Sorry this one took so long to get out! Thanks for watching! Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media, and join my Discord & Patreon: ❤️ Patreon: www.patreon.com/sogal_yt?fan_landing=true 🐕 Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ 🏀 Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT ⚽️ Facebook Page: facebook.com/SoGal-104043461744742 🏖 Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/238616921241608 💥 Discord: discord.gg/amWWc6jcC2
xi jinping is also a chinese dictator but he only imprisoned 10,000,000 Uighurs not killing them. Not all dictators, emperors or kings are genocidal maniacs like Hitler, you white Americans
Denmark and Norway was in a union until the end of the Napoleonic wars when Norway was granted independence for like 3 minutes before Sweden invaded and formed a new union with Norway
They weren't granted independence. More like they didn't want to be in union with Sweden, which was part of the deal Bernadotte got for joining the War of the Six Coalition, and declared independence in response. They almost won the war against Sweden too, but eventually Sweden compromised that if the Norwegians accepted the Swedish King as their monarch, then they could have the same sort of set up the UK has now, where they could govern themselves, but Sweden dictated foreign policy and other national level decisions.
@@Onnarashi Yup! That is true.. Norway is the 1st of the bunch to be a Christian kingdom. Famous ex-Viking turned Saint. I believe he hung around Iceland a lot as well.
I've always had the assumption for the Elba situation, that heads of state don'r want to execute other heads of state as it makes a bad precedent. After all, who knows when you might get overthrown in your turn, and want to avoid any nasy consequences (eh, Carlos?)
Thoughts of Saddam Hussein went through my head during that part of the video. The Coalition beat his army, beat it good, but they let him stay in power under severe sanctions, inspectors, and no-fly zones. Again doing so turned out to be a mistake, as he battled the Kurds to keep the nation together, and in general, Iraq had no real plan forward with him fortified at the top. So then you get to the second Iraq invasion. Most people argue it should have been done right the 1st time around. But they made this staggered approach to show respect to the Iraqi people. Especially after the disaster, the Soviets went thru when they got rid of the Afghanistan leader in 1980. Or Napoleon and the Spanish Kings. So it goes both ways. You can't win, lol.
Well, that would have established a bad precedent in more than one way. First, the whole justification of the first coalitions against France was that they were fighting against revolutionary savages who had their king and nobility killed pointlessly. If they went and killed Napoleon at that point, they would have basically told to all their people (and, more importantly), to all their veterans, that they hadn't actually had a good reason to go to war, and that all the death and and all the defeats leading up to that point were actually because everybody got a bad case of Revolution panic. Secondly, in 1804, Napoleon *had* been anointed as Emperor. In the aristocratic world, the anointment practically meant that he had a divine mandate to rule his country. You know, the same divine mandate that every other king in Europe at the time had. None of his enemies wanted to be the one to set the precedent of killing another head of state who had the divine mandate, because that would have been a senseless escalation for future wars.
Quick observation. That map at the end, with the fragmented German states, and Austria in red. It also showed the Ottoman (Turkish ) empire in the balkans. That had changed by WWI too.
Regarding Karl Johan... Karl was a traditional name of Swedish kings, so that makes sense. As for Johan, Bernadotte's first name in French was Jean (John) and Johan is just the Swedish version of John. Historically it was much more common to translate names between languages, whereas today we generally leave names unchanged.
Your comments on repetition and learning are spot on. You get told stuff at school, you watch a film, read a book see a documentary, and the picture builds. It also gives you the view from different angles, I knew very little of the napoleonic wars at the start of your campaign to learn. Now I know a lot more!. Thank you for that.
The first known female ruler was Kubaba. She was Sumerian and ruled Sumer around 2400BC. Here are some of the nations that had quite a few and can trace female rulers (Queen Regnant) throughout its history (including land they ruled that is now within the modern-day borders): Egypt (20), Nigeria (18), Spain (16), UK (15), USA (13, Hawaii), and Japan (12). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant
In France, Napoleon wasn’t see as a dictator by as the saviour of the revolutionary France. After the final fall of Napoleon, there was a weird feeling in France that still is around everyone in France The romantic feeling, the nostalgia of this era is still heavy on modern France. There is an incredible book about it that explain this It’s call “la confession d’un enfant du siècle”
43:58 the narrator suggesting that his escape was smooth and casual is not really true, Napoleon really fled the island and the fact that Napoleon didn’t get captured was quite miraculous, there were plenty of British ships on the Mediterranean that could have control and intercept him.
51:45. The only significant difference between that 1815 Europe map and the 1914 Europe map. Are that all the individual nations within the Germany geographic area were united together into the single and very powerful nation of Germany. The individual nations within the Italy geographic area had done the same to form the single nation of Italy. And all the Northern part of the Ottman Empire. (The territory in beige, seen in the bottom right of the map, just below Austria-(Hungary) in red). Had been liberated from Ottoman rule into the Slavic nations of Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Montenegro and Serbia.
The famous Admiral Cochrane, in charge of the Chilian Navy (and just defeated the Spanish forces in Chile) had made plans to rescue Napoleon and bring him to South America, with an idea to set up a new empire in South America. When they tried to implement the plan Napoleon was in his final sickness and it was abandoned.
Oh finally, I have to recommend you Goya, and his "The Disasters of War" series, being a Spanish artist, he captures first-hand on the human, intimate aspect of the peninsula war
A really important point though at the end is the idea of nationalism (legal and economic standardization and centralisation) and national unity Napoleon's tours through Europe brought. This was why in the 19th century nationalism really became a thing and why during those decades Italian and German states became united. This process is called Risorgimento in Italy (1820-1870), maybe you could check something out on it to comprehend this Central European space in history.
The Holy Roman Empire had been dissolved during the Napoleonic Wars. The individual German states became fully independent, but they remained loosely joined in a new organization formed after the wars, the German Confederation.
the Royal Navy was quite large at the point of the Napoleonic was so I discovered a series that goes through the Royal Navy at different eras. The first episode is The King's Ships-(1500-1599), Wooden Walls- (1600-1805) and Steam Steel and Dreadnoughts-(1806-1918)
Even vehicles have serious problems in Russia at certain times of the year. This is one reason why the German troops in WW2 struggled so much in Autumn and Winter. In autumn its the mud, in winter its the snow and cold. Many times vehicles had to be abandoned entirely and the troops were back to walking again.
48:50 That "photo", or painting was painting is called "28th Regiment at Quatre Bras", as the name implies is not from the Battle of Waterloo, but from Battle of Quatre Bras fought two days before Waterloo. It was painted by well renowned Elizabeth Thompson, aka Lady Butler in 1875. You should check out her work, they are fascinating considering she is a women in late 19th century painting about war. She also has a famous painting about Waterloo.
The one thing that is missing about the explanations about nobility, is that the titles are inherited, and often come with many legal privileges(Latin, meaning "private law"). For instance, in the Ancien regime(before the French revolution), non-nobles could only rarely become officers, no matter how rich they were. As we have seen in the series of French Marshals, there were a few that only were sergeants before the revolution. Even in England, regiments like the Life Guards didn't admit private troopers who wasn't gentlemen(landowners) until 1788. One gentleman in the Lifeguards was so miffed at this that he uttered: "Are we to become a regiment of cheese mongers?" So, even if the US has wealthy families, and wealth that goes down through generations, there is no formal system giving them privileges other than what money can buy. Though wealth may be inherited, it is often lost within 3 generations of being made.
Fun fact : England and Portugal have been allies since 1373, pretty much uninterrupted. It's one of the oldest alliances still in effect, and one of the longest in history.
We even sent an envoy in WW2 just to go, "Hey sooo, we're not saying we're actually _calling in_ the old alliance, buuuut... We're still good, right?" "Yeah, we're still good. Just say when you need us, but we're a little preoccupied right now..?" "Oh right yeah, Francisco Franco on your doorstep and all, no worries, just checking in."
Norway has cycled through being independent, being ruled by the Danish, and being ruled by Sweden. This was the Danish part of the cycle. Fun fact: all three countries were unified in a personal union known as the Kalmar Union in the 1400s.
There's been a few successful female rulers in Europe, I can name a couple without needing to Google them. Elizabeth I of Britain 16th century, Catherine the great of Russia 18th century and I know Austria has had several queens but can't remember their names.
Bernodotte's primary ambition was to take Norway from Denmark and add it to Sweden. As a result Sweden's contribution to the 7th coallition was mostly artillery since it took fewer casualties than infantry or cavalry.
You could become nobility early on through lobbying basically. The first many nobles would rule a larger mansion with serfs working on the land. However some people were needed for war, and if you were a good caretaker, a good military leader or had some specific skill another noble needed, you could be promoted to a noble. Around late 1600's there were a lot of reforms, and that is where you get the English Lords, German Barons and the French counterpart, making the noble class become very static.
