an Extra History series that has a connection with Napoleon (it starts because of him) is the series about the empire of Brazil. The Portuguese royal family decided to flee Portugal when Napoleon's armies invaded the Iberian peninsula and settle in the colony, which was the beginning of Brazil's journey towards independence.
Hey Chris, just want to say that your videos have been a huge help to me since I’ve been struggling to find the right work. I start a new job on Monday and wanted to say thank you for your great commentary. I’d love for you to do the Extra History Crimean war it just ended
18:10 Lee's tactic at Gettysburg doesn't work because guess what? Meade went to West Point too, and he studied the same wars Lee did. He knew what was coming and prepared the correct troop movement to win the battle. Union generals as a whole get a bad rap until Grant is placed in command in the East, but most of them were either good or at least alright. I think McClellan poisoned the well of general opinion with his astounding failures. Lee was certainly a competent general and McClellan made him look like a genius. Throw in a couple other Confederate victories and now you've got a narrative of "Lee is so much better than all these useless Union generals!" But they don't deserve to all get tarred with the same brush. Edit: Also, take a shot for Chris bringing up the American Civil War on an unrelated video
Funnily enough, while Lee and Meade knew this tactic from studying Napoleon, I'm pretty damn sure Napoleon learned this tactic from studying Marlborough, who fought campaigns a century before him and was the first great Allied commander (think the early 1700s version of Ike in a way, but British). Marlborough used that very same tactic to win great victories at Blenheim, Ramillies, and Malplaquet (though Malplaquet was rough because the French were, you know, heavily entrenched). On the matter of Union commanders other than Grant, yeah, I would say that a few were pretty decent. Hooker's maneuver on the leadup to Chancellorsville had wrongfooted Lee and put him into a very bad position, whereupon the Union general could threaten Richmond and Lee's lines of communications. Unfortunately for him, he suffered a concussion and was pretty passive after that one good maneuver. Otherwise, prior to his position in high command, he was a pretty solid subordinate commander. Burnside's initial plan of maneuvers was also pretty decent, but then everything fell awry due to mishaps which greatly delayed him. Didn't help that he launched an attack like Fredericksburg, leaving a river to his rear and with entrenched enemy positions to his front. I've heard some say that if Lee had taken the counteroffensive after, he could have smashed Burnside against the Rappahannock, but I think that the array of batteries on the other bank might have done enough to suppress him if he pursued. As for Pope... Pope was just bad, cut and dry. McClellan's plan to maneuver round and take the fight on the Peninsula was very sound, but as you know, his timid nature of overestimating his foe at every turn led to ultimately poor execution. Grant probably would have executed it way better, but politics forced his hand to go the Overland route, which played right into Lee's hands, who utilized interior lines to outmaneuver Grant several times during the Overland Campaign prior to Petersburg.
@@doritofeesh to be honest, dont u think Scott wouldve been the best union commander if he led the forces? he was the only person that scoffed and completely dismissed mcLellans overestimation of Lee's forces out of hand, and his judgment of Lee and Mclellans' talent was correct so he was a good judge of talent also (not to mention his judgment was correct in the mexican war, too). I feel like Scott is mad underrated, the guy was a great american commander, just didnt have like a civil war type stage to give him more glory and fame
@@austinlittke5580 Winfield Scott was pretty damn old by the time of the ACW, though, and out of his prime. While his judgements on the Anaconda Plan were sound, it would still cost more than he expected to put the secession to an end. Also, as you mentioned, he didn't have a stage like the ACW to prove himself on prior. Working based only on the feats he demonstrated and what he accomplished in the Mexican-American War, I don't find it particularly impressive compared to the level Grant and Lee were fighting at in the ACW. No offense to the Mexicans, but back then, their soldiers were not very good and their commanders, such as Santa Anna, were incompetent. While logistically impressive, everything else was not quite as grand as some might say. The Mexicans, despite having the numerical superiority, had basically divided their forces along the entire route Scott had undertaken, allowing him to achieve local superiority in almost every engagement without any need for maneuvers on his end. Mostly outnumbered in every battle and lacking quality compared to the US regulars, they never stood a chance. Even if you track the movement of operations, for a commander of the 19th century, Scott was also conducting a very slow campaign. The speed he was moving at seemed sluggish compared to those conducted by various commanders in the ACW, or even other conflicts in Europe prior. It seemed almost leisurely. Personally, I think that Grant was still the most suitable man for the task in the end.
