Understanding Napoleon | 5 Minute Video
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- He was the most famous man of his time - so much so that his name still defines his age. Born on an obscure island into humble circumstances, he rose to conquer a continent. Yet most today know little of him beyond their impression from popular caricature. His improbable story and its far-reaching consequences - both positive and negative - are the subject of this video from renowned historian and Napoleon scholar Andrew Roberts.
Donate today to PragerU! l.prageru.com/2...
To view the script, sources, quiz, visit www.prageru.co...
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! optin.mobiniti...
Do you shop on Amazon? Click smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: / prageru
Twitter: / prageru
Instagram: / prageru
SHOP!
Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! shop.prageru.com/
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: l.prageru.com/2...
JOIN our Educators Network! l.prageru.com/2...
Script:
Napoleon Bonaparte was the most famous man of the 19th century. At the peak of his power, he personally controlled more of the European continent than anyone since the great emperors of Rome.
Today, most people see him as an ambitious little man with an outsized ego. Others see him as a forerunner of the great aggressor of the twentieth century, Adolph Hitler.
This portrait is as flawed as it is unfair.
Napoleon Bonaparte was born on the 15th of August, 1769 on the Mediterranean island of Corsica. Ironically, the island, long connected to the city-state of Genoa, Italy, only became part of France the year before he was born. But for this twist of fate, Napoleon would never have been a French citizen, let alone its emperor. His parents sent him to the mainland at the age of nine where he studied to be a soldier. His facility in mathematics, organization, and map-reading marked him for future success.
The French Revolution, with its overworked guillotine, provided a unique opportunity for advancement-that is, for anyone who could keep his head (literally).
Napoleon did. He became a general by the age of twenty-four. At the age of twenty-six, he achieved a series of stunning victories in Italy against an Austrian army that had come to destroy the revolution and return the French royal family, the Bourbons, to the throne. These victories made him a national hero.
As shrewd a politician as he was a general, by the first month of the new century, at the tender age of 30, Napoleon was the undisputed leader of France. He crowned himself emperor on December 2, 1804, turning the French Republic into the French Empire with a Bonaparte line of succession. Napoleon’s establishment of a French empire only increased the fears of the royal houses of Europe and of France’s historical enemy, Britain.
As a result, in September 1805, Austria invaded Bavaria, a French ally, and Russia joined the attack. Napoleon and his Grande Armée roundly defeated them at the Battle of Austerlitz.
The Prussians were the next to test Napoleon, declaring war on him in 1806. The Austrians tried again in 1809. Napoleon didn’t start any of these wars, but he won them all.
When Russia broke an uneasy peace in 1812, Napoleon decided to invade. But this proved his undoing. His catastrophic winter retreat from Moscow cost him more than half a million casualties. The end came in June 1815 at the Battle of Waterloo, where the combined European armies, led by the Duke of Wellington, decisively defeated Napoleon’s forces. The battle could have gone either way. Wellington himself described it as “the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life.”
In all, Napoleon won 46 of the 60 battles he fought, drawing seven and losing seven. His record clearly marks him as one of the greatest military commanders of all time. Yet, while Napoleon is best remembered for his military exploits, it’s his political reforms-both inside and outside of France-that had the most lasting effect.
For the complete script, visit www.prageru.co...
It's funny to see a British historian talking positively about Napoleon.
The British have been fascinated by Napoleon even since he sat on the throne.
Because he is a deceiver, liar and for sure another freemason.
This video is a manipulation of THE TRUTH.
Very true, and immensly annoying; it really ought to constitute treason.
SuicidalProphets 92 I do agree with that, that might also have been partially the reason for why the british didn't execute Napoleon but instead banished him. The First time the British banished him, Napoleon was allowed to take a part of his military with him. (I thought this were around 1000 men.)
@@laurids2007 why do you think every great person is a fermason? and all the fermason person doing bad?
Believe it or not, but Napoléon did not start most of the wars he fought.
The war of the 3rd coalition was started by Britain who paid Austria and Russia to join them
The war of the 4th coalition was started by Britain, Russia, Prussia and Sweden
The war of the 5th coalition was started by Austria and Britain
The war of the 6th coalition was started by Austria, Russia, Britain, Prussia
The war of the 7th coalition was started by Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia
The peninsula war and the Russian campaign are the only to times where Napoleon was the aggressor.
Napoleon did start the wars that's like saying Poland started ww2
@@Wickedonezz Do you even read?
@@wheatvegas7286 clearly you don't know he betrayed both Spain and Russia
War of independence in Spain uwu
@@TheDirtysouthfan Read some history before commenting and cursing on the internet please. The Coalition Wars were indeed, for the most part, started by Britain, Austria and Prussia. That's not saying there were not tensions beforehand, but you are just saying your personal bias and not history.
When I was in middle school I too believed Napoleon was like Hitler, because my school only taught me about the wars he started and didn’t teach me anything about his accomplishments. Then, when I was in 9th grade I transferred to a different school and during that year I began to learn more about the French Revolution. And it was then that I learned that Napoleon WASN’T a psychopath like Hitler and whilst he was responsible for many wars, he was also responsible for many good things as well (it was also there that I learned he wasn’t short for his time). On top of the stuff mentioned in this video Napoleon also promoted freedom of religion, equality before the law for all men, and he promoted officers and government officials based on skill (rather than inheritance as had been done before) and more. And, as this video mentions, Napoleon wasn’t always the aggressor in the wars that he fought. I feel like WAY to many people are being compared to Hitler these days. Not only are most of the people who are compared to Hitler nothing like Hitler at all (Donald Trump for instance), but it’s also incredibly insulting to the millions of people who suffered and lost their lives or their loved ones lives at the hands of that vile man.
Your wisdom serves you well.
I found the same, at about the same age. By a different path. The class room history books were to general. Especially with my interest in military history. I needed details, and I did not trust who the books said started wars.
Napoleon was not like Hitler.
Rather, it was *Hitler that was like Napoléon.*
If there was no Napoleon, it is possible that there was no Hitler.
Well one of the best things to learn is that history is written by the victors. There is always more than one side to a historical event but you also must remember to focus on both sides. Napoleon was not a horrible man but his extreme absolutist believes paved the way for authoritarian. Does that mean he was evil? No. He did great things within France to further it’s success and he brought it at least briefly out of the turmoil of the French Revolution (after his rule France had a very unstable government for a while). He protected his country from unfair treatment but he also attacked countries a lot. Two sides of the same coin. He is no Hitler but he wasn’t a saint either. And I will state this one more time, just because he paved the way for authoritarianism through his form of militarized absolutism that doesn’t mean he was as evil as authoritarians.
I doubt many middle schoolers would even know who Napoleon was these days.
The real issue is why does everyone has to see history through the moral prism? it's not good or bad, it's history, let's just accept the nuanced facts about napoleon we should learn not judge
Best Quote from Napoleon Bonaparte
I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him.”
Such TRUTH
Sadly, a untold quote....
That is a TRUTH, and a statement of Humility, that gives more merit than all his victories.
are adolf hitlers camps compairable to slavery???
BECAUSE ASSPOLEON BONERFART FOUGHT HATI KEEP HATI ENSLAVED SO WHAT IS THAT COMPARING HIM TO HITLER?
AND HE LOST, MAKING HATI THE ONLY ENSLAVED AFRICANS TO FREE THEMSELVES, BUT NOOOOOOO WERE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT HIS WAR LOSS AND WHAT CAN BE DISPUTED AS THE MOST EMBARACING LOSS IN HISTORY WHEN HE WAS FIGHTING FOR *SLAVERY*. change my mind, it wont work but you can try.
@@stabby.dot.kittencharlie5075 Whether you change your mind or not, please consider this fact. Hitler's concentration camps killed six million people, in less than four years, just for being born Jewish, and that's not counting all the others killed in those camps for their religious or political beliefs. Did slavery in Haiti kill more than six million?
@@stabby.dot.kittencharlie5075 If you are going to condemn all those in history for slavery, then make your list long. And make sure to include Sub-Saharan Africans who enslaved rival tribes, and then sold them to North African Slavers, who then sold them to everyone else.