The house of Bernadotte is still the monarchy family in Sweden. Almost all Swedish Kings are named Carl (Karl), derived off Charles, which is derived off Charlemagne. Johan is derived off Johannes, derived ultimativally from Hebrew Yehochanan. Bernadotte took maybe the most generic name in Karl Johan, as a way to get accepted in Sweden. Fun fact some mushrooms he liked have been named Karl Johan after Bernadotte
Denmark/ Norway. Scandinavia has a long and complex history, each of the countries have been in the ascendency at different times. It might be worth looking at a simplified history covering them! Starting with the vikings....
You should react to "History of the world I guess". It's 20 minutes long and it's pretty cool. You'll learn a lot and the guy behind it is really funny! I'm sure you'll enjoy it! :) (Excuse me for my english, it's not my main language)
Female monarchs were very uncommon but happened elsewhere too. In the UK's case Victoria became Queen due to an unbelievable lack of other heirs. A lot of the extended royal family had died or not had children, and was on the verge of being wiped out. Victoria was basically the only choice left who wasn't Catholic. But then she had a LOT of children and grandchildren who became monarchs or consorts all across Europe and there's not been a similar issue since (if anything, even the staunchest monarchist (which i am not) has to admit there's probably too many princes and princesses these days, and in fact in the UK only children in the direct line of succession get the royal titles).
Well yes and no, its true Norway and Sweden was in a Union from 1814 to 1905, but the union between Norway and Sweden was very different than the union between Norway and Denmark, Denmark had full control over Norway, Sweden had no say in domestic Norwegian politics, The only thing Sweden decided for Norway was who the King was and foreign policity.
The main reasons for Russia to turn against Napoleon was Poland being independent again, then came the pressure from Napoleon to abolish the Serfdom in Russia, and finally the excuse who the Tsar made to the Nobility was, who they could not trade their silk clothes from Britain anymore, but that was most to get support to break with Napoleon, and to seek an alliance with Britain.
It wasnt Poland. I mean Poland sucked but at the time, it was jsut adding insult to injury. As annoying as Poland is, the biggest blow was inability to trade with Britain which was ruining Russia's economy and making its currency tank by 50%, also since Russia was trading with England for weapons it was ruining its military potential since France was either unable or unwilling (or both) to replace England as a trading partner. Alliance with (or rather subserviance) to France also meant Russia wasnt allowed to make independant decisions especially regarding wars it wanted to fight.
@@vermilion6966 Literally Poland was the issue, again, and Russia was warring against Persia and the Ottomans, (friends of Napoleon by the ways). Also Russia was so feudal who the currency was only for deals with other powers, and the elites, with little to no impact on the common proletariat who literally was enslaved.
While Elba was a nice prison (heck, he was even there on sort of an 'honor' system) it was still a prison. And remember: A) Napoleon couldn't visit his remaining family B) Forget about the pension from the French King, that isn't happening and C) While it doesn't seem a big deal to us, and maybe in hindsight...but "Emperor of Elba" was hardly a Title of respect. D) I'll give the allies credit for not really punishing his son or wife, but besides being innocent of Napoleon's decisions, the fact that his second wife was the daughter of the Emperor of Austria, probably made a big difference at least in the "Granting of Noble Titles" sense. People speculate why he wasn't just killed but it seems there were 3 reasons for that. 1) Don't set a Precedent for killing Kings or Emperors. 2) Don't make him a martyr and lastly, 3) There was some respect and admiration for the guy, plus he had treated them with some honor when he was on top.
8:22, The Finnish war is still seen as the darkest moment in Swedish history. 18:04, This really is an oversimplification. The king was overthrown, but not immediately replaced with Bernadotte. Karl XIII served for a few years in-between. Karl and Gustav are the two main names for kings here in Sweden. Also fun fact: 1814 marks the last year Sweden was at war. We have currently had 207 years of peace! (Ignore our involvement in Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc).
The French people liked Napoleon most of the time, and the other monarch did not want a martyr to be glorified. Many of the nobles and the military liked Napoleon more than the re-instated King, so they give him the nice deal to prevent chaos.
Regarding female rulers in Britain and historical female rulers in general, you should do some looking into Boudicca, who led a revolt of the Britons against the Roman occupation of Britain.
33:56 i wanted to comment on what you said about « turning point » in history, especially on the example of the so called D Day, which wasn’t actually a « turning point » as everyone think in America and in the Western world. It’s a complete constructed myth (briefly, all the pride should have gone to the Russian but it was impossible to say so during the Cold War, and Reagan seeking for reelection thought it was better to celebrate D Day than Pearl Harbor (which was a defeat obviously), that’s the real beginning of the myth. And also this narrative fits perfectly with the bliblical idea of « good » versus « evil » the American governements (and people) always like to express when it comes to war (even though no one really thought that Nazis Germany was evil at this point since nobody knew about the exterminations camps. In an pool targeting american soldiers before D Day, it turned out 18% said they wanted Germany defeated while 70 % wanted Japan completely destroyed) The real reason behind D day and the British/Canadian invasion was to prevent bolchevism to be widespread in Europe (which would have happen) The myth is now very imbedded in Western societies especially thanks to Hollywood, but also by official narratives. That’s why you should be very careful with « epic turning point in history » ;) But my comment seems to be censured by TH-cam (or it was too long?), hope you can read this anyway :D
Stalin was begging for D-Day. It helped his offense from the East. We definitely need to know that the Soviets lost 20 million dead, but D-Day was still the biggest sea invasion in history, and it could have been a disaster. We also forget the Italian campaign.
@@martincook9795 Even if there was no D day or Italian invasion and Hitler had 100% of his army fighting the soviets Germany still would have lost the soviets didn’t need D day to win it just helped with distracting some of the German forces. The Soviet Union by mid-late 1942 had secured their win in the war and by this time there was no way Germany could turn it around.
@melkor: yes, but it would have taken longer and been more difficult, with more losses. If no d day allies would have had Soviets from the East and a slow and turgid attack in Italy ( and partisans in various places). I repeat, Stalin begged for an attack in the West. I have not down played the Soviets role in the war, but this was an alliance who needed each other … until they didn’t.
UK has women head of states for centuries (Monarchies are not elected however)... Women Voting who represents them in Parliament has only been around since 1918. They joined "nobility and aristocrats" via Representation of the People Act 1918. In 1928, every woman and man no matter of status was allowed to vote. To me this is very late, However, Women voting around the world was generally late to be implemented and many states have only just allowed such actions due to western pressure. I mean USA is still yet to have a female president to this day.
I think it might be more of a German maybe also Italian thing that Kings should only be men. Cause Austria had their famous queen ruler. Russia has had theirs also. Byzantine Empire had woman rulers back in the day. But when Byzantine did have Irene as a ruler, the Franks did throw a big fit about it. So it seems more to me that it might be more of a German thing. Throwing in Italy because I can't think of any women rulers there either. Spain on the other hand had a few influential queens. But I am not sure if they were ever sole rulers.
Yes Nobility is a family status, but in the case of Napoleon, he was what today we could consider "working class", his father had a lawyer degree in Genoa, and for the standards of the republic of Genoa that was "nobility", of course not in France.
you don't kill emperors/monarchs otherwise you set a precedent that it is ok to do so and not only to you lend validity to the French Revolutionaries but you also damage the image of Monarchs being gods' choice and so far above the common man that laws don't apply to them. basically kings need to be treated special to stay special in the eyes of everyone.
Not just that but also this particular ideology has been in practice for a long time so most of them (the other monarchs and really people in general) did not see that as an option
With the breakup of the Kalmar Union 1397-1523 (Denmark, Norway, Sweden in union), where Sweden broke off, the King of Denmark remained King of Norway. Denmark was officially The Kingdom of Denmark-Norway from 1523-1814, as the Danish Monarchy ruled both areas. Norway was ment to be given to Sweden in 1814 when the Danish surrended, but the Norwegians fought back and the Danish and others supported the new Norwegian independence movement. Many would rather see and independent Norway than Sweden becoming a Swedish Empire again, and thus Norway got its constitution and national day the 17th of May 1814, while keeping good relations with Denmark. Denmark kept the Norwegian Colonies of Faeroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland under the Danish Crown, where they still sit today. Faroese and Icelandic is way closer to "Nynorsk" than Danish, with Icelandic almost being intelligible with Old Norse
55:35 It was in 1861 when Napoleon III, the last Emperor of France (and Napoleon's nephew), arranged his uncles body to be moved back to France. Napoleon is also buried next he's son whom died in 1832, aged just 21, he had no children and was barred to learn French or do anything French after he's father abdication when he and he's mother moved to Austria.
