Enjoyed this video? Consider supporting me on patreon: patreon.com/mhv For an analysis on the chances of Napoleon invading Britain see this video: th-cam.com/video/NYuCPTkO-B4/w-d-xo.html
I have to say that trying to retake france with only a thousand men of his personal guard and actually succeeding in that, only to have an entire continent declare war on you personally, is one of the most badass moves in all of history.
It should be noted that on the quote at 1:40. Peter Browning, the quoted author is mistaken in claiming that Bonaparte was crowned ''Emperor of France'', the real title was ''Emperor of the French''. Because in contrast to the recently deposed French King, who claimed the country of France as a personal possession. The title ''Emperor of the French'' distinguished that Napoleon was the leader of the French People, and that the old feudal system had been abolished. Back in the day, the difference between the two was important. Nowadays, it's only important in the context of viewing history.
Thank YOU for this video Sir! I have an exam on the changing nature of warfare from 1792-1945 in June and this is a great resource for the impact of generalship.
Cute The Cutie In Wilhelm's case it was for a different reason, though. Back then, Austria was seen as part of Germany, so calling the newly founded German Empire "Germany" would have implied that Wilhelm claims to rule Austria as well. That wouldn't have been good for diplomatic relations with Austria-Hungary, so instead they called it the German Empire and Wilhelm was "German Emperor".
The country was and is still called Germany though. German Empire was the full name the same way Federal Republic of Germany is today. The problem was that the Habsburs used to be Emperors of Germany and thus would have a stronger claim to the title (for similar reasons Bismarck payed the Bavarians to name Wilhelm emperor since the Wittelsbacher were the oldest German dynasty). Wilhelm preferred the title Emperor of Germany while Bismarck preferred Emperor of the Germans. Wilhelm on the other hand didn't want the title Emperor of the Germans since it would have sounded like he received his title from the people. Back in 1848 his brother had refused the title of Emperor when the parliament in Frankfurt offered him the crown.
One of the things about Napoleon that you touched briefly on was something in ROTC that we studied extensively. Napoleon was really good a making sure that 1: his divisions were provisioned enough to fight for one day alone, and 2: that the rest of his Corps was no more than one day away from all of it's elements. This meant that if an element of the corps became engaged, it would have enough supplies, ammunition and manpower to hold out long enough for the rest of the Corps to arrive on scene. This necessitated a better educated staff at command level, good local intelligence, and competent officers on the front lines due to the fact that those officers had to be able to make competent decisions during battle while waiting on orders from high command. Promotion from the ranks based on merit insured that the officers on the scene of battle were able to perform at a bare minimum, adequately, and in most cases, with extreme excellence. This gave the French army a huge advantage over their European Counterparts which commonly sold their commissions to anyone willing to pay the fee for it. Excellent break down.
@Jack Tangles Actually Sir Arthur Wellesley was just as bad; the Brits just paid for what they stole to reduce the risk of Guerrilla fighters turning against the British like they had against Napoleon. There was no asking involved unless there was major political implications. The British would take your chickens and hand over what they thought they were worth. The locals usually didn't have the clout to tell the British no, so they took the money and hoped there would be a battle nearby so they could pick through the dead solders for loot.
@Jack Tangles I think you missed the point. "we'll pay" and "we'll pay for it, or just take it, which do you choose" are two different things. Only in Portugal was his armies limited to actually asking permission to buy a product due to Britians dire need of the ports to support Wesllesly's armies. In Spain, in was more compulsory selling. Either way, it was still quite progressive for the Allies to actually bother. Most armies up to that point had just simply taken what they wanted and left the locals out in the cold.
At least the French took not just the food and livestock, they conscripted the men, raped the women and stripped your house of everything the could carry (including hinges, screws and nails). They were so thorough that their armies created famine in their wake (which turned to our advantage before Torres Vedras) and created the guerillas who plagued their lines of communications: and all in the name of international brotherhood of man.
See *A Genius for War* by COL Trevor Dupuy in how the Germans of the Confederation of the Rhine kept the Napoleonic style of warfare alive and institutionalized it, leading to the German General Staff and their operational combat excellence.
it was far from just the intelligence of the French forces even during the revolutionary wars with no Napoleon around French troops as disorganised as they could be where pushing away much larger armies of both the HRE and Austria combined, it been recorded multiple times that Austrian and German divisions of the HRE literally fled when they saw the "Sans culottes" running towards them shouting the Marseillaise, the same thing Julius Caesar was talking about about Gauls ferocity and bravery and the same boldness you would see in ww1 and ww2 wearing bright red pants yet fixing bayonets and charging to prove your mettle for your homeland up to being the last defenders of Berlin against the soviets to the last men just so they wouldn't win on the workers day a massive communist celebration. protests in France are that hardcore for the same reason
My enemies are many. My equals are none. In the shade of olive trees they said Italy could never be conquered. In the land of pharos and kings they said Egypt could never be humbled. In the realm of forests and snow, they said Russia could never be tamed. Now they say nothing. They fear me, like a force of nature a dealer in thunder and death. I say, I am Napoleon! I am emperor! Burn it!
I found out how Napoleon achieved the necesary naval superiority to attempt the invasion depicted in the video: th-cam.com/video/7rRS-GfsXgk/w-d-xo.html
Make your opponent sound great, and your victory will be seen as even greater. As Alexander I, Czar of Russia said of Wellington, "Le vaincqueur du vaincqueur du monde." (The conqueror of the conqueror of the world).
# Jeff Kodiac Well, that may or may not be true. But if asked, whether Napoleon was a good politician or statesman, his answer would have been quite different. Napoleon, after all, was not even a gentleman, according to the Duke of Wellington.
@Jim Cameron fanboy Napoleon's "bad ass" tactics were used very widely in WW1. Just keep shovelling men into the fight and fuck the cost. You sound like a piece cannon fodder Napoleon would have happily enlisted.
Martin Horowitz they hadn’t perfected the method on a large scale by the end of the Napoleonic period, so it wasn’t a big factor in his success. For that matter N had a Swiss gunsmith propose the modern breechloading, self contained metallic cartridge for firearms but didn’t adopt it as it couldn’t be produced in large scales.
LordMIGtau Napoleon humiliated Prussia search it up he crushed Prussia and marched into Berlin and went to see Frederick the great, who he deeply admired
People seem to forget that although he was the greatest military general he could also govern he took control of a country near anarchy and made it great again and his economic reforms cant be ignored he was also writing constitutions and organizing governments himself when he first defeated Austria in italy
@@victornewman9904 Not really, he actually gave quite a lot of independence to his enemies once defeated. He could have annexed have europe to france if he wanted. He really was not interested in world control, he wanted france safe more than anything. He wasn't an angel by any means but he Cleary wasn't the devil. He was just alone against all of europe
@@GG-vl7lh : They had a version of French democracy, a police-state where opponents "disappeared", had to pay special extraordinary taxes and submit to French conscription. Not much of an independence.
@@victornewman9904 agreed, but you have to compared to the times. Of course with today's standers it was shit, but in the beginning of the 19th century everything was shit. Like all the monarchies made people disappear, all of them had forced conscription, all of the peasants had ridicules taxes. So compared to that no, he wasn't the worst conquered had and yes many people were way better of with him than with whomever was there before him. It just the propaganda of all the other countries that paint has a devil. In the end he is not a good person, but for his time better than everybody else's kings and queens of the time.
Napoleon basically prevented his opponents from concentrating their forces against him. He would restrain one enemy army from reaching the battlefield while he defeated the other army.
Napoleon entrusted too much trust in his marshals, who by this point wanted to enjoy the fruits of their labours than continue to fight wars. They grew complacent and lazy with their rewards. Napoleon himself commented that she should have used regular generals who had yet to earn their marshal batons. Marshal Grouchy simply chased the Prussian rear-guard, while General Gerard advised his commander to march to the sound of cannon coming from the Mont-St-Jean battlefield. A better general would have done this, and in his youth Napoleon would have made sure this was done.
napoleons are master of disguise, as the video state he prefer crushing the main army of the enemy and then defeat them in detail In every battle he always maneuver in small unit act like he's outnumbered in fact the enemy are actually outnumbered whenever his reinforcements arrived, the key element of his strategy is mobility Too bad it was hard winter in russia and stormy rain the night before waterloo
Napeoleon was outnumbered more than 2 for 1 by Prussians and British. All his previous old elite troops of the Imperial GUard were either dead or injured... He fought with young inexperimented soldiers and even with them he was close to win ... if Grouchy did his work well and Ney didn't fail in his manoeuvres. Eternal respect for Napoleon.
Thankyou Thelfifi, some people pay more attention that others. This is not a dig at MHV either, as he has more integrity in his videos than so many others out there.
Veljko Stevanovic no the real difference it's of Napoléon take power after the french révolution and after the death of king of France. So napoleon had the lucidity to change the term "emperor of France" to "emperor of french" he wanted to break with old royaliste codes.
There is one small point i wished to bring forward : Napoleon completely reformed the armies that, before, were organized by regiments from various regions of France, all speaking a different idiom. By redistributing them to affectation by skills and use (Grenadiers, liners etc.) he changed radically from the organization that prevailed since the Romans
There are a number of reasons why Napoleon was so successful. At the top of the list is Napoleon himself- the "man of action"- the man who "...may lose a battle, but will never lose a minute". His personal initiative, organizational skills, charisma, his focus on objectives, and his attention to detail without wallowing around in it, are all prominent aspects of his personality. Additional factors are (not necessarily in order): 1. His Army Corps system. 2. His emphasis on promotion based on merit. 3. The revolutionary step. 4. His emphasis on making war pay for war by stripping the army's trains to a minimum and living off of the enemy countryside. 5. His refusal to see obstacles as insurmountable.
