Seven Years' War - Summary on a Map 

Even worse he tried to join forces with the prussians however he was soon overthrowed and his wife took over and went home with the army

Austria: "Come on, we're so close to our destination we can't stop now!" Russia: "It wasn't about reaching Berlin, it was about the friends we made along the way"

Russia and Austria were rival, as were Austria and France which is why their alliance went so pear shaped, they were only on the same side due to fleeting circumstances, not due to strategic alignment. In contrast Britain was interested in colonies and trade which Prussia was no competitor in while Prussia protected Hanover and received Britain's support and money as well protection of her western border in exchange.

Tsarina Elizabeth hated Prussia and wanted to destroy it. Even their backward army could overrun Prussia by shear numbers. However she was of poor health. Her son and heir admired Prussia and wanted to align with it. This places any Russian General in a quandary. He would have his orders against Prussia from the Tsarina. However he knew that his future Tsar and ruler would be horrified if he succeeded. Hence after defeating the Prussian army, the General made an excuse to withdraw rather than march on Berlin. He claimed he had a logistics problem. Purely self preservation. France also had conflicting strategies. There was the public/official policy and strategy in the interest of France. Then there was the King's secret policy and strategy which was in the interests of his own family. These were sometimes in conflict and undermining each other. Also the British people couldn't have cared less about Hanover. The reason Britain was so deeply involved on the continent, paying mercenaries, was not just colonial rivalry with France. It was that the King of Hanover was made the King of England. So that aspect of British aggression was just the King using Britain's resources for his personal war to protect his personal Kingdom of Hanover. What was going on in Europe is that a few often related nobility were still playing middle age feudal power games for their own egos but in an era of muskets and cannons. Hence 1.3 million dead for quite petty reasons. Sadly this lesson was not learnt and the same outdated and failed thinking continued through the Napoleonic era, and resulted in World War I. The only good thing about it, is that all the competition over so many decades resulted in technical, scientific and engineering advancement.

Kalyka 98 and Catherine The Great is from Prussia, continued the alliance and attacked the Commonwealth together

'With' as in alongside

Confused me at first

Yes Britain is dominating so Spain wants to dominate around Britain

That makes no sense, you take a negative view of the enemy of your allie, then declare war on your former ally, awkward

Between Britain Spain and France there all trying to take over and manipulate one another at the end the British won and here comes America

I mean that applies to England/Britain as well. They have tried to invade France many times, even alongside other major powers and almost always failed. The only successful invasion of France by Britain was at the end of the Napoleonic Wars when all the powers of the coalition did.

Florian A. . nobody asked

@@eliza1905 And?! I still pointed it out. Do something about it rosbif! lmao

Pizza Reed12 1066 times.

@@Itachi951000 England has invaded France Hundreds of times why do you think the North of France was a part of England for some time during the 100 years war

Are you losing the territory majority on the bed, too?

@james c And that's why you divorced her😂😂😂

@james c I'm sorry.

james c Glad you moved on...... *Now rule your closet with an iron fist and never give up an inch of hanger space again!!*

@james c But it must have been difficult at the beginning.......I mean you loved her , right ?

#BillWurtz

yeah when i saw the map of this war i was questioning why this wasnt named the first world war probably it was more world war then the two world wars

I think cause it only involved one continent mainly lol

@@lezanji1884 nope its more world war than ww 1 but not for ww 2

@@Black-Sun_Kaiser Ww 1 also focused on europe

I second that

I'd love to sse one about Crimea

Go to epic history for napleonic war

I’d love to see the napoleonic wars

i third that

Really sets the vibe 😂😂😂

Who is husband? Who is wife?

As an American i view the British as more boring and the French as more dramatic...

@L'Aigle Viva la France. France is the very first country which overthrew monarchy. Am I right,french brother?

@@nicholasparker2086 French are also helpful.

@L'Aigle britian is the mother hen who has to constantly baby her varying colonies. france is the dad who doesn't care about their kids too much and is busy taking care of shit in their own life (mainland europe)

Indeed, the only prince electors were the seven electors of the Holy Roman Empire

SUMMON THE ELECTOR COUNTS

Among these princes also were high ranking members of the clergy, since they controlled large territories around the city they were seated in.

