Its funny the british started this propaganda calling him a corsican ogre and short. While one of their heroes vice admiral lord nelson is 5'4 feet in height compared to napoleon who is above average at that time being 5'7. Makes you agree with one of his famous quotes "History is a set of lies agreed upon"
I have it on good faith from an expert eye-witness account that Napoleon was short.. this eye-witness statement described Napoleon as the "short dead dude from our history review."
Those weren't his last words though. His last words were most likely something like, "A la tête de l’Armée" (at the head of the Army), "France..." or maybe "Josephine..." It's debated. Different witnesses gave different accounts. shannonselin.com/2015/05/napoleons-last-words/
It's almost funny how comically far away Saint Helena is to France compared to his first island exile in Elba. It's as if the coalition is trying to make sure he'll never have a chance of coming back to France ever again.
lol u make it sound like Napoleon actually declared all those wars when he only ever declared war on Spain and Russia, all the coalition wars were declared against him, not the other way around.
You should finish Highschool. Being forced to fight and wanting to fight are not the same thing. He had options to give land men and things of value. He chose to fight. His own words called for war. On-top of him building tensions before hand. You can't blame someone for punching you after you poke them for months.
Yellow exactly the history taught in the English speaking countries is lazy and draws a lot from previous English language accounts. Thankfully that mindset is changing. ‘The little corporal’ a is typical slur. Napoleon Is a giant in European history. An absolutely fascinating life. The Revolution enabled a guy from a French recently new province, through merit not through class, rise to the top. This very idea was the reason the monarchy’s of Europe marched against France. Meritocracy over so called Birthright. Europe declared war on France not the other way round.
@@germanicus74 Nope. The European powers tried to be opportunists and after defeats wanted to stop the rise of an empire over themselves. That's where the British enter, to keep the balance. It's a romanticized idea what you said but far from the truth
Even if Napoleon had won, he still would have had to face a united Russo-Austrian army that he could potentially defeat, and the fact the Congress of Vienna had declared him an outlaw.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 maybe and maybe not. Your failing to take into account what happened to defeated nations in the Napoleonic era. Prussia and England or at the very least Prussia would have been forced to make peace terms. War reparations would have helped Napoleon solve many problems, one of the biggest reasons Napoleon lost his last two campaigns was due to a lack of horses for his calvary. Again victory would have also solved this problem. Another problem for Napoleon was man power. We know that Napoleon was planning to demand Prussia at the very least provide military men and support to France in any peace treaty. And let's not forget the fear Napoleon Inspired in his enemies. Do you honestly believe that it isn't possible that both Russia and Austria would react to Napoleon beating the British and Prussia by simply withdrawing from a campaign they were no longer sure they could win as they had so many times before? I could go on and on. When studying Napoleon I have learned the very same lesson that all of Europe and beyond learned. Never count Napoleon out or underestimate the man. And in this case a victorious Napoleon would have been a dangerous Napoleon. The allies counted him out and were convinced that he was finished many times before. It almost never ended well for them
@@landonlacy1954 but by 1815 (in fact before then) the major European powers had agreed that they wouldn’t tolerate Napoleon. The Russians and Austrians had mobilised nearly 500,000 men, the Royal Navy would have blockaded French ports, Britain and Prussia would have raised new armies. It was over for Napoleon. One man and one country couldn’t take on a beat the combined strength of the world superpower in Britain, plus Prussia, Austria and Russia. By 1815 Napoleon was in poor health as well and not the man he was in 1805.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 again you are forgetting to take into consideration the history of the era. Russia also agreed to help fight Napoleon before the battle of Austerlitz. But after Napoleon won they no longer felt like living up to that agreement. This happened with literally almost every major power of the many coalitions formed against Napoleon during his reign, also you are forgetting to consider the possible benefits to Russia and Austria both if they decided to go back on that agreement or even if they decided to support Napoleon if he had won. We know that the czar was already regretting his decision to remove France from the balance of power in Europe. Britain who the Czar was no fan of. Benefited from the new balance of power the most and was already throwing it's weight around. Hell many historians believe that if Napoleon's timing had been better the coalition who were at each other's throats by the time of Napoleon's return. May have broken apart if Napoleon had waited a little longer instead of returning so soon and giving them a reason to stay United. When you consider the possible benefits to the rest of Europe and the history of the allies fearing Napoleon. A man who they thought had been put into an unwinnable situations many times over. Yet still somehow won. It is easy to see how a victory would have given Napoleon the political breathing room and military situation and resources he would have needed to bounce right back just like he did many times