You ever played Napoleon Total War? But because of the dumb AI defeating France Is easy. I used Britains superiour navy to invade France Normandy WW2 style
Napoleon's ability to influence men is legendary. Here is a little excerpt as to why: First off, play this in the background: th-cam.com/video/t3217H8JppI/w-d-xo.html Okay, now we start. After a hard fought victory against the Austrians, Napoleon reviewed the 13th Regiment of Light Infantry, which had played a key role in the battle, and asked the colonel to name its bravest man. The Colonel thought for a moment: "Sire, it is the Drum Major." Napoleon immediately asked to see the young bandsman, who appeared, quaking in his boots. Then Napoleon announced loudly for everyone to hear, "They say that you are the bravest man in this regiment. I appoint you a knight of Légion d'Honneur, Baron of the Empire, and award you a pension of four thousand francs." The soldiers gasped. Napoleon was famous for his well-timed promotions and for promoting soldiers on merit, making even the lowliest Private feel that if he proved himself, he could someday be a Marshal. But a Drum Major becoming a Baron overnight? That was entirely beyond their expectations and had an electrifying effect, particularly on the newest conscripts, the ones who were most homesick and depressed. He was a charismatic commander and a great battle captain; he imposed his genius and personality on his army and inspired his troops, veterans and recruits, Frenchmen and foreign alike, with fierce pride, loyalty and devotion. The impression which he made by his presence, can be described by no other term that that of grandeur. When a French band serenaded the Emperor, they vested their patriotic air with the essence of their hearts and souls - for this man seemed the very embodiment of the cause for which they happily risked their lives. As the Emperor on horseback reviewed the regiments, the troops greeted him with mounting enthusiasm. The shouts of the soldiers, thousands upon thousands of them even drowned out the music of the regimental bands, whose members were playing their hearts out, sounding the glorious marches of the Empire. Everyone made an effort to get close enough to see HIM. The infantry raised their shakos aloft on the points of their bayonets, the cavalry brandished their sabers and lances. From every section of the battlefield arose a mighty roar: "Vive l'Empereur !" The troops were practically delirious. Even his enemies were fascinated with him. Von Wedel, a German officer, once wrote: "The aura of his greatness subjugated me as well, and giving way to enthusiasm and admiration, I like the others, shouted
@Jack Tangles it was not only those little tactical factors that made Napoleon lose Waterloo, but many more like the flow of information and the like since the enemy knows almost every move of his since Napoleon lost intelligence and counter-intelligence networks after he was exiled on 1814 but after he came back on 1815, he was never able to put most of them together, one of them being organization that was stated in this video, the Imperial Headquarters.
It's always amazed me the success that Napoleon had, with such turmoil in France at the time. Usually civil unrest causes countries to turn inwards, as Russia in WW1. It seems like it would have been even more difficult to gain French support to invade other countries at this time, but it must have had the opposite affect in this case. Either way it amazes me that he was able to do this.
It's not so surprising actually. Jacobins and other revolutionaries at the time were collectivists and championed "freedom of the ancients". It's how ancient Greeks understood freedom. By that concept, individual has no rights, only the collective does.
It's amazing that France had success at all, given the sheer chaos and backwardness of Revolutionary France. It's almost astonishing how the War of the First Coalition had an entire continent lose to an army that was little more then a mob. That just goes to show that Monarchy were on their way out in Europe, given how ineffective they were.
@Feminazi Frequency Given that the Grande Armee fully recovered after the Russian Campaign, I'm not sure I buy that logic. The Battle of Leipzig was a greater death knell, because Napoleon couldn't just pull another half million soldiers out of his pocket after that. Still, given that the European powers were at each other's throat before he walked to Paris, I could see perhaps the Austrians getting on Napoleon's side because of the blood ties, if they were promised Prussia lands. Waterloo meant that the threat of Napoleon's reputation never materialized.
I think a win at Waterloo would have bought napoleon the time needed to train his army and rebuild his grand Arme. The reason why the whole continent rushed on Paris is precisely to stop that from happening. Stop napoleon from recovering the french military strength which was the back bone of the French superiority. Napoleon new army was ill trained and ill disciplined, but had moral, but moral is tricky without a solid victory to back it up, it could crumble with pressure. Waterloo would have kicked the British out from uniting with the Russians and napoleon and the french knew they could easily defeat the Russians again on their own with moral alone. Napoleon decision was wise to defeat the British to solidify his men's moral, however he risked to much going in an offensive battle without the proper intelligence and discipline needed. This was one of those cases where taking out the Russians while stalling the British would have been the better choice since the Russians were an easier target and were force marched to back up the British. Without proper intelligence napoleon could not exploit that and was defeated by a very powerful position held by the British and bad luck with the weather that delayed too much his artillery ability to fire/reload. This allowed the Russians to get there just in time to nail the french on 2 fronts exactly what napoleon did not want to happen.
The best documentation about Napoleon I ever saw. Especially when it comes to the final analysis. You guys clearly did your homework. Thank you so much!
Hi Bernhard, I've read a few biogs of Napoleon but this is the best all encompasing summary of why he was able to achieve what he did. Superb, thanks and well done. Also, loved the top 5 tanks, punchy and to the point, just like the Pzkfw III
With respect to the Imperial Guard, as with all such "elite" formations, they do indeed deprive the line forces of quality troops and material - however, what is often ignored is the effect the Guard has/had on the enemy. Facing the Guard (after 1806) was a daunting prospect for any opposing force. Troops already weakened by artillery bombardment, musket volleys, or cavalry attacks, would often simply collapse when they believed the Guard was about to attack or in the process of attacking their position. This amounted to a force maximization in many situations in battle. It also presented a risk - the morale effects on friendly troops if the Guard failed, as they did at Waterloo. Another factor is that the Guard provided a central core which could be used for key combats and non-combat duties. In the retreat from Russia, the remaining men in the Guard were almost the only effective force, and those from the line who were still willing and able to fight simply followed the Guard units. On balance, one can say that the nature of warfare in the era lent itself to a reasonably sized and well-equipped "elite" force. Those benefits were lost if the organization grew out of control and became bureaucratic and unnecessarily privileged, as such organizations tend to do if those dangers are not recognized by the leader.
At Waterloo, the Imperial Guard had only the name. In fact that the remaining young conscripts of the Campagin of France who have been integrated there. That was not the Veterans of the 1805 Grande Armée, which was probably the most powerful army of the first half of the XIXth century.
Jack Tangles British faced mediocre troops there. Spain was no more the priority. When they faced the Imperial Guard with Napoleon like in 1808 they escaped quickly.
@@freewal There were enough veterans to give it more than a name but by the time they were committed the battle was already lost as is evident from a clear view of the dispositions. The Guard fought incredibly well against the Prussians on the right flank and rearguard. Heroically in fact. Worth a story on its own and all the more amazing since the battle was lost by then and lesser men would have simply run away. As for the assault against Wellington, it was murderous. Few if any one could have withstood that.
@6:10 I think the absence of the staff officers he had fought with for 15 years in the 100 days certainly played a major factor in his defeat. Without his trusty Marshal Berthier there to quickly and accurately interpret and disseminate Napoleon's orders the efficiency of the Grande Armee was greatly reduced. Napoleon said after Waterloo, "Had Berthier been there, I would not have met this misfortune". Napoleon understood the necessity of great staff work and when he did not have it he realized how much it cost him.
he sent orders to Soult to deploy his army before Waterloo. Two sets of orders. In order to confuse any spies. Soult followed the wrong set. Cost Napoleon a vital day. Arguably Berthier would have understood which set Napoleon wanted executed.
Napoleon was ahead of his time in independent movement of corps on different axis of of march. This tactic wasn't instituted in the US Army till 1864 under Sherman and his march to the sea. This tactic allows rapid movement with enemies confused as to the route of march and the main objective.
Yet another one of your fine videos. Your diligence and precision put you far ahead of the ordinary, casual observer. The quality of precision you impart is priceless, and I sometimes can't believe I'm seeing it on TH-cam. You are doing an immeasureable service to history. Thank you!
Well most of the 19% were in the period 1813-1815, when he was vastly outnumbered and couldn't do anyhting, and he still managed to win incredible victories (Dresde or the 6 days campaign). Before the Russian campaign he lost only the battle of Aspern-Essling.
Napoleon considered becoming a writer in the event that the military didn't work out when he was first commissioned as a junior officer. He wrote a lot of less than inspired fiction and political essays and young man, but then during the Italian and Egyptian campaign put all of his literary prowess into his reports back to Paris, which would then be printed in the Parisian newspapers. His campaigns were dramatized and romanticized from their very first telling, like Julius Caesars letters from Gual. He was his own best propagandist and this was the critical element to his becoming first consul and eventually emperor. Well that winning battles all the time.
The Egyptian Campaign was a success for finding the Rosetta Stone that unlocked ancient Egyptian writings and glyphs. Also at this time, the people running france were fear mongering the population and they were screwing things up and could not blame Napoleon for that. He once said, that his timing to come back from Egypt was a stroke of luck. He took a big gamble in making the lawmakers run away and had the army to back him. THIS is an example of why no government will let an army or troops come into the capitals. If one General like Cesar got too powerful , he could just take 50,000 men and take over the government. Napolean crossed the Rubicon with his gamble and won. What a great leader, france was lucky to have him.
I think that when people think "Napoleon" they really mean Napoleon and Berthier. Without his chief of staff his record in not nearly as glorious. And this makes sense, it's one thing to know what an army should do, it's quite another to manage the staff (and the egos of the other commanders) to implement the general's plan.
@@christianbriancon108 Yes that is true, alot of his general betrayed his trust as by being lazy and incompetent after their reward and the taste fruit of their gained states
Another big one... His adversaries never learned how to become good allies with each other until post Russia invasion. Frederick Kagan explores the many political aspects that led to the failure of the Third Coalition specifically in his book on subject.
Another fine presentation, MHV - thank you! Napoleón himself said that had he had Berthier with him, he would have fared better in the 1815 campaign ("If Berthier had been there, I would not have met this misfortune."), however, Berthier was In Bamberg in Bavaria. Under the circumstances, what else could Napoleón I have done? (expansive Gallic shrug of the shoulders)
Berthier died on 1st June after falling from a window, apparently trying to get a better look at a Prussian military parade, so obviously wasn’t available for the 1815 campaign.
