@@1932denise No pretty much true, Once Wellington had been made over all commander of all Portuguese and Spanish forces and with about 60,000 British troops (Having finally been properly reinforced) he was actually a big threat to France and managed to push the French out of Spain in the Vitoria campaign in something like 6 months, Wellingtons army was also the first to set foot on French soil. Whether he was "the worst enemy" is debatable but he has a decently impressive record in battle but a not so great one with sieges.
Prior to Waterloo , in India he fought 7 battles 2 in Karnataka 5 in Maharashtra. He won all 7 . 1 was with Tipu Sultan rest with Marathas. Most of his. Soldiers were Indians. Almost everywhere the East India company forces were less in number. So that’s the genius of his army management. Incidentally Tipu was trained by the French. In Mumbai we have a Pier , water fountain & erstwhile traffic island (circle) named after him.
Thank you so much Sir for this information. Could you please recommend any book that can give a detail account of Arthur Wellesley's stay & work in India?
@@niranjanarunkshirsagar I may do a video on him. Will share with you. Research is on currently. No definitive book on his adventures in India. Incidentally he was a colonel and later on Major General in India. Only in Spain / Portugal he became head of the forces. His last battle was at Waterloo Belgium where he defeated Napoleon. But he always said the battle of Assaye (Jalna district) was his best battle. He faught against combined armies of Shindes (forefathers of Our aviation minister) and Bhosles of Nagpur.
I understand he lost his first battle, and it would have ended his career but that his brother was Viceroy - or Governor. Always a good idea to have an elder brother in High Places.
@@LordOfLighthe mismanaged an engagement at the beginning of the Battle of Sultanpet Tope, sending too few men to take the woods outside Seringapatam. However he then attacked with a stronger force and took the woods with no casualties
Unarguably a case of what we would now label PTSD. Much has been made by his detractors (and Napoleon-romantics) of comments he made at the conclusion of the battle and shortly thereafter. Wellington’s mental and emotional state at the time, should be taken into account. To cite Moran’s classic “Anatomy of Courage”, every man has his limits when placed under too great a stress for too long. Wellington endured as long as necessary, suffered the consequent reaction and recovered, although there is little doubt that he carried a burden for the rest of his life. We should be thankful for him and men like him.
'The worst thing next to a battle lost is a battle won' 'I would not like again to see such battle even when accompanied by such a gain' Wellington, the only undefeated general of the Napoleonic wars. Genius
I do believe french marschal Davout was also undefeated - at least for the period of Napoleonic wars. Nonetheless, Wellington was very skilled and competent commander, that's for sure.
@@Filip-uo2sq The French were known to be a great army, the British were known to be a great navy and great traders. They were not known for a great army. Even in India because of huge profits from trade they would try to buy out the princely states with money rather than fighting them. Even whose kingdoms were annexed they would give them pension. Duke of Wellington while won many battles in India is also known creating infrastructure and some kind of welfare system for troops under him. For record Fiedovoisky battle was lost under Davout while retreating from Russia. But he won more battles in a year than Wellington might have faught in his life.
Amazing the think that the Duke would go on to be Prime Minister under Queen Victoria. The two eras, from Waterloo to the Victorian age seem so far removed from one another. Even though it was only a few decades.
Broke him is over statement. He was 46 when this battle happened. He fought wars in India from 1794 till Waterloo in 1815. 21 years of continuous battles are enough for anyone. Also in that era life expectancy was low so by the age of 46 he must have been an old man.
@@AjitJoshi686 The low life expectancy of that era had mostly to do with childhood mortality, especially in early childhood. If you made it to, say, the age of eight, you could reasonably hope to live to your sixties, seventies or longer, especially if you were decently well-off. Just as now, a man of 46 was considered middle-aged. But I agree that Wellington was hardly broken. No broken man becomes prime minister, surely.
These days we would call it PTSD. An imaginative man, under the most intense pressure for far too long and bearing the grief of losing so many men - so many friends - at least partially as the result of orders he had given. As we now know, PTSD is not always crippling and is not non-recoverable, but it is a burden.
Excellent delivery and fantastic in depth knowledge . Please excuse my ignorance but does any one her know who the gentle man is in this video . Kind regards
PTSD it certainly was, but I’d not so easily denigrate Wellington’s achievement, given what it cost him. He was a soldier and knew the risks. He faced them and achieved his objectives. That is “winning” by any standard.
1:00 - Initially I thought Wellington couldn't see the Prussian attack beginning at 4;30 pm, but I read an account of an artillery officer of a KGL battery on the summit of Mont St.Jean hill, and he claimed he could see the Prussian attack in action, from his high vantage point. So I'm sure Wellington knew when the Prussians began their breakout plan. 3:40 - 50,000 is the number of total casualties - dead and wounded - the number of dead was around 10,000. 4:55 - I recall one of his staff officers wrote about meeting Wellington late at night after the battle - he mentioned momentarily seeing Wellington remove his shirt and noticing a huge dark bruise mark on one of his arms.
Wellington was actually always well informed about the Prussian troop movements, also through couriers. The only important thing for him was when the Prussians would arrive. But if you could see the Prussian marching at 4:30 p.m., so that was at 7:30 p.m. even possible for the French who were storming the hill! Napoleon lied to them beforehand that it was Grouchy's troops who were coming to reinforce them, but when the French soldiers saw that the Prussians suddenly came close to them on the side and from behind, it is understandable that they panicked and fled.
@@raka522 Yes, I agree - by messengers between the two Allied armies they were aware somewhat moment by moment when the Prussian attack was going to hit, and when and where it did hit in the arranged plan to strike at Plancenoit, which from Muffling's account, was pre-set overnight of June 17/18th. The Prussians as you know started their attack from the Paris Woods at 4:30 pm, with no great advantage at that point, against Lobau's Corps, and for the next 90 minutes had to steamroll forward with growing numbers, for over a mile against a fighting retreat, before preparing their first attack on Plancenoit. Lobau was more or less ready for Bulow's entrance into the battle at 4:30 pm. The overlooked and very interesting side story to this episode of the battle, was the bakery fire at Wavre which delayed the Prussian link with Wellington for at least an hour. If this fire had not occurred, the Prussians would have been spotted earlier. This means Napoleon would have likely had a completely different strategy in order to preserve his army. When the Prussians arrived, Napoleon had already over-committed his two strongest infantry divisions and Kellermann's cavalry corps. Indeed, Napoleon's lie to his troops made the disintegration of the French army, more '*emphatic*.
