Why was Napoleon so Successful? 

Enjoyed this video? Consider supporting me on patreon: patreon.com/mhv For an analysis on the chances of Napoleon invading Britain see this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NYuCPTkO-B4.html

I have to say that trying to retake france with only a thousand men of his personal guard and actually succeeding in that, only to have an entire continent declare war on you personally, is one of the most badass moves in all of history.

It should be noted that on the quote at 1:40. Peter Browning, the quoted author is mistaken in claiming that Bonaparte was crowned ''Emperor of France'', the real title was ''Emperor of the French''. Because in contrast to the recently deposed French King, who claimed the country of France as a personal possession. The title ''Emperor of the French'' distinguished that Napoleon was the leader of the French People, and that the old feudal system had been abolished. Back in the day, the difference between the two was important. Nowadays, it's only important in the context of viewing history.

I called the number from your video, now I have a french infantry division in my backyard... help...

One of the things about Napoleon that you touched briefly on was something in ROTC that we studied extensively. Napoleon was really good a making sure that 1: his divisions were provisioned enough to fight for one day alone, and 2: that the rest of his Corps was no more than one day away from all of it's elements. This meant that if an element of the corps became engaged, it would have enough supplies, ammunition and manpower to hold out long enough for the rest of the Corps to arrive on scene. This necessitated a better educated staff at command level, good local intelligence, and competent officers on the front lines due to the fact that those officers had to be able to make competent decisions during battle while waiting on orders from high command. Promotion from the ranks based on merit insured that the officers on the scene of battle were able to perform at a bare minimum, adequately, and in most cases, with extreme excellence. This gave the French army a huge advantage over their European Counterparts which commonly sold their commissions to anyone willing to pay the fee for it. Excellent break down.

You left out one of his innovations, he arranged for the development of canned food to supply his troops, as He said an Army travels on its stomach

My enemies are many. My equals are none. In the shade of olive trees they said Italy could never be conquered. In the land of pharos and kings they said Egypt could never be humbled. In the realm of forests and snow, they said Russia could never be tamed. Now they say nothing. They fear me, like a force of nature a dealer in thunder and death. I say, I am Napoleon! I am emperor! Burn it!

Napoleon named himself "Emperor of the French" not emperor of France, there is a rather grand difference there and it's not just a play on word.

Napoleon's qualities are perfect for a blitzkrieg general. No wonder Guderian studied his 1806 campaign against Prussia.

When one asked to Wellington who was the greatest general . His answer was ""In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon"

People seem to forget that although he was the greatest military general he could also govern he took control of a country near anarchy and made it great again and his economic reforms cant be ignored he was also writing constitutions and organizing governments himself when he first defeated Austria in italy

Napoleon basically prevented his opponents from concentrating their forces against him. He would restrain one enemy army from reaching the battlefield while he defeated the other army.

So you are saying he would have been a great RTS player?

Napoleon was a military genius but people may not realized how hard he worked and prepared for each battle or campaign.

There is one small point i wished to bring forward : Napoleon completely reformed the armies that, before, were organized by regiments from various regions of France, all speaking a different idiom. By redistributing them to affectation by skills and use (Grenadiers, liners etc.) he changed radically from the organization that prevailed since the Romans

"He crowned himself "Emperor of the French Not emperor of france it is an actual distinction that should be made

There are a number of reasons why Napoleon was so successful. At the top of the list is Napoleon himself- the "man of action"- the man who "...may lose a battle, but will never lose a minute". His personal initiative, organizational skills, charisma, his focus on objectives, and his attention to detail without wallowing around in it, are all prominent aspects of his personality. Additional factors are (not necessarily in order): 1. His Army Corps system. 2. His emphasis on promotion based on merit. 3. The revolutionary step. 4. His emphasis on making war pay for war by stripping the army's trains to a minimum and living off of the enemy countryside. 5. His refusal to see obstacles as insurmountable.

