Was Britain's 18th Century Army Europe's Finest? | Animated History

Get 75% off NordVPN! Only $2.99/mo, plus you get an additional month FREE at nordvpn.org/history
Use codeword: history
Sign up for The Armchair Historian website today:
Ironside Computers - Click here to customize your own PC: ironsidecomputers.com/ **USE DISCOUNT CODE "History" FOR 5% OFF!**
Gilbert, Arthur N. "Law and honour among eighteenth-century British army officers." The Historical Journal 19, no. 1 (1976): 75-87.
Kopperman, Paul E. "" The Cheapest Pay": Alcohol Abuse in the Eighteenth-Century British Army." Journal of Military History 60 (1996): 445-470.
Conway, Stephen. "War and national identity in the mid-eighteenth-century British Isles." The English Historical Review 116, no. 468 (2001): 863-893.
Roberts, N. A., J. W. Brown, and B. Hammett. "A detailed study of the effectiveness and capabilities of 18th century musketry on the battlefield." In Bastions and Barbed Wire, pp. 1-22. Brill, 2009.
Chandler, David G., and Ian Frederick William Beckett, eds. The Oxford history of the British army. Oxford University Press, USA, 2003.
Young, Peter, and James Philip Lawford, eds. History of the British army. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970.
Holmes, Richard. Redcoat: the British soldier in the age of horse and musket. WW Norton & Company, 2002.
Colley, Linda. Britons: forging the nation, 1707-1837. Yale University Press, 2005.
Mallinson, Allan. The Making of the British Army. Random House, 2009.
Athale, Anil A. Struggle for Empire: Anglo-Maratha Wars, 1679-1818. Reliance Publishing House, 2001.‏
Gustav Holst - Jupiter
The British Grenadiers
Victoria II. Copyright © 2018 Paradox Interactive AB. www.paradoxplaza.com
Antonio Salieri, Twenty six variations on La Folia de Spagna
London Mozart Players
Matthias Bamert, as conductor



  • Get 75% off NordVPN! Only $2.99/mo, plus you get an additional month FREE at nordvpn.org/history Use codeword: history ***My cartoon character intro's and conclusions will be replaced in our next video.

    The Armchair HistorianThe Armchair HistorianYıl önce
    • John Churchill was the Duke of Marlborough, not "Marlboro"

      Liam KerinLiam KerinYıl önce
    • Nordvpn was hacked I would use another VPN over nord

      Tony BlaisTony BlaisYıl önce
    • All I’m gonna say is who controlled the ‘British’ empire which was argued to be the biggest empire in human existence

      Keir GamingKeir GamingYıl önce
    • The Armchair Historian A professional army was also viewed with skepticism, as it was associated with authoritarian monarchs and wannabe kings like Oliver Cromwell. The navy was fine, but trying to repress the British population with a standing army was not tolerated, not least by Parliament. The UK was mostly peaceful within itself, except for Ireland, and so a large army wasn't that useful for domestic security. When Robert Peel's police were created, a great deal of effort went into making sure that they were not seen as soldiers, because the typical lack of a military in cities was regarded as a longstanding freedom of the British constitution.

      Robert JarmanRobert JarmanYıl önce
    • I like how if this was posted by anyone other than the video uploader it'd be spam and the user would get reported. Now on youtube it's the norm to shill out links and spam their users in order to make any money. Thanks TRvision policy makers!

      3a3aYıl önce
  • Great use of Holst! I recommend Mars in a later video.

    Carlos RodriguezCarlos Rodriguez2 gün önce
  • Short answer. Yes they were. Look at their empire. No need to state facts.

    Dark_Khan 223Dark_Khan 2236 gün önce
  • 1:09 He only lost one battle during the whole American revolution. www.boone.k12.ky.us/userfiles/717/Classes/33447/civil%20war%20battles%20chart.pdf?id=563015 (This pdf says how many battles the union lost) Can't we just call it American propoganda? Thinking that they are the big brother of every democracy (not to mention overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators in name of preventing communism)

    Arya NarkhedeArya Narkhede7 gün önce
  • British Army was world class but so was Prussian and French Armies. All quite similar. It was the Royal Navy that led to undisputed world leader

    35627819028353729-498465335627819028353729-498465312 gün önce
  • If NordVPN can't protect my home from redcoats then I'm not buying it.

