The Simple Reason Why Nobody Could Defeat Napoleon 

No he forgot about Spain

lol the movie should have been named the love between Josephine and Napoleon

ur super funny good joke@@azizhassen9753

@@antonyberry1632 yeah he did which was russia used that tactic in russia

so sooo true @@azizhassen9753

You may also enjoy learning about Agrippa. Agrippa was the military mind behind the rise of Octavian/Augustus Caesar and absolutely brilliant especially in that he was able to think outside the box of traditional military tactics of the time. Historia Civilis has an excellent (and entertaining, although a bit drier than this channel) chronological history of the transition of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire (Which features, in part, the tale of Octavian and Agrippa and the folks surrounding them. The tale of Cicero, Rome's finest and final true statesman, is also an excellent story)

@@JKa244 I am a big fan of outside of the box methods. I have heard Agrippa's name a few times, but I have not heard of his military exploits. Perhaps I will look into this channel. Thank you for the recommendation.

@@galaxy-eyesgarchomp9478 I sincerely hope you enjoy and learn as much or more than I did, should you find the time and interest to do so!

@@galaxy-eyesgarchomp9478 I would recommend starting with the assassination of Julius Caesar and going in chronological order - I will find and link that particular video so you can use it as a starting point, and add that link in an additional reply.

@@JKa244 That would be helpful. I really appreciate that

So what is the simple reason why nobody could defeat him?

@@SportsBettingFacts his fleet was bigger? lol

@@TopTen-virtualvideos2 I don't know ;) Does it say that in the video? If yes, where?

Historiography has lost it's credibility as a science long, long time ago. Especially when it comes to history of Europe and Russia. Fabrications and straight out gutting parts of it that don't fit the political agendas. For example Ancient Greece, It's entire history is based upon documents written after the 18th century, allegedly rewritings. The actual few remaining documents from that era tell quite a different story...

The man has a gift.

@@stefanfilipov7254 That’s funny. Conspiracy theorist in the comments. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, so no need to.

@@marquisdelafayette-xe1ht Yeah it's quite funny actually. It's not important what the facts say, when you have a lobby of fanatics that say what's what. You either flow with the mainstream or you are not a historian. You probably believe ancient Egypt was built with copper chisel and hammer...

He also promoted the most avaricious of his Marshalls

Under the revolution France became a meritocracy.

Wrong. Berthier was the actual genius behind the administration of the French army at that point. Credit to Napoleon for allowing him to do it, but that's about as far as it goes. In fact you can almost pin-point the moment Napoleon starts losing battles is when Coalition armies start copying Berthier's ideas.

His army was defeated by the Haitians in 1803

It could be argued that it was disease that depleted his army.@@AppolonNoel

they were so scared of him that even if they banish the guy to the most remote island in the world, they had 2 ships incircle the island 24/7 until he died and when he died they incase him with layers upon layers of metal caskets in case the guy would come back again to haunt Europe

well the british could have killed him.....the prussians most certainly would have that said killing him might have led to more revolution and more warfare and everybody was exhausted at that point nobody wanted another major war europe had been at war off and on for over 20 years

It's a smart move used more often. "If you surrender, we'll give you a luxury villa, a nice island to live out your years. If you don't, then heads, pikes, tar, maggots, you know the rules" If done right, it can help in the aftermath since you didn't murder everyone's favorite hero, and you effectively hold him hostage for their good behavior. If done wrong, they'll revolt anyway. If done very wrong, he builds a boat and goes in for round 2. But ultimately, ol' Nappy failed at that key role in statesmanship: making buddies. Turns out when you're only liked by your soldiers, you can only really lose one major battle.

In modern times, Napoleon would have been charged with "war crimes" and ended up like Saddam after a show trial... @@sorsocksfake

@@sorsocksfake Well, yes and no... Two members of the 7th coalition were his marshals add in the popularity of the guy in France, they couldn't really kill him outright without facing massive retaliation ^^. Or at least without having a massive grudge of the french and yes, the 20 th century and the first world war attest it could be dangerous ^^.