A few pieces of misinformation in this lecture - 1. "Wellington was unaware that the Prussians had been attacking Napoleon for some hours on the French right flank". (paraphrased). And yet, Professor Clarke, quite rightly, reminds us how small the battlefield was (compare it to the field of Austerlitz, where a similar number of troops fought - it's six times the size of Waterloo!!). Does he think Wellington wouldn't have seen the smoke from the guns and muskets firing, away to his distant left - as well as burning houses in the village of Plancenoit - rising from that side of the battlefield? (It's true that he wouldn't have HEARD it, through the cacophony of noise all around him, on the other hand). Or French troops being diverted from the forces lined up in front of him to meet the threat to Bonaparte's right flank? EXTREMELY unlikely. 2. "He spent little time around Blucher, due to the language barrier". Nonsense. They spoke together in French - knowledge of which they had in common. They were just too busy with their respective armies to settle down to a rubber of gin rummy together. 3. "That's what soldiers do...". Sure. Especially when they're still "flying" on an adrenalin rush. 4. Hougoumont had other defenders besides the British Guards. Perhaps they're not worth a mention, as they're not British? Still - could have been longer.
Regarding point 2: Blücher did not speak any French except for very few words. His father was only a captain in the Prussian army and Blücher's schooling was actually very simple
@@raka522 Blucher was quite elderly by the time Waterloo came along and had been fighting Frenchmen for two decades. I don't know where you get your information from, but if you're suggesting that he hadn't picked up enough of the French language in all that time, to be able to hold a limited conversation with the Duke when they briefly met, I think you are insulting his intelligence. If their meetings were brief it's not surprising, since they had a great deal to be getting on with; but to suggest they were short encounters because they couldn't understand one another strikes me as verging on the ridiculous. "Eeeh, mon cher Marechal - comme je suis content de vous rencontrer et de savoir que vous ayez arrive aussitot sur le champ de bataille!!" "Aaaah, Wellington!! La plume de ma tante!!"
@@technodemic6258 You can google this information anywhere, or just read it, like me, from Blucher’s memoir. 😉 This has nothing at all to do with Blucher’s intelligence. There was simply no reason for him to learn French at all, just as little as Russian, although he also commanded Russian troops for years. It was completely sufficient if anyone on his staff could speak French in order to be able to wage war against Napoleon.
@@raka522 Kindly supply the original text from the memoir of which you write. Obviously he had interpreters for several languages on his staff. However - if he was devoid of any French - why did Wellington address him in that language (common knowledge) instead of using an interpreter who would have translated from English into German for them both? I rest my case.
@@technodemic6258 The meeting between Wellington and Blucher was also rather casual. Both had enough other things to do instead of exchanging ideas extensively, and so it was just a short "hello", for which Blücher's French was enough. At the age of 16, Blücher joined the Swedish army in Rügen as a hussar, was taken prisoner in a battle, and was then taken over into the Prussian army in an exchange with a Swedish officer because a close relative campaigned for it. His schooling was really very poor. He could not even write German without errors, but wrote as he heard and understood the words.
My GGG grandfather was an 18 year old Prussian fighting on the side of the English in this battle. He survived and ended up migrating to South Australia when he was 60 plus years of age. The trip in those days took many months and was often quite horrendous with many deaths during the voyage It was very unusual for people of that age to risk such a journey He married again but had a hard life struggling through drought and many hardships on the land dying in his 80’s
Anglo - Karnataka wars (total 4 Anglo Karnataka wars , aka Anglo Mysore wars) , Mysuru army VS the British (+ madras regiment) + Marathas + nizams + Travancore kingdom Arthur Wellesley lost one battle in this
Only Irish Prime Minister he protected the Irish but when he got older the English exported all the food out of the country to feed there higher income earning industrial revolutional high protein hungry population, leaving the Irish to starve and blame it on a potato fungus! The fungus never effected eggs lamb beef wheat barley pork butter milk! And pushed masses of people out of the country to America, Canada and Australia maybe for the best! Then we inhabited these country's bred up built infrastructure and now are taxed!
Even if many would now like me to go to Hell, but without the Germans Waterloo could not have been won. it was Germans who defended La Haye Saint until they ran out of ammunition. (of 400 KGL soldiers there only 42 survived) There were many thousands of Hanoverians, Brunswickers, and Nassauers under Wellington's command who defended the hill, and it was German Prussians who brought victory ...
@@upthebracket26 He was! The 1. prussian Corps under the command of General von Ziethen fought against the french on Wellingtons left Flank bevor the old Guard startet their Attack against Allies...
@@raka522 No he wasn't, he was 3 hours late as the lead elements arrived at about 4.pm but where not in full strength till 7.pm but he was meant to have started arriving at 1.pm according to the Plans, The Prussian army was also concentrated in the East of Wellington so they arrived on Wellingtons left flank not right flank. To Bluchers credit he attacked Plancenoit before he was really in sufficient force to do so in an attempt to draw French forces away from the main battle but doesn't change the fact he was still late...
Wellington was the greatest general ever until his time whereas Napoleon was just the greatest butcher until his time.French glory was buried at Waterloo and British one was born at the same place
Wellington never fought directly against Napoleon before, and in Waterloo he achieved nothing more than to withstand this from a good defensive position with an army of about the same strength as his enemy, until the Prussians came and brought victory ...