Edit: Also Slaves that were freed in America that went back to Africa (Liberia), and once there enslaved the local population!
Anyone have a source for this great quote?
Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte are my dad historical idols. When i was a child He used to tell me all their great achievements and narate to me their wars and deeds. I came to respect them a lot too and see them as most influential leaders through out all history.
flavione84 I actually kind of like Caligula, a lot of the “crazy” things he did were really to humiliate the senate, which he did in spades.
Is your father called Rodion Raskolnikov?
Looking to men who impose their will over others as idols is a great way to become a shitty person. Respecting their competence in achieving their goals and strength of will to see them through is one thing, but both of these men were driven by ambition and not character, which is dangerous and wrong. Far better to look up to figures who refused to let people be slapped around in the face of injustice than the figures who slapped people around unjustly.
@@SepticFuddy I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, but saying its a great way to become a shitty person means you are the shitty person.
What does that say about your idols?
Wow your dad clearly has a fantasy to overthrow democracy and crown himself divinely appointed emperor if those are his favorite historical humans
If Napoleon Bonaparte was alive today, he would've slapped Emmanuel Macron out of office and return France to its original glory.
Macron would have lost his head.
In other words, more war with those shopkeepers of England. Now like then, he would lose.
Really? Did you know Napoleon even took the decision of becoming Muslim while in Egypt?
Do you know why?
Go read about it.
Did you know about all crimes he perpetrated as a leader?
Go and research about it.
Did you know that he said he didn't see "'his life out of the battlefield and that he prefered to die than to live an idle life"?
Go and research about it.
Did you know that he ordered the poisoining of more than 10.000 soldiers once an epidemic of the pest started? Even healthy soldiers were killed.
Go and research about it.
Have you ever heard about all that he stole from Italy, very precious masterpieces, and brought them to France? Just like Hitler did.
Go and research about it.
Have you ever heard about the slaughter of more than 100.000 people he ordered? Children, elderly, men and women...all protesting against the communist revolutionary abuses of the jacobines...they had nothing to eat.
Napoleon was in command of all his soldiers and gave the order to kill all those innocents.
He was a rapist, a thief, a dictator, an enemy of Christians and freemason. He was an evil fruit of the revolution. That's Napoleon.
And Macron is also his son. They are not different at all.
This video is misleading everything to praise that demon.
@@laurids2007 Indeed. In the case of his becoming a Muslim, it was, of course, to try to get the Egyptians on side. Unsurprisingly, they were not fooled by Napoleon's patent insincerity and chose to side with those easy going protestansts, the English.
It would be horrible, Mark. This video is only half-correct when it says he didn't start the wars. He didn't DECLARE them, but he did start them. In 1802, when he was still a consul, he signed peace with Britain. He refused to follow his own rules and kept occupying Malta and invades Haiti. This started the Third Coalition after he killed a former Bourbon prince on dubious charges of assassinating him. And he captured the prince by Illegally entering another country.
The fourth coalition started after he occupied Hanover. Britain had a personal Union(AKA King George of England was Elector of Hanover) with it, so it and Prussia declared war. He then invaded Spain and Portugal, Portugal for following its own alliance with Britain and Spain just to install his brother. Then Austria invaded him for lands he took in the third coalition wars. He invaded Russia for trading with Britain, despite it being a sovereign state, and then the sixth coalition formed. He then lost, but got a principality and pension. Here was the only time he had a justification. France refused to pay or bring him his old or former wife(the later of whom, who he loved, died). He sailed to France, ruled, and lost 🇨🇭. That's what started all those wars. I'm not saying the others weren't to blame(they didn't respect Frances sovereignty when the revolution happened), but fighting fire with fire isn't good.
Summary: Napoleon was a mixed bag, like every human being.
As are all dictators.
He says that only because he aided the tribe. Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and Gaddafi got on the naughty list because they made an enemy of the tribe.
Euphoric Atheist who is “he”? The speaker in the video? Emsnews supkis? Me? Could you clarify?
@@jwil4286 The guy in the video.
@@euphoricatheist6694 Just speak clearly, the tribe is the Jews right? That's just blatantly clear though Rothschild bankrolled Britain into victory. Dennis Prager being a jew himself. I don't see how Stalin was an enemy of them though.
As Napoleon said two centuries ago: "China is a sleeping lion. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world."
It seems that he was right since she has woken up !
China has superabundance of humans (quantity) but really not that much quality, compared to USA and our strongest allies. I think if there is a war, China will lose. Western Judeo-Christian values are way stronger than socialist philosophy, and growing in many parts of the world. Communism constantly needs to steal ideas from capitalist countries to have real ‘progress’ and in large part China copy technology from the USA, these are some reasons of why I think USA and western allies have more hidden power than China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, North Korea (all combined), probably.
@@Albert_Riseal If China needs to copy technology from the U.S. to succeed, then why doesn't the U.S. have high speed rail or 5G??? You are wrong if you think the Chinese mentality is one of left wing socialism. The Communist Party at its core is an ultranationalist organisation dedicated to restoring China to what they perceive to be its rightful place in the world. China as a political entity predates Judeo Christian values and it has been richer than the West in the golden ages of the Tang and Han dynasties.
@@jean-xf9mv "Chinese trains are actually French technology"
Stopped reading immediately
Skazka I mean they are the innovative bullet trains in Beijing are based off of French Eurostar designs
When i read "i stopped reading immediately" youre no longer dealing with a philosophical argument but religious zealotry.
"I destroyed the Republic to protect the Republic"
-Palpatine, also Napoleon
"I used the stones to destroy the stones"
first french republic was the people's republic of tyrany, ran by olygarchs.
Has it occurred to you that, in a real galaxy, a Palpatine might have been a morally-ambiguous figure, instead of a purely-evil one?
Also, the Force (as it was when there was only the original trilogy) was a good analogue of the Jewish Yetzer HaTov (Desire to Do Good) and Yetzer HaRah (Desire to Do Evil). But, the minute the whole midichlorians idea (and forcible control of midichlorians instead of respectful coaxing of midichlorians is the post-trilogy dividing line between evil force users (trilogy-era "Dark Side Jedi," post-trilogy-era "Sith") and good force users (formerly and post-trilogy, "Jedi"). Anyway, now that midichlorians and Sith are a thing, the Force is much more of a 19th century neopagan Magickal Energy, not unlike Scientology's "body thetans," which are borrowed (in everything but name) from the crazier members of the intellectual circles of rightly-respected psychological innovator and one of the first scientific students of character, Dr. Hervey Cleckley. In other words, not just crap, but fresh crap.
@Rick O'Shay No.
No, they're not. That's a hamfisted interpretation that fails on so many levels. Please either read and consider what I've written, here, or tell me your own thoughts. Do not attempt to wink me into accepting a stupid and inferior reading of something because you find it appealing and satisfying to continue to repeat that reading.
@Sparticus Booker Prosperity to France?! Napoleon CRIPPLED France! Napoleon left France occupied, defeated, and never able to recover from defeat while wiping out an entire generation of Frenchmen. What history books are you reading? Napoleon was NOT a genius. 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 from defeat the way Napoleon left France. Geniuses don't get ripped-off by inexperienced, brand new countries the way Napoleon got ripped-off by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase. Geniuses are not responsible for some of the worst military disasters in history like Napoleon's many colossal and foolish disasters. Egypt/Syria was a disaster. Spain was a disaster. Russia was a disaster. Leipzig was a disaster. Waterloo was a disaster. 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. France had its problems, but it was still, by far, the most powerful army in Europe before Napoleon. Napoleon inherited a superb war machine from the most 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.
France in the 19th century: *Surrendering dropped to 0%*
Not mentioning how he founded an army from 3000 peasants and escaped from the island of Elba to retake his throne is a sin.
You forgot that the soldiers and commanders send to stop him were from his old campaignes so they were more loyal to him that to the french king.
@@alexandrub8786 They were loyal to him because he was a great leader
@@IshfaaqPeerally he wasn't so great of a leader at Waterloo.
Romanian Székely and swedes as well
@Soloman S it wasn't that bad agains the first six coalitions.
Cant believe the truth is finally coming to light.