12:00 I am imagining this level of micro management and map detail in a game like CK3 and I can only hope for it. I know HoI4 is similar but I want the character focus for my marshals and generals on top of the army management. Dream game.
I’m loving the Napoleon content it’s fascinating and I love Chris’s additions. Chris mentioned a 2002 series about napoleon I was wondering if anybody knows what it’s called, the only napoleonic series I’ve seen is Sharpe which is great
Glad to see they mention General Lazare Hoche. In practically every town in France, there is a "rue Hoche". Like Bonaparte, he had a very broad vision of politics and was responsible for the expedition to Ireland (he is still well known to Irish Republicans today). Historians believe that if Hoche had not died of tuberculosis, there would have been no Napoleon.
@@kayvan671 yes...especially Hoche who won the décisive battle of Neuwied with the Army of the Rhine. Now...Bonaparte used a clever tactic :"do it right and make sure everyone knows it
it's mentioned that they take prisoners alot, are these men brought along with the force that captured them on the marches (advancing or retreating) or just left somewhere?
Hey Mr. Nixon, I know you’re interested in English history, so I would like to recommend any video on the Franklin Expedition, which set sail in 1845 and most of their men died in 1848, the last of them in 52. The story is a good one and I myself have a personal theory which I’ve backed up with a large amount of evidence, hopefully to present when I go into college.
Great reaction Napoleonic wars were very intresting sort of a separation between medival and modern europe, the channel Old Britannia did some videos on the motivations of the states involved i was wondering if you could react to that. Thanks for reading
Yes, Yes yessssss This reactions are what I lacked as a History teacher. And since I live in Iran the time of uploading on this videos are night-time. So there goes my story b'for a good sleep.
Hey Chris! I'm once again putting forward either EpicHistory TV's first video about the Abbasids or Overly Sarcastic Productions stuff (possibly Miscellaneous Myths: Eldorado for a historical myth tied to the Spanish colonization of the Americas). Or even Kraut's series on the US-Mexico Border.
Hi, Chris, fascinating series, Napoleon was a fantastic strategist, we were lucky we had the sea and the Royal Navy to thwart him, I'm sure we would not have succeeded without them.
The Royal Navy can't get enough credit for Britain's eventual victory in the war. Blockading pretty much half of European coastline crippled the French war machine and overall economy, sure. But equally important was the fact that the RN kept the shipping lanes clear for their own trade. Their entire economy was maintained by shipping to and from the USA, India, etc. It allowed them to move large portions of their army long distances safely, supply them once they arrived, and maintain reliable communication with leadership. It made Britain's economy strong enough to generate massive cash subsidies along with war supplies (muskets, food, boots, etc) and deliver them all safely, forcibly propping up the economies of Austria, Russia, Prussia, etc. Oh, and did I mention that the RN blockade partially helped trigger Napoleon's invasion of Russia? Long story short, I agree with you - No chance for Britain without the RN. Napoleon crosses the channel with 200k hardened veterans the instant he takes power in 1799 (assuming it doesn't happen even earlier) and it's lights out for King George.
@@lightwalker222 if napoleon didnt rush into trafalgar and had waited 5-10 years couldnt he have commandeered other countries economies and manpower to build a navy that would be able to beat britain's and land a force there?
@@austinlittke5580 Possibly. But a large part of the reason for the astounding victories of Nelson and others was that the French ships of the line were constantly blockaded in port - their officers and men were badly out of practice in handling their vessels, and many had little or no experience at sea whatsoever. Meanwhile the Royal Navy was constantly at sea keeping station and maintaining the blockade. So when the French and Spanish ships of war finally ventured out, they were consistently outmaneuvered and outfought by the experienced British crews, even with numbers and firepower disadvantages like at Trafalgar. So if we imagine that they just hunker down for an extra decade and no one in France has taken a single ship of the line to sea in twenty years and they finally venture out together with a huge force to try and crush the Royal Navy, I think it's very possible that they would get outmaneuvered, picked apart and destroyed.
@@lightwalker222 They couldve used venice/the venetians to practice and harbor their ships, venice was impenetrable even to british ships due to the hidden sandbars and obstructive barriers the venetians strategically hid, so that would be where i would start with.