.In 1940 after the battle of England Churchill said:"Never was so much owed by so many to few". Queen Victoria could have said the same thing at Wellington funeral in 1852.A total domination on the world until 1918 with a cost of 446 deads at Trafalgar and 1600 at Waterloo.In this interval Napoleon's ambition drove 1 million young french to death for a 10 years' empire.After Waterloo France was smaller than before 1792.Wellington like Nelson were the perfect examples of pragmatism and professionnalism.They were soldiers and not butchers.Blood for the country but not for personal ambition
too bad we always hear much about military strategy and tactics, and about "the men of note", and so little about logistics, the troops, their needs, their whereabouts after the battle, the destiny of the dead and dying, about the defeated, about the warm meal that never came, about the poor maimed horses who were truly innocent victims... as an archaeologist I am kind of tired of the "history of the grand deeds", and would strongly support and welcome a narrative that would underline such other very individual, personal, particular, random, casual, unexpected and idiosyncratic aspects (and I am not only thinking about military history)
I was fortunate to have a brilliant history teacher at school, who taught us not only about the "grand deeds" but about the people involved, always highlighting the fact that these people were not some kind of mythical creatures, but human beings with strengths, frailties, and faults just like anyone else.
This is an account of Wellington at Waterloo. No one made you watch, yet you did your bit to reinforce the dominance of the sort of narrative you say you deplore by watching. The algorithm also counts your leaving a comment as support, and will now recommend this to more people. If you really care about what you say you do, dig around for such material and come back to offer titles, links, etc.
If you really wanted the kind of narrative that you claim, you’d be reading the diaries and reminiscences of the officers - and some common soldiers - who served under Wellington. They do exist. The memoirs of Rifleman Edward Costello of the 95th are available in ebook form. Horses, of course, tend not to leave diaries or record famous last words.
Very underrated comment ....... You were 72 years , and still had the strength to command your army , you made an orderly retreat from ligny where u almost died , you pinned down grouchy' 's corps, you Went from wavre to waterloo to help ...... and only the british guy get some crédits Life's not fair 😞
the Big advantage for Wellington was the fact that uk is an island so for Napoléon it's much more hard and Wellington just look at the others armies fighting Napoléon and learn from their mistakes and After so many batailles. Wellington Comes in belgium near England with all uk gallions for escape fast if the allies don't defeat Napoléon
@@red-onecpasmoijetaitentrai3400 Ummm, what? what? what? :) - As a note you understand Wellington is an army commander? The fact the UK is an Island is actually fairly unhelpful as a disproportionate amount of British manpower went into the navy... I'm not really sure why you think thats an advantage particularly :S Wellington suffered really all the way up to Vitoria with being under strength. Gallions hadn't been a thing for about a century, at Waterloo Wellington had only 25,000 British troops and 6,000 KGL, also you don't really load an army fast into ships at Corunna it took days and that was a smaller army, the fleet also has to be there when you are which again at Corunna they where not.
No it wasn't, For a start Blucher failed to hold 68,000 French with an army of 84,000 for even 4.5 hours at Ligney while 68,000 anglo-allied held 72,000 French for 5.5 hours before Blucher even started to arrive at Waterloo. Once the Prussians did arrive they fought a single Corps and the young guard and a few independent units which was less then 14,000 French, the Anglo-allied army was still holding the bulk of the French army off while the Prussians who massively outnumbered there enemies eventually overwhelmed them. To suggest Wellington could have won without Blucher is nonsense, it is equal nonsense to suggest Blucher would have won without Wellington so it's more accurate to say it was an allied victory, giving all the credit to one or the other is an equally retarded preposition.
@@Delogros You're confusing everything. All I'm talking about is the Battle of Waterloo. Theoretically, Napoleon against Wellington without the reinforcements of Blücher or Grouchy. At 6:30 p.m. Wellington was beaten. The French had taken the artillery from the English and turned the guns against them. Marshal Ney did not get the reinforcements to complete the final crushing of English squares because the reinforcements were fighting the Prussians. It was Blucher who fought the best in this entire campaign.
@@TheTemplier24 Not entirely correct but lets assume it is for arguments sake, if Blucher hadn't agreed to come to the battle Wellington would never have fought here in the first place, Similarly Wellingtons army was unlikely to be crushed he had chosen the battlefield so he could withdraw/retreat if he had to do so and he had positioned 2 Fresh divisions a mile and a half North of his position and 16,000 men would make a perfectly fine rear guard versus the by that point exhausted French. So If Blucher doesn't come the most likely outcomes are Wellington doesn't fight in the first place or Wellington inflicts more casualties then he sustains but is forced to give up the field and retreat along his lines of communication and towards friendly forces coming from the north, hardly a crushing defeat.
@@Delogros You can't compare Ligny to Waterloo. In Ligny both parties fought on the same territory, while in Waterloo the Allies fought from a good defensive position ... And also in Ligny Napoleon was forced to use his old guard to force another victory.
@@Delogros Yes, one agrees with a few exceptions. Wellington can't inflict more casualties in his position by retreating. Then, given the late hour and the exhaustion of the French troops, a pursuit of Wellington was very unlikely. If it had happened like that, nothing would have been decided. There were still a lot of troops scattered on each side. Wellington took a great deal of credit when he commanded very few British troops. He owes his victories to the Spaniards, to the Portuguese. He did not dare to claim that he had won the battle of Toulouse (1814) against Soult, but he never did anything to deny it.
Professor Michael Clarke. I love your accent. In the USA there is a Yankee nasal twang. Today in England many breathe and pause a lot . "Day" sounds like "Daii" The UK should put out 2 to 3 videos on UA-cam as "the Model or Perfect English accent."
*Why do they lie?, IT WAS NOT A TRIUMPH FOR Wellington, it was the triumph of Marshal Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher, because without him, Wellington would have been defeated by Napoleon, PLEASE DON'T LIE ANYMORE.*
The lie would be claiming that it was not a coalition effort and a coalition victory. Blucher’s Prussians faced Napoleon without the Anglo-Dutch forces at Ligney and were forced to retreat. Had Wellington and his men not performed superbly, Blucher’s arrival would have been too late and he would have been facing Napoleon on his own.
