don't know, tell that to the Indians and others whose resources were looted...maybe they'd have industrialized Japan style without the British being there. Lol, you act like the Brits were their saviors.
@@SamAllenchannel Selective from some. Without British vaccines, all of South Asia would be dead through cholera, diphtheria, malaria and leprosy. And without railways, they would still be living in shacks in villages starving.
Terrible video - the island of Newfoundland was claimed by England in 1583 by Gilbert Pike and flew the Union Jack until 1982, when it re- designed it into a new thing.
Unlike most fallen Empires, the British people, economy and governmental system remains intact. When the Roman Empire collapsed in about 480 AD/CE pretty much everything that was Roman collapsed. Let's hope the USA is as lucky as the British when the American empire falls.
The Roman empire didn't really collapse after Odoacer took power. The senate functioned as normal. The Roman senate were the ones who supported Odoacer in taking power through a coup in fact. Next you have the invasion of Theodoric which was encouraged by eastern Roman emperor. Theodoric killed Odoacer but still Roman law and culture remained. Theodoric respected Roman law and was adapting to the culture. Ostrogoths were not hostile to the culture. And the Roman church was left alone, despite Ostrogoths being Arian Christians. However after emperor Anastasius I died, Justin became the new emperor and he was less friendly towards the west. He was influenced by Justinian. And there was a Constantinople chronicle by Marcellinus Comes who came up with the narrative that the empire fell in 476. He claims Odoacer was a goth but this is not true. In the 520's the foreign policy is shifting towards the west as they set their sites on taking Africa and Italy. When Justinian was in power, he invaded and much destruction of Italy happens that buildings and infrastructure are damaged. It was an expensive campaign that destroyed Roman culture that the goths were actually preserving. Then a plauge hits, to make matters worse. This policy led to the Lombards being able to take over parts of Italy later. Italy would not recover for many years from the eastern Roman invasion. The Persians were able to take parts of the east while the Byzantines were weakened. They were able to get their territories back but at a big cost. Arabs later took these territories and southern Slavs took territories from the Byzantine empire. So if the ostrogoths were kepts as allies, Italy would be able to withstand invasions as Ostrogoths swore loyalty to the eastern Roman emperor until they broke relations under emperor Justin. They also would have more resources to defend against the Persians, and slavs that later invaded too. Justinian and not the Germanic people are to blame for the destruction of Rome. The people at the time never saw the empire as fallen. What most people believe is propaganda from Marcellinus Comes. He was loyal to the east so of course he was biased.
@@W.M.Pitt1 well, elegantly... Spain had to defeat the British in Louisiana, Florida, Central America, Menorca, Bahamas... (1779-83). Spanish naval blockade of the United Kingdom (1779-82) capturing two British fleets of 24 and 55 ships (39 war frigates). Collapse of the London stock market. Spain gives the dollar or silver real to the USA, also independence. The 13 colonies had universities, European technology, revolutionary ideas. Just like Hispanic America: universities, hospitals, European technology... What the British elegantly handed over after WW2, is India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Botswana, which were tribal and could not defend themselves, because the British did not invest anything in developing them. All the wealth went to London. Even without investments they were beginning to be dangerous, because they already knew how to use weapons. The USA occupied Cuba and the Philippines, supporting the revolutionaries, defeated Japan in WW2, and expelled the British and French from the Suez Canal, because they have many more resources. Although they were expelled from Vietnam.
There was no human population on the continent of Australia and the continent of North America. The flag was just there to be raised. While the Mongol Empire was established by conquering the countries, the British are far behind in this matter.
@@technicalmalik8667 Mongolian Empire was at large vastly unpopulated, British Empire was infact the biggest Empire and most powerful in human history.
@@WarfightersWorkshop by world population british is 12th in the world, only 23% of the world population. the largest non chinese empire is qing 1st and mongol empire 4th Qing dynasty (1800) - 37% Northern Song Dynasty (1100) - 33% Western Han Dynasty (1) - 32% Mongol Empire (1290) - 31% Roman Empire (1500) - 30% Jin Dynasty (280) - 28% Ming Dynasty (1600) - 28% Qin Dinasty (220 BC) - 24% Mughal Empire (1700) - 24% Tang Dynasty (900) - 23% Delhi Sultanate (1350) - 23% British Empire (1938) - 23% Empire of Japan (1943) - 20%
@@Gloriaimperial1don't forget the Indian Reserve, the colonies of East and West Florida, the provisional cession of the Hawaiian Islands, the Oregon Country, St. John, St. Thomas, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Palmyra Atoll, the British Columbian claim in the Alaskan panhandle and the territory in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota that we're a part of Rupert's Land before 1819. these were also British territories which are now a part of the United States.
The British Empire couldn't defeat Germany single handedly in WW2 and had to take help of USA and depend on USSR thereby showing its weakness and it's eventual collapse
@@Mythee Swap the word 'Scotland' with Ireland in your sentence and the same could've been applied to it before Ireland became a republic ( the colour red of Ireland shown disappearing here at 5:55 in the year 1949 when it became a republic) though in actual fact, Ireland ceased being under British rule in 1922...
The selection of music...... just terrible, immediately weakens the video, neither British nor relevant. Surely British music, if this was of the French Empire, French Music. If you are looking at British, you should be hearing British If make a video about Liverpool you play the Beatles Manchester you play Oasis Compton you play gangsta rap. You don't play Chinese music when you watch a video of Mexico, it ruins the effect, and that's what you have done here. The sound should match the sight
He has surely searched for the best British composer in history, between Purcell, Elgar, Gustav Holst and Vaugham Williams (the Beatles and the Rollings are too industrial, that does not do justice to the greatness of the British empire). But when comparing Elgar, Holst or Williams with the genius: Mozart, Beethoven or Bach...
Why are you erasing indigenous australians? Aboriginal people have been there before colonialism. They still exist today but there was genocide against them in the past. Those white parts on the map are not empty. The europeans colonised the lands from indigenous peoples who already lived there.
