What If Napoleon Was Never Defeated?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 гру 2020
- Follow me on Twitter: / gkonyoutube
Join the Discord Server: / discord
Become a member on Patreon & get exclusive content! / generalknowledge
Special mention to my patrons: Richard, Ahmed, Danny, Edward, Stephen, MiFE, 43rpak, Rpgkillerspace, Wilhelm, Chet, Roy, Ryan, ou_lyss, Javier, Ryan, Pete, Cesar, Hendrick, Tom, Nancy, Hassan, Francis
Business Contact: gilfamc@gmail.com
Thanks for watching, remember to subscribe to catch future videos!
*Any ideas for other 'What If' videos?*
"What if Germany won *insert either world war here*"
What if Finland / Turkey (or both) joined the Axis ?
what if england won the 100 years war?
What if GK advertised his Discord Server?
what if napoleon never sold Louisiana ?
It’s simple, really, he doesn’t have to always win, he just needs to quit while he’s ahead. Subtract the invasion of Spain in 1808, and the invasion of russia in 1812, and Napoléon would have continued to be the most powerful man in Europe. He was incredibly ambitious, leading directly to his own downfall.
However, in the same respect, without his ambitions he would have never reached the points he did. Truly a double edged sword.
While it is possible Napoleon might have won, the more plausible history question to me is this: What if Napoleon III triumphs over Bismarck and Prussia in 1870? He might have been in a much better position than his uncle to build a lasting dynasty. He had good relations with Britain (to the point he hosted Queen Victoria as a guest), popular reforms at home and many other powers were simply tired of fighting. If he doesn't invade Mexico and improves relations with Russian Czar Alexander II (along with 1-2 others), he possibly wins the Franco-Prussian War and France enters a new golden age. If he does that and keeps doing his good reforms, the Bonapartes stay on the throne in some role possibly until World War II, maybe even to the present day. I doubt however whether he could have prevented World War I, as Germany probably would have somehow still united at some point and wanted revenge for the (alt universe) 1870 defeat.
@@thunderbird1921
It's facsinating to see a FRANCO-ZULU WAR happen under NAPOLEON THE 3RD
It’s like the ultimate curse the ambition to take over the world but the same ambition inevitably causes you to lose it as well.
@@mattbanco4406 His ambition wasn't really to take over the world. Even he as an intellectual would know that's an impossible feat. But seek glory.
sustainability is more believable if Grand Army never goes to Russia
There are 2 options in my opinion.
1- Alexander I is not a dick and stays chill without interveining in western europe affairs
2- Napoleon is just less impatient and waits with his army in moscow untill the weather gets better, and then march to saint petersburg and murder the czar
@@coalatm6479 Well the problem with the latter is that he had few supplies, and the Russians destroyed most of Moscow to deny the French further supplies. The Russians would have likely raided and ambushed any supply trains going to Napoleon if he wintered in Moscow, if the Swedish invasion under Karl XII shows anything. If Napoleon kept going then he would have ended up having a Poltava of his own (at Poltava, modern Ukraine, the cut-off and starving Carolean army was decisively defeated and Karl XII went into self-exile in the Ottoman Empire for several years) and the deconstruction of the French Empire would have occurred faster. If this happened Napoleon wouldn't have left Russia with 100k men, more like a handful of the Imperial Guard.
@hello kitty Arthur Wellesley
@random user the problem with ottoman empire was that their allied satrapies were raiding european (read french allied) coastlines and ships, carrying off slaves to work in their brothels and galleys. US Marines crossed the Atlantic to fight against this. Wiki"The First Barbary War (1801-1805), also known as the Tripolitanian War and the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two Barbary Wars, in which the United States and Sweden fought against the four North African states known collectively as the "Barbary States". Three of these were autonomous, but nominally provinces of the Ottoman Empire: Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis. The fourth was the independent Sultanate of Morocco"
@random user napolean's reach genrly ended at the low water mark...his ships were genrly stuck in port or evading british ships.
But the French Flag really was just white at some point because of the House of Bourbon, I think.
Oui
That is true!
