Texan Reacts to Napoleon in Italy: The Little Corporal Pt.1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- Discord!
/ discord
Original Video: • Napoleon in Italy: Bat...
Reaction to Epic History TV's Napoleon in Italy: The Little Corporal. This is split into two parts and part one is Napoleon being put in charge of the French Army of Italy, the taking of Dego, and the victory at Mondovi.
Like, Comment, Subscribe, and comment below any suggestions for future videos.
As always, go support Epic History TV for the great content.
Napoleon. The man who made RayceofHistory a thing. The legend returns!
Lol this is at least partly true. I’m pretty sure the initial Napoleon series was the first of any of my videos that got more than a handful of views.
And so, you like the napoleonic era or not ? In your video you said that it's not your cup of tea :'(
@@-Griffin- I like the era, just not nearly as well versed on it as some other eras and I always like to get out front about the topics I don’t know as much about just to let people know.
Looking forward to part 2
It should be out first thing in the morning. It’s already recorded and just needs a bit of editing and to be uploaded.
16:53 Pretty sure we've met about half the Marshals so far.
Great video on Nap's younger years. We studied him and his way of approaching aspects of leadership and organization. The question we asked was - What made campaigns so successful regarding resources and quality of troops and leadership? Inputs were his charisma, relationship with officers, and chain of command organization. Understanding logistics and the old saying that an army fights with its stomach. Our answer was that he was not the leader of his troops but of his officers in the chain of command. He understood how important the logistics were but would not develop resilience in its organization. But he did rearrange the chain of command organization to one that needs an active and less delegating leadership to optimize to a result in fast decision making and order execution.
Before, in the French military rank was well-defined. Many would say the royalist mindset lived on in the French military leadership which lead to a hierarchical view of the chain of command. Now what we see as an advantage with dominant military institutions like the US West Point, the Russian imperial military academy of the general staff, or the Swedish Karlberg military academy, if you like, is that it creates a cadre of officers with a tighter relationship that later will be commanders of the same battlefield with a higher level of trust between them, beyond the chain of command. Nap's created a personal culture around himself in the way he cultured a core cadre of officers around him. Inspired loyalty to him more than to the flag. Forged in the early years by the fact that what was given to his officer's corp to win with was of so low a quality scale that they had nothing to lose. In Paris, the thought that Nap's would pull it off was he would not. The southern campaign was more of a diversion for the Northern armies. Binding enemy resources in the south. So Nap's got a loyal cadre and started setting up an organization that really wouldn't work without someone like him at the top. We argued that he really gave a shit about his soldiers but due to trust in the ranks of the officers the leadership they met was "wholesome", and "inspiring". So Naps got his victories based on a personal authoritarian leadership based on loyal leadership from his chain of command and a reorganization of the staff/chain of command. His fall came due to the same reasons. It worked at levels of an Army but as his forces grow to his Grande Armee and he got other duties too it all became a house of cards waiting for a storm. Because even if he had cultured loyalty it also cultured a dependency on him from his competent commanders that sort of blocked their full ability to lead and make their own decisions. And in all that, his logistics were also not developing to handle larger forces, and when the Russia campaign started Nap's logistic chain got longer and Nap's overstretched. We still believe he would have lost even with the best of weather on his side. The Russian scorched earth strategy and guerilla warfare would have seen to that alone. I am just reminiscing all those late-night discussions we had in halls where officers have been educated since 1792. Was there ever a better place for it. I miss it!! History is great!
History is full of happenstance and odd circumstance, and it’s one of the things that makes it so interesting to study. Napoleon is brilliant with, if absolutely nothing else, leading. He leads soldiers early on, and then leads officers and armies, and leads each group as successfully as the last. And yet, if the revolution doesn’t happen he’s never even there. His leadership qualities and battlefield and maneuvering brilliance, no matter how great, are almost completely overlooked without the revolution. So it took a popular uprising to help an eventual emperor take control of an army and then a country. And it may have been that very insight of seeing the glass ceiling from the perspective of a lower birth that changed his entire viewpoint of leadership more broadly.
I would say even people who argue against napoleon’s standing as a great military leader, of which I’m not one, but even they would admit his organization and his leadership hierarchy were big parts of his overall success. And for the love of god, if you’re not going to conscript and instead decide coalitions is the way to go, have your armies meet before you get near napoleons forces, because if you don’t the two armies will lose before they see each other. At least give your side a chance to fight with superior numbers.
@@rayceofhistory I hear you brother.
Great reaction, keep up the good work!
After the Danish mad king Christian the Tyrant, Napoleon is the second most hated in Sweden after invading then swedish Pomerania :)
That makes sense. Although to be fair, the Swedes did get Bernadotte out of the deal.
@@rayceofhistory to bad our old Vasa line died out :/
@@andersmalmgren6528 at least the Vasa line fared better than the Vasa ship. And those old lines are incredibly hard to keep through history.
they did not mention the mortal wound of general stengel and the incredible feat of general serurier at the battle of Mondovi, thanks to which the french won the battle
I mean, they can't mention every single detail.
jesus christ behind napoleon? bro be serious
general moreau, general kleber and general desaix are best french military commanders even better than napoleon and his future marshals
?
I wouldn’t say they were better but they were different, Moreau for example was much slower and more methodical than Napoleon who was very aggressive and bold, both strategies had their upsides and downsides