Yeah he was a great general but he was colonizing murderous barbaric POS as well. Like how he massacred my people (Egypt), even while they prayed in the safety of their holy places while bombing them and desecrating it, slaughtering innocent people and religious leaders, utterly destroying everything and failing to trick our people into believing him and his lies while also failing to bring the country under his control, only to end up running back to France with his tail between his legs abandoning his soldiers cause he failed and didn’t want to take the responsibility and be there when it was clear. Went to France and used his propaganda to convince everyone that it was some sort of epic victory. Lol

That sounds just like my long past history classes, if a few teachers had his ability we would all know so much more.

​@primesspct2 Same here. My history teachers never failed to leave me bored and uninterested, as opposed to my wild science teachers that ensured I was entertained by whatever they taught.

I HATED history in school. love it now. I'm convinced they don't teach the good parts

+

What is incredible? he caused the deaths of millions He condoned torture Rapine and Plundering. He was a thief on a grand scale And the Lourve is full of plundered art. He was as bad as Hitler. He was a party to the executions of the aristocrats and royalty and then becomes one himself. His Hubris had no bounds

The guy who kept beating him saw the Crimean war. & he was born the same year as Napoleon.

Right. No unlike Alexander the Great, whose armies conquered much of the world under his command before we was even thirty. Or like the overall Artillery commander in Lee's Army at Gettsyburg was only 28 at the time of the battle. Unreal how much these young men accomplished in their short lives. So many of today's 28-year-olds still live with their parents, aren't married, have no children. Awful.

How did the Congo and Chad vote?

Was Napoleon a freemason? Historians do not have a document that could confirm this, but many undeniable facts prove the extreme closeness of Napoleon to Freemasonry. Moreover, it was thanks to Napoleonб Freemasonry spread in Europe and became a mass phenomenon. He turned Freemasonry from a secret society, as it used to be, into almost an official state religion, uniting all the French lodges around the Grand Orient. Back in Corsica, Bonaparte grew up surrounded by Freemasons - after all, his father and all three brothers were Freemasons. There is no doubt that the family spoke about Freemasonry all the time. The youngest brother, Jerome Bonaparte (1784-1860) was initiated into the Freemasons at the age of 17 in the Mir Lodge in eastern Toulon. His career has developed rapidly. A year later, in 1801, he became Grand Master of the Grand Mother′s Lodge of Westphalia, and in 1807, Napoleon made him king. The elder brother, Joseph Bonaparte (1768-1844), was initiated in the Lodge La Parfaite Sincérité (Perfect sincerity) in the Orient of Marseille. In 1804, he became Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France and King of Naples, and then King of Spain. Finally, Louis Bonaparte (1778-1846), the father of the future Napoleon III, served as Deputy Grand Master from 1803 to 1806, before being succeeded by Jean-Jacques Regis Cambasseres. Napoleon’s wife, Empress Josephine de Beauharnais (1763-1814), was initiated into a women’s Lodge in Strasbourg and held the position of Grand Master for some time. Eugène de Beauharnais, the only son of Josephine from her first marriage, at the age of 24, having received the title of viceroy of Italy from her stepfather, became the founder of the Grand Orient of Italy and the Supreme Council of Italy. It is not surprising that under this leadership, both military and civilian wanted to enter the ranks of freemasons at the earliest opportunity. Masons were twenty-two of Napoleon’s thirty marshals, five of the six members of the Imperial Military Council and six of the nine ministers in the government.

Because he said, _"No take backsies!"_ But, in French...

My opinion: 🧠 + Fate + 🔥Great workaholic Fate: he's the right man for the time - some say, although I might not yet agree fully to it, he is a product of the French Revolution. A genius no doubt but in a different era he might not gain as much glory as he did. Another personal opinion: Maybe he made a deal with the devil? Who knows 🤷‍♂️

Napoleon was "him"

Didn't encountered the Russian

It is not pretty cool to touch history related to a brutal and failed European military dictatorship. You are from the US, you should know better.

