@@milibaeindustries probably yes, in my opinion Napoleon was at his best tactically in 1813 and 1814 but of course the Italian campaign was no short of top 3.
He said he would some months ago in a livestream, it's just that there's a lot of content. Hoping to see a reaction to them soon, but I suppose we'll see what he decides to do.
2 things I want to add: 1- most of the art works in the wagons were returned and are currently located in different museums across the country 2- they fail to mention this but , the peninsular war is the fuse that lights the Latin American wars of independence
WW1 was the first major war where military deaths were overwhelmingly caused by combat. The US were just an exception with the "Spanish" flu. Actually 30,000 American soldiers died of it before even reaching the shores of France. 85% of French military deaths were combat deaths, 84% of British deaths, 83% of Austro-Hungarian deaths and 86% of German deaths. Also, Spanish, British and Portuguese combat deaths (and total deaths) in the Peninsular War largely exceeded those of the French.
Sharpe is really good. It’s really well done in many aspects. It is fiction but lots of the details really mail down the flavor of Napoleonic warfare better than most.
To be fair, a lot of Generals may not have learned when to press the advantage, but maybe as many thought they had one and lost the battle when the tried to press what they didn't have. Cautious Generals don't come out of nowhere they probably studied history and chose to minimize that risk- the greats of course being those capable of judging the situation correctly and moving as aggressive or cautiously as requiered
At 5:13. Political considerations are what led to the Battle of Gettysburg. The South was overstretched, so it could ill-afford a military invasion of the North. However, the officials of the Confederacy knew that Lincoln was on thin ground with a lot of Northern voters in 1863. So if they struck deep into the North, even in Pennsylvania or, if they got really lucky, New Jersey, and accomplished a victory there, it would swing a huge number of war-weary Northern voters to the peace candidate in the election of 1864--General McClellan. Thankfully that didn't happen since an astounding Northern victory was pulled off at Gettysburg, burnishing Lincoln's reputation and increasing his popularity.
What makes Vittoria such an amazing feat of arms, and what is not really emphasised in this video, is that the French were unaware that the British were that close in full force, let alone that several divisions had moved to their north. The French got completely outplayed before the first shot was fired. A true masterpiece of a battle.
A masterpiece ? Honestly just very poor battle tactic from French side Having more numbers Spanish population helping allies the French were outnumbered and on hostile ground everywhere added to that terrible battle tactics nothing of a masterpiece at all let’s be honest
You really need to understand this era of warfare. It was a masterpiece. Only caution from Graham and the 7th moving slowly prevented it from being a crushing victory. Wellington did everything perfectly on that campaign.
Came to see how an outsider (not from any country involved in the Napoleonic Wars) interpreted the battle, hoping for an unbiased perspective (You delivered on that), and learned some things about the American system I didn't now before (That thing about Americans not being allowed to have noble titles). An unexpected educational experience, thank you. I hope to see your interpretation of House of History's series on the Battles of Frederick the Great of Prussia some time in the future, or possibly your own analysis of the Seven Years War battles that happened in North America.
At 10:32. The French didn't have the Spanish guerrillas on their side. Remember? The guerrillas clearly knew the lay of the land, and the insignificant mountain roads and passes that could be easily used, especially between Wellington and the port at Santander. The guerrillas hated the French occupiers so much that this very local information about the local geography was kept away from French commanders. Thus the element of surprise was retained by Wellington.
Just to touch on what you talked about near the end, if I’m remembering this correctly the Franco-Prussian War is generally considered the first major war where the number of combat deaths exceeded the number of deaths due to illnesses on both sides. Though, of course, one could argue it was smaller in scale compared to the Napoleonic Wars and both World Wars. Anyway, as always, thank you for the insightful commentary!
France lost around 60k killed and died of wounds, and around 81k from disease and as POWs. Germany around 28k killed and dow, and around 12k from disease, so the numbers are about 50-50 overall...and of course when you add civilian disease deaths to that, it's not even close.
You were talking about combat deaths vs deaths caused by illness or other factors, something I saw that was interesting the other day is the almost exactly half of the coalition deaths in the Persian gulf war (147 vs 145) were from non-hostile actions. It’s strange to think of a conflict that modern having that kind of ratio among those killed. I think the non-combat deaths were mostly from auto accidents.
