1405 - The Year England was Nearly Destroyed | Medieval England, Owain Glyndwr, Plantagenets... etc.
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 04. 2021
- / jabzy
/ jabzyjoe
1405 - The Year England was Nearly Destroyed, Medieval England, Owain Glyndwr, Henry IV, Hotspur Percy, Edward III, Wars of the Roses, Plantagenets, Welsh Independence
Henry, Edward, Edmund, Richard.
All the male Yorks and Lancasters shared four names.
*laughes in Prussian Kings * Frederick William (German Friedrich Wilhelm )
But wait , I hear the french approaching. !
*Sad George noises*
Did you hear about the Augustuses of Rome? Oh and don't get me started about all those Caesars of Germany and Russia!
@@mojom.9221 LOUIS
@@truthissacred dont forget about Louis as well
The Glyndwr rising would make a great Hollywood blockbuster.
If Hotspur had been more patient and actually linked up with Glyndwr, then their combined armies would’ve overwhelmed Henry IV. But that’s history for you, ifs buts and maybes. One theory as to way Glyndwyr didn’t attack while in England was because both sides were facing each other across a valley and neither Glyndwyr nor Henry IV wanted to give up the high ground. However because this wax England, Henry blocked the supply routes to the Welsh camp, which meant they began to starve, forcing the Franco-Welsh army to retreat.
Makes me wonder, had this scenario happened, wold people argue how unavoidable outcome it was, as they do with the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? 🤔
Speaking about Poland, Lithuania and Henry IV. Did you know that in 1390, back when he was still just Henry Bolingbrook, he took part in the siege of Vilnius, as one of the "guests" of the Teutonic Order?
I wonder if he did anything while being a guest or was allowed to loot if they succeeded
Yes. Next?
Wilno
I always see you Artur
Probably not because England is and was essentially the same ethnic group and people whilst Poland Lithuania was a union between two different peoples. The best equivalents would probably be the UK leaving the EU, The Irish Free State leaving the UK or if Scotland left the UK.
At some point one of my ancestors captured Hot Spur and built a castle with his ransom money
Neat.
who?
You make some of the best content I have seen by far for any history channel!
1405 could've been a really good year.
Your voice is good for narrating history.
ASMR when? Lol
I take it you're not from the UK then? Since there's whole cities who sound exactly like them then I guess the history narration market is spoilt for choice if Jabzy can be pro apparently.
@@scarletcrusade77 I am from the UK.
@@scarletcrusade77 it's not about accent, it's about progression of tone
@@aminemessaoui7529 You're honestly up Jabzy's ass if you're thinking he's a great narrator. he's not a pro narrator, his voice is dull, monotonish and bordering on sounding like he's trying to not wake someone up pitch wise, either that or he has a crappy Mic. He has improved from his older videos but still nowhere near pro. There's a reason he isn't narrating Epic history TV or even narrating literally anything beyond his YT.
I think you touched on it in an old video, but the partition of Turkey after WWI was interesting to study and tragic for many Greeks and Turks
Worked out OK for the Turks, since the treaty of sevres was torn up by Mustafa Kemal and a new (much larger) republic was formed. Population exchange was necessary with new neighbouring countries slaughtering Turkic people
A pity the (still valid!) Treaty of Sèvres wasn’t implemented by force. The world would have been spared much bloodshed that way...
(And the few sensible Turks wouldn’t have had to share a country with all the dumb religious fundamentalists!)
@@BOZ_11"Good fences make good neighbours". Poles and Ukrainians had many conflicts in the inter-war period but post-WW2, Stalin deported most of Ukraine's Polish population to Poland and vice-versa. Brutal, but it did calm tensions down and today Poland and Ukraine have friendlier relations.
I've learned a lot of history around this time but this I've never heard.
Medieval total war hail welshy
Just like with Arm Chair historian the information and facts are all on Wikipedia. All they're doing is telling you Wikipedia pages you can read up anytime.
