Waterloo, 1815 ⚔️ The Truth behind Napoleon's final defeat 

Waterloo was not lost, France was lost.

@Shivaji the Great I can relate

@Shivaji the Great To the game. I lost Waterloo IRL cause I was so focused on playing Total War.

@Shivaji the Great 😲😲😲😲

@Shivaji the Great Yes I have. As France. I won too.

Hehe

i hate how they depicted him in my history textbook despite being indian. I thought we kicked the british out but never mind

​@@Commielover69 Didn't you?

Your history class mentioned Napoleon? Lucky! In my experience, every year in America history is the same. Revolutionary War, glossing over the constitution with an emphasis on the least relevant amendments, black history month, skim WWII but emphasize the ethics of Hiroshima/ Nagasaki, Vietnam/ America Sucks, years almost over just watch the news.

​@@Commielover69 fr , being an Indian our history textbooks are so stodgy

not a history expert..but it seemed he was destined fro defeat before he even started

The Russian campaign also led to his defeat at Leipzig due to the amount of calvary he lost. His reconnaissance on the enemy was severely lacking due a distinct shortage of horses.

Not just that, Napoleon lost his spark as a general, he wasnt the same general that everyone knew him. He was too focused on the government in Paris, and not focused at all in this battle, to the point that even among his generals arguing about him and his decisions one said out of anger "Napoleon is not the same man we knew"

@@michaelthorpe1869 100% 100,000 troops were heading to France, no way napoleon could have fought them off.

I wonder why they always invade Russia. Why not conquer Europe/the world first. Russia has the worst terrains.

*General

Pierre Cambronne (general)

He went on record to say he never said that. So France put it on his plaque. Lol.

Except he never said it lmao.

@Akainu Sakazuki94 or Fuck Off

This is about the campaign.

Ney has more guilt than he deserved Napolein itself decided to send the guard cavalry to support the attack to then refuse to sent infantry that requested

Seems so simple today but I can only imagine how it was back then

Haha, enjoy the popcorn mate. Great to see you here!

AND YOU HAVE MY AXE! ....oh, wait, wrong forum....

@@siechamontillado It's never a wrong forum for axes! Hand me one while you're at it :)

@@HistoryMarche Giant Axe, War Axe, or Two Headed Axe? And while some of them are socketed, we'll have to do a Countess run for runewords... :9

@@siechamontillado ROFL!

Thank you sir. WW2 topics will surely be done, there's just always a ton of projects floating around and I'm mostly a one-man team when it comes to production, animation, graphics, so it's a process :)

Take as much time as you need. Quality over quantity, mate.

Spies were not remembered because the point of being a spy is to be as subtle as possible

@@VentiVonOsterreich That is about knowing, but historical remembrance is still possible.

If spies are remembered, they were not good spies.

Thank you for watching.

In the 19th century, most who studied the campaign knew that something was off. Lettow-Vorbeck recognized the major flaw of June 12 and the subsequent delay to the campaign, but his work was largely ignored. Unfortunately, Stoffel died before publishing his history, and the draft was sold. (I have purchased this and it will be published in the next few years.) Soult so clearly failed, but the details were missing. Discovering two of his registries and Bertrand's registry from 1815 (along with d'Erlon's and a lot of other docs) provided the correspondence necessary to see the train-wreck in slow motion. Soult failed. But also Gerard failed. Ney/Reille/d'Erlon get too much blame for June 16 from those that analyze perfect intelligence rather than the actual communications and knowledge the French acted on.

We should remember however that victory was still well within Napoleon's grasp at Waterloo, and all hope had not yet been lost.

@@carrott36 Not really, Napoleon was doomed the moment that Grouchy failed to stop the Prussians at Wavre. Even if Napoleon had managed to beat Wellington before the Prussians arrived on the battlefield at 13:00, he still would not have had won a big victory but rather another costly tactical victory without strategic importance. Wellington would probably have retreated with the remains of his army to those 17,000 men he had left at Hall. So crushing the British army would not have been the end of the campaign, much less the end of the war itself. The Prussians would have been contend to either give battle or retreat and wait for the Russians and Austrians to cross into France, much like they did in 1814.

