English History in 20 Seconds ... or so


since I’m an absolute history geek, I came across this video. I think it’s hilarious, and hope you’ll enjoy it, too.


youtube.com/watch?v=2MAZzSow … re=related

'Horrible Histories was originally a series of books written by Terry Deary.
Children love them because they present the more gruesome historical facts (that are often left out of more traditional texts for children) in a fun way.

As you can see, there is a now a television franchise. Other books/programmes in the series deal with different historical eras.

Oh Yeah! The English as victims…?
Well suppose thats about as absurd as it gets :slight_smile:

Sorry Claudia its Jamie here…:frowning:

The 1841 census of Ireland revealed a population of 10,897,449. This figure includes the correction factor established by that year’s official partial recount. When, between 1779 and 1841, the U.S. population increased by 640 percent, and England’s is estimated to have increased, despite massive emigration to its colonies, by 100 percent, it is generally accepted that Ireland’s population increase was 172% 10. The average annual component of this 172% increase is x in the formula (1+ x)62 = 1 + 172%; thus 0.0163, or 1.63%. Accepting that this 1.63% rate of annual population increase continued until mid-1846 (one human gestation after the late-1845 beginning of removal of Ireland’s food), the 1846 population was 11,815,011.
Assuming that rate continued, the population in 1851, absent the starvation, would have been approximately 12,809,841. However; the 1851 census recorded a population of 6,552,385; thus there was a “disappearance” of 6,257,456. This population-loss figure of 6,257,456 is scarcely susceptible to significant challenge, being derived directly from the British government’s own censuses for Ireland. It is reasonable to assume that the rigor established in the recount of 1841 became the standard for the 1851 census; so that any residual undercount would be systemic, affecting 1841 and 1851 proportionately (and, if known, would increase the murder total). These 6,257,456 include roughly 1,000,000 who successfully fled into exile and another 100,000 unborn between 1846 and 1851 due to malnutrition-induced infertility. Of the 100,000 who fled to Canada in 1847, only 60,000 were still alive one month after landing.11 Among the 40,000 dead was Henry Ford’s father’s mother who died en route from Cork or in quarantine on Quebec’s Grosse Ile.
Thus; though from 1845 through 1850, 6,257,456 “disappeared,” the number murdered is approximately 1.1 million fewer; i.e., 5.16 millions. Consequently; if Britain’s census figures for Ireland are correct the British government murdered approximately 5.16 million Irish men, women and children; making it the Irish Holocaust. This number, 5.16 million, exceeds the high end of the range (4.2 to 5.1 million) of serious estimates of the number of Jews murdered by Nazis. The least reliable component of the foregoing arithmetic is the number assumed to have successfully fled. If the fleers who survived prove to number, say, 900,000 instead of 1,000,000, the murder count will have to be corrected from 5.16 to 5.26 millions. This amount of adjustment, up or down, of the 5.16 millions murdered is determinable by sensitive review of the immigration records of the U.S., Canada, Argentina, and Australia; and of government records on the Irish who fled to Britain at the time. We invite bona fide documentation of the foregoing; whether in confirmation or rebuttal. Economists and historians are disqualified if their published work on the events of 1845-1850 covers up the British army’s central role therein. Such individuals lack the standing to participate in this truth-quest.

more irishholocaust.org/tollofholocaust

And yet Stalins mass genocide of the Ukraine etc via starvation is always presented as if he was the guy who invented it.

English as victims my ass…

Hehe!! Chill Jamie.

Where did I ever say that the English are victims?

The video is about the early Middle Ages, in other words Saxons, Vikings and Normans, not the 19th century. And it never mentions the Irish.

Why so serious?

P.S. I don’t know the books, but the TV series of Horrible Histories is also cynical and is not afraid to criticize some of Britain’s past.


During the 90’s in East Germany I used to laugh at what we called “Plastic Paddies” - Englishmen who pretended to be Irish (90% of them) because their gran drank a pint of Guinness. I mean a lot of Germans like the English - But when push comes to shove a lot more don’t especially round Bayern - of which I had first hand experience. And Germany is not alone. I know a lot of Ulster Protestants who are “proud to be British” etc but because they have 2 passports from living in N Ireland as they are entitled to do(British & Irish) they bring their “Irish” passport on holiday because they know they will usually get a better and more friendly service.

The Irish are not the only nation to have a slightly negative view of the English - far from it.

Selectively simplifying the past can be dangerous and is often just a subtle form of propaganda like some Disney cartoons etc.