With respect to the Imperial Guard, as with all such "elite" formations, they do indeed deprive the line forces of quality troops and material - however, what is often ignored is the effect the Guard has/had on the enemy. Facing the Guard (after 1806) was a daunting prospect for any opposing force. Troops already weakened by artillery bombardment, musket volleys, or cavalry attacks, would often simply collapse when they believed the Guard was about to attack or in the process of attacking their position. This amounted to a force maximization in many situations in battle. It also presented a risk - the morale effects on friendly troops if the Guard failed, as they did at Waterloo. Another factor is that the Guard provided a central core which could be used for key combats and non-combat duties. In the retreat from Russia, the remaining men in the Guard were almost the only effective force, and those from the line who were still willing and able to fight simply followed the Guard units. On balance, one can say that the nature of warfare in the era lent itself to a reasonably sized and well-equipped "elite" force. Those benefits were lost if the organization grew out of control and became bureaucratic and unnecessarily privileged, as such organizations tend to do if those dangers are not recognized by the leader.

Napoleon's ability to influence men is legendary. Here is a little excerpt as to why: First off, play this in the background: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-t3217H8JppI.html Okay, now we start. After a hard fought victory against the Austrians, Napoleon reviewed the 13th Regiment of Light Infantry, which had played a key role in the battle, and asked the colonel to name its bravest man. The Colonel thought for a moment: "Sire, it is the Drum Major." Napoleon immediately asked to see the young bandsman, who appeared, quaking in his boots. Then Napoleon announced loudly for everyone to hear, "They say that you are the bravest man in this regiment. I appoint you a knight of Légion d'Honneur, Baron of the Empire, and award you a pension of four thousand francs." The soldiers gasped. Napoleon was famous for his well-timed promotions and for promoting soldiers on merit, making even the lowliest Private feel that if he proved himself, he could someday be a Marshal. But a Drum Major becoming a Baron overnight? That was entirely beyond their expectations and had an electrifying effect, particularly on the newest conscripts, the ones who were most homesick and depressed. He was a charismatic commander and a great battle captain; he imposed his genius and personality on his army and inspired his troops, veterans and recruits, Frenchmen and foreign alike, with fierce pride, loyalty and devotion. The impression which he made by his presence, can be described by no other term that that of grandeur. When a French band serenaded the Emperor, they vested their patriotic air with the essence of their hearts and souls - for this man seemed the very embodiment of the cause for which they happily risked their lives. As the Emperor on horseback reviewed the regiments, the troops greeted him with mounting enthusiasm. The shouts of the soldiers, thousands upon thousands of them even drowned out the music of the regimental bands, whose members were playing their hearts out, sounding the glorious marches of the Empire. Everyone made an effort to get close enough to see HIM. The infantry raised their shakos aloft on the points of their bayonets, the cavalry brandished their sabers and lances. From every section of the battlefield arose a mighty roar: "Vive l'Empereur !" The troops were practically delirious. Even his enemies were fascinated with him. Von Wedel, a German officer, once wrote: "The aura of his greatness subjugated me as well, and giving way to enthusiasm and admiration, I like the others, shouted

It's always amazed me the success that Napoleon had, with such turmoil in France at the time. Usually civil unrest causes countries to turn inwards, as Russia in WW1. It seems like it would have been even more difficult to gain French support to invade other countries at this time, but it must have had the opposite affect in this case. Either way it amazes me that he was able to do this.

20:20 He had well developed social skills : he kept hammering his underlings and opponents with logic and reasoning :)

I love how you supported your points with citations. Good work man!

The Egyptian Campaign was a success for finding the Rosetta Stone that unlocked ancient Egyptian writings and glyphs. Also at this time, the people running france were fear mongering the population and they were screwing things up and could not blame Napoleon for that. He once said, that his timing to come back from Egypt was a stroke of luck. He took a big gamble in making the lawmakers run away and had the army to back him. THIS is an example of why no government will let an army or troops come into the capitals. If one General like Cesar got too powerful , he could just take 50,000 men and take over the government. Napolean crossed the Rubicon with his gamble and won. What a great leader, france was lucky to have him.