You ought to do mediaeval history, which I find really interesting. The Ottoman's push towards Vienna and how the Polish winged Hussars rose to fame in the siege of Vienna 1683; Vlad Dracul's rise to prominence; the Hungarian entities and so on. Keep up the good work though! Cheers!
The reason Queen Victoria didn't succeed to the throne of Hanover is that Hanover had different succession laws to England---although the kingdoms had been ruled by the same ruler for a while, they were still separate kingdoms with separate succession laws. So after the death of William IV, different people ended up being the legal successor in the two kingdoms. In Hanover, the basic rule was that the throne goes to the oldest male son of the monarch, or the oldest brother of the monarch if the monarch has no sons, and so on (going to progressively more distant male relatives). But it would always go to a man. In England the rule was slightly different: the throne goes to the oldest male son of the monarch, but if the monarch has no male sons, it can also go to the monarch's eldest daughter. Only if the monarch had no living children at all could the throne be passed on to relatives which are not direct descendants of the monarch. Both laws favour males over females---under the English law, a younger son would still succeed first rather than an older daughter. But obviously the Hanover law is a bit stricter. The Hanoverian form of the law was older (it goes back to the Salic Law, which was the law code of the Franks who took over the areas of modern France and Germany after the collapse of the Roman Empire), but the major European monarchies had tended to adjust it to a more English-like system over time. This probably didn't have much to do with changing attitudes to women; rather it was due to the fact that the Hanoverian rule tended to result in situations where the legal successor would often be a fairly distant relative, without much in common politically with the previous king. This could easily result in the succession being disputed, which might lead to war. Allowing daughters to succeed as a last resort meant that the succession would stay within the family more often, and the dynasty would be more stable.
Europe is formed by it's inheritence laws. Those laws had arguably a greater impact on Europe as did wars. It might be an interesting subject to get into.
Actually, I don't remember it being mentioned in the other videos if Bernadotte changed his name, either. But it wasn't unheard of for a new king to pick a royal name that wasn't the same name that was given to him at birth.
During the 7th coalition, it's believed that Napoleon could have won the Battle of Waterloo if only Ney did not make those stupid cavalry charges. He thought the English were retreating when in fact, they were simply maneuvering. So he ordered a cavalry charge without infantry support. It was very very very very stupid of Ney. That action of him is so stupid that when asked on who are Napoleon's worst marshals in websites like Quora, Ney is often mentioned and it's because of that stupid move. Also, Napoleon instead put Davout as a minister of war in Paris instead of utilizing him in battle. Oversimplified did not mention Grouchey here. But here is Grouchey's role: He is to pursue Blucher as much as possible. He and his men could hear the fighting but he remained focused on his mission to find and pursue the Prussians which is pretty stupid too. If only Davout was put in place of either Ney or Grouchey, it's certain that Davout would have done his job right. He wouldn't charge a cavalry without thinking it through especially when the battle is still far from over. During the Battle of Auerstedt, he was outnumbered and there were cavalry charges sent to him by the Prussians. Those were surprise attacks. Davout's men formed squares to repel the cavalry charges. And during Auerstedt, Bernadotte did not participate in the battle despite just being nearby. So with these in mind, they would have been déjà vu for Davout since he already experienced those same situations. I admire Napoleon. He is a genius. But is still prone to being stupid. He thinks that he knows everything and that he's the best at everything related to battles. But he mostly sucks so much when it comes to choosing the men for the jobs. P.S. I guess I am just too disappointed with how Napoleon handled his last battle that I mentioned the word "stupid" 6 times in my comment.
Even if Napoleon had won at Waterloo, he would have lost somewhere else, as Austria and Russia were also mobilizing against him. His invasion of Russia cost him too much in the cavalry and artillery department. Those branches demanded intensive time and training that could not be made up quickly. And Napoleon's health was failing.
@@auerstadt06 true. It is just a matter of attrition. But then again, if the French managed to hold out for much longer, it could still change the fate of Europe and of the world. The populace of those kingdoms/empires might eventually realize that their monarchs are so obsessed with putting Napoleon down. Considering that Napoleon has most likely spread the ideals of the French Revolution throughout Western to Central Europe.
Merci beaucoup SoGal et Napoleon. For those in UK drip fed on BBC kids TV history clips and Ladybird history books, this stuff was still good to see again, even when you were not getting it the first time. I gave a presentation aged eleven at school on this stuff, so there was a bit of "come on they said that", but you got there in the end. Good luck with Sharpe. As I said before, one is in my family home town Keighley (Keith Lee). It reminded me of events in Manchester called Peterloo Massacre. I really wish you would see something on this. There is a film you could watch on patreon. I think it would give context of century leading to WW1. Keep showing your good side. Only one generation back my uncle was POW in Italy and there was no food for the guards either. Captured pets got eaten (close your ears Scarlett). He was moved by Germans to Silesia and got out of a POW coal mine through eastern front and got home to UK covered in sores from eating dead animals to survive. War is always nasty as WW1 will really show. Note even in WW1 it is said that reason for Russian collapse and then the revolution was down to running out of horse fodder.
Great point about watching multiple sources. If you're interested in more Napoleon I'd highly recommend PBS' Peabody award winning Napoleon documentary which is currently on TH-cam. You mentioned once you'd be interested in learning more about Napoleon's personal and family life and it goes into it a lot. Doubt you'd have time to react to it but it would be awesome if you did. Keep up the good work.
The Pomeranian (often known as a Pom) is a breed of dog of the Spitz type that is named for the Pomerania region in north-west Poland and north-east Germany in Central Europe. Classed as a toy dog breed because of its small size, the Pomeranian is descended from larger Spitz-type dogs, specifically the German Spitz. It has been determined by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale to be part of the German Spitz breed; and in many countries, they are known as the Zwergspitz ("Dwarf Spitz").
I think one of my favorite quotes in history is from Voltaire, regarding the Holy Roman Empire "This body which was called, and which still calls itself, the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.” Pretty aptly describes the mess that was the Holy Roman Empire lmao
I think Napoleon's plan of cutting of their communications was a brilliant idea since he didnt have enough forces to fight them directly since he lost so many troops in the countless battles. The only reason his plan didnt work was because of spies and betrayal. Who knows how it wouldve played out if the allies had no clue about the situation of Paris.
The Queens uncle had beaten one of his servant girls to death which caused a public outcry, and as he was above the law they were forced to make him king of Hanover.
The Danish then controlled Norway, along with Iceland and Greenland, Sweden had under their control, Finland, both very different to how they are now, especially in their relations to Europe and the geopolitical climate
I wonder why Sweden gets such a prominent place in this version when there were so many other smaller nations involved. Bavaria, for instance, or Saxony. I'm not trying to dismiss Sweden's involvement in the Napoleonic wars, but putting them on equal footing with Russia, Austria, Prussia and Great Britain is a little weird.
Well thats probably exactly why. Sweden was already a big nation, an empire, (and not just a land like saxony) and also lead by one of napoleons generals.
Sogal, here is a testimony from one of my mother's friends' grandfather who witness a true decapitation by guillotine in early 20th Century: Back then when the criminal was a public enemy number 1 kind, people could actually buy seats to witness the execution but that stopped soon after that event. So he thought he could with some friends have a laugh after a criminal's execution. Turns out he got in fact ill after witnessing the "guillotine's effectiveness", shall we say... He threw up for 24 hours after the event and said he didn't want to witness that kind of thing ever again. Let"s just say that he got humbled and never wanted to laugh after criminal executions anymore... So being disgusted by that isn't new by any stretch of imagination. About St Helena, climate is very humid and terrible there, especially at Longwood cottage where Nap was. Even simple playing cards were sweating out water...
As for female rulers sure you have plenty. In Denmark our most famous and most powerful ruler was our current Queen and monarchs namesake Margrethe 1 born in 1353. She united all of Scandinavia and founded the Kalmar Union (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Finland and the Northern parts of Germany). Also Norway has been under danish rule for so long that they call it "400-årsnatten" (the 400 years night).
Denmark-Norway was an early modern multi-national and multi-lingual union between the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway (and the duchy of Schelswig and the duchy of Holstein in modern day Germany) between 1397 and 1814. In reality, the Danish King ruled over Norway for over 400 years, until the end of the Napoleonic war, when Norway was "given" to Sweden by the victorious powers.
Monarchs are "choosen/touched by God", so killing a King was a very dangerous thing. That shows (to all, included tour own subjects) that "they are only humans" (like everyone else), and can be dethroned...