    Andrew WestAndrew West14 gün önce
  • Now imagine this An infantryman: look! a redcoat! Another infantryman: bah, they aren't so dangerous as they looks, they aren't the fi- *shot*

    Bumper _de_la_manBumper _de_la_man14 gün önce
  • Everbody knows that the Spanish Tercios were the best army.

    elcidsolorzanoelcidsolorzano17 gün önce
    • Lol

      LesDodo ClipsLesDodo Clips11 gün önce
  • British govt i n world and India:-because-british govt science vs unscience world -india

    tech symtech sym18 gün önce
  • Pls sir:- tell the detail history -the battele of bhimaa koregaao, 1 January 1818,your subscriber get 5 days in,1millon,pls tell language in Hindi,or daou bind machine use,English to Hindi,

    tech symtech sym18 gün önce
  • What song plays at 3:00

    Cody VallsCody Valls21 gün önce
  • with this army. great britain founded the largest empire in history that the sun never sets. only napoleon old guard is stronger

    Mina ParkMina Park24 gün önce
  • British army conquered the world so their Amy must have been the best 🙄

    joel khjoel kh25 gün önce
  • The British military of the 18th century is pretty much what the current US military is like. That is working on behalf of affluent elite individuals and corporations.

    Kerro GuanoKerro GuanoAylar önce
  • germans always have the best land forces duh, literally has always been this way since roman times

    Ben ScottBen ScottAylar önce
    • That’s why France fucked them in a month

      LesDodo ClipsLesDodo Clips24 gün önce
  • "THE FRENCH ARMY IS STRONGER, BUT I BELIEVE THE ROYAL NAVY WILL TURN THE TIDE !"-Some random red coat soldier in Assassins creed Rouge.

    People's youtube channelsPeople's youtube channelsAylar önce
  • The War of Spanish Succession was a French victory. Britain didn't lose per see, but after Malborough's pyrric "victory" at Malplaquet, the Coalition (now without Britain) was decisively defeated by the French at Denain.

    LeHappisteLeHappisteAylar önce
    • No it wasn’t. France wanted to unite Spain and France into one nation, that’s why they fought. France lost territory and so did Spain

      LesDodo ClipsLesDodo Clips24 gün önce
  • Why was the British army considered the best army in the English-speaking world? Who is telling the story?

    Paul FuciliPaul FuciliAylar önce
    • It’s literally only Americans

      LesDodo ClipsLesDodo Clips24 gün önce
  • To start, notice that general you quoted said' the finest fighting force' not just army, so that includes then the hessian soldiers they brought in, their navy, and other resources, not just the British the Army itself. Also it is somewhat inaccurate to call those germans the Britished used, 'mercenaries' as a comparison that could be like saying ships the the U.S. gave to Britain in ww2 as part of lend lease were mercenaries. They were their own army on loan to the british from their home country. Not liek they were individual bands who each got to choose who they would fight for. trvision.net/detail/video-O47sxlN8b_w.html

    Adam CaseAdam CaseAylar önce
  • Ottoman army?

    Rafi Youtube StudioRafi Youtube StudioAylar önce
  • The Russian empire army was much better

    BelYenBelYenAylar önce
    • @LesDodo Clips huh wym numbers

      BelYenBelYen24 gün önce
    • No it wasn’t. It had numbers and that’s . It

      LesDodo ClipsLesDodo Clips24 gün önce
  • Its army was adequate. It could defend itself but mostly a mixed bag. Britain's NAVY on the other hand, pretty sure you could put the french and spanish navies together and they wouldnt stand a mile close.

    dale sabandaldale sabandal2 aylar önce
    • It’s individual soldier was very good. It’s size held it back

      LesDodo ClipsLesDodo Clips24 gün önce
  • British Army is no match to Prussia's, but it doesn't matter. Because the British National Security depends on the navy.

    LordMarshalLordMarshal2 aylar önce
  • 3:15 ahhhh so it was the Prussians whole ate all the dodo's into extinction.

    AmazinglyGayPhilAmazinglyGayPhil2 aylar önce
  • Brit here and under no illusion that British armies were the best in the world or anything. But they were always very drilled, brave and professional, got to give them that. I would say they were top tier and respected, but far too small to ever be a serious threat on their own

    JokerJoker2 aylar önce
  • French were clearly ahead in that race, Prussians come second close. British were good at strategy and flexibility, just how from British East India company traders to the British Lords, and generals there seemed to be a greater flexibility that existed compared to other Armies where every small things would be relied upon someone on the very top. The British didn't have the most number of troops that belonged to Prussia nor the best equipped that belonged to France, yet their real power came from diplomatic warfare and great strategies.