@@thewizzard3705 Indeed one of the Electors is the Elector of Cologne, which was a Bishoph

@@rossmabon4472 At the time of the seven years war their number had increased to 9 ! There were 9 electors at that time, or in effect 8 since the emperor in Vienna also had the electorship of the Crown of Bohemia in personal union.

School history is the dumbest way of seeing and teaching history

Our school never even mentioned this at all

Well, if you are going to have a basic summary, then that would be the most accurate one.. just look around you at the world, and most Conflict is a result of squabbling between those 2 powers, or because them messing around territories individually

Enderman_of_D00M I mean that makes sense you’re fighting someone ya hate but then someone you both hate comes at ya of course you’d sign a temporary truce to handle that threat first

@Alex Mercer Brits and French still wanna have a go at each other, but the modern era is all about no war so their okay with each other

More like putting aside a petty ancient rivalry to deal with present common enemies...

the enemy of MY SWORN ENEMY WHO I WILL DEFEAT AT ALL COSTS NO MATTER THE MANPOWER AND RESOURCES, I WILL LITERALLY BANKRUPT JUST TO SPITE THEM, is my friend.

Thats how the "the Balance of power" doctrine works

It's not about where they were fought, it's about how many nations were involved.

The Cold War is just World War 2.5

the American War of Independence was a World War of sorts: British, French, Dutch and Spanish navies going at it, Western North America a battle ground and there was a concurrent war against the British in India. Morocco, Prussia and Poland supported the rebellious colonies to some extant and the British employed Hessian mercenaries from Germany.

I would also consider the Napoleonic Wars to be more than one World War.

@Anglo-Celtic Mega Nationalist Well obviously if you think of just the 13 colonies, but there was also India, Florida, the Caribean, JP Jones's raids of coastal England, and a bunch of naval confrontations between the French and English all over the place. I guess that's not enough continents to really make it a world war, but it was still pretty big. (Though not many casualties). It was big enough that Britain felt the need to re-engineer all their warships in order to deal with so many threats.

France didn't really truly decline until after the 7 Years War, sadly Armchair Historians rather shotty (yes, shotty) video on it isn't to be 100% trusted.@Alex Mercer

The Spanish succession was so so close to beeing won by France. That would have changed so much and probably would have fucked France up in the long run (most likely no revolution and corrupt monarchies for quite a bit longer).

And Napoleonic and the The War of The Great

@@nathanc939 that would have mean the union of france and spanish empire in one single state, holy god, the other kingdoms in europe were just terriorized about it coming true

It sure helps with making it more accessible to the youngers!

Hahaahah

Dying😂

What was so shitty about him? (No pun intended)

@@DrewPicklesTheDark First of all, he was german, and admired Prussia. He inherited the throne of Russia because of some bizarre succession laws and prefered to speak german over russian if he could. The war was very costly for Russia and he loved Prussia so much that he fucking allied them and switched sides in the war as soon as he went into power. He was a generally unpopular leader who was overthrown by his wife (Cathernine the Great) soon after his reing started He is not all that bad, however. His reputation has been ruined by his wife, buy some accounts say that he was actually fairly progressive for the time

@@ajavisk Peter the Great killed his only male heir so the line of succession passed to his daughters. Peter III's mother was one of Peter the Great's daughters.

Do a video.... ALL country after war.... "In heavy Debt" to WHO??????? Tax money go to who???

@@borivojetravica569 factories that make guns ammunition etc.

Yeah, In our social studies class we are learning about the Hundred Years War.

@@finlay8781 nope... Banks, owners of every thing

@@borivojetravica569 not quite

jesus are you stupid

Actually if the sun was to become even 10% brighter the oceans would slowly evaporate and most life on earth would die, including humans. It is our individual responsibility to moderate our online postings so that we avoid spreading misinformation. Thank you for your understanding and have a good day.

@@Geo07ism are you doing anything this sunday night?

@@longviewhysteria3232 NO R U?