before. This is a man who made a career of winning in unwinnable situations. I'm not going to bore you with making this reply much longer. But as to your point of Prussia and England simply raising new armies. I have to strongly disagree. Prussia was in horrible shape from constant warfare and many in Prussia we're against the continued fight against a man they had been beaten by many times before. And we know Napoleon was planning on going to Prussia and occupying what he could if his terms were not met. I think the likelihood of a fresh new army capable of defeating the french is doubtful. Especially when we consider how long that would take during the time period and when we look at how far away allied Russian troops or Austrian troops were and the time it would take for them to actually get into a position close enough to matter and help Prussia. It only increases Napoleon's chances of a favorable outcome. England certainly would have raised a new army. But considering the fact that Britain was far away and was forced to pay other nations to fight their wars Due to several factors which include low man power, and global position. I doubt the thought of a new British force being put together would be enough to convince anyone that staying course of war with France was worth it. It is very possible that you are correct In the belief that Napoleon was finished regardless of weather he won the battle of Waterloo or not. But there are so many other factors that many are failing to consider when looking at the situation. Such as the fear Russia and Austria had about a new balance of power that didn't benefit them, the possible advantages of supporting a victorious Napoleon, how Europe would react to the news of a victory by a man they feared for years and thought was unbeatable, the possible resources that a victory would have been made available to Napoleon, the already fracturing allies, and the regained confidence of a man who conquered Europe despite the odds almost always being against him, and on and on and on. When these factors are considered the fate of Napoleon and his future are far from certain Sorry that was so long but I appreciate the discussion and get carried away at times
@@landonlacy1954stop it with this cope, there was no way the coalition would accept Napoleon returning to the throne. Napoleon only had over 200,000 men while the coalition has over a million. He also wasn't the same genius in his early life, The campaigns at Russia, Spain, and 1813 Germany should've already be clear that his skills were declining. Tere was no way Napoleon could hope defeat over a million Coalition troops, there were just too many and its not like Napoleon could just call on new conscripts, the nation was tired of war and Napoleon plunging France into war when its citizens desperately want it to stop is peak idiocy on his part.
Very true, I always laughed at my American friends and family who visited me in England without telling them what loo was when we were out on the town. I am duel Citizen living in both Countries since birth , 60% of my family are British & 40% Americans. To say the least, it is always fun times in the difference of words but the same goes with the British. Have the British coming to America asking for a chemist in many big cities and you would be possibly pointed to a street drug dealer, don't ask a American police officer. Ask a American about a surgery, they will ask you what is wrong with you for the need go under the knife.
Napoleon was quite famously defeated politically, not militarily, on account of his habit of nervously shitting his pants every time he met anybody even remotely famous. It's no coincidence that Napoleon had scored Maculay Culkin as a guest for his podcast the very day he was defeated at Waterloo.
@@markgrehan3726 Eh, technically you're right. But compared to those of the 20th century, he wasn't much of a dictator. He was constrained in what he could do by law. The Napoleonic Code he wrote himself, granted, but still. He couldn't just purge anyone that opposed him. And he was far better than the fat king or the Directory. The people loved him for it.
@@TLOK1918 Napoleon wasn't really that constrained he did what he wanted when he wanted even before becoming Emperor and he keeps Fouche as head of the Police. He didn't write the Naponic code he got it going and chaired some meetings so was heavily involved but still...But yes he was a lot better than the King and the Directory he understood how to make things happen and to get things done through his intelligence and his force of will.
@@markgrehan3726 He also did control the newspapers to a great extent, didn't he? Like I said, you're technically correct, my friend. But "military dictator" has much darker connotations since the 20th century, I just wanted to clarify.
He wasn't a 'little Dictator'. At 5'8" he was average height for the time (before vitamins etc in food). British propoganda at the time created this myth. It would useful that for an historian should know this, so as not to perpetuate this out-of-date stereotype. For French armies reluctance to fight on muddy ground, see: Agincourt.
Yea, my high school history teacher told us this back in 2008. I expect it to be a common fact by now but in 2020 I guess there are still people who actually believes British's propoganda and their hate boner for France.
bullshitt/he wasn't 5-8 on his best day..they said same thing bout hitler..tall for his time period..really? then all the pic. of him surrounded by his generals/all those guys must be considered GIANTS for their generation.. both these leaders wer just little guys..keep it real...
Actually in the 1814 campaign, Napoleon was making retreat the army of bohemia and the army of silesia, he alone with his young conscripts and part of his old guard. That give you an idea of his military genius.
