I wished they talked more about Napoleon’s stepson, Eugene, in this series, especially by the way he loyally defended Northern Italy for Napoleon. He’s one of my favourite figures of this period. There’s two awesome anecdote about him that I read a few years ago that many people might appreciate: On November 22, 1813, Eugène, who had survived the Russian campaign, was visited by an aide of the king of Bavaria, his father-in-law. He offered Eugène protection if he deserted Napoleon, but he refused, saying: “It is not to be denied that the Emperor’s star is beginning to wane, but that is only another reason why those who have received so much from him should remain faithful.” He wrote to Napoleon to say he had told Bavaria that he would not ‘commit such a despicable act; that I would, until my final breath, remain true to the oath that I made to you.” After Napoleon’s abdication in 1814, the allies were uncertain whether who should take up the vacant French throne. Though Alexander I of Russia would ultimately cast his vote for the Bourbons when induced by the royalists, he, at first, desired to see the universally-beloved Viceroy of Italy, Eugene, elevated to the vacant French throne. Eugene’s refusal of the allies’ proposition during the last years of the empire, where the Tsar himself offered him the ducal crown of Genoa in exchange for his loyalty and his desertion of Napoleon, had, for all time, gained Eugene the love and esteem of the Tsar. Eugene replied to the allies’ offer in the following letter: “SIRE,-I have received your majesty's propositions. They are undoubtedly very favorable, but they are powerless to change my resolution. I must have known how to express my thoughts but poorly when I had the honor of seeing you, if your majesty can believe that I could sully my honor for any, even the highest, reward. Neither the prospect of possessing the crown of the duchy of Genoa, nor that of the kingdom of Italy, can induce me to become a traitor. The example of the King of Naples [Murat] cannot mislead me; I will rather be a plain soldier than a traitorous prince. "The emperor, you say, has done me injustice; I have forgotten it; I only remember his benefits. I owe all to him-my rank, my titles, and my fortune, and I owe to him that which I prefer to all else-that which your indulgence calls my renown. I shall, therefore, serve him as long as I live; my person is his, as is my heart. May my sword break in my hands, if it could ever turn against the emperor, or against France! I trust that my well-grounded refusal will at least secure to me the respect of your Imperial majesty...” Napoleon himself appreciated Eugene’s loyalty, so much so that in his final existing letter to Josephine, he lamented: “In my retirement, I shall substitute the pen for the sword. I have showered benefits on thousands of wretches! What did they do in the end for me? They have betrayed me. Yes all of them except our dear Eugène, so worthy of you and me.” When Napoleon returned in 1815, Napoleon named Eugène a Peer of France but Eugène swore to his father in law, the king of Bavaria, that he would not participate and thus, he took no part in the Hundred Days. He stayed away from French politics after Napoleon’s fall and assisted French troops who had fought with him and Napoleon in his later years. He died in 1824 at the age of 42; many royal houses in Europe count themselves as his descendants since all of his children were married off to different royal houses in Europe.
Same, but the problem is that source material about the Italian campaign of 1813 and 1814 is lacking, only George f Nafziger did good well documented research on this. And people usually don't like to watch people like Eugene playing the conservative game even though he was technically undefeated!!!!
Eugene is a very interesting character, and certainly one with a good heart. I would like to add in on the fact you mentioned about royal houses tracing their lineage to him, as his daughter married the son of Karl XIV. Johan Bernadotte, Oscar I.
@@daroach5362 reading about his first meeting with Napoleon, at least the way Hortense recalled it, and his conduct throughout the Napoleonic Wars will forever endear him to me!
At the end of WW2 Hitler was almost the same. Germany was exhausted and fought only for survival but he didn't see that. Most of his generals did but they couldn't do anything.
@@saiien2 I do agree actually. Whilst the military situation isn't the same, with obviously way more men, and a brilliant campaign to finish the war, not like Germany's last stand with young people and older folk defending the remains of Germany. On the political front with the leaders pushing on though lost, the situations are closely similar to one another. The only difference being, that you said, was that Hitler's generals were too afraid to tell their leader the reality. The latter, is primarily why Hitler lost, especially in Russia. Had he headed advice and listened to hard to hear realities, the outcome, failure may not have changed, but the fight for it may have been more fierce and tough than the already tough eastern front.
I’ll be honest, as a long time fan of EHTVs napoleonic content, the first time I watched napoleons banner go down was strangely emotional. Throughout the whole series, even in Russia, the banner of Napoleon himself never goes down, so when it finally does after such a long and desperate struggle, it was actually really impactful
@Asderei i wish he would of accepted the Frankfurt proposals and went back to governoring as Emperor to fix Frances Economic and Naval issues while leaving Devout in near absolute charge of rebuilding a *defensive* French army.
Napoleon as a civilian leader is overshadowed by his reputation as a military leader, but he really changed so many things that last to this day. The Napoleonic Code is still impactful, even in parts of the US, like Louisiana.
The Code Napoleon, derived from Justinian's Code, is still the basis of much of the world's legal system. Napoleon is arguably the most significant individual human in all of human history for so many reasons.
In Elba, an interviewer told Napoleon: “History has a triumvirate of great men, Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon.” At this, Napoleon firmly looked at him without speaking. The interviewer later stated that “he thought he saw the Emperor’s eyes moisten.” Napoleon had always wanted people to say this ever since he was a schoolboy, but recollecting himself, he replied: “You would be right if a ball had killed me at the battle of Moscow but my late reverses will efface all the glory of my early years.”
But Napoleon was wrong. The glory of his early years couldn't be overshadowed by the quick disasters his empire suffered. He is ndoubtedly on pair with Caesar and Alexander.
there are also some other issues, like the fact that it's solely centered around western history. Cao Cao, imho, could possibly be included, for one. Oda Nobunaga... Then there'd be Augustus... And I'm pretty sure others could add more.
@@undertakernumberone1 well, yeah, they would obviously centre around European figures since they’re European. I am unsure whether Napoleon read any other generals from other continents, but he certainly appreciated the many generals he read about. In a letter to his subordinates, for example, he said: “Read over and over again the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Turenne, Eugene and Frederick. Make them your models. This is the only way to become a great General and to master the secrets of the art of war. With your own genius enlightened by this study, you will reject all maxims opposed to these great commanders.”
@@kogerugaming Not at least because he spent his last years on St. Helena to create his own legend. He was one of the people who managed to turn their defeat in reality into victory in memory.
@@undertakernumberone1 What Napoleon achieved far eclipses anything Cao Cao or Nobunaga did. Different league, at the height of European global military dominance. It’s not even a conversation.
“What was going through Napoleon’s mind at this time?” In a word, “if.” For his entire career, that one word had been his single, guiding principle. “If I March quickly, I can conquer North Italy. If I invade Egypt, I can cut the British off from India. If I seize power over the consulate, I can become emperor. If I fight at Austerlitz, I will win a glorious victory. If I can conquer Moscow, Russia will be brought to its knees before me.” And for more than most, Napoleon’s gambles paid off. He was too invested in the possibility of what might be that he refused to see what reality said what is. And sometimes, Napoleon defied reality and shaped the world to his will. But, catastrophically for him, it was too late to repeat that old magic and, fatally for Napoleon, reality would finally enforce its will on him.
@@steveclarke6257 Wow, they lost a million men prior to this and the enemy rushed in for the kill. There were no NCOs. They were all dead. Of course training was poor at that point. You drew conclusion without context.
@@snakejuice4300 oh I have plenty of context for this in books, I really recommend reading a few starting with Osprey as they are easy to get hold of and cheap. Napoleon's Old guard and Young guard still existed, not quite at their pre-Russia strength, but there was plenty of experience which could have been shared around in those units for training. So as I said use NCO's rather than a corps commander to teach a private how to operate a weapon- it's just bad planning and just shows how chaotic the French military structures were by 1814.
To answer your question at 26:19. In most cases, these men weren't buried at all. They were left to rot. That's one of the reasons why fighting battles on your home front was so terrifying in the Napoleonic wars. The armies were too large compared to the local populations to clean it all up. Plague was always an imminent threat.
They were industrially developed enough to field armies of hundreds of thousands but not developed enough to bury them (or even taking care to the injured)
Just googled what happened to bodies after borodino. Seems like at first it was mass graves but there were so many of them that eventually people started burning them in mass. I guess wild life (wolfs, bears) took a dozen of bodies too.
I think Napoleon didn't accept the so-called terms because he was actually doubtful that the coalition will really honor such terms. Marshal series made a very slight mention about it.
You are underselling Naoploen the politician. Actually, Napoleon WAS great at civilian political leadership as well. For instance you can argue that he initiated the most important legislation in Europe since the days of the Roman Empire: he reformed the French civic and commerical law, which had been a complete mish-mash for centuries into a coherent set of laws. This Code Napoleon is to this day the basis for French law and inspired similar legislation in all of continental Europe. He draw up new constitituions not only for France but also for his client states in Italy, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany. And these new constitutions were not forgotten even after his fall. The people in these countries had experienced a "bill of rights" for the first time - and they would fight to keep these. Napoleons influence would be long reaching. You could argue that the revolutions all over Europe in 1848 were inspired by the rights, the peoples of Europe had enjoyed under Napoleon and which they wanted back. Also, he reformed and modernised the French education system. To this day, the French education system runs on principles first introduced by Napoloeon - namely nationally centralized exams to ensure a very heavy focus on merit. He founded the bank of France and many other French institutions that exist to this day. And lets not forget: he abolished many of the more extreme results of the French revolution. For instance, he brought back the chuch (Christianity had been outlawed during the revolution) and abonded the revolutionary calender. His list of political achievements is really incredible and long-lasting, especially considering he did not have much time to spend on them.
