30:28 THIS IS WHAT MAKES EPICHISTORYTV THE BEST. No joke I've watched this part in the video literally more than 50 times. Something about it is just incredible. It just gets my heart racing. The music and the artwork and the narration etc is just so exhilarating. The defence of Paris will always be one of my favourite moments of the Napoleonic wars and of epic history tv thanks to their great channel.
For me its 13:45 by far. Sending in your best unit that you have been saving up all these years in an impossible attempt to defend the homecountry, goosebombs
This one was pretty awesome! And you are not alone in mourning the loss of historical artifacts and structures. Can you imagine if we still had access to the libraries of ancient Alexandria or could walk through Solomon's Temple. Time robs us of enough of these treasures without us destroying them too. It should be a crime. Sorry, I rant too.
Plus in India Bakhtiyar Khilji destroyed and burned Nalanda University. According to Chinese traveller Nalanda University was a treasure and this act of Bakhtiyar resulted in the destruction of 70,000 Manuscripts containing very important knowledge
Regarding Murat. You have to also remember that Murat was married to a sister of Napoleon named Caroline, who in fact co-ruled Naples with Murat. She went along with Murat's changing sides and in some accounts is said to have originated the idea! So Napoleon wasn't simply "betrayed" by a friend but by a member of his immediate family!! Wow thats gotta hurt!!!
Joseph and Jerome Boneparte are excellent case studies in how nepotism can be your ultimate downfall. Imagine if Joseph had been half as competent as Napoleon, or Jerome during the advance through Russia. So much could have been different had Napoleon had capable actors in those roles instead of his bungling brothers.
@@fcalvaresi Well obviously it wasn't Jonah's tomb since Jonah was almost certainly a fictional character. That's why I said it was "supposed" to be his tomb. Never the less though that mosque was ancient and was historically and culturally very important to Mosel. And ISIS just... completely destroyed it. I don't care that it didn't actually have the "real" Jonah's tomb in it, that was a crime against history and culture.
33:53 It's like when a German artillery unit set fire to the two Lake Nemi ships in Italy in 1944. They were the largest wooden ships ever built, comissioned by Caligula, and were a testament to Roman engineering.
Depends on who you see as his master. In his memoirs, he explains how he never betrayed a ruler before the ruler betrayed the country, and ends with the sentence "I made myself availlable to the events. And as long as those events kept me french, I was content." He only ever worked in what he saw as the interest of a nation, not it's regime or rulers.
@@saiien2 Yeah, by invading and conquering more countries than I can count on both hands and causing the deaths of millions of people in the wars. And yes I will admit there was a fair bit of good in the revolutionary ideals and the Napoleonic code, there was also a lot of stuff in there simply because the creators behind the two just personally didn't like some of the old ways of doing things. Such as making everybody drive/ride on a certain side of the road or changing the calendar because the other one was linked to Christianity, along with so many more other ridiculous things. Not to mention the revolution only lived due to the mass execution of many thousands and thousands of innocent peasants and the oppression of everybody else.
Eastory did a three-parter (~30min total) on The Deluge, a period of war in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. There, that's my suggestion. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-buu6r09B9h4.html
The estimates given for Napoleon's so-called 6 day campaign are ones I've seen before and they are based on sources that glorify Napoleon too much. The 6 day campaign was remarkable and doesn't need those twists / distortions. Actual French casualties were more than 5,000; allied casualties were certainly more than12,000 and a figure of 15,000 perfectly plausible, but the further 15,000 is a pull out of the ass figure not worth taking seriously.
Pierre Cloutier Well there’s always going to be disputes about causality figures. I’m pretty convinced that the Blücher suffered at least 20 000 loses during the campaign.
Emperor Alexander was not the "savior of Europe" in my opinion. First, Europe would have been much better off with Napoleon in power. Not only because his laws and reforms made every place they touched better but a strong France and a Germany kept in check may have prevented two world wars, the holocaust and the nuclear age. Also, Alexander was one of the main figures responsible for the continuation of the Napoleonic Wars and all the destruction they caused. He was part of those earlier coalitions constantly waging war on France.
