Was the extra content the deleted scenes?

Nope. Just the stuff we didn't go too deep before.

More content is always welcomed

Wow! some Christmas treat! 52`` - Thank You.All the best for You.And congrats -after just a little over 2 years,You r only 23 thousand subscribers left to a 1 000 000.Fantastic job.

Wow - this is great. Hopefully 1 million subscribers before 2020 :-)

What did you expect? We named our planet - Earth.

Americans think George Martin is a great writer, Europeans who’ve studied their history just play ‘spot which bit of European history he lifted that bit from!’

Europeans who've studied history also think GRRM is a great writer and also comparing every day Americans to European Historians is idiotic.

@@marcmason3514 Oh dear! You’ve completed missed the point I was making. 😂😂😂

@@ffotograffydd Your point was that Americans wouldnt realise that alot of GRRMs work is based on real histotic events where as European Historians would. American Historians would also know about the War of the Roses wouldn't they? If not then what was the point of your comment?

They're family names, after all.

Sums up English history

@@earlofbroadst ik it's just harder to keep up with what's going on and who's who lol

This is why I can’t keep track of these guys. It is seriously messing with my memory. I can’t remember, myself, what they started out with (almost)!

@@earlofbroadst that isn’t the point…even the Brits can’t remember all these dudes with the same name! They have to list their surname so there’s a distinction between the others.

He probadly knew all the guards by name, including their wifes, sons and daughters: "Oh, hey Henry back again? Who got you this time?" :D

@@ratatan7720 Everyone caught him at some point. He's the only person who syphilis caught, it's usually the other way around.

is that dialogue a reference? because it seems like one

Lmao

"Do I get the same cell--?" "No I'm afraid not this time. You'll be three cells down." "Oh, come on then, that's the one by the raven's nest, they squawk something awful." "Can't be any worse than your wife's squawking, amiright lads!?"

Come on, now, it's unfair to call Henry VI unnecessary. I heard that he was extremely competent at keeping the Tower of London's seats warm.

"coronated"? Dear God, what a word!

Crowned. No such word as 'coronated'. It's a shit word, like 'hella'. Just flush it and jiggle the handle so it all goes down.

@@alancoe1002 Coronated exists in other languages. One example would be Spanish where crown is corona and crowned is coronado. It's as easy as saying loyalista in Spanish instead of lealista, the actual word in Spanish.

@@JonatasAdoM common usage will drag it in like a wet, stray cat eventually, like "conversate", "irregardless", and another dozen or so a year. English is a mongrel, I know, but clarity in communication is hard enough without junk words.

They probably would have struggled to hold on to that land no matter who became king. Throughout the Hundred Years War the French crown always had more resources/money/manpower to call on. A more capable monarch probably could have held on to it longer though

@@worsethanjoerogan8061 Yep. When looking at the territorial changes throughout the war, the English never held onto their gains for very long.

@@tylerghersinich576 I haven't, but I am aware of it. Is it worth seeing?

@@sonnyocad287 i would say no because it represents king Henry as weak and easily control. I would recommend watching shadiverisity he has done a review

That's what happens when your father in law thinks he's made of glass. Just think of how much impact Henry V's marrying Catherine of Valois had. Not just in breeding genes for insanity into Henry VI, but also Edmund Tudor and thence into the tudors and then through Margaret Tudor into the Stuarts and then from the Winter Queen into the Hanoverians and finally Windsor's. How much misery has come from that one decision? Life, huh?

I captured Henry VI and so did my wife

Maybe Henry VI himself?

My wife's boyfriend captured him and both my dad's.

@@knockitoffhudson3470 Quite the progressive family structure.

Yes, Bob.

You're out here trying to give people alcohol poisoning, mate. Lmao.

In the words of Stevie Wonder - " Don't Drive Drunk ".

bolstering your yorkist failure, what a surprise.

Ah, here we are' 600 years later, re-fighting a civil war. Most refreshing !

No, take a shot every time there was a rebellion during the war.