This is the best documentary of Napoleon I have ever seen. While it is short and simple, it contains the essential and everything is qualitative, rather than quantitative.
Fascinating insight. Napoleon himself clearly believed that there would never be peace and that the other powers could not accept revolutionary France - although of course France ceased to be revolutionary once it accepted an Emperor. I see Napoleon's success as being largely to ensure supplies and thus make his armies move quicker. Although I consider myself more of a 20th century historian, Austerlitz is one of my favourite battles and trying to understand what happened there on that day is something I have been reading about for many years!
@@Unpseudopascommelesautres If you think his North African campaign only included Egypt and Turkey you really need to read up that. He was unnecessarily cruel, he executed people after they surrendered to him, he went from village to village wiping out everyone because the locals refused to help him. So many of Napoleons' officers were traumatised that many killed themselves or joined the enemy after being captured.
Indeed. Napoleon, Suvorov and Wellington were the foremost generals of their time, but also all wildly different in many respects. The contrast is fascinating, all told.
One extremely important secret weapon at Napoleon's disposal was the use of special operations waiters. These men and women used powerful weaponized rude language and behaviour to break the spirit of their customers and coworkers, not just opposing enemy forces. These waiters in fact are immortal, and one is currently causing havoc in my home city of Vancouver. I remain in awe of Napoleon and his Grande Army, which is still effective to this day.
Napoleon was largely successful from 1796-1808 because his enemies used obsolete systems and methods (18th century warfare). And nobody knew his methods of warfare. By 1809, they realized their mistakes and made adjustments. Napoleon could still win tactical battles here and there, but the strategic picture has changed. Napoleon should have changed some of his methods or directed the invention of new weapons. But his main weakness is his over-reliance on winning tactical battles, thus suffering attrition through manpower losses and war-weariness. Napoleon also was getting older, and he neglected his health.
…I can’t say that’s why anything happened after 1809, with a third-half of the army in Spain, and the disaster in Russia, the outcome was never in doubt unless he conceded
at about 8:32 you have "Odre Mixte" written at the top as "Mixed Order" when actually it is "Ordre Mixte" in French. I thought you might be interested in knowing, it is a great video regardless. I wanted to let ya know, my friend. Someone might have already mentioned this video has been up a while, I had honestly never read the title cards for the slides for some reason and I apologize for that, buddy. You have fabulous videos of all type, I love watching them! :)
according to Clausewitz one of the reasons why Napoleon had such great success, was the fact that he knew how to force his enemies to the negotiation table. he calculated this correctly at Austerlizt and at Jena and so on, but failed to correctly calculate this in Russia. Clausewitz has said that had the austrians not chosen to give in after austerlitz or wagram then Napoleon would have suffered just as great a defeat as in Russia.
Very good vid. You did your homework. Must say the summup at the end reminds me of Genghis Khan, who was known for mastering all those elements as well
I heard a story when I was young about Napoleon going over officers files and combat records, and then approaching them when he saw them as if they were old friends, like "I remember you from such and such campaign, how have you been" etc.
I recall reading an analysis of his strategy/tactics which had so many parallels with Genghis Khan, from the loose command instructions and being more objective based in leadership to the fluidity of the tactics since squadrons were or at least were lead by veterans so well versed they could make decisions similar or even better than Napoleon would have
I read Chandler's books and I really appreciated your work on the video, I personally would love to watch more napoleonic contents but I understand that your passion is ww2 so I'll just tell you that you are doing a great job with your channel
I suggest you all take a look at Andrew Robert's "Napoleon" and Colonel John R. Elting's "Swords Around a Throne" both provide excellent information on Napoleon and warfare during his time.
Nice video! I love your referencing your information. I don't have a source for you but I thought that he also was very innovative when it came to logistics - specifically he discovered the first major example of canning food - a vendor in paris who was preparing champagne bottles filled with stew or vegetables. He instituted a prize for anyone who could develop a process to preserve foods, and this guy figured out what has essentially become what we know today as canning (although it began with sealed glass (the champagne bottles were used because they were thick enough to weather the heat of canning)). He had that process expanded and that was a key element in how his troops gained great mobility, being able to carry prepared foods that were of high quality that kept in all kinds of weather. Has anyone else heard of this? Cheers!
Henri De Boever his content is basically well articulated opinions presented as educational facts. In short you have to take his content with a spoon of salt to actually enjoy it
Oh man i knew this was going to be a shit show of a comments section. Great video though. I had to laugh so many times reading comments of people using revisionist history and some even pointing to LindyBeige as a source of information, talk about Mr Confirmation Bias right there. MHV hats off to you sir, more integrity in your videos than most.
LindyBeige undoubtedly has a high IQ, but he's also a huge douchebag. I stopped watching his videos when I realised that he's an English nationalist and a Francophobe. He not only bashes Napoleon, but also inserts snide remarks against the French nation as a whole in every other video. I'm not French, but I find this quite annoying.
@@Timrath To be fair, the French Revolution and Napoleon were both responsible for terrible losses of life, the former killing so many of the great, great minds that were flourishing in France, while the latter was a totalitarian dictator that saw millions die for the sake of power. There isn't much to be desired. It has to be kept in mind that the British have historically only ever been interested in keeping the balance of power equal in Europe, ensuring no one power was strong enough to steamroll across Europe, which funnily enough has always been in the best interest of Europeans at large.
@@Quethonable Don't be Naive, the brits wanted to balance european powers for their own benefit not for the good of it. They were as imperialisic as everyone back then if not more. Also Napoleon was a dicator in the sense of the power he held but not in how he treated the people, was he ambitious, yes, was he a power mongerer for the only sake of power, no. Contrary to popular belief he actually fought quite a lot of defensive wars, in the sense of he wasn't the one declaring war on others, european leaders where afraid of the revolutionnary ideas he was spreading, probably fearing revolutions and fearing for their own lives. That's one of the main reason as of why they wanted to stop him, even though he was emperor he held the revolutionnary ideas in high regard and applied them, a well polished meritocratic system, the code of law, education systems etc... He changed european history, at a high cost but in my humble opinion for the better.
Macdeas British India saw millions of people starve cuz British saw it as their territory but did not believe it had any responsibility for India’s inhabitants. Also you could say that about any great conqueror. Any war will result in tons of death, so Napoleon isn’t alone at all if you measure deaths as result of war. Look at Hannibal. He crushed the romans. Three times the Roman army was wiped it at Cannes over 60,000 people died in A DAY. Besides, who doesn’t want glory for themselves? Don’t forget that most of napoleons wars were declared ON him not by him. It’s completely reasonable for him to want reparations for them declaring war (in form of land money etc). France also prospered under Napoleon (if not hindered by war it would have been even better) before peasants were starving and the church was corrupt. Napoleon largely fixed those problems as well as many more. However I will admit Napoleon isn’t perfect nobody is, just like Caesar or Alexander or any great general
the imperial headquarters was centered around berthier chief of staff, he was a very able administrator that could transcribe napoleon's orders to his units clearly; ie berthier knew instinctively what Napoleon wanted to achieve and by writing the orders for the units accordingly there was very little chance for mistakes or misinterpretations. the absence of Berthier at the battle of waterloo was definitely an important factor. marechal soult took over berthier's role for the waterloo campaign but he was not as good at transcribing the orders, also when he sent the courier to deliver the orders to the units he only sent one which meant that it was much more likely that the orders didnt reach the units if that single courier had a mishap underway.
Off topic, MHV: I was thinking that the one off Surcouf, the French "Submarine Cruiser" was the groundbreaker, with its turreted guns and float plane for spotting fall of shot. Yesterday, however, I was researching WW1 submarines and, in aside, found data on the HM Submarine X1. Not the "X Class" minisub, mind you, but a real submarine cruiser with two turrets (one each fore and aft of the sail) armed with 5.25" guns. Seeing this, I was struck at the similarities to both Surcouf, and the cancelled Typ XI U-Boote submarine cruisers. These now seem like points on a development graph*, rather than one-off experiments, leading to the I-400 Sen Toku giants; a process that mimics that same switch in emphasis from the all gun battleship's heavy armor and large bore rifles to the aircraft carrier's "tinclad" design and very long engagement range. *The US Walrus and Nautilus fleet boats were also variants of this basic paradigm. I guess that the idea was "artillery rounds are one hell of a lot cheaper than torpedoes". This flies in the face of old sailor wisdom that can be quantified into the following: "If you want to fill them with air, bomb them. If you want to fill them with water, torpedo them." Since today's submarine launched cruise missiles are exactly aircraft strike forces it seems that the aircraft carrier sub won out over the gun armed arsenal submersible idea.
A good point, especially pursuant to the Battleship versus Carrier discussion. Thanks for commenting. I hope you don't mind if I open it up a tad. When dealing with Capital Ships, who and which are required to fight gun duels at all ranges their guns can reach, the paradigm falls short of perfection. Jackie Fisher came up with the "Tinclad", which evolved into the Battlecruiser; a class of ship it was hoped could "outrun anything it can't outfight". Since a capital ship's whole raison d'terre is to engage in gunnery duels with other ships, the thin armor of the tinclad rapidly reduced its functional utility to demonstrations of U.K. naval power and "showing the flag". A lot of money spent of showroom queens. Once Aircraft Carrying ships could attack from outside of a capital ship's gun range, and mass air attack it while it tried to come to grips with an unseen foe, it was time for the battleships to move over and make room for another shift in the "control of the sea" paradigm
The torpedo boat destroyer was in response to the 'jeune ecole' use of torpedoes. Since no amount of armor could protect from a torpedo, one had a choice: shoot at the torpedo boat outside the range of the torpedo, or run away from ships whose guns had longer range than yours. A larger lighter ship could outrun a smaller ship, speed per HP/ton being proportional to the square root of the length. (Froude Number). Its gunnery only had to outrange the torpedo. The battle cruiser in like manner could outrange the destroyer, and could drive them away from protecting battleships, but could outrun a battleship. The torpedo boat of the "jeune ecole" was to some extent a reaction to the all big gun battleship, being a cheaper alternative to limit the freedom of enemy battleships. Eventually the torpedo migrated to submarines, which tried to resolve the vulnerability of the torpedo boat to destroyer cannon by submerging. So a fleet was envisioned with multiple lines of ships with a line of destroyers to protect the line of battleships and the line of battlecruisers to attack the line of destroyers, to clear the way for torpedo boats to get within range of the line of battleships.