Long live the Emperor.
Booo
Napoleon is dead
@@vt1642 and thank god for that
Dude wtf
France should go more conservative, left ideologies turned them chaotic and decadent.
Napoleon was a liberal ;)
It was The Church that built France
@@tobak952 And you're an idiot. Glad we got that cleared up. Any other baseless comments you want to make?
@@tobak952 He was a progressive, not a liberal.
@@christophdewarenne9309 please explain how my comment was baseless rather than just insulting me. Not that it bothers me, it just makes you look stupid/lazy, which I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't.
"history is written by the victors" - Winston Churchill
james summers winners
By saying that you completely disregard all the rightings made from different perspectives and on top of that trash the historical way of getting information.
Nice work!
the jim reaper it means in general, because when the person wins, usually the loser is dead
@@CKelloggs but that doesn't mean the losers side of the story is lost, by any means
@@chadistan4790 no, but usually the loser is dead due to the winner annihilating them, these days of course it's important to hear the other side of the story, but in the past they rly didn't care
I’m 12 in middle school. Can you make a video with some tips for kids like me? I know there are others like me. Also, I know you have already done one, but it’s for college students. Thank you no matter what. God bless America!
TheTriggeredDuck Great to see the great enthusiasm kid. I just hope you get to learn like that you haven’t learned before. Godspeed.
TheTriggeredDuck stay true to yourself and follow pages like prageru and mine
Honestly, if I could give advice to my 12-year-old self, it would be the following in case you are interested:
-remember is to be skeptical of public education (cause lord knows what they are teaching now)
-be willing to find answers for the sake of finding answers instead of for the sake of being right about everything.
-try to distance yourself from caring about what other people think when they judge you (their goal is to get a reaction from you, don't give it to them and they won't pursue you)
-Be willing to say "no" under social pressure
-Be willing to listen
-Enjoy being a kid
-Explore your surroundings even if you live in a small town or city
I hope this helps in any way.
Caroline Bracken Thanks for the advice!
Npc. exe Why exactly would that be??
From 🇮🇳 and my school 📚books talk positive about him like how he bring democracy, freedom, people cheer at his 🛬arrival.
Well your books are wrong. We already caught the revisionist historians in one lie, the biased historians who successfully spun the Napoleon story in a positive light. The massive lie that Napoleon was a noble ruler and enlightened reformer. This year it became widespread news that Napoleon's laws reinstated slavery in the French Caribbean. Even I, an admitted Napoleon hater (with good reason), did not even know about this dark chapter of history, but I always knew there was something fishy about this story, because I knew that triumph does not mean Paris occupied, his army destroyed and Napoleon dying a prisoner. I knew what "living off the land" meant when historians would just brush it aside. It meant taking what you want by any means you want, even taking whoever you wanted with you. No rules, just take. Obviously slavery is evil and morally despicable. But it is one thing to live in a time where slavery is legal and socially acceptable, it is another thing to reinstate it after it has been abolished. That is what Napoleon did, he reinstated slavery after the Republic abolished it. Clearly, there is nothing noble or enlightened about this. Further adding to Napoleon's disgrace of massive conscription and having troops "live off the land". So if the historians were lying about Napoleon being a great reformer, what else are they lying about? Could it be that he wasn't a military genius? That the revisionist historians also spun that narrative to make it seem less disgraceful. It would make sense, since Napoleon took the most powerful army of the time and through disaster after disaster, destroyed it in total defeat. It would make sense once you realize that the overwhelming majority of Napoleon's battles was a tactic of sending wave after wave of French conscripts on suicidal frontal assaults, and then just call up more French conscripts. Was is so genius about depopulating your own country in defeat?
I'm gonna lie I don't like Napoleon that much due to his power grabbing but this video does show one needs to take the good with the bad. Did he declare himself Emperor and yield power in his borders as a dictator? Yes. Did he do alot for the French state and fight defensive wars and modernize aspects of France? Yes.
@@eft1978 well hitler caused the almost complete destruction of germany and its occupation for the next 50 years and stalin people starved by the millions and his leadership lead to the dissolution of the soviet empire.
@@eft1978 Yes I was just thinking the same thing. I believe this video is a bit of a stretch... Hitler had the autobahn built and the VW beetle commissioned, both of which are world renowned. Yet I'm certainly not going to forget all of the terrible things he (Hitler or Napoleon for that matter) did because of those few accomplishments. Evil and great crimes against humanity are necessarily laced with good deeds in order to be generally accepted by the populace at the time. Otherwise they'd be outright rejected from the beginning.
>Defensive wars
>He put his relative on the throne of Spain after the Spanish king accepted his troops to pass to enforce the continental system on the british.
@@RAMONE1511 Stalin dies in 1953 and after WW2 his empire gained eastern europe as puppeds put the communists as leaders of china(the sinno-sovietic relations were great under him) and N.Korea pupped.
@@RAMONE1511 Hitler and Stalin never did anything good for the people they governed, much less for those they conquered. All Hitler and Stalin did was to rule ruthlessly over those that accepted them out of conviction or out of force and kill those who stubbornly opposed them. Napoleon was all about reforming a rigid, unfair system that only helped the British. He wanted to break a British brokered continental stalemate.
Napoleon lost big time in Russia, Spain, and Waterloo, but his victories were impressive.
Like Lee, he was gracious in victory and glorious in defeat...
cyberpimp29 yep
@@cyberpimp29 HAHAHA...deserting his entire army in Russia to die while he turned tail and ran off!!! Right. HAHAHA.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 The Old Gaurd came so did most of his cavalry! Saying the Entire army is an overstatement. Learn facts before you speak!
He let his armies rot after the defeats in Syria, Russia and Waterloo. Everytime all he did was rush back to Paris to secure his power, hundreds of thousands of loyal soldiers be damned. Also, winning a number of battles means jacks**t if you loose the one big one in the end. If you’re looking for a great general who didn’t any of that, read up on Suvarov.
“Napoleon was born on the 15th of August 1769”
Me: Nice
Do you have to same birthday as well?
What's so nice about it ?
He was born in the 69th year of the 18th century
My birthday is on 14 August
@@raihanalam9 69
Les français vous êtes là ? 🇨🇵
Fier d'appartenir à cette Nation Millénaire qui dispose sûrement de l'histoire la plus riche de ce monde (chauvin j'avoue 😂)
L'Histoire la plus riche de ce monde..je ne pense pas 🇮🇹 😉
God I wish I could learn French instead of Spanish in school
Napoleon was shit tbh
Oui oui
Not going to lie, I thought this video was interesting. I didn’t know that Napoleon didn’t start many of the wars he fought.
Unlike our typical dictator he didn’t do things at the expense of his own people. He made a bad call attacking Russia but he didn’t leave his country crippled like other dictators do when they leave. He actually saught to better his country unlike Hitler or Stalin who only wanted power.
History didn’t kill him off as a coward or a scoundrel instead he died a general who had successfully helped his country.
@@ronrontall6370 Stalin already killed millions before world war 2 :)
colbfan report: yes the great purge and famine. Stalin was a monster.
@@ronrontall6370 Not really, Stalin killed roughly 20 million people. Whether that is from the Great Purge or the Holodomor, etc. He also destroyed his country, without Stalin or Lenin, Russia would've been better off but not that much better tbh lol.
Napoleon developed France into a much more powerful country, so despite his defeat, that left most of his empire gone, the French mainland was much more superbly developed than it had been previously.
ALl in all, to even compare Stalin to be better than Napoleon is just a disgrace to him. Its sad that people these days can even remotely compare them
@@ronrontall6370 Oh, I'm not saying 20 million died in the purge, which if you had actually read my comment, I said Stalin was responsible for over 20 million.
That is a widely accepted historical fact, though there are those who would argue for as low as 10 million and those who would argue for up to 40 million.
@@ronrontall6370 Stalin would never have risen to power had it not been to Napoleon. Napoleon was the spark of nationalism and revolutionist ideals around Europe, which ultimately led to WW1, which as we all know, directly led not only to WW2 but the communist seizing of control in Russia.