And during Napoleon time, the French monarchy symbol of Fleur de Lys was replaced by golden bees 🐝 for this new regime
The French flags actually represent the colours of Paris (Red and blue) crushing the monarchy, but they switched the blue and red To make it look prettier
Actually the white flag for surrender Come from the flag of the french monarchy. In the past, to surrrender an army was showing the winner flag to thé ennemy army. As France was a great military power, a lot of nations had this flag. With time, the monarchy’s flag bécame the white flag for surrender we all know. Thàts why it is funny to considèred that the jokes made over France losing, are actually using a proof of it’s great military power
Si Napoléon avait gagné, cette section commentaire serait en français
Effectivement et la vidéo aussi
exact…
C'est parce que j'ai étudié la langue française B)
Oui tu as raison. Mais le monde aurait parlé français si on avait gagné la guerre de 7 ans, ce qui n’est pas le cas
Nous doit espère que l'Afrique française industriellizes 👀
Oh boy, did somebody say "What If"?
He had arrived
oh hello there love your vids!
I watch your vids
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
@@hubazubax Thanks!
17:38 yeah this achievement is called mare nostrum... Also that map is familiar.
Eu IV Wiki :)))
Actually, the French royal flag was really white.
Back in the days, the defeated armies had to wave their ennemy's flag as a sign of submission, and since France was so powerful and defeated so many ennemies, their flag ended up being used as the official capitulation flag by everyone.
Nah mate. That tradition is far older. You were fed an ancient regime myth. "The white flag was widely used in the Middle Ages in Western Europe to indicate an intent to surrender. The color white was used generally to indicate a person was exempt from combat; heralds bore white wands, prisoners or hostages captured in battle would attach a piece of white paper to their hat or helmet, and garrisons that had surrendered and been promised safe passage would carry white batons"
Yeah true
pretty sure its the opposite where france won so much they just adopted the white as the flag of the royal house but I could be very wrong
If Napoleon was never defeated we would be all eating French Fries......hold up
Belgium fries 🇧🇪🍟😎
France got Belgium then French fries
@@engineer984 is belguim fries 🍟😎🇧🇪
@Herman Greenfield Shout up.
@Herman Greenfield Read my name
Someone: "Napoleon is short"
Napoleon: *what did you say to me, y o u l i t t l e p r i c k ?*
Fun fact: Napoleon is mentioned in Polish anthem: "... Dał nam przykład Bonaparte jak zwyciężać mamy."
What translates to: "Napoleon gave us an expample on how to win."
10:40 Napoleon didn't win but we got problems with freedom of press and freedom of speech anyways. I don't know for 100% but I feel like I would rather live in a Napoleonic world than a world that a lot of times acts like you have freedom of speech but only as long as it doesn't go against the leaders...
You're from ?
@@uncitoyen_8614 Europa
17:42 I can see France, Austria and Rusia colaborating to take down an alrady failing Otoman empire
probably no....... Russia and France would compete over who could influence the ottomans most, like the British and Russia did in real life.......Later as Austria-Hungary itself destabilize, along with the Russian Empire, both would fall into French influence
@Ainesh Paul who were napoleon's allies???
@James Stockdale so prussia was really an enemy?
To be honest at this point, France (or Russia) alone would have been enough. The Ottoman empire was already a pale shadow of its former self in the early 1800s.
@@xenotypos did napoleon had any spanish,russian,prussian,austrian alliesm
If Napoleon was never defeated, we would be fighting right now the [insert big number]th coalition war
It could be 22nd or 21st not necessarily th
Would have been easier to just accept French rule, I think.
@@silverletter4551 French rule could mean French dictatorship and no free speech
@@ireneuszpyc6684 like they have free speech now? I'm just imagining a glorious French empire
@@ireneuszpyc6684
Dictatorship? No free speech? that was in the XIX century, The British don't have it, The Prussians don't have it, The Austrians don't have it, The Government after Napoleon don't have it,
And by the ways Napoleon was hardly a dictator, But in any case Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, Charles X, Ferdinard VIII, Franz II, George IV, Alexander I, where not friendly to the people at all,
And by the ways the Frenchs had "Free Speech", what they doesn't had was, "Wartime Free Press", but do you know a country who have it?
You are just an stupid, or a hater, but there you are.
In his uchrony "L'ange blond", the writer Laurent Poujois situates the inflection point of history in Napoleon's recall of the engineer Fulton to build steamships that enabled him to conquer England.