The ironic part is that he was a Corsican - son of a man who rebelled against French control of Corsica! and he became the most famous Frenchman of all time! Life and its ironies!
He disliked the French nobility, not the country itself...of course the revolution got rid of the nobility so at that point he became a fervent French.
@@mexicomax77 Yet Napoleon did not mind killing as many French as possible in order to fill his ambitions, sending almost a million young conscripts to an early grave. Napoleon also did not mind seeing Paris destroyed in order for him to keep power in 1814. Napoleon had little regard for France and his Marshalls had to step in and stop Napoleon to save Paris. Napoleon was a psychopath. He did not care for France. It is French revisionary history that tries to portray everything in a favorable light.
Hazel Mel haha you comment collapsed into stupidity when you said « psychopath ». He is one of if not the greatest Frenchmen who ever lived, and that’s saying something when you study French history. Sure, french soldiers died during the Napoleonic wars but life was cheap in those times...don’t forget that!
maxime bourzeix I’m English and Napoleon is probably the most important person of the last thousand years. These anti Napoleon commenters never mention the reforms or who declared war on who.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Most "famous" "greatest" leaders are the same. They are usually completely sociopathic - only looking after their own interests or are such fervent believers in something (like religion or ethnicity or nationalism, etc) that they become fanatics. That drive lets them go up fast but also makes them crazy.
I read he was quite lucky to inherit the recently upgraded French army. They had invested in a lot of light mobile cannon and were adopting mass conscription. By the end of his rule the surrounding countries had caught up with his newer tactics. I'm not sure what hand he had in the mass conscription starting though and he probably helped plan a lot of the new tactics around these lighter mobile cannons and mass soldiers with cavalry.
thank you. No, I work alone, I prefer books instead of a staff ;) but I have some advisors, like Justin (regular on the podcast), Bismarck from Military Aviation history and some members in discord.
Keep up the good work. I was in the US Army for 24 years and love these videos and am seriously impressed at there accuracy both technically and theoretically. Tell your "advisors" they have made a fun channel.
thank you, be sure to check out my second channel, I interview service member, historians, etc. there and also do videos where I "just talk": th-cam.com/users/MilitaryHistoryVlogs
Because when Napoleon was young, he trained so hard. And when we was young, we tried to be the first person with the first comment. So he is a successful person. And we are losers. Hic :'(
You can't train to that level of greatness. Napoleon was born with great genes. If you don't believe me look at twin studies and see how big of a deal they are.
You could have mentioned why did Napoleon aim for shorter more "destructive" campaigns (obviously because France was surrounded by enemies). Also you could have spoke more about his brilliant artillery tactics.
I heard this attributed to Napoleon as saying "A foot on fire" meaning to intensely concentrate cannon fire onto a small area to soften it up before the infantry attack.
For contrast, Kutuzov, Wellington, and Blucher can also be covered in another video. Kutuzov studied George Washington, learned from him, and formulated the strategy and tactics to neutralize Napoleon’s advantages to logistically defeat Napoleon.
I heard that France spent all their Officer Skill Points on Napoleon and when he was defeated they had no points left for the next hundred years to raise any other general over the average level.
Bruh all the skill points were distributed within the Marshalls in the Grand Armee. Murat, Bernadotte,Brune, Massena, Davout, Lannes, Ney, Baptiste and MacDonald. All brilliant in their rights. I agree they bumped it all up and no skill point to give for the next 100 yrs
In the PC game Napoleon Total War a loading screen quote by Napoleon appears "“You cannot stop me; I spend 30,000 lives a month.” , this gives the impression that Napoleon was a ruthless leader with little care for the lives of his soldiers. However when reading through the last will that he made before his death it becomes clear that this was certainly not the case. He made ample provision with his remaining money for the people that had served under him including officers, soldiers especially those who had lost limbs, widows, families and in some cases towns that had seen destruction during the wars. Lesson to be learned, these quotes add immersion to games but are pretty meaningless when taken out of context. Napoleon's will & testament: www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/napoleons-last-will-and-testament/
@@LeeRenthlei The Brits had and have no reason to be jealous. they had Wellington and Nelson. Not to mention a more powerful empire after the fall of Napoleon.
I find that the game really paints him out to be purely callous, egotistical and apathetic to the loss of life. I guess to make you go "Whoa, what an epic badass." Lesson learned, take history portrayed in popular media with a pinch of salt.
@@fightinandirish It is said Napoleon on the retreat from Russia saw one of his soldier lying amongst the many dead that lined the route. A dog was licking the dead man's face but the man was of course unresponsive. And it was the only time Napoleon showed emotion.
Just as Napoleon said, "Novices talk about strategy, experts talk about logistics", The great military feats of the emperor were not only won by strategy, but also by his organizational skills, thanks to which his armies had better and greater mobility and maneuverability, since they could move more freely than the enemy armies, leaving them at a disadvantage, a clear example of this was the preparations for the battle of Austerlitz, well, he separated his army to deceive the enemy, and being smaller armies they moved faster, unlike the Russian and Austrian armies, that they were a great mass of men moving slowly in the same direction.
Enjoyed this video? Consider supporting me on patreon: patreon.com/mhv
For an analysis on the chances of Napoleon invading Britain see this video: th-cam.com/video/NYuCPTkO-B4/w-d-xo.html
But where did Napoleon keep his armies?
Military History Visualized
I definitely will
@Johnny Casteel grow up.
@Johnny Casteel BWAHAHAHAHA... You're a washed-up, irrelevant old hippie on your way out... Don't let the door hit ya, Cupcake! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I have to say that trying to retake france with only a thousand men of his personal guard and actually succeeding in that, only to have an entire continent declare war on you personally, is one of the most badass moves in all of history.
Ouinn Ouinn *700 men actually
He inflated his numbers to intimidate the enemy.
It is always impressive achievement, toppling a government by just walking to the capital.
Unless you're Mussolini of course.
What makes it even more badass is that the entire continent declared war on just Napoleon himself, not France.
Plague Doctor they were so afraid of him that they just did it without a second thought lol
It should be noted that on the quote at 1:40. Peter Browning, the quoted author is mistaken in claiming that Bonaparte was crowned ''Emperor of France'', the real title was ''Emperor of the French''. Because in contrast to the recently deposed French King, who claimed the country of France as a personal possession. The title ''Emperor of the French'' distinguished that Napoleon was the leader of the French People, and that the old feudal system had been abolished.
Back in the day, the difference between the two was important. Nowadays, it's only important in the context of viewing history.
thank you!
which reminds me of 1871 when they couldn't decide if Wilhelm I should be German Emperor, Emperor of the Germans or Emperor of Germany.
Thank YOU for this video Sir! I have an exam on the changing nature of warfare from 1792-1945 in June and this is a great resource for the impact of generalship.
Cute The Cutie In Wilhelm's case it was for a different reason, though. Back then, Austria was seen as part of Germany, so calling the newly founded German Empire "Germany" would have implied that Wilhelm claims to rule Austria as well. That wouldn't have been good for diplomatic relations with Austria-Hungary, so instead they called it the German Empire and Wilhelm was "German Emperor".
The country was and is still called Germany though. German Empire was the full name the same way Federal Republic of Germany is today.
The problem was that the Habsburs used to be Emperors of Germany and thus would have a stronger claim to the title (for similar reasons Bismarck payed the Bavarians to name Wilhelm emperor since the Wittelsbacher were the oldest German dynasty). Wilhelm preferred the title Emperor of Germany while Bismarck preferred Emperor of the Germans. Wilhelm on the other hand didn't want the title Emperor of the Germans since it would have sounded like he received his title from the people. Back in 1848 his brother had refused the title of Emperor when the parliament in Frankfurt offered him the crown.
One of the things about Napoleon that you touched briefly on was something in ROTC that we studied extensively. Napoleon was really good a making sure that 1: his divisions were provisioned enough to fight for one day alone, and 2: that the rest of his Corps was no more than one day away from all of it's elements. This meant that if an element of the corps became engaged, it would have enough supplies, ammunition and manpower to hold out long enough for the rest of the Corps to arrive on scene. This necessitated a better educated staff at command level, good local intelligence, and competent officers on the front lines due to the fact that those officers had to be able to make competent decisions during battle while waiting on orders from high command. Promotion from the ranks based on merit insured that the officers on the scene of battle were able to perform at a bare minimum, adequately, and in most cases, with extreme excellence. This gave the French army a huge advantage over their European Counterparts which commonly sold their commissions to anyone willing to pay the fee for it.
Excellent break down.
@Jack Tangles Actually Sir Arthur Wellesley was just as bad; the Brits just paid for what they stole to reduce the risk of Guerrilla fighters turning against the British like they had against Napoleon. There was no asking involved unless there was major political implications. The British would take your chickens and hand over what they thought they were worth. The locals usually didn't have the clout to tell the British no, so they took the money and hoped there would be a battle nearby so they could pick through the dead solders for loot.
@Jack Tangles I think you missed the point. "we'll pay" and "we'll pay for it, or just take it, which do you choose" are two different things. Only in Portugal was his armies limited to actually asking permission to buy a product due to Britians dire need of the ports to support Wesllesly's armies. In Spain, in was more compulsory selling. Either way, it was still quite progressive for the Allies to actually bother. Most armies up to that point had just simply taken what they wanted and left the locals out in the cold.
At least the French took not just the food and livestock, they conscripted the men, raped the women and stripped your house of everything the could carry (including hinges, screws and nails). They were so thorough that their armies created famine in their wake (which turned to our advantage before Torres Vedras) and created the guerillas who plagued their lines of communications: and all in the name of international brotherhood of man.