Stalin didn't form more countries, in fact, he reduced them, having Yugoslavia be formed in entirety, which under democracy, formed countries like Serbia, Montenegro, etc. Countries that hadn't existed because of the Russians until the 1990s.
Unlike Napoleon Dynamite, this Napoleon can actually bang.
Matthew Klepadlo “You’re the only type of Dynamite that’s never going to bang” -Napoleon Bonaparte
WHO WON
WHO’S NEXT
YOU DECIDE
EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY
Subtle ERB reference.
Never thought I'd see a Napoleon Dynamite joke.
You made my day with this reference
You know, if he had ever been hit squarely with a cannon ball he'd be probably more known as Napoleon Blownapart...
Oh, my goodness.
Actually could of happened as well, at the battle of Waterloo his friend was blown apart by a cannonball ride next to him.
Ahhhh I feel bad for laughing, the pun was just too on the dot for me
Thanks for making this. Napoleon is one of my favorite people from history.
Mine too, he's my hero since i was 13 years old! 😁
I think what Napoleon did in Spain helped give him the bad reputation. Replacing his ally king with his brother. Ouch.
He did that everywhere which is why he gathered enemies quickly.
You forget he also destabilized the entire empire by doing this eventually leading to eternal pain and suffering for Hispanic America after the Viceroyalties collapsed. Three-hundred years of peace and prosperity destroyed because of this bastard. Not to mention all the liberal policies.
@@darken2417 Hispanic America imploded itself....look at the facts after the Spanish troops left it was Hispanic America vs Hispanic America...not fully the fault of Napoleon.
@@thetotalwarsmaster
It did not implode itself. Spain was occupied by Napoleon. Napoleon placed a liberal constitution which applied to both Spain and the Viceroyalties of Spain. The Spanish loyal to the King rose up and fought Napoleon, both Napoleon and the Spanish remnants claimed the Viceroyalties are under their jurisdiction thus causing confusion. Napoleon was initially beaten back and the constitution was abolished thus leading to the end of instability both in Spain and the Viceroyalties. However liberals initiated a coup in Spain weakened from this conflict and were able to put back the constitution. And it is as this Spain remained. The Viceroyalties once again became subject to the constitution and considering how anticlerical it was increased tensions until the regions irrupted into chaos. After this point yes it was Hispanic America vs Hispanic America but that was because order had broken down.
All originating because Napoleon had occupied Spain and developed the constitution which provoked this collapse.
@@darken2417 Interesting! But either way the over sea colonies had been facing instability for years which still led to it due to the lack of Royal Spanish power the revolts could be sucessful.
Prager U: Expanding borders and Imperialism is bad
Also Prager U: Napoleon and the British Empire were great
I got to meet Dr. Roberts last Spring. He came to McClennan Community College to talk about his newer book on Winston Churchill, for which he was granted permission to use the journals of King George VI. Still need to get me a copy.
Woah, PragerU is taking to the expert here. I’ve read about Napoleon since I was just a wee lad.
Was he Europe's liberator or its oppressor? Can democracy be spread....by force? Enter Napoleon Bonaparte.
Cj R he didn’t spread democracy by force, the people of Europe were expecting him to and cheering for him but he ended up just installing his brother and making every state he conquered a French puppet.
This video forgets to tell all the horrible things Napoleon did
@JokeJack he did say part of it, although we all know, no man is all good, even Hitler or Col. Gaddafi had good sides.
@@catfishjack8169 People from everywhere in Europe hated him. Especially South Italians
@@joao.fenix1473 poles loves him
The allied armies at the Battle of Waterloo were also led by Fieldmarshal Blücher.
Wellington was the leader of all the allied armies. Blücher was just the leader of the Prussians and other German states.
FIFA GCH The duke of Wellington was the leader of the British, Dutch, Hannover, Brunswick and Nassau(I think this were all the German states in Wellingtons army, correct me when I am wrong. (Also when I speak of Dutch I also mean Dutch belgian territory) Blücher led the Prussian army. However both where allied armies trough the 7th Coalition. But I understand what you mean.
Listen, his army started fighting in the middle of battle (From time perspective), but does that mean he shouldnt be included? No, What i mean is that credit went to Duke of Wellington because he was leading most of the forces at the start of battle
Filip Rebro I understand and respect your vision. I agree that Duke of Wellington and his army deserves a bit more credit than the Blücher and his Prussian army. However that does not mean that Blücher and his Prussian army does not deserve any credit. It's likely that without the Prussian help, Napoleon would have won the Battle. Wellington and his army did put up a fantastic resistance against the French. But without the Prussian help Wellingtons army was outnumbered.
Than there are also a lot of other things beside Blücher and Wellington that deserve credit for Napoleons defeat at Waterloo, like: the bad weather, mistakes made Napoleon himself (the fact that Napoleon was older and sicker had a bad effect on his military actions) and mistakes made by Napoleons officers.
I am so pleased to see him getting the respect and honor he deserves.
Prager U is no honour, but I do so hope he gets more coverage
@@neinno8172 and what would your beef be with Prager U?
@@sidneylittle8385 Grossly biased and almost all the videos I've seen completely misconstrue and misrepresent the most basic concepts, conflicts, and histories. I had already thought Prager U was a butt of a joke, perhaps not, **Infinitus est numerus stultorum** after all.
@@neinno8172 you make all these accusations but you never give one example. You must be another one of those people who think you can just say something and the rest of us are supposed to suck it up like it was manna from heaven.
I will bet when you wrote that little jibe in latin you thought "aren't I just so above all others.
Good luck seeing the light in your mom's basement!
Sidney Little you vaguely asked what my ‘beef’ was, I gave a vague answer. Or did you expect some monolithic essay of criticism? And no I don’t. But your ad hominem however, do refrain from using it.
Napoleon, no doubt the greatest strategist, tactician and politician of all times.
@tututuims ieijebdo why no?
Oh wow, I'm literally in the middle "Napoleon: A Life" 😁 Really enjoying the read - he's such a fascinating figure
A psycopat.
Excellent video. And very accurate. I taught French for 11 years and Napoleon was definitely part of each year's lesson. An incredibly captivating man. Flawed, but one can learn a lot from him--and military experts today still do.
Yes, what to NOT do in wars. Good lord.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 more wins than any general in history by fat. Cope
So napolean was anti-villain
On point.
4:10 it was Napoléon 3 who launch the construction of the sewer system that Paris still use today, so 50 years later
where was Napoleon 1 and 2?
RubADub Media
Napoleon I is the one this video is talking about, Napoleon II is largely forgotten and never really got to rule
@@fahoodie1852 He was held in Wiens never allowed to do anything . Franz duke of Reichstadt by his Grandfather he was called it Napoleon Françouis Joseph Charles Bonaparte he didn't really care about power like his father , very handsome tall guy died at 21 from tuberculosis
@@patricofritz4094 he was essentially a prisoner his whole life. Poor guy
@@fahoodie1852 yeah at least he had someone that cared about him , Sophie of Bayern
As a Brit I can safely say, Napoleon Bonaparte was the most admirable and worthy opponent we ever faced in the field...
Woah... You mean some people in history did bad stuff AND good stuff... Crazy.
You’re being sarcastic right?
Yeah it's sad everyone has to always see history as 'good' or 'bad', it's just history we should learn not judge
@@tetra4289 Sure it is, though people can be relatively 'bad' at the time, such as Hitler in WW2.
@@neinno8172 My point is not to say that good and bad doesn't exist or that Hitler wasn't a bad guy, but that we should not care when studying history and we should look at it in a neutral way, otherwise over politicizing history based on our own modern moral standards totally unable us to understand the complexity of their society, and can also lead to confirmation bias deforming the truth. Sure, Hitler has so many blood on his hands, but so does Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great, and there are airports named after them, which shows that our idolization or condamnation of historical figures is more about the dominant memory than historical facts.
@@tetra4289 Agreed yes, when it comes to historical revisionism the minimum amount of bias is wished for. Robert seems to greatly favour Napoleon, but his biographical works(Napoleon The Great) is so minutely detailed perhaps it evades such bias, though the title itself subtly implies it.
