His men were hungry for change and motivated that wins battles, they were tired 20 years later and battles are lost Napoleon just rides the waves of the masses
@@ruvimgboth sides of his family are aristocratic families that go back to the 15th Century. So you might say he's biased, or just simply has a very particular insight from a familial perspective on Napoleon
Zamoeisky, completely agree with your perspective about Napoleon. Always did and finally I found your work giving light on that! About peninsular war there is also the lack of carácter of sending 3 generals, one after the other, loosing, and his arrogance didn’t aloud him to do it personally.
Zamoyski is a great historian, his book about the 1812 Russian campaign just brilliant.....BUT a little bit biased regarding Napoleon's image making abilities and excellence in propaganda... If he was not entitled to promote his image having beaten repeatedly vast European coalitions and becoming the ruler of Europe for almost 15 years.....then who is??? 200 years after the battle of Waterloo the British claim for themselves the glory of victory.....although if not for the Prussians they would have lost the battle..... so they conveniently "forget" about Blucher and present Great Britain as the nation that prevailed over Napoleon.... It is quite common in human nature to exaggerate on victories and find excuses on losses......Napoleon did just that.....and nobody can blame him
It was actually the British that broke the Old Guard at Waterloo, which then routed Napoleon's entire army. Wellington was the mastermind behind the battle, and it's location - although yes you're correct, he relied on Blucher to reinforce to win the battle, taking a large part of Napoleon's reserves away (The Young Guard) to the village Placenoit and Grouchy's Corps of 30k men, which would have been instrumental at Waterloo - but when you do analyse it, the Anglo-allied army ultimately won the battle, due to Napoleon's failure to act at pivotal moments: If the the Anglo-Allied army did not hold on for as long as they did - from 9 AM to 17:00 PM - the Prussians surely would have lost too; Napoleon would have turned dead on to Blucher, to then pincer him with Grouchy perusing a few miles away with his Corps of 30k men - I believe this was his strategic intention. However, Napoleon deserved to loose the battle, due to his hesitancy to use his reserves (The Imperial Guard: The Old Guard & Young Guard before Blucher reinforcing) after the fall of the farmhouse La Haye Sainte, to push up on Wellington's centre when the French had the upper-hand and attacking-momentum. Also, after the fall of the farmhouse in the centre, Wellington ordered his entire army a few paces back behind the ridge to cover from intense French artillery bombardment, where Marshall Ney thought they were on the retreat and called for a huge cavalry charge. This was disastrous, as again, Napoleon failed to act; he did not peruse to reinforce Marshall Ney's cavalry attack with infantry support, where the cavalry were peppered to death and routed by the British squares. If the cavalry, for which inflicted devastating losses and almost proved fatal to the British squares, were supported by infantry, they could have beaten and routed the Anglo-Allied army. But yes, Napoleon had to reinforce his right to Blucher, but at that crucial moment in time when Ney needed infantry support, Napoleon still withheld his Old Guard - he left it too late to call upon them to battle. He lost to Wellington as he did not act at the right moments within the battle, for which a young, courageous, gambler Napoleon, would have. He grown to be more cautious and warry. As far as my knowledge extends within the Peninsular War, the British drove them out of Iberia and Wellington beat the French badly there. The British have every right to prevail precedent and victory over Napoleonic France, as whilst all the other major European powers were having their arses handed to them by the Grande Arme, the British had them in Iberia; had them in Egypt, and on the seas: Alexandria & Gibraltar.
@@james-deanshaw-walker5764There is a time calculation mistake on your description of the Waterloo battle! Ney's cavalry failed charges against the British squares started around 16:00 and lasted till 17:30 Even though the French sacrificed their whole cavalry during these idiotic charges....they still managed to seize "La Haye Sainte" farm at the center of the British line one hour later, hence at 18:30 As soon as they seized La Haye Sainte they started blasting the British squares using their horse artillery.... What was the decisive factor that changed the route of the events? The late arrival of the Prussians around 18:00. They immediately dispatched a part of their cavalry to help the British hold the line and simultaneously attacked Plancenoit village forcing Napoleon to engage over there his entire reserve units (part of his old guard included) So now lets discuss a hypothetical scenario.....should the Prussians had failed to come just in time what would have happened? Napoleon would be free to commit his entire young guard (they were annihilated at Plancenoit) and Old guard as well against the crumbling British center.... It is highly possible that they would succeed, given that fact that their artillery was already causing tremendous losses to the British center. Wellington would probably sound retreat under the cover of darkness, heading to Brussels. So in summary.....yes the British defended extremely well that day but just defending well could not secure victory at all. Yes.....the French made horrific mistakes that day (attack at Hougomont....Ney's cavalry blunder) but despite all these mistakes they still had the upper hand when they seized La Haye Sainte. All they needed was just a final push using their entire Imperial Guard to gain victory.....yet that push was impossible due to the late arrival of the Prussian army. Since though history is not written with scenarios and hypothetical thinking but stict facts.....we will never know what would have happened if the Prussians were just one more hour late.....
