I already commented before about this guy, but Damn!! he’s good at this! His explanation and his voice and music is just amazing! These are the best videos about history ever! All American history teachers just play these videos and your students will learn more than what you’ve been told to teach.
Yet Napoleon was NOT a genius, and his greatness is a lie proffered by French and British historians. Geniuses do not die in prison, isolated, defeated and full of regrets like Napoleon. Geniuses don’t leave their countries occupied, defeated, and never able to recover the way Napoleon left France. Geniuses don’t turn a complicated situation like war with Britain, and make it even more complicated by waging war with everyone. A real genius takes the complicated and makes it simple. Napoleon did the complete opposite. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a crazy madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about the military disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about Napoleon getting swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase. Read about how Paris was occupied for the first time in 500 years because of Napoleon, and France was tired of Napoleon. Don't let these historians make up your mind for you.
@@lsatep do you realized caesar also lost everything? i mean you seem to imply that caesar was indeed awesome,and they are actually quite alike,full of shit.
@@lsatep It's clear that you are the crazy one, Napoleon is the greatest General in human history, you can vomit such comments all you want history is just facts, fatally Napoleon couldn't predict the winter of 1812 that would be the coldest of his era in the last 300 years. He lost to a natural disaster just like some kind of demigod would in a Greek tragedy. His life was extraordinary by all measures and no one will live a life so complete from a commoner and soldier to General and Emperor having all the glories and victories as well as watching most of the things he build be replaced. Not only he is a real life Hero but an inspiration for humanity and what everyone can achieve with enough will but with the reminder that we only are human and bound to fail one day.
From what I've read after he abandoned them they were attacked by ottoman and british soldiers and eventually surrendered after a Syrian student assassinated their leader. They then vave their loot to the British (which included the Rosetta stone which is basically a big dictionary for pre-arab Egyptian hieroglyphs and is why we can read hieroglyphs) and the British repatriated them to France and the ottoman took control of Egypt again.
Well if you destroy their army and start pushing in then they dont wanna risk their whole nation getting overrun it happened in WW1 the Allies werent even occupying a fourth of Germany but the Germans surrendered because of the fresh American troops that came to the front and the destruction of their army in the fighting before the Americans came.
They feared Napoleon Bonaparte -_- and they had to replace there flag with there flag(Napoleon Bonaparte had to replace the country's flag that he was invaded with france's flag)
Right because no one messed up as poorly as Napoleon. Napoleon was NOT good for France and turned out to be an incompetent, disastrous leader. Napoleon left France occupied, defeated, and never able to recover from defeat. Under Napoleon, the enemy was fighting on French soil closing in on Paris. Napoleon got ripped-off by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase, costing France millions of dollars. Napoleon was responsible for some of the worst military disasters in history that caused the lives of millions of Frenchmen. Egypt/Syria was a disaster. Spain was a disaster. Russia was the worst disaster in military history. Leipzig was a disaster. Waterloo was a disaster. France had its problems before Napoleon, but it was still, by far, the most powerful army in Europe. Napoleon inherited a superb war machine from the most powerful state in Continental Europe. Many times Napoleon, with a powerful army that could out-gun the enemy, would just barely win through sheer numbers while being a colossal drain on his soldiers and country. To a large extent, his tactics were irrelevant, as Napoleon could field outrageous numbers of troops and guns who could suffer losses that were easily replaceable by France's vast population and military resources. Napoleon is even quoted as saying "You cannot defeat me, I spend 30 000 lives a month." This ineffective strategy of course was wrong, as it led to drain and defeat, and it was France that paid the price with their own dead. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that left France humiliated and cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a delusional madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about Napoleon's disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about how Napoleon got swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase, as Napoleon foolishly sells Louisiana territory 1,000 % under its value. Read about how Paris was occupied in 1814, and how France was tired of Napoleon, including Napoleon's own army. Don't let these biased historians who spin the facts make up your mind for you.
@@lsatep And its obviously because Napoleon was a bad leader that he beat 3 coalitions, help when he was general against 2 coalitions, won more than 50 battles and occupied a part of Europe ? Vive Bonaparte !
Gamer is Cool m7ray . He won near 60 battles. He revolutionised military tactics, using the corps system that was later copied by every one of his opponents. The Italian campaign he inherited an army of exhausted soldiers with low morale and no resources and yet managed to win 16/18 engagements. For Marengo, he crossed the alps. The battle of Austerlitz is the most complete win since agincourt. He took on multiple enemies of wealthy European monarchs and was able to dominate them for 15 years. During the sixth coalition (a war he eventually lost) he showed his military genius the most in the six day campaign with an army of 30,000 he defeated an army twice the size, 4 times in 6 days inflicting ten times as many casualties as he took. Even the men under him are legends in their own right Davout, Lannes, Murat and they all stem from Napoleon. But because he eventually was defeated (after 15 years of constant war from multiple powerful enemies) people like Isatep disregard everything else. No one else would have beaten 5 coalitions and countered this by expanding their own empire. I will spare you the essay on Bonaparte’s genius and wisdom in legal and educational reform as we are talking about military. So bear in mind some quotes from his enemies. Claustwitz “Napoleon is the god of war” Wellington (when asked who is the best general) “in past ages, this age, any age, Napoleon”. Tsar Alexander after Austerlitz “we are dwarfs in the hands of a giant”. Suvorov “how the young Bonaparte moves!” Also during the sixth coalition the allies agreed to not fight Napoleon but to attack his marshals where they could. They literally agreed amongst themselves it wasn’t worth taking on Napoleon directly because they would lose. Edit: Napoleon’s reforms are still used to this day even in the countries that beat him.
For those who wonder what happened to the remains of the French army in Egypt: The fight continued after the departure of Napoleon under the direction of General Jean-Baptiste Kléber. Kleber negotiates with the British an honourable evacuation convention in January 1800 but the Brits don't respect the deal. Kléber says to his soldiers : «One responds to such insolence only by victories; soldiers, get ready to fight » In March 1800, Kleber beats 60 000 Ottomans in Heliopolis, he manages to take back again Cairo, but he is knifed by an Arab Syrian student living in Egypt in June 14, 1800. In 1801, Egypt is lost. Part of the army is made prisoner.
Typical perfidious Albion... In fact, "Allies" were not English, Russians, Austrians, prussians etc... they were the equivalent of axis trying to impose their view and a new King dictature on France. At the notablous exception of Russia (and in second range Spain which is more complexe than a simple invasion), France was attacked by the so wrongly called Allies and it's their attacks/declaration of wars which permitted France to know an expansion.