    Anjumul HoqueAnjumul Hoque2 aylar önce
  • The finest army in the world had colonial army men who were either Loyal to the Revolution or Loyal to the Crown, most of them were loyal to the Revolution. Thus US Army itself got finest army in the world. Us didn't raise their own independent army but inherited the old British army and trained soldiers who chose to be with the independent USA.

    Anjumul HoqueAnjumul Hoque2 aylar önce
    • The us army was a joke back then.

      LesDodo ClipsLesDodo Clips24 gün önce
  • Prussia had the best army on the field england on the sea

    MR PADDYMR PADDY3 aylar önce
  • But even I don’t buy the Nord VPN , My house still cannot be burned down by royal redcoats for sure

    比尔赫尔摩克比尔赫尔摩克3 aylar önce
  • Brave lads led by incompetent snobs.

    frank gunnerfrank gunner3 aylar önce
  • Don’t forget Britain only used a small force in the American revolution while America was backed by 3 empires.

    FreshhBroFreshhBro3 aylar önce
  • Americans: No

    The dempseysThe dempseys3 aylar önce
  • Why not the british army earn the title of best army in world Britons aginst romans Britons against saxon Saxon war with many kingdoms like mercia and east anglia Viking invasion Fighting great heathen army Harold against hadrada Fight against norman invasion Peasent rebillion Plantegent and blois wars 100 year war with france War of roses Anglo french wars Anglo spanish wars Anglo dutch wars English civil war Religious wars 13 year war Spanish war of succesion Military sprit flow not only in blood carried out by genes British with out wealth? British with out war

    Robert GuiscardRobert Guiscard3 aylar önce
    • After all that we still managed to rule the world

      Adolfthejewbaka _Adolfthejewbaka _3 aylar önce
  • 426 Redcoats disliked this

    rezoukas1rezoukas13 aylar önce
  • The background music is just great

    MG -_- 14MG -_- 143 aylar önce
  • Redcoats: Fighting some inexperienced part-time Militias and still lost. Britain: We are the best!

    Kaiser GamingKaiser Gaming3 aylar önce
  • They lost to a bunch of American farmers lmao

    LawlzillaLawlzilla3 aylar önce
    • It took the us and 3 world empires 8 years to beat the outnumbered British off there own backyard

      LesDodo ClipsLesDodo Clips24 gün önce
    • @Dod o I never said anything about the Revolutionary War, just clarifying that the US _did_ practically win in Vietnam, as far as military victories are concerned.

      Blunt .CabbageBlunt .Cabbage3 aylar önce
    • @Dod o Well, statistically, the US won militarily. Far fewer lives lost than the enemy while also winning most frontal engagements. Even complete surprise attacks like the Tet Offensive were strategic failures on behalf of the NVA and VC.

      Blunt .CabbageBlunt .Cabbage3 aylar önce
    • @Dod o they were dai viet in the 1700s

      LawlzillaLawlzilla3 aylar önce
  • I’d say the French were better

    GABX PGABX P3 aylar önce
  • Prussia had the best army and the British couldn't win anything without the navy.

    William PhillipsWilliam Phillips4 aylar önce
  • Certainly wasn't America's finest

    Westbourne ParkWestbourne Park4 aylar önce
  • I kind of hava a feeling that this myth was only created in post-revolutionary America to make them seem like the underdogs

    Obi WanObi Wan4 aylar önce
  • what about the dutch? they werent the biggest but they beated the british 3 times. on time they even teamed up with france to attack the dutch. and they still lost.

    VicunaVicuna4 aylar önce
    • @big boi joni yes but i am not talking about now but in the 17th, 18th and 19th centurie. i know that the brithish militairy now is way better.

      VicunaVicuna4 aylar önce
    • @Vicuna but the thing is if you are defeated in a battle it necessarily doesn't mean your armies are good at least not all the time but in this case it dosen't because as we speak the Dutch have a military budget of 11 billion whilst the British have 49 billion which would honestly kinda mean the British have better armies

      big boi jonibig boi joni4 aylar önce
    • @big boi joni it means they where supperior to the brithish in south africa. this can be in quality of the soldiers or tactics. i am not saying that the netherlands is better then the uk but that they where good enough to defeat two of the best armies in europe combined.