Still he was typical dictator that allowed no political freedom. He may have been better than most despots of his time, but let's keep it real. A lot of those things he did for personal reasons of staying in power. Bringing back the church was the best example. Napoleon himself said _"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."_ And let's also not forget when it came reversing the "extreme results of the revolution", one of those reversals was re-establishing slavery in the Empire after the revolution had abolished it.
Napoleon is remembered mostly for his military genius but I think that his contributions in other areas have been more important and longlasting. Andrew Roberts, a British historian put it best: “The ideas that underpin our modern world - meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances, and so on - were championed, consolidated, codified and geographically extended by Napoleon. To them he added a rational and efficient local administration, an end to rural banditry, the encouragement of science and the arts, the abolition of feudalism and the greatest codification of laws since the fall of the Roman empire.”
It still amazes me how long it took the coalition to actually coordinate with each other to take Napoleon down. You'd think they'd learn their lesson after the first or second. On the other hand it's kinda sad how even with new recruits who some never even touched a gun before, the French still tremendously held their own.
@@Jamie95326 Especially with a half dozen different armies from a half dozen different nations who spoke a half dozen different languages. One thing that conquest by the French brought in its wake was a general fluency in French, at least among the military; the Alliance forces had no such point in common, and so had to rely on interpreters. As an example, Blucher, giving orders in German and relying on his aides to ensure it was properly translated into Russian for the Russian troops under his command, would have no idea whether his orders were translated directly, or just the gist of them got through. And in military matters, specifics and technicalities can literally be the difference between victory and defeat - and the life and death of thousands of men.
Napoleon really should’ve accepted those Frankfort proposals. I feel bad for him because he thought that if he didn’t win glory for France the people would revolt against him like they did king Louis XVI. The people of France by 1814 still loved him and just wanted peace. They were tired of the 20 plus years of war and endless conscription. Ironically partly why it was so easy for the government to get rid of Napoleon was because of the systems he himself created.
@@Kamfrenchie true but at that point in time it really was the only best chance Napoleon was likely to get. Plus I believe they would’ve held only because none of the great powers truly hated Napoleon before the outbreak of the war they just thought France was too powerful and if they could contain Napoleon like they wanted they really would’ve left him alone.
I learned a lot with this series but what surprised me the most is how certain old monarchies were very loyal allies to France, Denmark is a good example, they sticking to their side until the end is very interesting
Yes, Denmark however had a particular issue who was a kind of "court civil war" in the late century in wich the progresist faction won under the king who was allied with Napoleon.
@@omarbradley6807wow didn’t know about that! I knew that Switzerland and The Netherlands had conflict between conservatives and progressives in paralell to the French Revolution but had zero idea about the Denmark stuff, thanks!
25:50 Sounds cruel but most of them were usually left to rot. As far as I know there are no mass graves maintained, at least here in Austria. But at a lot of battlefields there were monuments or memorials constructed during the time of growing national movements in the 19th and early 20th century. There are even memorials for most of the small battles like those at Eggmühl in Bavaria or the battles at Bergisel near Innsbruck. One of my favorits is the museum/memorial for the battle of Wagram, it´s smaller compared to others but the building is actually the same which Archduke Charles used as headquater during the battle.
Great video as always! The Napoleon series has been fantastic! Just small nitpick about something you mentioned tangentially here: I’m not sure you can really say that Austria-Hungary left World War I early, Emperor Karl tried to make peace in 1917 but was blocked by the Germans and stripped of his command. As multiple fronts approached the empire’s borders in late 1918, the Habsburg domain collapsed into a multitude of warring, and often short-lived, states. There’s a series here on YT going over the collapse week-by-week, which would actually be really cool to see you react to, it’s called “the Collapse of Austria Hungary and the Almost Anschluss”. It details some events that are often misunderstood or ignored completely, and shows shows how the empire did not really even leave the war, it simply disintegrated.
The bones of the Waterloo dead have almost all gone missing. The current theory is they were largely dug up and used in sugar beet processing. Pretty horrifying stuff.
Kutuzov is buried in the Kazan Cathedral (St. Petersburg), in Estonia there is the mausoleum of Barclay de Tolly. Many heroes-officers are buried in cemeteries in Moscow and Smolensk. In Moscow there is also a Monument on the grave of the French who fell in Moscow. I hope that when the political situation in Russia will be not that terrible, you can visit them, like many museums. churches and the triumphal arch in Russia dedicated to the invasion of Napoleon in 1812.
I have to really credit your output. I know these are “react” videos so they don’t take the creative influence the way your on-site videos do but it always impresses me with how you add meaningful context either from your direct knowledge of the subject or by relating it through what you do know well AND in an entertaining way. Excellent sh-um, stuff!
27:30 Not only that, but on the left side of the map, Compiègne (or rather Rethondes Clearing in Compiègne Forest) is where the Germans sign the armistice to the Allies in November 1918, and where the French sign the armistice in June 1940 (by demand of Hitler to humiliate the French, of course).
This series of offensives by both sides I think does a great job showcasing why the Cult of the Offensive was developed. Defensive positions felt really hard to maintain and Napoleon was so good at just alternating where he was attacking to keep multiple forces at bay.
Not only did the Battle of Toulouse foreshadow by 9 months the Battle of New Orleans, a lot of the British who fought at Toulouse were then sent to North America and participated at New Orleans. This includes Edward Pakenham.
41:00 Edward Pakenham the guy that died in New Orleans was the brother-in-law of Wellington. Wellington was married to Kitty Pakenham and her brother had served with Wellington in Spain before going to New Orleans
27:40 It's quite interesting: In this picture, we can see the locations of both german (and the one french) surrender of the 20th century: The armistices of 1918 and 1940 in the woods of Rethondes near Compiègne and the capitulation of 1945 in Reims.
For the Battle of Waterloo, you should look at History Buffs video on the 1970 movie Waterloo. It may be hard to get around copyright but its worth it for how well the movie was shot, and his insight into history and sense of humour just makes it a perfect history and movie review.
however, it does wear its soviet production on its sleeve in the portrayal of hte Prussians. The role of Blücher gets massively downplayed in the usual anglocentric fashion, just barely a bit less in that Blücher is still the one who nails the coffin shut, which suits well the fact that it was a few decades after WWII. The Prussian cavalry carries the Death's Head, yet the actual Death's Head's Hussars, the Leib-Husaren-Regimenter 1 and 2, weren't even part of Blücher's army! (i think some Brunswick units carried it, but they were part of Wellington's army, not the Prussian force. They took it either in rememberance of the father of the Black Duke of Brunswick, who had died at the Battle of Jena, or as a sign of revenge against the french) Adding to that is Blücher's speech about "No mercy! I will shoot anyone wiht pity in their eyes!" In reality, Blücher urged his troops to chase the french as long as they were able to draw breath. So some might say that htere might be an attempt at drawing parallels to the Waffen-SS. (Also, while the french and british get appropriate music, La Victorie et a nous and The Girl I left behind me, respectively iirc, Prussia uses "Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser"/The tune that, today, is the national anthem of germany... a song, at the time, praising the austrian emperor... more appropriate would've been "Heil dir im Siegerkranz", which used the same tune as "God save the king". Or maybe something like the Hohenfriedberger Marsch.
@@undertakernumberone1 i wouldnt say they down play it that much tbh, throughout the whole film the prussians are a looming threat, wellington says once or twice about the prussians and blucher, and when they arrive they are given this deadly threatening t heme etc and the speech blucher gives goes hard
@afriendlycadian9857 the downplaying comes in the fact that the prussians are shown as having arrived at the last minute of the battle. In reality, the Prussians had been attacking the French right wing for hours.
An interesting thing is actually that the idea of ignoring the threat to their communications and march directly on Paris was proposed by the russian General Toll (Count Karl Wilhelm von Toll). Alexander loved it, partially because of the previous rumours. He actually met with the Prussian King and Schwarzenberg on a road leading directly to Paris and he brought a map, which he laid on the ground. So there on a road to Paris on top of a map, stood the Russian Emperor and his Leib Guard, the Prussian King and his Jägers, and Schwarzenberg and Elite Austrian Grenadiers. Must have been a sight where the soldiers standing guard knew, that this was a unique moment in history.
2:58 The thing is (and this isn't me defending Napoleon out of admiration, the man was a warmongering dictator and I wish my country would stop revering him), he didn't actually have that much choice. See, Epic History chose display "natural borders" as the French interpretation, extending to the Rhine, but the Austrian proposition more likely meant losing the conquests in Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine. In either case, the crux of the problem was Napoleon probably COULD NOT have ensured the future of his dynasty with these borders. He came to power when French republican governments had already extended borders to this extent. His wars had cost a million French lives; if he'd gotten out of them without all the territory France had conquered under him, or worse, with less territory than when he'd gotten to power, there would've been a good chance for his son to be ousted from power once he was gone. While his prestige may have protected him during his stay on the throne, his descendants wouldn't have that. The only way for his dynasty to remain would have been to secure a peace that let him keep some of his conquests, which wasn't going to happen. I believe one of my sources would be "L'Empire des Français" by Aurélien Lignereux ("The Empire of the French") - good synthesis on the Napoleonic period in France, trying to take a step back from the figure of Napoleon and look at the social and political life. However I don't think it's been translated into English.