That would have been quite a thing. However the steam engine by itself wasn't that big of a game changer, in terms of war that is. It did eventually enable the creation of Ironclads, but for that you'd still need decades of scientific and industrial development.
Further, the problem ultimately wasn't that the French navy was inferior to the British navy, it was the people in charge. Napoleon should have learned from his Egyptian campaign and have Nelson taken out of the picture, or at the very least hand control of his fleet to one of the Spanish admirals rather than to Villeneuve.
@@Gabriel-ip6me You're being stern with this poor Villeneuve. I seem to have read that his great handicap was the lack of training of his crews made up of new recruits compared to those of Nelson.
But back to fulton : the great revolution of steam navigation is that one can sail without worrying about the wind direction and thus launch an attack on England from any point on the French coast.
@@monnezzapromizoulin5169 I've read the opposite, actually. That the problem with the French navy was that even though the ships themselves were on par with the British ships, and the crews of similar quality, France had no good officers because basically all of them had died during the revolution (they were all aristocrats). I tend to agree because when you look at the battle of Trafalgar, that was ultimately won through Nelson's superior strategy.
Now, as for the steamboats. That could be true. It seems to me though that you'd still want to move the grand army through the shortest possible distance. And in the end, launching the attack wasn't really the problem, England had been invaded several times through history. The problem was that he needed to defeat the Royal Navy first to secure passage for his troops. And in that regard, I'm not sure steamboats would've helped. Maybe he could've used a fleet of fast moving ships to harass the British navy and ultimately cut them off from suplies, like a naval guerrilla war. But big naval battles were based on the size and firepower of the ships, not their mobility.
@@Gabriel-ip6me Yes, the French crews had less experience than the English and were tired after the round trip to the West Indies. The navy had suffered greatly from the desertion of royalists officers. The older Spanish ships were slower than the French and therefore had difficulty manoeuvring effectively with their allies.
Villeneuve was aware of its weaknesses and had developed a two-line deployment strategy. The larger ships on one line, the lighter ones, manoeuvred in parallel to surprise and harass the English attack, but the unfavourable weather caused the plan to fail.
The British government and the Royal Navy would not have stood idly by whilst the French built sea going steam boats. As it is, the first sea going steam boat was Richard Wright's Experiment, which sailed in 1813, six years after Robert Fulton's North River Steamboat took to the Hudson. If the French had been seen to be working on such a thing, then I'm sure it would have turned into a race.
Love your videos! Keep the great work up!
I just solved my Rubik's cube after 2 years
cool
I’m still working on mine
Well done
pog
No one asked
TBF, the white flag literally was the French flag at one point.
Well not quite totally white. It was the Royal French Fleur de lis on a white banner
@@jrk3nn3dy 1815-1830 the french naval ensign was pure white
The french had the white flag for 1 day during the revolution.
Yeah they had made It white. The reason why it was white was to represent the white flag of France’s enemies as they bloody won so much...
It was the Bourbon's flag and mainly used on warships and more as national flag during the Restauration 1815-1830
Great video as always!
Gloire à l'Empire !
No
@@fortune3911 yes!
Vive la République.... 🇪🇺🇫🇷
@@andrewrobinson2565 Vive la monarchie Française !
@@mrslowne6103 A Lone Ranger... 🤣
You have given me the motivation to play an Eu4 campaign with France, with a thousand hours and I haven't played one yet XD
Let's become the European Union then
About the colonial question, I think maybe some efforts to keep the profitable colonies would have been made, IE the french Caribbean and Indian Ocean holdings. Louisiana was considered an expense more than a profitable colony but Islands such as the Martinique or the Réunion were extremely profitable, and the later an important base for any trade with Asia.
Great Video. Hope to See More. Napoleon is Indeed a Question yet to be Solved.
me too!
Talleyrand told the Austrian Emperor to just wait. He said that sooner or later Napoleon would over reach & then this would result him in him falling from power
No world wars? Damn we got the wrong time-line
general knowledge doing what if scenarios? oh yes pls give more
I want to se a totally biased take on Napoleon proclaiming him to conquer the Universe!
*Civil War intensifies*
He gave us metric, if he won we might spoke French as well
This whole video feels off but it's amazing
Sad that the UA-cam algorithm doesn't help
Great video!