Will we see a similar break down on Frederick the great?

@6:10 I think the absence of the staff officers he had fought with for 15 years in the 100 days certainly played a major factor in his defeat. Without his trusty Marshal Berthier there to quickly and accurately interpret and disseminate Napoleon's orders the efficiency of the Grande Armee was greatly reduced. Napoleon said after Waterloo, "Had Berthier been there, I would not have met this misfortune". Napoleon understood the necessity of great staff work and when he did not have it he realized how much it cost him.

Napoleon was ahead of his time in independent movement of corps on different axis of of march. This tactic wasn't instituted in the US Army till 1864 under Sherman and his march to the sea. This tactic allows rapid movement with enemies confused as to the route of march and the main objective.

Hi Bernhard, I've read a few biogs of Napoleon but this is the best all encompasing summary of why he was able to achieve what he did. Superb, thanks and well done. Also, loved the top 5 tanks, punchy and to the point, just like the Pzkfw III

Napoleon Quote: “Give me enough ribbons to place on the tunics of my soldiers and I can conquer the world.”

The best documentation about Napoleon I ever saw. Especially when it comes to the final analysis. You guys clearly did your homework. Thank you so much!

Nerfed from 94% to 81%. Still OP, PLZ nerf Napoleon!

Another big one... His adversaries never learned how to become good allies with each other until post Russia invasion. Frederick Kagan explores the many political aspects that led to the failure of the Third Coalition specifically in his book on subject.

Suvorov next? It's a shame Suvorov and Napoleon never met in battle, despite at one time fighting in the opposing armies at the same time.

Yet another one of your fine videos. Your diligence and precision put you far ahead of the ordinary, casual observer. The quality of precision you impart is priceless, and I sometimes can't believe I'm seeing it on RU-vid. You are doing an immeasureable service to history. Thank you!

I think that when people think "Napoleon" they really mean Napoleon and Berthier. Without his chief of staff his record in not nearly as glorious. And this makes sense, it's one thing to know what an army should do, it's quite another to manage the staff (and the egos of the other commanders) to implement the general's plan.

Napoleon was someone to admire, I really like him

Fantastic videos! I have not read a great deal on Napoleon, so this video was a fantastic education.

Napoleon admired Frederick The Great and visited San Souci 👍

Sehr schön, wie immer! Vielen Dank :)

Great EU 4 reference

Very well researched. And I appreciate the citing of sources in the video

LOVE that you've shared all the sources, thankyou so much

He was certainly the most successful governor of St. Helena in history.

Great video man! XVIIIth and XIXth century history is fascinating! Well done!

Outstanding video! Congratulations and thanks for sharing.

Yeah dude he was pretty damned successful. More successful than anybody reading this comment.

Lindybeige won't like this video

Thanks for making this, I’ve been very interested in Napoleon lately.

Once again, great video dude! You're getting better every day. Also, the music is back!

I clicked like even without watching the video. So much confidence!

Another fine presentation, MHV - thank you! Napoleón himself said that had he had Berthier with him, he would have fared better in the 1815 campaign ("If Berthier had been there, I would not have met this misfortune."), however, Berthier was In Bamberg in Bavaria. Under the circumstances, what else could Napoleón I have done? (expansive Gallic shrug of the shoulders)

Outstanding, a well balanced, circumspect and very credible analysis with cited sources!

This is the best military history channel on RU-vid, period!

Number 35? Sweet! Glad to be getting my notifications in a timely manner again!

I read Chandler's books and I really appreciated your work on the video, I personally would love to watch more napoleonic contents but I understand that your passion is ww2 so I'll just tell you that you are doing a great job with your channel

Thanks for an excellent-- succinct yet persuasive--post.

nice video, great info

Hmm structure of the video: 1. Tell them what you're going to tell them. 2. Tell them. 3. Tell them what you told them. Very nice.