See *A Genius for War* by COL Trevor Dupuy in how the Germans of the Confederation of the Rhine kept the Napoleonic style of warfare alive and institutionalized it, leading to the German General Staff and their operational combat excellence.
it was far from just the intelligence of the French forces even during the revolutionary wars with no Napoleon around French troops as disorganised as they could be where pushing away much larger armies of both the HRE and Austria combined, it been recorded multiple times that Austrian and German divisions of the HRE literally fled when they saw the "Sans culottes" running towards them shouting the Marseillaise, the same thing Julius Caesar was talking about about Gauls ferocity and bravery and the same boldness you would see in ww1 and ww2 wearing bright red pants yet fixing bayonets and charging to prove your mettle for your homeland up to being the last defenders of Berlin against the soviets to the last men just so they wouldn't win on the workers day a massive communist celebration. protests in France are that hardcore for the same reason
My enemies are many. My equals are none. In the shade of olive trees they said Italy could never be conquered. In the land of pharos and kings they said Egypt could never be humbled. In the realm of forests and snow, they said Russia could never be tamed. Now they say nothing. They fear me, like a force of nature a dealer in thunder and death. I say, I am Napoleon! I am emperor! Burn it!
Greatest Total War intro ever. In fact, I will watch again now.
Richardsen yeah me too
I found out how Napoleon achieved the necesary naval superiority to attempt the invasion depicted in the video: th-cam.com/video/7rRS-GfsXgk/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, how'd that last one go for you?
Great game
I called the number from your video, now I have a french infantry division in my backyard...
help...
The Old Gang I wouldn't worry, they surrender quite quickly
Throw them all your of your food, beer and women and they'll leave hapilly
Go ahead and make that surrender "joke" to a French soldier. I dare you.
Merde...
Get yourself a few Swiss to help. They're always ready for a fight... Failing that, get some Hessians.
When one asked to Wellington who was the greatest general . His answer was ""In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon"
Make your opponent sound great, and your victory will be seen as even greater. As Alexander I, Czar of Russia said of Wellington, "Le vaincqueur du vaincqueur du monde." (The conqueror of the conqueror of the world).
Since Alexander didn't say it in English, he undermined his own effort.
# Jeff Kodiac
Well, that may or may not be true.
But if asked, whether Napoleon was a good politician or statesman, his answer would have been quite different. Napoleon, after all, was not even a gentleman, according to the Duke of Wellington.
@@yzfool6639 Was English was the mostly widely spread language in royal circles at the time?
@Jim Cameron fanboy Napoleon's "bad ass" tactics were used very widely in WW1. Just keep shovelling men into the fight and fuck the cost. You sound like a piece cannon fodder Napoleon would have happily enlisted.
You left out one of his innovations, he arranged for the development of canned food to supply his troops, as He said an Army travels on its stomach
Martin Horowitz they hadn’t perfected the method on a large scale by the end of the Napoleonic period, so it wasn’t a big factor in his success. For that matter N had a Swiss gunsmith propose the modern breechloading, self contained metallic cartridge for firearms but didn’t adopt it as it couldn’t be produced in large scales.
Did he now!
@Trenchgun91 At least he captured Moscow.
he started it but it never took off in Europe until the 1860s when the US Civil War encouraged an oversupply of tin cans to Europe.
@FBI only generals winter and illness won the great army
Not russians only...
Napoleon's qualities are perfect for a blitzkrieg general. No wonder Guderian studied his 1806 campaign against Prussia.
LordMIGtau Napoleon humiliated Prussia search it up he crushed Prussia and marched into Berlin and went to see Frederick the great, who he deeply admired
@@johncasy5212 and then regretted not to burned it down.. :p
@@X.Y.Z.07 Not the cemetery though. That he could not burn
@LordGroyper the 1806 campaign was succesful
People seem to forget that although he was the greatest military general he could also govern he took control of a country near anarchy and made it great again and his economic reforms cant be ignored he was also writing constitutions and organizing governments himself when he first defeated Austria in italy
Yes he established police states in all his conquered territories and stripped them of all their resources.
@@victornewman9904 not that simple hater
@@victornewman9904 Not really, he actually gave quite a lot of independence to his enemies once defeated. He could have annexed have europe to france if he wanted. He really was not interested in world control, he wanted france safe more than anything. He wasn't an angel by any means but he Cleary wasn't the devil. He was just alone against all of europe
@@GG-vl7lh : They had a version of French democracy, a police-state where opponents "disappeared", had to pay special extraordinary taxes and submit to French conscription. Not much of an independence.
@@victornewman9904 agreed, but you have to compared to the times. Of course with today's standers it was shit, but in the beginning of the 19th century everything was shit. Like all the monarchies made people disappear, all of them had forced conscription, all of the peasants had ridicules taxes. So compared to that no, he wasn't the worst conquered had and yes many people were way better of with him than with whomever was there before him. It just the propaganda of all the other countries that paint has a devil. In the end he is not a good person, but for his time better than everybody else's kings and queens of the time.
Napoleon basically prevented his opponents from concentrating their forces against him. He would restrain one enemy army from reaching the battlefield while he defeated the other army.
Nope. God bless General Blücher (and God bless General Grouchy).
The Prussians out did him
Napoleon entrusted too much trust in his marshals, who by this point wanted to enjoy the fruits of their labours than continue to fight wars. They grew complacent and lazy with their rewards. Napoleon himself commented that she should have used regular generals who had yet to earn their marshal batons. Marshal Grouchy simply chased the Prussian rear-guard, while General Gerard advised his commander to march to the sound of cannon coming from the Mont-St-Jean battlefield. A better general would have done this, and in his youth Napoleon would have made sure this was done.
napoleons are master of disguise, as the video state he prefer crushing the main army of the enemy and then defeat them in detail
In every battle he always maneuver in small unit act like he's outnumbered in fact the enemy are actually outnumbered whenever his reinforcements arrived, the key element of his strategy is mobility
Too bad it was hard winter in russia and stormy rain the night before waterloo
Napeoleon was outnumbered more than 2 for 1 by Prussians and British. All his previous old elite troops of the Imperial GUard were either dead or injured... He fought with young inexperimented soldiers and even with them he was close to win ... if Grouchy did his work well and Ney didn't fail in his manoeuvres. Eternal respect for Napoleon.
Napoleon named himself "Emperor of the French" not emperor of France, there is a rather grand difference there and it's not just a play on word.
TheIfifi Rats. You were too quick for me to point out the emperor of France/ of the French distinction.
Thankyou Thelfifi, some people pay more attention that others. This is not a dig at MHV either, as he has more integrity in his videos than so many others out there.
Yup. The difference is in propaganda value, but for all practical intents and purposes he was emperor of France.
Veljko Stevanovic no the real difference it's of Napoléon take power after the french révolution and after the death of king of France. So napoleon had the lucidity to change the term "emperor of France" to "emperor of french" he wanted to break with old royaliste codes.
Not just propaganda, like Jm killer says, it's symbolic and symbols should not be underestimated.
Napoleon was a military genius but people may not realized how hard he worked and prepared for each battle or campaign.
There is one small point i wished to bring forward : Napoleon completely reformed the armies that, before, were organized by regiments from various regions of France, all speaking a different idiom. By redistributing them to affectation by skills and use (Grenadiers, liners etc.) he changed radically from the organization that prevailed since the Romans
There are a number of reasons why Napoleon was so successful. At the top of the list is Napoleon himself- the "man of action"- the man who "...may lose a battle, but will never lose a minute". His personal initiative, organizational skills, charisma, his focus on objectives, and his attention to detail without wallowing around in it, are all prominent aspects of his personality. Additional factors are (not necessarily in order):
1. His Army Corps system.
2. His emphasis on promotion based on merit.
3. The revolutionary step.
4. His emphasis on making war pay for war by stripping the army's trains to a minimum and living off of the enemy countryside.
5. His refusal to see obstacles as insurmountable.
So you are saying he would have been a great RTS player?
Not just RTS, but Grand Strategy as well, since he was good at politics and economics.
victoria II napoleon mod
So what you're saying that i can be the next ruler half of the world?
You ever played Napoleon Total War? But because of the dumb AI defeating France Is easy. I used Britains superiour navy to invade France Normandy WW2 style
lol antwerp to brussels to paris
Napoleon's ability to influence men is legendary. Here is a little excerpt as to why:
First off, play this in the background: th-cam.com/video/t3217H8JppI/w-d-xo.html
Okay, now we start.
After a hard fought victory against the Austrians, Napoleon reviewed the 13th Regiment of Light Infantry, which had played a key role in the battle, and asked the colonel to name its bravest man. The Colonel thought for a moment: "Sire, it is the Drum Major." Napoleon immediately asked to see the young bandsman, who appeared, quaking in his boots. Then Napoleon announced loudly for everyone to hear, "They say that you are the bravest man in this regiment. I appoint you a knight of Légion d'Honneur, Baron of the Empire, and award you a pension of four thousand francs." The soldiers gasped. Napoleon was famous for his well-timed promotions and for promoting soldiers on merit, making even the lowliest Private feel that if he proved himself, he could someday be a Marshal. But a Drum Major becoming a Baron overnight? That was entirely beyond their expectations and had an electrifying effect, particularly on the newest conscripts, the ones who were most homesick and depressed.
He was a charismatic commander and a great battle captain; he imposed his genius and personality on his army and inspired his troops, veterans and recruits, Frenchmen and foreign alike, with fierce pride, loyalty and devotion. The impression which he made by his presence, can be described by no other term that that of grandeur. When a French band serenaded the Emperor, they vested their patriotic air with the essence of their hearts and souls - for this man seemed the very embodiment of the cause for which they happily risked their lives. As the Emperor on horseback reviewed the regiments, the troops greeted him with mounting enthusiasm. The shouts of the soldiers, thousands upon thousands of them even drowned out the music of the regimental bands, whose members were playing their hearts out, sounding the glorious marches of the Empire. Everyone made an effort to get close enough to see HIM. The infantry raised their shakos aloft on the points of their bayonets, the cavalry brandished their sabers and lances. From every section of the battlefield arose a mighty roar: "Vive l'Empereur !" The troops were practically delirious. Even his enemies were fascinated with him. Von Wedel, a German officer, once wrote: "The aura of his greatness subjugated me as well, and giving way to enthusiasm and admiration, I like the others, shouted
The Duke of Wellington was reportedly once asked who the best General of his day was. His reply was: "In this age- in any age- Napoleon".