For us, Poles, Napoleon is liberator. After partition of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, at the end of XVIII, Poland disappeared from map of Europe, many Poles migrate to west, France, Italy, and joined Napoleon army becoming one of the most loyal troops in his service, many serving in his Imperial Guard . After defeating Austira, Prussia and Russia Napoleon created Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 - giving us our country back. Maybe it was a puppet state, but for us it was freedom. In 1808 at the battle of Somosierra in Spain, Napoleon was stopped by heavily defended mountain pass, he was told it was impossible to capture it in frontal charge, he answered "Leave it to the Poles. For them, nothing is impossible" and more than 100 Polish cavalrymen crying "Forward, you sons of dogs, the Emperor is watching" charged into spanish cannon fire, capturing all 4 batteries in 7 minutes. Poles were present with Napoleon almost form begining to the very end. Marshal Poniatowski was only foreign general given Marshal title by Napoleon. Even after coalition forces took Paris, Poles in his Imperial Guard remain loyal to him and some of them went with him to exile on Elba then back to France till Waterloo. Napoleon is even mention in our National Anthem, written during Napoleon campaing in Italy in 1797, when first Polish Legions were formed. We always keep Napoleon in high regard, the hero that gave back our freedom - quite contrary to the view of the whole of Europe.
There is a documentary film, with acting scenes. All in all, the German king was initially a procrastinator. What if he turns against Napoleon? in between was a mediator who saw the chance for confrontation. There was a rain contact between Germany and Russia. When Napoleon said to an Austrian ally, what are the French doing, I sacrificed more Germans than French soldiers! At that moment the allies replied, I am German! From there, the tide began to turn. The German king announced reforms and co-determination. Every citizen was put under arms. The Austrian uniforms recolored in black. From then on, Napoleon called them black bandits.
I know that in Britain at least Napoleon was very popular among the working classes because he was seen as an alternative to the oppressive monarchies of Europe. After his defeat peace was negotiated on a boat because it was feared if he stepped foot in Britain there would be a revolution so to prevent civil unrest he couldn't be killed.
The working classes were at the very most divided on it. The amount of propaganda pumped out after Trafalgar and the constant fighting against France during the wars in Canada, the revolution and then the peninsular wars had a crushing effect.
Norway's been a unified nation since 872. However, in 1397 something called the Kalmar Union formed (Norway had beeen in a union with Denmark since 1380), with Norway, Sweden and Denmark forming the union. Sweden left in 1523, leaving a weakened Norway with Denmark. The union between Denmark and Norway lasted until 1814, until we were given away as a prize to Sweden and that lasted until 1905, when we finally regained our independence after 525 years of foreign oppression.
Well maybe I'm wrong but if you leave a token force in a city such as Paris it will last for some days fighting any army. Since sieging any city takes time if the defenders have enough fortifications or have fortified themselves with makeshift defenses enough. So I'm assuming Napoleon wanted to cut communication lines and supply lines, replenishing his own troops and maybe surround the allied troops that are still sieging Paris, that or make the allied armies retreat (thinking that Paris is well defended) seeing that Napoleon plans to cut their troops off, to fight him off whilst he himself just runs faster to cut their communication lines before the battle. Oversimplified implies that the city threw open the gates or basically welcomed the arrival of the allies with very little opposition, which yeah.... That was pretty much the end for Napoleon on that war.
And I assume that those small amount of soldiers in Paris couldn't do much if most of the population of Paris was against having a fight occur against the allies in their city.
Napoleone Buonaparte ( not Napoleon Bonaparte ) was born i n Corsica few years after the island passed from Repubblica di Genova ( Genoa republic ) to France. His family has his origin in Toscana ( Tuscany ).. His mother was Letizia Ramorino from Pisa. His mother language ( the same of his brothers Giuseppe, Luciano and his sister Paolina ) was italian.
The reason they couldn't kill or imprison him is because he was a monarch. Once the Pope declared him a monarch, he had to be treated as a monarch and monarchs were not killed or imprisoned ever.
Queens in (Western) Europe: it all goes back to the fall of the Roman Empire, and a tribe (Salii) was allied to the Franks when they invaded France. The Franks adopted the Salian law, that prohibited women to be clan leaders. This law then passed on to Frank dinasties (e.g. Carolingians) and some French dinasties (e.g. Spanish Bourbons). England was invaded by the Saxons (+Angles, Jutes and other folks), so the law wasn't applied there. Henry III of England disputed that France was Frank, not Salian, so Salian law could not be applied, giving him a maternal-line claim to the French crown. Other European countries that have dinasties not related to the Frank-Salians do allow queens (e.g. Isabel I of Castille).
Oversimplied takes the history in a not so serious way,with non stop joking,but yes,they do go more on the overall picture,which is good of course,but with very little detail. Its ok,but if i had to chose one,i would chose epic history.If you do them both,you get a good overal and detailed picture,which I guess is the ultimate option.
To put it simple, why they did treat Napoleon relatively well, is not as some sugest because he was a "monarch", because they never recognized it. But Napoleon was the champion of the poor the middle class, and that applies even in the enemy countries, so they didn't want to have him shoot, that could have sparked another revolution, just the shooting of Marshal Ney was already the first nail in the coffin of the restored monarchy
Denmark-Norway was one country before and during the Napoleonic Wars. It wouldn't be till after the war that Denmark (on the losing side) would give Norway away to Sweden (on the winning side). Norway wouldn't become completely independent until 1905 after an independence referendum.
In reality, Napoleon advanced before the battle of Paris towards Saint Dizier were he beat a Russian Army, and try to cut their comunications, Napoleon had only 30,000 soldiers with him, but if Carnot and Augereau reached him he will have 120,000. For the defense of Paris Napoleon left 56,000 soldiers under Marmont, who if wasn't for his personal ego, would had defended Paris, instead of asking via Talleyrand to the allies to move on Paris.
Norway was part of the kingdom of Denmark at this time. As for the acceptance of women in power, that's a bit of a weird thing. Plenty of European countries had a female head of state at one time or another (Mary 1, Elizabeth 1 and Anne in England in the 16th and 17th Century. Isabelle of Castille in the 15th Century, Marie-Theresa of Austria and Catherine of Russia in the 18th Century). But it never changed anything about the position of women in society. Each of these women was a strong ruler, yet none of them questioned the general consensus that women were inferior to men.)
53:00 you were partly right with the red one. it actually is just the austrian empire which existed for much longer than the austro-hungarian one hungary was only set "equal" with austria in 1867 (50 years before ww1) and up until then you would refer to the nation as either austria/austrian empire/ or habsburg monarchy also it was europe's second largest country after the russian empire until 1918 haha
why the king's soldiers joined napoleon ? To repay the abyssal debt of France following its armament for 20 years, the king decided to cut military spending by 70 percent, and to reduce the pensions of soldiers by 50. Then the king was very unpopular for them.
Sorry this one took so long to get out!
Thanks for watching! Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media, and join my Discord & Patreon:
❤️ Patreon: www.patreon.com/sogal_yt?fan_landing=true
🐕 Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/
🏀 Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT
⚽️ Facebook Page: facebook.com/SoGal-104043461744742
🏖 Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/238616921241608
💥 Discord: discord.gg/amWWc6jcC2
React to potential history's Operation Barbarossa series
SoGal! It is great to see you develop as a learning creature, and having fun doing it!
xi jinping is also a chinese dictator but he only imprisoned 10,000,000 Uighurs not killing them. Not all dictators, emperors or kings are genocidal maniacs like Hitler, you white Americans
Denmark and Norway was in a union until the end of the Napoleonic wars when Norway was granted independence for like 3 minutes before Sweden invaded and formed a new union with Norway
Untill 1905 when norway realy started to exist
@@eventyraren Norway have existed since 872. And the Union with Sweden was very different from the union with Denmark.
They weren't granted independence. More like they didn't want to be in union with Sweden, which was part of the deal Bernadotte got for joining the War of the Six Coalition, and declared independence in response. They almost won the war against Sweden too, but eventually Sweden compromised that if the Norwegians accepted the Swedish King as their monarch, then they could have the same sort of set up the UK has now, where they could govern themselves, but Sweden dictated foreign policy and other national level decisions.
@@eventyraren Norway's older than Sweden by more than a century. We've existed since 872 while Sweden existed at the earliest since 970.
@@Onnarashi Yup! That is true.. Norway is the 1st of the bunch to be a Christian kingdom. Famous ex-Viking turned Saint. I believe he hung around Iceland a lot as well.
I've always had the assumption for the Elba situation, that heads of state don'r want to execute other heads of state as it makes a bad precedent. After all, who knows when you might get overthrown in your turn, and want to avoid any nasy consequences (eh, Carlos?)
Thoughts of Saddam Hussein went through my head during that part of the video. The Coalition beat his army, beat it good, but they let him stay in power under severe sanctions, inspectors, and no-fly zones. Again doing so turned out to be a mistake, as he battled the Kurds to keep the nation together, and in general, Iraq had no real plan forward with him fortified at the top. So then you get to the second Iraq invasion. Most people argue it should have been done right the 1st time around. But they made this staggered approach to show respect to the Iraqi people. Especially after the disaster, the Soviets went thru when they got rid of the Afghanistan leader in 1980. Or Napoleon and the Spanish Kings. So it goes both ways. You can't win, lol.