Excellent work
Interestingly, Poniatowski tried to convince Napoleon to make Ukraine and Belarus his main focus in the Russian war, maybe if he listened to that advice
@Vive L'Empereur Poniatowski already had a lot of experience gained while leading the Polish defense in Ukraine, during the War in Defence of the Constitution, he even managed to defeat Russians in the Battle of Zieleńce. Poniatowski understood how to fight in Easter Europe better than Napoleon, and believed that quick march on the capital city won't be as effective as in Germany, Austria or Italy due to the size of Russia. Poniatowski wanted to convince Napoleon to fight Russians on his playground, where he had experience from before the partitions. There was also a difference in outlook on the objective of the war, Poniatowski wanted the "Second Polish War" to be focused on recreating the Polish-Lithuanian state, while Napoleon wanted to force Russia to rejoin the continental blockade and only used the Polish question as a pretext to invade. It's interesting, because Poniatowski became the right hand man of Napoleon after the defeat of Grande Armée
in Russia, becoming the first and only foreign marshal of France.
Yea because Ukraine and Belarus are Poland’s desired sphere of influence. See the games they play today in those counties in an attempt to break Russia and forge a defacto Polish Intermarium. Ukraine and especially Belarus are torn between the pages of Polish and Russian history. It’s only natural that the Poles were not into Napoleon’s greater plan, a near suicidal attempt to punish the Russians, and instead not only focus his attention on something more attainable, and thus secure the Duchy of Warsaw’s statehood, probably with the hope of the additional territories warranting separation from Saxony and Polish independence (well not from Napoleon’s grip but on paper)
@@TheLocalLt It's also important to remember that Poland based it's reexpansion plans on the large Polish population (mostly nobility) in Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus: In Kiev for example:
"Until the failed Polish insurrection of 1830-1831, Polish continued to be the administrative language in education, government and the courts"
"In 1812 there were over 43,000 Polish noblemen in Kiev province, compared to only approximately 1,000 "Russian" nobles."
"(...) although Poles made up no more than ten percent of Kiev's population and 25% of its voters. During the 1830s Polish was the language of Kiev's educational system, and until Polish enrollment in Kiev's university of St. Vladimir was restricted in the 1860s they made up the majority of that school's student body."
Even in 1918 after the Great War Poles were in majority in cities such as Lwów, Wilno, Brzesc, Grodno etc. Today, after Stalin's relocation all that's left is some small minority in Lithuania. So, today Poland hopes more to create buffer zone by including Belarus and Ukraine into NATO and E.U. than recreating the Commowealth. Still, the Three Seas Initiative is like the economic version of Intermarium.
@@pacthug4life Yes all the Poles from the Commonwealth era were ethnically cleansed by the Soviet Union, but if anything this made Poland post-1991 even more focused on gaining influence over Ruthenia. it’s not specifically about getting Ukraine and Belarus in the EU and NATO, they simply use that to try and get these countries in their sphere and steal them from Russia. They despise the EU as an agent of German globalism, except for the money it’s given them to become the most successful post-Communist country, but when a naïve Obama administration offered to help Poland try to get Ukraine into the EU, never mind NATO, Poland of course took them up on it, not because of any EU idealism, as America has its own problems with the EU, but because they know that a Ukraine in the EU would be subject to Poland’s sphere. Thus they backed the Maidan revolution to put a pro-EU government in place. They did not expect Russia to respond the way they did, which guaranteed Ukraine couldn’t join the EU (which has a requirement you must control all your claims territory) without signing away the Crimea and the Donbas. However it did take the rest of Ukraine, which despite not being in the EU moved closer to Poland and America, under its wing so the whole exercise ended in half a win for Poland, bringing Ukraine kinda-sorta into its sphere. More recently, it has backed the protesters in Belarus, whose history is even more torn between both Poland and Russia, and this has seemingly made the populace identify with Poland rather than Russia. Although the pro-Russian government remains, having the support of the populace could pay off in the future for Poland should that government fall, it makes a pro-Poland Belarus the clear alternative to a pro-Russian one
@@TheLocalLt You're right, as Ukraine is not yet in the U.E, but it's not a Russia's ally anymore, so Poland reduced the hostile borderline by half. In general Poland is a important piece in U.S strategy, because it halts German and Russian expansion into central-eastern Europe. That's one of the reasons Trump attended the Three Seas Initiative summit and moved part of American forces from Germany to Poland. Polish and american interest aligns in many areas
7:38? Why? Before the Napoleonic Wars all of the land of the Duchy was Austrian and Prussian including Warsaw and Krakow which Russia had no claim on, having only taken the other PLC land 20 years earlier. Why would Napoleon give up his only loyal ally (Polish troops stuck with Napoleon even onto Elba even after he had to leave it after the Russian campaign to regroup while even his own marshalls fled) and contributed 1/6 of his troops for the Russian campaign (100 000) and more during the earlier course of the war and was a vital staging point for future invasions of Russia or to tame its expansion. Napoleon also seemed to have a belief in restoring Poland as a nation, if Leipzig wouldn't have happened marshall Poniatowski would still be alive and he was considered the rightful prince of Poland.