Indeed! I believe the full quote was: "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."
@Jack Tangles
Yes. Wellington himself said that he would lost Waterloo if the Prussians hadn't arrived
@Jack Tangles it was not only those little tactical factors that made Napoleon lose Waterloo, but many more like the flow of information and the like since the enemy knows almost every move of his since Napoleon lost intelligence and counter-intelligence networks after he was exiled on 1814 but after he came back on 1815, he was never able to put most of them together, one of them being organization that was stated in this video, the Imperial Headquarters.
His opponents feared him like a force of nature.
I love how you supported your points with citations. Good work man!
It's always amazed me the success that Napoleon had, with such turmoil in France at the time. Usually civil unrest causes countries to turn inwards, as Russia in WW1. It seems like it would have been even more difficult to gain French support to invade other countries at this time, but it must have had the opposite affect in this case. Either way it amazes me that he was able to do this.
Just like Adolf.
It's not so surprising actually. Jacobins and other revolutionaries at the time were collectivists and championed "freedom of the ancients". It's how ancient Greeks understood freedom. By that concept, individual has no rights, only the collective does.
It's amazing that France had success at all, given the sheer chaos and backwardness of Revolutionary France. It's almost astonishing how the War of the First Coalition had an entire continent lose to an army that was little more then a mob. That just goes to show that Monarchy were on their way out in Europe, given how ineffective they were.
@Feminazi Frequency Given that the Grande Armee fully recovered after the Russian Campaign, I'm not sure I buy that logic. The Battle of Leipzig was a greater death knell, because Napoleon couldn't just pull another half million soldiers out of his pocket after that. Still, given that the European powers were at each other's throat before he walked to Paris, I could see perhaps the Austrians getting on Napoleon's side because of the blood ties, if they were promised Prussia lands. Waterloo meant that the threat of Napoleon's reputation never materialized.
I think a win at Waterloo would have bought napoleon the time needed to train his army and rebuild his grand Arme.
The reason why the whole continent rushed on Paris is precisely to stop that from happening.
Stop napoleon from recovering the french military strength which was the back bone of the French superiority.
Napoleon new army was ill trained and ill disciplined, but had moral, but moral is tricky without a solid victory to back it up, it could crumble with pressure. Waterloo would have kicked the British out from uniting with the Russians and napoleon and the french knew they could easily defeat the Russians again on their own with moral alone.
Napoleon decision was wise to defeat the British to solidify his men's moral, however he risked to much going in an offensive battle without the proper intelligence and discipline needed.
This was one of those cases where taking out the Russians while stalling the British would have been the better choice since the Russians were an easier target and were force marched to back up the British.
Without proper intelligence napoleon could not exploit that and was defeated by a very powerful position held by the British and bad luck with the weather that delayed too much his artillery ability to fire/reload.
This allowed the Russians to get there just in time to nail the french on 2 fronts exactly what napoleon did not want to happen.
"He crowned himself "Emperor of the French
Not emperor of france
it is an actual distinction that should be made
And was chosen by the french by plebiscite!
Hes a genuis he didnt let the pope crown him
The best documentation about Napoleon I ever saw. Especially when it comes to the final analysis. You guys clearly did your homework. Thank you so much!
Hi Bernhard, I've read a few biogs of Napoleon but this is the best all encompasing summary of why he was able to achieve what he did. Superb, thanks and well done. Also, loved the top 5 tanks, punchy and to the point, just like the Pzkfw III
With respect to the Imperial Guard, as with all such "elite" formations, they do indeed deprive the line forces of quality troops and material - however, what is often ignored is the effect the Guard has/had on the enemy. Facing the Guard (after 1806) was a daunting prospect for any opposing force. Troops already weakened by artillery bombardment, musket volleys, or cavalry attacks, would often simply collapse when they believed the Guard was about to attack or in the process of attacking their position. This amounted to a force maximization in many situations in battle. It also presented a risk - the morale effects on friendly troops if the Guard failed, as they did at Waterloo.
Another factor is that the Guard provided a central core which could be used for key combats and non-combat duties. In the retreat from Russia, the remaining men in the Guard were almost the only effective force, and those from the line who were still willing and able to fight simply followed the Guard units.
On balance, one can say that the nature of warfare in the era lent itself to a reasonably sized and well-equipped "elite" force. Those benefits were lost if the organization grew out of control and became bureaucratic and unnecessarily privileged, as such organizations tend to do if those dangers are not recognized by the leader.
At Eylau battle, the Imperial guard could get time enough to let Ney the time to come to save the French.
At Waterloo, the Imperial Guard had only the name. In fact that the remaining young conscripts of the Campagin of France who have been integrated there. That was not the Veterans of the 1805 Grande Armée, which was probably the most powerful army of the first half of the XIXth century.
Jack Tangles British faced mediocre troops there. Spain was no more the priority. When they faced the Imperial Guard with Napoleon like in 1808 they escaped quickly.
@@freewal You must think very highly of yourself to refer to the 19th century as the XIXth century.
@@freewal There were enough veterans to give it more than a name but by the time they were committed the battle was already lost as is evident from a clear view of the dispositions. The Guard fought incredibly well against the Prussians on the right flank and rearguard. Heroically in fact. Worth a story on its own and all the more amazing since the battle was lost by then and lesser men would have simply run away. As for the assault against Wellington, it was murderous. Few if any one could have withstood that.
@6:10 I think the absence of the staff officers he had fought with for 15 years in the 100 days certainly played a major factor in his defeat. Without his trusty Marshal Berthier there to quickly and accurately interpret and disseminate Napoleon's orders the efficiency of the Grande Armee was greatly reduced. Napoleon said after Waterloo, "Had Berthier been there, I would not have met this misfortune". Napoleon understood the necessity of great staff work and when he did not have it he realized how much it cost him.
he sent orders to Soult to deploy his army before Waterloo. Two sets of orders. In order to confuse any spies. Soult followed the wrong set. Cost Napoleon a vital day. Arguably Berthier would have understood which set Napoleon wanted executed.
Napoleon was ahead of his time in independent movement of corps on different axis of of march. This tactic wasn't instituted in the US Army till 1864 under Sherman and his march to the sea. This tactic allows rapid movement with enemies confused as to the route of march and the main objective.
20:20 He had well developed social skills : he kept hammering his underlings and opponents with logic and reasoning :)
I like your king, NOW GIVE ME YOUR LAND.
Yet another one of your fine videos. Your diligence and precision put you far ahead of the ordinary, casual observer. The quality of precision you impart is priceless, and I sometimes can't believe I'm seeing it on TH-cam. You are doing an immeasureable service to history. Thank you!
Nerfed from 94% to 81%. Still OP, PLZ nerf Napoleon!
Well most of the 19% were in the period 1813-1815, when he was vastly outnumbered and couldn't do anyhting, and he still managed to win incredible victories (Dresde or the 6 days campaign). Before the Russian campaign he lost only the battle of Aspern-Essling.
@Tiny mod
LOL? The only time he had the opportunity to fight them in the peninsular, they ran away to their boats...
Crusader True! 👍👍
@Aethelstan of England He has never had the strenght to do it. Was to weak. Neither a fleet to challenge the English.
@Aethelstan of England It was the weather rather than the English fleet that disarrayed the Spanish transport ships.
Napoleon considered becoming a writer in the event that the military didn't work out when he was first commissioned as a junior officer. He wrote a lot of less than inspired fiction and political essays and young man, but then during the Italian and Egyptian campaign put all of his literary prowess into his reports back to Paris, which would then be printed in the Parisian newspapers. His campaigns were dramatized and romanticized from their very first telling, like Julius Caesars letters from Gual. He was his own best propagandist and this was the critical element to his becoming first consul and eventually emperor. Well that winning battles all the time.
The Egyptian Campaign was a success for finding the Rosetta Stone that unlocked ancient Egyptian writings and glyphs. Also at this time, the people running france were fear mongering the population and they were screwing things up and could not blame Napoleon for that. He once said, that his timing to come back from Egypt was a stroke of luck. He took a big gamble in making the lawmakers run away and had the army to back him. THIS is an example of why no government will let an army or troops come into the capitals. If one General like Cesar got too powerful , he could just take 50,000 men and take over the government. Napolean crossed the Rubicon with his gamble and won. What a great leader, france was lucky to have him.
He left his starving troops in the Levant [and fled - to his mistress apparently]
Will we see a similar break down on Frederick the great?
likely, but might take a while, since my knowledge of his era is still very limited.
I think that when people think "Napoleon" they really mean Napoleon and Berthier. Without his chief of staff his record in not nearly as glorious. And this makes sense, it's one thing to know what an army should do, it's quite another to manage the staff (and the egos of the other commanders) to implement the general's plan.
Ah, Berthier, my long term relative :)
Napoléon said that if Berthier had been at Waterloo he would have won the battle
@@christianbriancon108 Yes that is true, alot of his general betrayed his trust as by being lazy and incompetent after their reward and the taste fruit of their gained states
This is the best military history channel on TH-cam, period!
Napoleon Quote: “Give me enough ribbons to place on the tunics of my soldiers and I can conquer the world.”
Outstanding, a well balanced, circumspect and very credible analysis with cited sources!
Another big one... His adversaries never learned how to become good allies with each other until post Russia invasion. Frederick Kagan explores the many political aspects that led to the failure of the Third Coalition specifically in his book on subject.
Very well researched. And I appreciate the citing of sources in the video
Great EU 4 reference
Fantastic videos! I have not read a great deal on Napoleon, so this video was a fantastic education.