Well, that would have established a bad precedent in more than one way.
First, the whole justification of the first coalitions against France was that they were fighting against revolutionary savages who had their king and nobility killed pointlessly. If they went and killed Napoleon at that point, they would have basically told to all their people (and, more importantly), to all their veterans, that they hadn't actually had a good reason to go to war, and that all the death and and all the defeats leading up to that point were actually because everybody got a bad case of Revolution panic.
Secondly, in 1804, Napoleon *had* been anointed as Emperor. In the aristocratic world, the anointment practically meant that he had a divine mandate to rule his country. You know, the same divine mandate that every other king in Europe at the time had. None of his enemies wanted to be the one to set the precedent of killing another head of state who had the divine mandate, because that would have been a senseless escalation for future wars.
They didn't want to create a Martyr
Quick observation. That map at the end, with the fragmented German states, and Austria in red. It also showed the Ottoman (Turkish ) empire in the balkans. That had changed by WWI too.
Regarding Karl Johan... Karl was a traditional name of Swedish kings, so that makes sense. As for Johan, Bernadotte's first name in French was Jean (John) and Johan is just the Swedish version of John. Historically it was much more common to translate names between languages, whereas today we generally leave names unchanged.
Your comments on repetition and learning are spot on. You get told stuff at school, you watch a film, read a book see a documentary, and the picture builds. It also gives you the view from different angles, I knew very little of the napoleonic wars at the start of your campaign to learn. Now I know a lot more!. Thank you for that.
The first known female ruler was Kubaba. She was Sumerian and ruled Sumer around 2400BC. Here are some of the nations that had quite a few and can trace female rulers (Queen Regnant) throughout its history (including land they ruled that is now within the modern-day borders): Egypt (20), Nigeria (18), Spain (16), UK (15), USA (13, Hawaii), and Japan (12).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant
30:22 to answer your question, yes :) Pomeranians are a German dog breed also called „Zwergspitz“.
In France, Napoleon wasn’t see as a dictator by as the saviour of the revolutionary France. After the final fall of Napoleon, there was a weird feeling in France that still is around everyone in France
The romantic feeling, the nostalgia of this era is still heavy on modern France. There is an incredible book about it that explain this
It’s call “la confession d’un enfant du siècle”
43:58 the narrator suggesting that his escape was smooth and casual is not really true, Napoleon really fled the island and the fact that Napoleon didn’t get captured was quite miraculous, there were plenty of British ships on the Mediterranean that could have control and intercept him.
I'm from Leipzig & 1 of the biggest tourist magnets of the city is the monument of the battle of nations by the way
OMG Best Reaction to this video ever!
Your attitude and optimism called me here, and i am not going to leave anytime soon!
51:45. The only significant difference between that 1815 Europe map and the 1914 Europe map. Are that all the individual nations within the Germany geographic area were united together into the single and very powerful nation of Germany. The individual nations within the Italy geographic area had done the same to form the single nation of Italy. And all the Northern part of the Ottman Empire. (The territory in beige, seen in the bottom right of the map, just below Austria-(Hungary) in red). Had been liberated from Ottoman rule into the Slavic nations of Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Montenegro and Serbia.
Wanna correct. Romania and Albania are not slavic)
44:40: Monarchs don't like to shoot monarchs. They don't want someone to get the idea of shooting themself.
The famous Admiral Cochrane, in charge of the Chilian Navy (and just defeated the Spanish forces in Chile) had made plans to rescue Napoleon and bring him to South America, with an idea to set up a new empire in South America. When they tried to implement the plan Napoleon was in his final sickness and it was abandoned.
Oh finally, I have to recommend you Goya, and his "The Disasters of War" series, being a Spanish artist, he captures first-hand on the human, intimate aspect of the peninsula war
A really important point though at the end is the idea of nationalism (legal and economic standardization and centralisation) and national unity Napoleon's tours through Europe brought. This was why in the 19th century nationalism really became a thing and why during those decades Italian and German states became united. This process is called Risorgimento in Italy (1820-1870), maybe you could check something out on it to comprehend this Central European space in history.
The Holy Roman Empire had been dissolved during the Napoleonic Wars. The individual German states became fully independent, but they remained loosely joined in a new organization formed after the wars, the German Confederation.
Learning is fun. It's good to share the journey with you :-)
Oddly enough Austria also had queens with Maria Terrea (the moyher of Marie Antoinnette) being easily the best known.
Although a literal war had to be fought before Maria Teresa was accepted as a ruler.
the Royal Navy was quite large at the point of the Napoleonic was so I discovered a series that goes through the Royal Navy at different eras. The first episode is The King's Ships-(1500-1599), Wooden Walls- (1600-1805) and Steam Steel and Dreadnoughts-(1806-1918)
Even vehicles have serious problems in Russia at certain times of the year. This is one reason why the German troops in WW2 struggled so much in Autumn and Winter. In autumn its the mud, in winter its the snow and cold. Many times vehicles had to be abandoned entirely and the troops were back to walking again.
48:50 That "photo", or painting was painting is called "28th Regiment at Quatre Bras", as the name implies is not from the Battle of Waterloo, but from Battle of Quatre Bras fought two days before Waterloo. It was painted by well renowned Elizabeth Thompson, aka Lady Butler in 1875. You should check out her work, they are fascinating considering she is a women in late 19th century painting about war. She also has a famous painting about Waterloo.
The one thing that is missing about the explanations about nobility, is that the titles are inherited, and often come with many legal privileges(Latin, meaning "private law").
For instance, in the Ancien regime(before the French revolution), non-nobles could only rarely become officers, no matter how rich they were. As we have seen in the series of French Marshals, there were a few that only were sergeants before the revolution. Even in England, regiments like the Life Guards didn't admit private troopers who wasn't gentlemen(landowners) until 1788. One gentleman in the Lifeguards was so miffed at this that he uttered: "Are we to become a regiment of cheese mongers?"
So, even if the US has wealthy families, and wealth that goes down through generations, there is no formal system giving them privileges other than what money can buy. Though wealth may be inherited, it is often lost within 3 generations of being made.
Fun fact : England and Portugal have been allies since 1373, pretty much uninterrupted. It's one of the oldest alliances still in effect, and one of the longest in history.
We even sent an envoy in WW2 just to go, "Hey sooo, we're not saying we're actually _calling in_ the old alliance, buuuut... We're still good, right?"
"Yeah, we're still good. Just say when you need us, but we're a little preoccupied right now..?"
"Oh right yeah, Francisco Franco on your doorstep and all, no worries, just checking in."
Norway has cycled through being independent, being ruled by the Danish, and being ruled by Sweden. This was the Danish part of the cycle. Fun fact: all three countries were unified in a personal union known as the Kalmar Union in the 1400s.
Monarchs felt that treating monarchs badly was a bad idea in that the masses could get the idea that they could kill or imprison kings.
They were kinda late to that particular party, but I guess monarchs really weren't keeping up with their times.
There's been a few successful female rulers in Europe, I can name a couple without needing to Google them. Elizabeth I of Britain 16th century, Catherine the great of Russia 18th century and I know Austria has had several queens but can't remember their names.
Bernodotte's primary ambition was to take Norway from Denmark and add it to Sweden. As a result Sweden's contribution to the 7th coallition was mostly artillery since it took fewer casualties than infantry or cavalry.
You could become nobility early on through lobbying basically.
The first many nobles would rule a larger mansion with serfs working on the land. However some people were needed for war, and if you were a good caretaker, a good military leader or had some specific skill another noble needed, you could be promoted to a noble.
Around late 1600's there were a lot of reforms, and that is where you get the English Lords, German Barons and the French counterpart, making the noble class become very static.
41:30 they 100% mentioned this in the waterloo video
Over an hour reacting, you rule, thank you i hope you are getting an extreme number subscribers cause u deserve it, much love from Norway :D
The house of Bernadotte is still the monarchy family in Sweden.
Almost all Swedish Kings are named Carl (Karl), derived off Charles, which is derived off Charlemagne.
Johan is derived off Johannes, derived ultimativally from Hebrew Yehochanan.
Bernadotte took maybe the most generic name in Karl Johan, as a way to get accepted in Sweden. Fun fact some mushrooms he liked have been named Karl Johan after Bernadotte
Johan is also a derivative of his birth name Jean, or John if you want the English derivative.
