Thanks for watching! Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media: Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT
@@SoGal_YT oh i see. Biggest advice i can give you is, learn it chronologically. Historia Civillis is the rome freak of youtube although might be too detailed for you at the moment although covers the monarchhy and republican periods very well and very in depth even into the physche of Rome. OverlySarcastic Productions is perfect for a ridiculously simplified version. Kings and Generals has overall coverage of all periods the best for now but other channels like Invicta and HistoryMarche have a lot of valuable content including more in depth views of big roman conflicts even more in depth than Kings and Generals so might be worth checking out for certain topics 👍
I realy like your videos. And I use them to practise my English writing long comments. I hope, that's okay. My answers and remarks for this video are: Queen Louise (5:25): When Napoleon met her in 1807, he asked, why Prussia believed, that it could win against him and she answered, that the Glory of Frederick the Great had deceived them. Dealing with countries (6:55): It's the full picture. They didn't ask the people. But this could be dangerous like in Tirol and Brunswick. Prussians Allies (7:47): They forgot the Duchy of Brunswick, consisting of two of the little grey points on the map between Hannover and Prussia. The Duke of Brunswick was the commander of the Prussian army and his son, the 'Black Duke' didn't stop fighting against Napoleon until he died in the battle of Quatre-Bras 1815 and his troops served without him under Wellington at Waterloo. He managed to do so despite the fact, that Napoleon had occupied Brunswick. Here is a video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hFvPrs-8s2Y.html Transportation of Armies (8:00) and Prussian Incompetency (18:45): There was another problem: It was not possible for an army of 120000 to march on only one street. They needed three. And this was one problem for the prussian army after battle: there was not enough space to retreat in one direction, because they didn't plan it: Because both defeated prussian armies met on one point, the real chaos began. Most, if not all scholars say, that the prussian army in 1806 wasn't defeated by Napoleon, but by it's own officers. And later every officer had to proof, not to be guilty of being incompetant during this two battles. If they didn't manage to do so they were expelled from the army. Jena (12:54): It is saif, that the Prussians didn't believe, that the French artillery and Heavy Cavalry could be brought from the valley of the river Saale onto the plateau by night. They used the horses of the heavy artillery to do it and there was a surprise for the Prussians within the morning. Civilians on the battlefield (13:20): This time they knew, that the armies were coming. In Jena they even evecuated the library of the university. But it got messed up and later Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was asked to tidy it up as librarian. It was such a confusion, they thought only the great man would be able to do it. "Your Marshal must be seeing double!" (16:37): The Aides-de-camp (military assistent or helper of a general) of Davout had reportet to Napoleon, that Davout was faced by the main prussian army. Napoleon didn't believe it. Question on the name 'Hassenhausen' (17:30): It means "Houses or Homes of Hessians". 3 days? (21:16): No, 33 days. Europe at War (22:35): As long as we can observe it, there was war in Europe. Until 1648 there were more years of war then years in calender, war being normal and peace being an exception. Within the Peace of Westfalia it was agreed, that before a war begins, there should be negotiations. It doesn't stand within the text, but the diplomats agreed on it. No war should be the exeption. In Germany the longest periods of peace after this and before WWII were from 1815 up to 1848 and 1871 - 1914. But within the second period there were some colonial wars. This explains a lot. 1914 a lot of people did not understand, why the administrations of several countries tried to avoid war. What they didn't say: 1- After the battle the prussian King could gether an army of 20.000 men around Königsberg. 2- In 1807 Blücher could gether another 30.000 men. 3- Some cities like Colberg in Pomerania and Graudenz in Silesia couldn't be talken by Napoleon. In Graudenz the prussian General Courbière commanded. A french parlimentaire told him, that the prussian King fled. This meant, that he had given Brandenburg and Silesia to Napoleon and that Courbière had to obey to Napoleons orders. But Courbière answered: "May be. But while there may be no King of Prussia anymore, there is still a King of Graudenz." Than he ordered to fire the cannons. Being 78 years old he was one of the old officers of Frederick the Great and had to stay in his bedroom during much days of the siege. Before this he was an well known example for the very old prussian officers. The story of the city of Colberg was used for propaganda within the Third Reich. And today there is a conspiracy theorie saying, that the city was not defended or gave up before peace.
@@illumey7884 maybe even better mate don't underestate him he was up there for sure. Napoleon wasn't the genius he proclaimed to be he was however a brilliant leader of men and competent militarily too.
@@RodolfoGaming Oh I think Bonaparte was a military genius, he just wasn't a brilliant tactician. At the operational level, he really didn't have an equal. He had a number of faults however, and one of the biggest was his enormous ego. Davout was one of the few marshals (Massena being another) who was capable of independent command. The rest of them were largely chosen because they were good at following orders...