@@longviewhysteria3232 I assume it's by chance a question directed to the one and only Jesus ended up in this particular comment. Is Jesus stupid? He could have escaped the Romans I guess, perhaps even prevent Judas from informing them about his whereabouts in the first place, but have you considered that Jesus perhaps knew his time had come to die for everybody's sins? That there was no point in preventing his reunification with his Father? I know I'm not answering your question as enloghtinly as you'd like but you can consider this some food for thought. "Jesus, are you stupid?", perhaps he'll tell you himself soon.

@Master Yoda can you make some sense?

The quality of the armies were close, but France had a much larger army simply because it is on the continent and had to maintain a large army to compete with other land powers such as Austria, Prussia and Russia. Britain however was at liberty to put a much larger amount of its military spending into the Royal Navy due to the fact of it being an Island nation which needs an extremely strong navy to survive. This meant though that france couldnt afford as large a Navy and therefore Britain had superiority at sea.

@Master Yoda its clear yes that you have no clue of what are you talking about

either way, britains army probably would have surpassed the french if they didn't spend the vast majority of their budget on ships

@@MemeMaster-gz7nk Absolutly not because Britain did not have the same population of France.

Imagine what could have happened to the Philippines if it was never returned to Spain by Great Britain.

Yu Gin Taer oof I’ve been thinking about that I think they would later become a British a Dominion and fight in ww2 and WW1

@@yugintaer2420 theynn be would have revolted lol

@This is a name. not really. Actually people south of Manila severely opposed any attempts of invasion by Britain, so for Britain to actually invade the Philippines successfully, they would have had to elongate the war more time, which although would have allowed them to seize control of Philippines, would have given Spain time to attack the Thirteen Colonies, and Maybe help France retake New France. Plus, the Portuguese would have probably been defeated by then by France and Spain, and had Britain sent more of their vessels to attack the Philippines, France would have been able to invade mainland Britain through the south.

@@yugintaer2420 imagine if britain gave back gibraltar to spain

British / Roman Empire

@@canag0d Yes we suck as a nation

Why demeanor yourself? Russia is a proud country world stage and is only 2nd to the US. Although, imo ever since the Bolsheviks murdered the Tsar Russia sort of went down hill since.

@@user-es6ww3qj9r much sarcastic

It looks like your personal perception is projected to the nation as a whole. It would be wiser to keep to your first sentence "I am just a dirty and weak Russian guy" and let cleaner and stronger Russians to speak for the nation.

Also see Oversimplified channel

Yeah, they’re pretty similar. OverSimplified has more humor, yet Geo History has more facts.

lol

Eastory and Historia Civilis also teach history through maps.

I like a yellow Prussia, when I get the dlcs i may just change it to yellow with the files.

@@jacobhogan3208 you are a monster

What about pink prussia

@@gravynavy516 pink is a better color then green for russia

how come the holy roman empire doesn't have rome in it

Saint Just no the Kingdom of Ireland was a separate state under a personal union (two countries that have the same head of state without merging) Ireland would become a part of the UK in 1801

Also Ireland is not a kingdom. Wales is a principality. Scotland and England are kingdoms, which have the same monarch since the Scottish king inherited the English crown in 1603. His mother was Elizabeth's aunt, I think.

@@chrisdaniels3929 No its not a Kingdom now but the Kingdom of Ireland existed from 1542 when Henry VIII proclaimed himself King of Ireland until 1801 when Ireland became part of the UK.

During this period, the Elector of Hanover was King of Great Britain and Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg: he did not become King of Hanover until 1814, after the end of the Holy Roman Empire and the recovery of Hanover from the Napoleonic province of Westphalia. The Kings of England and later Great Britain also pretended to be Kings of France. Rulers subject to the Holy Roman Emperor could not be kings of territories within it (except for Bohemia), but they could be kings of countries outside the HRE: such as Britain, Spain, Sweden, Poland and Prussia. Patriotic English historians tend to play down the influence of foreign powers on their country: Denmark, France, the Papacy, Scotland, Holland, the HRE and now the USA.

Well if your a country ball mapper just let ireland be British as we don't do anything in it

Don't fight against the empire that the sun never sets on.