      VicunaVicuna4 aylar önce
    • @Vicuna the Zulu kingdom defeated the British does that mean the zulu kingdom have better armies than the british

      big boi jonibig boi joni4 aylar önce
    • @big boi joni it does mean that they have a good enough army to defeat france and the united kingdom

      VicunaVicuna4 aylar önce
  • Americans trying to make there victories more impressive.

    Samuel BousfieldSamuel Bousfield5 aylar önce
  • What are the best books on this topic?

    Pole TookePole Tooke5 aylar önce
  • They were only the best because the 🇺🇸 wasn't born yet..Not a marine but SEMPER FI DO OR DIE AMERICA IS NUMBER ONE

    Karanani KuiyutsiKaranani Kuiyutsi5 aylar önce
    • We marched into your capital and burned your White House down

      Foggy NelsonFoggy Nelson4 aylar önce
  • *Laughs in Prussian*

    William HofmanWilliam Hofman5 aylar önce
  • I like you put “I vow to thee” in the background

    Tackybubbles 447Tackybubbles 4475 aylar önce
  • We were so good that nobody likes us and would rather not admit as such.

    Ned StevenNed Steven5 aylar önce
  • The French were because France always one of the richest country in the world Britain was alway in dept

    BLAZE_JewelBLAZE_Jewel5 aylar önce
  • Harsh though the Army was, you had a greater life expectancy than working in most other jobs such as mining or heavy industry. The American revolution was a sideshow in many regards, the main focus at that time was protecting the sugar plantations from Spain.

    nor 08nor 085 aylar önce
  • Under queen Victoria Britian only lost 1 out of 60 campaigns so then it was however, they were fighting weaker nations. (I know this isn't the subject of the video but it is related)

    Memes and StrategyMemes and Strategy5 aylar önce
  • One word: Money

    Jorge HernandezJorge Hernandez5 aylar önce
  • Prussia, France and Russia: Navy, yes but Army, Nein, Non and Nyet!

    Lec lecLec lec5 aylar önce
    • @Dod o idk man I think I'm gonna go with fingerboi on this one

      big boi jonibig boi joni4 aylar önce
    • @Dod o it only cause problem but not entirely beat Napoleon due to the fact that there are several factors on Napoleon's defeat and historically speaking, the army of France, Russia and Prussia/Germany surpasses that of Britain in terms of overall strength with them being heavily invested on the Navy instead of the army which is a right choice to maintain their Empire and their naval supremacy

      Lec lecLec lec5 aylar önce
    • @Dod o yeah that's why Britain's army is inferior compare to others their number is small and both Prussia and France surpasses them in quality and historians never agree that the winter was the cause of Napoleon's demise but its Field Marshal Tolly's scrorched-earth retreat unless the historians that you mentioned are the one that thinks that winter was the sole reason of Germany's fall in WW2 cause of some historically inaccurate memes. Without him, Winter wouldn't be that big of an issue on Napoleon like how winter failed to stop the Mongols from invading Russia.

      Lec lecLec lec5 aylar önce
    • @Dod o Yet Russia was able to bring down Napoleon's huge army by themselves and was able to repel the Prussian offensive while Britain always needs an ally to fight someone in land, Britain wouldn't last long by themselves their army never achieve something trully great in European soil by just themselves although their Navy is the most superior in the whole of Europe which is saying a lot

      Lec lecLec lec5 aylar önce
    • @Dod o Battle at Waterloo is the battle where Napoleon was defeated though, how is that irrelevant when the war is about the downfall of one of the best military leader known to history and Prussia can beat Russia even with numerical advantage with the Battle of Tannenburg being a proof to that

      Lec lecLec lec5 aylar önce
  • The constant strict discipline is what caused the british to adopt the stiff upper lip persona and with that captain Pryce was born. A blessing in disguise i guess 🤷🏻‍♂️

    Ace Of SpadesAce Of Spades5 aylar önce
  • During the 18th century? No. During the Victorian period is another story

    Jonathan Livingston SeagullJonathan Livingston Seagull5 aylar önce
  • The only reason why America won is French support and Americans dont accept that but without em USA wouldnt exist

    Jovan VladeticJovan Vladetic5 aylar önce
  • Americans overhype the red coats purely to make their rebellion more miraculous and amazing, truth be damned - like a nationalistic religion

    Stonem001Stonem0016 aylar önce
    • @Dod o kiiiiinda, but it's more to hype themselves by then saying 'and our untrained militia beat the best soldiers in he world, so that makes us insanely awesome!!!' (Nevermind they lost nearly every proper battle)

      Stonem001Stonem0015 aylar önce
  • The history channel was factual, the parrot movie and scene was not ridiculous. America beaten a powerful foe that is the British.