The Napoleonic myth never dies. Neither does the worship of conquerors and power. During Napoleon's reign an abject media published vast amounts of stomach turning propaganda glorifying the most holy and divine Napoleon and surrounded him with a cult of personality very similar to Stalin's and Mao's. After Napoleon's overthrow many, many French historians writhed and groveled at the feet of Napoleon because abject submission to the most excellent divine Son of God gave them immense pleasure. So, so many want to submit and worship the infallible leader who can only be destroyed by the machinations of the evil one - Satan!! Or in this case the evil British and their continental allies. And of course there is the myth that the various coalitions forced war on Napoleon. Of course history would have been different if Napoleon had crushed his enemies and turned Europe into his plaything. So? Things could have been worst, just has much has they could have been better. Although I have serious doubts about how long such a hegemony, like Napoleon's, could have lasted. History would also have been different if Cleopatra's nose had been longer! Has for Napoleon's laws and reforms making everything better. Well one of the things we have learned in the past 40 years in research in Napoleon's Empire is just how unpopular Napoleon's "reforms" were. In most places in Napoleon's conquests the popular movement were for a return to the old regime. To a large extent because the "reforms" were imposed by bayonet point. As for better off over all. Well lets see Spain was not better off but devastated by Napoleon's attempt to force a very unwanted King on them. And in Napoleon's empire the rule was exploitation, coercion, mass pillage and extortion. Napoleon, his family, and his Marshals systematically squeezed much of Europe of vast amounts of wealth. And of course part of this process was a systematic effort to destroy continental competition to French goods. Napoleon's family were rewarded by being given vassal kingdoms for which they were expected to run them according to Napoleon's dictates and the actual interests of the inhabitants were to be ignored. Louis who was made king of Holland was removed by Napoleon because he tried to act in the interest of his Dutch subjects and refused to follow Napoleon's dictates which would have destroyed the Dutch economy. In Brother Jerome's kingdom of Westphalia, Napoleon deliberately extorted vast sums from it and left it loaded with a gigantic debt. And I should not forget to mention the vast system of conscription existing in Napoleon's empire which was roundly detested by just about everyone. Napoleon's empire was very much like a vast extortion racket, run for the benefit of Napoleon, his family and Marshals, all of whom became very rich from the pillaging of Europe. It is interesting to note that popular support for various reforms in much of Europe didn't exist until after the threat to impose them via French Bayonets vanished. And I should mention that the victorious coalition was far from being interested in a full return to the old regime. (Which disappointed a great many people in large areas of Europe who did not like the "reforms", this included in many places the great majority of the population.) Yep the Napoleonic Myth never dies.
Only WW2 was a direct cause of WW1, and the cause of WW1 was not France. It was Austria-Hungary and Serbia, and the sheer amount of alliances between all of Europe.
@@fugustogamer7512 Well WW1 and its system of alliances can be traced back to the Franco-Prussian war and Germany's unification. Which was made possible due to the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire (by Napoleon) and the consolidation of German states that came after. WW1 was bound to happen as France and Germany were at odds with one another after Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine from France and humiliated them back in 1870. Russia was at odds with Austria-Hungary (who was supported by Germany) and so Russia was convinced to side with France as France wanted allies unlike back in the Franco-Prussian war (and so on so forth, you can see the sort of domino effect French ambitions created).
@@josephcharles4549 Not my argument. He said WW1 directly is the consequence of Napoleon being defeated. Which is not true, the HRE being dissolved perhaps was an early factor, but that doesn't change that 100 years of events after Napoleon led to WW1, Napoleon was not the main, or sole reason for WW1. Edit: Not to mention who knows what would have happened if Napoleon won, for all we know it would have triggered an even more devastating war after his death, leaving a power vacuum for example. There is no possible way of actually being confident that Napoleon if he won would have made anything better.