Lots of this kind of stuff is actually funded by the massive foundations (Ford,Carnegie etc) which help create our world view and Psyche.

… Is that paranoid enough Claudia? :slight_smile:

Yes, Jamie, it is. It really is. But you know, I like paranoids because it’s so easy to scare them. :wink:

As for me, I liked it. Looking at those histories by the eyes of a teenager, it might promt some of them to get interested in what the Romans were really like or what Captain Scott was famous for. Just maybe. Competing with hollow Disney or Simpsons stuff is not an easy thing, the stories feed brains anyway, aside their specific presentation.


the reason why I chose to post this video was as kind of a background info for people who want to know a bit more about the language they’re learning than just plain grammar. After William the Conqueror arrived at English shores, the English language began to change from Old English to Middle English, which is much more similar to the English as we know it today.

I realize I should have explained it when I opened the thread, but I didn’t want to take the fun out of the video.

Thank you, Eugene, for catching my drift.


Erm? Why not? is is not supposed to be fun?

N waterboot the Angles? were they not basically interwoven with the Saxons, Cough!!-Sachsens - Cough!achem!! - Lets call them Germans “cause thats their name” :slight_smile:

To Claudia: You are welcome. Keep it on in the same vein, keep it interesting.

Germany as a nation only exists since 1871. Before then (from the 10th century onwards) we were the Holy Roman Empire, and before then, we were many different tribes living in a land that the Romans called Germania. The Saxons were a confederation of various northwestern Germanic tribes. It comprised the Cherusci, the Chauci, and the Angrivarii amonst others (Nowadays: Lower Saxony, Westfalia, Saxony-Anhalt). It has, by the way, nothing to do with the Freistaat Sachsen in the east of Germany. Although the Angles were linked with the Saxons, they were not part of the confederation. This is why we still say “Anglo-Saxons” with the two names seperately. The Saxons settled at the south of the island; the area is still recognizable by the -sex ending, which stands for Saxons: Wessex (Westsaxons), Sussex (Southsaxons), Middlesex (Centalsaxons), and Essex (Eastsaxons). Cute, isn’t it? The Angles settled further north in what they called East, South, and Middle Angles. The rest was still inhabited by the various Briton tribes. And let’s not forget the Norwegian and Danish Vikings around York! As you can see in the video, they were all living happily with their big axes . . .

. . . Then the guy I so fondly call Willy Bastard came to conquer, and overthrew the Anglo-Saxon nobility. Pfff . . .


Hilarious? enjoy? you mean as long as I don’t make a joke?

Bravo Claudia 10 out of 10 for observation 0 out of 10 for speed

we’ll call it Semantics Claudia cause thats its name :slight_smile:
Normally one might use semantics to make a good joke - not ruin one.?

I might say there were more Germans fighting against Napoleon at Waterloo than English - but you might ruin my story yet again Claudia by saying they were Prussians. One normally makes a joke and then moves swiftly on thus maintaining spontaneity - when you carry out a stewards inquiry of semantics - the baby has gone out with the bath water. :frowning:


if I talk seriously, you ask me “why so serious”. Do I make a joke or show something funny, you come up with serious stuff that doesn’t even have anything to do with the topic. No matter what I do or say, you always say the opposite. Coughing and “achems” aren’t funny; where I come from, it’s belittling and sneering.

Semantics . . .? Facts, rather.

By accusing others of semantics, you can literally watch how a thread dies.


Claudia - everyone knows You’re Mother Teresa and Im Colonel Gadaffi - you don’t need to tell them. As an Irishman I merely highlighted the absurdity of portraying the English as victims… But Imo saying Sachsens aren’t German is being semantic - we could spend all night discussing it… does anyone care? I tried to make a joke and you went off on one.

Its called “Artistic License” Like how Novelists never let the truth get in the way of a good story - its not the history channel - its the English Channel.

Sometimes you say very strange things . . .

Who says I’d want to?
Besides, why, then, did you start with it?
When there is something wrong, it needs to be corrected. I’m certain that there are some people out there who are interested enough to care.

Who says I’d do that?

You went off on the video, not me.

Again: coughing and achems, aren’t joking, they are sneering. Did you even read what I wrote in my last posting?

Why did you change the thread into serious history and made it the “Irish Channel?”


P.S. I didn’t come here to argue.


LOL, finally! The baby has fallen asleep. :wink:

Well, I’m not changing him or burping him!