Regarding the question about Napoleon Syndrome and why "haha Napoleon so short" is a thing, it's because of mixed up units and British propaganda. At the time, French inches were longer than British inches so the French said he was 5'4 and the Brits ran with it, when he should've been reported as 5'7 or 5'8 in Britain which was slightly above average. The fact he had height requirements for his bodyguards which made him look super short also didn't help matters.
Aside from Napoleon, there is another person that is usually overlooked in history and that is Otto Von Bismarck. After Napoleon he is kinda the father of Germany as a whole.
Regarding those revolutions, probably the least violent revolution that happened (or that I personally know about) was the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989, during which the communist regime fell. There was a clash with the police, but nothing else. No shooting, no civil war. Just an agreement between the government and the protesters.
There is only one revolution I know of that didn't rely on violence and succeeded. It was the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, in which a main part of their revolution was just taking everything undergound beyond the eyes and ears of any communist loyalists: they distributed and wrote uncensored media and literature, had secret gatherings, organised strikes, created outside sources of basic necessities, etc. Its a lot more awesome than it sounds because the people of Czechoslovakia basically ignored their government into compliance. It took only 3.5% of the population to completely destroy communism in czechoslovakia, and it actually forms the foundation towards rhe idea that peaceful revolutions are more likely to succeed than armed conflict.
Statement: WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!! You’re going to fucking love this channel.
Revolution: Why wouldn't those in power fight a war to stay in power? War: Everyone saying "If you don't fight with us, you must be the enemy". People who don't want to fight: Are declared the enemy by both sides. Result: innocents are masaccered.
4:10 ..... Jeanne of Arc was burned by the English after her capture, not the French. The French wanted to pay the ransom and the King of France saw her as a threat, being more popular than him, so he just pocket the money and never paid the ransom. So England burned her.
There was a peaceful revolution in Portugal back in 1974, called the Carnation Revolution where only 5 people died (dont know if they were civillians or not) according to wikipedia, for a revolution it was very peaceful
Signed up on the Discord, literally don't have permission to send messages in ANY of its channels. I'M STILL WAITING FOR A NEW REACTION TO PANCREAS EITHER WAY!
Man, it's great to see you getting to dive into Oversimplified's stuff. Their prequel to this about the revolution itself is also pretty good. Jack Rackham also has a 3-part series about the French Revolution that I like quite a lot.
Actually, the battle of Marengo was not that important. Sure, it did result in returning Italy in the French sphere of influence, but the war was still ongoing. And only after the battle of Hohenlinden the austrians agreed to a peace deal.
Thanks for reacting to this, OldMan! I have heard that the film Napoleon is a bit disappointing to those looking for history in it, and that apparently it is more obsessed on his relationship with Josephine than on the man himself and ignores how much he valued Family. Its a shame, it could have become a damn franchise which explored the man's exploits. That aside, Oversimplified does some of the best videos on History, its no joke.
We glorify revolution because ours worked out so well, but we don't discuss enough the "salutary neglect" that came before. In declaring indepencence from Britain we were not overthrowing the governing bodies that were actually running the colonies on a day to day basis. Unlike most revolutions. This kept a lid on a lot of the chaos that usually breaks out in revolutions. You can see it in the colonists' grievances, e.g. the Crown making laws bypassing colonial legislatures, no taxation without representation.
The People's Power Revolution in the Philippines. The only Revolution, that I know of, that over threw its tyrant without a single person getting killed in the progress.
Oversimplified have some amazing videos. A lot of detail and humor while not running for hours. I will say this about Napoleon though, his entire life was war before he even begun to rule. He was an amazing man not just for his ability to lead and fight, but because he actually seemed to care about the country and his people. Something other rulers just took advantage of.
If you want a really good video about the concert of Europe I recommend Historia Civilis’s videos on the Congress of Vienna. He’s super detailed and doesn’t have the kiddish humour and oversimplifications that bog oversimplified down.
If you'd like to see him talk more about the horrors of Revolution, Oversimplified has many videos on revolutions, including the particularly bloody French Revolution.
Revolutions are so often messy for a lot of different reasons. Once you take power, all the problems the former leadership caused are now your responsibility to fix, and you barely had time to plan governence because often even mentioning your movement's name under previous rule would have got you shot. Plus, you no longer have a unifying enemy, and it turns out a lot of your allies have conflicting ideas for what the revolution even was about. On top of that, you better hope you're a colony and the person you revolted from is an ocean away, cause they and their friends are going to find your revolutions very existence a threat and better not be a simple march to your borders. Not to mention, what do you do with the previous ruler? I mean, not EVERYONE hated them. It all can so easily lead to paranoia and strife. Leaving you wide open to an ambitious General, or General Secretary.
Outstanding job my friend glad to see you reacting to oversimplified some of the best historical but fun videos on the internet love to see you react to more of them they have plenty of variety major conflicts minor conflicts and revolutions love to get your reaction to oversimplified's videos
@@Azorees-oj5zr the Philosophical foundations of the movement aren´t based in reality but in assumptions that proved themselves falsehoods over the years. By Philosophical foundations i mean things such as ¨equality is the natural state of man¨ or ¨human reason is the measure by which all things may be understood¨ both these statements have proven themselves to be straight up wrong and most of modern society´s problems can be traced back to these vague and faulty Philosophical foundations of ¨equality¨ and ¨reason¨ which stretched to their logical extremes created many other splinter ideologies which have built upon the same faulty foundations into layers of falsehood and circular logic, an example is Marxism and it´s understanding of history, Marx assumes Rosseau and Hegels position to be correct from the outset so he takes from Rosseau´s ¨equality is the natural state of man¨ and works from Rosseau´s conclusion that inequality must then be unnaturally born of greed and oppression, he also then correlates private property to the idea of oppression, Marx expands further upon it with his false understanding of history as nothing more than a relationship of ¨oppressors and oppressed¨ this assessment is wrong from the outset because it´s very foundational origin thought(that the natural state of man is equality) is itself false, in fact the complete opposite is verifiable: the natural state of man is inequality and any ideology which doesn´t acknowledge these notions is fated to eventually spiral into a logical collapse upon contact with reality, Marxism is only one example of this every other major post-enlightenment movement that did not opposed enlightenment notions suffers from fundamental flaws like these: other examples are liberalism which focuses too much on the individual as if he wasn´t a part of the society he inhabits, multiculturalism and secularism which ignore group identity and cultural/religious differences and so on and so forth , so in short the enlightenment is a mistake because it was predicated on false assumptions.