You must be great at parties 🙄. And please tell us which utopia you come from?

@@brady952 Americans should do better and not want part of any failed European military dictators like Napoleon.

​@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictatorsdork

@@seanpaolacci6842 Just like a virgin who pretends that he f*cked a girl, France pretends that they won with Napoleon. Couple of losers who have to resort to pretending.

Key point shown in Italy campaign is split a rather slow moving enemy , superiro speed of movement and independance of selfsufficient corps , to regroup in mass against an inferior force .. start over ...

Just to add a friendly precision : No he didn't commissioned pasteurization. Pasteur was born after his death in 1822. Napoleon III did it.

Napoleon was able to move fast...because his troops robbed the poor farmers of all their food, which left them to starve to death. The opposition generals had huge slow moving support wagons to feed their troops, which gave Napoleon a huge advantage.

well that failed in the Peninsula and he ignored what his Marshals said about the British using the reverse slope to nullify his artillery

@@5H1N0B1 Indeed, but he commissioned a solution to feed his soldiers, and canned food was invented by the French, and the troops could feed themselves during long campaigns !

source : crois moi frrr

@@unpseudopascommelesautres997 Book is called: “Napoleon: a very short introduction. By David Bell”. I forget the page number Edit: nvm. Page 17, the writers name was Paul Valery

Imagine what he could have done if he hadn’t been so obsessed with conquest and actually valued women as equals in everything but raw physical strength. If he’d turned his mind to science and statescraft. Or even if he’d made full use of women. Maybe he would have been another Einstein. Alas we’ll never know.

Was Napoleon a freemason? Historians do not have a document that could confirm this, but many undeniable facts prove the extreme closeness of Napoleon to Freemasonry. Moreover, it was thanks to Napoleonб Freemasonry spread in Europe and became a mass phenomenon. He turned Freemasonry from a secret society, as it used to be, into almost an official state religion, uniting all the French lodges around the Grand Orient. Back in Corsica, Bonaparte grew up surrounded by Freemasons - after all, his father and all three brothers were Freemasons. There is no doubt that the family spoke about Freemasonry all the time. The youngest brother, Jerome Bonaparte (1784-1860) was initiated into the Freemasons at the age of 17 in the Mir Lodge in eastern Toulon. His career has developed rapidly. A year later, in 1801, he became Grand Master of the Grand Mother′s Lodge of Westphalia, and in 1807, Napoleon made him king. The elder brother, Joseph Bonaparte (1768-1844), was initiated in the Lodge La Parfaite Sincérité (Perfect sincerity) in the Orient of Marseille. In 1804, he became Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France and King of Naples, and then King of Spain. Finally, Louis Bonaparte (1778-1846), the father of the future Napoleon III, served as Deputy Grand Master from 1803 to 1806, before being succeeded by Jean-Jacques Regis Cambasseres. Napoleon’s wife, Empress Josephine de Beauharnais (1763-1814), was initiated into a women’s Lodge in Strasbourg and held the position of Grand Master for some time. Eugène de Beauharnais, the only son of Josephine from her first marriage, at the age of 24, having received the title of viceroy of Italy from her stepfather, became the founder of the Grand Orient of Italy and the Supreme Council of Italy. It is not surprising that under this leadership, both military and civilian wanted to enter the ranks of freemasons at the earliest opportunity. Masons were twenty-two of Napoleon’s thirty marshals, five of the six members of the Imperial Military Council and six of the nine ministers in the government.

@@mikoto7693 You lost me at Einstein. That guy was a racist and a supremacist genocider. Good at physics, but nothing else.

The German army capitalized on this in the start of WWII.

So what is the simple reason why nobody could defeat him?

​@@SportsBettingFactsHe was short so all the bullets went over his head

@@cyclonebicep2316 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎

Comms is the most powerful weapon on the battlefield, next is artillery

Someone did

@@joemwangi1182 They did? 😲 No idea how I haven't heard of this indie project

F**** you troll ! there's like dozen of movies...