There was a somewhat scientific study using statistical modeling done a few years ago to determine the greatest military commander of all time. It used expected versus actual winning percentage and Napoleon was by far and away #1 over Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander.
Napoleon's tale is one that thankfully happen on the recent past, people would believe he was a myth otherwise, i mean heck doing alt history about him being a possibility on another universe were this didn't happen would have resulted in ridicule.
29:00 This was all Marshall Berthier, Napoleon's chief of staff. Berthier was extremely gifted with army administration and logistics, he also understood Napoleon quite well despite his often times vague orders. Compare the amount of activity of Napoleon's dispersed army here, to the relatively straightforward affair Waterloo was which was significantly hampered due to poor communication (a result of Berthier not being with Napoleon).
Tactical genius. Tactical. He was not a genius strategically. If he was, he would not have invaded Russia while the peninsular war was happening, and if he was he would have succeeded in actually establishing a dynasty. Let's be clear eyed here, Napoleon was deadly as long as he was fighting in Europe, with plenty of pastoral countryside to pillage. His middle eastern and Russian campaigns show, he made no effort whatsoever to ensure adequate supply. He also had zero understanding of the limitations of naval warfare.
he was in no way a strategic genius, tactical yes, he is up there with the greats but you could argue that there are many generals and admirals that are close and on par if not better
It makes sense to me that the Allies kept pushing even into the winter when they normally wouldn't. They did not want to give Napoleon any time to regroup. Specifically, a few months to train troops might have been really detrimental. That said, definitely a strain on both armies. I think they also mis-evaluated Napoleon's mindset once in France. They were so used to him trying to retreat for Paris when things got hard that they just assumed he would do that here as well. However this time, he was in his own territory and IMO felt like his back was against a wall. Made the situation ripe for him to strike instead and especially with the split forces.
Hey, in regards to what you've said about the graves of the soldiers who fought in the Napoleonic wars... I'm from a small village in northern Spain and, while it was insignificant compared to these huge battles, there was a skirmish in late 1813 between the Spanish armies that advanced from the south and the French troops that occupied my village which left 40 French soldiers dead. It's rumored that the soldiers were buried in a mass grave somewhere near the village, but nobody has actually found it.
To the question what happened to the corpses of the fallen soldiers etc.: usually those close to cities and towns were buried in mass graves, but a lot were just left on the fields to rot. Apparently some graves were opened again a few years later by people who recovered the bones to make bone meal out of it and sell it as fertilizer. There seems to be a current research about this around the battlefield of Waterloo.
26:19 Tony Pollard, director of the Center for Battlefield Archaeology at the University of Glasgow has done reseach about this for the Batlle of Waterloo stating that local farmers were hired to strip the bodies, then burn or bury them. There are even accounts of using bones as fertelizer. At Waterloo they did find bones which now lay in the museum.
About your question on 26:10 there are some graveyards but most of them were just buried where they died and incredibly often during some big construction we find corpses form many wars that happened throughout the history, mostly from 17th century onwards.
The reproposition of the Frankfurt proposals in late november 1813, were made by Austria alone, and acepting them probably would had send a message of weakness, you should remember who after Lutzen and Bautzen he acepted the Plennwitz armistice and it only work in favor of his enemies to shore for support. On the home-front, the things were bad mainly because the people didn't have the time to assert the situation, so those spontaneous attacks normally weren't drawing a nation in arms, (by 1815 when Napoleon returned he basically found the nation in arms against the king and the foreign powers claiming for him even before he set sail to France) however near Dijon and Lyon the civilians offered a guerrila war who prevented the Austrians to move further south towards Marseille. About Bordeaux wavering a white flag, joke asides it was nothing new, they were not royalist not revolutionaries, (Girondins) they want the revolution but maded by other. The behavior of the troops on Paris was practically clean at first, especially since a group of royalist presented them with cakes, but for example a woman tried to kill Alexander and another punched an Austrian guard on the parade before being killed, The British wanted to burn Paris and actually treathen to do it, that is why Ney said we will not allow what happen in Moscow to happen in Paris (remember who the British troops in 1814 in the area were comanded by Thomas Graham who had a reputation of doing the worst of things even in allied cities) . However the Prussians were savage in all the places they went, only calming down in Paris, the Austrians who had a bad experience with the populous of the Bouches du Rhone area also went violent against the civilians. Marmont for his part will actually "defend Paris" in 1830 against the civilian population in the name of the king.
26:16 I visited a mass grave at Wermsdorf close to Hubertusburg castle. The castle was used to care for the wounded after the battle of Leipzig. It is marked but only with modern signs. They said its about 150-200 people. The place was basically just a tall tree in the center of the local forest. Really quiet. Its called the Franzosengrab, which translates to French Mens Grave. And its pretty far away from Leipzig.
Think of some of the soldiers! 15 years of fighting (depending on how you count) Havent seen their family in ages. Trading the musket for a plow... Must have felt weird.
From what I was able to find there are some napoleonic war graves, but not a lot: in the czech Republic there is a burial site for around 1200 soldiers in the village of dolni brezinka, in the german town of kerzendorf is a small soldiers cemetery, in dietenheim Italy there is a cemetery for soldiers killed in 1809, in obersiebrunn austria there is also a cemetery for soldiers killed in 1809, and there are also a lot of mass graves outside of some battlefields like austerlitz I would suggest taking a look on the website "tracesofwar" and put coalition wars in their search bar and then clicking further on "coalition wars (1792-1815)", there you can find even more sites and places that i haven't named including various burial sites
Biggest problem with winter campaigning is lack of fodder for the horses. Read "Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton" by von Credvelt a great introduction to the problem of supplying troops.
Loved it once again! But yes I started watching you during the lock downs here in Toledo, Ohio. Not only was all that content great but it was very humbling to watch you then with not alot of followers to now see all the history guy followers. For me it just started looking up youtube videos on this new game grand tactician. Then I came across you and your videos. I truly found a true soul ! Only youtuber I have ever donated to. Not saying anything bad on youtubers just saying alot about history guy! Family of seven not always easy to donate but Chris is a true soul.Soon God willing I will once again be able to donate and get back on as a patreon. Just hard times after this lock down trying to bounce back! Nothing but love and God Bless you All
Hi, Chris, I think Napoleon's military genius was shown there and his political failing also when now for the second and third times he rejected the best peace terms that he was going to get. This seems to be a complete stubbornness to compromise. Another excellent video. Now for Waterloo. For the third time I'm also going to recommend everyone watches Shot at Dawn and Chris isn't paying me to say this, it is just exceptionally good.
I think in Napoleon's case, it wasn't necessarily stubborn - or, at least not a stubbornness relating to not wanting to settle. I think it was deeper than that, a complete refusal to believe that his enemies could evolve. I don't think his refusal to accept peace terms resulted from his unwillingness to back down, but instead from his unwillingness to believe that he could be defeated by generals that he himself had defeated before, often numerous times. And from a stubborn refusal to believe that, after nearly 20 years of war, the French people had had enough. You see a similar thing happen in World War 2 in Germany, with certain sections of the Nazi leadership believing that the German people would rise up and fight tooth and nail, and couldn't accept the reality that after constant bombardment, total war leveled at every industrial center, and a crippling blockade the German people had had enough of war.
I think you make a mystake by considering the proposals as set in stone and sure to be kept by the allies. Napoleon had seen Austria declare war on him times and again, and he knew he would always be seen as a usurper by other kingdoms, not to mention some of his policies would be reverted when they were deemed to radicals. Sadly, this meant for example, that jews would be sent back to ghettos
Since I neglected to mention it in my other comment, I should also add that Habsburg emperor Karl’s attempts to make peace in 1917 earned him beatification by the Catholic Church (a step away from a saint), he’s thus known as “Blessed Karl of Austria”. I’m sure the legacy of his position as the last Catholic Emperor did not hurt his cause. Another part of it is that Karl would face retribution for engaging in the peace talks, with the Germans stripping Karl (despite being emperor) of his military command over Habsburg forces when they found out.
There is a small burial section in Liege where officers have been laid to rest but most soldiers were left to rot or thrown in mass graves, most gravesites of french soldiers are from those that fought during world war one and world war two.
And fontainebleau is still open for visit. I visited it a few years ago, and its formidable how well preserved it is considering what happens in europe on the next century. Still, fontainebleau has even more to offer than napoleonic era history, but a lot abt the valois dynasty too
As fun as these reacts are, I recall watching my first video of Chris's original content and being floored by the editing, presentation, and as always the dedication to history and those who lived through it. Give it a shot.
Just to paint a picture on how many died in these last battles against Napoleon from Leipzig and on. Imagine if about 40-50% of the subs to this channel just died within a few days. Regarding the graves of these soldiers I believe many of them were just put in mass graves. Some of them are still being discovered today.