@@andrewshaw1571 Jean, John, Johan, Jens, Janusz, Janus, Johannes
It is all the same xd
Denmark/ Norway. Scandinavia has a long and complex history, each of the countries have been in the ascendency at different times. It might be worth looking at a simplified history covering them! Starting with the vikings....
You should react to "History of the world I guess". It's 20 minutes long and it's pretty cool. You'll learn a lot and the guy behind it is really funny! I'm sure you'll enjoy it! :) (Excuse me for my english, it's not my main language)
so...not the Mel Brooks film?
Female monarchs were very uncommon but happened elsewhere too. In the UK's case Victoria became Queen due to an unbelievable lack of other heirs. A lot of the extended royal family had died or not had children, and was on the verge of being wiped out. Victoria was basically the only choice left who wasn't Catholic. But then she had a LOT of children and grandchildren who became monarchs or consorts all across Europe and there's not been a similar issue since (if anything, even the staunchest monarchist (which i am not) has to admit there's probably too many princes and princesses these days, and in fact in the UK only children in the direct line of succession get the royal titles).
every time i hear Boccherini I think of "The Lady Killers"
Classic comedy, and a fabulous cast: Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers, Herbert Lom, etc. SoGal would enjoy it, I think.
II am very impressed with your interest and how quickly you seem to learn, well done!
Norway was under Danish control back then, then it went to be under Swedish control afterwads before becoming an totally independent nation.
Well yes and no, its true Norway and Sweden was in a Union from 1814 to 1905, but the union between Norway and Sweden was very different than the union between Norway and Denmark, Denmark had full control over Norway, Sweden had no say in domestic Norwegian politics, The only thing Sweden decided for Norway was who the King was and foreign policity.
The main reasons for Russia to turn against Napoleon was Poland being independent again, then came the pressure from Napoleon to abolish the Serfdom in Russia, and finally the excuse who the Tsar made to the Nobility was, who they could not trade their silk clothes from Britain anymore, but that was most to get support to break with Napoleon, and to seek an alliance with Britain.
It wasnt Poland. I mean Poland sucked but at the time, it was jsut adding insult to injury.
As annoying as Poland is, the biggest blow was inability to trade with Britain which was ruining Russia's economy and making its currency tank by 50%, also since Russia was trading with England for weapons it was ruining its military potential since France was either unable or unwilling (or both) to replace England as a trading partner.
Alliance with (or rather subserviance) to France also meant Russia wasnt allowed to make independant decisions especially regarding wars it wanted to fight.
@@vermilion6966 Literally Poland was the issue, again, and Russia was warring against Persia and the Ottomans, (friends of Napoleon by the ways). Also Russia was so feudal who the currency was only for deals with other powers, and the elites, with little to no impact on the common proletariat who literally was enslaved.
To be fair some of us are learning along with you. Some are more knowledgeable for sure but we are all learning.
While Elba was a nice prison (heck, he was even there on sort of an 'honor' system) it was still a prison. And remember: A) Napoleon couldn't visit his remaining family B) Forget about the pension from the French King, that isn't happening and C) While it doesn't seem a big deal to us, and maybe in hindsight...but "Emperor of Elba" was hardly a Title of respect. D) I'll give the allies credit for not really punishing his son or wife, but besides being innocent of Napoleon's decisions, the fact that his second wife was the daughter of the Emperor of Austria, probably made a big difference at least in the "Granting of Noble Titles" sense. People speculate why he wasn't just killed but it seems there were 3 reasons for that. 1) Don't set a Precedent for killing Kings or Emperors. 2) Don't make him a martyr and lastly, 3) There was some respect and admiration for the guy, plus he had treated them with some honor when he was on top.
8:22, The Finnish war is still seen as the darkest moment in Swedish history.
18:04, This really is an oversimplification. The king was overthrown, but not immediately replaced with Bernadotte. Karl XIII served for a few years in-between.
Karl and Gustav are the two main names for kings here in Sweden.
Also fun fact: 1814 marks the last year Sweden was at war. We have currently had 207 years of peace! (Ignore our involvement in Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc).
@@NorthonBruce it's almost not talked about at all in Sweden. There is a shame about that era in our history.
The French people liked Napoleon most of the time, and the other monarch did not want a martyr to be glorified.
Many of the nobles and the military liked Napoleon more than the re-instated King, so they give him the nice deal to prevent chaos.
The class system is the same in many ways, it's around wealth. And wealth does get inherited as well. So America isn't that different actually.
Please, read Max Weber's theory in social classe, and you realize the stupid that, what you had say.
There isn't much inherited wealth in America.
@@-scrim Some states don't tax any inheritance, even if in millions.
Regarding female rulers in Britain and historical female rulers in general, you should do some looking into Boudicca, who led a revolt of the Britons against the Roman occupation of Britain.
And she was absolutely horrendous
33:56 i wanted to comment on what you said about « turning point » in history, especially on the example of the so called D Day, which wasn’t actually a « turning point » as everyone think in America and in the Western world. It’s a complete constructed myth (briefly, all the pride should have gone to the Russian but it was impossible to say so during the Cold War, and Reagan seeking for reelection thought it was better to celebrate D Day than Pearl Harbor (which was a defeat obviously), that’s the real beginning of the myth. And also this narrative fits perfectly with the bliblical idea of « good » versus « evil » the American governements (and people) always like to express when it comes to war (even though no one really thought that Nazis Germany was evil at this point since nobody knew about the exterminations camps. In an pool targeting american soldiers before D Day, it turned out 18% said they wanted Germany defeated while 70 % wanted Japan completely destroyed) The real reason behind D day and the British/Canadian invasion was to prevent bolchevism to be widespread in Europe (which would have happen)
The myth is now very imbedded in Western societies especially thanks to Hollywood, but also by official narratives. That’s why you should be very careful with « epic turning point in history » ;)
But my comment seems to be censured by TH-cam (or it was too long?), hope you can read this anyway :D
Stalin was begging for D-Day. It helped his offense from the East. We definitely need to know that the Soviets lost 20 million dead, but D-Day was still the biggest sea invasion in history, and it could have been a disaster.
We also forget the Italian campaign.
@@martincook9795 the Italian campaign indeed, but also all what happened in North Africa before etc …
@@martincook9795 Even if there was no D day or Italian invasion and Hitler had 100% of his army fighting the soviets Germany still would have lost the soviets didn’t need D day to win it just helped with distracting some of the German forces.
The Soviet Union by mid-late 1942 had secured their win in the war and by this time there was no way Germany could turn it around.
@melkor: yes, but it would have taken longer and been more difficult, with more losses. If no d day allies would have had Soviets from the East and a slow and turgid attack in Italy ( and partisans in various places). I repeat, Stalin begged for an attack in the West. I have not down played the Soviets role in the war, but this was an alliance who needed each other … until they didn’t.
UK has women head of states for centuries (Monarchies are not elected however)... Women Voting who represents them in Parliament has only been around since 1918. They joined "nobility and aristocrats" via Representation of the People Act 1918. In 1928, every woman and man no matter of status was allowed to vote.
To me this is very late, However, Women voting around the world was generally late to be implemented and many states have only just allowed such actions due to western pressure. I mean USA is still yet to have a female president to this day.
I think it might be more of a German maybe also Italian thing that Kings should only be men. Cause Austria had their famous queen ruler. Russia has had theirs also. Byzantine Empire had woman rulers back in the day. But when Byzantine did have Irene as a ruler, the Franks did throw a big fit about it. So it seems more to me that it might be more of a German thing. Throwing in Italy because I can't think of any women rulers there either. Spain on the other hand had a few influential queens. But I am not sure if they were ever sole rulers.
Bernadotte becoming the Crown Prince of Sweden and taking the name Karl Johan was in the Road to Leipzig video.
Yes Nobility is a family status, but in the case of Napoleon, he was what today we could consider "working class", his father had a lawyer degree in Genoa, and for the standards of the republic of Genoa that was "nobility", of course not in France.
you don't kill emperors/monarchs otherwise you set a precedent that it is ok to do so and not only to you lend validity to the French Revolutionaries but you also damage the image of Monarchs being gods' choice and so far above the common man that laws don't apply to them. basically kings need to be treated special to stay special in the eyes of everyone.
Unless they are king Charles I of England
Not just that but also this particular ideology has been in practice for a long time so most of them (the other monarchs and really people in general) did not see that as an option
With the breakup of the Kalmar Union 1397-1523 (Denmark, Norway, Sweden in union), where Sweden broke off, the King of Denmark remained King of Norway.
Denmark was officially The Kingdom of Denmark-Norway from 1523-1814, as the Danish Monarchy ruled both areas.
Norway was ment to be given to Sweden in 1814 when the Danish surrended, but the Norwegians fought back and the Danish and others supported the new Norwegian independence movement.