@@Shadowman4710 not a brilliant tactitian ? napoleon ? i mean he refromed the french army in all level, when he was consul he crossed the alp by a even harder path than hannibal took, its only huuuge default that he was very bad at diplomacy and compromising
@Weebo DX -_-, you know he didnt become general for nothing ? his campaign in italia proved his talent general twice his age reconized him as better and ddidnt dicust his authority, in the campaign of france he was at the forefront, when he was emperor he didnt had to be at the forefront that all, yet h did wayyyyyy more than alexender never did, he took mutliple coalition of all most powerfull country of the world of this time and win 4 times against them, he made so much reform he wasnt seen since the roman empire, he ended the feudal system, coded and mostly created a new one way more fair for the people, he reformed the army that almost every coutry in the world addopted his systeme of corp, At austerlite he abandoned the heigth to let it to the enemy, against the advise of his marshall, but he leaded to his greatest victoy ever, you cannot say it was only his marshall he is rated the best genral in histoy ( victory/ defeat ratio ) egypt was complicated as russia, if military wasnt a victoy in egypt he bring with him scientist making the world discover egypt and later decypher the hyeroglyph, and russia it was economical and if he didnt invaded russia would because of the duchy of varsovie, he was indeed mglomaniac and send mean to theyr death without a blink but as everyone at these time you cannot judge them with the glasses of our morality of the 20 th century
Davout is considered to be the best Napoleonic marshal for a reason. He didn’t loss a single battle in his career. Yes Prussian failed there, but if it was someone else there, they will likely destroy them. I think it is very important to acknowledge how talented some of French marshals and generals were.
"Your marshal must be seeing double!" I believe this is a joke from Napoleon as Davout had bad eyesight so when he sent a report to Napoleon that he was engaging the main Prussian army Napoleon didn't believe him and stated the above to his ADC (aide-de-camp - essentially a senior officer who helps with communication and logistics). Edit: Davout's III Corp was the best Corp in the Grande Armee they were always sent to do the most grueling and difficult tasks. They possibly could have still beat the Prussian army if they outflanked him but it would have been difficult.
"I love how leaders of nations just gave out territory without regards to the people who lived there" : Very astute observation, this is quite a key to understand this time period. Borders were.. not so fixed concept. Some have claimed that borders of nations is one of the most imaginary constructs mankind has created. You absolutely have to watch the classic Monty Python Sketch: "The Treaty of Westphalia", which completely makes fun of this.
This period is a huge turning point of world history that basically shaped the modern world. The dissolution of the HRE (the 1st reich) and the humiliation of Prussia to the hand of the French empire fueled the anti-French hatred in Germany leading to WW1 and WW2
You have forgotten the age of Louis XlV, whose troops burnt and robbed South- Western Germany to conquer as much of german ( and dutch) territory as possible.
Weel, I think each War is a turning point with the need of revenge / a) Seven Years' War before Napoleon period : French & Prussian are allied against Austrich / And to the 2nd part of the war French & Austrich allied against Prussian b) The war of 1871 with huge defeat of Napoleon III against Prussian.
It is a turning point because Napoleon modernized the institution compared to the old monarchy (ex: Hasbourg Family ruling in Austrich, Spain & South Italia).
20:12 Bernadotte later becomes king of Sweden and our royalty in Sweden still is descendent from him. You will learn more about Bernadotte in epic histories Napoleon’s marshals videos among other generals.
Bernadotte was a traitor. In 1830 he secretly pushed his candidature to take the throne of France. The Swedish throne was secondary for him. After being a Jacobins during his young days. Pretty funny.
The ironic thing about WW1 and WW2 was that in the previous 2 centuries Germany and Britain had always been allies. The kings of England were in fact Germans and the Kaiser in WW1 was the oldest grandson of Queen Victoria.
Quite simply because personal interests came before alliances. Britain did not want growing and an uncontrollable European continental power. This is why they have always had an interest in joining coalitions of several allies against the France of Louis XIV or Napoleon, or against the Prussian Germany of Bismarck or that of Hitler.
Life for the average pesant wouldn't have changed much with changes in ruler. In fact outside the major cities and towns, unless the change involved fighting in their country, they might not know it happened for months, if they even new at all. What made a much bigger difference to your life was who the local lord was, the count or baron etc, than the King. Especially if the King made his capital in another country.
@@JM-ji9kx Yes. In the German states that were annexed by France itself, the French law changed a lot in the lifes of the people. In the rural areas the „Leibeigenschaft“ (a medieval system that was basically slavery) was abolished. In the citys the old strict organization of the craftsmen an traders called „Zünfte“ were abolished. Napoleons conquests changed Germany economical and political. The states in Germany that were allied with France made similar laws. In Prussia the changes were much bigger and a lot of similar and further reforms were undertaken by the prussian goverment.
@@deinvater2299 exactly ,napoleon exported the human right and the good product of the revolution by force and even when defetead and the old order come back even if people hated the french occupation they loved these new laws specialy the middle class and below, look at spain they fought the french like deon but when thye win they fight each other for more right or no for the next century ( even the spanish civil of 1936 its a direct consequence of the french occupation of spain )
Some fun facts: When Napoleon conquered Berlin he went to nearby Potsdam to pay his respect at the grave of Friedrich the Great. When Hitler occupied Paris he stayed half an hour at Napoleons grave. Napoleons influence is so big on all of europe although he only went from battle to battle and didn´t had a concept of what to do with it if he would have succeded. The always mentioned "Blitzkrieg" is not even a german word, but was made up by the allies. The german high command in WW II would always refer to "Bewegungskrieg" translating to war of movement. The famous militaryhistorian and author of "on war" Carl von Clausewitz took part in the battle, spent a year as a pow, later helped reorganising the prussian army and was so upset about prussia taking part in napoleon´s war against russia that he joined the russian army (didn´t made his king feel very happy about him).