Very well thought out
Yes please do a video about his life.
Such a great video! What an intresting alternate world! Vive l'Empereur! 😆🇫🇷
(Also an alternate history scenario about WW1 might be cool)
Napoleon was one of the greatest generals in history - and he knew it! He was also driven to leave a magnificent legacy. he would have treated any peace made in 1812/1813 as temporary.
I am sure that he would have treated the failure to launch an invasion of Britain, and/or the failure in Russia as stains on his record that he MUST avenge.
As the video says, even successful countries and leaders can cause their own downfall by overreaching themselves.
Reality did not turn out so badly for Fancce though - still one of the world's great countries and cultures!
🇬🇧 🇷🇺 🇫🇷
This is the third France-related video today
Next video: what if Franz Ferdinand wasn't killed in Sarajevo and WW1 had never happened... Treaty of Versailles
if archduke ferdinand wasn't shot...
ww1 would've happened for a different reason.
ww1 was basically unavoidable by that point. The franco-russians were hoping for a justification to invade germany, who in turn had been making invasion plans against them for ages, the austro-hungarians and ottomans were already trying to invade the balkans, and england was terrified of the central powers possibly amassing enough of a navy to break them if their naval ambitions weren't crushed first.
save ferdinand and at most you get a week of peace, being generous, ww1 was inevitable.
@EmperorKleetorisTheCuckolder It really wouldn't have taken that long at all. And the difference in result would've likely not been too large. The Ottomans and Austrohungary were always gonna crash, if not due to the war then due to internal strife. The Balkans were always gonna blow the fuck up triggering both of them. In fact Ferdinand went to Serbia precisely to try and stop it from blowing up, which was a lost cause. And if anything, the longer this took to blow the less of a chance Germany had to win, because their issue was a lack of resources and being sandwiched. Meaning the later it started the better the infrastructure letting their enemies hit both flanks, making their attempted strategy of taking them one by one less viable, and the less resources they had, meaning they'd be even more dependant on sea trade, which britain could nuke with ease. So, yeah, that was already decided before it started, only way to change it would've lied in how the pacts and infrastructure was built before that point.
Some other what if ideas
What if Britain defeated the American Revolution?
What if Spain won the Eighty Years War
What if Spain and its allies won the War of the Spanish Succession?
What if France won the Franco-Prussian War of 1871?
What if Germany won WW1?
What if Austria won the Austro-Prussian War of 1866?
Sir, What about , "What if Adolph Hitler had won the World war 2"??
@@rahulgarg3537 bruh
Then we wouldn't have a banger ABBA song!
The best comment
The Waterloo soundtrack at the back🔥🔥🔥
When are you going to upload the flag contest results
Is today Napoleon day?
Like I saw a video about him in Vox earlier.
...strange...
I cry every time I wake up from this dream
me too.
This video seem like it was hell of a lot of work amazing and tireless work
What program do you use to draw these things?
Paint
Wait this isn’t alternatehistoryhub
Eu4 Map at about 17:50 , nice
Please make more videos like this
Id love a video about how napoleons rise to power and how he conquered half of europe!
It seems to me that in such a reality Poles could have considered France a traitor a little earlier.