Love the content. I first heard of you from your reaction to Atun-Shei. I'm a big fan of his, but I always appreciate another point of view and you definitely helped me learn which is why I stick around. I'm loving this Napoleon related content. I learned basically nothing about him in school and it's cool to see his story. Epic History TV does a a great job, but your commentary is really what helps me understand what's going on. Have you heard of the "Napoleon was the Best General Ever, and the Math Proves it" article by Ethan Arsht? In it Napoleon is 23 standard deviations above the mean in his metric in terms of ranking Generals. That's absolutely insane and by any calculator I can find, the percentage of Generals as good are better than Napoleon so close to 0 that it just calls it zero. For context, Ulysses Grant is 6.8 Standard Deviations above the mean (ranked 7th of all time and best US Gen of all time) which would only have 1 in about 240 billion generals who are as good or better than him, and Robert E. Lee is 2.7 Standard Deviations below the mean which would mean about 1 in 300 generals were as bad or worse than he was. Obviously this one ranking isn't the end all be all but it's still a powerful tool for objectively ranking the performance of Generals in history. Just goes to show you how insane of a military commander Napoleon was. It makes sense that the best strategy to beat Napoleon was don't fight Napoleon, fight his Marshalls instead.
VTH, first off, I love your channel and almost never miss an episode. Secondly, I was wondering if you’d be willing to watch a video named Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator by Rageholic. The channel is mainly political but I found their takes on Lincoln and the Civil War very interesting and wanted to know what you thought.
Hi, Chris, I had forgotten about the Vitoria episode, but I'm glad to have seen it again. It would be interesting to know amongst how many the massive amount of loot was split. Looking forward to Leipzig next. I'd put in a word about the new Extra Credits series on Frederick the Great, I watched the first episode yesterday and its very good. As we approach Waterloo I'd recommend, in addition to Epic History TV, one by Our History called Why did Napoleon really fail at Waterloo, it does an in depth look at some of the problems and its fascinating and very good.
Napolean moved his armies quickly because they were trained to forage rather than live off depots. Spain and Russia were the two times he was outside "The Breadbasket of Europe" and he found out why most armies relied on depots.
He knew that. In Russia he had an extensive depots systems in Place with four logistics corps. I think it was the first time in history that so many men worked specifically for that purpose. The thing is, he underestimated the misery and the hygienic conditions there. Typhus and dysentery killed in mass in Russia and before Russia, in Poland. Men got fever and died slowly.
I'm reading Adam Zamoyski's Rites of Peace now. Its nice to see how these events led up to what is written about in the book. I believe the book starts directly after the Battle of Nations and the defeats in Spain.
Hate to be always pointing about those things, but it's important to know who half of the French guns were at the wagon train, they were not manned or deployed, it was more a mobile depot where all the guns of three armies were togheter. Last about the French having more artillery in the battles, it may be true in many cases but for example as you point with Napoleon in particular it was normally the other way around for example. Marengo 15 french guns vs 100 Austrian guns Austerlitz 139 french guns vs 278+ Russian and Austrian guns Jena 180 french guns vs 215 Prussian guns Eylau 300 french guns vs 400 Russian guns Friedland 118 french guns vs 120 Russian guns Somosierra 0 french guns vs 45 Spanish guns Wagram 433 french guns vs 446 Austrian guns Borodino 587 french guns vs 640 Russian guns Lützen 372 french guns vs 552 Prussian and Russian guns.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Only at the late stage with the 12 pounds, Russian guns were normally heavier, Austrian and Prussian average, the French had 6 pounds, British and Spanish used 9 pounds, and Russian howitzers used 24 pounds, also the horse artillery used by the french was 6 pounds even when they had the 12 pounds for foot artillery. However belive it or not the Austrians in 1809 altought with less heavier guns, used rockets, like the british in 1815 (limited obiously) and explosive ammo.
One of the strangest forces in this part is the Anglo-Sicilian-Spanish army, it is a conglomerate of three distinct cultures and I don’t think we’ll see such a diverse army again.
Can you even imagine if the troops hadn't started looting and Wellington could have properly pursued the fleeing French army? It would've given him more money for the campaign into France, while weakening the French forces in the region even further.
About 20,000-25,000 Spanish soldiers fought for the French, it's not a well studied subject by Spanish historians. After the war the followers of Joseph Bonaparte were considered as traitors and persecuted. King Ferdinand VII (who returned to the throne after the war) also imprisoned, exiled and executed a lot of the military leaders who fought for him while he was Napoleon's prisoner because they were opposed to the restoration of Absolutism. He also asked the French to invade Spain again in 1823 to restore him as absolute monarch. IMO he was the worst Spanish King by far.