Another fine presentation, MHV - thank you! Napoleón himself said that had he had Berthier with him, he would have fared better in the 1815 campaign ("If Berthier had been there, I would not have met this misfortune."), however, Berthier was In Bamberg in Bavaria. Under the circumstances, what else could Napoleón I have done? (expansive Gallic shrug of the shoulders)
Berthier died on 1st June after falling from a window, apparently trying to get a better look at a Prussian military parade, so obviously wasn’t available for the 1815 campaign.
This is the best documentary of Napoleon I have ever seen. While it is short and simple, it contains the essential and everything is qualitative, rather than quantitative.
thank you! I aim for high information density, seems it worked out :)
Great video man! XVIIIth and XIXth century history is fascinating! Well done!
Fascinating insight. Napoleon himself clearly believed that there would never be peace and that the other powers could not accept revolutionary France - although of course France ceased to be revolutionary once it accepted an Emperor. I see Napoleon's success as being largely to ensure supplies and thus make his armies move quicker. Although I consider myself more of a 20th century historian, Austerlitz is one of my favourite battles and trying to understand what happened there on that day is something I have been reading about for many years!
He was certainly the most successful governor of St. Helena in history.
...
He was the most succesful governor of Elba aswell, but unironically :)
Demonde Laplace He made certainly a better governor of St. Helena than Hudson Lowe.
He wsan't governor @ Elba. He was the Sovereign.
Teach me how to be jealous of a dead man please.
Napoleon was someone to admire, I really like him
Je l'aime aussi
He really isn't, you should read what he did in his North African campaign, he massacred innocents by the thousands
@@autismisuncontrollable4925 He is only go in Egypt and he killed the mamelouk ottoman, ally of English
@@Unpseudopascommelesautres If you think his North African campaign only included Egypt and Turkey you really need to read up that. He was unnecessarily cruel, he executed people after they surrendered to him, he went from village to village wiping out everyone because the locals refused to help him. So many of Napoleons' officers were traumatised that many killed themselves or joined the enemy after being captured.
@@autismisuncontrollable4925 Send some link because nothing for me.
Suvorov next?
It's a shame Suvorov and Napoleon never met in battle, despite at one time fighting in the opposing armies at the same time.
Indeed. Napoleon, Suvorov and Wellington were the foremost generals of their time, but also all wildly different in many respects. The contrast is fascinating, all told.
@@Cailus3542 Napoleon did met Suvorov is protege, Bagration
One extremely important secret weapon at Napoleon's disposal was the use of special operations waiters. These men and women used powerful weaponized rude language and behaviour to break the spirit of their customers and coworkers, not just opposing enemy forces. These waiters in fact are immortal, and one is currently causing havoc in my home city of Vancouver. I remain in awe of Napoleon and his Grande Army, which is still effective to this day.
I clicked like even without watching the video. So much confidence!
Thanks for an excellent-- succinct yet persuasive--post.
Napoleon was largely successful from 1796-1808 because his enemies used obsolete systems and methods (18th century warfare). And nobody knew his methods of warfare.
By 1809, they realized their mistakes and made adjustments. Napoleon could still win tactical battles here and there, but the strategic picture has changed. Napoleon should have changed some of his methods or directed the invention of new weapons. But his main weakness is his over-reliance on winning tactical battles, thus suffering attrition through manpower losses and war-weariness. Napoleon also was getting older, and he neglected his health.
Once the Archduke Charles figured it out, it was only a matter of time before they enveloped him
…I can’t say that’s why anything happened after 1809, with a third-half of the army in Spain, and the disaster in Russia, the outcome was never in doubt unless he conceded
Oddy as an engineer he failed to update the basic equipment - guns. This is well documented elsewhere.
LOVE that you've shared all the sources, thankyou so much
Napoleon admired Frederick The Great and visited San Souci 👍
Napoléon have no equals
Eddy Malou he has one: Caesar.
alexander the great, Julius Ceasar and Napoleon Bonaparte
at about 8:32 you have "Odre Mixte" written at the top as "Mixed Order" when actually it is "Ordre Mixte" in French. I thought you might be interested in knowing, it is a great video regardless. I wanted to let ya know, my friend. Someone might have already mentioned this video has been up a while, I had honestly never read the title cards for the slides for some reason and I apologize for that, buddy. You have fabulous videos of all type, I love watching them! :)
according to Clausewitz one of the reasons why Napoleon had such great success, was the fact that he knew how to force his enemies to the negotiation table. he calculated this correctly at Austerlizt and at Jena and so on, but failed to correctly calculate this in Russia. Clausewitz has said that had the austrians not chosen to give in after austerlitz or wagram then Napoleon would have suffered just as great a defeat as in Russia.
Sounds like German salt
@@XZagatoX ?
Outstanding video! Congratulations and thanks for sharing.
Sehr schön, wie immer! Vielen Dank :)
What an excellent video. The more of these biographical style videos the better. Well done!
Very good vid. You did your homework. Must say the summup at the end reminds me of Genghis Khan, who was known for mastering all those elements as well
Wow, amazing production quality. Having small graphics with words teaches so effectively.
Number 35? Sweet! Glad to be getting my notifications in a timely manner again!
We'll be the better trained army, at least. ;-)
I heard a story when I was young about Napoleon going over officers files and combat records, and then approaching them when he saw them as if they were old friends, like "I remember you from such and such campaign, how have you been" etc.
God of war in video game: hitting people with an axe
God of war irl: doing logistical planning
Not gonna lie, the blue blob achievement got me to subscribe. Great video.
Thank you!
Hmm structure of the video: 1. Tell them what you're going to tell them. 2. Tell them. 3. Tell them what you told them.
Very nice.
No definition of the basic premise? Success. Not nice!
I recall reading an analysis of his strategy/tactics which had so many parallels with Genghis Khan, from the loose command instructions and being more objective based in leadership to the fluidity of the tactics since squadrons were or at least were lead by veterans so well versed they could make decisions similar or even better than Napoleon would have
I read Chandler's books and I really appreciated your work on the video, I personally would love to watch more napoleonic contents but I understand that your passion is ww2 so I'll just tell you that you are doing a great job with your channel
very informative and simple to understand...thumps up
I suggest you all take a look at Andrew Robert's "Napoleon" and Colonel John R. Elting's "Swords Around a Throne" both provide excellent information on Napoleon and warfare during his time.
nice video, great info
"Yet as a military officer during the French revolution, where quite literally many heads rolled."
Lol, nice one.
Nice video! I love your referencing your information. I don't have a source for you but I thought that he also was very innovative when it came to logistics - specifically he discovered the first major example of canning food - a vendor in paris who was preparing champagne bottles filled with stew or vegetables. He instituted a prize for anyone who could develop a process to preserve foods, and this guy figured out what has essentially become what we know today as canning (although it began with sealed glass (the champagne bottles were used because they were thick enough to weather the heat of canning)). He had that process expanded and that was a key element in how his troops gained great mobility, being able to carry prepared foods that were of high quality that kept in all kinds of weather. Has anyone else heard of this? Cheers!
Lindybeige won't like this video
Hazzmati , and that'll make many happy :)
Lindy is a hack
Henri De Boever his content is basically well articulated opinions presented as educational facts. In short you have to take his content with a spoon of salt to actually enjoy it
Once again, great video dude! You're getting better every day.
Also, the music is back!
Oh man i knew this was going to be a shit show of a comments section. Great video though. I had to laugh so many times reading comments of people using revisionist history and some even pointing to LindyBeige as a source of information, talk about Mr Confirmation Bias right there.
MHV hats off to you sir, more integrity in your videos than most.
LindyBeige undoubtedly has a high IQ, but he's also a huge douchebag. I stopped watching his videos when I realised that he's an English nationalist and a Francophobe. He not only bashes Napoleon, but also inserts snide remarks against the French nation as a whole in every other video. I'm not French, but I find this quite annoying.
@@Timrath To be fair, the French Revolution and Napoleon were both responsible for terrible losses of life, the former killing so many of the great, great minds that were flourishing in France, while the latter was a totalitarian dictator that saw millions die for the sake of power. There isn't much to be desired. It has to be kept in mind that the British have historically only ever been interested in keeping the balance of power equal in Europe, ensuring no one power was strong enough to steamroll across Europe, which funnily enough has always been in the best interest of Europeans at large.
@@Quethonable Don't be Naive, the brits wanted to balance european powers for their own benefit not for the good of it. They were as imperialisic as everyone back then if not more. Also Napoleon was a dicator in the sense of the power he held but not in how he treated the people, was he ambitious, yes, was he a power mongerer for the only sake of power, no. Contrary to popular belief he actually fought quite a lot of defensive wars, in the sense of he wasn't the one declaring war on others, european leaders where afraid of the revolutionnary ideas he was spreading, probably fearing revolutions and fearing for their own lives. That's one of the main reason as of why they wanted to stop him, even though he was emperor he held the revolutionnary ideas in high regard and applied them, a well polished meritocratic system, the code of law, education systems etc...
He changed european history, at a high cost but in my humble opinion for the better.
Macdeas British India saw millions of people starve cuz British saw it as their territory but did not believe it had any responsibility for India’s inhabitants. Also you could say that about any great conqueror. Any war will result in tons of death, so Napoleon isn’t alone at all if you measure deaths as result of war. Look at Hannibal. He crushed the romans. Three times the Roman army was wiped it at Cannes over 60,000 people died in A DAY. Besides, who doesn’t want glory for themselves? Don’t forget that most of napoleons wars were declared ON him not by him. It’s completely reasonable for him to want reparations for them declaring war (in form of land money etc). France also prospered under Napoleon (if not hindered by war it would have been even better) before peasants were starving and the church was corrupt. Napoleon largely fixed those problems as well as many more. However I will admit Napoleon isn’t perfect nobody is, just like Caesar or Alexander or any great general
Any need to use foul language?
the imperial headquarters was centered around berthier chief of staff, he was a very able administrator that could transcribe napoleon's orders to his units clearly; ie berthier knew instinctively what Napoleon wanted to achieve and by writing the orders for the units accordingly there was very little chance for mistakes or misinterpretations. the absence of Berthier at the battle of waterloo was definitely an important factor. marechal soult took over berthier's role for the waterloo campaign but he was not as good at transcribing the orders, also when he sent the courier to deliver the orders to the units he only sent one which meant that it was much more likely that the orders didnt reach the units if that single courier had a mishap underway.