Damn of course I have to live in the timeline that England survived
Good.
*RULE BRITANNIA INTENSIFIES* lol
Seethe, Celt.
The anglo lives on.
@@aronbaron1746
So do celts fam
Ikr? We could’ve had an independent Wales? Fuck 😭
I think in the fairly unlikely world where the Tripartite Indenture actually happens, it probably doesn't last. At the end of the day, everyone was living in a world where the Kingdom of England had been around for several hundred years - and the *idea* of a King of England that claimed overlordship over all of the England (and nominally Scotland and Wales). You can't just delete that from existence. Percy and Mortimer would have had to find someone to be the new King, even if nominally. To do otherwise would have created a huge amount of chaos.
You have to remember that society was fundamentally feudal at the time and worked by bounds of allegiance. With no King of england, who would everyone be loyal to? Who would resolve disputes and justice? What happens to all the lords with land in Wales, and North England, and South England. Who are they loyal to? What happens when those guys go to war? In the end, not having a King of England would create far more problems than it would solve for Percy and Mortimer, and they'd probably just crown Mortimer or another likely claimant.
There'd probably still be a big power shift with a more independent Wales for a bit and a change in who owned what lands and various unrest for a while. But probably Wales still ends up pulled back into England's orbit in the end. It was just a lot poorer and less populated - without foreign support they probably end up back under English overlordship sooner or later. I don't think any of the dynamics in the isles fundamentally change.
Wales survived invasions from a hostile England for hundred of years before being conquered. An alliance between the two countries would have been even more prosperous for England. Wales could have contribute much more to the English and an alliance of the British Isles could have occurred alot sooner. You know England used to be split into ALOT more than two. And smaller regions are more representative to its people.
Holy Roman Empire survived for hundreds of years as a conglomerate of smaller entities. Even if there was someone crowned King of England in the alternate timeline it is not altogether clear how much power they would have
by that logic roman empire should have never collapsed
IIRC England was actually briefly partitioned during the Anglo-Saxon period immediately after Cnut successfully conquered England. As part of the peace negotiated with Edmund Ironside, the country was to be split into two. Edmund was allowed to keep Wessex and Cnut would get the rest, with them both agreeing to be each others heir. Luckily for Cnut, Edmund 'mysteriously' died less than a month later and England was swiftly united once again.
There's also the unconfirmed brief partition after the death of Edward the Elder where his sons Ælfweard and Æthelstan were simultaneously proclaimed king in Wessex and Mercia respectively, but that doesn't really count as 'England' had technically not come about yet.
Sounds to me like Cnut used a murder scheme
What an amazing find. Thanks for the lesson.
Totally! How was this video most interesting to you?
Love the videos and I’m a big fan, just an FYI though. Although the Mortimers were stripped of the title of Earl of March and lost their lands following the 1402-1405 rebellious intrigues against Henry IV, Edmund Mortimer (heir of Richard II and descendant of Lionel of Antwerp) would have his lands and titles restored, becoming the 5th Earl of March and remaining very loyal to the house of Lancaster. Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York inherited the Mortimer lands and titles through birthright, not royal favor. Richard’s mother was Anne Mortimer, the final Earl of March’s sister and when the Mortimer line went extinct, Richard was the closest heir.
Well considering you’ve done the Polish partition already.....
3 ideas.
1.The alternate history version of the partition of The Ottoman Empire after ww1 and the Turkish war after that.
2. The nazi plans for the partition of the eastern conquests.
3. The Greek wars of independence/ overthrow of the Greek monarchy in the 20th century. I feel like I don’t understand all the moving parts there as well as I should
By far the most underrated of the history channels on yt also 6th comment pog
Not underrated at all, he is very sucessful.
It's truly a shame this didn't occur.
I need to look more into the history of Owain. That battle that never was has certainly caught my interest! Any good sources?
Are you talking about the battle near the end of the rebellion?