But when one isn't talking about historical revision, people who label prominent figures as either 'bad' or 'good' ought to extrapolate on the complex society at the time, as you state. For it isn't a dichotomy, and many people in these comments don't seem to know the slightest about Napoleon, but still assert what he is and isn't as an individual under contemporary lense. That being said, one having an acquaint understanding of the time can more accurately pinpoint one's 'badness' and 'goodness' under the respective societies' lense, relatively speaking.
Thank you for teaching us things that our garbage public school system left out of the classroom ...
We learn plenty of important things, like how to spend a full hour calculating the radius of a circle as if calculators where never invented. We learn that the sun is a star. We learn that sharing is caring. We learn that self defense is wrong and fighting against an oppressor is bad.
@@Distven131 Don't forget that we also learn the exact location of every country in the world and are expected to memorize it even though that's what maps are for. In my opinion that was the most useless thing we learned in school that took multiple days to learn. Just imagine what we could have spent that time learning about instead.
This is the exact type of video a public school would promote. If you are truly conservative you should hate Napoleon
@@joao.fenix1473 Conservatives are as brain-dead as liberals .
Let's not forget the Napoleonic Wars led to the Concert of Europe, which helped sustain peace for nearly a century. Ofc it did lurch during the rise of Germany, but in the 1880s it returned and stayed until, well you know...
Napoleon was the ultimate expression of the dominance and awesomeness of European man.
I’m a fan of Napoleon because of his ambition, ability and strength of will
Ambition is no virtue.
He failed big time at the big things.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 One of the best military leaders in the era of gunpowder....look at Borodino, Friedland, and Austerlitz.
Started as a defender of France, ended as a tyrant against other nations.
@Studd Muffin he stopped being a herald of self defence when he made himself Emperor and invaded Europe.
@Studd Muffin European monarchies fired first when they saw the french people overthrow their kings and ganged up on France to prevent a snowball effect
But when Napoleon became greedy with power, he conducted imperialism and waged wars across Europe and even outside, like Egypt.
In this, he didn't looked any different than the kings before the revolution.
@Studd Muffin He lost in Egypt. And Spain. And very disastrously in Russia. He was a total fool of a 'general'. Good tactics, terrible generalship.
Tlot Pwist One good thing that came out of his invasions was when he invaded Spain almost all of the Spanish colonies in the South and Latin America revolted and got their freedom.
@@Jhawar97 Very true. It directly caused this flip. Napoleon wanted to take over the colonies via invading Spain and this failed utterly.
Napoleon is great
Great leader, and he deserve to be considered "Roman Emperor", when he expanded sovereignty of his nation by attacking his already aggressive rivals
@@AxenfonKlatismrek Right, like say, EGYPT??? SPAIN?????? Just for some examples, both places chased him out, by the way.
@tututuims ieijebdo France was the most prosperous under Napoleon. Unfortunately the monarchy after him failed
@tututuims ieijebdo He built the modern Europe with his ideas. Yes he lost major wars like the one in Russia and Spain which both cost France nearly 700k people but in the end tens of millions of people have seen what is the future and this alone sparked the revolutions in 1848.
@tututuims ieijebdo Nope, he lost yet another major battle and was captured.
Funny fact: Napoleon also imposed national traffic rules like driving on the right side of the road which unbelievably enough was not implemented before him.
Bel Diman | It’s not entirely clear that there were no rules before him. The Romans and British seem to have driven on the left, which is more natural as nearly all people shake hands and fight with the right hand. Could be that Napoleon switched to the right just to be contrarian.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 I did not know about the traffic rules during roman times but it does make sense. My point is not that those rules did not exist in certain regions , its just that Napoleon managed to force a national standardization of the rules. But I guess you are right in pointing out that he did it also to be contrarian to the british.
Bel Diman Napoléon forced a lot of things.
Pretty much everyone used to ride on the left. But in France, the left was used by royals and nobody wanted to be recognised as a royal for obvious reasons.
Eventually everyone in France started to ride on the right and it became law. Napoléon then forced other countries to follow suite.
The US had a hard on for France so copied them.
Countries neighbouring countries that ride on the right eventually decided to ride on the right anyways due to simplicity and economics.
That’s why today, the only countries that really drive on the left are islands. Since they have no need to switch.
@@DynamicalisBlue Very interesting facts but Not entirely true. Not only on islands tjey drive on the left but also in many former british colonies such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia. Sweden used to drive on the left until 1967 when they decided to change in order to conform with neighbouring countries.
Napoleon was the epitome of enlightenment liberalism.
Please tell me more about Napoleon being the epitome of enlightenment liberalism. In fact, why don't you tell it to the teenage French conscripts who he forced into military service, sacrificing them to be cut down way before their time. Or the Russian peasants who lost everything they owned in the invasion. Or the Prussian soldiers who got their heads blown off in battle. Or the Spanish ally Napoleon cowardly stabbed in the back. Or the French civilians who were forced to give up their possessions to help the army. Or the Haitian people who had to fight to prevent re-enslavement after they had already broken their shackles. Or the Polish soldiers who died for Napoleon's empty and false promises. Don't forget to tell all the monasteries that were pillaged, all the stores that were looted, all the farms that were ravaged, all the women that were raped, and all the civilian's that were murdered under Napoleon's rule. They had no idea these noble Napoleonic laws existed, the millions of lives that Napoleon destroyed would love to hear about his noble Napoleonic Code, because the Code did nothing for them, or for anyone.
Get real people, Napoleon was an opportunist out for himself above all else. If he was a true reformed noble leader, why did he usurp power and crown himself Emperor? Why did he establish a secret police to rule with an iron fist? Why did he wage war until the very end for a hopeless cause causing tens of thousands of more deaths? Why did he reject the generous peace terms over and over? Why was he insistent upon his son's succession against the will of the people? Why did he return to wage even more battles? Why did he backstab Spain in the back if it wasn't for the fact he wanted her vast Empire? It is so obvious how everything points to his ego and hunger for power you have to blind not to see it. Whenever justice and liberty and Napoleon's interests were in conflict his, selfish interests always won out. A biased historian who wish to hide the truth may have fooled you, but Napoleon was out for Napoleon. Napoleon killed millions of innocent people, and put millions more through unimaginable suffering out of pure megalomania.
Too long me no read
@@someguy779 The young French conscripts certainly would not agree with Napoleon being enlightened. Wave after wave sacrificial frontal assaults and then just call up more French conscripts (Their only purpose in life was to serve the Emperor Napoleon and die for him, am I right). So when people want to talk about the wonderful rights granted under the Napoleonic Code, don't forget to mention that young French conscripts had NONE. 16, 17, 18-year-old young French boys taken from their villages, forced into military service had no say whether they took a cannon ball to the chest at Wagram, got cut to pieces by the guerrillas, froze to death in Russia, or taken prisoner at Leipzig never to return to his village. Their only purpose in life was to serve the "glorious" Emperor of the French, so they had no rights under Napoleon's "enlightenment".
Neat
@@someguy779 Not that neat, especially battlefields like Eylau and Borodino.
I highly recommend for those who enjoy this topic to watch a debate called Napoleon the Great, which also includes Mr.Roberts.
I did. And I sided against Andrew in that debate. There aren't many people who come close to Hitler in human history.
Roberts's biography of Napoleon is also good
epic history TV has by far the best napoleon coverage i have seen so far.
booo
Not to equate napolean to saddam Hussain and Gaddafi?
Why not.? Libya under Gaddafi was one of the wealthiest countries in Africa. He too had his positives and negatives just as napolean. So did saddam Hussain. So how are they" so "different?
Yeah, what about when he ordered his troops to kill blacks and round up white women who had relations with them. If the intent is there it's a crime.
Qadaffi became a much better leader once President Reagan slapped him down.
Before Obama gave Libya to the Islamists, he was a force for good in North Africa (which is why Obama attacked him, ultimately).
But Napoleon didn't engage in terrorism like Qadaffi and Hussein (both Saddam and Barak) did. He expanded his empire by attacking those who attacked him.
They were both islamic dictators for starters. The French under Napoleon started human rights as we know it. Saddam and Gaddafi were the total opposite.