Napoleon would had never agreed upon giving up his friends, as he made clear at 1812 and even in 1814, he probalby would had given up Spain and Austria, but not Poland, who anyways was esentially independent so... If Napoleon never had fallen Poland would had existed since then, slowly recovering other grounds, remember who Napoleon have an admiration for the Poles, who went behind his administration and wars, that was something who nobody apreciate after him, that is why France give a shit about Poland.
But never under Napoleon,
Actually the invasion of Russia was partly because the threats from Alexander I of Russia of attack Poland, and the objective was to liberate Lithuania, to incorporate their lands upon the duchy of Warsaw,
Everyone gangsta till Greenland is bigger then Africa.
Isn't this supposed to be a video for Alternate History Hub?
I've always wanted to know what would have happened if General Jean Humbert's failed 1798 invasion of Connacht (Western Ireland) didnt fail, as he had in our time, formed the Republic of Connacht in the northern part of the province for 12 days, until low supplies and the easier resupply for the British overwhelmed them. To those near and in the towns he marched through, hes considered a Hero to us, and I do feel like personally, if it succeded, could have effect history partially, maybe Ireland got its independence earlier, who knows who side they would have joined in WW1, or how the Island would be to this day
Can you please make a video on What if France Won the seven years war.
Can you please make a video on what if france won the seven years war.
18:19 suffering from succes 😂😂😂
What’s the painting at 17:56?
VIVE L'EMPEREUR🇫🇷
Me playing Regnum Poloniae on hoi4 and selecting the French Monarch:
Spain is ungovernable and Napoleon will regret about conquering Spain
Hahahahaha
"Oh that's untrue? These like's aren't though." -A Russian Badger video
Beautiful!
Yeah do a history of Napoleon video. That whould be intresting!
he was never defeated! They cheated! It was unfair! ( etc... sorry , french fair-play)
If I had to say one problem about this video, it's that after Napoleon's defeat in Russia he had already lost the war against the coalition, his veterans were mostly dead, France was too exhausted already, and the 6th Coalition had their time to recover and attack at full force, so if Napoleon had remained in power, he wouldn't have invaded Russia AND POINT, instead he make a status quo treaty, nothing changes, and he would pacify Spain, and try to do the rest of what it's said in the video, but he can't invade Russia no matter what
2:38: It is also called the Battle of Nations and was the decisive victory over Napoleon.
can you do a Video on, what if WW1 end in a fair peace. Or without the USA? I'm really interesst how the world will be after that
Sure!
Well first thing first: Germany never gets split in half, but still loses Alsace-Lorriane and it's Namibia and Cameroon Colonies. The split up states of the Austro-Hungarian Empire take on half the war debt, since it started the war. 25% of the war debt goes to Germany, and 25% goes to Turkey. All these nations take 75% of War responsibility, while the Soviet Union (or White Russia) along with Serbia and France take on the remaining 25% of war responsibility, by paying medium-sized War Reparations to the Central Powers. Poland would get small territorial gains from Germany, and Lithuania would be reunited with Poland to allow Poland Sea Access. The German Puppets would become independent, and would either pursue their own paths or be eaten by a Recovering Russia. Germany would not lose Memel or Northern Schleswig, since those were fairly uncalled for territorial losses (weren't in the war or were liberated by Germany) Germany's remaining colonies would see a brief occupation (1/2-1 1/2 years) and then would be returned. A Republic most likely gets replaced by a Monarchy again since Fascism and Communism never takes off as well, and well, the Weimar Republic was already flawed. This is my idea of a peace treaty, I'd love to see what other people come up with.
@@rebelgaming1.5.14 Several things you mentioned were already impossible regardless of what would happen
German and Italian Nationalism would become major problems for the French however and could very likely bring the downfall of their empire.
You should do what if the countries had empires instead of presidents!
For Napoleon to stay in power I’d say there are a few points of departure. First is 1806 when he placed his brother Joseph on the throne of Naples. I say the as it proved the first due his continual diplomatic blunders that arose from placing his relatives on the thrones of nations that they were I’ll prepared to rule. Naples, Westphalia, the Netherlands, and Spain especially could’ve proved far more functional and loyal allies if napoleon acted as a mediator and placed local rulers in power, rather than using them as vain attempts to expand his own dynasty. With that he’d have a much stronger coalition and several far more stable allies allowing him to refocus hundreds of thousands of men to other more important fronts resulting in a victory being far more likely.