It wasn't fought because both sides had picked great areas to defend and hold. Because of this neither were willing to give up their advantage to make the first move. Because the Welsh were in this instance the invading force they began to run out of previsions. Eventually they just returned back to Wales. It was kind of an anticlimactic end to the whole thing.
The battle of Shrewsbury on the other hand was much closer to a swift end to the rebellion. If Hotspur had won he would have captured Prince Hal (later Henry V) and would have been able to use him. Unfortunately although Hotspur was the greatest knight in England at the time he was a bit of a hot head and wouldn't wait a couple of days for Owain Glyndwr to join him and combine their two armies.
we were so close to free wales, but alas we are still trapped
Nice video, even nicer lamp on the desk
Treaty of Radnot - first attempt to partititons of Poland in 1656, signed during the Second Northern War in Radnot in Transylvania (now Iernut in Romania) on 6 December 1656. The treaty divided the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between the signing parties.
According to the treaty:
Charles X Gustav of Sweden was to receive Royal Prussia, Kujawy, northern Masovia, Samogitia, Courland and Inflanty.
Bogusław Radziwiłł was to receive the Nowogródek Voivodeship.
Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg was to receive Greater Poland.
Bohdan Khmelnytsky was to receive south-eastern parts of the Kingdom of Poland (territories between Batoh and Novhorod-Siverskyi).
George II Rákóczi was to receive southern Polish territories, mostly Lesser Poland (including Kraków).
Great video
Hmm, if I read the map right, Liverpool would have been part of Owain's kingdom...net result? We could have had a timeline where the Beatles sang in Welsh...!!!
All together now - 'Mae hi'n dy garu di...ydi, ydi, ydi...!!!' (That's 'She loves you...yeah, yeah, yeah...!!!' in Welsh...).
You didn't read the map right brawd
No, Liverpool would have been within Northumbria, the Wirral peninsula which is located across the mersey from Liverpool, would have been within Wales.
Sure. Like the South Wales valleys are a hotbed of Welsh language. Or the position of Monmouthsire was clarified but a few decades back. I like the optimism. But it's factually as useful as listening to Donald Trump.
Little known fact :John Lennon was actually a descendant of Owain Glyndwr!
If I remember correctly the European powers were considering the partition of France during the revolutionary period
You mean this? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Divisions_of_France_Proposed_by_William_Playfair_in_1793.jpg
@@spencer871 yes
I feel like it’s unlikely. Playfair doesn’t seem to have any political status or authority. His idea of Provence and Aquitaine being given to Spain just as reparations is somewhat silly.
I think the main goal is shown in the result; monarchy is back and very few provinces are taken to ensure stability in France. Just an uninformed opinion.
The division would have lasted maybe 5 years before they would have been at each other's throats. Owen - to keep Wales. The other two - to control the whole of the island. In the end it would be - a half-independant Wales under an English king, whichever one survived the battle. Then he would turn to Ireland and Scotland -> promising lands to the his soldiers and invade it in order to pay his mercenaries.
Wales would have been impossible to conquer had it been united under Owain Glyndwr, an accomplished general ruling a country full of mountains with the highest density of castles in the world, along with master guerilla fighters and french support.
Remember it took the normans 300 years to conquer Wales.
@@Jake-pm3pz I mean it didn't help that Deheubarth was attacked numerous times by other Brythonic (Welsh) people for instance Hywel ab Edwin and his brother Maredudd (kings of Deheubarth and descendants of Hywel Dda) were attacked by the sons of Rhydderch around 1033 Maredudd later died in 1035 leaving Hywel as the sole ruler of the Kingdom but the vikings then began applying pressure on his rule through constant raiding, Hywel had defeated the vikings but later the same year Gruffydd ap Llywelyn of Gwynedd attacked him causing him to flee to Ireland where he raised an army and later came back with a fleet of 20 ships in 1044 (We do not know if the fighters were Irish or Vikings or a mix of the two) but he was defeated and killed by Gruffydd ap Llywelyn who had himself suffered heavy losses. When Gruffydd died in 1063 Maredudd ab Owain ab Edwin (Hywels nephew) he was killed in battle in 1073 near Merthyr his brother Rhys ab Owain then took the throne but was killed by the King of Gwynedd ( Bleddyn ap Cynfyn) in 1078 so his second cousin Rhys ap Tewdwr became king and retook Deheubarth with the aid of Gruffudd ap Cynan who had wanted to retake the throne of Gwynedd. A revolt then broke out as Cedifors sons wanted Rhys to step down and for Gruffudd ap Maredudd (the son of Maredudd ab Owain ab Edwin) to become king of Deheubarth this lead to a battle at St Dogmael where Gruffudd ap Maredudd was killed.
