Видео

Why you bother to invade British Isles, it was a stupid choice, the complete conquest of Germania would have been better for Rome instead of the perfidious Britannia.

Every history geek who deep-dive into history with an impartial perspective will realize that the ottoman military was vastly overrated. In almost all early crucial Balkan conflicts, ottomans had more men, supplies, and gunpowder than their rivals. When the odds were equal or they faced up more equal grade enemy, the ottomans were utterly broken and decisively defeated. Gjergj Kastrioti, one of the most prominent ottoman ass-kickers in history, had a 24-1 win/loss ratio against the ottomans. Besides, Kastrioti's army was vastly outnumbered (most of the time 10 to 1), largely consisting of militia and volunteers. Ironically, Gjergj Kastrioti was enslaved and trained by ottomans. Yet he was a far better soldier&leader than any other ottoman sultan&pasha in history. After all, he was a proud Christian. The ottomans may have enslaved his body, but they had never enslaved his soul. Not only the ottoman Balkan invasion, this situation also applies to subsequent battles that took place in the following centuries. In the Battle of Ankara (1402),Mongolian descendant Tamerlane inflicted significant casualties on the ottoman while imprisoning the ottoman sultan. At the beginning of the battle, both belligerents exchanged letters, and Tamerlane humiliated the ottoman sultan more than once. Let's take a look at the siege of Constantinople, for example. Ottomans deployed more than 100,000 men plus giant cannons forged by Hungarian engineer Orban that have been unique and never seen that age. On the other side, the city defenders had barely 10,000 and were out of livestock and munitions. Despite that, the siege took 50 days and the ottomans lost half of their armies. Just do some research. Since when did mehmed, "the so-called conqueror" who annexed Constantinople, win which battle while the odds were against him? He always got the numbers, cannons, and manpower. :) The ottomans first confrontations with the colonial powers also ended up with military disasters. Battle of Gulf Oman 1554 decisive Portuguese victory, ottomans lost all their ships, ottoman admiral fleed like a chicken and Battle of Cape Corvo 1613 (It was a crushing Spanish victory, a vast amount of ottomans taken prisoner by the Spanish) Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1560) also resulted in Portuguese victories. Prince Eugene of Savoy from Habsburg dynasty was another notable ottoman crusher in history. His achievements against ottomans were pretty impressive. Battle of Zenta 1697 andBattle of Petrovaradin are simple examples of how he brought down ottomans.(During these battles, Eugene had 20,000 men, and ottomans had more than 100,000 men. After that battle, no other ottoman sultan dared to lead military campaigns. Literally, the ottomans came to the negotiation table while on their knees (Treaty of Karlowitz 1699) and bowed to the Habsburg terms. The ottomans so-called predecessors, the seljuk turks, had no difference in that subject. They were also defeated and humiliated in countless wars like ottomans while holding tactical&numerical superiority. The Battle of Lake of Antioch 1098, Battle of Sarmin 115, The Battle of Didgori 1121, Battle of Iconium 1190, Battle of Kosedag 1243 etc. Moreover, this Turkic faction was just a bad copy of the Mongols in terms of warfare. The only thing they did was implement cowardly hit-and-run horse archery tactics, nothing more. Since I referred to seljuk turks, I'd like to refer to some misinformation about it that is spreading around the internet. :) The factual crusades conducted by Catholic factions were regarding the Holy Lands, Jerusalem, and Levant states and ignited by the Pope .This means the other prevention attempts to repel muslim invaders from Balkan territory should not be defined as a crusade like Nicopolis and Varna. (the ignorant turkish brats are speaking about these all the time.) Here's a quote from a historian to bring clarity to that topic. " I've seen constant misconceptions on the internet that the goal of the Crusades was “to prevent Muslim expansion into Western Europe” or something. This is not so. The First Crusade's stated aim was to aid Eastern Christians, primarily the Greek Orthodox Byzantine Empire. After the First Crusade, the subsequent Crusades aimed to preserve Roman Catholic rule in the Holy Land, especially Jerusalem. This was the stated goal of the Crusades and since the last vestige of Roman Catholic rule in the Holy Land fell in 1291, which is why people say the Crusades failed. This is also wrong, The first, third, and sixth crusades succeeded." The Russians were another faction that constantly beat up this empire throughout the 19th century. The Treaty of Kuciuk Kainargi (1774)was at the outset of Russian dominance over that sick empire that resulted after the Russo-Turkish War (1768-1774). Since that date, Russians always have prevailed during the conflicts with ottomans. (except the Crimean War 1863, in that war Britain&French teamed up with ottoman and saved them from another disastrous defeat) I'd add that info too, The battle of Serbs ain't happened. It's a myth the ignorant turk fools tend to believe in. You cannot find any single history book that covered this battle. As for the battle of Maritsa, there was no way the Serbs had gathered such a large army at that time. ( just a lie spread by pan turk clowns) Even at the Battle of Kosovo, Lazar Hrebeljanović (the national hero of Serbs barely rallied around 10,000/12,000 men under his command). The numbers of Balkan faction armies are grossly exaggerated by foolish turk brats, without any single historical proof. As a history geek, I am an expert on seljuk&ottoman history even though I despise both factions. I gave the exact date of the Battles and the names of prominent military figures who crushed ottomans with supplement citations. :) I'm pointing out historical facts here. Only ignorant ottoman fanboy turk fools are bragging about that garbage empire. They never read any decent history books in their lives all of their knowledge is based on the internet and ahistorical TV shows in turkey, merely coming up with copy/paste replies from the internet. (mostly Wikipedia) This garbage-sick man empire only brought poverty and misery to humanity. Zero contribution to science, art, and literature had left behind a disgraceful legacy. Their so-called bloated military might is just a myth that ignorant muslim clowns ( ottoman fanboy turks mostly) believe it. :) With this lucid argument, I've debunked those myths one by one based on detalied historiography.