@@erikdb8917 No Wellington on the battlefield and Blucher no Victory either dumb ass, or did you forget he already lost to Napoleon despite outnumbering him by 16,000 men at Ligny?
@@erikdb8917 Blucher, the man who managed to loose 38,000 men and 360 guns to Frances 3,800 despite having an army twice as large as Napoleons in the 6 day campaign... *slow clap* Glad that towering military genius turned up (over 3 hours late mind) and then struggled to dislodge a French force of less then 14,000 men with his 50,000.
Both were great military commanders, one at sea the other on land, and neither could have swapped places. Weather either was the Greatest is a matter of conjecture.
Comparing these two is just so idiotic, both were most excellent strategists and commanders but one fought and led on land and the other on sea. Please do not say one is better than the other haha.
The truth is that Wellington and Blucher had agreed that both would stand to the end and that each would if possible go to the others aid. Without that agreement and great faith in each other, neither would have stood.
@@jamiengo2343 Blucher if anything won because of ligny...He held the french off till nearly the end, sent 4th corp in and fell back, realizing it wasnt worth it...The Prussians fell back orderly to link with wellington...Prussia played the most important role, by wearing the french down
@@jamiengo2343 Blucher often fought against Napoleon. Sometimes he lost, sometimes he won. Wellington fought Napoleon once and did not win. He even prepared his retreat before the Prussians arrived ;-) Wellington's strengths were defensive warfare, and that is not one with which you can win wars ...
Wellington was a genius of defensive battles. In the battle of Belle-Alliance, which the Brits call "Waterloo", he never informed his generals about his plans. Had he been killed, I probably would speak French now. Wellington was also one of the most arrogant military commanders in history. He called his own troops "scum". Not talking to Blücher was definitely not a language problem but a lack of respect to the Prussians.
As far as Wellington's arrogance is concerned, one can agree. He seems like a typical British snob :-) But the danger that you would speak French now was never real. In addition to the troops of the Russians, Austrians and some other countries approaching France, there was still an even larger and better army in Prussia, apart from those involved in Waterloo.
@@raka522 The danger was real. A part of today's Germany were French departements until the battle of Belle-Alliance. E.g. the states of Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate. Napoleons plan was beating the Prussians, the Northern Germans, the Brits and the people from the Netherlandsin what he called The battle of Mont-Saint-Jean. He hoped that this defeat would break the moral of the other Allies.
@@resi8507 Napoleon's plan failed completely in the battle of Ligny against the Prussians. His first war goal was to fight the Allies and the Prussians separately, and to destroy one of the opposing armies and ´to take it out of the game´. He did not succeed in doing exactly that when the Prussians had withdrawn in a relatively orderly manner after the fight and the French were too exhausted from the fight to be able to follow them. The fact that Napoleon even included in his plans a defeat of the opposing troops at Waterloo would break their morale, only shows how aloof his assessments were meanwhile from reality. In the battles of 1813/14, there were frequent tactical retreats by Prussian troops when a battle could no longer be won, and this did not have a particularly significant effect on the good morale of the common soldier. Only Napoleon's recent appearance on the world grandstand made it all too clear to all the nations involved that there would never be peace and quiet in Europe as long as he was somehow still in power, and in the end it even went so far that the Prussian soldiers even had the command of Napoleon either to be captured or to be shot directly ...
An excellent, insightful and surprisingly emotional account of the Duke after Waterloo.
WELLINGTON
MY WORST ENEMY
Lol
Hehehe
in your dreams yes !
@@1932denise No pretty much true, Once Wellington had been made over all commander of all Portuguese and Spanish forces and with about 60,000 British troops (Having finally been properly reinforced) he was actually a big threat to France and managed to push the French out of Spain in the Vitoria campaign in something like 6 months, Wellingtons army was also the first to set foot on French soil.
Whether he was "the worst enemy" is debatable but he has a decently impressive record in battle but a not so great one with sieges.
@@Delogros little general not a great commander en soldier !
Prior to Waterloo , in India he fought 7 battles 2 in Karnataka 5 in Maharashtra. He won all 7 . 1 was with Tipu Sultan rest with Marathas. Most of his. Soldiers were Indians. Almost everywhere the East India company forces were less in number. So that’s the genius of his army management. Incidentally Tipu was trained by the French. In Mumbai we have a Pier , water fountain & erstwhile traffic island (circle) named after him.
Thank you so much Sir for this information. Could you please recommend any book that can give a detail account of Arthur Wellesley's stay & work in India?
@@niranjanarunkshirsagar I may do a video on him. Will share with you. Research is on currently. No definitive book on his adventures in India. Incidentally he was a colonel and later on Major General in India. Only in Spain / Portugal he became head of the forces. His last battle was at Waterloo Belgium where he defeated Napoleon. But he always said the battle of Assaye (Jalna district) was his best battle. He faught against combined armies of Shindes (forefathers of Our aviation minister) and Bhosles of Nagpur.
I understand he lost his first battle, and it would have ended his career but that his brother was Viceroy - or Governor. Always a good idea to have an elder brother in High Places.
@@LordOfLight That's correct. He also left India once his brother left.
@@LordOfLighthe mismanaged an engagement at the beginning of the Battle of Sultanpet Tope, sending too few men to take the woods outside Seringapatam. However he then attacked with a stronger force and took the woods with no casualties
Unarguably a case of what we would now label PTSD. Much has been made by his detractors (and Napoleon-romantics) of comments he made at the conclusion of the battle and shortly thereafter. Wellington’s mental and emotional state at the time, should be taken into account.
To cite Moran’s classic “Anatomy of Courage”, every man has his limits when placed under too great a stress for too long. Wellington endured as long as necessary, suffered the consequent reaction and recovered, although there is little doubt that he carried a burden for the rest of his life.
We should be thankful for him and men like him.
'The worst thing next to a battle lost is a battle won' 'I would not like again to see such battle even when accompanied by such a gain' Wellington, the only undefeated general of the Napoleonic wars. Genius
Even in India he avoided all out wars as much as possible. He fought 7 crazy battles.