@@austinlittke5580 Sure, the harbor of Venice would be a decent spot. But you still need to transport all those ships one by one from the ports they are built in. How are you doing that? Also, if you are chilling in Venice's harbor, how does that help you with practicing your basic seamanship, let alone fleet-level maneuvers? There are MANY examples in history to show that a hardened force of veterans can defeat less capable enemy armies of double and triple their size. Especially since we are talking about the Napoleonic wars (you know, the ones that only happened because Napoleon REGULARLY defeated larger armies with smaller ones), it should be considered a fundamental concept. Hanging around in port for an extra decade is not going to do France any favors. I don't care if they get two to one odds or better for ships of the line. Since the concept is based around France building new ships and saving them, quite literally half this fleet will have NEVER EVER been to sea, and the officers+men will be in an infinitely worse condition than they actually were at Trafalgar, where they were already far inferior to the British crews. No. It just doesn't work. In modern terms, this would be like sending 40 dudes fresh out of commercial pilot school (no simulator experience or military service) in F-16s against 20 combat aces in F-14s. I know where my money is going.
To give you an idea of the distances between each location, let's take Napoleon's initial position at Verona at 7:09 in the video. Him moving up from Verona to Rovereto is 46.7 miles. From Rovereto to Trento is 17.1 miles. From Trento all the way to Bassano is 56.5 miles. Then, from there to Vicenza is another 21.3 miles. Trento to Arcole takes 21.6 miles. After which is Arcole to Cerea, which is 17.4 miles Lastly, from Cerea to Mantua is 24.2 miles. All in all, Napoleon has covered about 205 miles from Sept 2 (the starting point at Verona) to Sept 14 (the battle of San Giorgio on the outskirts of Mantua). In other words, 205 miles within 12 days or 17 or so miles per day on average, counting several battles and skirmishes, and moving through rough, mountainous terrain for over half that distance, while making wide river crossings in the latter half.
Great watch a long again, I love your input! Something I'd love you to answer that I've always wondered but in napoleonic wars they always captured huge amounts of soldiers, what happened to them?
14:15 Let's forget that most of the soldiers who DID sacrifice themselves to buy time for the evacuation were French. Nolan is a great director, but "Dunkirk" is completely inaccurate in that regard.
I did visit Nantes a while back and there was a good exhibition on the counter revolution in Vendée. To state the barbaric times of such civil war, they emprisonned civilians on a ship and made it sink 🤯
Attacking the flanks to weaken the center at Mantua reminds me of the trap employed by Hannibal's victory in Cannae. Only here the trap is the opposite. So I guess it depends on the terrain and the number of troops and placement whether it works one or the other way?
You had mentioned how much you love the artwork. There is a wargame, a bit dated now, but, it is beautiful, "Wars of Napoleon". A great game. I highly recommend you check it out. All the best. Cheers.
Just want to say I love your videos and your passion for history, particularly British history. Can I recommend the HistoryMarche channel? It's one of my favourite history channels on TH-cam. They cover famous/infamous battles through history, from the ancient period all the way to WWII. They also focus on certain famous commanders and their careers. Their production is similar to that of Kings and Generals. Since you're looking at Napoleon currently, can I recommend you watch HistoryMarche;'s series on Prince Eugene of Savoy. Napoleon himself considered Prince Eugene to be one of the greatest generals of all time.
The thing I always come back to is: Napoleon just went forward. He learned lessons out of battles that happened in the past and made assumptions on how to improve. The sources were there for everyone, but most of the other generals in that time just did not learn. They were stuck on their old conservative thinking. Not stupid of course, but also not improving. It was the common mindest of people back then, only changed by the revolution in France. At the point the coalition begin to learn how to counter Napoleon, they started winning. But he could have been stopped in Italy if the Austrians adepted better.
When you speak about the units left behind at Dunkirk in 1940 they are the 40 000 french left to defend at all cost the allied evacuation. Not british, they all left the defensive line quickly.
Just wanted to mention at dunkirk the main reason the English were able to flee is the French army completely outnumbered. Some accounts from German officers saying French soldiers are the best he had met making them pay dearly every metre. Shame such poor command at the top of the French army
I love this series on Napoleon and Chris' comments are very good. But that's a little misleading...this is the war of the first coalition that is truly international. General Bonaparte (not Napoleon...he is called in France by his first name once Emperor) maneuvers very well in Italy, but the war is also against Spain, England, Prussia...and at sea (the French arrive to buy wheat in the USA) etc... so you have to have a general view of the conflict.