True, Napoleon brought Nationalism to Germany and other European Countries. Germany was not a unified country like France or Britain. There was not a sense of Germanness among the People, Each German person had loyalty to his State like Prussia, Saxony, Hannover or Bavaria. Imagine if the American people had loyalty to their States like Virginia or New York.
"Imagine if the american people had loyalty to their states" That is whay happened in the Civil War. And i don't think is quite the comparison, because the USA was an unified country already, while Germany was not; each german "state" was its own country, even the free city-states.
Yes. King Frederick William took Command, after the Duke of Brunswick had been shot. And he was an almost comically shy and indecisive man. He was even to shy to talk to anyone not in his family for long periods. He formed sentences shorter than the german language allows. Here are some actual quotes. „Blücher crossing Oder?“ (upon hearing that his General had indeed crossed the Oder and moved to engage Napoleons armies in 1813) „Have great victory. Enemy defeated decisevly.“ (on the battle of Leipzig. 1814) If you‘re stuck with someone like this as commander, you‘re screwed. He was a family man and a talented musician but not a military leader.
@@n.n.5293 Well, if Frederick William III WAS facing Napoleon's main army (as he thought he was), it would have been idiocy to launch a full frontal assault. Two of his best commanders were already dead, and fear was setting in. More than anything else, Jena demonstrated just how far the Prussians had fallen in terms of discipline and strategy.
There’s many reasons why the Prussians failed to beat Marshall Davout despite outnumbering them. You have to remember this is the main army, the army Napoleon fought was the rear guard, the main army was expecting Napoleon to keep going forward and engage them at some point. They didn’t know that he would instead choose to full on engage the rear guard...Napoleon was also wrong because he thought the rear guard was the main Prussian army which is why he sent Davout and Bernadotte to keep going forward to try to flank and box in the Prussians at Jena. At Auerstadt the incompetency was mainly due to the commanders thinking they was engaging the main French army...or soon would be, so they didn’t want to send out full blown attacks and overextend their position only to be slaughtered by the main French army. The King was also an extremely shy and indecisive person, the soldiers had no faith and confidence in him as a military leader so him taking lead command hurt morale more. Then news hit that Napoleon was BEHIND them the entire time and he just decimated the entire rear guard at this point all hope was indeed lost and they was routed by Davout.
...And since you wondered what the French was doing so well...everything, it should be mentioned that Marshall Davout is regarded not just as Napoleons greatest Marshall. But is also someone who realistically in another universe could’ve took command of the entire French military, and lead these same military campaigns BETTER than Napoleon did. A lot of the Marshalls were also fairly incompetent when outside of Napoleons direct command, Davout was the opposite. His family had a long line of loyal decorated military service to France, and he was a astute student of military history and tactics much like Napoleon. Unlike some of the other Marshall’s he lead his III Corps with an iron fist. The French corps abilities, knowledge, training and discipline is up to their respective commander. Ney for example was pretty chill, he didn’t dish out punishment or train his soldiers as hard. Life in Davouts corps was the equivalent of being in Napoleons elite imperial guard, Davout expected every soldier under him to be the best of the best and he worked them rigorously. In modern times Davouts corps would probably be a special forces unit akin to Navy Seals. They could be relied upon to make the impossible, possible and you’ll notice in the coming episodes just how much responsibility Napoleon would give Davouts III Corps...basically this battle isn’t the last time Davout would be expected to take on seemingly impossible odds and win out. The Prussian main army, in all their incompetency, had the misfortune of running into the most competent soldiers of the entire French army, lead by the only person who could’ve been considered equal too and better than Napoleon as a military leader.
The situation with Marshal Bernadotte was a bit more complicated than this video makes it seem to be. Napoleon and his Chief of Staff had issued some rather vague orders in this case. Keep Marshal Bernadotte on your radar, he's an important player of the Napoleonic Wars. Not to mention the founder of the royal house of Bernadotte, the current reigning dynasty of Sweden.
@@xenotypos not that unelievable compared to the legacy of napoleon, and yes his dynasty still "rule" today but compared to the civic code its nothing, and his attack on danemark-norway union was perfide and low
@@danesorensen1775 it was mort au tyrant" or "death to the tyran" in english, but some think it was on his arm and some it was a legend, knowing a bit about hm i think it was real, he wasnt the kind to be consistent
@@dosg847 He could never live up to past Swedish kings like Gustavus Adolphus or Carolus Rex no matter what. Yes I know Carolus Rex is controversial since he saw the end of the Swedish empire but even if he messes up he earns my spot as a great figure for his military achievements.
The history of the Marshal's of the Empire is very interesting. Some of them were true characters, and many went on to become kings of countries themselves or play important roles in following governments in France.
Due to Napoleons reforms the French had significant tactical advantages over the Prussian's, the French had about 25% of their infantry trained as light troops, Voltigeurs (translated means acrobats) these light troops would swarm forward using cover, and fire into the densely packed Prussian formations, the Prussians would try and drive them of with volley fire, but because the Voltigeurs were in cover, they would hardly take any casualties. The Prussians suffered terrible losses from French light troops. The concept of light troops was learned in the American War of Independence, where Rebel irregular forces used to fighting Indians would fire from behind cover at British regular troops inflicting casualties, and softening up the British regular units before, the rebel regular formations engaged the British. From this the British formed light regiments like the 95th rifles dedicated skirmishers, and companies of skirmishers were attached to the line regiments.