Thank you sir.

Napoleon was never sick, people point to his conditions and say he was ill but it seems this was not the case upon further examination. I’d recommend the book ‘Waterloo’ by Andrew W. Field.

@@carrott36 Napoleon suffered from ulcer and stomach cancer.

@@numa5810 Source?

@@carrott36 autopsy report

@@numa5810 Yes, and an autopsy won’t tell us of Napoleon’s condition at Waterloo, only when he died.

Prussians played a huge part in the outcome. They were the ones who were able to get information from French traitors about Napoleon's concentration 12h ahead of time, and they then hastily deployed to offset a disaster. But the main issue for Napoleon was the delay caused by the confusion of the two orders (Mons order and Charleroi order), he literally lost almost 2 days, which is huge. Had that confusion not occurred, the Prussians would not have been tipped off in time, and Napoleon would've been able to surprise and overwhelm the Prussian I Corps and move in between Wellington and Blucher, thus defeating the allies and forcing them to retreat. Instead, the Prussians managed to inform Wellington and the Allies managed to semi-organize for Napoleon's attack, ultimately defeating him at Waterloo. I highly recommend you check out the books from Stephen Beckett about this topic. The volumes contain a wealth of information that isn't available anywhere in the world currently. There are pictures and analysis of documents that, until now, have been in private collections, so all of the information from those documents was not previously available and this information is critical for understanding the events that unfolded in the days prior to Waterloo. Here's a link to his books www.mapleflowerhouse.com

@Matthew Shrubsole Hehe, love the O'Hara reference :)

3 day old comment on a 1 minute old video... xd

@@Flejmon sponsors they are

@@Flejmon Patrons that donate a few bucks on Patreon get to see the video a few days earlier.

Marshal Ney rage quit ...

@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 Who's the real Napoleon?

@@jevinliu4658 Neither of us, were just history nerds

@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 I don't believe you, you're definitely napoleon.

@@dr.vikyll7466 Damn it, recognized again!

Indeed it is. In fact Stephen Beckett and I collaborated on this video. Stephen wrote the script for the video and was participating in the production as well. And, speaking of his books, they're nothing short of spectacular - 15+ years worth of research.

This is incorrect. Waterloo Betrayed was released in 2015, and revealed some of these details. The basis of this video was the 2018 publication based on the discovery of hundreds of new pieces of French correspondence, most from private collections. That work has been met with universal acclaim as it has rewritten the campaign. It proved some of Waterloo Betrayed, but disproved other elements.

Thanks mate! Can't wait to see what you conjured up for our next collaboration... shhh :)

@@HistoryMarche Something is brewing.... !

Hoc Est Bellum where are the videos?!

@@arandomwalk they are on their way..!

The only bad thing is the machine ,,speaking"

expert I had not heard this before ....where did you learn this??

@@LtBrown1956 Check out these books. "The Battle A New History of Waterloo" by Alessandro Barbero. "Waterloo Myth and Reality" Gareth Glover.

@@expertstrategy thanks I will

That's very interesting. While this very well done episode of HistoryMarche certainly explains how N.'s initial plan failed; the battle at Waterloo itself was not a foregone conclusion. There must be more to it.

The final attack of the imperial guard was mounted by the middle guard, and followed by the old guard. The attack swept away a lot of wellingtons forces, routing British foot guards, Dutch artillery, highlands regiments and various other units. It was finally beaten back by a bayonet charge by British infantry and fled, the old guard stood their ground however and did not break. Winners propaganda portrays the attack as the old guard getting routed by hidden redcoats. Far from reality

Berthier ‘fell’ out of a window

I mean…he was dead

Especially when it’s pouring down.

I think epic history tv did a video about the battle of waterloo already

This isn't so much a video about the battle of Waterloo itself, but a video about the *days leading up to the battle of Waterloo*, and how military and intelligence operations impacted the outcome of the battle itself.