Our war strategy against Napoleon Rule the waves but Pay Austria Prussia and Russia to do the bulk of the fighting, see them all get wrecked Send wellington to Spain Wait for Napoleon to make a big mistake Win at Waterloo

It's impossible to attack a country directly with all their allies

@@kyle18934 which one

@@peivlo7801 the one this comment thread is talking about

The British victory in this war had 6 essential factors 1) England was a stormy island in 1588, 1596 and 1597. That is why the three Spanish invasion fleets with more than 130 ships could not occupy London in 4 weeks, destroying all the possibility of creating a British empire 2) United Kingdom was an island in 1756-63. This is why France and Spain couldn't invade the UK in 4 weeks 3) The United Kingdom was an island in 1776-1783. That is why Spain could only make a naval blockade of England, capturing two British fleets of 24 and 55 ships. The objective was to invade England, but the French allies considered that amphibious invasions, although the United Kingdom was weakened by the war of the 13 colonies, were very complicated. 4) The United Kingdom was an island in 1805. That is why Napoleon's million soldiers who invaded Russia, Germany, Spain, Austria and Italy had to wait for a complicated connection with Villenenueve's fleet, which ended in the Battle of Trafalgar. 5) The United Kingdom was an island in 1870. That is why the Prussian army that destroyed the French army in a month could not finish the job in the same offensive, reaching London and destroying the British empire. 6) The United Kingdom was an island in 1940. That is why the Germans wandered through Paris and Amsterdam, and could not continue to London, capturing the entire British royal family.

@@Gloriaimperial1 you serious? Being an island doesn’t guarantee protection and I don’t know why you are crediting everything to that. The Royal Navy was the main factor, that’s it. The natural protection of the water means nothing without the main force to protect it, France has many favourable natural borders but this does not mean that all their victories are simply down to the natural terrain. I feel like you are trying to discredit the British military achievements and I’m not sure why, perhaps it’s jealousy which is really odd.

​@@maxdavis7722 Germany is a very effective country. The Germans are the largest national mass of people in Western Europe, with nearly 100 million highly far-sighted and willful inhabitants. They have always been the largest nationality in Europe. They are tenacious, calculating and efficient, many times, and also aggressive. But not even the efficient Germans have been able to prevent Berlin from being occupied several times by Napoleon and Russia, or Germany by Spain, destroying Germany and dividing it. France has had the same problems: various invasions of Paris (Spanish Empire, Germany, Prussia, Russia). The Netherlands has been invaded numerous times. If you look at Asia the same thing happens. China, India, Vietnam, Korea... All invaded. Curiously, there are two large countries, in Europe and Asia, that have never been invaded in the modern era, by the largest empires (Spanish, French, German or Mongolian), which had a ratio of troops of 5 against 1, or 7 against 1 Troops that could not be used. There are two islands: the United Kingdom and Japan. I believe that the Spanish invasion of Paris was carried out in three months, in 1590. The German invasion of Paris was carried out in 1 month in 1870, and 1 month in 1944. Blitzkrieg. To attempt to invade England in 1588, 1596, 1597, and 1718, Spain had to leave most of its infantry, artillery, and horses on the ground. We had to make a fleet for a year (4 times), wait for favorable winds. Hope that some British ships did not harass the fleet. And when everything was ready for the invasion in 1597 (with the British fleet outwitted) another storm appears (four storms). Sure, when we invaded Germany in 1588, it rained every day and there were storms, but the army didn't scatter within 30 km for weeks and had to go home, with broken sails and some sunken ships. They got into their tents, and the next day they arrived in Colonia and invaded it. On this island factor, the British were able to have an army of 40,000 infantrymen in the 18th century, when Spain and France had 200,000 and 400,000, dividing the budget. The British almost only had to invest in the fleet. If you also have the help of storms ... What makes you think that Churchill would have smoked a cigar, and made the bravado of him, if the Germans had a corridor of 1 km wide to reach England with the divisions panzer? All that material that almost reached Moscow, and three million soldiers, were rendered useless. If you have a border with Germany you are dead in 4 weeks. That the British could have done poorly, but with that advantage they were very effective? Yes. That England/UK, even if it had been invaded from land twice by a stronger empire, would also have developed a large army that would have entered Paris and Berlin or Madrid, at some point in history. Also. It's not normal for your economy and society to be intact for 500 years, while mainland Europe has all kinds of violent upheavals. It is normal if you are an island. Spain also had a lottery day, when it discovered America. That gave us gold and silver to dominate some countries in Europe for centuries. But we still had a land border for Napoleon.