​@@Levicandoit but the director of the new napoleon movie doesnt give a damn about historical accuracy

The Naploean movie was ASS

Agree. I kept waiting for the "one simple reason" or at the very least, a few of the reasons... Great video but enough with the click bait...

He said that he invented the corps, and that is why he won battles effortlessly.

he simplified and streamlined military structure empowering subordinate generals to make decisions on the fly rather than waiting for orders from above. This made them infinitely more flexible. He also built each corps to be self sustaining, rather than interdependent on other units.

He was a military genius no doubt. I think what made him so ingenuitive is that he was an artillery officer to begin with. the French already had well established Infantry and cavalry traditions already but we was able to mix them all together to seriously strong effect.

There’s a great history channel called “epic history tv” and they go into numerous battles in war depth. You should check it out

Supposedly, the tomb is located on the ground floor of a rotunda because anyone on the balcony above it would have to bow their heads to look at Napoleon's tomb.

Was Napoleon a freemason? Historians do not have a document that could confirm this, but many undeniable facts prove the extreme closeness of Napoleon to Freemasonry. Moreover, it was thanks to Napoleonб Freemasonry spread in Europe and became a mass phenomenon. He turned Freemasonry from a secret society, as it used to be, into almost an official state religion, uniting all the French lodges around the Grand Orient. Back in Corsica, Bonaparte grew up surrounded by Freemasons - after all, his father and all three brothers were Freemasons. There is no doubt that the family spoke about Freemasonry all the time. The youngest brother, Jerome Bonaparte (1784-1860) was initiated into the Freemasons at the age of 17 in the Mir Lodge in eastern Toulon. His career has developed rapidly. A year later, in 1801, he became Grand Master of the Grand Mother′s Lodge of Westphalia, and in 1807, Napoleon made him king. The elder brother, Joseph Bonaparte (1768-1844), was initiated in the Lodge La Parfaite Sincérité (Perfect sincerity) in the Orient of Marseille. In 1804, he became Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France and King of Naples, and then King of Spain. Finally, Louis Bonaparte (1778-1846), the father of the future Napoleon III, served as Deputy Grand Master from 1803 to 1806, before being succeeded by Jean-Jacques Regis Cambasseres. Napoleon’s wife, Empress Josephine de Beauharnais (1763-1814), was initiated into a women’s Lodge in Strasbourg and held the position of Grand Master for some time. Eugène de Beauharnais, the only son of Josephine from her first marriage, at the age of 24, having received the title of viceroy of Italy from her stepfather, became the founder of the Grand Orient of Italy and the Supreme Council of Italy. It is not surprising that under this leadership, both military and civilian wanted to enter the ranks of freemasons at the earliest opportunity. Masons were twenty-two of Napoleon’s thirty marshals, five of the six members of the Imperial Military Council and six of the nine ministers in the government.

​@@podunkcitizen2562the tomb is slightly higher than the ground so everyone look up to Napoleon. The Balcony above is so everyone has to bow to Napoleon

I read elsewhere that the buttons thing is not true.

Yet, It's still a mystery what really happened with Napoleon in Russia. I don't think it went the way some report as it was the same time of a catastrophic winter and there are many versions and stories as to what really transpired. The French barely made it out of there frost bit and in rags. I don't think Napolean truly wanted that war. It was pushed by his Rothchild banker handlers.

'Tin pest' (crumbling to dust while cold) is a real thing, but the metal has to be very, very pure and very, very cold. Tin for buttons was closer to solder in composition...lead and copper were blended in to make the tin strong enough to be buttons. Tin becomes quite brittle at temps under 55F; tin-pest phenomena starts being a real problem around -10F.

@@pirobot668beta sorry not that tin won’t become brittle in the cold, but rather that most of the soldiers’ buttons were horn.

What is aluminum? I know only aluminium.