He is universally considered as the worst king of their history. Between the wise and faire José and the evil Fernando there was an immense gap. Fernando gave him a reputation of alcohol drinker, but he was not. He really loved the Spanish people. At the end the Spanish people blinded by pride and their priests took the worst decisions ever in their history. Fernando created a mess in Spain , the problem with his brother Carlos.
I know that what I am about to write is off topic but oversimplified might soon post second punic war (or something else. We will see) video. It's been almost half a year I think. So I think we should prepare ourselves for that video with knowledge (even though it might be hard because of ancient history).
Great channel Love it Wondered if you’ve checked out the Battle of Towton the bloodiest battle on English soil in the war of the Roses There is an interesting documentary where they discovered a burial pit with some of the victims of the fighting We would be interested and enjoy your reaction 👍
Don't forget the British Artillery was not under the command of the War Office that controlled the army, it was under the Board of Ordinance, a separate organisation. The fear of a standing army going back to Cromwell and the War of Three Nations was deeply engrained the British. It's one of the reasons their are "Royal" Regiments but even today it's not the Royal Army, unlike say the Navy or Air Force.
Yes. He helped American forces attack Savannah and various islands in the Caribbean during the American Revolution. Ill health plagued most of his service in North America however.
One thing they have not mentioned is the Aristocracy side of it. 31.58. Wellington is a Marquess . He needed aristocratic rank to command a Duke, a Marquess could not order a Duke about it would be insulting. It was after this I think he became a Duke now he could order Spanish aristos about. Made a Lord must be the next un.
@chrisigoeb I don't know. Keeping the army intact in the Pennisula was not a simple task, but he managed it brilliantly. The Lines of Torres Vedres was a strategic master stroke. It was also very competently managed. Salamanca was truly an excellent victory, and the early stages of the campaign were excellently planned. The Vitoria campaign was just excellent from start to finish. Was his performance at Waterloo world shattering? No, but it was competent, and he didn't have a good army at that point, so it's hard to expect a world beating performance. I think he is every bit he is cracked up to be.
So here's what I kinda do not understand. England always had money to throw at wars. The Seven years war, the wars of Colliation, the great Northern War Etc. Yet the entire justification for the tax on the colonies was that they were broke. Just 20 years after the stamp act George the IIIrd spending like a sailor. How did this "poverty" not cause more of a fuss?
The Industrial Revolution started first in England and they had a lot of wealth flowing in from their colonies around the world. Their West Indies sugar islands were thought to be of greater financial value than the North American colonies. At home they had an effective (and oppressive) tax system as well as an efficient National Bank. They were able to borrow from other non-combatant nations (e.g. the Dutch) at lower interest rates than anyone else because of their reliability. Ultimately, the English could borrow enough to ensure victory, and, once victorious, they were in an even better position to repay, though it still might take them decades.
No, the tax on the colonies was entirely to pay for the expenses of the French and Indian war, which was fought to defend the colonies. Also, George the third was only spending what parliament let him. There were no unreasonable taxes levied on the colonies.
I have a question maybe you can answer. If you see this comment if your forced to retreat and retreat far why not gather up all your garrisons men abandon these places your never going to return to form a larger force to then hold the line at the next battle.
Leaving those men behind ties up many Spanish and English/Portugese troops and denies them critical supplies and access to key roads making it harder for them to operate efficiently. Also, the French may hope that it is only a temporary situation that you can fix with a determined counter-attack. In the midst of great defeat and retreat like Vittoria, it most likely was due to inability to get the message to those garrisons in time. If those garrisons tried leaving when the Allied Army was in control of the country-side, they would likely be defeated quickly as opposed to being able to withstand a siege than might take weeks or months to conclude.
@@ubervocal8777 I would argue you may hold off the allies for awhile with garrison but if they lay seige to you and well wait out your surrender you effectively lose thousands of men permanently while only taking those allied troops out of action for a time while they lay seige. I could see the argument if you plan to counter attack and retake the area but Napoleons brother was effectively evacuating Spain the treasury was being sent to France he was preparing to withdraw. So to me this feels like you send word to the forces in the east of Spain before the battle even starts to withdraw form a stronger group of forces to ether defend the French border or join up with your army to present a greater force.
@@TheDarkendstar The French did not expect to lose the battle of Vittoria. Clauzel was on his way with another 20,000 men and, if Wellington was slow in his advance north, that would have given the French numerical equality to Wellington's forces. Only a month after the defeat at Vittoria, the French under Soult mounted a well-coordinated counter-attack (The Battle of the Pyrenees) in an attempt to relieve the garrisons. It failed, but it shows the thinking of the French military.