Off topic, MHV: I was thinking that the one off Surcouf, the French "Submarine Cruiser" was the groundbreaker, with its turreted guns and float plane for spotting fall of shot. Yesterday, however, I was researching WW1 submarines and, in aside, found data on the HM Submarine X1. Not the "X Class" minisub, mind you, but a real submarine cruiser with two turrets (one each fore and aft of the sail) armed with 5.25" guns. Seeing this, I was struck at the similarities to both Surcouf, and the cancelled Typ XI U-Boote submarine cruisers. These now seem like points on a development graph*, rather than one-off experiments, leading to the I-400 Sen Toku giants; a process that mimics that same switch in emphasis from the all gun battleship's heavy armor and large bore rifles to the aircraft carrier's "tinclad" design and very long engagement range.
*The US Walrus and Nautilus fleet boats were also variants of this basic paradigm. I guess that the idea was "artillery rounds are one hell of a lot cheaper than torpedoes". This flies in the face of old sailor wisdom that can be quantified into the following: "If you want to fill them with air, bomb them. If you want to fill them with water, torpedo them." Since today's submarine launched cruise missiles are exactly aircraft strike forces it seems that the aircraft carrier sub won out over the gun armed arsenal submersible idea.
Distance is the best armor.
A good point, especially pursuant to the Battleship versus Carrier discussion. Thanks for commenting. I hope you don't mind if I open it up a tad.
When dealing with Capital Ships, who and which are required to fight gun duels at all ranges their guns can reach, the paradigm falls short of perfection. Jackie Fisher came up with the "Tinclad", which evolved into the Battlecruiser; a class of ship it was hoped could "outrun anything it can't outfight". Since a capital ship's whole raison d'terre is to engage in gunnery duels with other ships, the thin armor of the tinclad rapidly reduced its functional utility to demonstrations of U.K. naval power and "showing the flag". A lot of money spent of showroom queens. Once Aircraft Carrying ships could attack from outside of a capital ship's gun range, and mass air attack it while it tried to come to grips with an unseen foe, it was time for the battleships to move over and make room for another shift in the "control of the sea" paradigm
The torpedo boat destroyer was in response to the 'jeune ecole' use of torpedoes. Since no amount of armor could protect from a torpedo, one had a choice: shoot at the torpedo boat outside the range of the torpedo, or run away from ships whose guns had longer range than yours. A larger lighter ship could outrun a smaller ship, speed per HP/ton being proportional to the square root of the length. (Froude Number). Its gunnery only had to outrange the torpedo.
The battle cruiser in like manner could outrange the destroyer, and could drive them away from protecting battleships, but could outrun a battleship. The torpedo boat of the "jeune ecole" was to some extent a reaction to the all big gun battleship, being a cheaper alternative to limit the freedom of enemy battleships.
Eventually the torpedo migrated to submarines, which tried to resolve the vulnerability of the torpedo boat to destroyer cannon by submerging. So a fleet was envisioned with multiple lines of ships with a line of destroyers to protect the line of battleships and the line of battlecruisers to attack the line of destroyers, to clear the way for torpedo boats to get within range of the line of battleships.
William Cox You sure love the word paradigm...
Thanks for this interesting and useful commentary.
The ironic part is that he was a Corsican - son of a man who rebelled against French control of Corsica! and he became the most famous Frenchman of all time! Life and its ironies!
He disliked the French nobility, not the country itself...of course the revolution got rid of the nobility so at that point he became a fervent French.
@@mexicomax77 Yet Napoleon did not mind killing as many French as possible in order to fill his ambitions, sending almost a million young conscripts to an early grave. Napoleon also did not mind seeing Paris destroyed in order for him to keep power in 1814. Napoleon had little regard for France and his Marshalls had to step in and stop Napoleon to save Paris. Napoleon was a psychopath. He did not care for France. It is French revisionary history that tries to portray everything in a favorable light.
Hazel Mel haha you comment collapsed into stupidity when you said « psychopath ». He is one of if not the greatest Frenchmen who ever lived, and that’s saying something when you study French history. Sure, french soldiers died during the Napoleonic wars but life was cheap in those times...don’t forget that!
maxime bourzeix I’m English and Napoleon is probably the most important person of the last thousand years. These anti Napoleon commenters never mention the reforms or who declared war on who.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Most "famous" "greatest" leaders are the same. They are usually completely sociopathic - only looking after their own interests or are such fervent believers in something (like religion or ethnicity or nationalism, etc) that they become fanatics. That drive lets them go up fast but also makes them crazy.
I read he was quite lucky to inherit the recently upgraded French army. They had invested in a lot of light mobile cannon and were adopting mass conscription. By the end of his rule the surrounding countries had caught up with his newer tactics. I'm not sure what hand he had in the mass conscription starting though and he probably helped plan a lot of the new tactics around these lighter mobile cannons and mass soldiers with cavalry.
Dude, you such a good job of breaking down complex things in these videos. Do you have staff that help with research? Great video, as usual.
thank you. No, I work alone, I prefer books instead of a staff ;) but I have some advisors, like Justin (regular on the podcast), Bismarck from Military Aviation history and some members in discord.
Keep up the good work. I was in the US Army for 24 years and love these videos and am seriously impressed at there accuracy both technically and theoretically. Tell your "advisors" they have made a fun channel.
thank you, be sure to check out my second channel, I interview service member, historians, etc. there and also do videos where I "just talk": th-cam.com/users/MilitaryHistoryVlogs
I HAVE ENJOYED MANY OF YOUR VEDIOS THIS I FEEL WAS YOUR BEST!!!! I WILL SUPPORT YOUR PATRION ASAP
TONY
Because when Napoleon was young, he trained so hard. And when we was young, we tried to be the first person with the first comment.
So he is a successful person.
And we are losers.
Hic :'(
Monster Box he was a loser too when he was young, he was an incel nerd who hated women.
You can't train to that level of greatness. Napoleon was born with great genes. If you don't believe me look at twin studies and see how big of a deal they are.
Simple. People back then dont have smart phone.
he didnt train hard he was absent on leave moist of his early career'
Yeah hated women so much he took Josephine back even after she had cheated on him...
Really enjoyed the video, excellently researched.
You could have mentioned why did Napoleon aim for shorter more "destructive" campaigns (obviously because France was surrounded by enemies).
Also you could have spoke more about his brilliant artillery tactics.
When Hitler entered conquered Paris his first statement was, “If Napoleon were alive, I would not be here!”
Yeah dude he was pretty damned successful. More successful than anybody reading this comment.
I won the British campaign in Napoleon total war, does that count as successful?
I did not read this comment.
@@LeeRaldar it counts :D
I can conquer Europe too, I just don't feel like it right now.
@@peerstrom50
You outplayed your self
I heard this attributed to Napoleon as saying "A foot on fire" meaning to intensely concentrate cannon fire onto a small area to soften it up before the infantry attack.
as a sucker for 1700s and early 1800s warfare(mabye also 1600s)this is a top quality video :D
For contrast, Kutuzov, Wellington, and Blucher can also be covered in another video. Kutuzov studied George Washington, learned from him, and formulated the strategy and tactics to neutralize Napoleon’s advantages to logistically defeat Napoleon.
I heard that France spent all their Officer Skill Points on Napoleon and when he was defeated they had no points left for the next hundred years to raise any other general over the average level.
Bruh all the skill points were distributed within the Marshalls in the Grand Armee. Murat, Bernadotte,Brune, Massena, Davout, Lannes, Ney, Baptiste and MacDonald. All brilliant in their rights. I agree they bumped it all up and no skill point to give for the next 100 yrs
Thanks for making this, I’ve been very interested in Napoleon lately.
And to think that the creator of this tactics and strategies was defeated by rabbits
I wish you had something to muffle the SSS sound but I love this thank you for doing this! I really appreciate your work.
Thanks once again for a great video
He was just better then his opponents.
People forget this - disorganised coalitions - until Welington that is....
Great video thank you !
In the PC game Napoleon Total War a loading screen quote by Napoleon appears "“You cannot stop me; I spend 30,000 lives a month.” , this gives the impression that Napoleon was a ruthless leader with little care for the lives of his soldiers.
However when reading through the last will that he made before his death it becomes clear that this was certainly not the case. He made ample provision with his remaining money for the people that had served under him including officers, soldiers especially those who had lost limbs, widows, families and in some cases towns that had seen destruction during the wars.
Lesson to be learned, these quotes add immersion to games but are pretty meaningless when taken out of context.
Napoleon's will & testament: www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/napoleons-last-will-and-testament/
This is british propaganda. He was admired in EUrope except by the Perfidious United Kingdom and the Kings and Emperors of other countries.
The Brits we're jealous
@@LeeRenthlei The Brits had and have no reason to be jealous. they had Wellington and Nelson. Not to mention a more powerful empire after the fall of Napoleon.
I find that the game really paints him out to be purely callous, egotistical and apathetic to the loss of life. I guess to make you go "Whoa, what an epic badass." Lesson learned, take history portrayed in popular media with a pinch of salt.
@@fightinandirish It is said Napoleon on the retreat from Russia saw one of his soldier lying amongst the many dead that lined the route. A dog was licking the dead man's face but the man was of course unresponsive. And it was the only time Napoleon showed emotion.
GREAT research and delivery .... Shows why Napoleon was a success
Success?? by what criteria?
"Big Blue Blob"
LOL
Just as Napoleon said, "Novices talk about strategy, experts talk about logistics", The great military feats of the emperor were not only won by strategy, but also by his organizational skills, thanks to which his armies had better and greater mobility and maneuverability, since they could move more freely than the enemy armies, leaving them at a disadvantage, a clear example of this was the preparations for the battle of Austerlitz, well, he separated his army to deceive the enemy, and being smaller armies they moved faster, unlike the Russian and Austrian armies, that they were a great mass of men moving slowly in the same direction.
Russia??????