Lies again? Remember The Name USD SGD

Shut it bot@@NazriB

Took that as being said facetiously not literally lol

his blunder in spain is what lead to russia getting impowered to copy cat spain gorrilla scorched earth tactics.

Right, this is the reason for his invasion of Russia. Bad luck to him!

i think his greatest achievement is after losing 700k men in russia...he was still able to retreat and fight off the russians following and was able to muster a big army again and fight and win more big battles until waterloo...that was the best retreat ever in military history imo napoleon still could have beaten them all after going into russia and losing all that he did...france was still a military powerhouse the only issue was all his veterans died there...most of his army was rookies which was huge back then...whoever had the most and or better veterans usually won... people forget napoleon changed arty with interoperatibility...same spare parts for all the dif arty guns so he could keep going and going...napoleon was a logistical genius when it came to moving the army faster than anyone else...he was blitzkrieg for that time

He truely was you get it John for sure. If Napolean would have turned back from Moscow a few weeks sooner history could have been very different today. Maybe he does head Northwest toward St. Petersburg or goes south until the Spring. @@JohnSmith-pj6wb

His top officers were all incredible men as well.

Without a doubt. his marshals were excellent and he promoted his officers by competence not by nobility like the old monarch system with surfs and landlords. It's no wonder his men fought harder for him because they knew they could advance and not be held back by their birth status. @@raphaelprotti5536

and who took Paris? the RUSSIANS!!!! They are the only ones who could beat him, and yes, they were present in Waterloo as well.

THANKS so much!!!.

Couldn't agree with you more! This is one of my favorite videos that he's done!

if he was my history teacher id be getting straight A+

Right? Been watching this guy for years, hes really good and non bias

Have you seen 'Drunk History '?? You'll change your mind

Oversimplified is better

I agree and second it !

I agree and third this.

I am still surprised that Napoleon is more influential than prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Adam should have been in the top

Nahh - he´s an entertaining RU-vidr dabbling in exaggerated horror crime stories, Ufology and mythology internet fairytales and making occasional uninformed and overtly biased political commentary. All of which neither a teacher nor a historian should do. I like his stuff, as I said, its entertaining. But he isnt more than a often incredibly research-lazy edutainment youtuber. Dont trust what he posts as well-founded facts, please. It really isnt.

Credit to his team too: Writing: Steven Rix Editing: Jack Stevens

Yeah he was a great general but he was colonizing murderous barbaric POS as well. Like how he massacred my people (Egypt), even while they prayed in the safety of their holy places while bombing them and desecrating it, slaughtering innocent people and religious leaders, utterly destroying everything and failing to trick our people into believing him and his lies while also failing to bring the country under his control, only to end up running back to France with his tail between his legs abandoning his soldiers cause he failed and didn’t want to take the responsibility and be there when it was clear. Went to France and used his propaganda to convince everyone that it was some sort of epic victory. Lol

Well the Napoleonic Wars started when Britain declared war on France, but Britain did that because she didn't like France controlling Switzerland and because Napoleon declared that Britain should have no voice in Europe, even though King George III was Elector of Hanover. So, yeah, Napoleon started the war in the sense that it was his actions that led to it being declared. And, of course, the British defeated him and he died in exile on British territory on St Helena.

​@adambattersby8934 let's be honest they would have found any reason to go to war with france because every nation on Europe did not like the monarchy being being executed and replaced with a republic.

@@adambattersby8934 thats not true...Actually frnace did revolution in 1789 ans stopped monarchy....but the french king was a cousin to other kings in england, germany, russia...so they declared war on france to re establish monarchy...napoleon was at first a little soldier fighting to defend the french revolution of 1789.

He found the third person glitch.

Oversimplified did it first (and better, IMO). The first five minutes or so feel like a straight rip off imo

It's still an entertaining movie IMO

​@@reallycarsonnah they made Nepoleon to be a weak loser of a man compared to what he was. When you know a truth of a matter and then someone makes a movie you expect some error but not basically the whole thing.