A couple extra reasons not mentioned in the video. The duke of Wellington had had years to study Napoleon’s moves making him better able to anticipate and react to Napoleon’s moves. And Napoleon was in a rush to defeat enemy armies before they united. A lot of his battles were won through defeat in detail, whereby he would spread his army, causing the enemy to do the same. Then he would consolidate his forces and crush isolated enemy forces. Through that tactic, he could bring a smaller army, yet outnumber the enemy in each battle. He was in too much of a rush to be able to pull of his regular brilliant moves.
One of the main reason was he was old the gas was running low. He would have won in his younger days. But even if he did win the battle there's no way he could have won the war
Napoleon was not soundly defeated by Wellington's smaller force. He was beating Wellington when Blucher's troops arrived. Blucher and Wellington together had many more soldiers than Napoleon.
Here's a bit of weird history for you: Nappy was Corsican, not French. Though France owned Corsica at the time, they'd gotten it from the Italians. In Corsica they didn't speak French. They spoke Italian. Nappy's first language was Italian, not French, therefore, his accent wouldn't have been comically broad French, but Italian. Make use of this as you will.
“Soundly defeated by the SMALLER force”? This is patently false, and completely disregards the role of the Prussians in turning the tide of battle. Meh... overall this video is not a great overview of this battle. Go check out Epic History TV’s treatment of this instead.
@@conflictbricks8330 to me not rlly During the battle napoleon and his army wasnt at their most formidable anymore napoleon was sick,tired,old his troops were raw conscripts, his best marshals werent pressent anymore, his marshals failed their job, the weather wasnt in his favor etch...on the battle of austerlitz he gave an outstanding performance even when his oponents had the terrain advantage. To me he lost cause of his health but i still agree the terrain was a big help to wellington
He's wrong about 30% of all the things he said in his analysis. Odd since most of his videos seem to be well researched. But he really dropped the ball on this one
While there were many questionable decisions that led to Napoleon defeat at Waterloo. His decision to rely on Marshall Ney was crucial. Ney wasn't the young confident leader he had been years before. He had simply been asked to go to the well of courage one time too many.
@@Raisonnance. nah at this point Napoleon and the French were just like the Germans at the battle of the bulge, the army was full of young inexperienced conscripts, as well as losing many of his marshals to either war or to their titles like sweden. This was a last ditch effort by Napoleon to win and make peace before the allies could merge forces
@@spookyboi8446 That may be a reason but it's balanced by the fact that the Anglo-Allied army fielded by Wellington was also pretty raw, spoke a mix of languages and part of it had until recently been fighting with the French.
@@markgrehan3726 True, however up until now the French had been at an advantage in terms of military, and this was the major turning point in the military history of the continent. The allies were typically fighting with more poorly trained and inexperienced troops throughout the entire napoleonic era (except Britain)
As someone who's from St Helena island myself his house where he lived and died is still there plus the grave where he was buried but one of his marshals came to St Helena took his body back to France where he was buried again.
The British mostly relied on auxiliary forces since their land army was never a large force. Most of his army were Belgians and various other German troops that were recruited from the federation of the Rhine after it was dissolved
I think the whole scheme began to unravel for Napoleon when he betrayed Spain and got a sizable force bogged down in the endless quagmire of the Peninsular War. He now also had to deal with a war on two fronts, which stretched resources thin. Nevertheless, the French were strong enough to endure such a blunder, but then he went on and invaded Russia and it was light's out for his empire.
The blame lies with napoleon he not only allowed the best army commander in the world at that time to choose the battlefield he then let him choose his position on it I be wellington couldn't believe his luck he must have been rubbing his hands at how many men the French were going to lose trying to take those 3 reinforced farmhouses
This was a very good, condensed version. It's interesting and informative without too much fluff added to make the video longer. The bad French accents......... were bad, lol. Well done.
"Tubthumping" by Chumbawamba was released my senior year of high school, and it was played constantly. It was in the background of so many events that it seemed like it was always playing. I will never forget that song.
You do realize that when you cover Napoleon’s return to France that the troops shown in the video to receive him are in Russian uniforms, not French (if the double headed eagle flag didn’t give it away)...and later you use Union troops on horseback during the Civil War which I find really odd...or that you show the Scots Greys’ charge at the very end of the film which happened earlier in the battle. As for content, where to begin...
Downplayed the significance of the Prussian Army just a tad... well, a lot, really... The British were close to collapse at the time Bluecher arrived... but what are such tiny details that would portrait the Germans in a positive light every now and then, huh?