@@onetwothreefourfive12345 of course. Andrew Roberts said in an itw that he doesn't like Napoléon like all the english people. But he's not that biased compared to "historian" Zamoyski
Unfortuneately this guy does not know when a good guys good and a good guys bad. Yes, he inspired his troops to do great things.that's what officers do. It was not nerve that killed the syrians, and by the way, he did not shoot them, because he wanted to conserve his gunpowder and lead balls, so he had his men run them thru with bayonets. Thats called murder wether your in a combat zone or not. That massacre is a distinct stain on his record and his charachter, but then again in the Dominican he establishes a gas chamber on one o his ships and proceeds to kill all the military age males he can round up. Fast forward to Russia and American GENERALS DID THE SAME THING in IRAQ 2003. He leaves Paris knowing he's going to foot march to Moscow without thining about personal hygiene, laundry and all the other ways to prevent typhus. Typhus was not new and the troops he lost gong to Moscow need not have been lost. Iraq 2003 we invade in March with no climate control or any way to avoid the brutal Iraq summer heat. Summers in iraq had been 120+ degrees since the beginning of time yet no provisions had been made or troop welare. Had it not been for the leadership and benevolence of MG Petraeus my civil affairs battalion would have sent alot of troops home in body bags.
It may be worth looking at Zamoyski's other work, or even a debate he did for intelligence squared, which is on TH-cam. Zamoyski does not think that Napoleon was a good man at all.
The defeated Syrians had previously been released by Napoleon on condition that they not again take up arms against the French under penalty of death. To which they swore an oath. Once free they regrouped and attacked French forces torturing and beheading those they captured. Defeating them again Napoleon had the Syrians executed for breaking their oath. This was seen as just at the time by both the Syrians and other contemporaneous powers.
Zamoyski has a lot of good work tbh, his book on 1812 was one of the best I’ve read.
He’s also clearly biased
@@romanreshetkin for one he says napoleon wasn't a great general
His men were hungry for change and motivated that wins battles, they were tired 20 years later and battles are lost Napoleon just rides the waves of the masses
@@ruvimgboth sides of his family are aristocratic families that go back to the 15th Century. So you might say he's biased, or just simply has a very particular insight from a familial perspective on Napoleon
great insights on Napoleon and french revolution Adam Zamoyski has great in-depth knowledge of history
Zamoeisky, completely agree with your perspective about Napoleon. Always did and finally I found your work giving light on that! About peninsular war there is also the lack of carácter of sending 3 generals, one after the other, loosing, and his arrogance didn’t aloud him to do it personally.
it was a side show
Zamoyski takes the stage at 11:29
Despite all of his faults, if Catherine and Frederick can be considered "Great", then Napoleon certainly can as well
Zamoyski is a great historian, his book about the 1812 Russian campaign just brilliant.....BUT a little bit biased regarding Napoleon's image making abilities and excellence in propaganda...
If he was not entitled to promote his image having beaten repeatedly vast European coalitions and becoming the ruler of Europe for almost 15 years.....then who is???
200 years after the battle of Waterloo the British claim for themselves the glory of victory.....although if not for the Prussians they would have lost the battle..... so they conveniently "forget" about Blucher and present Great Britain as the nation that prevailed over Napoleon....
It is quite common in human nature to exaggerate on victories and find excuses on losses......Napoleon did just that.....and nobody can blame him
Good point. Drawing o the British news making for comparison.
It was actually the British that broke the Old Guard at Waterloo, which then routed Napoleon's entire army. Wellington was the mastermind behind the battle, and it's location - although yes you're correct, he relied on Blucher to reinforce to win the battle, taking a large part of Napoleon's reserves away (The Young Guard) to the village Placenoit and Grouchy's Corps of 30k men, which would have been instrumental at Waterloo - but when you do analyse it, the Anglo-allied army ultimately won the battle, due to Napoleon's failure to act at pivotal moments:
If the the Anglo-Allied army did not hold on for as long as they did - from 9 AM to 17:00 PM - the Prussians surely would have lost too; Napoleon would have turned dead on to Blucher, to then pincer him with Grouchy perusing a few miles away with his Corps of 30k men - I believe this was his strategic intention. However, Napoleon deserved to loose the battle, due to his hesitancy to use his reserves (The Imperial Guard: The Old Guard & Young Guard before Blucher reinforcing) after the fall of the farmhouse La Haye Sainte, to push up on Wellington's centre when the French had the upper-hand and attacking-momentum. Also, after the fall of the farmhouse in the centre, Wellington ordered his entire army a few paces back behind the ridge to cover from intense French artillery bombardment, where Marshall Ney thought they were on the retreat and called for a huge cavalry charge. This was disastrous, as again, Napoleon failed to act; he did not peruse to reinforce Marshall Ney's cavalry attack with infantry support, where the cavalry were peppered to death and routed by the British squares. If the cavalry, for which inflicted devastating losses and almost proved fatal to the British squares, were supported by infantry, they could have beaten and routed the Anglo-Allied army. But yes, Napoleon had to reinforce his right to Blucher, but at that crucial moment in time when Ney needed infantry support, Napoleon still withheld his Old Guard - he left it too late to call upon them to battle. He lost to Wellington as he did not act at the right moments within the battle, for which a young, courageous, gambler Napoleon, would have. He grown to be more cautious and warry.