@@fugustogamer7512 I see, I understand. Napoleon definitely wasn't a direct cause I agree, his dismantling of the HRE and making Germany unite against a common enemy other than themselves however are major factors in German unification, at least thats how it seems to me. You're right in that we don't know what would've happened had Napoleon won, maybe we would not have WW1or maybe we would just have another war earlier. Its total speculation. Although one can also argue that Napoleon's defeat was in fact a direct factor for WW1, if we're talking about Napoleon III that is ;)
I understand Marmont's defection. First because after Friedland Napoleon became too confident and not very aware of his Marshall's advice (example : didn't follow Davout's plan at Borodino) and was becoming unbearable. His refusal of the Frankfurt proposal was probably the last nail of the coffin...
By this time, Napoleon’s wife was already deeply in loved with him and she begged her father to go with him but her father didn’t allow he to go. In a letter to Napoleon, she did say that she had a lot of guards that watches her so she couldn’t go.
@@fatboibrian9047 she wouldn’t have gone that far, she loved Napoleon but she did not love him as much as Josephine did. She quickly forgot about him and was seduced by Neipperg. I remember reading that in a ball or party (whatever you may want to call it), she used the reason that Napoleon will be remembered by the rest of Europe so she doesn’t have to remember him.
@@johnstuartmill7254 That's why Napoleon 2 said that my mother is coward and is the only reason why my father is buried in st Helena. If Josephine was there then this wouldnt happened. My mom is kind but weak and my father didnt deserved her
Saddest part is the loss of the crown of the first king of Poland Boleslav the Brave from 1025. Previously used by Emperor Otto III of Holy Roman Empire and gifted to the Polish ruler as act of friedship between the two royals In Commonwealth often used for coronations of Queens or was worn during special occasions by Kings Though several more crowns were lost, this one hurts in particullar en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Crown_Jewels
32:55, its the worst when objects vital in History get destroyed. Imagine the Antiquarian knowledge we would have today if the Library of Alexandria never burnt down for instance.
@@fatboibrian9047 "The progress woul've slowed down like today" ? We are making giant leap like never before in history. The progress is exponential since 150 years ago. Imagine that in 2000 we had the nokia 3310, cameras were argentic, space science was regressing, most cars were without intelligence, a PC from that time would be a joke etc etc Engineering prowess are feeded by science and science is progressing.
Regarding Marie-Louise. After Napoleon's abdication she did in fact want to join him, but her family had other ideas and wanted to keep her and her son away from Napoleon. So they arranged for her to be escorted to Italy by an old soldier named Adam Albert von Neipperg, (Who was one-eyed), who seduced her on the way there. From then on they were a couple. When Napoleon died in 1821 Marie-Louise married von Neipperg. He died in 1829. In the meantime Marie-Louise had been named Duchess of Parma in Italy. In 1834 Marie-Louise married Charles-René de Bombelles. Marie-Louise died in 1847. Marie-Louise had 4 children in all. One with Napoleon and 3 with von Neipperg. Two of which were born before she married him.
It was a matter of military honor and scorched earth technique. The Russians burned Moscow rather than surrendering it. The French burned their spoils of glory than than seeing it taken away.
Even tho I'm french and quite a patriot, as a fellow historian I must say that I'm quite sad and shocked that we burned Frederick the great sword and sash. Those are relics for us and even you would agree that we should have hide them to then expose them in our own museum as trophies later on than burning them. Even I would have prefered the Prussian to take it back and expose them in Germans museum than that... But war is war, and pride is pride. Great react tho, wish you all the best for the future
I know that Napoleon was a fan of Frédéric the Great, then how could he allow the burning of his sword and sash? I got really uncanny as soon as he said "including Frédéric the Great's sword and sash".
I was wondering what the rant was going to be about but before you even started, I was already cussing them out XD Also one of the few non-CK3 videos in my subscriptions the past few days :D
Enjoyed your video, your commemtary is a good addition as many people who react don't have any knowledge on the topic. But Tsar Alexander was definately not a hero or liberator in Poland, he was just another conqueror taking Polish lands
32:39 Yes they did unfortunately. The various standards and flags belonged previously to various regiments and armies that France had defeated. In those times they had been considered as symbols of pride and honor of various units they belonged. Often those regiments would try to burry or destroy them before they could be captured by enemy. As for Frederick the great things, they had the similar value. This was most likely the reason why they were destroyed.