At 3:14. Well, that was Napoleon's curse--his biggest strength, great ambition, was also his biggest weakness, his inability to know when to call it quits. He could've rested on his laurels. He had that in 1808, right before he made his biggest mistake--the invasion of Spain. Russia, Prussia and Austria had all been beaten and sued for peace, the British were still incapable of launching an invasion. He could've just quit there, consolidating his power as emperor of Europe. Instead...
26:19 In 1910, the first peace monument in Europe, called the Mound of Peace, was built near the place where the Battle of Austerlitz took place. Many of the remains that were found in the fields were stored right there in the underground ossuary. They found around 4000 bones remains I think.
About the cemeteries of the battles... The truth is that they are not very common in Europe, or rather, they are not as revered as in the USA. Keep in mind that in every part of Europe it is possible to be near a historical monument of very varied eras. When we traveled with the school to Andalusia we saw Roman and Andalusian ruins, mosques and cathedrals with almost a thousand years of history and more modern places like the Plaza de España. We also visit where two of the most important battles in the history of Spain took place, Navas de la Tolosa and Bailén and... it was just fields and forests. I have never been to the USA, but from what I see in the movies and TV series you are more used to turn the places where the battles took place into historical and touristic monuments and to make recreations of those battles. I am not saying that they are not done here, but they are more infrequent than in the USA. Let's say that war tourism is rarer in Europe.
26:05 there are graveyards dedicated to battles but the problem is land erosion. Its usually a mass grave with a "statue of fallen soldier" or but some battles have legitimate graveyards. If you ever have the chance to visit ysselstein in netherlands for example, it has over 30 thousand nazis buried in the cemetary, the largest nazi cemetary in the world. In croatia we have a couple cemeteries from the 17th-18th century from battles with the ottoman empire.
I know it's best to see them as two separate conflicts but if the Seven years war was the "true" world war one then the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars were the true ww2. You have the war of 1812, the conquest of the Cape Colony, the invasion of Egypt, the conquest and reconquest of Buenos Aires and Montevideo, battles in modern India and Sri Lanka and naval clashes in Indonesia.
In rejecting the Frankfurt proposals, it's likely that Napoléon had several motivations. Firtly, he wanted to stall for time and drag out the negotiations. Secondly, the coalition had internal disagreements about it, so how reliable the accord would be was somewhat in question. Thirdly, he was worried for his prestige at home, where Talleyrand and others worked to depose him.
From my readings I think it was def more of the latter two. He was very suspicious of the allies promises. The more France would be willing to sacrifice, the more Europe would demand. IIRC, the proposals also did not guarantee the end of the military campaign of the coalotion. And second, it would be a massive loss of presteige and a disgrace if France were to, in exchange for peace, give up the gains of the First Republic, gains that tens of thousands of French people gave their lives for.
Talleyrand and others were working to depose him because Napoleon refused to see reality, he was delusional about the situation and prolonging the fighting would only result in more death, destruction and harsher peace terms. Napoleons fate was similar to that of the Directory, once he had ceased to be a positive thing for France, he was overthrown by those who put him in power to begin with.
Hi, You asked were the killed soldiers were buried. The shocking answer is that the death weren't buried at all. They were left behind. It is assumed that the bones of the killed man at Waterloo were used as fertilizer. Only from ww1 the dead are buried in big war cemeteries.
I'm guessing here, but there was propably a good reason to split the army up on the march to Paris. I assume it had to to with logistics and feeding them. By splitting the coverd a larger area they could raid and feed the army with.
22:50 Armand de Caulaincourt (the French foreign minister) also had his younger brother, General Auguste de Caulaincourt, killed at the Battle of Borodino during the Russian campaign, so maybe that influenced his defeatist mood.
I saw a bit of a video of an archaeological being carried out on the field of Waterloo. They were impressed to find only the second human corpse in over 200 years. You don',t get bodies there.
Thanks for your wonderful analysis and insights, I hope that after this series you will make a video reaction to Napoleon's marshals which is also made by Epic History TV.
Regarding the graves comment - I remember walking through a cemetery in Leicester in England with a friend (we were taking a shortcut back home), and we found a grave of a British rifleman of the 95th Rifles who was killed at Waterloo.
There's a bloke buried in my local churchyard in East Morton, West Yorkshire who served in the peninsular war, but there's no dedicated cemeteries for them like there is for 1 and 2 world war veterans
The importance that was placed on regimental flags in those days always amazes me. When Paris fell, what was right on top on the priority list? A modern general might order the burning of important documents or code books. But in 1813, the Marshal in charge first orders the burning of the captured regimental flags, so that they don't fall in the hands of the enemy. But why? It's not even French flags (where you might argue French honour could be at stake), but the enemy's flags. Why is it so important that the enemy can't recover them?
18:05 This entire time I'm wondering "where's the Viscount of Wellington who we last left coming north with a coalition of Spanish, Pouteguese, and British?" Because not to overstate things but the Iron Duke isn't exactly known for incompetance. 27:09 To be fair to the man, acting with caution was unusual to him. It was not unusual with McClellen.
My mom was a culinary spec in a transpo unit in the reserves. They were deployed to Iraq and Kuwait attatched to the 3rd ID in early '03. Kinda funny to hear a random connection to her service, as thin as that connection may be
If you read the osprey publishing books on the campaigns there’s a section at the back of each detailing the state of the battlefields today. For instance in southern France there are two British cemeteries at bayonne and at orthez there is foy’s monument and battle graves north of the city 👍
32:00 I think this is the right take on Talleyrand. If he was really self-serving, he had plenty of opportunity to make himself obscenely rich; imagine what Russia or Prussia would have given him if he was willing to throw his country under the bus while representing France at the Congress of Vienna. I think he was a patriot first and foremost, but a pragmatic one - willing to accept that he couldn't continue to help his country by going down with the ship in a failing regime.
I don´t think the allies could march all together. They were like 300 k troops and there isn´t much to forage in febuary. They probably would have had horrible supply issues
I've been to several places in Bavaria where battles were fought, both from the napoleonic wars and earlier. I don't remember having seen any graveyards or anything like that from those events.
the sizes of armies and their casualties was really large in those times compared to the small towns the battles were usually fought over, and more often than not dealing with the dead and wounded was left to the local populace, who couldnt bury the corpses, as they simply didnt have enough men to do so, they were just left to rot, people also robbed the bodies
I just did a quick first search for Napoleonic War cemeteries, and all the relevant results were recent articles about newly discovered mass graves. I think the war cemeteries tradition did not start in central Europe until World War 1.
If you want to see a breakdown of communications in the period, see the opening stages of the 1809 campaign. Gill's "Thunder on the Danube, vol 1" is a great study.
I wished they talked more about Napoleon’s stepson, Eugene, in this series, especially by the way he loyally defended Northern Italy for Napoleon. He’s one of my favourite figures of this period. There’s two awesome anecdote about him that I read a few years ago that many people might appreciate:
On November 22, 1813, Eugène, who had survived the Russian campaign, was visited by an aide of the king of Bavaria, his father-in-law. He offered Eugène protection if he deserted Napoleon, but he refused, saying: “It is not to be denied that the Emperor’s star is beginning to wane, but that is only another reason why those who have received so much from him should remain faithful.” He wrote to Napoleon to say he had told Bavaria that he would not ‘commit such a despicable act; that I would, until my final breath, remain true to the oath that I made to you.”
After Napoleon’s abdication in 1814, the allies were uncertain whether who should take up the vacant French throne. Though Alexander I of Russia would ultimately cast his vote for the Bourbons when induced by the royalists, he, at first, desired to see the universally-beloved Viceroy of Italy, Eugene, elevated to the vacant French throne. Eugene’s refusal of the allies’ proposition during the last years of the empire, where the Tsar himself offered him the ducal crown of Genoa in exchange for his loyalty and his desertion of Napoleon, had, for all time, gained Eugene the love and esteem of the Tsar. Eugene replied to the allies’ offer in the following letter:
“SIRE,-I have received your majesty's propositions. They are undoubtedly very favorable, but they are powerless to change my resolution. I must have known how to express my thoughts but poorly when I had the honor of seeing you, if your majesty can believe that I could sully my honor for any, even the highest, reward. Neither the prospect of possessing the crown of the duchy of Genoa, nor that of the kingdom of Italy, can induce me to become a traitor. The example of the King of Naples [Murat] cannot mislead me; I will rather be a plain soldier than a traitorous prince.
"The emperor, you say, has done me injustice; I have forgotten it; I only remember his benefits. I owe all to him-my rank, my titles, and my fortune, and I owe to him that which I prefer to all else-that which your indulgence calls my renown. I shall, therefore, serve him as long as I live; my person is his, as is my heart. May my sword break in my hands, if it could ever turn against the emperor, or against France! I trust that my well-grounded refusal will at least secure to me the respect of your Imperial majesty...”
Napoleon himself appreciated Eugene’s loyalty, so much so that in his final existing letter to Josephine, he lamented: “In my retirement, I shall substitute the pen for the sword. I have showered benefits on thousands of wretches! What did they do in the end for me? They have betrayed me. Yes all of them except our dear Eugène, so worthy of you and me.”