@@HistoryMarche And it was very informative and a fresh perspective that we often don't see in those types of clips so I thank you and your team for it.... Still it is fun to troll K&G

@@morningmidnight9398 nice video but Kings and Generals is still my favourite

@@morningmidnight9398 Indeed, most of the information in this video was actually not available to the worldwide public until now. Stephen Beckett's research has manage to dig up a TON of contemporary documents that were, until now, in private collections. These documents contain orders, correspondence, reports, intelligence gathering, reports about spies, etc, thus providing new, never-before-seen, evidence about the days leading up to the Battle of Waterloo. I highly recommend you check out Stephen's books, there are four in-depth books + a 5th one that is a summary. I used the 5th book + Stephen's own notes (we collaborated together on this video).

Thank you sir.

But was you who betrayed the republic, monarchy, Spain and the Catholic faith and come to speak of treason?

@@Ragnarok__ Catholic faith lol.

@@Ragnarok__ He didn't betray Spain.He just placed on the Spanish throne his brother Joseph Bonaparte and he sent french forces to Spain (in1808) to just re-organise the country.If you read and study about the Peninsular war you will find out that Joseph Bonaparte had many supporters from the big towns of Spain.The rebellions had started to the villages and small towns from UNEDUCATED people.They were fighting for a king that lived and ate to Paris like an Emperor(I am talking about Ferdinand VII).As for the Republic you can just say that he never betrayed the ideas of the French Revolution and that he expanded them to all Europe which means that he helped the Republic.I don't know what exactly you mean saying that he betrayed the Monarchy.Just think about it when he became the first Consul he invited many nobles to come back to France and he helped church.

@@josephchristopherdeboulogn2365 uneducated or no, there were many good reasons for the Spanish to fight against the French dictatorship that controlled Spain during napoleons reign.

"Cowards and traitors will be shot!"

Thank you sir.

they have no courage in needing 7 whole coalitions and permanent presence of their allies to win against their oldest rival

@@myasuujo3330 Britain was the only country to faiths against Napoleon near constantly, even when he had all of Europe under his thumb Britain still fought on, and let’s not forget the reason why so many coalitions were formed against France is because France had a massive population

@@myasuujo3330 Britain was the only country to faiths against Napoleon near constantly, even when he had all of Europe under his thumb Britain still fought on, and let’s not forget the reason why so many coalitions were formed against France is because France had a massive population

@@lesdodoclips3915 It helps when there's a sea and large channel in the way - in between Britain and the French fearsome land-based war machine.

@@BaronsHistoryTimes that’s a convenient way of saying the Royal Navy

We just might. Thanks for the suggestion, and thank you for watching.

@Sue MartinoKings and Generals has nothing on his first Italian campaign.

epic hisotry TV has some top quality

@@jbvalentin854 Yeah I love Epic History.

If you anderstand french, there are good videos on this topic from the youtube channel "surlechamp". The italian campagne is very interesting because it is the place where Napoléon had tried new things.

Thank you for your input..much appreciated 🙂

well we can't really call it the "Battle of down the road from Waterloo" can we?

To be fair, most battles named for cities are named as such because they were fought NEAR said city, not IN the city

The bulk had been sent to america. Some died in the battle of New Orleans. One of the worst British defeats.

@@theodoresmith5272 Your correct the bulk were in America as for New Orleans that defeat was down to the incompetence of a senior, (non Peninsula), officer who neglected orders to equip his men with scaling ladders, a similar action on a different part of the battlefield where ladders were issued resulted in the British taking the position. Irony was the war was over before this battle even started.

@Евгений Иванов I suggest you read up on Wellingtons objectives for the battle:) His army was a mix of different nationalities, (only 24,000 were British), hastily assembled and outnumbered and his aim from the start was to hold the ground until the Prussians arrived which thanks to his pre planning & actions he did. As for the British they defeated the French firstly in Portugal and then on into Spain and at Waterloo when the Middle Guard advanced on the British, (Wellington grouped all the British to face them), they defeated them as well. Simple fact is the Guards could have done what they've done before and snatched victory from defeat but at Waterloo the British Guards, (unlike the Russians, Prussians & Austrians in other battles), stood their ground and poured disciplined volleys of fire into their ranks, all they had to do was break the British line, they couldn't. Napoleon didn't expect this as he'd never faced Redcoats before, (although he had been defeated at Acre by Sir Sidney Smith of the RN), his Generals and dare I say soldiers many of who were veterans of Spain had faced the British before and new of their fighting prowess.