Rhys was later killed by Normans and its alleged that the village of "Penrhys" (Rhys's head) was named after him as he was allegedly decapitated by the Normans, after his death the Normans swiftly gained a strong foothold in the South.
Tl'dr Brother wars are bad
@@Jake-pm3pz its not tibet Wales isn't insanely hard to traverse and to call them master of guerrilla warfare is a bit of a stretch. Wales didn't even have much of a military identity because of centuries of English rule.
@@conallomahoney9311 The Welsh repelled the more numerous and better equipped normans for over 200 years with guerilla warfare and then fought a few rebellions after... while the whole of england folded to the normans within days. The Welsh also defeated the vikings and repelled anglo saxon invasion attempts for over 500 years. The Welsh invented the longbow and were regarded as the best archers in europe for centuries hence why kings hired them throughout the medieval period at agincourt for example the famous battle where they saved king henry's army from almost certain defeat against the french, even now every total war player knows about the Welsh longbowmen lol, medieval Wales had a respected military identity especially in terms of archery. As for the landscape it has been frequentely documented that many english invasion forces in Wales had to retreat due to how time consuming and costly it was for their armies to traverse the Welsh landscape along with having to deal with constant guerilla attacks throughout the day and night as the Welsh used their knowledge of the hills and forests to their advantage to either launch attacks or stalk and track english armies.
Wales wouldnt be hard to traverse for a modern army but it was very hard for a medieval army.
@@conallomahoney9311 English kings made extensive use of Welsh soldiers. There has been books written about Medieval Welsh soldiers - its well documented.
Can you do a video on the Darien Scheme the Scottish Attempt to Colonize Panama
Are you wearing two jackets or is your hoodie just two different colors?
The Welsh didn't fight because both armies were evenly matched in food defensive positions. The Welsh retreated as they lacked supplies
Glyndwr had info on the planned betrayal of the french mercenaries. Which is backed by the quick french change of alliance to the English. Glyndwr even had the high ground
We were at the verge of greatness, we were this close...
No.
no
@@europauniversalis1860 yes
@@merrylildeath3113
No
The title 'Prince of Wales' is granted to the heir apparent to the Crown, not the heir presumptive. For instance, the Duke of Clarence (Later William IV) was not Prince of Wales as heir presumptive to his brother George IV.
Damn such a better timeline
Nobody :
France : Why !? Why we live in this timeline !? 😭
The post WWI partition plans for Turkey were pretty wild.
Would’ve been easy for me to invade.
Yes, with your awful navy
Return France to its rightful heir to the kingdom, you pretender.
Other partition: The partitioning of the Dutch Republic in the war of 1672, or as we call it: Het Rampjaar, or "Disaster Year". The French, English and the bishoprics of Colone and Münster. They would divide-up the Netherlands if they would have won. Holland and parts of Zeeland would go to England, the South would go to France and the East to various German states or new ones would be established. I have seen a map once, but can not find it any more and can not stand for its validity. But perhaps an interesting partition to get into!