Well, Henry V was named after his father Henry IV, & Henry VI after HIS father Henry V. Henry VI named his sole child Edward, but his ultimate heir was his half-nephew Henry VII, who was named after his half-uncle by his mother. We all know his son Henry VIII was the last 'Henry' to rule England. But Henry IV had been named after his maternal grandfather, Henry of Grosmont (whose own father was named Henry, after his own grandfather Henry III). Henry III was presumably named after his grandfather, Henry II, who was *deliberately* named after HIS grandfather, Henry I, by his mother. Henry I was the baby of the bunch when it came to William the Conqueror's kids, but his mother probably named him after her uncle, Henry I, king of France. Where he got his name, I don't know. There could have been a Henry IX; James I's father was named Henry (the choice of name was deliberate on the part of his mother, who named him after her uncle Henry VIII, in the hopes he would be named in the royal succession); he was considered as a potential heir to Elizabeth b/f his wantonness (& later death) ruled him out. James I in turn named his eldest son Henry, probably after Elizabeth I's father rather than his own, since in those years he was a bit of a suck-up to the English queen. But Henry Stuart died b/f he could be king. The next 'royal' Henry was the brother of Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Cardinal Duke of York (known to his supporters as Henry IX). Ofc. Prince Harry's legal name is "Henry" so if by some freak accident HE becomes king you'd finally have another King Henry after several centuries of the name being 'cursed.'

@@jeandehuit5385 Weren't there kings named Henry in many other countries across the europe? Straight quote from wikipedia: "Equivalents in other languages are Henry (English), Heiki (Estonian), Heikki (Finnish), Henryk (Polish), Hendrik (Dutch), Heinrich (German), Enrico (Italian), Henri (French), Enrique (Spanish) and Henrique (Portuguese)." In OP comment, there was no particular mention of Henry's of England so i first thought he meant generally the etymology of the name and it's meaning.

@@alaric_ There were, but you can be rest assured the meaning of the name was either forgotten by the time monarchs started using it (esp. the English ones) or was considered irrelevant. Medieval European nobility & royalty typically named their children after themselves or members of their immediate family. Failing that, other popular options include mythical vaunted ancestors (such as when Henry VII named his son Arthur), famous saints (such as when Henry III named his eldest son Edward), or for lesser nobility, sometimes they just named their kids after the king or queen. In the generations after Charles VII took back what the English had taken in the 100 years war, plenty of cadet scions of the French royal family start suddenly using the name Charles, even if they hadn't used that name previously. These guys don't name their kids like we do today, they don't look at a baby book, consider the 'meaning' of the name & chose names that they liked. They were still sentimental, ofc. but in a different way. What mattered to them was honoring someone else who had borne the name beforehand. Plenty of names were also barred to them culturally; you don't find many Sarahs, Josephs, or Isaacs in the names of the European nobility, b/c regardless of what those names meant, they were considered too 'Jewish' for a 'good Christian' to use. Horribly anti-Semitic, ofc. The social & cultural value of the name, & whether it was a 'family name' mattered more than what the name itself actually meant literally. If the 'meaning' of the name was actually remembered at the time, b/c for the most part it was forgotten. Henry III probably didn't know Anglo-Saxon, so he didn't know Eadweard meant 'wealth-protector,' but he *did* know it was the name borne by Edward the Confessor, a man he deeply respected & wanted to emulate.

Yes, it is a Frenchiefied German name. Related to the german name Heimrich. A lot of French regal names are Germanic in origin: Charles (Karl in German, also related to the Old English word Churl, meaning peasant!), Richard (Rich + hard 'kingdom' + 'powerful'), Louis (Ludwig in German), Robert (Hro∂r- + berhta 'fame' + 'bright')

The founder of the French royal dynasty the Bourbons was Henry IV -they still rule in Spain today.There were many Holy Roman Emperors called Henry -or rather its German equivalent.Basically it's a French name originally Germanic and adopted by English kings-same as such other English royal names like William,Charles and Richard which are also Frenchified versions of Germanic names.Unfortunately European history has become very Anglo-centric and most people don't realize these things.