They hated haggis.

Everybody yelling about European colonisation gotta give a thought to the muslim colonisation which began much earlier and encompassed all northern Africa, central Asia and half-Europe in its prime, conquering thousands of cultures and ethnical groups. But that doesn’t happen, because muslims know exactly how to play victims and make you feel guilty

This so wrong

simple, it would mean they would have to live with germans

So Ireland was a "shithole" country in today's terms?😂

I found a mistake on your thumbnail, Poland and Ukraine split the Kingdom of Galicia-Lodomeria into Poland and the WUPR. As the kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria was 🇺🇦🇵🇱

They came, they conquered and their lasting effect on Britain is still visible to this day. From ancient forts, roads and walls, to villas, palaces and spas, discover Britain’s Roman legacy. By Penelope Rance Technology, architecture, language, government, town planning - even a sense of national identity. The depth of the Roman influence on the British Isles was such that it survives to this day, seemingly unmatched by that of any of the invading forces that followed them. But then, the majority of those invaders, and the subsequent ruling elites, wanted nothing better than to be Roman themselves. These heirs to the Roman ideal - Saxons, Danes, Normans, Plantagenets, Tudors, Georgians and Victorians - all tried to establish Britain as part of a wider empire, drawing on the example set by those first imperial overlords.

Simple answer- Christianity is a simple religion. It’s based on this idea called Original sin and Christs suffering. Basically a bit too cringy. Eastern religions are richer in terms of concepts, branches, subtexts, open to debates and interpretations far more than Christianity. I wouldn’t even go to mention Islam as the followers aren’t very sporty in these discussions and moreover it’s a political ideology than a religion. So unless you are too poor or have some other vested political interests, people never felt adopting them. To be honest, Buddhism is distilled Hinduism, better called Sanatan dharma

India that is Bharat doesn’t encroach on another land’s sovereignity. Might sound a bit cringy but it’s the truth. Lankans prefer to keep to themselves. Hope they don’t sell themselves to some other power, in which case it’s a different deal

thats because ireland is the greatest country to ever exist

Crap soil and climate for farming. Hostile locals who drink all of your booze. Juice not worth the squeeze situation. Same deal in Scotland.

Dutch Empire did not collapse. It has only turned incognito, gone "underground". It is not "extrovert" like e.g. the Usa. Dutch empire does not need and refrains from boasting about anything. It quietly does what needs to be done. A lot like the Chinese.

It never failed in Asia

Don't move here. It sucks. Stay in your state!

Grenada is for the Muslims whatever happened to the Christians in Instanbul

Paddy said to the Roman's, "dont bother, we are all on our way to Cricklewood"

They didn't conquer Scotland either.

What was in it for Rome, beyond expense?

There were Britons in Erin at the times of the Romans, this is all Bollocks this crap!

Because there was Eff all there! to take.