The Austrian Empire & later Austro-Hungarian Empire, is usually laughed at as being this out of touch "great" power, that got crushed by little Serbia. Which is all true of course, for the most part But in wars like these, even though they're losing & have lost. The Austrian army of the late 18th & early 19th century was nothing to laugh at Brave men that could win if they had better equipment & better officers. They hamded Napoleon his first defeat as a General. They also handed him his first major defeat when he was Emperor So I say for the Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars, give the Austrians their flowers
![True Size of Napoleon's Army - The Infantry [c. 1808] 3D DOCUMENTARY](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qR0sODDUT8U/mqdefault.jpg)
Looking forward to the Napoleon's Marshals reactions 👍 Love the channel
We post about it on every video till he does it!
@@lightwalker222
*Yes, Sir*
@@lightwalker222 Yep
an Extra History series that has a connection with Napoleon (it starts because of him) is the series about the empire of Brazil. The Portuguese royal family decided to flee Portugal when Napoleon's armies invaded the Iberian peninsula and settle in the colony, which was the beginning of Brazil's journey towards independence.
Hey Chris, just want to say that your videos have been a huge help to me since I’ve been struggling to find the right work. I start a new job on Monday and wanted to say thank you for your great commentary. I’d love for you to do the Extra History Crimean war it just ended
This was the beggining of a legend and one of napoleons best campaigns
18:10 Lee's tactic at Gettysburg doesn't work because guess what? Meade went to West Point too, and he studied the same wars Lee did. He knew what was coming and prepared the correct troop movement to win the battle.
Union generals as a whole get a bad rap until Grant is placed in command in the East, but most of them were either good or at least alright. I think McClellan poisoned the well of general opinion with his astounding failures. Lee was certainly a competent general and McClellan made him look like a genius. Throw in a couple other Confederate victories and now you've got a narrative of "Lee is so much better than all these useless Union generals!" But they don't deserve to all get tarred with the same brush.
Edit: Also, take a shot for Chris bringing up the American Civil War on an unrelated video
Funnily enough, while Lee and Meade knew this tactic from studying Napoleon, I'm pretty damn sure Napoleon learned this tactic from studying Marlborough, who fought campaigns a century before him and was the first great Allied commander (think the early 1700s version of Ike in a way, but British). Marlborough used that very same tactic to win great victories at Blenheim, Ramillies, and Malplaquet (though Malplaquet was rough because the French were, you know, heavily entrenched).
On the matter of Union commanders other than Grant, yeah, I would say that a few were pretty decent. Hooker's maneuver on the leadup to Chancellorsville had wrongfooted Lee and put him into a very bad position, whereupon the Union general could threaten Richmond and Lee's lines of communications. Unfortunately for him, he suffered a concussion and was pretty passive after that one good maneuver. Otherwise, prior to his position in high command, he was a pretty solid subordinate commander.
Burnside's initial plan of maneuvers was also pretty decent, but then everything fell awry due to mishaps which greatly delayed him. Didn't help that he launched an attack like Fredericksburg, leaving a river to his rear and with entrenched enemy positions to his front. I've heard some say that if Lee had taken the counteroffensive after, he could have smashed Burnside against the Rappahannock, but I think that the array of batteries on the other bank might have done enough to suppress him if he pursued.
As for Pope... Pope was just bad, cut and dry.
McClellan's plan to maneuver round and take the fight on the Peninsula was very sound, but as you know, his timid nature of overestimating his foe at every turn led to ultimately poor execution. Grant probably would have executed it way better, but politics forced his hand to go the Overland route, which played right into Lee's hands, who utilized interior lines to outmaneuver Grant several times during the Overland Campaign prior to Petersburg.
@@doritofeesh Excellent point. And Malplaquet was the only big field battle in which Allied casualties were larger than the French.