When Napoleon returned in 1815, Napoleon named Eugène a Peer of France but Eugène swore to his father in law, the king of Bavaria, that he would not participate and thus, he took no part in the Hundred Days. He stayed away from French politics after Napoleon’s fall and assisted French troops who had fought with him and Napoleon in his later years. He died in 1824 at the age of 42; many royal houses in Europe count themselves as his descendants since all of his children were married off to different royal houses in Europe.
That was awesome.
Same, but the problem is that source material about the Italian campaign of 1813 and 1814 is lacking, only George f Nafziger did good well documented research on this.
And people usually don't like to watch people like Eugene playing the conservative game even though he was technically undefeated!!!!
Eugene is a very interesting character, and certainly one with a good heart. I would like to add in on the fact you mentioned about royal houses tracing their lineage to him, as his daughter married the son of Karl XIV. Johan Bernadotte, Oscar I.
“I will rather be a plain soldier than a traitorous prince”
Unfathomably based.
@@daroach5362 reading about his first meeting with Napoleon, at least the way Hortense recalled it, and his conduct throughout the Napoleonic Wars will forever endear him to me!
Napoleon: ”I didn’t hear no bell!”
The marshals: “We do.”
At the end of WW2 Hitler was almost the same. Germany was exhausted and fought only for survival but he didn't see that. Most of his generals did but they couldn't do anything.
@@saiien2 not even close to the same situation .
@@suzsam17i think that this was very similar situation.
@@saiien2 I do agree actually. Whilst the military situation isn't the same, with obviously way more men, and a brilliant campaign to finish the war, not like Germany's last stand with young people and older folk defending the remains of Germany. On the political front with the leaders pushing on though lost, the situations are closely similar to one another.
The only difference being, that you said, was that Hitler's generals were too afraid to tell their leader the reality. The latter, is primarily why Hitler lost, especially in Russia. Had he headed advice and listened to hard to hear realities, the outcome, failure may not have changed, but the fight for it may have been more fierce and tough than the already tough eastern front.
I’ll be honest, as a long time fan of EHTVs napoleonic content, the first time I watched napoleons banner go down was strangely emotional. Throughout the whole series, even in Russia, the banner of Napoleon himself never goes down, so when it finally does after such a long and desperate struggle, it was actually really impactful
Favorite episode of the series because of how emotional of a build up it was despite big mixed feelings of the Emperor by this point in time.
Same I wish Napoleon had crushed the coalition at the Battle of Nations.
@Asderei i wish he would of accepted the Frankfurt proposals and went back to governoring as Emperor to fix Frances Economic and Naval issues while leaving Devout in near absolute charge of rebuilding a *defensive* French army.
One of Napoleon's problems was his overconfidence and unlimited ambition.
@@enriqueslekis3562his ambition was both a major strength of his but also a major weakness
Napoleon as a civilian leader is overshadowed by his reputation as a military leader, but he really changed so many things that last to this day. The Napoleonic Code is still impactful, even in parts of the US, like Louisiana.
The code Napoleon was even active in the Rhineland up until 1900 when the BGB (civil law book) replaced it.
The Code Napoleon, derived from Justinian's Code, is still the basis of much of the world's legal system. Napoleon is arguably the most significant individual human in all of human history for so many reasons.
In Elba, an interviewer told Napoleon: “History has a triumvirate of great men, Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon.” At this, Napoleon firmly looked at him without speaking. The interviewer later stated that “he thought he saw the Emperor’s eyes moisten.”
Napoleon had always wanted people to say this ever since he was a schoolboy, but recollecting himself, he replied: “You would be right if a ball had killed me at the battle of Moscow but my late reverses will efface all the glory of my early years.”
But Napoleon was wrong. The glory of his early years couldn't be overshadowed by the quick disasters his empire suffered. He is ndoubtedly on pair with Caesar and Alexander.
there are also some other issues, like the fact that it's solely centered around western history. Cao Cao, imho, could possibly be included, for one. Oda Nobunaga...
Then there'd be Augustus... And I'm pretty sure others could add more.
@@undertakernumberone1 well, yeah, they would obviously centre around European figures since they’re European. I am unsure whether Napoleon read any other generals from other continents, but he certainly appreciated the many generals he read about. In a letter to his subordinates, for example, he said: “Read over and over again the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Turenne, Eugene and Frederick. Make them your models. This is the only way to become a great General and to master the secrets of the art of war. With your own genius enlightened by this study, you will reject all maxims opposed to these great commanders.”
@@kogerugaming Not at least because he spent his last years on St. Helena to create his own legend. He was one of the people who managed to turn their defeat in reality into victory in memory.
@@undertakernumberone1 What Napoleon achieved far eclipses anything Cao Cao or Nobunaga did. Different league, at the height of European global military dominance. It’s not even a conversation.
“What was going through Napoleon’s mind at this time?”
In a word, “if.”
For his entire career, that one word had been his single, guiding principle. “If I March quickly, I can conquer North Italy. If I invade Egypt, I can cut the British off from India. If I seize power over the consulate, I can become emperor. If I fight at Austerlitz, I will win a glorious victory. If I can conquer Moscow, Russia will be brought to its knees before me.”
And for more than most, Napoleon’s gambles paid off. He was too invested in the possibility of what might be that he refused to see what reality said what is. And sometimes, Napoleon defied reality and shaped the world to his will. But, catastrophically for him, it was too late to repeat that old magic and, fatally for Napoleon, reality would finally enforce its will on him.
imagine having a marshall teach you how to shoot, while the enemy is trying to kill you. the boost to morale from that alone would have been insane.
Until your soldier number 2000 who doesn’t know how to shoot and the Marshall will never get to you
...however it's also stupid, that is what the NCO corps should be doing, its poor organisational planning
@@steveclarke6257 Wow, they lost a million men prior to this and the enemy rushed in for the kill. There were no NCOs. They were all dead. Of course training was poor at that point. You drew conclusion without context.
@@snakejuice4300 oh I have plenty of context for this in books, I really recommend reading a few starting with Osprey as they are easy to get hold of and cheap.
Napoleon's Old guard and Young guard still existed, not quite at their pre-Russia strength, but there was plenty of experience which could have been shared around in those units for training. So as I said use NCO's rather than a corps commander to teach a private how to operate a weapon- it's just bad planning and just shows how chaotic the French military structures were by 1814.
@@historyrepeat402 9k9kkkk
To answer your question at 26:19. In most cases, these men weren't buried at all. They were left to rot. That's one of the reasons why fighting battles on your home front was so terrifying in the Napoleonic wars. The armies were too large compared to the local populations to clean it all up. Plague was always an imminent threat.
They were industrially developed enough to field armies of hundreds of thousands but not developed enough to bury them (or even taking care to the injured)
Just googled what happened to bodies after borodino. Seems like at first it was mass graves but there were so many of them that eventually people started burning them in mass. I guess wild life (wolfs, bears) took a dozen of bodies too.
There was also group of looters. (The famous teeth of Waterloo)
I think Napoleon didn't accept the so-called terms because he was actually doubtful that the coalition will really honor such terms. Marshal series made a very slight mention about it.
Hope you can do the Marshals series after the Battle of Waterloo video!!! Can’t wait till you react to my favorite Marshal.. Love your videos Chris
Who's your favourite marshal? For me, it's probably Oudinot or Davout, but I think I'm most like St-Cyr.
I liked Davout, Lannes and Ney but my overall favorite has to be Davout
You are underselling Naoploen the politician.
Actually, Napoleon WAS great at civilian political leadership as well.
For instance you can argue that he initiated the most important legislation in Europe since the days of the Roman Empire: he reformed the French civic and commerical law, which had been a complete mish-mash for centuries into a coherent set of laws. This Code Napoleon is to this day the basis for French law and inspired similar legislation in all of continental Europe.
He draw up new constitituions not only for France but also for his client states in Italy, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany. And these new constitutions were not forgotten even after his fall. The people in these countries had experienced a "bill of rights" for the first time - and they would fight to keep these. Napoleons influence would be long reaching. You could argue that the revolutions all over Europe in 1848 were inspired by the rights, the peoples of Europe had enjoyed under Napoleon and which they wanted back.
Also, he reformed and modernised the French education system. To this day, the French education system runs on principles first introduced by Napoloeon - namely nationally centralized exams to ensure a very heavy focus on merit.
He founded the bank of France and many other French institutions that exist to this day.
And lets not forget: he abolished many of the more extreme results of the French revolution. For instance, he brought back the chuch (Christianity had been outlawed during the revolution) and abonded the revolutionary calender.
His list of political achievements is really incredible and long-lasting, especially considering he did not have much time to spend on them.
Still he was typical dictator that allowed no political freedom. He may have been better than most despots of his time, but let's keep it real. A lot of those things he did for personal reasons of staying in power. Bringing back the church was the best example. Napoleon himself said _"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."_
And let's also not forget when it came reversing the "extreme results of the revolution", one of those reversals was re-establishing slavery in the Empire after the revolution had abolished it.
Napoleon is remembered mostly for his military genius but I think that his contributions in other areas have been more important and longlasting. Andrew Roberts, a British historian put it best:
“The ideas that underpin our modern world - meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances, and so on - were championed, consolidated, codified and geographically extended by Napoleon. To them he added a rational and efficient local administration, an end to rural banditry, the encouragement of science and the arts, the abolition of feudalism and the greatest codification of laws since the fall of the Roman empire.”