That's not true. You're referring to the Convention of El Arish, which was a peace treaty signed by the French and Ottomans, but never the British. The month before, the British government had sent instructions to their commanders that there was to be no peace between France and the Ottomans which allowed the French army to return to Europe. Those instructions only reached the British commander Sidney Smith after the signing of the convention. He did the honourable thing and informed Kleber, and also told him that he was hopeful that the British government would agree to the peace. However, Kleber chose to break the terms of the convention by attacking the Ottomans. When the British government learnt about the peace treaty, they did agree to abide by its terms. However, the French refused to allow the British envoy with details of this to be admitted to Alexandria because the conflict had started going well for the French. So not perfidious Albion, but rather perfidious France in this case. In the Egyptian campaign they attacked the neutral country of Malta and their ally, the Ottoman Empire. They also broke the terms of their peace agreement. Meanwhile, the British agreed to follow the terms of the peace agreement that they weren't required to.
It is oddly satisfying to watch and to learn about history while a sick beat is in the background. Like Napoleon is about to release his mixtape "Anglais merde: Volume Deux" or something.
In your description, you call Napoleon "Emperor of France." He was "Emperor of the French." The former title implies France was his possession, like a king. It was still considered a republic, so he took a title with a popular connotation, not an absolute monarchist one
Holy shit, balsy move to march all the way to Vienna, knowing that many Austrian armies are lurking around. I'm starting to see why my father is a Napoleon fanatic. Can you imagine what his life was like? Moving from place to place to eventually change the face of the world where ever he goes. No one has this kind of power anymore nowadays.
I actually have some history with the town Genoa and french island of corsica. My last name came from Genoa and my dad's side of the family lived there until the 1830s to the 1850s my relatives from Genoa and corsica started imagrating to the US state of lousiana
Finnish Wehraboo I’m British (arch rivals with France and Napoleon) and I’ve no doubt he’s one of the finest men who ever lived. Yes, he did a fair bit of evil. But unlike most dictators he was a reformer and creator of an exceptional level. Society laws religion schools the way they operate even today was put in place by Napoleon That’s without mentioning his military genius
Archer Napoleon did more in ten years to reform the law than other dynasties in a thousand. He had seven wars declared against him (the first two against revolutionary France the next five against napoleonic france) and he started two wars himself. Do you know how many leaders have started 2 wars? Thousands in history. But how many leaders have an era named after them and even in defeat remain one of the most influential people of all time. His law code is used by over 40 countries, he reformed the law (meritocracy, freedom of religion, secular education, property rights, abolishing of feudalism) which other world leaders even come close? So why is he a demon? For wars he mostly didn’t start. Do you not blame William Pitt, George III, Alexander I, Francis II for repeatedly declaring coalitions? Do you even know who they are ? Do you know Napoleon offered for peace to the European powers many times. They couldn’t stand the immigrant turned emperor who then put revolutionary ideals into law. During the early 1800s you could rise through the ranks further under napoleonic law than anywhere else in Europe. So again, why a demon? To the people of Haiti yes, but how could you point the finger to Napoleon about colonialism without also blaming half a dozen other states in Europe? I saw someone else sum this up perfectly “Napoleon won wars so easily people think he was war hungry, when actually most of them were declared against him”.
@@justADeni Rome was simply the superior power. Carthage entered a war it was less-equiped to fight. Not to mention any army Hannibal destroyed could simply be replaced by another That the Roman's would raise in 6 months. 😁
@@justADeni I'm convinced people only love Hannibal because he has a cool story. Elephants crossing the Alps impressed people. They overlook his failures during to this hypnotic imagery.
Bruh, these beats and the knowledge you supply are a sincere gift for real. Thank you. Ive been watching many of your videos the last week and I have nothing but respect for you. TYVM good sir.
Micahistory 2 that’s what makes Napoleon such a special person. My nation had to keep funding coalitions time and time again to defeat him. Between 1802-1807 he was invincible
That's the only way to win with so much fewer soldiers, France was always fighting at a massive disadvantage in numbers, winning for 30 years straight with less men and money than all the others combined is absolutely insane, religions were created around legendary stuff like this.
Herbert Chapman AFC they have no civil reforms tho I respect them as military leawwws of my nation (although I prefer Marlborough) but there’s no wellingtonoic code that changed Europe’s rights for man
No, technically he was born in France and spent all his life in France so he is French. Fun fact, every time there is a video on someone famous, you can find some nationalist prick who wants to get some glory from it for his own country lol.
"Napoleon is summoned to replace the artillery commander who was injured." More like a bunch of his friends realized they needed a minmaxing power gamer and he was the only party member who fit the bill. So they made him do it.
@@williamsantos9471 There r many books in the market u can find the answer there. Also I have watch some videos about biography about Napoleon. I was shock to know that he was originally from Greek. The place where Alexander the great was born. Socrates and Aristotle too were born.
"Napoleon: A Life" by Andrew Roberts is one of the best books about him (in English at least). This video is very good with the throughline of the history, but if you want the details, that is where I recommend looking.
The British only fought with bows and currently only fight on sea because they shit themselves at the prospect of having to fight anyone directly (like men); no wonder the modern-day British default war strategy consists of hiding their island, keeping a strong navy to prevent anyone from landing there so as to avoid having to fight anyone directly and, the most important part, BEG the United States (Britain's historic boyfriend), to please come save them. That's why they've made so much of the battle of Trafalgar when, in real-life, it had a little practical immediate effect and Napoleon barely sighed when receiving the news. But the British keep celebrating that victory because fighting on sea is all they can do, whenever they fight at land they get their sorry asses kicked even against "inferior" enemies such as Elphinstone's army in Afghanistan, Isandlwana, the American revolutionary war, Dunkirk, the Jews at Palestine, the Dutch at Medway (after which the British lost their fleet which meant their island was open to invasion after which they panicked and surrendered ending the war rather than fighting like men), Buenos Aires (twice), Majuba (against the Boers, where a bunch of Boer farmers and boys defeated professional British soldiers killing 285 British and capturing 59 while losing only 1 Boer and ending the Boer War in one stroke) and Singapore, among many many others; and the only victories they've had have been by surprise attacks (such as the batte of the River Plate), ambushes (just like they did at the battle of Jutland or Cape Matapan) or by using overwhelming numbers (like they did with the Bismark: in the first encounter two German ships, including the Bismarck, fought against three British ships which included the most powerful British ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, known as "the pride of the Royal Navy", the Bismarck alone defeated the three British ships and easily destroyed the HMS Prince of Wales, after which the British fled and only came back in overwhelming numbers, sending 12 ships against the Bismarck; this situation also happened in the naval battles of Narvik in World War II when the Royal Navy attacked the German warships off Narvik, when the Germans counterattacked the British quickly fled losing almost half of its ships, but the Royal Navy would only come back with overwhelming numbers: twice as many ships the Germans had, then and only then would they "avenge" their defeat at Narvik), that0s why the British can could never fight on equal numbers, they're only brave at sea and only with overwhelming numbers on their side. That's why in Corunna they used their favorite tactic: be defeated and escape by sea (the same one used in Dunkirk). Also, they have no problem whatsoever betraying their allies if it furthers its interests such as when they bombarded Copenhagen even though Denmark was not at war with Britain (they did this to destroy the Danish fleet so Napoleon couldn't use it just in case Napoleon conquered Denmark, or when the French surrendered in World War II and the British demanded the French hand over all of their ships to them (they were terrifyied that that Hitler could use them to invade Britain) and when the French refused the British immediatly forgot about their ertswhile "allies" and attacked the French fleet by surprise at Mers-el Kebir or when they betrayed the Portuguese (their oldest allies with whom they'd maintained an alliance treaty since 1386) by sending them an ultimatum in 1890 demanding them to evacuate some of their African colonies and once they did they quickly moved to occupy those areas just so the Britsh could have a continuous land connection between South Africa and Egypt or during the Seven Years War: the British always seek a powerful ally with a powerful land army (as the British are too cowardly to fight like men) to protect them and fight for them and the United States didn't exist yet so they tricked Prussia into joining them and paid the Prussians to fight on the continent in their place but as soon as the British attained their goals in the other theaters of the war they immediatly forgot about their Prussian "allies" and suddenly stopped the cash flow to Prussia and abandoned them just at the height of the war, leaving the Prussians to their own devices to fight alone against France, Austria and Russia, almost resulting in the destruction of Prussia, something every country in Europe took note of; or in Norway during World War II where the British arrived to assist the Norwegians against the Germans but fled after several humilliating defeats by numerically inferior German forces, in this case the British fled in secret leaving their Norwegian "allies" behind and without telling them they were going to flee. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British were at their worst, paying others to fight for them, causing the Emperor of Austria to say "The English are flesh traffickers, they fight others to fight in their place", while Napoleon said the British were "a people of cowardly marine merchants". Here's a tiny selection of the countless British defeats: Afghans 6-13 January 1842 - retreat from Kabul - entire British army captured or killed (17,000 KIA) 3 September 1879 - Kabul ...again 27 July 1880 - Maiwand - 900-1,000 British/Indian troops killed By Mahdist March 13, 1884 - January 26, 1885 Siege of Khartoum - 7,000 force lost to Mahdis February 4, 1884 First Battle of El Teb Chinese 4 September 1839 Battle of Kowloon - defensive victory June 24-26, 1859 Second Battle of Taku Forts Russians Petropavlovsk - British landing repelled Battle of the Great Redan - British failure while the French do succeed in taking the Malakoff Balaclava - British lancers and hussars of the light brigade annihilated. Taganrog - failure of the Anglo-French contingent to take Taganrog Siege of Kars - Anglo Turkish force fails to take Kars Zulus Isandlwanna - an entire column wiped out. 1,400 killed Intombe - supply convoy wiped out. 104 dead Hlobane - No. 4 column wiped out. 225 killed Bulgarians Battle of Kosturino 1915 Battle of Doiran 1916 Battle of Doiran 1917 Battle of Doiran 1918 Boers (In this battles the Boers who crushed the British and won the war were just farmers and teenage Boer boys against professional British soldiers) Schuinshoogte - 69 British killed against 8 Boer killed Laing's Nek - 84 British killed and 2 captured against 14 Boer killed Majuba Hill - 92 British killed (including the commander, a general) and 59 captured against 1 Boer killed
Argentinians 2 April 1982 - Invasion of the Falklands - 100+ Marines and sailors captured 3 April 1982 - Argentinians seize Leith Harbor. 22 Royal Marine POWs 10 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Sheffield 22 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Ardent 23 May 1982 - Battle of Seal Cove 24 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Antelope 25 May 1982 - SS Atlantic Conveyor sunk by Argentinians 25 May 1982 - HMS Coventry is sunk by Arg. aircraft. 29 May 1982 - Mount Kent Battle - 5 SAS dead in friendly fire incident. 6-7 June 1982 - British paratroops vacate position under pressure, leaving radio codes 8 June 1982 - Bluff Cove Air Attacks 10 June 1982 - Skirmish at Many Branch Point - capture of the SAS contingent. Ghurka victories January 1814 - Battle of Makwanpur Gadhi - British army kept at bay January 1814 - Battle of Jitgadh - British attack repulsed with 300 KIA Spring 1814 - Battle of Hariharpur Gadhi - British Indian army stymied. November 1814 - Battle of Nalapani - British force decimated with 700+ casualties December, 1814 - Battle of Jaithak - 53rd Div. defeated and repelled. Dutch 16 August 1652 - Battle of Plymouth - De Ruyter's triumph 30 November 1652 - Battle of Dungeness - Dutch gain control of the English Channel 4 March 1653 - Battle of Leghorn - 5 ships captured or sunk 2 August 1665 - Battle of Vågen 1-4 June 1666 - Four Days' Battle - 10 ships lost with upwards of 4,500 killed and wounded 2-5 September 1666 - Burning of London 9-14 June 1667 - Raid on Medway - Dutch raid, ends with loss of 13 English ships 28 May 1672 - Battle of Solebay 7 -14 June 1673 - Battle of Schooneveld August 21, 1673 - Battle of Texel Others - by the Albanians (the 78th Regiment of Foot at Rosetta), - by the Americans (at Cowpens, in 1813 at Thames, and in 1815 at New Orleans), - by the Poles (in 1810 at Fuengirola), - by the native Indians (at Monongahela), - by the Egyptians (1807 at El-Hamad or Hamaad) - by Native Americans at the first Roanoake Island Colony where they defeated the English colonists who had then had to be rescued by Francis Drake, fleeing by sea (the usual British tactic of fleeing by sea) Among many, many, others.
The craziest ones too. Napoleon was NOT a military genius, and his greatness is a lie proffered by French and British historians. Geniuses do not die in prison, isolated, defeated and full of regrets like Napoleon. Geniuses don’t leave their countries occupied, defeated, and never able to recover the way Napoleon left France. Geniuses don’t turn a complicated situation like war with Britain, and make it even more complicated by waging war with everyone. A real genius takes the complicated and makes it simple. Napoleon did the complete opposite. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a crazy madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about the military disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about Napoleon getting swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase. Read about how Paris was occupied for the first time in 500 years because of Napoleon, and France was tired of Napoleon. Don't let these historians make up your mind for you.
@@lsatep First of all, Napoleon was a noble. So I don't know what you are talking about when you say that he came from a rural area as he would've been a peasant. I know about his failures, but your argument that a genius doesn't leave his country occupied, doesn't die in prison is too general and rigid. Let's take his idol, Julius Caesar. Let's see, Caesar lead the strongest state of its time when there was no such thing as a coalition between superpowers(which weren't even that many). But I can say now that a genius doesn't let himself assassinated(but I don't because it's stupid). The period Napoleon lived in is pretty unique. The ideology change imposed by the French Revolution was a huge threat for all the absolutist monarchies of Europe(plus Britain who just hated French). Now, let's get to Napoleon. Oh, he blundered many times. He was a sexist egomaniac(claiming that women are machines for making babies). Although it is true that many of the reforms of his Civil Codes are still used today(proof that he was lucid enough), the sexist part which makes women dependent upon men is absolutely repulsive and disgusting. He was insanely lucky in his career and blundered many times(still 53-7 is an astonishing result which makes pretty clear his military capabilities). But that doesn't mean he didn't leave something behind. I think France recovered pretty well after Napoleon, as we can see today. His legacy consists of the lucid reforms he made(like equality before the law) and the taste he left behind to citizens for freedom. France didn't seem to be sick of Napoleon since another Bonaparte came to power in 1848(through vote), after the revolution. he had the entire Europe against him, so you have to look at the circumstances. It was much easier for Alexander the Great to conquer the world in the third century BCE than it would be for Napoleon in the modern world where the powers are established. The French Revolution would've been really a big boulder on anyone's back, if it wasn't for Napoleon to lead France, but another person. He actually brought stability in a crazy period for the french people. The problem is that we either demonize or canonize somebody, instead of offering a real picture. Americans think that their Founding Fathers were some kind of Saints, that Rockefeller was a demon(he did a lot of bad things, but he did a lot of good things too), and there are many other examples.