    Fire StrikerFire Striker6 aylar önce
  • Me and the bois enjoying the art

    Chimpee ProductionsChimpee Productions6 aylar önce
  • Ahh yes is that not the guy from ancient aliens 8:50

    Phiwe MxengePhiwe Mxenge6 aylar önce
  • Anti British propaganda I’m sorry your mum is a slag that’s not our fault

    Jamie RogersJamie Rogers6 aylar önce
  • Yes it was an u know it

    Scouse FellaScouse Fella6 aylar önce
  • Americans are good at finding a way to complement themselves while complementing others(in the context of the beginning of the video american "historians" say that they beat the best army in the world, basically humanities favorite story line "The underdog wins"

    Tyler GrantTyler Grant6 aylar önce
  • Is the very professional world record troop march by British soldiers a joke to you? I know your bias as a american its understandable, you view the British as a naval force its logical, but you can go pew pew from a ship to land but really it's the land force that wins, so the prussians are so good but did they control India Pakistan and bangladesh?

    Ben LittleBen Little6 aylar önce
  • If a 9,000 strong force, that included the 95th rifles, couldn't take Buenos Aires (at the time a port town with about 40k inhabitants) from a poorly armed local militia in 1807, then that force is not even close from being among the best in the world. Sure on open field their firing drills were OP, but in urban combat it surely didn't help.

    Francisco LounotFrancisco Lounot6 aylar önce
    • @Francisco Lounot Ah my bad I misread it and thought the two fights where concurrent not separate battles separated by a decent amount of time.

      DelogrosDelogros6 aylar önce
    • @Delogros The 95th rifles were in Robert Craufurd's brigade, where did you get that they were only in Montevideo? Are you telling me they left their best unit as garrison? I've read they were part of the taking of Montevideo, Colonia, and then Buenos Aires. The Wiki article of the regiment describes their actions in the early movements of the 2nd battle of Buenos Aires. They did participate. There's a 4 month difference between the 2 battles. My main point was about how British infantry did have a widely known usage of good firing drills since Minden (1759), where they stopped a large cavalry detachment by using firepower alone (this was before the implementation of the square formation), while the French infantry, though not as good at their fire concentrations (deeper formations and all that), did have a greater adaptability due to the by the time recent doctrinal changes in maneuverability and usage of concentrations of artillery fire to support infantry advances. British supremacy was definitely in its Navy. And about the battle itself, the British were facing militia, literal weekend soldiers, as in they gathered every Sunday to train for almost a year. The defenders were definitely the underdogs in this particular situation. I didn't mention the Highland Regiments that took part as well, but they alone could've easily taken the city if they were led by someone other than Whitelocke.

      Francisco LounotFrancisco Lounot6 aylar önce
    • I don't specifically disagree with you on the basic premise but it's worth while pointing out even the undeniably strongest military's on Earth have bad operations/days... By your logic Operation Eagle claw where US Delta force and others US forces lost 6 Helicoptors, 1 Hercules and 8 dead without ever seeing an enemy soldier would mean that the USA was not the strongest military in 1980... Which we both know is nonsense. You've also put the 95th at Buenos Aires when they where actually at Montevideo and the troop numbers at Buenos Aires was not dissimilar to the attacking British 7,000 vs 9,000 the defensive nature of urban fighting more then making up the numbers as a force modifier I would imagine.

      DelogrosDelogros6 aylar önce
  • Hessians were NOT mercenaries. They were enlisted soldiers serving in national armies, wearing the uniforms and carrying the colours of those national armies, who were contracted to fight in British wars by the princes of their German states. They were auxiliaries, not mercenaries. Mercenaries are soldiers of fortune.

    Some GuySome Guy6 aylar önce
  • The british army got its reputation at the start of the 18th century thanks to john churchill duke of marlborough. The man was a legendary commander.

    MrAwsomenoobMrAwsomenoob6 aylar önce
  • British and Prussia had great relationships.

    Battleship Warspite2001Battleship Warspite20016 aylar önce
  • You forgot the rising of 45 in eighteenth century war Britain was in. You can't forget the Bonnie Prince Charlie

    tlclemens2tlclemens26 aylar önce
  • Was Napoleon's Grand Armee the best army during the Napoleonic Wars?

    MegaGamer 12282000MegaGamer 122820006 aylar önce
Was Britain's 18th Century Army Europe's Finest? | Animated History