Cos they didn't like potatoes

Is a king philip

Dear brothers and sisters, Muslims and Christians, Weather the rulers happened to be belonging to the faith of Muslims or Christians, imperialism was and is wrong.. Muslim imperialism or Christian imperialism.. they were both wrong and clearly against the teachings of of God (in the holy book of Quran or Bible.). If Moses, Jesus or Mohammad (peace be upon them) were sent to earth today with an army, they both would be eradicate all forms of despotic dynasties and imperialism. Moses, Jesus would definitely be against Israel and Zionism, or British and USA imperialism. Prophet Mohammad would overthrow all the dynasties monarchy kingdoms of the Middle East. The imperialists are hijackers of the religions of God. If you read the Shia version of Islamic history.. it’s all clear what happened to Islam on the day the prophet Mohammad passed away, there was a coup and the successor of the prophet Mohammad who was chosen by God to lead Islam was Imam Ali cousin of Prophet Mohammad. Similarly Paul was a hijacker of the movement of Jesus and James the brother of Jesus was the leader. James was sidelined and Paul took over .. he spread his on whims and fancy and his own opinions and interpreted himself ..this was reckless.. Similarly prophet moses ever taught Zionism (Jewish radical extremism of superiority complex and racism). It’s evil.

Why he went to Java?

And Romans were not partial to potatoes. Sensible folk.

The Romans were not daft. They made a sensible decision to avoid bog management. And they wisely decided to steer clear of the Fenians.

Test

They picked up Joe Duffy on RTE and understood Ireland was already conquered.

If you want to know the true identity of sinhalese that you should know, before 2500 year they were called "Helas"..in that period or era, sri lanaka wasn't and island. Its the Lemuria continent .in that prospective we are not an island nation..we represent a continental culture that no one have...

“Young cesare said he could not be killed by man so I tossed him of the roof to see where he would land” Ac revelations flashbacks

These maps are SO inaccurate.

Let me tell the actual reasons 1. The leader of the communist yugoslavia died so many people found an opportunity to grab land 2.USA fucked yugoslavia up 3.the question of different ethnicities and religions wasnt a problem until the 1990s when tito was long gone and milosevic was in place (he was a nationalist dictator) 4. Please dont talk about topics you dont know about

The only reason the romans invaded england was for the copper and zinc and tin and other useful metals of the time especially those around the cornwall area Not for the food, the weather or delightfull conversion.

Illyrians🇦🇱 >>> romans

6:33 music? Sounds soo good

Christianity is very successful in Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan. It was very successful in Japan before it was violently suppressed after the Shimabara Rebellion in 1638. Many daimyo in southern Japan were Christian converts, but they were on the wrong side of civil wars and were massacred. Christianity was successful in parts of China during the Tang dynasty before being suppressed (as was Buddhism). We look back and give "natural" justifications for how things are today, but there were deliberate choices on the part of people and rulers that made things the way they are. There's no "natural" reason, and it could have ended up very differently.

Because of the ginger ninjas

It's crazy how this very thing affected the lives of Billions, arguing over stupid stuff like this, when they all die and stand before God in the second resurrection just to find out they both were wrong.

It's spelled celts not kielts omg

Germanians are not german

Ireland would have been worth the expedition due to the abundance of livestock and wood alone. What people miss out on is that Ireland was dense forest across most of the land. The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was still very fresh in the minds of every Roman at the time. The psychological impact would have been enormous. It was another sea to cross into a world of superstition and druids. Irelands climate was also warmer than today(not amazing but winters were mild in comparison to Central Europe) with vineyards found at archaeological digs from around that time. It’s geographic location, the psychological factors, the lack of strategic value and also the PAX Romana played a crucial role in the decision. When Hadrian built his wall, it cost a lot of man power. But with Ireland, if Mother Nature had already done the hard work, who were they to argue.

The romans only went to places where they could have vineyards. No wine, no romans. Case closed.

Clearly they didn't want it

Never hear about the diseases the Europeans caught from the natives,either, just the other way around… seems like slant reporting, always leaving that out because “muh Evil European colonialism” narrative. Also, as an aside, the myth of the Europeans deliberately infecting blankets with diseases out of malice in the time of marasmus theory and such is bullshit. That’s implying germ warfare before people had any idea what a virus was and how it spread. They believed it came from foul smelling air, or marasmus. I think they were trying to be helpful, not evil. As in, “here are some blankets to help stay warm,” not “here are some blankets so you’ll get sick and die.” Always question your teachers, Kids.

Actually the Romans did land there looked around and said "Nah. Not worth the effort" similar to what they did in Scotland virtually conquered Scotland, discovered no mining of any worth and would cost more to stay than leave so built a wall and said "Here will be the border"

Typically under researched and one sided video. “Geographically belongs to Ireland”? Scotland and England are on the same island too, so does England ‘geographically’ belong to Scotland? I’m Northern Irish, I’m British. We have always been here since the Scotii. The Gaels to the south have always tried to own us, which is why many of us had to flee into Caledonia, modern day Scotland! The Irish have always wanted to be ruled by Europe, used to be the pope and now from the EU. Not us! Leave us alone in peace

That was really boring

this teaches us never trusting and working together with javanese politician. either you slugtered or taken advantage than slugtered