A Brit reviewing a Corsican Frenchman providing the expected conclusion. Just an ordinary guy who folded when he came up against a 'proper' (British) army.
@@brianwolle2509 Waterloo was only won when Wellington gave Napoleon battle, at Waterloo, because he trusted Blucher to bring his Prussian army to join him. Blucher took the risk of staying, in Belgium, to fight because he trusted Wellington to stand and fight at Waterloo. He could have been destroyed if Wellington had broken and fled. Wellington could have been destroyed if Blucher hadn't kept his word to join him at Waterloo. It was a joint effort by the British and Prussian armies.. Also the Dutch and German troops that fought under Wellington. It wasn't a proper British army. It was a multinational effort following the battle plan of a great British general.
The de Medici branded the Palazzo Vecchio, when they converted it from the the seat of government of the Florentine Republic, the palace of the de Medici duchy.
I agree. The Professor is right that the Royal Navy was perfectly capable of destroying an invasion fleet. But strange turns of fate can change history. Imagine if a freak storm devastated the main British fleet, however by chance, the pre-Trafalgar French-Spanish fleet escapes the worst of that storm.
As a Brit, I agree. I've read that Washington's military skills are over-rated. Maybe true. But that single decision to leave office after two terms was an act of supreme heroism. An act far more important than pretty much any military victory. Without it, the history of the USA and the world might be far darker.
@@tawektawek3838 thank you. I love the Brits! You guys have some fantastic military leaders yourself like Admiral Horatio Nelson and Duke of Wellington.
Ear a British talk about looted arts and artefacts and how bad it is it's a bit ridiculous 🙄 ..Napoleon stole from Europe the British Empire from the whole world 🌎
He could have invaded Britain if Nelson was not a genius. who crippled the French fleet. France did win a major strategic naval victory to blockade British forces at Yorktown. That defeat led to the independence of the US. It was probably the greatest defeat of the Royal Navy. If Nelson was not a genius or if he got unlucky, the French fleet would have been able to land enough troops to defeat Britain. The danger was real. Nelson was a historic hero and deserves his acclaim. If Nelson commanded the British fleet during the American Revolution, he may well have defeated the French fleet and Britain would have won the Battle of Yorktown.
Battle of Chesapeake Bay in 1781 would never have been a victory for the French fleet under Admiral de Grasse, if Admirals George Rodney or Richard Howe were on the scene. 9-12 April 1782 Admiral George Rodney defeated Admiral de Grasse at the Battle of the Saints and subsequently captured. With the naval victories at Ushant 1 December 1781 and the Saints 9-12 April and defeat of Spanish and French at the Great Siege Gibraltar 24 June 1779 - 7 February 1783. Britain could negotiate with French, Spanish and Dutch from a place of strength. Also when General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown on the 19 October 1781, there were three garrisons in North America remaining, one in New York, Quebec and Halifax, Nova Scotia.
fine but try not to ask him about strategy and tactics... old nap was miles ahead of his opponents... defeated in 1814 only because it was decided that if napoleon was on the field, break off contact. only attack if he is not there.
Wellington sniffed out the weaknesses in the revolutionary tactical system developed by the French in the 1790s, and used by Boney. As he said before going to Spain in 1808, "If all I hear about their system is true, I think it a false one against steady troops." He thereafter won every battle he fought against them.
Brian ...... You do realise that you said "Napolean was miles ahead in tactics" and followed this with he was only defeated by the TACTIC of avoiding direct engagement if he was actually on the Field. In other words your "tactical genius" was defeated because of one simple tactic ? Make it make sense ! 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
@@nuttygeezer708appropriate comment given your screen name. GB was the most resolute opponent of Napoleon. Its naval power smashed him at Trafalgar and his attempted continental system against against GB brought him back into conflict with Russia. The Coalitions were also dependent on British financial support and it was of course the world leading industrial capitalist power of the age.