@@TheDarkendstar I'm not saying the French made the right decision, rather I'm trying to convey what they were probably thinking. Against a lesser general than Welllington, their strategy might have worked.
At 7:09. Somewhat incorrect again. What made General Grant so successful is that he was willing to hound General Lee relentlessly down through Virginia in the spring campaigns of 1864. Lee had never met a foe like this, someone who didn't allow him to escape and recuperate. McClellan and other Northern generals were a timid lot, unwilling to give chase. But Grant was different--he threw the kitchen sink at Lee, and never, EVER let him rest. Grant knew he was vastly superior in manpower, so he could afford to throw men at Lee in tremendous numbers. By 1864 Lee was very short on men, so the last thing he wanted was to be worn down like this. It was a brutal war of attrition by 1864 and Lee just had fewer men to throw at the meat grinder. That's how Grant won the Civil War.
@@undertakernumberone1 I understood the reference. The panharmonicon was an instrument Beethoven's patron Johann Nepomuk Maelzel asked him to use in the performance of that piece. Beethoven's composition needed over 100 musicians so the panharmonicon was not used in the final performance of the piece. Just a bit of musical trivia.
Honestly just very poor battle tactic from French side Having more numbers Spanish population helping allies the French were outnumbered and on hostile ground everywhere added to that terrible battle tactics nothing of a masterpiece at all let’s be honest. Anyone would have crushed them It was not as bad a defeat as it should have been
Just don't forget about the new epic history tv series (young general Napoleon in Italy).
And the 1848 revolutions too
@@classical_music_enjoyer of course!
Please do this as well VTH
Napoleon at his best
@@milibaeindustries probably yes, in my opinion Napoleon was at his best tactically in 1813 and 1814 but of course the Italian campaign was no short of top 3.
I hope you do Napoleon’s Marshals too, great insight into some of the best generals and their achievements
Yes! This would be enormous fun, I think Chris would be really interested in what Epic History TV has to say about their background and career
He said he would some months ago in a livestream, it's just that there's a lot of content. Hoping to see a reaction to them soon, but I suppose we'll see what he decides to do.
Yes please, after you watch some thing's you see in the campaigns make more sense because you understand who make the decisions .
Same I really hope he does react to that too.
2 things I want to add:
1- most of the art works in the wagons were returned and are currently located in different museums across the country
2- they fail to mention this but , the peninsular war is the fuse that lights the Latin American wars of independence
I hope they cover those, just so they can talk about Thomas Cockrane.
@@lucinae8512 Cochrane* not Cockrane lmao
as a chilean, reading "cockrane" made me laugh so loud lol.
Your channel is a gift to history lovers Chris. Thank you
WW1 was the first major war where military deaths were overwhelmingly caused by combat. The US were just an exception with the "Spanish" flu. Actually 30,000 American soldiers died of it before even reaching the shores of France.
85% of French military deaths were combat deaths, 84% of British deaths, 83% of Austro-Hungarian deaths and 86% of German deaths.
Also, Spanish, British and Portuguese combat deaths (and total deaths) in the Peninsular War largely exceeded those of the French.
17:31 knowing my bit of Spanish I really think there should be more than one bridge at Tres Puentes :-)
Anyone that's traveling to Europe, I'd highly recommend visiting Vitoria and (especially) Salamanca. Great history, culture, food to be had.
Sharpe is really good. It’s really well done in many aspects. It is fiction but lots of the details really mail down the flavor of Napoleonic warfare better than most.
"The French retreat decended into turtle chaos."
I will never unhear that!
To be fair, a lot of Generals may not have learned when to press the advantage, but maybe as many thought they had one and lost the battle when the tried to press what they didn't have. Cautious Generals don't come out of nowhere they probably studied history and chose to minimize that risk- the greats of course being those capable of judging the situation correctly and moving as aggressive or cautiously as requiered
As Napoleon said: “In war there is but one favorable moment; the great art is to seize it!”
At 5:13. Political considerations are what led to the Battle of Gettysburg. The South was overstretched, so it could ill-afford a military invasion of the North. However, the officials of the Confederacy knew that Lincoln was on thin ground with a lot of Northern voters in 1863. So if they struck deep into the North, even in Pennsylvania or, if they got really lucky, New Jersey, and accomplished a victory there, it would swing a huge number of war-weary Northern voters to the peace candidate in the election of 1864--General McClellan. Thankfully that didn't happen since an astounding Northern victory was pulled off at Gettysburg, burnishing Lincoln's reputation and increasing his popularity.