@Gangsta Macc Yeah, but the difference is that Hitler couldn't beat the Russian tanks, and Tsar Alexander had to retreat due to the overwhelming size of Napoleon's army.
Amazing Video, Impressive representation, perfectly Oversimplified but I had to mute the music(Yeah only read the subtitles). I loved it, and I respect your decision of you making your videos as you please, but I think even some 19th-century military drums would have made better background music (given the context and topic being discussed on the video), this is just my opinion, Amazing video man!.
-War between France and United Kingdom
- Ottoman Empire gets invaded
logic
Seif Sherif this is a good comment
😂👌🏻
Brits were using ottoman territory to connect with their Indian colonies, so yes it is logical
@@cv4809 they should use the road around Africa that Vasco de Gama discovered , because the Suez canal wasn't made yet
Ottomans attacked Napoleon at British behest
He's one of the best general in history
The best.
No shit sherlock
he won more battles than everyone but probally not the greatest
He is the best
Maybe Genghis Khan could be better...
Switzerland turning blue
WAIT THAT'S ILLEGAL
It's so weird to see them actually partake in a war, They've been neutral since the Napoleonic wars though
At the time Switzerland wasn’t neutral
@@thiswasabruhmoment5388 that's why France was so strong
Que pesados con esa broma
that's not illegal Switzerland was not neutral yet they would be neutral in 1945
I already commented before about this guy, but Damn!! he’s good at this! His explanation and his voice and music is just amazing! These are the best videos about history ever! All American history teachers just play these videos and your students will learn more than what you’ve been told to teach.
please keep making these videos my guy!!!
Ohhh amazing vídeo!
Thank you! Can't wait for the next parts
ah yes you posted this video on the day I was almost spended
by the way at school
10:32 Napoleon is ready to invade the UK
Royal Navy: *laughs in british*
Napo was, without a doubt, the best general in Britain. It should be in Trafalgar Sq. Instead of Nelson.
@Herbert Chapman AFC Go hide on your island while all the European powers try to take down the Grande Armée, as usual
Napoleon's rise to power mirrored Julius Caesar's so much it had to be done on purpose. They even both went to Egypt
Yet Napoleon was NOT a genius, and his greatness is a lie proffered by French and British historians. Geniuses do not die in prison, isolated, defeated and full of regrets like Napoleon. Geniuses don’t leave their countries occupied, defeated, and never able to recover the way Napoleon left France. Geniuses don’t turn a complicated situation like war with Britain, and make it even more complicated by waging war with everyone. A real genius takes the complicated and makes it simple. Napoleon did the complete opposite. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a crazy madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about the military disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about Napoleon getting swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase. Read about how Paris was occupied for the first time in 500 years because of Napoleon, and France was tired of Napoleon. Don't let these historians make up your mind for you.
@@lsatep do you realized caesar also lost everything? i mean you seem to imply that caesar was indeed awesome,and they are actually quite alike,full of shit.
@@lsatep It's clear that you are the crazy one, Napoleon is the greatest General in human history, you can vomit such comments all you want history is just facts, fatally Napoleon couldn't predict the winter of 1812 that would be the coldest of his era in the last 300 years. He lost to a natural disaster just like some kind of demigod would in a Greek tragedy. His life was extraordinary by all measures and no one will live a life so complete from a commoner and soldier to General and Emperor having all the glories and victories as well as watching most of the things he build be replaced. Not only he is a real life Hero but an inspiration for humanity and what everyone can achieve with enough will but with the reminder that we only are human and bound to fail one day.
Omg what happens next. If only we could see the future.
Sad future
Any chance you can make the videos without all the loud blaring music coming in and out ?
Bruh He left his army in Egypt.
Disrespect
From what I've read after he abandoned them they were attacked by ottoman and british soldiers and eventually surrendered after a Syrian student assassinated their leader. They then vave their loot to the British (which included the Rosetta stone which is basically a big dictionary for pre-arab Egyptian hieroglyphs and is why we can read hieroglyphs) and the British repatriated them to France and the ottoman took control of Egypt again.
Nobody:
That town in France: *Nice*
10:17 Napoleon is crowned in Notre Dame. What happened to Notre Dame?
Imagine, gentlemen, Napoleon Bonaparte, head of the French army
in 1939!
I like, how in 18th century wars you could just walk in your emenies territory, take 3 cities and they would give up....
I feel like the strategy is to take the capital and then they would surrender
Well if you destroy their army and start pushing in then they dont wanna risk their whole nation getting overrun it happened in WW1 the Allies werent even occupying a fourth of Germany but the Germans surrendered because of the fresh American troops that came to the front and the destruction of their army in the fighting before the Americans came.
Either that or take out the governent officals over that country
u mean 19th century?
They feared Napoleon Bonaparte -_- and they had to replace there flag with there flag(Napoleon Bonaparte had to replace the country's flag that he was invaded with france's flag)
You did Napoleanic Wars before Oversimplifeid
.
.
.
.
.
.
*There's going to be Tax for that*
Bru
Αlso emperortigerstar is making a video about the napolenic wars
3 napoleon videos TO THE GUILLOTINE
Yes. Good.
Over simplified makes good videos as well
Oh NoooOoOo
"my enemies are many, my equals are none."
Right because no one messed up as poorly as Napoleon. Napoleon was NOT good for France and turned out to be an incompetent, disastrous leader. Napoleon left France occupied, defeated, and never able to recover from defeat. Under Napoleon, the enemy was fighting on French soil closing in on Paris. Napoleon got ripped-off by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase, costing France millions of dollars. Napoleon was responsible for some of the worst military disasters in history that caused the lives of millions of Frenchmen. Egypt/Syria was a disaster. Spain was a disaster. Russia was the worst disaster in military history. Leipzig was a disaster. Waterloo was a disaster. France had its problems before Napoleon, but it was still, by far, the most powerful army in Europe. Napoleon inherited a superb war machine from the most powerful state in Continental Europe. Many times Napoleon, with a powerful army that could out-gun the enemy, would just barely win through sheer numbers while being a colossal drain on his soldiers and country. To a large extent, his tactics were irrelevant, as Napoleon could field outrageous numbers of troops and guns who could suffer losses that were easily replaceable by France's vast population and military resources. Napoleon is even quoted as saying "You cannot defeat me, I spend 30 000 lives a month." This ineffective strategy of course was wrong, as it led to drain and defeat, and it was France that paid the price with their own dead. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that left France humiliated and cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a delusional madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about Napoleon's disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about how Napoleon got swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase, as Napoleon foolishly sells Louisiana territory 1,000 % under its value. Read about how Paris was occupied in 1814, and how France was tired of Napoleon, including Napoleon's own army. Don't let these biased historians who spin the facts make up your mind for you.