You probably caught the moment between two captivities

I usually hate on "early" comments but this one was sufficiently dry enough to make me laugh.

Yes, it's very complex with all the shifting alliances.

Three Kingdoms: "i don't think so lad"

@@ariavachier-lagravech.6910 "One of the" not "the", but ok.

Agreed with this many causalities, how thier still figthing.

Can see why it was the inspiration behind Game of Thrones.

That's becuase the bubonic plague killed millions in the medieval ages.

@@BatCostumeGuy and add to it, after the roman empire, Europeans were in small countries, each having multiple lords and all of them were apparently at constant war with one another. this and multiple hygiene problems did not leave room for much population growth

@@triplem5770 Yes, good point lad! The Romans usually handled plauge and hygiene problems pretty well.

Also alot of those battles were written down 50-100-200 years later. It's believed that a lot of the numbers were inflated. They would say we had an army of 80000 and we went against an army of 150,000. So that way it looks like you had a huge Army and your enemy had an even larger Army and you defeated it. Early Muslims were great at this. Also almost any Greek historian writing about the past.

@@BatCostumeGuy that was until the church decided that bathing was a sin

I mean, it was a civil war after all lol

And they were killed with medieval weapons, mostly hand to hand, getting their heads bashed in instead of being mowed down by machine guns.

@@absoleet trooo

@@lorenzomenegol6461 how brutal it may be. I rather have my brains bashed in. And a fighting chanse to defend myself before that happens. Then getting mooled down from 200 meters by a mschine gun or blown to hell by artillery that i can not see or react to. today any fat nerd can sitt in front of a computer stearing a drone or missile with a Joystick and take the lifes of brave fighting men on the battle field half a world away. While eating popcorn and zipping on cola zero. Todays warzones between a developed and undeveloped country is pure slaughter. Often without valour. In thoose days even the smallest nations stood a fighting chanse ro defend themselfs if their men were skilled and brave enough

Maybe not. Latest research suggest that the largest batle in the WOTR numericallyn was "nd St Albans, not Towton.

York: You underestimate my pOWer! God and the Wind are at my side!

In my perspective, the Yorks have won! We married into the Tudors”

Don't try it!

@@dgrmn12345 The Tudors are Evil!

benvolio mozart you have no life

Uhtred of bebbanburg?

Cool. Glad there was still some Anglo-Saxon nobility left. But why the French/Norman name, Neville?

@@leod-sigefast Not enough nobility, I guess.

@@leod-sigefast I don't think the English nobility used surnames before the Norman Conquest. And despite being male descent from an Anglo-Saxon noble, the family had clearly assimilated into Norman society.

@@notmyname9625 The daneslayer !

Especially when you compare him to Perkin Warbeck, who got himself executed

They probably recognized a schmuck when they saw one. He was what, a page? I imagine the Tudors saw him as a guy who couldn't say no to nobility (and who apparently was good enough as a kitchen man and falconer) to keep him around. It sounds like Henry was fairly magnanimous so far as the times went.

Well they knew he was just a kid who’d been used, the guy actually behind the plot was sentenced to life imprisonment and only spared execution because he was a priest. Perkin Warbeck met with a very different fate, quite possibly because he was who he said he was. Despite being executed as a common traitor his burial was more befitting a member of the Royal Family. We know where he was buried, and the church still exists, so DNA could prove one way or the other if he was telling the truth. It could also shed light on the Prince in the Tower story.

​@@ffotograffyddI doubt he was who he was, if the Yorks had the real prince why would they try to use someone to pretend to be Edward Plantagenet who was cut off from the line of sucession anyway?

@@masterplokoon8803 I think you misunderstood my point.

Kings and Generals had to recover from season 8.

But with guns and cannons instead of white walkers and magic.

@@cnlbenmc no guns and cannons at this point in time lad.

