The Saybrook Colony: The Pequot War and a Refuge for Puritan Lords (1635-1644) 

Thanks, largely in oart to this series, I have found enough evidence to prove my direct paternal lineage to the Egerton line of Cheshire. I've actually traced every single generation of my maiden name back to my 18th great grandparents. There are records going back father than that about 200 more years. I just haven't added that info to my tree yet. But back to the Egertons. My 12th great grandfather, Sir Richard Egerton of Ridley, is also the father of Sir Thomas, 1st Viscount of Brackley. But Thomas has a different mother from my 11th great grandfather. Sir Thomas was a member of Parlaiment, Master of the Mercers' Company in 1587, under Queen Elizabeth 1st, and was a founder-member of the Russia Company., better known as, Muscovy Trading Company. I am living genetic proof of English nobility buying their way into Connecticut. My 9th great grandfather is in the earliest records in Saybrook, CT, and it is documented he was present at the battle at Fort Mystic. There is so much more to this story.

Well I'd have to add that the seeming opportunistic desire for conquest by those 2 English leaders that targeted the Pequot for retaliation seemed to be the chief cause of the war.... it didn't call for such escalation from the sounds of it.

I'd assume coverage of the Spanish colonies in what is modern day New Mexico, California, Texas, and Florida will be covered next.

Interesting suggestion, but why? That's imperial Spanish history not colonial U.S. history. While this channel covers New France (Acadia) and New Sweden / New Amsterdam, the key difference is that it is the future Americans in the colonies of New England that conquer both Acadia and New York for the United Kingdom. That's why we don't speak Swedish or Dutch on the Amtrak corridor today between Boston and Washington DC. Conversely, the stories of the Spanish conquistadors, the Spanish Inquisition and the Mexican Inquisition, the Spanish missions, and the Spanish enslavement and genocide of many indigenous tribes in what's now California, Texas, New Mexico, and Florida etc... that's all Spanish history. Most of the story isn't even located there (ie in United States or North America) it's in the courts of Europe, Habsburg Spain and spread out around the entire world including especially the Philippines and Indonesia, Chile and Peru etc. You'd have to do a channel on the "Other Kingdoms (Viceroyalties?) of Habsburg" and a deep dive on the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas? Interesting, but not U.S. history. Another way you can tell that history of Spanish conquest isn't the history of Other States of America is because, notably, there would be zero freedom of religion (the Spanish conquistadors and Spanish missions were de facto crusades) or any of the U.S. rights in any of those places until much later, when we conquered or bought those places after the U.S. colonial period was already over. While I defer to the channel owner what this channel is, it doesn't seem like the place for wars 1848/1898-1902, does it?

​@@irtnycThe channel does briefly cover what was going on back in Europe for the French, Dutch, Swedes and of course, the English... if it were to go into the history of the Habsburgs enough to describe the settlement of North America, that wouldn't be a break with what it's done before, but rather something of greater extent. It's still a meaningful contribution to the extent this channel covers North American colonial history, or even just United States history. I may be mistaken, but I think he does cover much of the Spanish Habsburgs anyway. To my reading, I think the only difference that really sticks is where you say the colonies of Sweden, France, the Dutch, etc. were done on behalf of the English crown and not the United States itself conquering for itself as it would with Texas, California, etc. That doesn't even seem like much a distinction.

@jtzoltan What is it exactly, that you're saying I'm saying? I don't recognize any of my statements or ideas in your last paragraph. Which may just be missing important words that you forgot to type, but isn't what I said. Obviously, foreign countries didn't create colonies for the benefit of or "on behalf of the English." I don't even know what's supposed to me. It's neither what I said nor true.

@@irtnyc your 2nd paragraph, first sentence, most relevant is where you say "... the key difference is that it is future Americans in the colonies of New England who conquer Acadia and New York for the United Kingdom."