Giving Sharpe a shout out, now that's soldiering!
OMG! I thought I was the only one who might have gotten that reference. Good to know!
That series was phenomenal. Highly recommend to all interested in this period. Awesome, awesome show.
@@trevorfilis537 even better book series!
What makes Vittoria such an amazing feat of arms, and what is not really emphasised in this video, is that the French were unaware that the British were that close in full force, let alone that several divisions had moved to their north. The French got completely outplayed before the first shot was fired. A true masterpiece of a battle.
A masterpiece ? Honestly just very poor battle tactic from French side
Having more numbers Spanish population helping allies the French were outnumbered and on hostile ground everywhere added to that terrible battle tactics nothing of a masterpiece at all let’s be honest
You really need to understand this era of warfare. It was a masterpiece. Only caution from Graham and the 7th moving slowly prevented it from being a crushing victory. Wellington did everything perfectly on that campaign.
@@jacobwalsh1888ya people think this era is like 1940 blitz
Arthur Wesley aka The Duke of Welington the hero of the Iberia and European Theater.
Came to see how an outsider (not from any country involved in the Napoleonic Wars) interpreted the battle, hoping for an unbiased perspective (You delivered on that), and learned some things about the American system I didn't now before (That thing about Americans not being allowed to have noble titles). An unexpected educational experience, thank you.
I hope to see your interpretation of House of History's series on the Battles of Frederick the Great of Prussia some time in the future, or possibly your own analysis of the Seven Years War battles that happened in North America.
Really appreciate your reaction to this Epic History series, you offer good and entertaining insights.
As someone from Vitoria, I've never been happier about this reaction lol
a salute from iruña :D
02:49 Wellington was quite adamant that there should be no cheering from his men.
i really like the Epic History narrator, the way he says "Grand Armee'" and other inflections, excellent
At 10:32. The French didn't have the Spanish guerrillas on their side. Remember? The guerrillas clearly knew the lay of the land, and the insignificant mountain roads and passes that could be easily used, especially between Wellington and the port at Santander. The guerrillas hated the French occupiers so much that this very local information about the local geography was kept away from French commanders. Thus the element of surprise was retained by Wellington.
Loving the Sharpe shout out
right?!🤣
Really liked this series by Epic History. Also helps when the narrator has such a great voice for it.
Just to touch on what you talked about near the end, if I’m remembering this correctly the Franco-Prussian War is generally considered the first major war where the number of combat deaths exceeded the number of deaths due to illnesses on both sides. Though, of course, one could argue it was smaller in scale compared to the Napoleonic Wars and both World Wars. Anyway, as always, thank you for the insightful commentary!
France lost around 60k killed and died of wounds, and around 81k from disease and as POWs. Germany around 28k killed and dow, and around 12k from disease, so the numbers are about 50-50 overall...and of course when you add civilian disease deaths to that, it's not even close.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Ah ok, if we count civilian deaths it definitely doesn’t come close, thank you for clearing that up ^^
Sharpe and the 95th rifles, chosen men. With the ability to fire 3 shots a minute in any weather, Sir.
Do Napoleons Marshall next
Connaught Rangers “The Devils Own”
Epic history really is epic.
The Marshal series is fascinating, I’m sure you’ll appreciate it a lot
*Chris shakes his head as the biggest artillery duel began* Chris silently: Wow*
You were talking about combat deaths vs deaths caused by illness or other factors, something I saw that was interesting the other day is the almost exactly half of the coalition deaths in the Persian gulf war (147 vs 145) were from non-hostile actions. It’s strange to think of a conflict that modern having that kind of ratio among those killed. I think the non-combat deaths were mostly from auto accidents.
27:20 Yeah, talk about the “Madness of King George III”.
Love the content. I first heard of you from your reaction to Atun-Shei. I'm a big fan of his, but I always appreciate another point of view and you definitely helped me learn which is why I stick around. I'm loving this Napoleon related content. I learned basically nothing about him in school and it's cool to see his story. Epic History TV does a a great job, but your commentary is really what helps me understand what's going on. Have you heard of the "Napoleon was the Best General Ever, and the Math Proves it" article by Ethan Arsht? In it Napoleon is 23 standard deviations above the mean in his metric in terms of ranking Generals. That's absolutely insane and by any calculator I can find, the percentage of Generals as good are better than Napoleon so close to 0 that it just calls it zero. For context, Ulysses Grant is 6.8 Standard Deviations above the mean (ranked 7th of all time and best US Gen of all time) which would only have 1 in about 240 billion generals who are as good or better than him, and Robert E. Lee is 2.7 Standard Deviations below the mean which would mean about 1 in 300 generals were as bad or worse than he was. Obviously this one ranking isn't the end all be all but it's still a powerful tool for objectively ranking the performance of Generals in history. Just goes to show you how insane of a military commander Napoleon was. It makes sense that the best strategy to beat Napoleon was don't fight Napoleon, fight his Marshalls instead.