+@@JohnMacbeth+ Oh they had them, they were just incredibly primitive (matchlocks at best) and available in small numbers.

Listening to the third Dunk and Egg story mentions the Butterwell Lord having two sons, one would fight with Targaryen the other with Blackfyre. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

George R.R. Martin stated that The War of The Roses was the main influence for The War of The Five Kings, mostly the conflict between The Starks and The Lannisters.

@@gfilmer7150 he didnt ask for a history lesson. He was just reffering and qouting

@@JuniorJuni070 True

We actually don’t though

@@JuniorJuni070 this is a history channel what do you expect?

Now the person in charge is 1000+ miles away...

@@fukkitful to be fair, now we have drones so front line leaders would just get sniped or blown up by a drone. the world has evolved to suit cowards rather than good honorable men.

​@Resentfuldragon except Idriss Deby, the president of Chad, who was killed while leading troops on the front line at 68 years old. Dude had balls.

Ikr! I'm Jewish myself, therefore this is the best Christmas of recent memory lol haha, Good Tidings to all!

Happy Hanukkah!

@@KingsandGenerals have you done a video about the Maccabees/The Hyrcanus dynasty?

ikr, making your brothers the Dukes of the kingdom is a guarantee for civil war lol!

@@AlphaSections it's amazing how much the game teaches you

@@JayzsMr agreed I mean we all know to marry relatives to keep the blood line pure

Edward's first mistake was not converting to Zoroastrianism so he could marry his sister

It all would have been fine if he had switched to elective monarchy

Y

Merry christmas to you too

Merry Christmas!

Just Some Guy without a Mustache Merry saturnalia!

Like wise

MERRY CHRISTMAS to you my friend

Ah.. the antics of Richard and Mortimer never fail to amuse me

Yeah, and Henry IV dealt with this superior claim by asserting some flimflam about Edmund Crouchback being the *real* firstborn son of Henry III rather than Edward I. Both Henry IV and Edmund Mortimer were descended from Edward I, but only Henry was descended from Edmund Crouchback (matrilineally). The two Yorkist kings, Edward IV and Richard III, were descended from not only Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, elder brother of John of Gaunt (Henry IV's father), but also Edmund of Langley, Duke of York. For good measure, the Yorkists were also descended from John of Gaunt himself via their mother, Cecily Neville, who was the daughter of Gaunt's natural daughter, Joan Beaufort. Three sons of the king were their forefathers.

Henry VI certainly had a better claim to the the crown as the anointed king than Richard of York. If he hadn't had the unfortunate combination of incompetence and metal illness, his claim would have never been seriously questioned. Henry IV seized the crown from a tyrant and did so with the overall support of the nobility and clergy. That makes him the king, no different than Henry II or his son John, both who had questionable claims to the throne based on heredity. The truth of the matter is that a king needs to be able to back his claim by support and not bloodlines. Where was the support for John of Luxembourg during this time? He was descended through Edward III's second born Isabella.

@@ezchoice28 Interesting aside - Henry IV was the first King of England since the Norman conquest whose mother tongue was English rather than French.

@@giovanniacuto2688 really ? i thought he was pretty well french like most royals...i thought his son henry v spoke english well, but french was first

thats what bastard feudalism does. Joffrey actually was progressive when he said that a centralized army loyal only to the king should have been created.

I remember playing that game as well as board games about this period created by Avalon Hill.

Yes I second that

As a fan of strategic/tactical plays of the past, I salute you !

Great old game!

my favourite was 'escape from colditz'

@@KingsandGenerals Is that a ball sacc?

I know dont worry :P

I've been playing the campaign for it ever since it got released and I can say that its definitely fun, though there are some bugs.

Aren't many of the troop types still unavailable due to the tech tree being unfinished? Looks damn good, though. Despite not having that finished.

I don't think I would of found this mod if I didn't read your comment. I only check for DEI for Rome 2, but I could really do with a good medieval TA game. I was pretty close to installing Medieval 2:TW with Stainless Steel.