@@lsatep And its obviously because Napoleon was a bad leader that he beat 3 coalitions, help when he was general against 2 coalitions, won more than 50 battles and occupied a part of Europe ?
Vive Bonaparte !
Le Comte de Mirabeau he beat five coalitions and gave the sixth a damn run for their money
Gamer is Cool m7ray . He won near 60 battles. He revolutionised military tactics, using the corps system that was later copied by every one of his opponents. The Italian campaign he inherited an army of exhausted soldiers with low morale and no resources and yet managed to win 16/18 engagements. For Marengo, he crossed the alps. The battle of Austerlitz is the most complete win since agincourt. He took on multiple enemies of wealthy European monarchs and was able to dominate them for 15 years. During the sixth coalition (a war he eventually lost) he showed his military genius the most in the six day campaign with an army of 30,000 he defeated an army twice the size, 4 times in 6 days inflicting ten times as many casualties as he took. Even the men under him are legends in their own right Davout, Lannes, Murat and they all stem from Napoleon. But because he eventually was defeated (after 15 years of constant war from multiple powerful enemies) people like Isatep disregard everything else. No one else would have beaten 5 coalitions and countered this by expanding their own empire. I will spare you the essay on Bonaparte’s genius and wisdom in legal and educational reform as we are talking about military. So bear in mind some quotes from his enemies. Claustwitz “Napoleon is the god of war” Wellington (when asked who is the best general) “in past ages, this age, any age, Napoleon”. Tsar Alexander after Austerlitz “we are dwarfs in the hands of a giant”. Suvorov “how the young Bonaparte moves!” Also during the sixth coalition the allies agreed to not fight Napoleon but to attack his marshals where they could. They literally agreed amongst themselves it wasn’t worth taking on Napoleon directly because they would lose. Edit: Napoleon’s reforms are still used to this day even in the countries that beat him.
Fred Barker how many novels are you writing
sir, the world is joining against us, what are we to do?
Napoleon In Egypt: Hold my army
The Americans were always with you
@Alternate knight and allies again after quasi war
@@goes5114 Americans were calmed down by France after they captured hundred of their ships during the quasi war.
there is nothing we can do 😔
For those who wonder what happened to the remains of the French army in Egypt:
The fight continued after the departure of Napoleon under the direction of General Jean-Baptiste Kléber.
Kleber negotiates with the British an honourable evacuation convention in January 1800 but the Brits don't respect the deal. Kléber says to his soldiers : «One responds to such insolence only by victories; soldiers, get ready to fight »
In March 1800, Kleber beats 60 000 Ottomans in Heliopolis, he manages to take back again Cairo, but he is knifed by an Arab Syrian student living in Egypt in June 14, 1800.
In 1801, Egypt is lost. Part of the army is made prisoner.
Typical perfidious Albion... In fact, "Allies" were not English, Russians, Austrians, prussians etc... they were the equivalent of axis trying to impose their view and a new King dictature on France. At the notablous exception of Russia (and in second range Spain which is more complexe than a simple invasion), France was attacked by the so wrongly called Allies and it's their attacks/declaration of wars which permitted France to know an expansion.
That's not true. You're referring to the Convention of El Arish, which was a peace treaty signed by the French and Ottomans, but never the British. The month before, the British government had sent instructions to their commanders that there was to be no peace between France and the Ottomans which allowed the French army to return to Europe. Those instructions only reached the British commander Sidney Smith after the signing of the convention. He did the honourable thing and informed Kleber, and also told him that he was hopeful that the British government would agree to the peace. However, Kleber chose to break the terms of the convention by attacking the Ottomans.
When the British government learnt about the peace treaty, they did agree to abide by its terms. However, the French refused to allow the British envoy with details of this to be admitted to Alexandria because the conflict had started going well for the French.
So not perfidious Albion, but rather perfidious France in this case. In the Egyptian campaign they attacked the neutral country of Malta and their ally, the Ottoman Empire. They also broke the terms of their peace agreement. Meanwhile, the British agreed to follow the terms of the peace agreement that they weren't required to.
Thanks!
Ihmn
Ihmn
I would love if you'd also make a video for Simon Bolivar. His wars for independence of most South American countries was inspired by Napoleon
It is oddly satisfying to watch and to learn about history while a sick beat is in the background. Like Napoleon is about to release his mixtape "Anglais merde: Volume Deux" or something.
This is a very big and complicated period. Cheers for covering it!
Wait, who's in charge of France now? *Me!*
*Said Napoleon, trying to take over Europe*
YOU AGAIN?!
Bill wurtz.
@@HurricaneHunter03
Traitors. All of you!
YOUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!
If u dont get it it’s a Steven universe movie reference
Great video!
Phúc Mâp đẹp trai nhất Sài GÒn
noob
@@quynhnguyenthitruc9502 chào
Nice video
4:28 the nicest city in the world: Nice, France
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Very Nice
The background music on these videos are just way too good
Bro has ZERO comments
"La Garde meurt mais ne se rend pas!"
Mythic
so awesome
Napoleon is probably my second favourite historical person and I am extremely glad you made this excellent video. I’m excited to see the others soon.
Is your first hi**er?
alba animations No, it’s Octavian, but I assume that’s a joke.
@@theliberator5126 ya
Why did you not just say Hitler
@@ggtroll1365 Because he's mom was HECKING watching his GOSH DARN computer while he was typing. You MUFLLE-SNIFFER!
The rise of the baguette emperor. Although I like Kuzco as an emperor
Lol wtf 😂
@@googleaccount93 damn Son where u find that
when will you be the emperor of all korea my supreme leader?
Thanks for mentioning the reforms, which are overlooked by many
0:35 this has always puzzled me, what is that little country in the southeast of France? Surrounded by France.
Avignon, a part of the papal states
@@Titanicm1912 I learned this from EU4 lmao
@@Trome1200 I learnt it from Age of Civilisations 2
Random country no 5
Monaco
In your description, you call Napoleon "Emperor of France." He was "Emperor of the French." The former title implies France was his possession, like a king. It was still considered a republic, so he took a title with a popular connotation, not an absolute monarchist one
Son of Tiamat but he did crown himself emperor though
@@finnp.7170 True, just not Emperor of France. It's all semantics, I know, but still an important distinction
At the end of the day is the same thing, he gets the same power
Pato wololístico but it’s a big propaganda difference it’s like saying I’m not emperor of the country I’m emperor of the people
Holy shit, balsy move to march all the way to Vienna, knowing that many Austrian armies are lurking around. I'm starting to see why my father is a Napoleon fanatic. Can you imagine what his life was like? Moving from place to place to eventually change the face of the world where ever he goes. No one has this kind of power anymore nowadays.