@@nuttygeezer708 Maybe in terms on men on the field. But no Britain as the lynchpin of the coalitions meant no money subsidies and no gifts of materiel to help the Allies get those armies in the field. And no Britain meant no Continental System to catalyse the Franco-Russian rupture in 1810-11. And no Britain meant no Spanish ulcer to sap French men and resources that could have been deployed otherwise in the final campaigns. Anyhow, you're welcome!
@@sloths-df3gf lol. I enjoy posts that talk up my country... However, it's better to think of the defeat of the Corsican dictator as a combined effort of many countries. For example, Wellington won Waterloo, but it was also Blucher's victory, and Wellington's army was a mini United Nations. In the same way, the defeat of all other would be European hegemons was a team effort.
I have heard this English "scholar" before. A few things; he is not unbiased and ultimately he is English and therefore not objective. He is espousing a traditional view of Napoleon that frankly is getting boring and fits neatly into the English stereotype.
In history, no one is completely unbiased. If we want to be a little less biased ourselves, we need to be willing to learn from many people with different and competing biases.
Bonaparte set up the laws, Code Napoleon, which apply to all equally no race or section is lesser under the law. He left a legacy of public works and did not destroy cities
This is bodatious! got here from Times Radio channel promo. Keep it comin' Times Radio History
James Hanson holds these talks together very well.
A Brit reviewing a Corsican Frenchman providing the expected conclusion. Just an ordinary guy who folded when he came up against a 'proper' (British) army.
ha! so correct an assessment
He was an awful human
@@brianwolle2509
Waterloo was only won when Wellington gave Napoleon battle, at Waterloo, because he trusted Blucher to bring his Prussian army to join him. Blucher took the risk of staying, in Belgium, to fight because he trusted Wellington to stand and fight at Waterloo. He could have been destroyed if Wellington had broken and fled. Wellington could have been destroyed if Blucher hadn't kept his word to join him at Waterloo.
It was a joint effort by the British and Prussian armies.. Also the Dutch and German troops that fought under Wellington. It wasn't a proper British army. It was a multinational effort following the battle plan of a great British general.
The de Medici branded the Palazzo Vecchio, when they converted it from the the seat of government of the Florentine Republic, the palace of the de Medici duchy.
I remember reading a description of him that called him a "military genius and moral midget". Overly simplistic, but there is some truth in there.
2:48 Not all great republican generals overthrow the republic.
well he hypothetically could have invaded the uk. unlikely but not totally out of the realm of possibility.
I agree.
The Professor is right that the Royal Navy was perfectly capable of destroying an invasion fleet.
But strange turns of fate can change history. Imagine if a freak storm devastated the main British fleet, however by chance, the pre-Trafalgar French-Spanish fleet escapes the worst of that storm.
As an American, I much prefer George Washington. Preserved the republic and left office after two terms. No Waterloo for him!
As a Brit, I agree.
I've read that Washington's military skills are over-rated. Maybe true. But that single decision to leave office after two terms was an act of supreme heroism. An act far more important than pretty much any military victory.
Without it, the history of the USA and the world might be far darker.
@@tawektawek3838 thank you. I love the Brits! You guys have some fantastic military leaders yourself like Admiral Horatio Nelson and Duke of Wellington.
Ear a British talk about looted arts and artefacts and how bad it is it's a bit ridiculous 🙄 ..Napoleon stole from Europe the British Empire from the whole world 🌎
On that note, why are the pyramids in Egypt ? Because, they where too big to be moved to the British Museum.
@@michaelmoorrees3585 there are mummies and Egyptian artefacts in the Louvre as well
Looting and pillaging happened to make a few men rich, but not on a scale to fund a country, let alone an empire.
Thomas Jefferson was a zealous supporter of the French Revolution but ultimately concluded Napoleon was a military tyrant
If that's a statue of Napoleon completely naked
He had a nastier accident than the Austrian chap who james said wasn't a Womble
Do we all think about Napoleon, though? Sure that isn’t more of a French & British thing?