VTH, first off, I love your channel and almost never miss an episode.
Secondly, I was wondering if you’d be willing to watch a video named Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator by Rageholic. The channel is mainly political but I found their takes on Lincoln and the Civil War very interesting and wanted to know what you thought.
The french dismissing something as impassible, why does that sound familiar?
Hi, Chris, I had forgotten about the Vitoria episode, but I'm glad to have seen it again. It would be interesting to know amongst how many the massive amount of loot was split. Looking forward to Leipzig next.
I'd put in a word about the new Extra Credits series on Frederick the Great, I watched the first episode yesterday and its very good.
As we approach Waterloo I'd recommend, in addition to Epic History TV, one by Our History called Why did Napoleon really fail at Waterloo, it does an in depth look at some of the problems and its fascinating and very good.
Napolean moved his armies quickly because they were trained to forage rather than live off depots. Spain and Russia were the two times he was outside "The Breadbasket of Europe" and he found out why most armies relied on depots.
He knew that. In Russia he had an extensive depots systems in Place with four logistics corps. I think it was the first time in history that so many men worked specifically for that purpose. The thing is, he underestimated the misery and the hygienic conditions there. Typhus and dysentery killed in mass in Russia and before Russia, in Poland. Men got fever and died slowly.
I'm reading Adam Zamoyski's Rites of Peace now. Its nice to see how these events led up to what is written about in the book. I believe the book starts directly after the Battle of Nations and the defeats in Spain.
Meanwhile, Marshal Suchet: Da fuck they doin' over there?
Hate to be always pointing about those things, but it's important to know who half of the French guns were at the wagon train, they were not manned or deployed, it was more a mobile depot where all the guns of three armies were togheter.
Last about the French having more artillery in the battles, it may be true in many cases but for example as you point with Napoleon in particular it was normally the other way around for example.
Marengo 15 french guns vs 100 Austrian guns
Austerlitz 139 french guns vs 278+ Russian and Austrian guns
Jena 180 french guns vs 215 Prussian guns
Eylau 300 french guns vs 400 Russian guns
Friedland 118 french guns vs 120 Russian guns
Somosierra 0 french guns vs 45 Spanish guns
Wagram 433 french guns vs 446 Austrian guns
Borodino 587 french guns vs 640 Russian guns
Lützen 372 french guns vs 552 Prussian and Russian guns.
The French guns were heavier than the coalitions
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Only at the late stage with the 12 pounds, Russian guns were normally heavier, Austrian and Prussian average, the French had 6 pounds, British and Spanish used 9 pounds, and Russian howitzers used 24 pounds, also the horse artillery used by the french was 6 pounds even when they had the 12 pounds for foot artillery. However belive it or not the Austrians in 1809 altought with less heavier guns, used rockets, like the british in 1815 (limited obiously) and explosive ammo.
Hell yea! perfect timing
One of the strangest forces in this part is the Anglo-Sicilian-Spanish army, it is a conglomerate of three distinct cultures and I don’t think we’ll see such a diverse army again.
Can you even imagine if the troops hadn't started looting and Wellington could have properly pursued the fleeing French army?
It would've given him more money for the campaign into France, while weakening the French forces in the region even further.
About 20,000-25,000 Spanish soldiers fought for the French, it's not a well studied subject by Spanish historians. After the war the followers of Joseph Bonaparte were considered as traitors and persecuted.
King Ferdinand VII (who returned to the throne after the war) also imprisoned, exiled and executed a lot of the military leaders who fought for him while he was Napoleon's prisoner because they were opposed to the restoration of Absolutism. He also asked the French to invade Spain again in 1823 to restore him as absolute monarch. IMO he was the worst Spanish King by far.
He is universally considered as the worst king of their history. Between the wise and faire José and the evil Fernando there was an immense gap. Fernando gave him a reputation of alcohol drinker, but he was not. He really loved the Spanish people. At the end the Spanish people blinded by pride and their priests took the worst decisions ever in their history. Fernando created a mess in Spain , the problem with his brother Carlos.