I do believe french marschal Davout was also undefeated - at least for the period of Napoleonic wars. Nonetheless, Wellington was very skilled and competent commander, that's for sure.
@@Filip-uo2sq The French were known to be a great army, the British were known to be a great navy and great traders. They were not known for a great army. Even in India because of huge profits from trade they would try to buy out the princely states with money rather than fighting them. Even whose kingdoms were annexed they would give them pension. Duke of Wellington while won many battles in India is also known creating infrastructure and some kind of welfare system for troops under him. For record Fiedovoisky battle was lost under Davout while retreating from Russia. But he won more battles in a year than Wellington might have faught in his life.
What a fantastic commander he was. My total hero.
Amazing the think that the Duke would go on to be Prime Minister under Queen Victoria. The two eras, from Waterloo to the Victorian age seem so far removed from one another. Even though it was only a few decades.
A Man like no other, an Officer like no other, The Very Very Best
Brilliantly delivered description of something I’d never given much thought to - the aftermath. Bravo.
A very interesting insight into the man and very well told. Thank you!
I suddenly feel so much pity for that great man.
An amazing discourse on Waterloo’s aftermath. Apart from Wellington’s famous saying, I had never heard of most of these details before.
A Three cheers for Arthur Wellesley, The Duke of Wellington.
Perhaps the greatest British military commander in history...
Marlbrouk?
also nelson
??????????? lord nelson and duke of marlborough the greatest ! not wellington poor leader.
Wellington was a fantastic general.
@@1932denise Sure, I meant Land commander.
Thank you. A great insight into the battle and the role of Wellington. and what for him would have been a very emotional day.
God bless The Duke of Wellington. Fantastic video.
I give you Three cheers for His Grace The Duke of Wellington.
I am so great.
He defeated Napoleon, but Waterloo broke him...never knew that...
Broke him is over statement. He was 46 when this battle happened. He fought wars in India from 1794 till Waterloo in 1815. 21 years of continuous battles are enough for anyone. Also in that era life expectancy was low so by the age of 46 he must have been an old man.
@@AjitJoshi686 The low life expectancy of that era had mostly to do with childhood mortality, especially in early childhood. If you made it to, say, the age of eight, you could reasonably hope to live to your sixties, seventies or longer, especially if you were decently well-off. Just as now, a man of 46 was considered middle-aged.
But I agree that Wellington was hardly broken. No broken man becomes prime minister, surely.
These days we would call it PTSD.
An imaginative man, under the most intense pressure for far too long and bearing the grief of losing so many men - so many friends - at least partially as the result of orders he had given.
As we now know, PTSD is not always crippling and is not non-recoverable, but it is a burden.
I'm glad he defeated him!
Excellent delivery and fantastic in depth knowledge . Please excuse my ignorance but does any one her know who the gentle man is in this video . Kind regards
Professor Michael Clarke
My favorite General.
hannibal barca is one of my favs
I am his decentant , his grandmother was a Ussher and my mother is also
Ussher is a name in his family?
@@Joe_Friday his grandmother ! Thomas Ussher his relation who took Nepoleon to his new island home after Waterloo!
@@shonnicholascrotty6532 Have you invaded france yet?
Just waiting for the Chinese to Show!
Wellington and Blucher's victory, actually.
Bravo!
🏰👑⚔️🍾🥂🍻
No.
@@LoyalandTrue. Are you saying that Napoleon won?
@@glenirwin1110 Of course not. That would be treason.
Excellent presentation. Thank you.
Thanks for an excellent presentation 😁👌👌👌👌👏👏👏👏👏
Music in the beginning was by Beethoven
Brilliant! Thank you. Informative and moving.
Moving account of the human being behind Wellington's military mastery.
I never thought I would feel such sympathy for a man I dismissed as uncaring.
My dear ancestor! Proud to be a Colley.
Yes - he was of the Colley/O'Colla clan.
I think the surname was changed to inherit an estate.
Congrats!
Bravo to The Battle of Waterloo in 1815.
It’s called post traumatic stress disorder these days, used to be called shell shock. There are no winners.
PTSD it certainly was, but I’d not so easily denigrate Wellington’s achievement, given what it cost him.
He was a soldier and knew the risks. He faced them and achieved his objectives. That is “winning” by any standard.
A great man. Perhaps one of the greatest.
1:00 - Initially I thought Wellington couldn't see the Prussian attack beginning at 4;30 pm, but I read an account of an artillery officer of a KGL battery on the summit of Mont St.Jean hill, and he claimed he could see the Prussian attack in action, from his high vantage point. So I'm sure Wellington knew when the Prussians began their breakout plan.
3:40 - 50,000 is the number of total casualties - dead and wounded - the number of dead was around 10,000.
4:55 - I recall one of his staff officers wrote about meeting Wellington late at night after the battle - he mentioned momentarily seeing Wellington remove his shirt and noticing a huge dark bruise mark on one of his arms.
Wellington was actually always well informed about the Prussian troop movements, also through couriers. The only important thing for him was when the Prussians would arrive.
But if you could see the Prussian marching at 4:30 p.m., so that was at 7:30 p.m. even possible for the French who were storming the hill!
Napoleon lied to them beforehand that it was Grouchy's troops who were coming to reinforce them, but when the French soldiers saw that the Prussians suddenly came close to them on the side and from behind, it is understandable that they panicked and fled.
@@raka522 Yes, I agree - by messengers between the two Allied armies they were aware somewhat moment by moment when the Prussian attack was going to hit, and when and where it did hit in the arranged plan to strike at Plancenoit, which from Muffling's account, was pre-set overnight of June 17/18th.
The Prussians as you know started their attack from the Paris Woods at 4:30 pm, with no great advantage at that point, against Lobau's Corps, and for the next 90 minutes had to steamroll forward with growing numbers, for over a mile against a fighting retreat, before preparing their first attack on Plancenoit.
Lobau was more or less ready for Bulow's entrance into the battle at 4:30 pm.