The Prussian state under Wilhelm the 1st king of Prussia later known as Kasier Wilhelm and Prussian statesman Otto Von Bismarck would wage a series of wars against Austria, Denmark and France. These wars saw to the unification of Germany 1871 and the construction as the kaiser Reich the 2nd German Empire.
" Berlin existed back then? " Major European cities have existed at least since early medieval times. Madrid was founded by the Arab Umayyad dynasty, Paris by the Gaulish Parisii tribe, Moscow by the Kievan Russ, etc.
Not just germany. The glorification of france through napoleon made the rise of nationalism after his demise in late 19th century and early 20th century whhichh undetmined major powers and the unifications of Italy and Germany
@@RodolfoGaming an the liberation of most of the southern country in america, and bascly the spring of revolution in 1840 who started in france and spread trough 30 country all that bc of napoleon, like some said "napoelon changed history like none before him apart maybe julius ceasar and alexender the great"
Absolutely! Hannibal was unbeaten in 18 years fighting in Italy against the greatest military machine of the age. As a retired officer of the British Army, I know only too well how difficult it is to organise a successful ambush, even with just a platoon. (About 30-40 soldiers). Hannibal did this at Lake Trasimene with an army of over 50,000 speaking a multitude of different languages. He destroyed an entire Roman army, killing or capturing 25,000 Romans for the loss of about 2,000 Carthaginians (mostly mercenaries, Spaniards and Gauls). At Cannae, he won about the most complete victory in history, wiping out more enemy soldiers in a single day than even any First World War battle, and all done with bows, spears, slings and swords. Not until the atomic bombs in WW2 did so complete a slaughter take place. He was finally defeated by the Romans after the Carthaginian government recalled him to Africa after losing their entire army and recruiting a second rate bunch of mercenaries for him to command - even so he nearly won! Hannibal is well worth consideration and I regard him as probably the greatest military genius ever. However, like Napoleon, his tactics were genius, his strategy not so hot - he under estimated Rome’s resilience and determination
About your perspective of wars in Europe: let's just say that the period between 1945 and 1991, so during the Cold War, was the longest period of peace in Europe for the past 2000 years.
you could probably even assume the 20th century was (even though there were 2 world wars) the century with the least wars and percentage of poulation dying in wars for even longer
@@DB-stuff possibly. It certainly cemented naval superiority though. I don't know if that led to any other Caribbean islands or not. If it had happened 50 years earlier we may even have kept the USA, although not for long as it was already getting too big to hold.
While in hindsight the Prussians did make a huge tactical blunder in not outflanking Davout's III Corps I still believe that it was very much Davout's victory rather than the Prussians blunder (if you get what I mean). It was Davout's quick thinking and steel resolve that made the Prussians believe they were facing the main French army under Napoleon, which is why they didn't attempt any flanking maneuvers and broke when Davout counter-attacked. Most generals would have ordered a retreat and been routed. Davout stood his ground and made the enemy believe they were facing a much larger force than they really were.
8:08 During world war 2, main method of transportation for German army was also a horse - Germany had severe fuel shortage, so it was reserved mostly for tanks, airplanes and submarines.
For strategic deployment trains made an enormous difference though. If units were to redeploy from one front to another, they wouldn't use their trucks or horses but go by train.
Not even fuel, production of motor vehicles wasn't enough to keep up with demand and losses, so that Germany entered the USSR with fewer trucks than when they invaded France, and that was after looting trucks from pretty much every occupied territory on the way. Even then, they still used more horses than trucks
When you will be done with the Napoleonic wars, you could learn some roman history. Truly a fascinating subject. A civilization that has influenced our own trough the ages, including the U.S. and also a massive contrast to the gunpowder line battles of Napoleon's time. So many things to go through. The kingdom, the founding of the Republic, the Punic wars, it's fall. Caesar, empire, and maybe even Byzantium. A massive epic that spans Millenia. Hope I sold it well.
@@iwatchDVDsonXbox360 This question cannot be answered by voting or debate, only by iron and blood. Kneel before your righteous rulers, or pay the consequences. ROMA INVICTA!
Otto von Bismark was Chancellor of the Prusian Emperor. Not only did he outsmart parliament, but he also flattered the emperor in making the right decisions.
@@jensschroder8214 He was basically exactly what Germany needed to become a thing if only I could have granted him 20 more years of life he most likely would not have let ww1 start or at least kept Germany out of it.
Finally a woman who enjoys and listens to history before explaining like she lived it cheers to you las love watching your reaction to Emperor Napoleon
7:00 George I of Hanover was asked by Parliament to become King of Great Britain in 1701 after the death of Queen Anne. In fact, is grandson, George III (yes that George III), was the first King born in England and native English speaker of the line. If Napoleon and succeeded in returning Hanover to the British Crown, it would have been a return to the status quo.
Throughout the Napoleonic Wars, there were Hanoverians serving in the British Army. They formed a cavalry unit - the Kings German Legion, which Wellington regarded as the best in his army. The British cavalry were often too impetuous, as seen at Waterloo, where although they broke a French infantry Corps, they carried on charging at the artillery and were counter attacked by Polish Lancers and French light cavalry. This counter attack was so succesful that after Waterloo, British lancer regiments were raised and some still exist, though now as armoured units. At Garcia Hernandez the KGL even broke French infantry squares, normally an impossible task for cavalry unsupported by artillery!