As far as my knowledge extends within the Peninsular War, the British drove them out of Iberia and Wellington beat the French badly there. The British have every right to prevail precedent and victory over Napoleonic France, as whilst all the other major European powers were having their arses handed to them by the Grande Arme, the British had them in Iberia; had them in Egypt, and on the seas: Alexandria & Gibraltar.
@@james-deanshaw-walker5764There is a time calculation mistake on your description of the Waterloo battle!
Ney's cavalry failed charges against the British squares started around 16:00 and lasted till 17:30
Even though the French sacrificed their whole cavalry during these idiotic charges....they still managed to seize "La Haye Sainte" farm at the center of the British line one hour later, hence at 18:30
As soon as they seized La Haye Sainte they started blasting the British squares using their horse artillery....
What was the decisive factor that changed the route of the events? The late arrival of the Prussians around 18:00. They immediately dispatched a part of their cavalry to help the British hold the line and simultaneously attacked Plancenoit village forcing Napoleon to engage over there his entire reserve units (part of his old guard included)
So now lets discuss a hypothetical scenario.....should the Prussians had failed to come just in time what would have happened?
Napoleon would be free to commit his entire young guard (they were annihilated at Plancenoit) and Old guard as well against the crumbling British center....
It is highly possible that they would succeed, given that fact that their artillery was already causing tremendous losses to the British center. Wellington would probably sound retreat under the cover of darkness, heading to Brussels.
So in summary.....yes the British defended extremely well that day but just defending well could not secure victory at all.
Yes.....the French made horrific mistakes that day (attack at Hougomont....Ney's cavalry blunder) but despite all these mistakes they still had the upper hand when they seized La Haye Sainte. All they needed was just a final push using their entire Imperial Guard to gain victory.....yet that push was impossible due to the late arrival of the Prussian army.
Since though history is not written with scenarios and hypothetical thinking but stict facts.....we will never know what would have happened if the Prussians were just one more hour late.....
Best explanation so far.
I enjoyed it. Immensely.
Zamoyski is clearly biased
. Andrew ROBERTS is the best british historian about Napoleon.
both are biased lol
@@onetwothreefourfive12345 of course. Andrew Roberts said in an itw that he doesn't like Napoléon like all the english people. But he's not that biased compared to "historian" Zamoyski
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
It starts at 11:45
Andrew Roberts is zamoiskys dad
Actually that would be the Count Stefan Adam Zamoyski.
he i still is pales tyne i ann but his rails are holden ing my ostricc the age host
Unfortuneately this guy does not know when a good guys good and a good guys bad. Yes, he inspired his troops to do great things.that's what officers do. It was not nerve that killed the syrians, and by the way, he did not shoot them, because he wanted to conserve his gunpowder and lead balls, so he had his men run them thru with bayonets. Thats called murder wether your in a combat zone or not. That massacre is a distinct stain on his record and his charachter, but then again in the Dominican he establishes a gas chamber on one o his ships and proceeds to kill all the military age males he can round up. Fast forward to Russia and American GENERALS DID THE SAME THING in IRAQ 2003. He leaves Paris knowing he's going to foot march to Moscow without thining about personal hygiene, laundry and all the other ways to prevent typhus. Typhus was not new and the troops he lost gong to Moscow need not have been lost. Iraq 2003 we invade in March with no climate control or any way to avoid the brutal Iraq summer heat. Summers in iraq had been 120+ degrees since the beginning of time yet no provisions had been made or troop welare. Had it not been for the leadership and benevolence of MG Petraeus my civil affairs battalion would have sent alot of troops home in body bags.
It may be worth looking at Zamoyski's other work, or even a debate he did for intelligence squared, which is on TH-cam. Zamoyski does not think that Napoleon was a good man at all.
Crime is to alow your generals and officers to do whatever they, and in Portugal , along with other atrocities, they killed 1/2 population of Oporto.
The defeated Syrians had previously been released by Napoleon on condition that they not again take up arms against the French under penalty of death. To which they swore an oath. Once free they regrouped and attacked French forces torturing and beheading those they captured. Defeating them again Napoleon had the Syrians executed for breaking their oath. This was seen as just at the time by both the Syrians and other contemporaneous powers.
Amazing that you can make a repeat of 100 yr old propaganda and think its insightful .
zamoyski is soft