OH SHIT MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ME

As an Indian I agree 😂

As a finnish i have to disagree :/ I find those names very distinct from each other. And for me, indian names are more easily recognizable than chinese. It seems that many times chinese names are 3-4 letter long each, with 2-3 names and most of the time there seems to be only one letter difference between those names. That said, i have to confess that i haven't played the Three Kingdoms game :D Maybe some day :)

@@alaric_ I dont plau 3 kingdoms. The names writen in Chinese charaters are easy for us can read instead of using roman spelling always pronounced the same without tones

@@alaric_ yeah Indian names are super simple 👍🏾. My name is Abhigyan and one of my freind's name is Kshitiz (pronounced Chhitij) and another is Hrishank (pronounced Rishank). Damn Roman characters are needlessly complex

There is nothing more confusing than Asian dynasties... and yall know those where king titles right?

It didn't lose entirely. There was a lot of Edward IV's personality in Henry VIII. Edward after all was his grandfather

@@giovanniacuto2688 Also Yorkists were based on London while Lancastrians were based in York.

@@jaredgarbo3679the city of York was Lancastrian but The county of Yorkshire was a mix of Yorkists and Lancastrians

In the end, the Yorkists didn't really lose. The Lancastrians based their claim to the throne on agnatic primogeniture; that is, inheritance passes only through the male line. Henry Bolingbroke claimed the crown through John of Gaunt, the fourth child of Edward III. The Yorkists claimed the crown through cognatic primogeniture; that is, inheritance passes down through the eldest issue regardless of sex. Richard of York claimed the crown through Lionel Duke of Clarence, the third child of Edward III, via his only daughter, Phillippa, Countess of Ulster. So the Yorkist claim depended upon inheritance passing through a woman. Although this principle was at the root of the Hundred Years' War (Henry V contested Salic Law (agnatic primogeniture) in staking his own claim to France - which would technically have invalidated his claim to the throne of England had Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, made a claim). The Tudors eventually cemented cognatic primogeniture as the law of the land, allowing women to take the throne for the first time. This resulted in the reign of Elizabeth I, the first female English monarch. So although the Yorkists were defeated in battle, the law that gave them claim to the crown became established, and stands as the law of succession in England to this day.

I mean Yorkshire didn’t lose in the sense that it wasn’t a war between Yorkshire and Lancashire, it was a war between cousins who just happened to have been given various titles tied to counties in England. I grew up in Yorkshire and never understood the way people from there - many of my family included - view the War of the Roses. Centuries of propaganda has turned it into something it wasn’t.

Im the same way. The Duke of York probably saw the Lancasters as incompetent after Henry V died and resented his hard work in France being squandered by that incompetence.

The Lancastrians were incompetent and useless,(top useless person was The Duke of Somerset) and Queen Margaret was determined to make an enemy of the Duke of York and persecute him. York was pushed into a corner and also thought he could do better. The Lancastrians had also been usurpers in their time so that set a precedent..

From what I saw, Yorkists were very lucky on multiple occasions. The weather seemed to really favour them in a couple of decisive battles. Imagine taking a hill and still losing because of the wind. If I were Henry I would’ve been very butthurt from all those losses.

@@Dippitydee You may be right. I don't know. I was referring to the Lancastrians being incompetent in how they ruled the country rather than in battle.

Helen Trope I see what you mean. Seems that the Queen Margaret was making all the shots while Henry seems kinda useless. Although I have no expertise on this conflict other than watching this video :D

house lancaster always pays their debts

I assume you refer to Margaret Beaufort? She didn't so much tell Henry VII what to do so much as he was able to rely on her for advice. This was a period in time many senior 'traditional' figures in government were dead; Lancastrian loyalists, Yorkist loyalists, a lot of them were dead. Henry VII relied on new men to run his government, & as a rule he couldn't always trust them. One of his spies told him he heard nobles talking about who would make a good king, & none of them mentioned Prince Arthur... Although she was barely a generation older than Henry was (she had him at age 13), Henry deliberately sought out her advice b/c she'd witnessed English court intrigue & had experience in estate management (both of which he had little direct experience with). Since he was her only child (& she his sole remaining parent) he could trust her advice implicitly, which was something he needed when there was always a hint of doubt when it came to the loyalties of his other advisors.