Road to Germany #01 - The Holy Roman Empire is also interesting there are 2 parts to it (and yes it's more about German history) but still contains a lot of info, the first part kinda explains the Holy Roman Empire
I wouldn't say the Prussians gave away a victory at Auerstedt. The Prussians were in it to win it. It just came down to their command structure vs that of the French. The Prussian cavalry frontal attacks were beaten off by French squares and the arrival of French cavalry stopped Prussian infantry outflanking movements. Both Prussian commanders, the Duke of Brunswick and Friedrich Wilhelm Carl von Schmettau were both killed in these attacks. The Prussians now had no command structure, and this was the best time to make the final attack to rout the Prussians and Davout did exactly that. As the start of the video indicated, the Prussians army was nothing short of predictable and Davout knew it. Keep them videos going!! You're doing great 🙂
Funny thing about these maps, Great Britain is always drawn out of size, making it look more the same size as these other countries, but it fact, its much smaller. France is approximately 2.3x bigger (and Britain can fit into US 40x over), to give you scale of different sides land masses.
A some points on Napoleon's tactics. 1) He rose to prominence as a gifted artillery officer. Before Napoleon most of the glory went to the cavalry (as that's where the nobles were found). Artillery was a bit of an afterthought. Napoleon used his artillery much more effectively devising tactics to co-ordinate it with infantry and cavalry attacks. Firstly he'd concentrate cannon fire on the enemies own artillery to knock it out, then use it to break up their infantry formations which his own infantry would attack. Cavalry was no longer the main thrust but used for flanking attacks, to harry routing enemy troops and capture enemy gun emplacements from the flank or rear if the opportunity arose. 2) Armies traditionally fought in horizontal lines/rows. Napoleon would concentrate his troops in one place to break their line and sow disorder. He'd do this by marching them in a dense column. The disadvantage of a column was only the men at the front and on the flanks could fire, however you could move rapidly to just outside musket range (about 50 yards), quickly deploy then after a couple of volleys charge with bayonets overwhelming the enemy by sheer weight of numbers and the speed of their movement.* 3) Napoleons troops were encouraged to live off the land to supplement their rations.** This meant they weren't encumbered by a large baggage train. Most opposing armies were slower and more unwieldy so he could march more quickly and out manouver the. Defeated armies were harried and scattered so they couldn't reform easily. One of Napoleons hallmarks was the speed of his attacks. It was a for runner to the Nazi blitzkrieg. Alexander also used similar tactics. 4) After the revolution France brought in conscription. In the early days this provided much larger armies than those of other countries, until they started using conscription too. 5) After the revolution the French army promoted people based on ability rather than being of noble birth and buying their position, which tended to give it more competent commanders. * Use of infantry columns: This was less successful against the British troops in the Peninsular War who practised rapid fire and rolling volleys. Veteran British units could get off 5 volleys a minute compared to 2 or 3 for most other armies. If you're firing twice as fast you only need half the men and if you're in line all your men can fire instead of only those on the edge of a column. In this way they'd devastate a bigger french column before it reached them. Additionally the British skirmishers used rifles. These were slow to reload but very accurate and had a much longer effective range of about 200 yards vs 50 for a musket. A top marksmen could shoot 400 yards and in a few cases even 800! The riflemen used this advantage to kill the french officers, NCOs and skirmishers from distance. Without their leaders to give orders the french troops were far less effective. ** Living off the land: Wellington used this against the french by adopting a scorched earth policy so when the French invaded Portugal they ran out of food as it had all be taken/destroyed. Additionally in Spain the atrocities of french troop made the peasants hate them. They formed guerilla bands (literally" little war") and ambushed french troops. The fate of any frenchman captured by the guerillas wasn't pleasant. Soon they could only travel safely in large groups. This tied up huge amounts of french troops.The French controlled the towns, the guerillas the countryside and mountains, which had a major effect on french supply lines. Wellington funded and armed the guerillas and used them to gather information and ambush messengers. He also ensured British and Portuguese troops under his command paid for their food and lodging and treated the locals well. Thieves and rapists were hung. Consequently the Spanish peasants had a much higher opinion of them even though the British were traditional enemies of Spain. Sorry for another essay, but hope it's informative about the tactics of the time.
One thing about WWII that I didn't realise until recently is that most of the armies of every power marched on foot. Vehicles definitely sped up the movement of the vanguard to take strategic points but even the Germans (known for their fast strike blitzkrieg tactics) had most of their army marching on foot with horse drawn wagons to carry the bulk of their supplies. A big issue with Germany's invasion of the USSR is that while the tank units captured large portions of the country, it often took the infantry a few weeks to catch up and secure the territory. The speed of the main army of any nation in WWII was probably the same as in the Napoleonic era.