The overlooked and very interesting side story to this episode of the battle, was the bakery fire at Wavre which delayed the Prussian link with Wellington for at least an hour. If this fire had not occurred, the Prussians would have been spotted earlier. This means Napoleon would have likely had a completely different strategy in order to preserve his army.
When the Prussians arrived, Napoleon had already over-committed his two strongest infantry divisions and Kellermann's cavalry corps.
Indeed, Napoleon's lie to his troops made the disintegration of the French army, more '*emphatic*.
Nice work!
wonderful
That was really interesting, thank you 👍🏼
A few pieces of misinformation in this lecture -
1. "Wellington was unaware that the Prussians had been attacking Napoleon for some hours on the French right flank". (paraphrased). And yet, Professor Clarke, quite rightly, reminds us how small the battlefield was (compare it to the field of Austerlitz, where a similar number of troops fought - it's six times the size of Waterloo!!). Does he think Wellington wouldn't have seen the smoke from the guns and muskets firing, away to his distant left - as well as burning houses in the village of Plancenoit - rising from that side of the battlefield? (It's true that he wouldn't have HEARD it, through the cacophony of noise all around him, on the other hand). Or French troops being diverted from the forces lined up in front of him to meet the threat to Bonaparte's right flank? EXTREMELY unlikely.
2. "He spent little time around Blucher, due to the language barrier". Nonsense. They spoke together in French - knowledge of which they had in common. They were just too busy with their respective armies to settle down to a rubber of gin rummy together.
3. "That's what soldiers do...". Sure. Especially when they're still "flying" on an adrenalin rush.
4. Hougoumont had other defenders besides the British Guards. Perhaps they're not worth a mention, as they're not British?
Still - could have been longer.
Regarding point 2: Blücher did not speak any French except for very few words.
His father was only a captain in the Prussian army and Blücher's schooling was actually very simple
@@raka522 Blucher was quite elderly by the time Waterloo came along and had been fighting Frenchmen for two decades. I don't know where you get your information from, but if you're suggesting that he hadn't picked up enough of the French language in all that time, to be able to hold a limited conversation with the Duke when they briefly met, I think you are insulting his intelligence.
If their meetings were brief it's not surprising, since they had a great deal to be getting on with; but to suggest they were short encounters because they couldn't understand one another strikes me as verging on the ridiculous.
"Eeeh, mon cher Marechal - comme je suis content de vous rencontrer et de savoir que vous ayez arrive aussitot sur le champ de bataille!!"
"Aaaah, Wellington!! La plume de ma tante!!"
@@technodemic6258 You can google this information anywhere, or just read it, like me, from Blucher’s memoir. 😉
This has nothing at all to do with Blucher’s intelligence.
There was simply no reason for him to learn French at all, just as little as Russian, although he also commanded Russian troops for years.
It was completely sufficient if anyone on his staff could speak French in order to be able to wage war against Napoleon.
@@raka522 Kindly supply the original text from the memoir of which you write.
Obviously he had interpreters for several languages on his staff. However - if he was devoid of any French - why did Wellington address him in that language (common knowledge) instead of using an interpreter who would have translated from English into German for them both?
I rest my case.
@@technodemic6258 The meeting between Wellington and Blucher was also rather casual.
Both had enough other things to do instead of exchanging ideas extensively, and so it was just a short "hello", for which Blücher's French was enough.
At the age of 16, Blücher joined the Swedish army in Rügen as a hussar, was taken prisoner in a battle, and was then taken over into the Prussian army in an exchange with a Swedish officer because a close relative campaigned for it.
His schooling was really very poor. He could not even write German without errors, but wrote as he heard and understood the words.
My GGG grandfather was an 18 year old Prussian fighting on the side of the English in this battle.
He survived and ended up migrating to South Australia when he was 60 plus years of age.
The trip in those days took many months and was often quite horrendous with many deaths during the voyage
It was very unusual for people of that age to risk such a journey
He married again but had a hard life struggling through drought and many hardships on the land dying in his 80’s
A wonderfully human dimension, thanks for this, from someone fresh from the static grandeur of Apsley House
Superb, thank you.
Never really liked Duke but I gotta respect that he won waterloo😁
Anglo - Karnataka wars (total 4 Anglo Karnataka wars , aka Anglo Mysore wars) ,
Mysuru army VS the British (+ madras regiment) + Marathas + nizams + Travancore kingdom
Arthur Wellesley lost one battle in this
Wellington was actually Irish.
Only Irish Prime Minister he protected the Irish but when he got older the English exported all the food out of the country to feed there higher income earning industrial revolutional high protein hungry population, leaving the Irish to starve and blame it on a potato fungus! The fungus never effected eggs lamb beef wheat barley pork butter milk! And pushed masses of people out of the country to America, Canada and Australia maybe for the best! Then we inhabited these country's bred up built infrastructure and now are taxed!
The original faily name was O'Colla - Colley.
The surname changed to inherit an estate.
The man who defeated Napoleon!!
+Thiago ~The Man who defeated the genius, Napoleon.
blucher defeatead napoleon !
no blucher no victory for wellington !
wellington little english leader
Wellington is the one who won, he stood there at all that field and refused to surrender.
Sir.
The Prussians are here.
great general!
respect 👍
although he can’t catch me till the coronation 😂
read Col Shovel he dined with him
Now Maitland!
Nows Your Time!
Fire!
I think the day was saved by the Prussians ie Germans
Even if many would now like me to go to Hell, but without the Germans Waterloo could not have been won.
it was Germans who defended La Haye Saint until they ran out of ammunition. (of 400 KGL soldiers there only 42 survived)
There were many thousands of Hanoverians, Brunswickers, and Nassauers under Wellington's command who defended the hill, and it was German Prussians who brought victory ...
@@raka522 correct
Very little mention of Blücher and the Prussian contribution to Wellingtons victory.
Perhaps from the title you might be able to discern why?... :S Not every Wellington video has to be a love fest for Blucher, jez.
He should've arrived on time.