@@tonyjames5444 I'm well versed in the battle details. You forgot to mention that the British artillery lost against the American artillery the day before. Also rhe americans killed most of the officers. It wasn't it not just the one officer who forgot the ladders but all of them that didn't figure it out before the battle started. 3 generals and 7 colonels killed along with 2000 troops seems like more went wrong then forgetting ladders. All that damage was inflicted buy a band off non soldiers. The British always have an excuse for major loses. Vs the Zulu it was the ammo boxes didnt open. Wellington has his own disaster rarely mentioned but his retreat from burgos was a disaster.

@@theodoresmith5272 Actually the artillery duel as you call it ended because the British ran out of ammunition and American records show defenders on the left of their line had broken and ran. As for the ladders it is accepted by all that Colonel Mullins was to blame and as for the British casualties Mullins errors and the determination of the British to press on with the attack, (admired by the defenders), made these inevitable. As previously stated Thornton's 85th Brigade who were a separate force did overwhelm and take the line on the western side of the river and its accepted by many that with better organisation and coordination the British would have won the battle. As for your childish rant about Wellington every military commander has set backs, I could mention the US failings in Canada or some of Washingtons from the Revolutionary war. (ps I served 27 years in the Royal Marines and did a number of exchanges in the US and my statements on New Orleans were backed up by what I was told by American guides during a battlefield tour in 1998:) End of chat.

Thank you sir. Actually, Much of the information in this video has not been available anywhere in the world until now. I collaborated on this project with writer Stephen M. Beckett II who has done extensive research on the days leading up to the battle of Waterloo, and how espionage, deception, backroom politics, etc. all played a part in the outcome of the battle of Waterloo. Stephen's books contain ORIGINAL contemporary letters, documents, orders, reports, intelligence gatherings, etc. written by Napoleon, Bertrand, Soult, Fouche, and many more officials that played a part in 1815, and all of these original documents from 1814 and 1815 were, until now, in private collections, not available to the public. But thanks to Stephen, who persuaded many of these rich private collectors to share the documents, we were able to present some of these new facts in this video, but there is much more to be found in his books. I couldn't recommend his work enough. If you want to check it out here's the link www.mapleflowerhouse.com/ The new information uncovered shows that the biggest factor that caused Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo was, arguably, the confusion with the two orders (Mons and Charleroi orders), if Napoleon wasn't delayed he would've surprised the Allies + the traitors and spies all contributed to giving the Allies vital information. Thank you very much for watching.

HistoryMarche thank you for your reply. I have always been obsessed with Napoleon’s victories and era in general and read different books. I will most definitely buy the books by Mr Stephen. Thank you both, give us more of Napoleon)))

Yeah I know that story. That’s why history made by the English is fantasy.

So nice of you

It's coming :)

@@HistoryMarche I'm waiting for cannae

Thank you for watching.

Most of the information in this video was actually not available to the worldwide public until now. Stephen Beckett's research has managed to dig up a TON of contemporary documents that were, until now, in private collections (these include, letters, military reports, intelligence reports, variouis military orders, correspondence between generals, reports about spies, excerpts from personal diaries of the people involved, etc. and all of these documents are originals from 1814 and 1815). And it's these original documents that providing new, never-before-seen evidence about the days leading up to the Battle of Waterloo, which weren't available to the public until now. I highly recommend you check out Stephen's books, there are four in-depth books + a 5th one that is a summary. I used the 5th book + Stephen's own notes (we collaborated together on this video). Here's the link to his work www.mapleflowerhouse.com/

HistoryMarche Thank you very much, I’ll take a look!

Johnny Nguyen Given that several hundred thousand soldiers of Austria, Russia, various German countries etc. were on the march towards France it didn’t really matter what happens at Waterloo Napoleon was going to lose the war anyway.