You should do a commentary on Razorfists Lincoln video
I know that what I am about to write is off topic but oversimplified might soon post second punic war (or something else. We will see) video. It's been almost half a year I think. So I think we should prepare ourselves for that video with knowledge (even though it might be hard because of ancient history).
I think of this battle from the Sharpe series.
😀
Will you react to napoleon marshals series from epic tv also ?
So will will hear Vlog sing ABBA soon?
Great channel Love it Wondered if you’ve checked out the Battle of Towton the bloodiest battle on English soil in the war of the Roses There is an interesting documentary where they discovered a burial pit with some of the victims of the fighting We would be interested and enjoy your reaction 👍
Hey Chris, after this series can you do a reaction to the 1848 revolutions video in February.
Don't forget the British Artillery was not under the command of the War Office that controlled the army, it was under the Board of Ordinance, a separate organisation. The fear of a standing army going back to Cromwell and the War of Three Nations was deeply engrained the British. It's one of the reasons their are "Royal" Regiments but even today it's not the Royal Army, unlike say the Navy or Air Force.
2:25 Much to the chagrin of John Adams lol
Why does the french make so many blunder moves
EH has a new fritz story you'll love. + don't forget to react to the ibn Battuta series.
Can you get your Oversimplified reaction to the American Revolution back up?
React to the rageaholic Lincoln video, haven't watched yet but I'd like to see if it is bs or not
I love this Series
well i am guessing wellington is floating with the stream
Marshal Jourdan fought in north america if i not mistaken.
Yes. He helped American forces attack Savannah and various islands in the Caribbean during the American Revolution. Ill health plagued most of his service in North America however.
Hey Vlogging Through History can you check out The Rageaholic Abraham Lincoln: America Dictator I want to hear you thoughts on this?
Episode 1 one Extra History's new series on Frederick the Great of Prussia came out yesterday. Could you please react to it next, before Leipzig?
One thing they have not mentioned is the Aristocracy side of it. 31.58. Wellington is a Marquess . He needed aristocratic rank to command a Duke, a Marquess could not order a Duke about it would be insulting. It was after this I think he became a Duke now he could order Spanish aristos about. Made a Lord must be the next un.
Wellington was a wonderful General. Just wished he was a better Prime Minister.
I think he's pretty overrated. Sure he was a good general for sure but not on Napoleons level
@@chrisigoeb yeah I’m sure that if you were there commanding an army no coalition would have been needed to defeat Napoleon
@@artofstorytelling9406🤣u sad
@@artofstorytelling9406 what's that supposed to mean? Saying someone is not as good as Napoleon is hardly an insult
@chrisigoeb I don't know. Keeping the army intact in the Pennisula was not a simple task, but he managed it brilliantly. The Lines of Torres Vedres was a strategic master stroke. It was also very competently managed. Salamanca was truly an excellent victory, and the early stages of the campaign were excellently planned. The Vitoria campaign was just excellent from start to finish. Was his performance at Waterloo world shattering? No, but it was competent, and he didn't have a good army at that point, so it's hard to expect a world beating performance. I think he is every bit he is cracked up to be.
hey can you watch the new extra credit video on fredrick the great
"I'm surrounded by idiots!" - Napoleon Buonaparte
Funnily enough, vitoria in spanish means victory.. so its wellingtons victory in victory
Britian did invade Copenhagen... twice!
When's the next WW1 video? Love all your stuff.
Hey, what happened with the reaction to the Kings and Generals' Julius Ceaser series? I can't wait to see that..
Man, the French really seem to have a tendency to think mountain passes as impassable
Which is iconic, considering Napoleon's crossing of the Alps in 1800 during his second Italian campaign.
@@joshuagrover795 To be fair, he was Corsican
charles V's chin had a chin of its own xd
Hey Chris, could you please react to Extra History's new video of Frederick the Great?
Soon we must go to Frederick the Great
wow they had traffic jams
I think you also missed Battle of Wagram episode?
I had done that in the original series of reactions 2 years ago.
So here's what I kinda do not understand. England always had money to throw at wars. The Seven years war, the wars of Colliation, the great Northern War Etc. Yet the entire justification for the tax on the colonies was that they were broke. Just 20 years after the stamp act George the IIIrd spending like a sailor. How did this "poverty" not cause more of a fuss?