When you asked what Napoleon meant by seeing double. The Iron Marshal himself had bad eyesight, so Napoleon thought he was just seeing twice as many enemies rather than the main Prussian Army
@Melkor Well, not all of my subscribers are super into history, so I need to diversify a bit. I checked though, and there's more like 13 videos in the series, so it won't take as long as I thought : )
@@SoGal_YT Ah nice okay thought it would be longer can’t wait until you get to his invasion of Russia. well have a good day I’m gonna go sleep now since I live in Europe xD
There were a lot of people in Germany supportive of Napoleon and his invasion because of the revolution, famously Beethoven wrote a song dedicated to Napoleon as a hero of the people, but destroyed it in a rage before anyone heard it when Napoleon declared himself Emperor, which also muted the support he had from the people in the lands he was invading.
When I studied Modern Political History the period starts at 1789, the start of the French Revolution. It is from then forward that you get the beginning of the European political landscape fashioned to a large degree by Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars.
In WW2 you also only had horses and your own feet for transportation. only a small part of the armies of the times where mechanized. Britain was fully mechazized, because they had a small army, Germany transported 80% of everything with horses. The armies marched for the most part.
It was at this time that Napoleon passed through Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. As a victory prize the French stole the statue placed atop it, which today resides in the Louvre in Paris. After Napoleon was defeated, a new statue was placed above the gate, dedicated to the goddess of victory, and the square the Brandenburg Gate sits on was renamed Pariser Platz, or Paris Square. The subtle German humour here being that now Germany would always have Victory (the statue) over Paris (the Square).
At the Battle of Austerlitz a French soldier commented to an Austrian POW as he marched past, “Your Generals fight with your arms….. ours fight with our feet!” It’s not necessarily Prussian ‘incompetence,’ it was a French Army accustomed to more vigorous movement. The days of simply more numbers winning are, by this time, over. Victory, to loosely quote, from memory, Patrick Henry, goes to the active, the brave. A more active opponent can beat a larger, slower moving army.
To give you an idea of the closeness of these battles, the phrase 'wait until you see the whites of their eyes before you shoot', comes to mind. The main infantry weapon at the time was the flintlock musket which had an accurate (ish) range of about 80-100 yards (240 to 300 feet) point target (i.e. direct at one soldier) or 330 yards area target. It could, with well drilled troops, be fired at a rate of up to 6 rounds a minute. The video mentioned capturing colours and standards(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_colours,_standards_and_guidons). If you don't know what they are, they were like rallying points of regiments during this period. Colours were large flags with battle honours on them whereas standards could be emblems (the French used Eagles at the time en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Imperial_Eagle). To lose them in battle basically meant the unit was destroyed. Sometimes they were re-captured though so it wasn't always the case. Colours and standards were far more important in days gone by and not just the ceremonial items that we treat them as today.
The problem with Prussia is as narrator of the video (Charles Nove , excellent British BBC narrator , anchorman) accurately said , Prussian Army sat on its previous laurels too long and they did not make any reforms in the army while France (which had been constantly at war since 1792 that is for 14 years) first during Republic era then under Napoleon's regime ,made huge reforms and revisions in French Army in organisation and command. French Field Marshals handpicked by Napoleon were all young , energetic and ambitious officers who were (at least for now) in same wavelength with Napoleon himself. French Grand Armee moved very fast , getting its supplies by foraging the countryside it passed through. While Prussian officers were old , indecisive (just like their king Frederick III) and their army moved slow , disorganised , not organised in corps system and did not have an uniform operational mentality. The outcome of Jena-Auerstadt twin batles were clear before they started when these factors above are reviewed in hindsight I always find it is a historical irony that 130 years or so later in 1940 it was complate opposite. It was French Army that was lethergic , stuffed with old generals , sat upon its laurels too long , moving too slow to battle , disorganised and badly led without any coodination at all from top to bottom , was crushed by Lightening War of German Army and totally defeated in six weeks. History has a basic karma.
Yes very true the French were kinda still not moving from their pride in the First World War they for some reason we’re not ready at all when ww2 happened.
The Hornblower books by C.S.Forester or the series taken from it are good examples of how the navy ran then, the books probably being a touch more realistic.
The Battle of Ulm on 16-19 October 1805 was a series of skirmishes, at the end of the Ulm ... When Bavaria sided with Napoleon, the Austrians, 72,000 strong under Mack, prematurely invaded ... the Austrians used the Gregorian calendar, the Russians were still using the Julian calendar. ... You should check this out a bit of a problem for a battle.
Clausewitz, the Prussian officer who made one of the quotes from the video, quite literally wrote the book on war (his "On War" is considered the more modern successor to Sun Tzu's Art of War). Fun fact: names that end in -witz are usually Prussian or Saxon in origin (ie the eastern German-speaking lands), as it's the Slavic -vich or -wicz ending (which means the same as English -son) having been filtered through the German language.
Well, that‘s not quite what I‘ve learned about Cambronne‘s reply when he was asked to surrender. In truth he answered „Merde!“ which unfortunately doesn‘t quite fit in history books.
For an insight into life in this period, and a deep understanding of naval life in the context of the Napoleonic wars, you can't do better than the novels of Patrick O'Brian. The novels (20 of them) are a time-machine, , taking you back to the 18/19 thcentury as if you were there. All written in a prose that pays homage to Jane Austen,who had two brothers that were naval officers.
@Ray Martin Can't agree more. I've read all 20 (and a bit) novels many, many times. They are THE authority on life on a British Man-of-War during the Napoleonic Era, even more so than the great C.S. Forester himself. A tad difficult to access for the layman, perhaps, but well worth the effort.