8:35 when are people gonna stop assuming the alps are impassable, this lesson was learnt 2000 years ago
2000 years ago there wasn't any snow in the alps as the climate was pretty hot.
Im so glad this channel is gaining in popularity. It deserves it.
Switzerland seems to have failed to protect its armed neutrality, lol.
That was the last battle they fought
Edit: the last battle they fought outside of Switzerland
When it ends on a cliff hanger but u know what happens
....
I actually have some history with the town Genoa and french island of corsica. My last name came from Genoa and my dad's side of the family lived there until the 1830s to the 1850s my relatives from Genoa and corsica started imagrating to the US state of lousiana
Ah glad to see that you cover greatest human being and give him even three videos.
I found a frenchie
Finnish Wehraboo I’m British (arch rivals with France and Napoleon) and I’ve no doubt he’s one of the finest men who ever lived. Yes, he did a fair bit of evil. But unlike most dictators he was a reformer and creator of an exceptional level. Society laws religion schools the way they operate even today was put in place by Napoleon
That’s without mentioning his military genius
@@fredbarker9201 He was a demon
Archer Napoleon did more in ten years to reform the law than other dynasties in a thousand. He had seven wars declared against him (the first two against revolutionary France the next five against napoleonic france) and he started two wars himself. Do you know how many leaders have started 2 wars? Thousands in history. But how many leaders have an era named after them and even in defeat remain one of the most influential people of all time. His law code is used by over 40 countries, he reformed the law (meritocracy, freedom of religion, secular education, property rights, abolishing of feudalism) which other world leaders even come close? So why is he a demon? For wars he mostly didn’t start. Do you not blame William Pitt, George III, Alexander I, Francis II for repeatedly declaring coalitions? Do you even know who they are ?
Do you know Napoleon offered for peace to the European powers many times. They couldn’t stand the immigrant turned emperor who then put revolutionary ideals into law.
During the early 1800s you could rise through the ranks further under napoleonic law than anywhere else in Europe.
So again, why a demon? To the people of Haiti yes, but how could you point the finger to Napoleon about colonialism without also blaming half a dozen other states in Europe?
I saw someone else sum this up perfectly “Napoleon won wars so easily people think he was war hungry, when actually most of them were declared against him”.
France's allies : France
a human: moves
Royalist France: There is going to be a tax for that
I live in Republican France and it doesn't feel much different to be honest...
Not gunna lie, I feel like a basic white girl with pumpkin spice about this video, "yasss!"
8:15 should have used the flag of the russian empire
RadFTW no, it had an eagle on it.
That is the flag of the tsar.
@@TheDrumstickEmpire Yup
Russian Empire was black-yellow with white at bottom
Napoleon is one of the best emperors and commanders of all time.
@Herbert Chapman AFC Bullshits... 5 brit led european coalitions were defeated
Love the random trap drums lol never heard anything like it in a history video
Top Generals
1. Napoleon
2. Alexander the great(Greek)
3. Moltki of Prussia
4. Belisarius
5. Hannibal
Hannibal ensured that his country would become a Roman Vassal.
His victories never win him anything.
He is over-rated
Khalid ibn walid?
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 exactly! Scipio Africanus for the win! Also does arsenic taste good :) asking for a friend
@@justADeni
Rome was simply the superior power.
Carthage entered a war it was less-equiped to fight.
Not to mention any army Hannibal destroyed could simply be replaced by another
That the Roman's would raise in 6 months. 😁
@@justADeni
I'm convinced people only love Hannibal because he has a cool story.
Elephants crossing the Alps impressed people.
They overlook his failures during to this hypnotic imagery.
The background music work is outstanding
When you hear this accent you just know it's gonna be a good one, let's be honest. :D
Bruh, these beats and the knowledge you supply are a sincere gift for real. Thank you. Ive been watching many of your videos the last week and I have nothing but respect for you. TYVM good sir.
1804, best year ever for France, "Vive l'empereur!"
Please also make a video for:
1. History of India
2. History of Nepal
Napoleon was a genius and still is.
No! Suvorov and Kutuzov
@@АлександрМартыненко-п9г No cold and disease
4:18 napoleons army is nice, very nice.
His army is poorly fed and not paid, n i c e.
My army was CLEARLY Better cmon
It’s been a good minute. Great start to my morning. Thank you.
the background score creates a sense of mystery....simply amazing!!!
who came here after over simplified?
When the troops get mad when there at NICE lol
10:17 Napoleon is crowned in Notre Dame. What happened to Notre Dame? GIVE ME 1 MILLION LIKES LOVE MY COMMENT
It feels weird hearing about almost every European country trying to save france
Geo History = Like
Oversimplified = Comment
well I respect that because like is easy and Geohistory have little support if you compare them with Oversimplified beside comment is more hard
Oversimplified forever!!
ja
There's a tax for that !
"religion keeps the poor from eating the rich" - Napoleon
It's insane that France fought against all of Europe and still won
Laughs in german
Micahistory 2 that’s what makes Napoleon such a special person. My nation had to keep funding coalitions time and time again to defeat him. Between 1802-1807 he was invincible
@@rhc4719 yeah but france is still much more badass
@@fredbarker9201 yeah
@@rhc4719 Laughs in inauguration Brandenburg gate in Berlin by France Army as well as putting the Golden Quadriga on the Arc de Triomphe😂😂
At 2:40 Russia was not part of war of first coalition. Russia did not join the coalition UNTIL 1798
I think viscount is pronounced "vie/vy/vaai - count", just helping out.
Big blue blob
Wait, so napoleon's wins in the wars were mostly flanking the enemies. Did no one else think of that.
yes videogame developpers
@@CEDRICKB the master flank
Because flanking is fun.
That's the only way to win with so much fewer soldiers, France was always fighting at a massive disadvantage in numbers, winning for 30 years straight with less men and money than all the others combined is absolutely insane, religions were created around legendary stuff like this.
Great video as always. Can't wait for the next part!
The background music work is outstanding
🇨🇵💪🏼
Napoleon is the hero of my country.
(I'm not French.)
Are you polish ?
Kiss from france x)
@@googleaccount93 Poland ?
Corsica ?
Italia?
Herbert Chapman AFC they have no civil reforms tho I respect them as military leawwws of my nation (although I prefer Marlborough) but there’s no wellingtonoic code that changed Europe’s rights for man
We all know Napoleon is always Average high
Fact: The PLC didn't exist in the french revolution, Poland was already partitioned three times.
Fact: It still existed, it ceased to exist in 1795. The French Revolution started in 1789 and ended in 1799.