Napoleon wasn’t nearly as brutal as either of them.
Because Napoleon gived a discount to Loisiana and wasn't the enemy of US so he was a good guy,while the other two were more contemporary and their country had a better standards that the newer republic put there by the americans.
I am a Chinese and most of what he said is common sense for me. Sadly, PragerU has to make a special topic to tell American people those facts that they should learn in middle school.
Why would you just follow this false narrative that Napoleon was good without questioning it?! Napoleon was awful, especially for France. Napoleon left France militarily occupied, defeated, bankrupt, loss of territory, and stripped of a generation of young men. There is probably no one who is more responsible for French deaths and suffering than Napoleon himself. Napoleon was a military dictator, who through incompetence and reckless military campaigns left France worse off than she was, forced to change back to the Monarchy because Europe said so. Napoleon even let a young United States take advantage of France in the Louisiana Purchase, allowing the US to acquire vast, valuable territory at a huge discount. The land was so valuable, that the US should actually still be paying France for the land today, but instead it changed the course of both countries for the next two centuries. Napoleon has deprived present-day France of billions of dollars (with today's inflation), repeating the same mistake of Louis XVI by allowing the young United States to take advantage of France. Napoleon's "conquests" were actually mere occupation of territory, as he never broke the will of the people, and his enemies kept fighting him until they ultimately defeated him. He could never conquer the people he wished to subjugate, in the end, they conquered him. Napoleon's government was a failure, he set back the French military forever, he lost France territory gained in the Revolution, lost France money, and he set back France's revolutionary reforms for decades. Napoleon even married an Austrian, which did not sit well with many French not too fond of the Marie Antionette experience, but it really seems Napoleon did not care for what the French wanted, only what Napoleon wanted. Makes sense, Napoleon had been lying to France for years. He lied about how successful the Egyptian campaign was (when it was a terrible disaster that destroyed the best of the French Navy), and how many times did he drastically underestimate French casualties in battle to manipulate the French public that his victories were not as costly and were overwhelming victories. Lying to advance his own deranged personal agenda.
It is only through revisionist history that France wishes to change the narrative, but people are starting to see the truth, and the false narrative of triumph, patriotism, and glory when in fact, the true story was that of defeat, self-interest and tragedy. France portrays Napoleon as a victor and conqueror, but in fact he was defeated and conquered himself, and at a high toll for the French. Why would there be an Arc of Triumph if it wasn't to falsely portray Napoleon as triumph, when the French know deep down, he was a tragedy. But the French can't allow the world to think otherwise, so the Arc was built to portray Napoleon's time in France as a glorious "triumph". France would never admit that they were a lost country, scarred by Revolution, a revolution that failed, and the man they put their trust in turned out to be a complete tyrant and psycho, an authoritarian madman who murdered the French youth through military conscription, sending them on suicidal frontal attacks in disastrous campaigns. An incompetent general whose lost wars that vastly outweigh his victories in terms of importance, and led them to ultimate defeat. France can't have that, so the narrative was changed. I am not trying to be disrespectful to the French. France has accomplished much, and has a lot to be admired. But not with Napoleon. You can continue to lie to yourself, but reasonable people who understand the story see the truth.
Prager U, you are the best
I am French 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷, and it is very rare to find clever people out of France that say the true about Napoléon.
Thanks a lot for that.
I hope that France will become great again
VIVE L'EMPEREUR!!!
🦅 🦅🇫🇷🇫🇷🎖️🎖️🇫🇷🇫🇷🦅🦅
Vive la France 🇫🇷 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷
Can you make a video on Gaddafi bcos most of us who lived near him knew him to be a hero and not a villian as most people in the West portray him.
I dont think he will be protraied without bias based on this video!
I would love to see an unbiased opinion about gheddafi on this channel but sadly 4:55
@@aggelos8256 Well, this channel occasionally has its biases more than it should. But at least they're pretty open about it, labeling themselves as Conservative instead of faking their 'neutral' stance like other channels.
Michi Geissbühler who’s the owner of this channel ?
@@technica6338 You mean like how leftist users, newspapers, TV channels and socialist journalists label themselves as independent press? If yes, I agree with that.
Comparing the real Adolf Hitler to the caricature people think of today is a gross injustice too.
Your statement sounds pro-Hitler even though it is not🤣🤣🤣
The real Hitler? Lol the “real” Hitler was disturbing and sick. There’s no general Hitler caricature, it’s just that people don’t know much about him, but if they did they’d think even worse of him.
So many people think they know history, but they only know what their government allowed them to be taught.
Your statement can be interpreted two ways
1) a criticism of people that call anyone to the right of John McCain a "Nazi"
2) I'm not going to even speak it out loud🤮
@Manuelle Galbani I wonder if Shankar means Hitler would never indiscriminately kill / abort 50 million German babies? [Like we DO!]
Wow. And he ignored that Bonaparte had invaded Spain, Portugal and the several Italian realms, forcing the people in those countries to accept his deeply unpopular siblings and friends as rulers? This is why Austria, Prussia (now Germany) and Russia repeatedly declared war on him. But the way the historian told the story, it seemed like Bonaparte was merely reacting to unfair aggressions. What a biased view of history!
Fact. This video totally whitewashed napoleon's extreme aggression.
@@elijahtill7734 Napoleon did this because, the spanish government was corrupt so he wanted to change that.
Judrei Liston ow! Of course! A foreign government being corrupt is certainly a legitimate cause for intervention by another power to place the brother of the ruler on the throne!
@@licmir3663 this reminds me of something and I cant quite figure it out. Hmmm...
@@elijahtill7734 like what happened to Libya but I'm not sure
As someone with dual roots, I love that an ethnic Italian is arguably France's greatest military commander and one of its foremost statesmen who made such long-lasting political, social, and cultural contributions to France.
“He liberated the Jews from the ghettos leading to artistic, scientific, and economic innovation from this long oppressed minority”
Lol so this is why y’all made this video
Doesn't matter he killed thousands of Haitian because of his efforts to re-enslave them. He did something good for the jews.
@@missybe3238 Listen, Slavery in France was outlawed since the French revolution, he killed a lot of Haitians because they rebelled, They killed governor and all soldiers there, He couldn't tolerate that
@@AxenfonKlatismrek They like the Spaniards, revolted against him and were attacked by him and slaughtered by him and still shoved him out.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 It was to show the authority, he couldnt let them live cause they could make another rebellions, and executing them was the sign of authority
@@AxenfonKlatismrek Hitler agrees 100%. So does Stalin.
Thaaanks Napoleon.
It’s curious how many strong leaders missed this russian winter factor despite of all their skills. It totally looks like an 101 war lesson.
I know right? Nazis, ottomans and french armies all got a major hit when they fight in russian soil cause of extreme cold. Kinda funny how history repeats itself over and over again
They all went in the summer but got stalled and coming the winter.
The Russians are experts at stalling, can't blame them.
The right move would've been to go at the end of Winter, coming Spring.
Akshually,no.The russian winter wasn't the most important factor in either Napoleon's or Hitler's defeats.Napoleon lost because Poland was filthy.Typhus his troops got in Poland killed more of his troops than the russians.Hitler lost because Germany had bad logistics and Russia got Lend-Lease.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 Wrong, it is the climate. You cannot invade in Spring, the thaw makes the earth like jello. I farm here in the NE USA and we have the same thing: spring is called MUD SEASON for a reason. Fall is when the ground is usually dry and hard.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 Russian vehicles aren't immune to rasputitsa.The climate hit both almost equally.
He had won 56 , not 46 battles
Ah thank you thought he got something wrong thare
@@mirzettiric5753
Actualy Andrew is right the 56 figure is internet nonsense
Elements of Napoleon's military genious are still studied and though they are seemingly understood in the classroom, it seems that few military commanders are able to translate and apply them where battles happen even though they would be of great advantage to do so.
It really gives a studied warrior a feast for thought.
A murderer is a murderer is a murderer and none of them deserve very much respect period!
This reminds me of an exam I took in college, a final exam on European history from this time period. I ended up making an argument on why Napoleon was a liberal, and right here are some of the explanations. I passed this course and the exam. Considering what other dictators have done at least Napoleon did more to help his country rather than just sack it like other dictators. Not to mention he more or less ended the excesses caused by the French Revolution.