It's awful to be a pedant I know....sorry... but the photo of Jérôme Bonaparte at 8:12 was the son of the Jérôme you were talking about (1805 -1870) probably wasn't fighting with his dad at 10 years of age in fairness! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Napol%C3%A9on_Bonaparte
Apparently the new theory as to why Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo is that on the day of the battle he was suffering from the worst bout of piles of the Napoleonic era.
You should do a video on the Battle of Cowpens where the Americans under Daniel Morgan and Nathaniel Greene obliterated the British force’s. This and the “chase” they led Cornwallis on through the south ( led to him burning his baggage train even ) so after this crushing defeat he headed to Yorktown to rest, get supplies, and it backs up to the bay so the Americans couldn’t attack from that side... but the French could. And that’s what happened and it was the last battle of the Revolution on American soil.
Funny that John Dickinson, the Founding Father of the US, also was a British cavalryman at Waterloo. Even funnier that he had been dead for 7 years at that point.
It wasn't just Bicycles. The Japanese were fielding tanks into thick Malayan Jungles. The British under estimated the the Japanese. The most powerful guns were stationed at Sentosa, South Of Singapore. The Japanese came from the North into Malaya and then onto Singapore. Aircraft in Singapore were outdated and modern ones at that time could not match the A6M Zero where it was the most advanced aircraft of its time! It didn't help the fact the Americans were to help Singapore but before the invasion of Malaya, Japan did a Pearl Harbor. In conclusion it wasn't just his fault. It was due to the fact no one saw the Japanese coming as at that point of time Britain and Japan were allies.
Like this channel, long time sub.The insights on matters of every day life in different periods of history are just delightful. Alors, when I saw the title of this video I thought "What on earth? Why would you pick this topic? What could WH bring anew to this well scrutinized event?" ...the answer is, nothing, just some really bad french accents, comical even. Quote him in french if you really want to dance your tongue. Cheers! P.S. Loved the French revolution hygiene video
He lost at Leipzig against the Austrians , Russian , Swedish, and Prussians in 1813. But the English try to make it seem as if their general and army defeated him in 1815. This was a last hurrah for a dictator with a small army. This battle "Leipzig" ,had 500,000 soldiers. The largest until in WW1. Waterloo was less than half 200,000
You ask what other military commanders made blunders. I wish more Americans knew the major screw ups we did during the Normandy invasion. Yeah, we won but it took us six hours to take Omaha Beach while the British, Canadians, and Irish quickly succeeded. Our leaders told the Bombers to "Wait" (while they discussed whether the tanks {which never arrived because Our Navy dumped our Tanks into the ocean.} could pass through bomb craters) WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT AIRPLANES COULD STOP while they waited. [ouch, complex sentence] Then our leaders commanded the bombers to Drop your bombs NOW--when those planes were now twenty miles from the battle. Our bombers didn't blast the German bunkers and our tanks never arrived to support the soldiers. The invasion started with Battleships targeting the guns on the bunkers--semi-effective, but took far too long for the leaders, realizing the aircraft hadn't bombed the bunkers, to have the battleships once again try to hit the bunkers -- which led to some of our own troops dying from that less accurate targeting. And there's more you can tell us. -- AND there was the Italy invasion where our General Clark had our soldiers land on a beach free from German's resistance -- then had them dig in to a defensive position and WAIT for the German to arrive--up on the higher ground, so there could be a nice bloodbath. All instead of landing on the beach and advancing before the Germans got there.
There's a book "After the Battle" I think. Waterloo made some 'entrepreneurs' 😧 a FORTUNE. Back then just like now wealthy people paid big bucks for.. dentures. The problem was that they were REALLY difficult to make. Thus.. the battle.. was a HUGE opportunity for.. bodies, teeth. Especially YOUNG MEN. Pretty gruesome huh. One can just imagine the scene☠
@@mountaintiger2767 Literally upon the arrival of Blücher Napoleon was inspiring men by shouting "WELLINGTON IS BEATEN!" My dude... Wellington did NOT win the battle. If the Prussian had shown up even 30 min later the British may well have been in full retreat. Don't get me wrong, good though Napoleon was I don't think even with his reserves he could have led a battle weary army having just fought the freakin Duke of Wellington against Blücher. Not saying Blücher is better or worse than Wellington, just that neither won it themselves, and neither could have won it without the other.
@Donald J. Trump true, but they held him off attack after attack, blucher was just the icing on the cake at the end :0) but i will say he was good but not as good as other military commanders, wellington said it was a damn close run thing and i do believe that and in some wars it is a close run thing to win and can go either way :0)