What u on mate
war is hilarious, imagine someone wakes you up from sleep in 1789 and says you gotta march on Austria today
😂😂
Fun fact: Napoleon's family comes form Tuscany, so he's technically Italian
No, technically he was born in France and spent all his life in France so he is French.
Fun fact, every time there is a video on someone famous, you can find some nationalist prick who wants to get some glory from it for his own country lol.
@@synkaan2167 i said that the Bonaparte family is Italian
Nice video but Nelson Will be admiral in 1803
Glory to the Emperor!!
Gloire à Napoléon!!
I played nepolean war Andria game
If u play that u will know it
"Napoleon is summoned to replace the artillery commander who was injured."
More like a bunch of his friends realized they needed a minmaxing power gamer and he was the only party member who fit the bill. So they made him do it.
Same thing in 1799, he was the only "muscle" available for the coup.
Napoleon was originally from Greek later family migrate to corcica island then training in France military.
Proof?
@@williamsantos9471 There r many books in the market u can find the answer there. Also I have watch some videos about biography about Napoleon. I was shock to know that he was originally from Greek. The place where Alexander the great was born. Socrates and Aristotle too were born.
Do the Vietnam war
hey guys they r adding bees to minecraft
HoLy ShIt
bruhh
What happened to the soldiers left in Egypt by Napoleon ?
General Kleber was assassinated in 1800 in Egypt, and his remaining soldiers surrendered,ending in a costly victory for the Ottomans
fucking, I thought it was Geo-History in Russian. Yes I am from Russia. Rashka
POLISH LITHUANIAN COMMONWEALTH YOU ARE ALIVE!!!!!!!!!! only for a short time though....
I had been so much curious about Napoleon. You make this video now and thanks a lot for your work.
"Napoleon: A Life" by Andrew Roberts is one of the best books about him (in English at least). This video is very good with the throughline of the history, but if you want the details, that is where I recommend looking.
@@Arbiter099 Thanks a lot.
The British only fought with bows and currently only fight on sea because they shit themselves at
the prospect of having to fight anyone directly (like men); no wonder the modern-day British default war strategy consists of hiding their island, keeping a strong navy to prevent anyone from landing there so as to avoid having to fight anyone directly and, the most important part, BEG the United States (Britain's historic boyfriend), to please come save them. That's why they've made so much of the battle of Trafalgar when, in real-life, it had a little practical immediate effect and Napoleon barely sighed when receiving the news. But the British keep celebrating that victory because fighting on sea is all they can do, whenever they fight at land they get their sorry asses kicked even against "inferior" enemies such as Elphinstone's army in Afghanistan, Isandlwana, the American revolutionary war, Dunkirk, the Jews at Palestine, the Dutch at Medway (after which the British lost their fleet which meant their island was open to invasion after which they panicked and surrendered ending the war rather than fighting like men), Buenos Aires (twice), Majuba (against the Boers, where a bunch of Boer farmers and boys defeated professional British soldiers killing 285 British and capturing 59 while losing only 1 Boer and ending the Boer War in one stroke) and Singapore, among many many others; and the only victories they've had have been by surprise attacks (such as the batte of the River Plate), ambushes (just like they did at the battle of Jutland or Cape Matapan) or by using overwhelming numbers (like they did with the Bismark: in the first encounter two German ships, including the Bismarck, fought against three British ships which included the most powerful British ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, known as "the pride of the Royal Navy", the Bismarck alone defeated the three British ships and easily destroyed the HMS Prince of Wales, after which the British fled and only came back in overwhelming numbers, sending 12 ships against the Bismarck; this situation also happened in the naval battles of Narvik in World War II when the Royal Navy attacked the German warships off Narvik, when the Germans counterattacked the British quickly fled losing almost half of its ships, but the Royal Navy would only come back with overwhelming numbers: twice as many ships the Germans had, then and only then would they "avenge" their defeat at Narvik), that0s why the British can could never fight on equal numbers, they're only brave at sea and only with overwhelming numbers on their side. That's why in Corunna they used their favorite tactic: be defeated and escape by sea (the same one used in Dunkirk). Also, they have no problem whatsoever betraying their allies if it furthers its interests such as when they bombarded Copenhagen even though Denmark was not at war with Britain (they did this to destroy the Danish fleet so Napoleon couldn't use it just in case Napoleon conquered Denmark, or when the French surrendered in World War II and the British demanded the French hand over all of their ships to them (they were terrifyied that that Hitler could use them to invade Britain) and when the French refused the British immediatly forgot about their ertswhile "allies" and attacked the French fleet by surprise at Mers-el Kebir or when they betrayed the Portuguese (their oldest allies with whom they'd maintained an alliance treaty since 1386) by sending them an ultimatum in 1890 demanding them to evacuate some of their African colonies and once they did they quickly moved to occupy those areas just so the Britsh could have a continuous land connection between South Africa and Egypt or during the Seven Years War: the British always seek a powerful ally with a powerful land army (as the British are too cowardly to fight like men) to protect them and fight for them and the United States didn't exist yet so they tricked Prussia into joining them and paid the Prussians to fight on the continent in their place but as soon as the British attained their goals in the other theaters of the war they immediatly forgot about their Prussian "allies" and suddenly stopped the cash flow to Prussia and abandoned them just at the height of the war, leaving the Prussians to their own devices to fight alone against France, Austria and Russia, almost resulting in the destruction of Prussia, something every country in Europe took note of; or in Norway during World War II where the British arrived to assist the Norwegians against the Germans but fled after several humilliating defeats by numerically inferior German forces, in this case the British fled in secret leaving their Norwegian "allies" behind and without telling them they were going to flee. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British were at their worst, paying others to fight for them, causing the Emperor of Austria to say "The English are flesh traffickers, they fight others to fight in their place", while Napoleon said the British were "a people of cowardly marine merchants".
Here's a tiny selection of the countless British defeats:
Afghans
6-13 January 1842 - retreat from Kabul - entire British army captured or killed (17,000 KIA)
3 September 1879 - Kabul ...again
27 July 1880 - Maiwand - 900-1,000 British/Indian troops killed
By Mahdist
March 13, 1884 - January 26, 1885 Siege of Khartoum - 7,000 force lost to Mahdis
February 4, 1884 First Battle of El Teb
Chinese
4 September 1839 Battle of Kowloon - defensive victory
June 24-26, 1859 Second Battle of Taku Forts
Russians
Petropavlovsk - British landing repelled
Battle of the Great Redan - British failure while the French do succeed in taking the Malakoff
Balaclava - British lancers and hussars of the light brigade annihilated.