He could have invaded Britain if Nelson was not a genius. who crippled the French fleet. France did win a major strategic naval victory to blockade British forces at Yorktown. That defeat led to the independence of the US. It was probably the greatest defeat of the Royal Navy. If Nelson was not a genius or if he got unlucky, the French fleet would have been able to land enough troops to defeat Britain. The danger was real. Nelson was a historic hero and deserves his acclaim. If Nelson commanded the British fleet during the American Revolution, he may well have defeated the French fleet and Britain would have won the Battle of Yorktown.
Battle of Chesapeake Bay in 1781 would never have been a victory for the French fleet under Admiral de Grasse, if Admirals George Rodney or Richard Howe were on the scene. 9-12 April 1782 Admiral George Rodney defeated Admiral de Grasse at the Battle of the Saints and subsequently captured. With the naval victories at Ushant 1 December 1781 and the Saints 9-12 April and defeat of Spanish and French at the Great Siege Gibraltar 24 June 1779 - 7 February 1783. Britain could negotiate with French, Spanish and Dutch from a place of strength. Also when General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown on the 19 October 1781, there were three garrisons in North America remaining, one in New York, Quebec and Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Did Napoleon do any good?
fine but try not to ask him about strategy and tactics... old nap was miles ahead of his opponents... defeated in 1814 only because it was decided that if napoleon was on the field, break off contact. only attack if he is not there.
The phenomenon began in Germany in 1813 with the Trachenberg Plan.
Wellington sniffed out the weaknesses in the revolutionary tactical system developed by the French in the 1790s, and used by Boney. As he said before going to Spain in 1808, "If all I hear about their system is true, I think it a false one against steady troops." He thereafter won every battle he fought against them.
Brian ...... You do realise that you said "Napolean was miles ahead in tactics" and followed this with he was only defeated by the TACTIC of avoiding direct engagement if he was actually on the Field. In other words your "tactical genius" was defeated because of one simple tactic ? Make it make sense ! 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
200 years later brits still couldn’t forgive this great man for all that fear he gave them
On behalf of my countrymen here in Old England, I accept your thanks for Britain's leading role in saving the world from the Corsican ogre.
@@sloths-df3gf Russia was the main contributor to the end of the First French Empire and Austria second
@@nuttygeezer708appropriate comment given your screen name. GB was the most resolute opponent of Napoleon. Its naval power smashed him at Trafalgar and his attempted continental system against against GB brought him back into conflict with Russia. The Coalitions were also dependent on British financial support and it was of course the world leading industrial capitalist power of the age.
@@nuttygeezer708 Maybe in terms on men on the field. But no Britain as the lynchpin of the coalitions meant no money subsidies and no gifts of materiel to help the Allies get those armies in the field. And no Britain meant no Continental System to catalyse the Franco-Russian rupture in 1810-11. And no Britain meant no Spanish ulcer to sap French men and resources that could have been deployed otherwise in the final campaigns. Anyhow, you're welcome!
@@sloths-df3gf lol. I enjoy posts that talk up my country...
However, it's better to think of the defeat of the Corsican dictator as a combined effort of many countries. For example, Wellington won Waterloo, but it was also Blucher's victory, and Wellington's army was a mini United Nations.
In the same way, the defeat of all other would be European hegemons was a team effort.
I have heard this English "scholar" before. A few things; he is not unbiased and ultimately he is English and therefore not objective. He is espousing a traditional view of Napoleon that frankly is getting boring and fits neatly into the English stereotype.
On behalf of my countrymen here in Old England, I accept your thanks for Britain's leading role in saving the world from the Corsican ogre.
Well mybe we see things in him that French people refuse to see?
No, the English are just naturally biggotted and broken by their antiquated class system. The English, as they say, are bred for the yoke.
In history, no one is completely unbiased.
If we want to be a little less biased ourselves, we need to be willing to learn from many people with different and competing biases.
Bonaparte was a manifestation of self proclaimed importance. The similarities between Bonaparte and Hitler are remarkable.
Ridiculous
I agree. (And you are going to get hated for daring to say it).
@@ryanprosper88 Explain why?
Bonaparte set up the laws, Code Napoleon, which apply to all equally no race or section is lesser under the law. He left a legacy of public works and did not destroy cities
No they are not. Please study both.
Clickbait..