Napoleon was a genius, what a way to rebuild an army and to defeat superior enemies with his huge talent and determination. Enormous!!!
It still amazes me how long it took the coalition to actually coordinate with each other to take Napoleon down. You'd think they'd learn their lesson after the first or second. On the other hand it's kinda sad how even with new recruits who some never even touched a gun before, the French still tremendously held their own.
@NicoNick no absolutely agree that's very true. It's hindsight. but still can't help but make a person wonder
@Alex da Great also back then it was a lot harder to coordinate when you have to rely on a guy on horse back to cover 300 miles to deliver a message.
@@Jamie95326 Especially with a half dozen different armies from a half dozen different nations who spoke a half dozen different languages. One thing that conquest by the French brought in its wake was a general fluency in French, at least among the military; the Alliance forces had no such point in common, and so had to rely on interpreters. As an example, Blucher, giving orders in German and relying on his aides to ensure it was properly translated into Russian for the Russian troops under his command, would have no idea whether his orders were translated directly, or just the gist of them got through. And in military matters, specifics and technicalities can literally be the difference between victory and defeat - and the life and death of thousands of men.
Napoleon really should’ve accepted those Frankfort proposals. I feel bad for him because he thought that if he didn’t win glory for France the people would revolt against him like they did king Louis XVI. The people of France by 1814 still loved him and just wanted peace. They were tired of the 20 plus years of war and endless conscription. Ironically partly why it was so easy for the government to get rid of Napoleon was because of the systems he himself created.
It's not sure the frankfurt proposals really would have held. There were reasons to doubt the honesty of those
@@Kamfrenchie true but at that point in time it really was the only best chance Napoleon was likely to get. Plus I believe they would’ve held only because none of the great powers truly hated Napoleon before the outbreak of the war they just thought France was too powerful and if they could contain Napoleon like they wanted they really would’ve left him alone.
@@thekingscourtpodcast
i'm not really sure they would have been content with that. I mean, austria kept going to war with France.
The Frankfurt proposal was a ruse and nothing more.
@@Kamfrenchie austria was threatened by prussia and russia ,they wanted a weaked france with napoleon on the throne and thier ustrian prince .
I learned a lot with this series but what surprised me the most is how certain old monarchies were very loyal allies to France, Denmark is a good example, they sticking to their side until the end is very interesting
Yes, Denmark however had a particular issue who was a kind of "court civil war" in the late century in wich the progresist faction won under the king who was allied with Napoleon.
@@omarbradley6807wow didn’t know about that! I knew that Switzerland and The Netherlands had conflict between conservatives and progressives in paralell to the French Revolution but had zero idea about the Denmark stuff, thanks!
Yeah, Denmark propably wasn't to happy about the british sinking their fleet just in case they might consider allying with Napoleon.
@@dawoifee And without a war declaration who was important in those days.
If they ever make a Napoleon total war 2. 1814 needs to be a scenario.
25:50 Sounds cruel but most of them were usually left to rot. As far as I know there are no mass graves maintained, at least here in Austria. But at a lot of battlefields there were monuments or memorials constructed during the time of growing national movements in the 19th and early 20th century. There are even memorials for most of the small battles like those at Eggmühl in Bavaria or the battles at Bergisel near Innsbruck. One of my favorits is the museum/memorial for the battle of Wagram, it´s smaller compared to others but the building is actually the same which Archduke Charles used as headquater during the battle.
28:58 You would truly love Epic History’s Marshals series. The section about Berthier will give you an idea about communication in Napoleon’s army.
Great video as always! The Napoleon series has been fantastic!
Just small nitpick about something you mentioned tangentially here: I’m not sure you can really say that Austria-Hungary left World War I early, Emperor Karl tried to make peace in 1917 but was blocked by the Germans and stripped of his command. As multiple fronts approached the empire’s borders in late 1918, the Habsburg domain collapsed into a multitude of warring, and often short-lived, states.
There’s a series here on YT going over the collapse week-by-week, which would actually be really cool to see you react to, it’s called “the Collapse of Austria Hungary and the Almost Anschluss”.
It details some events that are often misunderstood or ignored completely, and shows shows how the empire did not really even leave the war, it simply disintegrated.
The bones of the Waterloo dead have almost all gone missing.
The current theory is they were largely dug up and used in sugar beet processing.
Pretty horrifying stuff.
Kutuzov is buried in the Kazan Cathedral (St. Petersburg), in Estonia there is the mausoleum of Barclay de Tolly. Many heroes-officers are buried in cemeteries in Moscow and Smolensk. In Moscow there is also a Monument on the grave of the French who fell in Moscow.
I hope that when the political situation in Russia will be not that terrible, you can visit them, like many museums. churches and the triumphal arch in Russia dedicated to the invasion of Napoleon in 1812.
I have to really credit your output. I know these are “react” videos so they don’t take the creative influence the way your on-site videos do but it always impresses me with how you add meaningful context either from your direct knowledge of the subject or by relating it through what you do know well AND in an entertaining way. Excellent sh-um, stuff!
27:30 Not only that, but on the left side of the map, Compiègne (or rather Rethondes Clearing in Compiègne Forest) is where the Germans sign the armistice to the Allies in November 1918, and where the French sign the armistice in June 1940 (by demand of Hitler to humiliate the French, of course).
This series of offensives by both sides I think does a great job showcasing why the Cult of the Offensive was developed. Defensive positions felt really hard to maintain and Napoleon was so good at just alternating where he was attacking to keep multiple forces at bay.
Trouble is the Waterloo one was the first one he did so it has less good production value. There are whispers of it being remade tho.
Not only did the Battle of Toulouse foreshadow by 9 months the Battle of New Orleans, a lot of the British who fought at Toulouse were then sent to North America and participated at New Orleans. This includes Edward Pakenham.
30:06 YNapoleon III, his nephew, at the Battle of Sedan on September 2nd, 1870, also did something similar.
41:00 Edward Pakenham the guy that died in New Orleans was the brother-in-law of Wellington. Wellington was married to Kitty Pakenham and her brother had served with Wellington in Spain before going to New Orleans
27:40 It's quite interesting: In this picture, we can see the locations of both german (and the one french) surrender of the 20th century: The armistices of 1918 and 1940 in the woods of Rethondes near Compiègne and the capitulation of 1945 in Reims.
For the Battle of Waterloo, you should look at History Buffs video on the 1970 movie Waterloo. It may be hard to get around copyright but its worth it for how well the movie was shot, and his insight into history and sense of humour just makes it a perfect history and movie review.
however, it does wear its soviet production on its sleeve in the portrayal of hte Prussians.
The role of Blücher gets massively downplayed in the usual anglocentric fashion, just barely a bit less in that Blücher is still the one who nails the coffin shut, which suits well the fact that it was a few decades after WWII.
The Prussian cavalry carries the Death's Head, yet the actual Death's Head's Hussars, the Leib-Husaren-Regimenter 1 and 2, weren't even part of Blücher's army! (i think some Brunswick units carried it, but they were part of Wellington's army, not the Prussian force. They took it either in rememberance of the father of the Black Duke of Brunswick, who had died at the Battle of Jena, or as a sign of revenge against the french)
Adding to that is Blücher's speech about "No mercy! I will shoot anyone wiht pity in their eyes!" In reality, Blücher urged his troops to chase the french as long as they were able to draw breath. So some might say that htere might be an attempt at drawing parallels to the Waffen-SS. (Also, while the french and british get appropriate music, La Victorie et a nous and The Girl I left behind me, respectively iirc, Prussia uses "Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser"/The tune that, today, is the national anthem of germany... a song, at the time, praising the austrian emperor... more appropriate would've been "Heil dir im Siegerkranz", which used the same tune as "God save the king". Or maybe something like the Hohenfriedberger Marsch.
“Who’s it going, dudes?!”
@@undertakernumberone1 i wouldnt say they down play it that much tbh, throughout the whole film the prussians are a looming threat, wellington says once or twice about the prussians and blucher, and when they arrive they are given this deadly threatening t heme etc and the speech blucher gives goes hard
@afriendlycadian9857 the downplaying comes in the fact that the prussians are shown as having arrived at the last minute of the battle. In reality, the Prussians had been attacking the French right wing for hours.
An interesting thing is actually that the idea of ignoring the threat to their communications and march directly on Paris was proposed by the russian General Toll (Count Karl Wilhelm von Toll). Alexander loved it, partially because of the previous rumours. He actually met with the Prussian King and Schwarzenberg on a road leading directly to Paris and he brought a map, which he laid on the ground.
So there on a road to Paris on top of a map, stood the Russian Emperor and his Leib Guard, the Prussian King and his Jägers, and Schwarzenberg and Elite Austrian Grenadiers. Must have been a sight where the soldiers standing guard knew, that this was a unique moment in history.
It's amazing how afraid of facing Napoleon the Coalition was even now.
2:58 The thing is (and this isn't me defending Napoleon out of admiration, the man was a warmongering dictator and I wish my country would stop revering him), he didn't actually have that much choice. See, Epic History chose display "natural borders" as the French interpretation, extending to the Rhine, but the Austrian proposition more likely meant losing the conquests in Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine.