@@upthebracket26 He was! The 1. prussian Corps under the command of General von Ziethen fought against the french on Wellingtons left Flank bevor the old Guard startet their Attack against Allies...
english propaganda like always !
@@raka522 No he wasn't, he was 3 hours late as the lead elements arrived at about 4.pm but where not in full strength till 7.pm but he was meant to have started arriving at 1.pm according to the Plans, The Prussian army was also concentrated in the East of Wellington so they arrived on Wellingtons left flank not right flank. To Bluchers credit he attacked Plancenoit before he was really in sufficient force to do so in an attempt to draw French forces away from the main battle but doesn't change the fact he was still late...
Wellington was the greatest general ever until his time whereas Napoleon was just the greatest butcher until his time.French glory was buried at Waterloo and British one was born at the same place
I believe Alexander the great, was the greatest general ever. But I would say the Duke of Wellington was one of the great Generals. And I'm British 🇬🇧
Wellington never fought directly against Napoleon before, and in Waterloo he achieved nothing more than to withstand this from a good defensive position with an army of about the same strength as his enemy, until the Prussians came and brought victory ...
.In 1940 after the battle of England Churchill said:"Never was so much owed by so many to few".
Queen Victoria could have said the same thing at Wellington funeral in 1852.A total domination on the world until 1918 with a cost of 446 deads at Trafalgar and 1600 at Waterloo.In this interval Napoleon's ambition drove 1 million young french to death for a 10 years' empire.After Waterloo France was smaller than before 1792.Wellington like Nelson were the perfect examples of pragmatism and professionnalism.They were soldiers and not butchers.Blood for the country but not for personal ambition
he won by yelling.
too bad we always hear much about military strategy and tactics, and about "the men of note", and so little about logistics, the troops, their needs, their whereabouts after the battle, the destiny of the dead and dying, about the defeated, about the warm meal that never came, about the poor maimed horses who were truly innocent victims... as an archaeologist I am kind of tired of the "history of the grand deeds", and would strongly support and welcome a narrative that would underline such other very individual, personal, particular, random, casual, unexpected and idiosyncratic aspects (and I am not only thinking about military history)
Agreed.
I was fortunate to have a brilliant history teacher at school, who taught us not only about the "grand deeds" but about the people involved, always highlighting the fact that these people were not some kind of mythical creatures, but human beings with strengths, frailties, and faults just like anyone else.
This is an account of Wellington at Waterloo. No one made you watch, yet you did your bit to reinforce the dominance of the sort of narrative you say you deplore by watching. The algorithm also counts your leaving a comment as support, and will now recommend this to more people. If you really care about what you say you do, dig around for such material and come back to offer titles, links, etc.
If you really wanted the kind of narrative that you claim, you’d be reading the diaries and reminiscences of the officers - and some common soldiers - who served under Wellington. They do exist.
The memoirs of Rifleman Edward Costello of the 95th are available in ebook form.
Horses, of course, tend not to leave diaries or record famous last words.
Excellent!
One tough old boot.
He wins against french army.
HEY WHY DID YOU GIVE HIM ALL THE CREDITS?
Very underrated comment .......
You were 72 years , and still had the strength to command your army , you made an orderly retreat from ligny where u almost died , you pinned down grouchy' 's corps, you Went from wavre to waterloo to help ...... and only the british guy get some crédits
Life's not fair 😞
the Big advantage for Wellington was the fact that uk is an island so for Napoléon it's much more hard and Wellington just look at the others armies fighting Napoléon and learn from their mistakes and After so many batailles. Wellington Comes in belgium near England with all uk gallions for escape fast if the allies don't defeat Napoléon
ummm... What? :S
@@Delogros umm what? What?
@@red-onecpasmoijetaitentrai3400 Ummm, what? what? what? :) - As a note you understand Wellington is an army commander? The fact the UK is an Island is actually fairly unhelpful as a disproportionate amount of British manpower went into the navy... I'm not really sure why you think thats an advantage particularly :S Wellington suffered really all the way up to Vitoria with being under strength.
Gallions hadn't been a thing for about a century, at Waterloo Wellington had only 25,000 British troops and 6,000 KGL, also you don't really load an army fast into ships at Corunna it took days and that was a smaller army, the fleet also has to be there when you are which again at Corunna they where not.
I think that you made this point on a different video about Waterloo 🤔
He was my lover in my previous life
thank god the prussians saved us
Blucher was more important than Wellington.
Blucher was fighting Nappy while Wellington was partying in Brussels.
Your screen name adequately describes your commentary.
Blucher saved the day
Waterloo was won by Blucher, not Wellington.
No it wasn't, For a start Blucher failed to hold 68,000 French with an army of 84,000 for even 4.5 hours at Ligney while 68,000 anglo-allied held 72,000 French for 5.5 hours before Blucher even started to arrive at Waterloo. Once the Prussians did arrive they fought a single Corps and the young guard and a few independent units which was less then 14,000 French, the Anglo-allied army was still holding the bulk of the French army off while the Prussians who massively outnumbered there enemies eventually overwhelmed them.
To suggest Wellington could have won without Blucher is nonsense, it is equal nonsense to suggest Blucher would have won without Wellington so it's more accurate to say it was an allied victory, giving all the credit to one or the other is an equally retarded preposition.
@@Delogros You're confusing everything. All I'm talking about is the Battle of Waterloo. Theoretically, Napoleon against Wellington without the reinforcements of Blücher or Grouchy. At 6:30 p.m. Wellington was beaten. The French had taken the artillery from the English and turned the guns against them. Marshal Ney did not get the reinforcements to complete the final crushing of English squares because the reinforcements were fighting the Prussians. It was Blucher who fought the best in this entire campaign.