Taganrog - failure of the Anglo-French contingent to take Taganrog
Siege of Kars - Anglo Turkish force fails to take Kars
Zulus
Isandlwanna - an entire column wiped out. 1,400 killed
Intombe - supply convoy wiped out. 104 dead
Hlobane - No. 4 column wiped out. 225 killed
Bulgarians
Battle of Kosturino 1915
Battle of Doiran 1916
Battle of Doiran 1917
Battle of Doiran 1918
Boers (In this battles the Boers who crushed the British and won the war were just farmers and teenage Boer boys against professional British soldiers)
Schuinshoogte - 69 British killed against 8 Boer killed
Laing's Nek - 84 British killed and 2 captured against 14 Boer killed
Majuba Hill - 92 British killed (including the commander, a general) and 59 captured against 1 Boer killed
Argentinians
2 April 1982 - Invasion of the Falklands - 100+ Marines and sailors captured
3 April 1982 - Argentinians seize Leith Harbor. 22 Royal Marine POWs
10 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Sheffield
22 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Ardent
23 May 1982 - Battle of Seal Cove
24 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Antelope
25 May 1982 - SS Atlantic Conveyor sunk by Argentinians
25 May 1982 - HMS Coventry is sunk by Arg. aircraft.
29 May 1982 - Mount Kent Battle - 5 SAS dead in friendly fire incident.
6-7 June 1982 - British paratroops vacate position under pressure, leaving radio codes
8 June 1982 - Bluff Cove Air Attacks
10 June 1982 - Skirmish at Many Branch Point - capture of the SAS contingent.
Ghurka victories
January 1814 - Battle of Makwanpur Gadhi - British army kept at bay
January 1814 - Battle of Jitgadh - British attack repulsed with 300 KIA
Spring 1814 - Battle of Hariharpur Gadhi - British Indian army stymied.
November 1814 - Battle of Nalapani - British force decimated with 700+ casualties
December, 1814 - Battle of Jaithak - 53rd Div. defeated and repelled.
Dutch
16 August 1652 - Battle of Plymouth - De Ruyter's triumph
30 November 1652 - Battle of Dungeness - Dutch gain control of the English Channel
4 March 1653 - Battle of Leghorn - 5 ships captured or sunk
2 August 1665 - Battle of Vågen
1-4 June 1666 - Four Days' Battle - 10 ships lost with upwards of 4,500 killed and wounded
2-5 September 1666 - Burning of London
9-14 June 1667 - Raid on Medway - Dutch raid, ends with loss of 13 English ships
28 May 1672 - Battle of Solebay
7 -14 June 1673 - Battle of Schooneveld
August 21, 1673 - Battle of Texel
Others
- by the Albanians (the 78th Regiment of Foot at Rosetta),
- by the Americans (at Cowpens, in 1813 at Thames, and in 1815 at New Orleans),
- by the Poles (in 1810 at Fuengirola),
- by the native Indians (at Monongahela),
- by the Egyptians (1807 at El-Hamad or Hamaad)
- by Native Americans at the first Roanoake Island Colony where they defeated the English colonists who had then had to be rescued by Francis Drake, fleeing by sea (the usual British tactic of fleeing by sea)
Among many, many, others.
isn't it interesting that the most ambitious leader is usually come from rural area. like Hitler and Stalin.
A. F. Alhaz because there their parents punished them severely
Ajaccio wasn't really rural.
The craziest ones too. Napoleon was NOT a military genius, and his greatness is a lie proffered by French and British historians. Geniuses do not die in prison, isolated, defeated and full of regrets like Napoleon. Geniuses don’t leave their countries occupied, defeated, and never able to recover the way Napoleon left France. Geniuses don’t turn a complicated situation like war with Britain, and make it even more complicated by waging war with everyone. A real genius takes the complicated and makes it simple. Napoleon did the complete opposite. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a crazy madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about the military disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about Napoleon getting swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase. Read about how Paris was occupied for the first time in 500 years because of Napoleon, and France was tired of Napoleon. Don't let these historians make up your mind for you.
@@lsatep First of all, Napoleon was a noble. So I don't know what you are talking about when you say that he came from a rural area as he would've been a peasant.
I know about his failures, but your argument that a genius doesn't leave his country occupied, doesn't die in prison is too general and rigid. Let's take his idol, Julius Caesar. Let's see, Caesar lead the strongest state of its time when there was no such thing as a coalition between superpowers(which weren't even that many). But I can say now that a genius doesn't let himself assassinated(but I don't because it's stupid). The period Napoleon lived in is pretty unique. The ideology change imposed by the French Revolution was a huge threat for all the absolutist monarchies of Europe(plus Britain who just hated French). Now, let's get to Napoleon. Oh, he blundered many times. He was a sexist egomaniac(claiming that women are machines for making babies). Although it is true that many of the reforms of his Civil Codes are still used today(proof that he was lucid enough), the sexist part which makes women dependent upon men is absolutely repulsive and disgusting. He was insanely lucky in his career and blundered many times(still 53-7 is an astonishing result which makes pretty clear his military capabilities). But that doesn't mean he didn't leave something behind. I think France recovered pretty well after Napoleon, as we can see today. His legacy consists of the lucid reforms he made(like equality before the law) and the taste he left behind to citizens for freedom. France didn't seem to be sick of Napoleon since another Bonaparte came to power in 1848(through vote), after the revolution. he had the entire Europe against him, so you have to look at the circumstances. It was much easier for Alexander the Great to conquer the world in the third century BCE than it would be for Napoleon in the modern world where the powers are established. The French Revolution would've been really a big boulder on anyone's back, if it wasn't for Napoleon to lead France, but another person. He actually brought stability in a crazy period for the french people.
The problem is that we either demonize or canonize somebody, instead of offering a real picture. Americans think that their Founding Fathers were some kind of Saints, that Rockefeller was a demon(he did a lot of bad things, but he did a lot of good things too), and there are many other examples.
@Gangsta Macc Yeah, but the difference is that Hitler couldn't beat the Russian tanks, and Tsar Alexander had to retreat due to the overwhelming size of Napoleon's army.
FRANCH 🇫🇷 MORDA BAD PAKISTAN ARMY ZINDABAD 🇵🇰
I’ve been craving a good explanation on the napoleonic wars. Thank you!
Although I am a brit I feel sorry for napoleon
Who else feels the same?
@@jeansykes6446 me.
What about the army he left in egypt?
Dead by Ottoman
Damn, Napoleon was such a good general
Won 47 of my 60 Battles.
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 that's why you're the best one
Napoleon Bonaparte l'Empreur de la Francois so what’s with that video saying Bonaparte has 56 wins
@@fredbarker9201
That video is wrong.
Historian Andrew Robert's found Napoleon won 47 of his 60 battles.
That's the actual statistic.
Napoleon Bonaparte l'Empreur de la Francois I’ve recently bought a book called Napoleon’s sixty battles from Toulon to Waterloo. Should be a good one!
Napoleon kinda reminds me of that pig from animal farm also called Napoleon
FINNALY YOUR BACK
In 1791 Europe was a mess
Amazing Video, Impressive representation, perfectly Oversimplified but I had to mute the music(Yeah only read the subtitles).
I loved it, and I respect your decision of you making your videos as you please, but I think even some 19th-century military drums would have made better background music (given the context and topic being discussed on the video), this is just my opinion, Amazing video man!.
why did the austrian netherlands (belgium/netherlands) exist?
La france 🇫🇷