In either case, the crux of the problem was Napoleon probably COULD NOT have ensured the future of his dynasty with these borders. He came to power when French republican governments had already extended borders to this extent. His wars had cost a million French lives; if he'd gotten out of them without all the territory France had conquered under him, or worse, with less territory than when he'd gotten to power, there would've been a good chance for his son to be ousted from power once he was gone. While his prestige may have protected him during his stay on the throne, his descendants wouldn't have that. The only way for his dynasty to remain would have been to secure a peace that let him keep some of his conquests, which wasn't going to happen.
I believe one of my sources would be "L'Empire des Français" by Aurélien Lignereux ("The Empire of the French") - good synthesis on the Napoleonic period in France, trying to take a step back from the figure of Napoleon and look at the social and political life. However I don't think it's been translated into English.
Where did you learn English?
@@abdihassan7208 Lived in the US for 5 years and India for 3 years.
There was a somewhat scientific study using statistical modeling done a few years ago to determine the greatest military commander of all time. It used expected versus actual winning percentage and Napoleon was by far and away #1 over Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander.
Napoleon's tale is one that thankfully happen on the recent past, people would believe he was a myth otherwise, i mean heck doing alt history about him being a possibility on another universe were this didn't happen would have resulted in ridicule.
Napoleon should have sent another Marshal to Hamburg, he could really have used Davout in this campaign.
29:00 This was all Marshall Berthier, Napoleon's chief of staff. Berthier was extremely gifted with army administration and logistics, he also understood Napoleon quite well despite his often times vague orders. Compare the amount of activity of Napoleon's dispersed army here, to the relatively straightforward affair Waterloo was which was significantly hampered due to poor communication (a result of Berthier not being with Napoleon).
25:54
There are great monuments near the battlefields in Europe. You should take a look at the "Monument to the Battle of the Nations" near Leipzig
Don’t think anyone will ever come close to the strategic genius of Napoleon. It took the entirety of Europe to bring him down.
Tactical genius. Tactical. He was not a genius strategically. If he was, he would not have invaded Russia while the peninsular war was happening, and if he was he would have succeeded in actually establishing a dynasty. Let's be clear eyed here, Napoleon was deadly as long as he was fighting in Europe, with plenty of pastoral countryside to pillage. His middle eastern and Russian campaigns show, he made no effort whatsoever to ensure adequate supply. He also had zero understanding of the limitations of naval warfare.
he was in no way a strategic genius, tactical yes, he is up there with the greats but you could argue that there are many generals and admirals that are close and on par if not better
It makes sense to me that the Allies kept pushing even into the winter when they normally wouldn't. They did not want to give Napoleon any time to regroup. Specifically, a few months to train troops might have been really detrimental. That said, definitely a strain on both armies. I think they also mis-evaluated Napoleon's mindset once in France. They were so used to him trying to retreat for Paris when things got hard that they just assumed he would do that here as well. However this time, he was in his own territory and IMO felt like his back was against a wall. Made the situation ripe for him to strike instead and especially with the split forces.
As a Brit I'm so hyped for the Waterloo video. Its one of the few battles spoken about in our history from this era.
Well I think that Waterloo wasn't Wellington's masterpiece. His Spanish campaign was. But he definitely "punched Napoleon's ticket" there.
Hey, in regards to what you've said about the graves of the soldiers who fought in the Napoleonic wars... I'm from a small village in northern Spain and, while it was insignificant compared to these huge battles, there was a skirmish in late 1813 between the Spanish armies that advanced from the south and the French troops that occupied my village which left 40 French soldiers dead. It's rumored that the soldiers were buried in a mass grave somewhere near the village, but nobody has actually found it.
To the question what happened to the corpses of the fallen soldiers etc.: usually those close to cities and towns were buried in mass graves, but a lot were just left on the fields to rot.
Apparently some graves were opened again a few years later by people who recovered the bones to make bone meal out of it and sell it as fertilizer. There seems to be a current research about this around the battlefield of Waterloo.
26:19 Tony Pollard, director of the Center for Battlefield Archaeology at the University of Glasgow has done reseach about this for the Batlle of Waterloo stating that local farmers were hired to strip the bodies, then burn or bury them. There are even accounts of using bones as fertelizer. At Waterloo they did find bones which now lay in the museum.
About your question on 26:10 there are some graveyards but most of them were just buried where they died and incredibly often during some big construction we find corpses form many wars that happened throughout the history, mostly from 17th century onwards.
The reproposition of the Frankfurt proposals in late november 1813, were made by Austria alone, and acepting them probably would had send a message of weakness, you should remember who after Lutzen and Bautzen he acepted the Plennwitz armistice and it only work in favor of his enemies to shore for support. On the home-front, the things were bad mainly because the people didn't have the time to assert the situation, so those spontaneous attacks normally weren't drawing a nation in arms, (by 1815 when Napoleon returned he basically found the nation in arms against the king and the foreign powers claiming for him even before he set sail to France) however near Dijon and Lyon the civilians offered a guerrila war who prevented the Austrians to move further south towards Marseille. About Bordeaux wavering a white flag, joke asides it was nothing new, they were not royalist not revolutionaries, (Girondins) they want the revolution but maded by other. The behavior of the troops on Paris was practically clean at first, especially since a group of royalist presented them with cakes, but for example a woman tried to kill Alexander and another punched an Austrian guard on the parade before being killed, The British wanted to burn Paris and actually treathen to do it, that is why Ney said we will not allow what happen in Moscow to happen in Paris (remember who the British troops in 1814 in the area were comanded by Thomas Graham who had a reputation of doing the worst of things even in allied cities) . However the Prussians were savage in all the places they went, only calming down in Paris, the Austrians who had a bad experience with the populous of the Bouches du Rhone area also went violent against the civilians. Marmont for his part will actually "defend Paris" in 1830 against the civilian population in the name of the king.
26:16 I visited a mass grave at Wermsdorf close to Hubertusburg castle.
The castle was used to care for the wounded after the battle of Leipzig.
It is marked but only with modern signs. They said its about 150-200 people.
The place was basically just a tall tree in the center of the local forest. Really quiet.
Its called the Franzosengrab, which translates to French Mens Grave.
And its pretty far away from Leipzig.
Think of some of the soldiers!
15 years of fighting (depending on how you count)
Havent seen their family in ages. Trading the musket for a plow...
Must have felt weird.
“I will not abdicate, I will Not NOT NOT!”
Waterloo (1970) 😊👍
Finally, been waiting all day for this
From what I was able to find there are some napoleonic war graves, but not a lot:
in the czech Republic there is a burial site for around 1200 soldiers in the village of dolni brezinka, in the german town of kerzendorf is a small soldiers cemetery, in dietenheim Italy there is a cemetery for soldiers killed in 1809, in obersiebrunn austria there is also a cemetery for soldiers killed in 1809, and there are also a lot of mass graves outside of some battlefields like austerlitz
I would suggest taking a look on the website "tracesofwar" and put coalition wars in their search bar and then clicking further on "coalition wars (1792-1815)", there you can find even more sites and places that i haven't named including various burial sites
Biggest problem with winter campaigning is lack of fodder for the horses. Read "Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton" by von Credvelt a great introduction to the problem of supplying troops.
Loved it once again! But yes I started watching you during the lock downs here in Toledo, Ohio. Not only was all that content great but it was very humbling to watch you then with not alot of followers to now see all the history guy followers. For me it just started looking up youtube videos on this new game grand tactician. Then I came across you and your videos. I truly found a true soul ! Only youtuber I have ever donated to. Not saying anything bad on youtubers just saying alot about history guy! Family of seven not always easy to donate but Chris is a true soul.Soon God willing I will once again be able to donate and get back on as a patreon. Just hard times after this lock down trying to bounce back! Nothing but love and God Bless you All
General Pakenham was Wellingtons brother in law too.
Hi, Chris, I think Napoleon's military genius was shown there and his political failing also when now for the second and third times he rejected the best peace terms that he was going to get. This seems to be a complete stubbornness to compromise. Another excellent video. Now for Waterloo. For the third time I'm also going to recommend everyone watches Shot at Dawn and Chris isn't paying me to say this, it is just exceptionally good.
I think in Napoleon's case, it wasn't necessarily stubborn - or, at least not a stubbornness relating to not wanting to settle. I think it was deeper than that, a complete refusal to believe that his enemies could evolve. I don't think his refusal to accept peace terms resulted from his unwillingness to back down, but instead from his unwillingness to believe that he could be defeated by generals that he himself had defeated before, often numerous times. And from a stubborn refusal to believe that, after nearly 20 years of war, the French people had had enough. You see a similar thing happen in World War 2 in Germany, with certain sections of the Nazi leadership believing that the German people would rise up and fight tooth and nail, and couldn't accept the reality that after constant bombardment, total war leveled at every industrial center, and a crippling blockade the German people had had enough of war.