If the the French under Philip August lost the Battle of Bouvines. The lands of France get carved up between England, Flanders and the HRE. Not quite sure what the areas of lenga d'òc were doing at this time either. May have had an independent Occitan speaking region in the south. Especially if this loss meant the Albigensian Crusade didn't happen
name of the music?
well their was mark Anthony's plan to split up the eastern Roman Republic though this from what i can see was meant to be some kind of union between these new eastern kingdoms with Rome acting as a protector of an expanded Egyptian Empire in the east.
As for this scenario it would have been seen as a point of English division before either the north or south English Kingdoms would reunify the kingdom with wales remaining independent for a while. It would change things dramatically and may inspire modern day separatist moments in England.
On this episode of "Interesting shit you've never heard of before"
Quebec almost broke away from Canada, if that counts. They had an independence referendum in 1995 and the result was very close. If Quebec had become a separate country then would the Maritime provinces have been able to stay united with Canada?
Great background for the film “the king” on Netflix 👏👏
2:05 What exactly does "refused to meet them on the field" mean?
It means exactly that. If you're asking for a reason then that was not given
@@teiloturner2760 My question is this: How did the Castillian army have a choice? Saying "the Castillians refused to meet them on the field" rather than "the Castillians successfully evaded them" implies the Portuguese expected the Castillians to come to them. Why weren't the Castillians prepared to occupy the land if no army opposed them? Why weren't the Portuguese prepared to find the Castillian army if they felt they needed to find it? If simply not showing up was enough to defeat an invading army, why would any defending army ever show up to fight an invading army and why would any invading army expect defenders to voluntarily meet them? We're talking about war, not a football game!
A man can dream... A man can dream
Good story: Someone should write a series of plays about it, with titles like "Richard II" and "Henry IV."
O Harry thou hast robbed me of my youth!- hotspur
We trully live in the darkest timline
How about the changes made to the Holy Roman Empire after the Congress of Vienna?
HRE was dissolved in 1806
Curious as to what it would have been split up into, would the kingdom of England have been abolished? Would it have gone to the Mortimers?
the latter
From Black Prince to a Woodstock Hippie guy have everykind of child
We prounce March was _Marsh._ :)
Cymru am byth
It's hard to imagine that North England and Scotland could have competed for colonies because South England could stifle their maritime routes out of the Arctic Sea with naval superiority - at least, southwards, which would have pushed the North northwards and either into trouble or alliances with Norway, Russia, Sweden, Iceland, and so on. Which in turn, would have pushed South England to make either invade or make alliances with the Low Countries, France, Portugal, and Denmark. Which in turn, might have made Denmark and Portugal to be bigger players in international politics. That's why I would imagine that Wales and South England would have been closely aligned (not really in the interests of Wales to be fully independent, when it has autonomy) but might have made Wales more closely an equal to South England. While North England and Scotland would have aligned too, but in what would have been a weaker alliance. Which in turn could have resulted in a Wales-South England alliance to invade North England, which might have resulted in Wales annexing the Northwest (ex, Cumberland, Westmorland, etc) and South England pushing more into Scotland to expand their territory (ex, the Islands). In that way, the civil wars within England, Wales, and Scotland benefit European powers - because it's more difficult for the British to align with European powers, stifle them with naval superiority, or outright invade them, despite the naval superiority. I also suspect that the reason nobody knows what happened to Owain ap Glyndwyr is because he was written out of British documents by the Tudors, such as Henry VII, as a potential rival lineage to the throne - who also had a network of spies to sniff out potential lineages in Europe with claims to the English monarchy. Which if you ask me, is an important facet to the root causes of the First World War and Second World War: WW2 is rooted in WW1, which is rooted in European imperialism after the Berlin Conference, which is rooted in anti-monarchy republicanism spreading through Europe after the French Revolution and Revolutions of 1848 from the fact the claims of the House of Hanover and House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (aka, Windsor) were and still are flimsy at best, but thrived on unity from loyalty to monarchy and nationalism via colonialism and imperialism (the feeling of being better than the people in the places you conquer). And of course, French and British imperialism is the root cause to the current problems in the Middle East, the post-colonial instability in Africa, and the rise of Mao Zedong in China and the current CCP.