@@HingerlAlois Not necessarily. Napoleon won all the previous coalition wars against him against superior numbers. The french army at the time was arguably better in training and tactics than the allies, even than Prussia.

Johnny Nguyen Not really, he had a lot of allies (Germans, Poles, Italians,...) who increased the numbers of his army and helped him win his wars. In 1815 he had no allies and pretty much entire Europe against him at the same time, the allies had almost one million soldiers available for their attack on France, at Waterloo he fought against one tenth of the allied forces.

HingerlAlois he had those allies after 1807 and even then they mainly helped in the invasion of Russia French victories like Marengo and Austerlitz, Jena-Ouerstadt were primarily French victories Though their allies did no doubt help

Fraser Whyte He had allies already before 1807. For example in the Second Napoleonic War in 1805 he had basically southern Germany (Bavaria, Württemberg,...) as well as some other states (Spain, Italy, parts of the Netherlands) as allies that increased his available troop numbers. In 1815 he had pretty much entire Europe against him and no allies at all. He had never faced a situation as bad as the one in 1815.

Thank you very much for the kind words. I truly appreciate the feedback.

Also he includes the movement of the armies before the battle and the fight for positions which are often far more important than sometimes simplistic battle tactics especially in ancient or medieval battles . The videos he did on the Caesar campaigns are a great example of that. It gives you an actual understanding of the decisive advantages which were gained . I often thought about that while playing Total war games, issuing countless mini tactical orders to specific troops. Actual battles were not like that because this level of control is impossible for a real general , so what made great generals great ? The things which happened before the actual battle tactics, at least in ancient or medieval armies .

That's a very high praise. Thank you sir.

@@sunnyjim1355 who the fuck cares u dumbass

"We must consolidate, consolidate! We'll train our men on the march!" - Napoleon Bonaparte

"Give me night or give me Blücher" -Arthur Wellesley, the Iron Duke.

You can assume the land as did Wellington. As he said, he had this particular position in his mind for a very long time. But Napoleon still pressed him to the very edge of Defeat. He prayed and received Blucher. A very lucky catch. All the spies in the world cannot defeat a great army on the field of battle. Napoleon came within a hair's breath of achieving victory at Waterloo. Blucher, in his sustained hatred of Napoleon, marched relentlessly to the aid of Wellington and Grouchy simply was not up to the challenge of blocking the Prussian's march.

This piece of land, I might have guessed may be the field at Waterloo. According to 1970 film about the battle. Wellington said to his officers over a table at Brussels "I have observed this field there at Waterloo" meaning he had seen the field a few months ago and guessed it is perfect for a battle.

@@americanworkingsteel8062 However, it should be remembered that Waterloo was Wellington's victory. It was his plan that the Anglo-Dutch and Prussian armies combine forces and defeat Napoleon. This was what eventually happened, but much later in the day than Wellington would have liked. So the praying for Blucher was more to do with Blucher's arrival time, rather than hoping Blucher would even show up. Bluchers delay was caused by issues with the Prussians marching through the rearguard at Wavre, then untangling their corps and marching across from Wavre to La Belle Alliance on secondary roads. Initially Wellington expected the Prussians to make an appearance around 11:00am, but they didn't start making their presence felt for another 5 hours. This meant that Wellington spent the first half of the battle fending off French assaults with what amounted to a 2nd rate army (many British units contained many unblooded troops, the Dutch units were considered of dubious loyalty). The arrival of Zieten's corps on the left flank of the Anglo-Dutch army allowed Wellington to shift units from there to the centre of the field in time to meet the attack of the Imperial Guard, while the other two corps under Blucher sapped the strength of the final attack by siphoning off the Young Guard and other units. Although Grouchy is blamed for not showing up, it's not like he didn't try. Part of the problem is that Grouchy swung his corps too far east, so when he finally figured out where Blucher was, he was on the wrong side of the Prussian army facing a rearguard covering river crossings. Also, for all that history blames him, Grouchy actually received orders from Napoleon at 2:00pm that were dictated at around 11:00am by the Emperor telling him to continue chasing the Prussians. So Napoleon did himself in the neck not only by underestimating Wellington's abilities, but also by reinforcing an order the kept his last possible reserve of troops off on a wild goose chase. As far as Napoleon winning, that is up to debate. I rather like what one historian said, which was that Napoleon might have won at Waterloo, but it would have been a pyrrhic victory that would have left his army in ruins. Plus, given the Duke of Wellington's experience in offense and defense, it is likely that the Anglo-Dutch army would have survived to fight another day, while Napoleon was starting to scrape the bottom of the manpower barrel.