@@maxdavis7722 Everything you said is true.I wouldn't bother engaging with these fabricators, it only leads to endless comments section as they don't accept anything logical

Tu n'es pas encore mort, mon père.

Oh 😂😂😂🖐

Colonisation of Pakistan and India by Arabs?

@@jomo3564 which Arabs

And the first humans ever colonized the world

Every Country.

Shocking they still teach real history in class in Canada lol. It's cause your Quebec. I dunno what they teach anymore in Ontario to the kids. We learned this stuff in lates 90's early 2000's.

This war is well known in Quebec, possibly more then anywhere else for ethnonationalist reasons, that the french ceded their north american territory to the british

Did you teach in school... Way ALL country after war.... "In heavy Debt" to WHO??????? Tax money go to who???.... If you know, tnx

eurosensazion I Learned this in 5th grade (In Quebec school) and it was important that we learn how New france lost to the British. We particularly learned the siege of Quebec and the capture of Montreal. We didn’t learn much about European battles though.

@@eurosensazion I teach at an international school with Ontario curriculum and the Seven Years War is covered in grade seven.

Can your collect knowledge tell me... ALL country after war.... "In heavy Debt" to WHO??????? Tax money go to who???

@@borivojetravica569 not in Europe but in Every part of world

Prussia had never been defeated in this war, because it had never been occupied and had always an army.

Yes they lost which means it’s a defeat

@@dillonblair6491 in a war you aren't defeated as long as you are independent and taking part actively in the war. So there's no matter if you're losing a campaign or not.

@@qwertzuiopu8161 If you lose a battle, you were defeated in that battle.. You don't have to be unconditionally defeated and annexed to loose.

@@FaithfulOfBrigantia In early WW2, Britain lost many battles against Germany. Were they defeated? I don't think so.

Well to be fair the naoplonic war was ww2 French empire v Europe and v British empire and sine British empire had a big chuck of the world and France also not to shabby tht was also ww2

J0J0X 1812? You’re dumb

*1790-1815 - WW2

2019-???? 5th world war

I'd argue 1618 is WW1. Yes, it was mostly fought in Europe, but the Iberian Union did already stretch all the way from Canada to Japan, and the Dutch did fight the Portuguese in America, Africa and Asia. With the exception of Oceania, it was indeed fought all over the world.

Also what about South America? Or the two years of Anglo-French warfare in North America prior to the Seven Years (which continued over the course of the Seven Years, as you said) Overall, though, it's still a good overview. The Seven Year's War is pretty complicated for the uninitiated and this is helpful. Good job

Nah he isnt bruh

Trimp is great?

Easy enough. 1. T 2. R 3. S 4. R 5. T 6. G 7. A 8. P 9. U 10. E 11. I 12. M "Trump is great" Are you sure about that?

@@pethaino3215 Brilliant ! clever person

@@kaiserwilhelmii2251 Brilliant ! Clever person

lol

"Take a seat"

xD

Down in OHIO

Stop dragging us into wars Lol we do like starting our own wars though 🇺🇸

@Daniel Marranghelli well, I mean...I did. There is an island on the east coast where its named after my grandfathers last name, and he can trace his roots back to a farm on the island.

Sun King’s War, which is dated earlier than Seven Years War, also fought on several continents

@Zion thirtydecember2006 No, I studied about the war itself. Though there was a definite focus on the battles that occurred in North America.

Thats because the US doesnt have a long history

We may be different generations ,but when I was in school, the French-Indian War got a brief mention as a prelude to the Revolution.

Lmao I'm dying

"Little known war" outside the history interested community.