@@doritofeesh to be honest, dont u think Scott wouldve been the best union commander if he led the forces? he was the only person that scoffed and completely dismissed mcLellans overestimation of Lee's forces out of hand, and his judgment of Lee and Mclellans' talent was correct so he was a good judge of talent also (not to mention his judgment was correct in the mexican war, too). I feel like Scott is mad underrated, the guy was a great american commander, just didnt have like a civil war type stage to give him more glory and fame
@@austinlittke5580 Winfield Scott was pretty damn old by the time of the ACW, though, and out of his prime. While his judgements on the Anaconda Plan were sound, it would still cost more than he expected to put the secession to an end.
Also, as you mentioned, he didn't have a stage like the ACW to prove himself on prior. Working based only on the feats he demonstrated and what he accomplished in the Mexican-American War, I don't find it particularly impressive compared to the level Grant and Lee were fighting at in the ACW.
No offense to the Mexicans, but back then, their soldiers were not very good and their commanders, such as Santa Anna, were incompetent. While logistically impressive, everything else was not quite as grand as some might say.
The Mexicans, despite having the numerical superiority, had basically divided their forces along the entire route Scott had undertaken, allowing him to achieve local superiority in almost every engagement without any need for maneuvers on his end.
Mostly outnumbered in every battle and lacking quality compared to the US regulars, they never stood a chance. Even if you track the movement of operations, for a commander of the 19th century, Scott was also conducting a very slow campaign.
The speed he was moving at seemed sluggish compared to those conducted by various commanders in the ACW, or even other conflicts in Europe prior. It seemed almost leisurely.
Personally, I think that Grant was still the most suitable man for the task in the end.
@@doritofeesh ok, and dont u think that if chris is going to rock the chin hair he should dye it otherwise he should shave it?
12:00 I am imagining this level of micro management and map detail in a game like CK3 and I can only hope for it. I know HoI4 is similar but I want the character focus for my marshals and generals on top of the army management. Dream game.
Outstanding review of Epic History's masterful presentation. Three cheers!
I’m loving the Napoleon content it’s fascinating and I love Chris’s additions. Chris mentioned a 2002 series about napoleon I was wondering if anybody knows what it’s called, the only napoleonic series I’ve seen is Sharpe which is great
It's called Napoleon. stars Christian Clavier as the Emperor.
Thanks Chris I will check it out, keep up the good work
Glad to see they mention General Lazare Hoche. In practically every town in France, there is a "rue Hoche". Like Bonaparte, he had a very broad vision of politics and was responsible for the expedition to Ireland (he is still well known to Irish Republicans today). Historians believe that if Hoche had not died of tuberculosis, there would have been no Napoleon.
I still wonder what would have happend if Hoche or Moreau took power in France
@@kayvan671 yes...especially Hoche who won the décisive battle of Neuwied with the Army of the Rhine.
Now...Bonaparte used a clever tactic :"do it right and make sure everyone knows it
I know you're doing this video because of the movie coming out. But it's also a fitting video for Bastille Day
it's mentioned that they take prisoners alot, are these men brought along with the force that captured them on the marches (advancing or retreating) or just left somewhere?
I had no idea you were ever in danger of catching malaria in Northern Italy!
Hey Mr. Nixon, I know you’re interested in English history, so I would like to recommend any video on the Franklin Expedition, which set sail in 1845 and most of their men died in 1848, the last of them in 52. The story is a good one and I myself have a personal theory which I’ve backed up with a large amount of evidence, hopefully to present when I go into college.
If you have the time to reply, I was just wondering if/when you were planning on reacting to EH's series on the Crimean War? It's really good :]
Yet another awesome episode brother!
Great reaction Napoleonic wars were very intresting sort of a separation between medival and modern europe, the channel Old Britannia did some videos on the motivations of the states involved i was wondering if you could react to that. Thanks for reading
Awesome. Thanks.
14:21 British didn't participate at the defence of Dunkirk. General Alexander said his soldiers were tired.
Yes, Yes yessssss
This reactions are what I lacked as a History teacher.
And since I live in Iran the time of uploading on this videos are night-time.
So there goes my story b'for a good sleep.
how do you like your Ibrahim raisi
Hey Chris! I'm once again putting forward either EpicHistory TV's first video about the Abbasids or Overly Sarcastic Productions stuff (possibly Miscellaneous Myths: Eldorado for a historical myth tied to the Spanish colonization of the Americas). Or even Kraut's series on the US-Mexico Border.
Hi, Chris, fascinating series, Napoleon was a fantastic strategist, we were lucky we had the sea and the Royal Navy to thwart him, I'm sure we would not have succeeded without them.