The Industrial Revolution started first in England and they had a lot of wealth flowing in from their colonies around the world. Their West Indies sugar islands were thought to be of greater financial value than the North American colonies. At home they had an effective (and oppressive) tax system as well as an efficient National Bank. They were able to borrow from other non-combatant nations (e.g. the Dutch) at lower interest rates than anyone else because of their reliability. Ultimately, the English could borrow enough to ensure victory, and, once victorious, they were in an even better position to repay, though it still might take them decades.
No, the tax on the colonies was entirely to pay for the expenses of the French and Indian war, which was fought to defend the colonies. Also, George the third was only spending what parliament let him. There were no unreasonable taxes levied on the colonies.
Please react to Extra Credits new series on Frederick the Great when it is done. 👍
What is it with the French and thinking terrain is "unpassable"?
I have a question maybe you can answer. If you see this comment if your forced to retreat and retreat far why not gather up all your garrisons men abandon these places your never going to return to form a larger force to then hold the line at the next battle.
Leaving those men behind ties up many Spanish and English/Portugese troops and denies them critical supplies and access to key roads making it harder for them to operate efficiently. Also, the French may hope that it is only a temporary situation that you can fix with a determined counter-attack. In the midst of great defeat and retreat like Vittoria, it most likely was due to inability to get the message to those garrisons in time. If those garrisons tried leaving when the Allied Army was in control of the country-side, they would likely be defeated quickly as opposed to being able to withstand a siege than might take weeks or months to conclude.
@@ubervocal8777 I would argue you may hold off the allies for awhile with garrison but if they lay seige to you and well wait out your surrender you effectively lose thousands of men permanently while only taking those allied troops out of action for a time while they lay seige.
I could see the argument if you plan to counter attack and retake the area but Napoleons brother was effectively evacuating Spain the treasury was being sent to France he was preparing to withdraw. So to me this feels like you send word to the forces in the east of Spain before the battle even starts to withdraw form a stronger group of forces to ether defend the French border or join up with your army to present a greater force.
@@TheDarkendstar The French did not expect to lose the battle of Vittoria. Clauzel was on his way with another 20,000 men and, if Wellington was slow in his advance north, that would have given the French numerical equality to Wellington's forces. Only a month after the defeat at Vittoria, the French under Soult mounted a well-coordinated counter-attack (The Battle of the Pyrenees) in an attempt to relieve the garrisons. It failed, but it shows the thinking of the French military.
@@TheDarkendstar I'm not saying the French made the right decision, rather I'm trying to convey what they were probably thinking. Against a lesser general than Welllington, their strategy might have worked.
Bro just spoiled Picton getting killed
D'erlon would lead to French disaster in the hundred days.
Sorry but I don’t appreciate views on the American Civil War. Better to focus on examples from previous examples of 18th century conflict.
At 7:09. Somewhat incorrect again. What made General Grant so successful is that he was willing to hound General Lee relentlessly down through Virginia in the spring campaigns of 1864. Lee had never met a foe like this, someone who didn't allow him to escape and recuperate. McClellan and other Northern generals were a timid lot, unwilling to give chase. But Grant was different--he threw the kitchen sink at Lee, and never, EVER let him rest. Grant knew he was vastly superior in manpower, so he could afford to throw men at Lee in tremendous numbers. By 1864 Lee was very short on men, so the last thing he wanted was to be worn down like this. It was a brutal war of attrition by 1864 and Lee just had fewer men to throw at the meat grinder. That's how Grant won the Civil War.
You are very incorrect. I advise you to re educate yourself. 😊
*plays Beethoven for this*
plays the panharmonicon for this
@@celston51 I wam specifically refering to Beethoven's piece "Wellingtons Sieg oder die Schlacht bei Vittoria"
@@undertakernumberone1 I understood the reference. The panharmonicon was an instrument Beethoven's patron Johann Nepomuk Maelzel asked him to use in the performance of that piece. Beethoven's composition needed over 100 musicians so the panharmonicon was not used in the final performance of the piece. Just a bit of musical trivia.
maan i was expecting leipzig sadge
React to the history of Japan by bill wurtz please
Siuuuuuuuuuu
Honestly just very poor battle tactic from French side
Having more numbers Spanish population helping allies the French were outnumbered and on hostile ground everywhere added to that terrible battle tactics nothing of a masterpiece at all let’s be honest. Anyone would have crushed them
It was not as bad a defeat as it should have been
First
I think maybe if Napoleon was from the South Bronx maybe he would have won
The French won’t use radios even once invented. It’s a major reason for their poor performance in WW 2
Have you ever checked out Mrspherical. It's good stuff
First