@@Barthaneous34 I agree a bit with you there, but "the whole thing" being inaccurate is a gross exaggeration.

1) you can never be 100 percent accurate mate since sources often can lie or exaggerate themselves. 2) he isnt the greatest general, that is a hyperbole usually made by people who never rly studied history. Also he had several good generals and often times they did the work. 3) Not the most interesting, he is a very stereotypical general that wanted world domination. Not that interesting. Both Hannibal, who couldve destroyed Rome but didnt and Africanus are both more interesting than the french dictator. No i dont like the brits either. Just colonial powers fighting it off. Imo Caesar, Hannibal,Scipio and Zaka Xhulu are more interesting characters than Napoleon. @@TheRanger_

I once heard a similar story about a guy who failed to get in to art school.

Am Khalid son of Alwaleed did not lose at all lol. I feel that book is not othantantic and made by someone that does not know history probably or the focus was on Europe for Europe and Europe POV. But even then I would not put him second as what about Rome and Alex as will Hanbil ? This book is political or done by a very narrow minded historian or done by someone that has nothing to do with History or done with presentism. Like Han China defeating the Hun/Shanglio which caused Atilla the Hun thing is more important than Napoleon objectively. Not to mention Napoleon had a uni to teach him Khaild had no one to teach him. Also much more difficult meation with poor limited leogistics. Arabs do not fight like nomads or Empires. They where off the world almost. No arab esp at the time lead more than 10k to a battle. The way they fight was more like a Gang fight. He without even books figured everything by himself.

​@@GATE12_AtemAtomic-cm3yn there is ONE thing that goes against Khalid in sheer military stuff, its that both Rome and Persia were utterly crippled by the times the Arabs striked, his victories also happened during a time where his foes were through a period of weakness. He was undoubtedly great, but i doubt the Arabs wouldve managed to win, or at least win as much if both empires were not devastated themselves. It doesnt diminishes his own feats mind you, but it puts things into perspective, its like saying Prussia sucked at military because Napoleon reached Berlin in 16 days and anihilated the prussian army in 1806, it didnt, but it fell into a state of weakness, thus Napoleons win against Prussia at Iena is not as big a masterpiece as Austerlitz, even though Austerlitz only finished off the Austrian as consequence while Prussian forces fell apart entirely due to this one battle in this coalition. But what puts Napoleon above his other great military counterparts, is not his military successes alone, id wager its the least important part of his heritage ironically, its the fact that he is singlehandedly the most important man in the XIXth century, the century where Europe ended up dominating the whole World with no competition anymore and Napoleon was the most influencial man in Europe in this century. For example his book of law was so important in the making of Constitutions all around the world that it was used for 1/4th of the whole world's constitution even today He is the one that broke the old order so hard the whole world changed from the old absolute monarchies, democracies and republicanism spread because of Napoleon even more than due to the Revolution (even if the revolutions were definitly the ideological sources). Even today we had the Arabic Spring at the start of our century, it follows the style of 1848's revolutionary revolts in Europe (even in its failures ironically and unfortunately), which only existed because Napoleon spread the revolution across Europe. Now ofc, putting Napoleon straight up at 2 i dont necessarily agree with myself, but thats solely due to the domino effect of history, the older the more influential, technically the most influential man in History is the one that invented farming first etc... etc... But yea Napoleon is definitly the most influential military commander due to the sheer effect on the whole world, because when most of the worlds modern geopolitics can at one point be tied back to Napoleon, you know he was influential

Paul Lewiston in Boston Legal!

@josephcooter5763 Auberjonois.

Fantastic actor....the original Dago Red ,

@@Donathon-qx8kq He perhaps the funniest line in the whole film. After Hawkeye Dresses down Hotlips for her attitude and calls her a Regular Army Clown she asks how a man like him could possibly hold a position of responsibility in the United States Army to which the Padre deadpans "He was drafted."