I think you make a mystake by considering the proposals as set in stone and sure to be kept by the allies. Napoleon had seen Austria declare war on him times and again, and he knew he would always be seen as a usurper by other kingdoms, not to mention some of his policies would be reverted when they were deemed to radicals. Sadly, this meant for example, that jews would be sent back to ghettos
Since I neglected to mention it in my other comment, I should also add that Habsburg emperor Karl’s attempts to make peace in 1917 earned him beatification by the Catholic Church (a step away from a saint), he’s thus known as “Blessed Karl of Austria”. I’m sure the legacy of his position as the last Catholic Emperor did not hurt his cause.
Another part of it is that Karl would face retribution for engaging in the peace talks, with the Germans stripping Karl (despite being emperor) of his military command over Habsburg forces when they found out.
I love watching your original stuff as well as reactions. Especially since a lot of times there are places I may never get to go personally see.
There is a small burial section in Liege where officers have been laid to rest but most soldiers were left to rot or thrown in mass graves, most gravesites of french soldiers are from those that fought during world war one and world war two.
And fontainebleau is still open for visit. I visited it a few years ago, and its formidable how well preserved it is considering what happens in europe on the next century. Still, fontainebleau has even more to offer than napoleonic era history, but a lot abt the valois dynasty too
As fun as these reacts are, I recall watching my first video of Chris's original content and being floored by the editing, presentation, and as always the dedication to history and those who lived through it. Give it a shot.
Just to paint a picture on how many died in these last battles against Napoleon from Leipzig and on. Imagine if about 40-50% of the subs to this channel just died within a few days.
Regarding the graves of these soldiers I believe many of them were just put in mass graves. Some of them are still being discovered today.
At 3:14. Well, that was Napoleon's curse--his biggest strength, great ambition, was also his biggest weakness, his inability to know when to call it quits. He could've rested on his laurels. He had that in 1808, right before he made his biggest mistake--the invasion of Spain. Russia, Prussia and Austria had all been beaten and sued for peace, the British were still incapable of launching an invasion. He could've just quit there, consolidating his power as emperor of Europe. Instead...
26:19 In 1910, the first peace monument in Europe, called the Mound of Peace, was built near the place where the Battle of Austerlitz took place. Many of the remains that were found in the fields were stored right there in the underground ossuary. They found around 4000 bones remains I think.
About the cemeteries of the battles... The truth is that they are not very common in Europe, or rather, they are not as revered as in the USA.
Keep in mind that in every part of Europe it is possible to be near a historical monument of very varied eras. When we traveled with the school to Andalusia we saw Roman and Andalusian ruins, mosques and cathedrals with almost a thousand years of history and more modern places like the Plaza de España. We also visit where two of the most important battles in the history of Spain took place, Navas de la Tolosa and Bailén and... it was just fields and forests.
I have never been to the USA, but from what I see in the movies and TV series you are more used to turn the places where the battles took place into historical and touristic monuments and to make recreations of those battles. I am not saying that they are not done here, but they are more infrequent than in the USA. Let's say that war tourism is rarer in Europe.
it was ether burial pits or there were burnt
26:05 there are graveyards dedicated to battles but the problem is land erosion. Its usually a mass grave with a "statue of fallen soldier" or but some battles have legitimate graveyards. If you ever have the chance to visit ysselstein in netherlands for example, it has over 30 thousand nazis buried in the cemetary, the largest nazi cemetary in the world. In croatia we have a couple cemeteries from the 17th-18th century from battles with the ottoman empire.
Loving these EHTV videos!
Alright McClellan got me burst out laughing
I know it's best to see them as two separate conflicts but if the Seven years war was the "true" world war one then the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars were the true ww2.
You have the war of 1812, the conquest of the Cape Colony, the invasion of Egypt, the conquest and reconquest of Buenos Aires and Montevideo, battles in modern India and Sri Lanka and naval clashes in Indonesia.
In rejecting the Frankfurt proposals, it's likely that Napoléon had several motivations. Firtly, he wanted to stall for time and drag out the negotiations. Secondly, the coalition had internal disagreements about it, so how reliable the accord would be was somewhat in question. Thirdly, he was worried for his prestige at home, where Talleyrand and others worked to depose him.
From my readings I think it was def more of the latter two. He was very suspicious of the allies promises. The more France would be willing to sacrifice, the more Europe would demand. IIRC, the proposals also did not guarantee the end of the military campaign of the coalotion.
And second, it would be a massive loss of presteige and a disgrace if France were to, in exchange for peace, give up the gains of the First Republic, gains that tens of thousands of French people gave their lives for.
Talleyrand and others were working to depose him because Napoleon refused to see reality, he was delusional about the situation and prolonging the fighting would only result in more death, destruction and harsher peace terms. Napoleons fate was similar to that of the Directory, once he had ceased to be a positive thing for France, he was overthrown by those who put him in power to begin with.
Hi,
You asked were the killed soldiers were buried. The shocking answer is that the death weren't buried at all. They were left behind.
It is assumed that the bones of the killed man at Waterloo were used as fertilizer. Only from ww1 the dead are buried in big war cemeteries.
Please react to Napoleon’s marshals I’m sure we would all love to see it.
44:20 its Bai Qi no contest. 90+ field battles and 70+ sieges, undefeated throughout his career.
I'm guessing here, but there was propably a good reason to split the army up on the march to Paris. I assume it had to to with logistics and feeding them. By splitting the coverd a larger area they could raid and feed the army with.
22:50 Armand de Caulaincourt (the French foreign minister) also had his younger brother, General Auguste de Caulaincourt, killed at the Battle of Borodino during the Russian campaign, so maybe that influenced his defeatist mood.
This is going to be a good one!
You should react to the history on trial series, Napoleon is one of the episodes
Yeah those are good, I'd like to hear his thoughts
DONT FORGET TO DO WATERLOO ! It's the first video of Epic history TV but the last video of napoleonic era !
I saw a bit of a video of an archaeological being carried out on the field of Waterloo. They were impressed to find only the second human corpse in over 200 years. You don',t get bodies there.
Thanks for your wonderful analysis and insights, I hope that after this series you will make a video reaction to Napoleon's marshals which is also made by Epic History TV.
Regarding the graves comment - I remember walking through a cemetery in Leicester in England with a friend (we were taking a shortcut back home), and we found a grave of a British rifleman of the 95th Rifles who was killed at Waterloo.
There's a bloke buried in my local churchyard in East Morton, West Yorkshire who served in the peninsular war, but there's no dedicated cemeteries for them like there is for 1 and 2 world war veterans
The importance that was placed on regimental flags in those days always amazes me.
When Paris fell, what was right on top on the priority list?
A modern general might order the burning of important documents or code books.
But in 1813, the Marshal in charge first orders the burning of the captured regimental flags, so that they don't fall in the hands of the enemy.
But why? It's not even French flags (where you might argue French honour could be at stake), but the enemy's flags.
Why is it so important that the enemy can't recover them?
18:05 This entire time I'm wondering "where's the Viscount of Wellington who we last left coming north with a coalition of Spanish, Pouteguese, and British?" Because not to overstate things but the Iron Duke isn't exactly known for incompetance.
27:09 To be fair to the man, acting with caution was unusual to him. It was not unusual with McClellen.
My mom was a culinary spec in a transpo unit in the reserves. They were deployed to Iraq and Kuwait attatched to the 3rd ID in early '03. Kinda funny to hear a random connection to her service, as thin as that connection may be
Considering that the whole of Europe still has a legal system based on the Code Napoleon, I think his political ability is grossly underestimated
Give the Allies credit, though they defeated Napoleon by ganging up on him, the fact that they beat him as they did was and still is impressive.
If you read the osprey publishing books on the campaigns there’s a section at the back of each detailing the state of the battlefields today. For instance in southern France there are two British cemeteries at bayonne and at orthez there is foy’s monument and battle graves north of the city 👍
I never realized until now, just how much the people of France have gone through throughout history. So much fighting has happened in that country.
32:00 I think this is the right take on Talleyrand. If he was really self-serving, he had plenty of opportunity to make himself obscenely rich; imagine what Russia or Prussia would have given him if he was willing to throw his country under the bus while representing France at the Congress of Vienna. I think he was a patriot first and foremost, but a pragmatic one - willing to accept that he couldn't continue to help his country by going down with the ship in a failing regime.
I don´t think the allies could march all together. They were like 300 k troops and there isn´t much to forage in febuary. They probably would have had horrible supply issues
I've been to several places in Bavaria where battles were fought, both from the napoleonic wars and earlier.
I don't remember having seen any graveyards or anything like that from those events.
Great video!!
the sizes of armies and their casualties was really large in those times compared to the small towns the battles were usually fought over, and more often than not dealing with the dead and wounded was left to the local populace, who couldnt bury the corpses, as they simply didnt have enough men to do so, they were just left to rot, people also robbed the bodies
Hi, do you still have a discord, if so can you give a new link since the old one ran out? Thanks.
I just did a quick first search for Napoleonic War cemeteries, and all the relevant results were recent articles about newly discovered mass graves.
I think the war cemeteries tradition did not start in central Europe until World War 1.
Dang the French citizens and their treachery was the downfall of Paris.
If you want to see a breakdown of communications in the period, see the opening stages of the 1809 campaign. Gill's "Thunder on the Danube, vol 1" is a great study.
37:06 when Napoleon left the city he ordered to burn it, which did even more damage to Moscow, then the people who burned it after Napoleons arrival.
He’s not wrong. The original content is great as well!