Thank you sir.

It was actually anglo dutch german. One third each

Anglo-Dutch is also kinda misleading, as „Germans“ (of course back then there was no united Germany) outnumbered the Dutch and made up the largest troop contingent of the allied army under Wellington.

@@HingerlAlois So it was really the Anglo-Hannoverian-Hessian-Dutch-Belgian Army :p

@@Vrelk Try English, Dutch/Belgium, Hanover, Nassau, Brunswick army.

It was a non french army

Most of the information in this video was actually not available to the worldwide public until now. Stephen Beckett's research has managed to dig up a TON of contemporary documents that were, until now, in private collections (these include, letters, military reports, intelligence reports, variouis military orders, correspondence between generals, reports about spies, excerpts from personal diaries of the people involved, etc. and all of these documents are originals from 1814 and 1815). And it's these original documents that providing new, never-before-seen evidence about the days leading up to the Battle of Waterloo, which weren't available to the public until now. I highly recommend you check out Stephen's books, there are four in-depth books + a 5th one that is a summary. I used the 5th book + Stephen's own notes (we collaborated together on this video). Here's the link to his work www.mapleflowerhouse.com/

People will so much underestimate Sharpe and his choosen men

That's soldiering for you.

I saw it Sharpe single handedly defeated the Old Guard....

Good joke. Brits finally showed up in 1815 when Napoleon's army was so weakened and unexperienced. If the brits would have faced the army that perished in the cold of Russia, they would have been crushed so badly as they were in Spain. That's why they remained hidden on their island for so long paying germans and russians to do the job. Yet 5 brits led european coalitions defeated by France alone

@@sweetjo717 yeah and if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle

That how much they fear him.

2 of the 7 coalitions xars happened before Napoleon took charge

@@maxmg2227 Yes and ?Whats' the point of your comment

Totally agree. Most fascinating period of history. French Revolution + Napoleon period. Then the reactionary forces tried to erase the heritage of this period but their efforts were doomed.

That's definitely part of my plans!

@@HistoryMarche alexander macedonian 🇲🇰

Thank you very much for watching.

Thank you sir. Welcome to the channel.

Thank you very much. Much of the information in this video has not been available anywhere in the world until now. I collaborated on this project with writer Stephen M. Beckett II who has done extensive research on the days leading up to the battle of Waterloo, and how espionage, deception, backroom politics, etc. all played a part in the outcome of the battle of Waterloo. Stephen's books contain ORIGINAL contemporary letters, documents, orders, reports, intelligence gatherings, etc. written by Napoleon, Bertrand, Soult, Fouche, and many more officials that played a part in 1815, and all of these original documents from 1814 and 1815 were, until now, in private collections, not available to the public. But thanks to Stephen we were able to present some of these new facts in this video, but there is much more to be found in his books. I couldn't recommend his work enough. If you want to check it out here's the link www.mapleflowerhouse.com/ The new information uncovered shows that the biggest factor that caused Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo was, arguably, the confusion with the two orders (Mons and Charleroi orders), if Napoleon wasn't delayed he would've surprised the Allies + the traitors and spies all contributed to giving the Allies vital information. Thank you very much for watching.

@@HistoryMarche Thank you for the reply, Waterloo is such an battle and campaign to study, and Mr. Beckett's new book will definitely be something I will have to read!

@rocketman777 777 Not Russian enough, you go be cannon fodder

@rocketman777 777 I have made a grave error

Hey man! Thanks! Means a lot coming from you!