Also played Mr. House in Fallout : New Vegas

ill never aggrandize him...his decision to slaughter old and young by the blade in Joppa 2 centuries ago makes me sick-

@@keendeesjarlais3636 you probs dont want to read about the mongols then 😂

@@keendeesjarlais3636 oh really? then what opinion do you hold of the israelis today? are you proud of what they are accomplishing in gaza with us-made weapons? because the us supports what they're doing wholeheartedly... and the uk and europe do as well since they do nothing to put a stop to it when they can.

December 12, 2023 - I think that your analysis is accurate. In particular I find your comment " but no one can deny the fact that without him, the ideas we have built our modern world upon, would have been killed without mercy by the monarchies that had ruled Europe for more than a century. An act they still try to execute, albeit now in a more secretive manner". Though it may not be your intent. Your comment reflects my own feeling that the "elites" continue to control and to empower agents that further their agendas. I refer to the current era as being the "New Middle Ages", where the world population is controlled by one percent of the population, which I call the "modern aristocracy". Many people might refer to this group as the elite class. In my opinion the current "social conflict" between people who have an idealized and unrealistic view of human nature, and the more pragmatic people who understand both the strengths and flaws in human nature. Is the result of the elite's "divide and conquer" tactics. The objective being to distract a major portion of the human population from what is basically a world that the elites envision for the human race. I believe that human nature will win out ultimately, because when things like survival, and basic freedoms are attacked, along with human biology being ignored. Someone, or a group of someones, will rise up to "right the scale". Napoleon may have had his flaws, but as was said in the video. He was a product of his time in history. I believe that certain periods in the human experience will create people like Napoleon for better or worse.

He was Evil & destroyed a lot of the natural world. He destroyed Africa the only thing he did was modernised GREED & Promoted European colonialism with pure evil. That’s why he’s remembered.

There be truth in that indeed.

He also stripped women of many rights they had before. They were just above slaves in his society

I've heard and seen it a lot before, but where is that so? If all, in his dealings with Josephine, he shows nothing but respect, while she is the one that took advantage of him and when he met with Maria Walewska, they had a most respectful relationship to the extent that he admired her intelligence as one that could rival his own. By the way, Napoleon took ideas that already existed and unified and coded them in a comprehensive guide that was clearly universal and aimed towards men as well as women. @@williamwalsh9615

One of the best infographics in the world shows Napoleon's march on Russia, and the devastating result.

Are u planning to go against the system with the tactics ?

Naaaah, the Russians beat him again, when they took Paris.

Russins get credit for being able to lose more than anyone and still win wars lol...idk if you wanna brag about that much...the russian army got its ass kicked by napoleon to moscow and back to france...they didnt beat napoleon...it was spain...russians get credit for being great escape artists and being a cockroach that wont fully die...if all that was left was a tiny cockroach leg russians would crawl into battle... Napoleon was also perplexed by russians decided to burn moscow to the ground themselves...he didnt understand scorched earth...one of the few things he didnt Napoleon should have attacked thier food and water and not the city or army...it would have forced russians to surrender and we would have seen russian pows marching thru paris as trophies Literally start forest fires and kill the wildlife and poison the fresh water and rivers and burn thier farms..dont let russians have time to save the food then burn it so you cant use...do pre emptive reverse scorched earth

Yup

Greeks are Turks.

@@CalculusProfessor You got that reversed

@@CalculusProfessor If you would have even one functioning braincell, you would know that it is the other way around. Lmao

@@CalculusProfessor Well... if you go back far enough, you might be correct. The Greeks invaded "Greece" in stages... before Exodus was written. Meanwhile... Turkic would be the correct term. Only Turks are Turks... but LOTS of groups are Turkic. Tradition and evidence hold that the original Greeks that invaded were Celtic.