Off topic, MHV: I was thinking that the one off Surcouf, the French "Submarine Cruiser" was the groundbreaker, with its turreted guns and float plane for spotting fall of shot. Yesterday, however, I was researching WW1 submarines and, in aside, found data on the HM Submarine X1. Not the "X Class" minisub, mind you, but a real submarine cruiser with two turrets (one each fore and aft of the sail) armed with 5.25" guns. Seeing this, I was struck at the similarities to both Surcouf, and the cancelled Typ XI U-Boote submarine cruisers. These now seem like points on a development graph*, rather than one-off experiments, leading to the I-400 Sen Toku giants; a process that mimics that same switch in emphasis from the all gun battleship's heavy armor and large bore rifles to the aircraft carrier's "tinclad" design and very long engagement range. *The US Walrus and Nautilus fleet boats were also variants of this basic paradigm. I guess that the idea was "artillery rounds are one hell of a lot cheaper than torpedoes". This flies in the face of old sailor wisdom that can be quantified into the following: "If you want to fill them with air, bomb them. If you want to fill them with water, torpedo them." Since today's submarine launched cruise missiles are exactly aircraft strike forces it seems that the aircraft carrier sub won out over the gun armed arsenal submersible idea.

Really enjoyed the video, excellently researched.

Wow, amazing production quality. Having small graphics with words teaches so effectively.

according to Clausewitz one of the reasons why Napoleon had such great success, was the fact that he knew how to force his enemies to the negotiation table. he calculated this correctly at Austerlizt and at Jena and so on, but failed to correctly calculate this in Russia. Clausewitz has said that had the austrians not chosen to give in after austerlitz or wagram then Napoleon would have suffered just as great a defeat as in Russia.

Fascinating insight. Napoleon himself clearly believed that there would never be peace and that the other powers could not accept revolutionary France - although of course France ceased to be revolutionary once it accepted an Emperor. I see Napoleon's success as being largely to ensure supplies and thus make his armies move quicker. Although I consider myself more of a 20th century historian, Austerlitz is one of my favourite battles and trying to understand what happened there on that day is something I have been reading about for many years!

Very good vid. You did your homework. Must say the summup at the end reminds me of Genghis Khan, who was known for mastering all those elements as well

Thanks for this interesting and useful commentary.

I suggest you all take a look at Andrew Robert's "Napoleon" and Colonel John R. Elting's "Swords Around a Throne" both provide excellent information on Napoleon and warfare during his time.

Napoleon was largely successful from 1796-1808 because his enemies used obsolete systems and methods (18th century warfare). And nobody knew his methods of warfare. By 1809, they realized their mistakes and made adjustments. Napoleon could still win tactical battles here and there, but the strategic picture has changed. Napoleon should have changed some of his methods or directed the invention of new weapons. But his main weakness is his over-reliance on winning tactical battles, thus suffering attrition through manpower losses and war-weariness. Napoleon also was getting older, and he neglected his health.

brilliant work, It is like watching a research paper. Good job!

What an excellent video. The more of these biographical style videos the better. Well done!

God of war in video game: hitting people with an axe God of war irl: doing logistical planning

"Yet as a military officer during the French revolution, where quite literally many heads rolled." Lol, nice one.

Thanks once again for a great video

I HAVE ENJOYED MANY OF YOUR VEDIOS THIS I FEEL WAS YOUR BEST!!!! I WILL SUPPORT YOUR PATRION ASAP TONY

Dude, you such a good job of breaking down complex things in these videos. Do you have staff that help with research? Great video, as usual.

The ironic part is that he was a Corsican - son of a man who rebelled against French control of Corsica! and he became the most famous Frenchman of all time! Life and its ironies!

Awesome video. Freaking love your analyses! Also, funny EU4 reference!