@@jeandehuit5385 Why don't you just let him make a joke? .-.

@@bayonetta857 I like jokes. Did someone tell a joke?

Oh please anyone that is raised decent does what their mom tells them to do it doesn't matter if your mom is 95 and your 75.

When mommy can gather a similar number of soldiers and supporters, you better believe she can tell you what to do and she is also an aristocrat with her own ties to another territory which would gladly come to her aid.

yep, great stuff!

Alan Moore Perkin warbeck tho really might have been legitimate

@@fredbarker9201 He was probably the bastard of Edward IV

Especially with repeating names😭😭

Merry Christmas! All the gains in 2020!

@@KingsandGenerals Thanks. I'm going to watch your videos when I'm doing the treadmill from now on. When I get my summer beach bod, I can thank your channel for it 😁

@@scotttracy9333 that plan did not age well

me too, the worst part is that the options for a new king are always 2/1/2 4/1/1

I just held the event until I shipped my army over and pubstomped on the Yorkists

after Rule the Seas update England became rather easy to play

0/0/0 Infertile hits way too close to home.

@@dereklord7176 just look rebellion maybe they support better king then 2-1-2 or 4-1-1

Do they always pay their debts

Oh yeah, that will be glorious!

or the 21st century civil war

Certainly cheaper :p

Ever heard of Kings and Generals and chill?

@@thegreendragoninn8730 😂

Simon de Montfort disagrees as well.

@@stephendise7946 that was a baronial war though

@@Tommy-5684 Considering the issues it was still very much a civil conflict.

@@stephendise7946 the Anarchy not so much as many of the solders where Foreign mercenaries often Fleming's and Burgundian and in the chronicles of the time you see these forgings often cast as murderous and rapacious additionally there where also 2 Scottish invasions in 1136 and 1138 and unlike the Scottish invasion in the 1640s the the Scots king was a separate person to the English

there was civil wars going on in britain since before the Romans got here. Its the only way Rome could of got in to britian as the celtic army was far better trained and equiped than the Romans were. A roman army of 100k under the command of britanicus was totaly destroyed by 40k Celts. Only 10 Romans were left alive. britian was renamed from the celtic name Albion to Britania by Julius Ceaser in honour of his best general. same thing happened on the 2nd attemp by the romans to invade britian. 3rd attempt succeded cause the Romans manged to get celtic tribes fighting each other to weaken them 1st.

Merry Christmas!

Same lol

- any good?

Merry Christmas!

Yes, & the trend would continue until either William III or George I (depending on if you want to count William III's co-monarch Mary II who did speak English as a first language). Henry VII probably1st learned to speak English as a child growing up in the Welsh marches, but later learned Breton & French while in exile on the continent, so he spoke English fluently but with an accent due to being away from home for so long. As an aside, Henry IV's father John of Gaunt was actually Geoffrey Chaucer's chief patron & financial backer, so it would be a LITTLE odd if his son didn't make a little use of all that beautifully-crafted English. Gaunt's mistress & 3rd wife Katherine Swynford (née Roet) was also the sister of Chaucer's wife Philippa Roet. Swynford's family came with Edward III's wife from the Low Countries when she came to England; Philippa Roet married Chaucer, Chaucer got employed by Gaunt, & so Philippa's sister Katherine became nanny for Gaunt's children. Later Katherine became MORE than just a nanny, & had 4 children w/ Gaunt who where legitimated upon their marriage. Henry VII's claim to the throne came from this marriage. So if it weren't for Chaucer the ultimate Lancastrian heir might never have been born!

Thanks for watching!

K L there’s already a video on the Varangian guard and praetorian guard

Cricket doesn't have 'Rules.' It has 'Laws.'