I always thought I was alone in my admiration of Napoleon.
And you dare to call us, French, cowards? Long live eternal France, my fatherland forever !
Vive la France !
lmao
C'est parce que vous perdez toutes vos guerres. Je suis québécois et votre armée gagnait la Guerre de Sept Ans durant sept ans jusqu'à la route dernière bataille sur les Plaines d'Abraham... Vous gagnez souvent de grandes batailles et pourtant perdez toutes vos guerres. Napoléon a fourré les Français et Acadiens en Louisiane et a perdu tout le terrain qu'Il avait acquis.
Well, you did surrender to Germany. If that is not cowardly, what is?
France is African's bitch today...
Andrew has the charming delivery of David Attenborough... I could listen for hours. Nice job on the history lesson!
5:00
Andrew Roberts: "... one man, under the right circumstances, can change history."
The 4 millions soldiers that fight for France 1sr empire: Are we a joke to you?
Great video. Thank you.
And, Merry Christmas to all ❤
Merry Christmas!
The biggest problem with this video is that it barely addresses the main problems with Napoleon. Most notably, destruction of the republic and return to monarchy. Napoleon's coup which over through the republic isn't even mentioned and him returning France to monarchy is only mentioned in passing. Being a good general or law writer doesnt make someone a good person. Napoleon spported the revolution when it was happening, then oppressed its supporters when he was in power. He abandoned his army in Egypt in order to return to France and seize power. And far from a supporter of meritocracy, he foolishly promoted his sibblings to positions of power.
He abandoned his troops because the French Republic needed him to bring peace and stability to the Republic, yes he made his siblings kings of his hand made kingdoms and spain but he also made great minds nobles of his new -Galactic- French Empire
Good points, though I would say that the French Revolution was hardly heading in the direction of a stable republic to begin with.
@@alexandrub8786 He ALWAYS abandoned his troops all over the place most spectacularly inside Russia where 98% of them DIED. That was only beaten by Hitler who did the exact same stupid thing.
Bonjour de France ! Thank you for that nice video defending Napoléon! And coming from an English! Most of his work remains today (the State's structure most of all). The same cannot be said for Hitler.
But it is a complete lie that Napoleon was not an aggressor and constantly defending. Napoleon invaded seven countries....SEVEN! Napoleon invaded more countries than Hitler! Napoleon invaded Italy. Napoleon invaded Egypt. Napoleon invaded Syria. Napoleon invaded Haiti. Napoleon invaded Portugal. Napoleon invaded Spain. Napoleon invaded Russia. He was a serial-invader! How many countries does one have to invade before being considered aggressive? It is just not true that Napoleon was not an aggressor. Furthermore, out of those seven countries Napoleon invaded, he was only successful in Italy. Napoleon lost and had to prematurely abandon the other six countries. One out of seven...some genius.
@@lsatep except out of that list
Wasn’t ever in Haiti or Portugal himself. These are more failures of his lieutenants and marshals.
Beat Spain personally with a record of one battle fought one battle won. Then left Spain to never return. Egypt he had in fact conquered. It was acre where he lost.
Syria (acre) he lost, and Russia he lost enormously via an avoidance to fight him with scorched earth.
@@lsatep if he lost six invasions which battles did he personally lose during these six invasions? Like I said, 2 of them he wasn’t there (Portugal Haiti), another one he personally had a flawless battle record agaisnt in person (Spain) another one he conquered (Egypt) but lost to the neighbour (Syria) Russia he lost by their refusal to fight (Austerlitz Friedland Borodino all french victories against the Russian empire)
So himself it’s Syria and Russia. It’s 2 not 6
My Dad loved Napoleon and we had books, pictures and models of him around the house when I was growing up.
Finally someone who gets who us french people love Napoleon so much. Even for a British man!
SplatM4n I’m an American. Napoleon was a genius. To this day no one really matches to his military prowess. Not even Hitler or George Patten and they were also great military leaders.
@@GG-xe1sj No American would say something so stupid. If Napoleon was a genius, he would not have lost like he did, nor France would have suffered so much under his rule.
lsatep
“Pride before the fall” he was a military genius. He lost his edge and succumbed to pride and emotions he ruthlessly avoided at his rise. Hope that helps. The French people love him to this day. I’m just a history lover. Hope that helps. Blessings. 🇺🇸❤️
Andrew Roberts’ ‘Napoleon The Great’ is one of the best history books ever written. I couldn’t recommend it enough.
Last time France had any spine
@Interceptor Probably too much spine, their vindictive war reparations towards Germany created a perfect breeding ground for the Nazis.
@@Colddirector "Probably too much spine, their vindictive war reparations towards Germany created a perfect breeding ground for the Nazis."
Yeah, about that, that's how stuff were done at the time. The treaty german forced on Russian was also very harsh and the 1870 treaty, that fuelled french revanchisme for WWI, wasn't a piece of charity either.
You all should read his book about Churchill. Roberts is an amazing author
The real end of Napoleon's hopes for power or glory came at the battle of Leipzig, called "The battle of nations". Napoleon almost didn't stand a chance after that. The battle was the largest europe had ever seen until that point, and is severely overlooked. Napoleon had over 200K men and lost almost all of them in a 4 day long, close as nails battle against twice his number. It should be mentioned when talking about him, highlighting waterloo without mentioning Leipzig is a common anglo-centric thing to do because that favors the achievements of brittish soldiers who weren't present at Leipzig, but the rest of Europe was and Leipzig was by far the more descisive, conclusive and important battle.
It was interesting when I went to France for the first time and it seemed he is revered there. Going through US public school we were taught that Napoleon was a little tyrant so it was very surprising to see that the French view him quite differently.
@PragerU One of the best books I read in college was this guy's (Andrew Roberts) book, 'Napoleon & Wellington.' It was the first history book that forced me to change my mind about a historical figure. Please have Mr. Roberts back.
If it is like this little video, the guy lied to you.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 You do realize that Andrew Roberts, wrote a biography about Napoleon a few years ago?
Whether you like or disllike Napoleon one have to admit that he certainly was one of the greatest people in the history of mankind and that he left a lasting legacy in the world.
HIs legacy was 'War and Peace' and of course, the music for that by the Russians.
.......Wait if you dislike Napoleon, why would you admit he was one of the greatest people in history?
@@TheDirtysouthfan IM famous is actually all too common. The more destructive, the more imfamous. I have often pointed out that History is a bloody goddess who writes with a feather pen dipped in blood.
@@TheDirtysouthfan If 'great' means 'murderous' he fails even that test with so much competition from other despots in history.
@@TheDirtysouthfan Well, I'd say because his deeds have left such a big impact on the world as described in this video. You can like or dislike Napoleon, agree or disagree with his motives, but at the end of the day he still had a big influence on history that affect mankind to this day. Whether you like or dislike the man I simply think that's an inescapable fact.
If Napolean was alive today he would be called Europe's Trump.
Ernest Imken Who has Trump invaded?
No it's because trump served in the military.... right?
Who's allies has he betrayed?
Not really. Napoleon was a left wing figure who was pretty tolerant for his time. He freed the Jews from ghettos after all. When he invaded Egypt too, he spread propaganda claiming that he was a Muslim as well, and his army would contain Middle Eastern troops to the end.
Napoleon was indeed amazing. You only touched the surface on his many achievements as he truly did so much for France, and for the poor that lived there, and also in many other places. While on Elba for a short time he also achieved many things for the citizens there. It is truly a shame that so many coalitions were started against him, since had be been allowed to have more peaceful times without other countries, particularly Britain (which triggered many of the conflicts) constantly bringing wars, I am certain he could have achieved so so much more. His final exile as well was so very wrong and undeserved. He should have been permitted to go abroad, perhaps to the Americas, as no doubt he would have left a mark there as well. Wish the ending could be changed for him.
The Italian Campaign by itself is worth a classic movie.
He started with horribly equipped troops who didn't even have shoes or weapons and it was his first command of a full army. His orders were to only defend France from invasion via Italy.