As a fan of Napoleon, I enjoyed this video very much. Thanks! Well done!

I like how France once invaded all of Europe, so in retaliation Germany invaded France, so in retaliation Germany invaded all of Europe, so in retaliation Germany invaded all of Europe.

And to think that the creator of this tactics and strategies was defeated by rabbits

very informative and simple to understand...thumps up

Great video thank you !

Oh man i knew this was going to be a shit show of a comments section. Great video though. I had to laugh so many times reading comments of people using revisionist history and some even pointing to LindyBeige as a source of information, talk about Mr Confirmation Bias right there. MHV hats off to you sir, more integrity in your videos than most.

"Big Blue Blob" LOL

Amazing work

I wish you had something to muffle the SSS sound but I love this thank you for doing this! I really appreciate your work.

Napoleon believed in pursing his enemies to break them. Would this have made him a poor general in terms of fighting the Mongols, who relied on their enemies to use that tactic of pursuit?

You could have mentioned why did Napoleon aim for shorter more "destructive" campaigns (obviously because France was surrounded by enemies). Also you could have spoke more about his brilliant artillery tactics.

An excellent analysis. I like your videos.

this is quite frankly an amazing video. I am a monster Napoleon fan and own several of the books you use. Great Job!

Because when Napoleon was young, he trained so hard. And when we was young, we tried to be the first person with the first comment. So he is a successful person. And we are losers. Hic :'(

How did "living off the land" work so often for him? You'd think that it would erode discipline and waste fighting troops' time and energy better spent fighting, marching, maintaining weapons, or resting. Not to mention pushing otherwise indifferent or even friendly civilians into becoming hostile and thus informers or guerrillas for the enemy. Finally it could only be of limited sustainability in any given area, which is fine when you're passing through, but not if you're waiting for the weather, or consolidating for a later push, want to hold important ground. Yet it only seemed to backfire on him in Spain and Russia. Do Dutch, Italians, Austrians, Germans etc not need to eat?

Another most excellent video....fantastic work! Hope to see many more of them, 30 Year War, 100 Year War.... 👍👌👏

Thanks for The Nice Overview. : )))

In the PC game Napoleon Total War a loading screen quote by Napoleon appears "“You cannot stop me; I spend 30,000 lives a month.” , this gives the impression that Napoleon was a ruthless leader with little care for the lives of his soldiers. However when reading through the last will that he made before his death it becomes clear that this was certainly not the case. He made ample provision with his remaining money for the people that had served under him including officers, soldiers especially those who had lost limbs, widows, families and in some cases towns that had seen destruction during the wars. Lesson to be learned, these quotes add immersion to games but are pretty meaningless when taken out of context. Napoleon's will & testament: www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/napoleons-last-will-and-testament/

Big Bue Blob ? Better then Napoleon

Very interesting, have subscribed, all the best Garry

Nice video! I love your referencing your information. I don't have a source for you but I thought that he also was very innovative when it came to logistics - specifically he discovered the first major example of canning food - a vendor in paris who was preparing champagne bottles filled with stew or vegetables. He instituted a prize for anyone who could develop a process to preserve foods, and this guy figured out what has essentially become what we know today as canning (although it began with sealed glass (the champagne bottles were used because they were thick enough to weather the heat of canning)). He had that process expanded and that was a key element in how his troops gained great mobility, being able to carry prepared foods that were of high quality that kept in all kinds of weather. Has anyone else heard of this? Cheers!

Napoleon walked out of Italy, walked out of Spain and rode out of Russia, each time abandoning the "French" army to die. Napoleon had been an artillery capt and he realised that future wars would be won by artillery. After being transferred to Paris he used his position to seize power. Invading Russia was stupid.

Napoleon was a rockstar. He was truly one of those "superior men", as Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov would put it

This is the best documentary of Napoleon I have ever seen. While it is short and simple, it contains the essential and everything is qualitative, rather than quantitative.

Great video