How about the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 that established spheres of influence in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tibet?
You should do a video on Ahmad Shah Massoud.
I wonder if north and south had separated, if if I (living in the east midlands would be living in the north of the south or the south of the north, oh what a quandary!
the partition of Japan between allied powers almost happened after Japan lost ww2.
probably united again after a while
What would the two countries in England be called?
Northumbria and Mercia
@@werty21100 I wasn't aware Mercia conquered wessex
To what extent it can be said that they would have broken England and not become the three great de-facto rulers of nominally united England?
I kept hearing Earl of Marr instead of March
The good timeline
sigh, if only...
so this is how they got their ideas later in history
Treaty of Radnot 1656, the almsot Partition of Poland
You need more pictures, maps, diagrams. Something. There are big stretches where it’s just a cartoon of you talking. It’s really hard to follow with so many names and political entities in the mix.
This sounds a lot like the plot of A Song of Ice and Fire.
thas because this was around the time of hte war of the roses, which was definitely what the Yorks and Lancasters aka Starks and Lannisters were based on
A song of Ice and fire was based mostly on British history. Martin is an avid reader of history books and he especially loved the war of the roses.
@@Welsh_Dragon756 Yes, it is.
@@andersbald6756 That's right. Martin was partially influenced by English history but he was also influenced by Rome. The Wall, which separates Winterfell from the rest of the North, in order to keep the Others out. Another influence on Martin? Norse mythology. The White Walkers in ASOIF are the Dragurs of Norse mythology. What are the Dragurs? Think of them as Norse Zombies.
Can you make a video about how James bissonette and Kelly moneymaker got so rich?
Kelly kept selling blue books (the ones they use for college exams) so she got rich. James' family has been rich ever since they stole a bunch of artifacts from around the world during the 19th century and sold them to the British Museum and the Louvre.
Good video, but the notion that the tripartate indenture could have successfully won is a bit of an exaggeration. As shown by the time of this partition agreement, the rebellion was already fading away, and the French were withdrawing from the conflict. The crown still had more power and resources than the three rebels put together.
well yeah, the crown won - but it's not inconceivable that they wouldn't
@@sub_bacchus but that's not what i disagree with. It's not that the crown won that makes me think it's an exaggeration, it's that the crown had resources that dwarfed the other parties combined. Even at the battle of Brunanburh, was back in the 900's, when England had far less wealth and cohesion than it did here, the crown could beat off the combined forces of Dublin, Strathclyde and Scotland. Here, against Wales, the Percys and the declining interest of France (who were more interested in peace and trade than an invasion to dismantle England), the crown dwarfed their opponents. Mortimer had fled to Wales, away from his power base, so Glyndwr had to invade to support him. Glyndwr could defend well with guerilla tactics, but was inferior in open battle.
Also, a lot of the division Glyndwr envisioned depended on best case scenarios. The division of England and Wales' independence depended on Percy and Mortimer keeping England divided and keeping their bargain, which Glyndwr could by no means enforce. Besides, England had been one kingdom nearly 500 years, and with the grand prize at both their fingertips, would either Percy or Mortimer refrain from claiming all England? And, as stated, the French were losing interest.
We're living in the bad ending timeline :(
Love the flags combo.
@@riverdeep399 no one cares what u think Wales
@@conallomahoney9311 Cau dy geg sais
...and you think your family fights at family gatherings.
Interesting
If only
The last Prince of Wales was Llewellyn. He was defeated by Edward I and since then the title Prince of Wales has been held by the male HEIR to the UK throne. The present Prince of Wales is the HEIR. He is not the heir presumptive. The heir presumptive is next in line to the throne but his claim could be beaten. For example The King's brother is next in line to the throne and 'heir presumptive' but if the King has a son he ceases to be the heir presumptive because the King's son is now the heir. Incidentally the heir's son is the 'heir apparent'.