Napoleon shit all over Berthier in exile. But had Berthier been present, Napoleon would have seized Brussels, with it Belgium, and chased the king. His success would have been so dramatic, however, that Wellington and Blucher would have been forced to retire and remained intact. Wellington did not share the optimism of the modern spread-sheet historian who claims Napoleon had no chance in 1815. Had he shared this, then retiring for a couple weeks would have been prudent. Instead, he defended Brussels tenaciously. One need only read the intelligence, some in Wellington's dispatches, to see how the Allies were closely monitoring the political situation in France, and the King and his agents were providing a ton of info, including from the War Ministry. The point of this video and my books is --> don't read the weak aggregations of secondary sources, read the primary material. It tells a totally different story that is far more exciting.

Hey mate, thank you very much for watching. Always great to see you in the comment section.

Thank you very much.

Indeed. Beckett has dedicated the last 15+ years to researching this topic. It truly became his life's work. And, needless to say, much credit here goes to him. I wouldn't have been able to dig out all of these facts, much less to filter them and then put the story together in a coherent manner. Beckett's contribution to history is actually staggering imo, and he's been kind enough to send his work via mail, which, as you said, contains an unbelievable amount of detail. It's a truly never-before-seen in-depth look into the battle of Waterloo.

Why did the French soldiers betray him?

Same with Hitler, another fascinating individual, but lets not confuse fascination with admiration!

@@pgrothschild Napoleon was literally nothing like Hitler at all and it is incredibly ignorant to make a comparison of the two.

@@alabamaisyourdaddy6137 I never said Napoleon was literally like Hitler. And why is it ignorant to draw similarities between them? Both held a certain spell over people, both have people that love and hate them and both individuals divide people till this day. What am I missing?

@@pgrothschild Many more people respect and love Napoleon nowadays then Hitler. Napoleon is actually a great hero in many countries like Poland, Greece, Germany and the Balkans. It is only Britain who teaches savagely anti Napoleon stuff in schools though I'm sure he has many fans there also. Hitler however is literally despised by every country in the world, even Germany and Winston Churchill always said Napoleon was a man of many virtues, though like all of us he was not perfect.

Jackson Mulrooney I’m from the UK and we were not taught to dislike Napoleon we were were just taught about him end of story.

Thank you very much. Much of the information in this video has not been available anywhere in the world until now. I collaborated on this project with writer Stephen M. Beckett II who has done extensive research on the days leading up to the battle of Waterloo, and how espionage, deception, backroom politics, etc. all played a part in the outcome of the battle of Waterloo. Stephen's books contain ORIGINAL contemporary letters, documents, orders, reports, intelligence gatherings, etc. written by Napoleon, Bertrand, Soult, Fouche, and many more officials that played a part in 1815, and all of these original documents from 1814 and 1815 were, until now, in private collections, not available to the public. But thanks to Stephen we were able to present some of these new facts in this video, but there is much more to be found in his books. I couldn't recommend his work enough. If you want to check it out here's the link www.mapleflowerhouse.com/ The new information uncovered shows that the biggest factor that caused Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo was, arguably, the confusion with the two orders (Mons and Charleroi orders), if Napoleon wasn't delayed he would've surprised the Allies + the traitors and spies all contributed to giving the Allies vital information.

@Felix Helix If I had sc2, I would, however, I played sc... a long, long time ago, in a galaxy not so far away or far away at all...

If only he brought some Carriers with him ;)

@@psychofury6485 He could simply have asked Gowron for a cloaked vessel as a "favor"

Kerrigan is like a Napoleon in the Brood Wars. In final mission all factions team up together to take her out.

Thank you sir. Yes, Epic History TV and I are collaborating on the series on his channel. I'm very much part of that project :)

HistoryMarche is making the battle maps and the animations in EpicHistory's series for Napoleon.

​@@hocestbellumchannel Yes, sorry to clarify I watch a bunch of history on youtube, i'm just worried many channels are going to cover the exact same thing, but if they have different takes on the same events that's cool.

HistoryMarche you make very good animations and the music is very good 👍🏼