The Royal Navy can't get enough credit for Britain's eventual victory in the war. Blockading pretty much half of European coastline crippled the French war machine and overall economy, sure. But equally important was the fact that the RN kept the shipping lanes clear for their own trade. Their entire economy was maintained by shipping to and from the USA, India, etc. It allowed them to move large portions of their army long distances safely, supply them once they arrived, and maintain reliable communication with leadership. It made Britain's economy strong enough to generate massive cash subsidies along with war supplies (muskets, food, boots, etc) and deliver them all safely, forcibly propping up the economies of Austria, Russia, Prussia, etc. Oh, and did I mention that the RN blockade partially helped trigger Napoleon's invasion of Russia?
Long story short, I agree with you - No chance for Britain without the RN. Napoleon crosses the channel with 200k hardened veterans the instant he takes power in 1799 (assuming it doesn't happen even earlier) and it's lights out for King George.
@@lightwalker222 if napoleon didnt rush into trafalgar and had waited 5-10 years couldnt he have commandeered other countries economies and manpower to build a navy that would be able to beat britain's and land a force there?
@@austinlittke5580 Possibly. But a large part of the reason for the astounding victories of Nelson and others was that the French ships of the line were constantly blockaded in port - their officers and men were badly out of practice in handling their vessels, and many had little or no experience at sea whatsoever. Meanwhile the Royal Navy was constantly at sea keeping station and maintaining the blockade. So when the French and Spanish ships of war finally ventured out, they were consistently outmaneuvered and outfought by the experienced British crews, even with numbers and firepower disadvantages like at Trafalgar.
So if we imagine that they just hunker down for an extra decade and no one in France has taken a single ship of the line to sea in twenty years and they finally venture out together with a huge force to try and crush the Royal Navy, I think it's very possible that they would get outmaneuvered, picked apart and destroyed.
@@lightwalker222 They couldve used venice/the venetians to practice and harbor their ships, venice was impenetrable even to british ships due to the hidden sandbars and obstructive barriers the venetians strategically hid, so that would be where i would start with.
@@austinlittke5580 Sure, the harbor of Venice would be a decent spot. But you still need to transport all those ships one by one from the ports they are built in. How are you doing that? Also, if you are chilling in Venice's harbor, how does that help you with practicing your basic seamanship, let alone fleet-level maneuvers?
There are MANY examples in history to show that a hardened force of veterans can defeat less capable enemy armies of double and triple their size. Especially since we are talking about the Napoleonic wars (you know, the ones that only happened because Napoleon REGULARLY defeated larger armies with smaller ones), it should be considered a fundamental concept. Hanging around in port for an extra decade is not going to do France any favors. I don't care if they get two to one odds or better for ships of the line. Since the concept is based around France building new ships and saving them, quite literally half this fleet will have NEVER EVER been to sea, and the officers+men will be in an infinitely worse condition than they actually were at Trafalgar, where they were already far inferior to the British crews.
No. It just doesn't work. In modern terms, this would be like sending 40 dudes fresh out of commercial pilot school (no simulator experience or military service) in F-16s against 20 combat aces in F-14s. I know where my money is going.
Chris, what are the distances between the cities of these battles?
To give you an idea of the distances between each location, let's take Napoleon's initial position at Verona at 7:09 in the video.
Him moving up from Verona to Rovereto is 46.7 miles.
From Rovereto to Trento is 17.1 miles.
From Trento all the way to Bassano is 56.5 miles.
Then, from there to Vicenza is another 21.3 miles.
Trento to Arcole takes 21.6 miles.
After which is Arcole to Cerea, which is 17.4 miles
Lastly, from Cerea to Mantua is 24.2 miles.
All in all, Napoleon has covered about 205 miles from Sept 2 (the starting point at Verona) to Sept 14 (the battle of San Giorgio on the outskirts of Mantua). In other words, 205 miles within 12 days or 17 or so miles per day on average, counting several battles and skirmishes, and moving through rough, mountainous terrain for over half that distance, while making wide river crossings in the latter half.
Great watch a long again, I love your input!
Something I'd love you to answer that I've always wondered but in napoleonic wars they always captured huge amounts of soldiers, what happened to them?