No, Owain Glyndwr was the last Prince of Wales. He was crowned in 1404, with emissaries from Scotland, Spain and France present at his court in Machynlleth, where he also established his first parliament that same year.
It's spelled Llywelyn BTW.
You check with Anglo Porto alliance 1386 AD I come back with the (Auld Alliance) of France ,Scotland 1295 AD
Cool
Super
I think we would see a much more powerful and influential Wales on the world stage, and stronger connections between the Welsh and Bretons, as someone with partial Welsh Heritage I found this very interesting :).
no we wouldn't. Wales simply does not have the population geography or resources to be a great power. It would at best be a country like belgium.
@@mappingshaman5280 Belgium, as ethnically divided as it is is an odd example, especially as the low countries were among the richest lands in Europe at the time (and still are really)
but an independent Wales could certainly be quietly prosperous
@@mappingshaman5280 umm.. where do you think most of the resources that powered the beginning of the British empire came from??? Welsh coal later fuelled the industrial age.
Wales had fantastic resources for a small country.
That being said I still think Britain would have become a thing. Either by alliances through marriage and/or by one side eventually betraying another. It could definitely have changed where the power in Britain is held though.
9:39 / 9:42
Just imagine the world without England
No USA and no Canada. Another power would have taken over the America's, I'd assume.
@@nathanscarlett4772 probably France.
@@hobbabobba7912 or Germany with the numbers of Germans that emigrated to North America
@@hobbabobba7912 your forgetting that this happened before Britain defeated the Spanish armada. Spain had the largest navy at the time so they could have taken Englands place. It would definitely have changed things but who knows if it would have been better or worse 🤷
Nah it would be the uk but on overdrive
Partition of the USA 2026
If emperor pooh keeps releasing the lab hits like they did last year every couple years most democracies would collapse before the decade was out.
if this happened, who would have became the colonial superpower later in history?
Nearly .The world was almost saved .It is like being in the Fallout universe and finding out the Nukes could have been prevented .
Vaushan?
Can I move to the timeline where England doesn’t exist please.
“Attempted, colonial scramble for 🇦🇶?”
I would recommend using more maps and images to illustrate the story yku are telling. Having the cartoon version of yourself there isn't really didactic
Inb4 the “the good ending” comments
I suspect England (and ultimately the UK) would have existed as a united entity, simply because the social and technological conditions were right for it, no matter what King was in power.
On the other hand, the temporary division of England would have probably avoided the Wars of the Roses, and consequently would have avoided the Battle of Bosworth, that brought Henry VII to power. It might have even accelerated the creation of the United Kingdom, possibly with a stronger role for Scotland in that union.
The wider long term shift of power within Europe from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic seaboard was also inevitable, although exactly what role Britain would play in that is still open to question. Britain still retain the advantage of being isolated from mainland Europe by water, and this could still have given it more scope to focus on maritime power, but would that have given it an inevitable supremacy over other later maritime powers, such as the Netherlands or Scandinavia is open to question.
If only....I'd be Irish instead of American. Healthcare and rolling green hills. Too bad england ended up still existing
hello
Game of thrones
Owain Glyndwr...Glyndwr not Glyndawer. It's pronounced GLYN DO R czcams.com/video/ibrLfijnPxU/video.html
No England? Based. Tiocfaidh ár lá
Irish never helped. Conquering deserved
So they didn't battle. How many times has thing happened in history and by not fighting, you lose credibility?
KYMRY of iSRAEL
MARANATHA KYMRY FYAH BUN babylon ,ICH DIEN GERMANIC SERVITUDE.
Wales is not England
First
You get a cookie. 🍪 There.
@@aminemessaoui7529 You called?
Sorry but the Auld Alliance, predates the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance. If A is in use then so is B since there was no successor state to the UK per se. There was a new state. So A and B are null and void, but, well the point is Scotland and France got there first. Again both alliances are null and void durung the Napoleonic wars was not the same, since it was a different state helping Portugal in the late 18th/ early 19th C.