As someone who knows the very very basics of napoleon I left the cinema feeling very confused and disappointed. As soon as I saw the cannon shot hit the pyramid I assumed every detail about the film was off. Such a waste of an opportunity

All soldiers are loyal when you're advancing and plundering

@@movinon1242 All Soldiers are loyal when you are plundering, advancing, but most importantly win and lead by example. As emperor he did it less but at the start he was always in the thick of the fight, sure usually in the relatively safer Artillery, but its much easier to trust a leader who risks his life with you, over one that leads from the rear and sends his troops to die. It granted his men much better morale than you'd think. Hell even in France 1814 youd think that he was just plain crushed after the disastrous defeats of Leipzig, Spain and Russia, lack of plunder and they are always retreating. but even with a fraction of the soldiers, mostly conscripts barely trained to shoot, their morale was unmatched still both from defending their homes but also because Napoleon led them directly, and he still won several battles in a week before Paris was reached since he couldnt be everywhere at once. All soldiers are loyal when you are proven a legitimately good leader, yes disasters happened, but thats because he was not Perfect.

I fully agree.

The movie was awful. They tried to show him as a loser, which he certainly was not. Even mentioned how many people died in the wars he participated in, showed all the wars he lost but no mention of indication of how successful he was.

@@madlad4206it had a modern sort of spin, emphasising his weakness with Josephine and women generally.

Of course he was a loser as he ended up in exile @@madlad4206

How is this fantastic and well done? This is pure clickbait garbage, offering no insight into the supposed subject matter. It is merely a cursory summary of Napoleon's life and accomplishments--half of which doesn't even have any relationship to the title!

That’s not true. The British placed their 6 pound galloper guns in infantry squares since the introduction of the galloper guns in the early 18th century, so roughly since the 7 Years War

The battle of Atoleiros represents the first effective use of “square tactics” on the battleground. This tactic, in which groups of infantry armed with both missile and hand-to-hand weapons defended themselves from all directions, was so successful that it was still in use over 500 years later during the Napoleonic Wars against mass French cavalry attacks, and during the Zulu War against huge masses of predominantly spear-armed infantry. It was especially effective when the infantry had to fight against strong cavalry.

@@grimfrostoreson5800 sorry, my sources WERE wrong, thanks for the information!😁👉

🧔‍♀️ 😂😂🤣

I think the difference in this battle was not the use of the square but the size. Napoleon formed his men into division sized squares which I believe was much larger than the norm.

That’s why it’s important to save, so he can load to moments before defeat

I had to take a class dedicated to the history of France in order to learn about Napoleon. And I didn't move around.

Yes please? You are a wizard at it.

alexander was like the original iphone while napoleon is like iphone 15 😂😂😂😂 both were great just that the other one is even greater

Scythian

@@michaelka3071 I am a big fan of Napoleon. He alone against all the others. I am a big supporter. No but.

One other military commander never lost a battle with an army that he commanded - Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington.

Wrong. He lost against the indians. They even ended up killing him with one of their many exotic diseases, and such.

No napoleon is the best khalid had way less battles the 100 battles where never comfirmed and most of what he had done was raiding villages and empty persian outpost in reality he isnt even in top 5

@@martel8936 Interesting of you to say, he had over a 100 battles but 17 of which had major (In terms of consequences or number). Yet still he was undefeated. You want to tarnish his reputation with unbacked accusations. Please search for the profile of a warrior, khalid ibn al walid and hear it for yourself. He is the single reason a group of tribes managed to take on both the roman empires and the Persian empire at once and defeated both. You have to admin here, that doesnt sound like empty outposts.

@@elderelcapitan2275 he attacked severly weakened empires and armes is troops by raiding villages and empty military camps IS FIRST MISSION WAS LITERALY A RAID

@@martel8936 Okay seriously, what are your sources for this? Every major battle he was out numbered multiple folds. Again, Roman and Persian empires (the biggest empires at the time) and he faced them both at two different fronts and in one instance combined.

@@elderelcapitan2275 outnumbered against untrained soldiers who lost faith in their dead empire isnt saying much napoleon thought the toughest empires of Europe being 10 times outnumbered at their peak