Many would rather see and independent Norway than Sweden becoming a Swedish Empire again, and thus Norway got its constitution and national day the 17th of May 1814, while keeping good relations with Denmark.
Denmark kept the Norwegian Colonies of Faeroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland under the Danish Crown, where they still sit today. Faroese and Icelandic is way closer to "Nynorsk" than Danish, with Icelandic almost being intelligible with Old Norse
Norway and Denmark were in a union at this time! They effectively operated as a single country with the seat of power in Denmark!
55:35 It was in 1861 when Napoleon III, the last Emperor of France (and Napoleon's nephew), arranged his uncles body to be moved back to France. Napoleon is also buried next he's son whom died in 1832, aged just 21, he had no children and was barred to learn French or do anything French after he's father abdication when he and he's mother moved to Austria.
You ought to do mediaeval history, which I find really interesting. The Ottoman's push towards Vienna and how the Polish winged Hussars rose to fame in the siege of Vienna 1683; Vlad Dracul's rise to prominence; the Hungarian entities and so on. Keep up the good work though! Cheers!
The Kings and Generals channel is a good source. Cheers!
The reason Queen Victoria didn't succeed to the throne of Hanover is that Hanover had different succession laws to England---although the kingdoms had been ruled by the same ruler for a while, they were still separate kingdoms with separate succession laws. So after the death of William IV, different people ended up being the legal successor in the two kingdoms.
In Hanover, the basic rule was that the throne goes to the oldest male son of the monarch, or the oldest brother of the monarch if the monarch has no sons, and so on (going to progressively more distant male relatives). But it would always go to a man.
In England the rule was slightly different: the throne goes to the oldest male son of the monarch, but if the monarch has no male sons, it can also go to the monarch's eldest daughter. Only if the monarch had no living children at all could the throne be passed on to relatives which are not direct descendants of the monarch.
Both laws favour males over females---under the English law, a younger son would still succeed first rather than an older daughter. But obviously the Hanover law is a bit stricter.
The Hanoverian form of the law was older (it goes back to the Salic Law, which was the law code of the Franks who took over the areas of modern France and Germany after the collapse of the Roman Empire), but the major European monarchies had tended to adjust it to a more English-like system over time. This probably didn't have much to do with changing attitudes to women; rather it was due to the fact that the Hanoverian rule tended to result in situations where the legal successor would often be a fairly distant relative, without much in common politically with the previous king. This could easily result in the succession being disputed, which might lead to war. Allowing daughters to succeed as a last resort meant that the succession would stay within the family more often, and the dynasty would be more stable.
BTW, yeah, ignore people who expect you to have a photographic memory. Everyone needs repeated reminders to learn anything in the long term.
Europe is formed by it's inheritence laws. Those laws had arguably a greater impact on Europe as did wars. It might be an interesting subject to get into.
Actually, I don't remember it being mentioned in the other videos if Bernadotte changed his name, either. But it wasn't unheard of for a new king to pick a royal name that wasn't the same name that was given to him at birth.
George VI first name was Albert but chose to be George when he became King because Albert was seen as too German.
After a political marriage Denmark and Norway became one kingdom of Denmark-Norway but Denmark was definitely in charge
During the 7th coalition, it's believed that Napoleon could have won the Battle of Waterloo if only Ney did not make those stupid cavalry charges. He thought the English were retreating when in fact, they were simply maneuvering. So he ordered a cavalry charge without infantry support. It was very very very very stupid of Ney. That action of him is so stupid that when asked on who are Napoleon's worst marshals in websites like Quora, Ney is often mentioned and it's because of that stupid move.
Also, Napoleon instead put Davout as a minister of war in Paris instead of utilizing him in battle. Oversimplified did not mention Grouchey here. But here is Grouchey's role: He is to pursue Blucher as much as possible. He and his men could hear the fighting but he remained focused on his mission to find and pursue the Prussians which is pretty stupid too.
If only Davout was put in place of either Ney or Grouchey, it's certain that Davout would have done his job right. He wouldn't charge a cavalry without thinking it through especially when the battle is still far from over. During the Battle of Auerstedt, he was outnumbered and there were cavalry charges sent to him by the Prussians. Those were surprise attacks. Davout's men formed squares to repel the cavalry charges. And during Auerstedt, Bernadotte did not participate in the battle despite just being nearby. So with these in mind, they would have been déjà vu for Davout since he already experienced those same situations.
I admire Napoleon. He is a genius. But is still prone to being stupid. He thinks that he knows everything and that he's the best at everything related to battles. But he mostly sucks so much when it comes to choosing the men for the jobs.
P.S. I guess I am just too disappointed with how Napoleon handled his last battle that I mentioned the word "stupid" 6 times in my comment.
Even if Napoleon had won at Waterloo, he would have lost somewhere else, as Austria and Russia were also mobilizing against him. His invasion of Russia cost him too much in the cavalry and artillery department. Those branches demanded intensive time and training that could not be made up quickly. And Napoleon's health was failing.
@@auerstadt06 true. It is just a matter of attrition. But then again, if the French managed to hold out for much longer, it could still change the fate of Europe and of the world. The populace of those kingdoms/empires might eventually realize that their monarchs are so obsessed with putting Napoleon down. Considering that Napoleon has most likely spread the ideals of the French Revolution throughout Western to Central Europe.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff!
Well you did start off wanting to learn more about world geography. Your just taking the scenic route to that goal 😊
Merci beaucoup SoGal et Napoleon. For those in UK drip fed on BBC kids TV history clips and Ladybird history books, this stuff was still good to see again, even when you were not getting it the first time. I gave a presentation aged eleven at school on this stuff, so there was a bit of "come on they said that", but you got there in the end.
Good luck with Sharpe. As I said before, one is in my family home town Keighley (Keith Lee). It reminded me of events in Manchester called Peterloo Massacre. I really wish you would see something on this. There is a film you could watch on patreon. I think it would give context of century leading to WW1.
Keep showing your good side.
Only one generation back my uncle was POW in Italy and there was no food for the guards either. Captured pets got eaten (close your ears Scarlett). He was moved by Germans to Silesia and got out of a POW coal mine through eastern front and got home to UK covered in sores from eating dead animals to survive. War is always nasty as WW1 will really show.
Note even in WW1 it is said that reason for Russian collapse and then the revolution was down to running out of horse fodder.
Great point about watching multiple sources. If you're interested in more Napoleon I'd highly recommend PBS' Peabody award winning Napoleon documentary which is currently on TH-cam. You mentioned once you'd be interested in learning more about Napoleon's personal and family life and it goes into it a lot. Doubt you'd have time to react to it but it would be awesome if you did. Keep up the good work.
Popes and Kings change their names usualy (but they are also a lot of exceptions) when they get crowned... Is a sign of their "change"
The Pomeranian (often known as a Pom) is a breed of dog of the Spitz type that is named for the Pomerania region in north-west Poland and north-east Germany in Central Europe. Classed as a toy dog breed because of its small size, the Pomeranian is descended from larger Spitz-type dogs, specifically the German Spitz. It has been determined by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale to be part of the German Spitz breed; and in many countries, they are known as the Zwergspitz ("Dwarf Spitz").
Russia tactics with letting French troops deep inside their territory to stretch supply was used again in WW2.
I think one of my favorite quotes in history is from Voltaire, regarding the Holy Roman Empire
"This body which was called, and which still calls itself, the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.”
Pretty aptly describes the mess that was the Holy Roman Empire lmao
I think Napoleon's plan of cutting of their communications was a brilliant idea since he didnt have enough forces to fight them directly since he lost so many troops in the countless battles. The only reason his plan didnt work was because of spies and betrayal. Who knows how it wouldve played out if the allies had no clue about the situation of Paris.
learning history by playing paradox games worked for me. would be great to see you play EU4 or CK3
The Queens uncle had beaten one of his servant girls to death which caused a public outcry, and as he was above the law they were forced to make him king of Hanover.
The Danish then controlled Norway, along with Iceland and Greenland, Sweden had under their control, Finland, both very different to how they are now, especially in their relations to Europe and the geopolitical climate
I wonder why Sweden gets such a prominent place in this version when there were so many other smaller nations involved. Bavaria, for instance, or Saxony. I'm not trying to dismiss Sweden's involvement in the Napoleonic wars, but putting them on equal footing with Russia, Austria, Prussia and Great Britain is a little weird.
Well thats probably exactly why. Sweden was already a big nation, an empire, (and not just a land like saxony) and also lead by one of napoleons generals.
Sogal, here is a testimony from one of my mother's friends' grandfather who witness a true decapitation by guillotine in early 20th Century: Back then when the criminal was a public enemy number 1 kind, people could actually buy seats to witness the execution but that stopped soon after that event. So he thought he could with some friends have a laugh after a criminal's execution. Turns out he got in fact ill after witnessing the "guillotine's effectiveness", shall we say... He threw up for 24 hours after the event and said he didn't want to witness that kind of thing ever again. Let"s just say that he got humbled and never wanted to laugh after criminal executions anymore...