As another aside. The reason Europe drives on the right-hand side of the road, is due to Napoleon ordering his conquered territories to do so. Previously, horses and carriages would drive / ride on the left, at least since the Roman times. Leaving the sword arm at the defensive side. Which is one reason why the British Isles still use the left side of the road - they were never forced to change. The reason Napoleon forced this, was because France started it all. Previous to the French Revolution(s), the nobility would drive/ride on the left, and a rule that peasants must get out of the way to the right was in place before the revolution(s). During these, the nobility used this to try and disguise their identity, by all moving along on the right-hand side. And thus it just became the common form.
Brilliant reaction video and glad you are starting to put the pieces of the puzzle together without necessarily being mentioned to you lime in these 2 cases: 18:41 - Spot on assessment. Its often understated how the blunders of Prussian generals throughout 1806 contributed to Napoleon's victory. Side note: Bernadotte is to be kept an eye on, he only avoided the court martial due to being married to one of Napoleon's sisters who managed to calm the situation down between the 2. 22:22 - That's how modern history depicts it in class because being the most recent influences the present more. However Alexander the Great's invasion on EHTV as well is a massive conflict to review next and the 2nd Punic War is 3rd Century BCE's World War 2.
14:55: 'Organised chaos'. That's a description of almost any battle!😁 18:45: It has been said that battles are won by the general who makes the fewest mistakes. In this case, Davout didn't make a single one and the King of Prussia made just about every one imaginable. 'The Prussians defeated themselves' sums it up nicely. I'm looking forward to when she gets to the Peninsular Campaign.
Hey! You made a really good point about populations getting confused by frequent and sudden changes of rulers. Today this woud probably feel quite traumatic, as we do have a sense of "nationhood". But at the time, populations were not "citizens" but "subjects" of the different monarchs, princes etc. In the Holy Roman Empire (and elsewhere), these little states would change often as noble marriages between ruling families attached or detached bits of dukedoms to or from others for example. I can imagine that "common" people felt loyalty to their monarch more than to the "Motherland" - which I feel would have been quite a strange concept. For the crowned heads of Europe, this French revolutionary idea of "La Nation" was very dangerous indeed. They could cope with the US being a Republic with citizens, as far enough away. But they were not going to put up with it on their own doorstep. Enjoying this series very much; (Brandenburg 3 - very nice!)
In the sixth minute, you mentioned about how all those leaders just give territories back and forth without regard of the population. That's actually a pretty good highlight. Most (dynastic) leaders at this time detest the whole concept of nationalism because they see territories as just some lands, without any special meaning behind it. The whole nationalist fiasco that happened in 19th century was about giving these lands a special meaning. No more giving territories back and forth just because the leader changed. Leader may changed, but the nation (group of people that lived in the land) stay still. Nationalist groups in 19th century start to regard the land they lived in as 'sacred land' and they start to give it special term such as 'Fatherland', 'Motherland', or 'Homeland' as to give it some sort of quasi-religious myth. During the early French Revolution, prominent French figures also try to use nationalism to justify expanding to the Rhine river, with the concept of 'France's natural borders'. The myth entails that anything west of the Rhine river is French.
Upon the arrival of Blucher’s Prussian army on the field of Waterloo in 1815, Napoleon was said to have remarked “My biggest mistake was not burning Berlin to the ground.” I don’t know if he would have been better served to burn down Berlin or not to be honest. But it is said that Napoleon, a true student of history, didn’t destroy Berlin in 1806 because of his respect and admiration for Prussian king Frederick the Great. So great was his admiration for the Prussian king that he visited his tomb with a group of his officers. When he entered the tomb he said “Hats off, gentlemen. If he were alive we wouldn’t be here today.” Frederick the Great had died 20 years before in 1786.
the art of leading troops into battle consists of this: When you have the superiority ten to one, surround the enemy. Five to one attack him. Two to one divide. If you are equal force, you can engage in combat
Watch for Blucher and the Prussians at Waterloo. The Prussians arrived late but their arrival may have been one of the deciding factors that led to Napoleon's ultimate defeat.
15:20 As I said in another comment, Napoleon wanted to keep his guards as reserves. It won him the battle of Austerlitz (at least) imo. Not committing your guards was a strenght, not a weakness.
Hello Sogal,if you want to dig in deeper into Napoleons strategies and his warfare,it would be good if you would do reactions on the serie,also from Epic History, named Napoleons Marshals...where they,and their actions and merits are discussed more in details...which can help understand the Napoleonic wars,and they are packed with quotes from Napoleon himself..
If you want to see a video about the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, I recommend the video "Road to Germany # 01 - The Holy Roman Empire" from Guy Bloke. He also made a good video about the Weimar Republic called "How a Democracy Fails 101: Weimar Republic". In case you're wondering what the Weimar Republic was, it was the German state between the end of ww1 & Hitler's seizure of power
The truth of the influence on ordinary people of the changes of ownership of territories is difficult to gauge. The problem is that before the French Revolution people were the property of their lords and the owners of their land was not something that directly affected their lives in a way that we could recognise in the modern world. The great change caused by the French Revolution was that for the first time people could see themselves as their own masters and or mistresses, something very new in the human experience if you think of the slavery involved in the Roman Empire and in the Egypt of the Pharoahs. This is what made nationhood and patriotism a new and powerful ideology in the human raison d'etre.