14:15 Let's forget that most of the soldiers who DID sacrifice themselves to buy time for the evacuation were French. Nolan is a great director, but "Dunkirk" is completely inaccurate in that regard.
I wasn’t referring to the movie Dunkirk. I’m talking about the actual history, the 30th Infantry Brigade at Calais.
this are ur greatest videos you make
Been loving these!
2:00 - did Jourdan participated in American Revolutionary War? Curious question @Vlogging Through History
Awesome content as always VTH ❤
Yes...Jourdan and Berthier
I did visit Nantes a while back and there was a good exhibition on the counter revolution in Vendée. To state the barbaric times of such civil war, they emprisonned civilians on a ship and made it sink 🤯
Attacking the flanks to weaken the center at Mantua reminds me of the trap employed by Hannibal's victory in Cannae. Only here the trap is the opposite. So I guess it depends on the terrain and the number of troops and placement whether it works one or the other way?
Chris Any Chance To Actually Go Visit These Battlefields Today or Were They Over Lapped With WW1 And WW2 Battlefields Just Curious
Chris... you need a Hawaiian shirt and a Detroit Tigers hat to match your 'stash!
I can do the Hawaiian shirt but I will never wear a Tigers hat!
You had mentioned how much you love the artwork. There is a wargame, a bit dated now, but, it is beautiful, "Wars of Napoleon".
A great game. I highly recommend you check it out.
All the best.
Cheers.
Just want to say I love your videos and your passion for history, particularly British history. Can I recommend the HistoryMarche channel? It's one of my favourite history channels on TH-cam. They cover famous/infamous battles through history, from the ancient period all the way to WWII. They also focus on certain famous commanders and their careers. Their production is similar to that of Kings and Generals.
Since you're looking at Napoleon currently, can I recommend you watch HistoryMarche;'s series on Prince Eugene of Savoy. Napoleon himself considered Prince Eugene to be one of the greatest generals of all time.
The thing I always come back to is: Napoleon just went forward. He learned lessons out of battles that happened in the past and made assumptions on how to improve. The sources were there for everyone, but most of the other generals in that time just did not learn. They were stuck on their old conservative thinking. Not stupid of course, but also not improving.
It was the common mindest of people back then, only changed by the revolution in France.
At the point the coalition begin to learn how to counter Napoleon, they started winning. But he could have been stopped in Italy if the Austrians adepted better.
The Austrians are totally unprepared for Nepoleon's main character energy.
Where is the trip to Italy stopping?
Please do the Battle of Narva by History Marche that just came out!
When you speak about the units left behind at Dunkirk in 1940 they are the 40 000 french left to defend at all cost the allied evacuation. Not british, they all left the defensive line quickly.
D'artagnan is teaching us history.
Sir let me tell you something...... You have a great moustache!
Nice stash
Just wanted to mention at dunkirk the main reason the English were able to flee is the French army completely outnumbered. Some accounts from German officers saying
French soldiers are the best he had met making them pay dearly every metre.
Shame such poor command at the top of the French army
Next group trip(s): Napoleon’s campaign(s)?
I love this series on Napoleon and Chris' comments are very good. But that's a little misleading...this is the war of the first coalition that is truly international. General Bonaparte (not Napoleon...he is called in France by his first name once Emperor) maneuvers very well in Italy, but the war is also against Spain, England, Prussia...and at sea (the French arrive to buy wheat in the USA) etc... so you have to have a general view of the conflict.
Finally gets the key of Italy into his pocket!
Hey could you please take a look at "top 5 viking deaths" by epic history TV?
The Austrian Empire & later Austro-Hungarian Empire, is usually laughed at as being this out of touch "great" power, that got crushed by little Serbia. Which is all true of course, for the most part
But in wars like these, even though they're losing & have lost. The Austrian army of the late 18th & early 19th century was nothing to laugh at
Brave men that could win if they had better equipment & better officers. They hamded Napoleon his first defeat as a General. They also handed him his first major defeat when he was Emperor
So I say for the Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars, give the Austrians their flowers
Fill the gaps with Napoleons Marshalls?
What’s good
Nice
❤❤❤❤❤
No Mantua, Ohio?
Haha it crossed my mind to mention it, especially since it's pronounced differently.
Mustache?
the moustache is cool but if ur gonna do the chin hair dye it, no one likes to see their idols they grew up with get old