@@TheTemplier24 Not entirely correct but lets assume it is for arguments sake, if Blucher hadn't agreed to come to the battle Wellington would never have fought here in the first place, Similarly Wellingtons army was unlikely to be crushed he had chosen the battlefield so he could withdraw/retreat if he had to do so and he had positioned 2 Fresh divisions a mile and a half North of his position and 16,000 men would make a perfectly fine rear guard versus the by that point exhausted French. So If Blucher doesn't come the most likely outcomes are Wellington doesn't fight in the first place or Wellington inflicts more casualties then he sustains but is forced to give up the field and retreat along his lines of communication and towards friendly forces coming from the north, hardly a crushing defeat.
@@Delogros You can't compare Ligny to Waterloo. In Ligny both parties fought on the same territory, while in Waterloo the Allies fought from a good defensive position ...
And also in Ligny Napoleon was forced to use his old guard to force another victory.
@@Delogros Yes, one agrees with a few exceptions. Wellington can't inflict more casualties in his position by retreating. Then, given the late hour and the exhaustion of the French troops, a pursuit of Wellington was very unlikely. If it had happened like that, nothing would have been decided. There were still a lot of troops scattered on each side. Wellington took a great deal of credit when he commanded very few British troops. He owes his victories to the Spaniards, to the Portuguese. He did not dare to claim that he had won the battle of Toulouse (1814) against Soult, but he never did anything to deny it.
Professor Michael Clarke.
I love your accent.
In the USA there is a Yankee nasal twang.
Today in England many breathe and pause a lot . "Day" sounds like "Daii"
The UK should put out 2 to 3 videos on UA-cam as "the Model or Perfect English accent."
2 victory over Napoleon bono part.
Spian and waterlool
waterlool
*Why do they lie?, IT WAS NOT A TRIUMPH FOR Wellington, it was the triumph of Marshal Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher, because without him, Wellington would have been defeated by Napoleon, PLEASE DON'T LIE ANYMORE.*
The lie would be claiming that it was not a coalition effort and a coalition victory.
Blucher’s Prussians faced Napoleon without the Anglo-Dutch forces at Ligney and were forced to retreat.
Had Wellington and his men not performed superbly, Blucher’s arrival would have been too late and he would have been facing Napoleon on his own.
Vive l'Empereur
Any arrogant will fail and fall at some point!!!
Senza i prussiani si sarebbe leccato le ferite per anni!!!!
Blucher won the battle !
No, he didn't - That's like saying Davout Won the Battle of Austerlitz.
@@Delogros no blucher on the battlefield and Wellington no Victory !
The rest is propaganda !
@@erikdb8917 No Wellington on the battlefield and Blucher no Victory either dumb ass, or did you forget he already lost to Napoleon despite outnumbering him by 16,000 men at Ligny?
@@erikdb8917 Blucher, the man who managed to loose 38,000 men and 360 guns to Frances 3,800 despite having an army twice as large as Napoleons in the 6 day campaign... *slow clap* Glad that towering military genius turned up (over 3 hours late mind) and then struggled to dislodge a French force of less then 14,000 men with his 50,000.
Who won the Second World War?
His pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' is irritating.
lord nelson was a great commander ! not wellington
Both were great military commanders, one at sea the other on land, and neither could have swapped places. Weather either was the Greatest is a matter of conjecture.
Comparing these two is just so idiotic, both were most excellent strategists and commanders but one fought and led on land and the other on sea. Please do not say one is better than the other haha.
Shut up Rickie.
victory to blucher at mont~saint~jean ! the rest is english propaganda
18tangles also, Blucher lost at Ligny, Wellington gave him a chance to regain his reputation
The truth is that Wellington and Blucher had agreed that both would stand to the end and that each would if possible go to the others aid. Without that agreement and great faith in each other, neither would have stood.
@@jamiengo2343 Blucher if anything won because of ligny...He held the french off till nearly the end, sent 4th corp in and fell back, realizing it wasnt worth it...The Prussians fell back orderly to link with wellington...Prussia played the most important role, by wearing the french down
@@jamiengo2343 Blucher often fought against Napoleon. Sometimes he lost, sometimes he won.
Wellington fought Napoleon once and did not win.
He even prepared his retreat before the Prussians arrived ;-)
Wellington's strengths were defensive warfare, and that is not one with which you can win wars ...
Ra Ka won the Peninsula War well enough
A victory for the Sixth Coalition and defeat for humanity.
Wellington was a genius of defensive battles. In the battle of Belle-Alliance, which the Brits call "Waterloo", he never informed his generals about his plans. Had he been killed, I probably would speak French now. Wellington was also one of the most arrogant military commanders in history. He called his own troops "scum". Not talking to Blücher was definitely not a language problem but a lack of respect to the Prussians.
As far as Wellington's arrogance is concerned, one can agree. He seems like a typical British snob :-)
But the danger that you would speak French now was never real.
In addition to the troops of the Russians, Austrians and some other countries approaching France, there was still an even larger and better army in Prussia, apart from those involved in Waterloo.
@@raka522 The danger was real. A part of today's Germany were French departements until the battle of Belle-Alliance. E.g. the states of Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate. Napoleons plan was beating the Prussians, the Northern Germans, the Brits and the people from the Netherlandsin what he called The battle of Mont-Saint-Jean. He hoped that this defeat would break the moral of the other Allies.
@@resi8507 Napoleon's plan failed completely in the battle of Ligny against the Prussians.
His first war goal was to fight the Allies and the Prussians separately, and to destroy one of the opposing armies and ´to take it out of the game´.
He did not succeed in doing exactly that when the Prussians had withdrawn in a relatively orderly manner after the fight and the French were too exhausted from the fight to be able to follow them.
The fact that Napoleon even included in his plans a defeat of the opposing troops at Waterloo would break their morale, only shows how aloof his assessments were meanwhile from reality.
In the battles of 1813/14, there were frequent tactical retreats by Prussian troops when a battle could no longer be won, and this did not have a particularly significant effect on the good morale of the common soldier.
Only Napoleon's recent appearance on the world grandstand made it all too clear to all the nations involved that there would never be peace and quiet in Europe as long as he was somehow still in power, and in the end it even went so far that the Prussian soldiers even had the command of Napoleon either to be captured or to be shot directly ...
He was right. They were scum.
He was right. They were scum.