You have to remember that there was a "fog of war". These armies and generals didnt know what the other army would do, where they would move towards and what they were going to face. It was simply fight and live long enough than the other side.
You should definitely react to Kings and Generals series on the Thirty Years War to get some background on the holy Roman Empire and Christianity. In many ways like the Napoleonic wars the Thirty Years war was a massive conflict involving literally every European country much like WW2 and was one of the deadliest wars in European history
the thirty year war was so massive that it involve three phase of the war, but little thing it wasnt a real war of religion at the end sur it was protestant vs catholic at first but then it was everyone against everyone heck the french joined the protestant, it was more the imperial Power ( catholic) against rebel prince ( protestant ) again t first it was a war of religion but it evolved in the truly first "world war" almost every country got involved in this conflict
Like nearly every student of history it looks like you're noticing the all too frequent disconnect between principalities and powers and the actual conditions. A sample of concept names here: 'the great game' and 'adventurism.' Good luck. I'm really enjoying your diving into the deep end with this stuff. And the commenting team is awesome. 🙂
For Iena, the video didn't mention that Saxons on right flank (front Augereau VII corp) not really motivated (Napolean is ready to support the independence of Saxonny). And to be right, the great battery on the center of french army still a controversery subjet for specialist. If you like WW2, the 1806 prussian campaign is really similar with1940 french campaign. The looser have good army and material, but not a clear strategy for the CiC, and lack of commanders that realized how the war work at the time.
One thing to always consider about the reaction of the general population to certain things up until very recent times is that information was rather scarce and so was the ability to do something with it. It's not like the modern age when you hear something and instantly google it and discuss it on the internet with people all around the world. We are discussing a time where the common man working the land in and around Hannover would not have seen their current ruler in person and might not even know who the Monarch of Britain is, so it didn't really matter too much to them who was really in charge. Yes there are differences in doctrine maybe but most disputes were settled between the armies and other than the unfortunate few caught in the middle of it most were left unaffected. As long as they paid their taxes and didn't revolt they for all intensive purposes would be just another name on the list for whoever owns it. And vice versa from the perspective of the Henry the miller he paid his taxes to the collector at the end of the week and really couldn't care less who it went to as long as he could get along with his jolly life and can get a pint down at the local tavern on Saturday night Hope this helps. Cheers
Living on past glories.... the Prussians believed they could more than match Napoleon...because of past success...and lost!!! A lesson we never seem to learn.
In the midst of triumph the tide (unseen) turns. After such a catastrophic defeat the prussians don't surrender. This changes the whole complexion of the war's......
7:00 well for most people life wouldn’t change. Most of the interaction they would have with the government is taxes and maybe conscription, which would stay the case regardless of who was ruling the land.
1806 wasn't all bad for the anti French forces. The British army had a small win at Maida in southern Italy where 5,000 British troops inflicted up to 2,500 casualties on a French force of 6,000 in the space of 15 minutes. British casualties were about 50. Maida Vale is one of only three locations in London named after our Napoleonic Wars victories. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a film made about it. Fought on 4th July 1806, and the British commander, Sir John Stuart (no relation) was an American, so they could even get Brad Pitt to play him.
wow... not quite true; It was an anglo-sicilian force against a franco-italiano-polish force where both armies had approximatively the same numbers. Also, 2,500 casualties in the space of 15 minutes is, to say the least, absolute BS (15 hours maybe ? can't remember) But yeah, there is such a lot of material to work on that would be epic on the big screen, we can only hope that one day a talented producer has an eye for cool history stuff
I am amazed how someone can be surprised by so many things, even little bit naive way. Maybe I like the video topics too self-explanatory to myself. I could imagine that European history and geography are not taught in the same way in the US. Also I don't know your background, so I understand that I cannot judge you too harshly by that. However, I must appreciate your sincere and genuine interest in the subject. Thank you it was entertaning to hear your opinions and views!
if you want one of the first massive conflict between these country i recommand that you look for the anglo-french of 1213-1214 escpecially the Battle of Bouvines which is considerring as one of the most important moment in french history
Well, I had some complaints that people couldn’t see what was going on, so I was just trying to help them out. Thought I’d try it and see how it went over. I can stop though if it’s too annoying.
@@SoGal_YT It kind of is you know. We want to see you react and If you zoom in we cannot see anymore. And If these people cant see why are they not going to the original video. They can see it best there :)
nazi germany actually mainly used horses for their transportation, dead horses were a common sight in normandy, the allies however mainly used trucks for their transportation
Well done and thank you for a good video! If you are interested in doing some of the longer videos, perhaps you'd consider doing a livestream/watch party with your subscribers? There are a lot of RU-vidrs who do that. And if I can have a personal nitpick against Epic History TV (not you): I wish they wouldn't use American Bugle Singals to represent French Cavalry Charges haha! Apart from that, love your work, keep it up, and please consider doing the Peninsular War in Spain (also during the Napoleonic Wars!).
A livestream would certainly be an option for some videos, but I know for a fact that YT would block some as well. So I’d need a place to do them off the YT platform...if people are interested. I haven’t decided yet.
When you watch the Spanish Civil War by History Matters in the future, I highly recommend you check out History with Hilbert's "Spanish Civil War Faction" videos. It's really interesting learning about them