Instead he decided to take the fight to the enemy and win the war. He trained and encouraged his ragged troops and told them they would transform into legends of France. They went on to defeat both an Austrian army twice their size and conquer all of northern italy, beating the very large (relatively to it's size) army of Piedmont as well. He then marched all the way almost to Vienna and forced the emperor of the Austrians to surrender and end the war.
It's one of the most daring things ever done in history.
I truly idle this man, I remember doing a report on him and I dressed up like him
Good times
I love my emperor. Please come back and save us 😭
Wrong !
The Sorbonne was created under Louis IX(St Louis) during the 13th century
Well said, too many discount Napoleon as a “small man with a big ego” when he was one of the best leaders France ever had
So many jokes here and I won't tell them.
The best
Love this video title, PragerU should do more of these videos making justice to the names of history's most important characters
Richelieu had a much more powerful role in turning France into a monster than that any later ruler. He forcibly annexed many smaller areas forcing the inhabitants to learn to speak French. I have studied French history from Richelieu to Napoleon extensively. I do agree that the mass killings under socialism began during the French Revolution, but they started under Robespierre's Terror gov't which had written plans that they had already begun enacting to "eliminate" one in six of the French people (mostly the lowest classes of peasants and minorities)... for "starters". Killing of any opposition is just standard procedure in socialist thinking and thus was not counted in their plans to begin to reduce the population to easily controlled levels. All socialist philosophies since that time fully embrace the notion that the non-ruling, non-socialist elite populace need to be reduced significantly. Think about it, all a small elite ruling class needs is enough enslaved farmers to feed the rulers and their enslaved artisan/factory/farm workers.... and enough artisan/factory workers to provide tools for the farms/factories and toys for the elites.
I. M. Notamoose Socialism was not a thing before Karl Marx.
@@footnasium4267 Untrue. Its concepts had been toyed with in varying forms to varying degrees going at least as far back as ancient Greece and Persia. Marx branded his form and inspired a surge in offshoots, but only after taking massive inspiration from the French revolutionaries, who coined the term before him.
@@footnasium4267 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were hired to edit the Manifesto (party platform) of the Communist League based on their various documents, they were not members of the league, but held similar views (based oin their writings... this IS documented, just not in the highly slanted wikipedia.... The first printing (of which 3 copies survived as of 1980) listed both of them as the editors of the "Manifesto of the Communist League". Due to the failures of the multiple staged revolutions in 1848 by the various socialistic groups, the original printing was literally burned. It was then rereleased as The Communist Manifesto written BY Karl Marx and edited by Friedrich Engels. Note that there were varioius forms of socialists prior to the French Revolution, but the modern version's methods are directly descended from the Terror gov't.
I’m reading his book at the moment. It’s a great read.
"It's better to defeat that to be defeated" -- Someone( Sometime )
Saying that Russia was the cause of his downfall leaves one other thing out that was not even mentioned at all.
Napoleon's Misadventures in Spain.
That could be a movie, actually.
It doesn't look like he really needed to invade Spain, but he did, then eventually set up his brother as the king of Spain. It is on record that he lamented the troops he had to send to Spain not being available for his invasion of Russia.
And Napoleon himself had one said that his invasion of Spain was his greatest mistake.
I should imagine, if Napoleon didn't know what his greatest mistake was, who would?
This might be the only Prageru-video I agree with 100%
Why don’t we learn about this guy in school? He seems really important to European history.
Because the British and its allies doesn't was us to.
What school in Europe or North America did you go to where they didn't teach you about Napoleon? Or hell, South America or the Middle East even?
AnOriginalName He was never really relevant to our specific historical time periods in History. Pretty much everything was about specifically American history, with some ancient history, and a bit of modern world history. But really nothing about Europe from 400-1900 with the exception of colonialism and the industrial revolution. And even _that_ was only for like one quarter of one year.
@@sabrinaantonioverita3061 I went to school in America as well as and we covered Napoleon. He was a very big foreign policy issue in the early decades of the Republic, more the French Republic with the XYZ affair, but more importantly he sold the Louisiana Territory to America. On top of that the Haitian Revolution was said to have been inspired by the ideals of the American Revolution (missing the part where the USA actively opposed it due to pressure from its slave owners, reminiscent of how today it's hostile to Cuba).
@Aurs 777 So we don't learn about Hitler ? He lost too. You are so biased my poor British friend.
3:00 what was the point, he tossed the French flag and brought back up the same flag.
What is it with People that invade russia during winter not the sommer?
😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
They invaded during the summer, when a half million soldier where lost in winter they were coming back
Given that troops mostly traveled on foot, trying to coordinate tens of thousands soldiers may have taken a week or two, eh?
They invade on summer only to find that Russia is much bigger than maps suggest and invasions stall by winter. Same scenario repeated 3-4 times so far.
global warming
I don't typically side with PragerU, but Napoleon is an exception. Good video. Hopefully y'all will find ways to make more videos as objective as this one.
When people don't know their history they are bound to repeat it....That's what happened to Europe with the second coming of Napoleon, which was Hitler. The fact that Napoleon's history got a huge positive twist and that Europe glorified him through revisionist history is why they did not see him coming a second time, this time in Hitler. A military dictator, who takes over a lost but powerful country, promises reforms and order, initial military success using the country's vast resources but ends up defeated due to reckless invasions and military incompetence. All of this while destroying the European continent and leaving millions dead in the aftermath.
The fact that Napoleon's egotistical nature consumed almost every decision he made, like Hitler, is nothing short of criminal. His poor strategic and diplomatic abilities ended up costing the lives of countless young French men who he threw to the meat grinder with false notions of a progressive France or the cultivation of national movements in places like Poland, Germany, or Italy. His goal of subjugation gives him no reconciliation for the awful decisions he made as a despotic ruler. Even to the bitter end he refused to relinquish some of his pride and concede a conditional surrender to the Coalition. Even after exhausting the French people and his allies in terms of manpower and resources he still dragged them along, regardless of their willingness. Even with such clear notions of defeat, Napoleon still found it necessary to personally save face by continuing the war to a bitter and devastating end. His notions of conditions of victory were simply delusional. I’m not surprised the French people finally lost faith in him. They had sent their husbands, sons, and fathers out for 10 years of constant fighting to have many never return. What’s the glory in that? Napoleon’s grandiose and unrealistic plans for making France the dominant force in Europe simply lead the nation to ruin, like a certain Mr. H in Germany.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Reforms did come in France. He did fight for territory and ego, yes, but the reforms his administration provided were highly necessary for the advancement of Westrrn civilization.
Along with that, complaining people died in war? Really? No, I do not condone imperialist wars, but I do recognize that people will die in war no matter the cause.
@@HAKX5 he reformed the law more in ten years than other dynasties in centuries. He was less responsible for war than his enemies and empowered millions of people
@@fredbarker9201 He did have ambitions for French expansion, but yes, his enemies did have a lot to do with the warrs.
@@HAKX5 agreed
It doesn't matter how many battles a general wins.
The only thing that matters is the final one.
I wonder why this didn’t include a concise statement describing the “bad things” NB did.
Maybe because there already exist swathes of videos describing "bad things" and nothing good?
@@weebrahim should have included everything and not seemed biased
There are only five minutes for these videos, that has been the maximum by which PragerU set for these short summaries. So the decision becomes, "What do you do with those five minutes?" You could spend it expounding on all the bad stuff this or that person did...but there are already many such videos, some an hour or more long, that you can watch. So instead ask, "What side of this issue isn't being heard?" That is what you base your video on. So what results, is a video focusing on Bonapart's good and expounding on it but also acknowledging the bad if only in passing.
A lot of PragerU's videos are like that, they are telling you about the side you're not hearing from.
Without him we will have not used the metric system
Here in the USA we are proud users of the older systems.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 which is stupid
@@emsnewssupkis6453 I love the USA but your system is ridiculous.
Napoleon the Great!
*The Greatest!
And they say the French were panzies; this dude one handed the entirety of Europe what a Gigachad.
The French were never pansies. Only American ignoramuses utter such nonsense. France is the most successful military power in history.
Napoleon made History Great Again 💥