So being disgusted by that isn't new by any stretch of imagination.
About St Helena, climate is very humid and terrible there, especially at Longwood cottage where Nap was. Even simple playing cards were sweating out water...
The royal family's surname is still Bernadotte. Karl Johan (Charles John) are first names.
As for female rulers sure you have plenty. In Denmark our most famous and most powerful ruler was our current Queen and monarchs namesake Margrethe 1 born in 1353. She united all of Scandinavia and founded the Kalmar Union (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Finland and the Northern parts of Germany).
Also Norway has been under danish rule for so long that they call it "400-årsnatten" (the 400 years night).
Denmark-Norway was an early modern multi-national and multi-lingual union between the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway (and the duchy of Schelswig and the duchy of Holstein in modern day Germany) between 1397 and 1814. In reality, the Danish King ruled over Norway for over 400 years, until the end of the Napoleonic war, when Norway was "given" to Sweden by the victorious powers.
Another great episode 👍
Monarchs are "choosen/touched by God", so killing a King was a very dangerous thing. That shows (to all, included tour own subjects) that "they are only humans" (like everyone else), and can be dethroned...
For us, Poles, Napoleon is liberator. After partition of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, at the end of XVIII, Poland disappeared from map of Europe, many Poles migrate to west, France, Italy, and joined Napoleon army becoming one of the most loyal troops in his service, many serving in his Imperial Guard . After defeating Austira, Prussia and Russia Napoleon created Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 - giving us our country back. Maybe it was a puppet state, but for us it was freedom. In 1808 at the battle of Somosierra in Spain, Napoleon was stopped by heavily defended mountain pass, he was told it was impossible to capture it in frontal charge, he answered "Leave it to the Poles. For them, nothing is impossible" and more than 100 Polish cavalrymen crying "Forward, you sons of dogs, the Emperor is watching" charged into spanish cannon fire, capturing all 4 batteries in 7 minutes. Poles were present with Napoleon almost form begining to the very end. Marshal Poniatowski was only foreign general given Marshal title by Napoleon. Even after coalition forces took Paris, Poles in his Imperial Guard remain loyal to him and some of them went with him to exile on Elba then back to France till Waterloo. Napoleon is even mention in our National Anthem, written during Napoleon campaing in Italy in 1797, when first Polish Legions were formed. We always keep Napoleon in high regard, the hero that gave back our freedom - quite contrary to the view of the whole of Europe.
vive la france et vive la pologne
A shame that Poles helped Napoleon loot Spain.
There is a documentary film, with acting scenes. All in all, the German king was initially a procrastinator. What if he turns against Napoleon? in between was a mediator who saw the chance for confrontation. There was a rain contact between Germany and Russia. When Napoleon said to an Austrian ally, what are the French doing, I sacrificed more Germans than French soldiers! At that moment the allies replied, I am German! From there, the tide began to turn. The German king announced reforms and co-determination. Every citizen was put under arms. The Austrian uniforms recolored in black. From then on, Napoleon called them black bandits.
If you like pretty buildings, you should look at pics or videos of Napoleon's tomb.
I know that in Britain at least Napoleon was very popular among the working classes because he was seen as an alternative to the oppressive monarchies of Europe. After his defeat peace was negotiated on a boat because it was feared if he stepped foot in Britain there would be a revolution so to prevent civil unrest he couldn't be killed.
The working classes were at the very most divided on it. The amount of propaganda pumped out after Trafalgar and the constant fighting against France during the wars in Canada, the revolution and then the peninsular wars had a crushing effect.
Norway's been a unified nation since 872. However, in 1397 something called the Kalmar Union formed (Norway had beeen in a union with Denmark since 1380), with Norway, Sweden and Denmark forming the union. Sweden left in 1523, leaving a weakened Norway with Denmark. The union between Denmark and Norway lasted until 1814, until we were given away as a prize to Sweden and that lasted until 1905, when we finally regained our independence after 525 years of foreign oppression.
The Swedes name their kings Karl just as the French ings all became Louis (thus Louis the XVI) the French refered to the king as the Louis.
Well maybe I'm wrong but if you leave a token force in a city such as Paris it will last for some days fighting any army. Since sieging any city takes time if the defenders have enough fortifications or have fortified themselves with makeshift defenses enough. So I'm assuming Napoleon wanted to cut communication lines and supply lines, replenishing his own troops and maybe surround the allied troops that are still sieging Paris, that or make the allied armies retreat (thinking that Paris is well defended) seeing that Napoleon plans to cut their troops off, to fight him off whilst he himself just runs faster to cut their communication lines before the battle. Oversimplified implies that the city threw open the gates or basically welcomed the arrival of the allies with very little opposition, which yeah.... That was pretty much the end for Napoleon on that war.
And I assume that those small amount of soldiers in Paris couldn't do much if most of the population of Paris was against having a fight occur against the allies in their city.
Napoleone Buonaparte ( not Napoleon Bonaparte ) was born i n Corsica few years after the island passed from Repubblica di Genova ( Genoa republic ) to France. His family has his origin in Toscana ( Tuscany ).. His mother was Letizia Ramorino from Pisa. His mother language ( the same of his brothers Giuseppe, Luciano and his sister Paolina ) was italian.
The reason they couldn't kill or imprison him is because he was a monarch. Once the Pope declared him a monarch, he had to be treated as a monarch and monarchs were not killed or imprisoned ever.
I have the same cup
Queens in (Western) Europe: it all goes back to the fall of the Roman Empire, and a tribe (Salii) was allied to the Franks when they invaded France. The Franks adopted the Salian law, that prohibited women to be clan leaders. This law then passed on to Frank dinasties (e.g. Carolingians) and some French dinasties (e.g. Spanish Bourbons).
England was invaded by the Saxons (+Angles, Jutes and other folks), so the law wasn't applied there. Henry III of England disputed that France was Frank, not Salian, so Salian law could not be applied, giving him a maternal-line claim to the French crown.
Other European countries that have dinasties not related to the Frank-Salians do allow queens (e.g. Isabel I of Castille).
Oversimplied takes the history in a not so serious way,with non stop joking,but yes,they do go more on the overall picture,which is good of course,but with very little detail. Its ok,but if i had to chose one,i would chose epic history.If you do them both,you get a good overal and detailed picture,which I guess is the ultimate option.
To put it simple, why they did treat Napoleon relatively well, is not as some sugest because he was a "monarch", because they never recognized it. But Napoleon was the champion of the poor the middle class, and that applies even in the enemy countries, so they didn't want to have him shoot, that could have sparked another revolution, just the shooting of Marshal Ney was already the first nail in the coffin of the restored monarchy
Denmark in the Napoleonic period was Norway, Deenmark and Iceland, all three were for Napoleon.
Denmark-Norway was one country before and during the Napoleonic Wars. It wouldn't be till after the war that Denmark (on the losing side) would give Norway away to Sweden (on the winning side). Norway wouldn't become completely independent until 1905 after an independence referendum.
In reality, Napoleon advanced before the battle of Paris towards Saint Dizier were he beat a Russian Army, and try to cut their comunications, Napoleon had only 30,000 soldiers with him, but if Carnot and Augereau reached him he will have 120,000. For the defense of Paris Napoleon left 56,000 soldiers under Marmont, who if wasn't for his personal ego, would had defended Paris, instead of asking via Talleyrand to the allies to move on Paris.
Norway was part of the kingdom of Denmark at this time.
As for the acceptance of women in power, that's a bit of a weird thing. Plenty of European countries had a female head of state at one time or another (Mary 1, Elizabeth 1 and Anne in England in the 16th and 17th Century. Isabelle of Castille in the 15th Century, Marie-Theresa of Austria and Catherine of Russia in the 18th Century). But it never changed anything about the position of women in society. Each of these women was a strong ruler, yet none of them questioned the general consensus that women were inferior to men.)
i want to see an entire history tv series on... jimmy the Arsonist
Yeah me too!
Wikipedia has an entry "Queens Regnant" if you're interested
53:00 you were partly right with the red one. it actually is just the austrian empire which existed for much longer than the austro-hungarian one
hungary was only set "equal" with austria in 1867 (50 years before ww1) and up until then you would refer to the nation as either austria/austrian empire/ or habsburg monarchy
also it was europe's second largest country after the russian empire until 1918 haha
why the king's soldiers joined napoleon ? To repay the abyssal debt of France following its armament for 20 years, the king decided to cut military spending by 70 percent, and to reduce the pensions of soldiers by 50. Then the king was very unpopular for them.