Secondly is his invasion of Russia in 1812. Napoleon is commonly harangued by the general public for invading in winter, which presumably caused his invasion to fail, but the actual nail in the coffin was his diversion from his original plan. Napoleon never intended to stay in Russia for more than a few months and intended to win a decisive battle in Belorussia to secure a quick peace. He fully understood that pushing all the way to Moscow was practically suicidal, but his developing strategic narcissism - the belief that your strategy will work as it has before simply because your the dominate power- caused napoleon to press on to Moscow. Napoleon could’ve absolutely invaded belorussia and turned back as planned and fought on his own ground in Poland or Galicia, which likely would’ve resulted in a victory and a return to status quo or a make up between him and Alexander to resolve their differences. The war with Russia was winnable, but the invasion was not, and Napoleons eagerness to press on and take Moscow sullied any chance of peace with Alexander. Napoleon then could’ve re-focused his men back onto Spain and attempted to expel Wellington himself.
Lastly is Napoleon simply accepting peace, either at Amiens or Frankfurt. If he accepted Amiens, more so followed through on his end of the bargain, France would’ve remained the dominant land power in Europe, and likely could’ve capitalized on the growing republicanism in Germany and Italy and instability in Spain to expand their influence with far less difficulty. And Frankfurt would’ve resulted in a weaker, but ultimately still dominant France and safety for Napoleon and ruler.
Me, a Pole, hearing Duchy of Warsaw would go to Russia:
sad Polish noises
Well, it's time for another uprising then
Napoleon would had never agreed upon giving up his friends, as he made clear at 1812 and even in 1814, he probalby would had given up Spain and Austria, but not Poland, who anyways was esentially independent so...
@@omarbradley6807 Duchy of Warsaw was a self-ruled client state
Nah poland would be just a guardian of the East for napoleon, and war with russian would go for around 20 years
Did a Vid for him life. It will be Incredible
Result would be unimaginebly better
One of the most badass story in my opinion, from a Regional Nationalists to an Emperor who nearly conquered all of Europe, Vive le Empereur 🇨🇵🇨🇦
Frane: I dominate everybody and won the most battles ever
France in ww2: gets blitzkrieg
France ever sense: LOL THEY SURRENDERED
every war of conquering europe
>british never invaded
>ending with failed invade russia
British was conquered by a Normand William the Conqueror
The Luso-Britannic alliance is one of my favourite historical things. UK and Portugal really said "besties forever" and meant it.
I was literally just think this 20 minutes ago
cool
Englis
Luckily they banished him to a island,
But he came back!!!
yes yes he did
Then they vanished him in another far-away island.
*Luckily they banished him to another island*
@@IVaV1 yes
@@sandrocorruption2599 Sadly we typed it at the same time
The one thing Napoleon could never prevent was cancer. It’s unreasonable to believe he would still contract it. Which brings in the question of how much could he do with about a decade of power.
I don’t think much of history would have changed.
He dies from stomach cancer not long after his finally defeat. Once he died his empire would have collapsed like that of Alexander.
The only thing that could change this is if he captured London.
Personally, I think that any large concentrations of political and economic power are dangerous. Whether it's the French Empire, the European Union, or some other large coalition of international power, such centralization offers tremendous opportunities for tyranny.
Not so. France was a republic, like Rome. Rome had its share of emporors
@@jabronis33 Rome was a republic for about 300 years. Then, Julius Caesar assumed absolute power and began the process of changing it into an authoritarian empire. His heir Octavian Caesar Augustus continued this process, as did every emperor after. After a century of this, the Senate was little more than a formality; all real power was held by the emperor. Rome was a republic in name only at that point.
according to this countries like the US, China, India or Russia should be dissolved as well, since they are all as big and powerful, if not more, than what a unified Europe would be. This also ignores the fact that many tyrannies were established in small countries, and that there is not really any correlation between a country’s size and its likelihood of becoming a tyranny (for example the US is a very big country and it’s a democracy while Tagikistan is a much smaller country, but it’s a dictatorship, and I could make a million other examples
The "process" in Napoleon's court was that you were guilty until proven innocent and the magistrate was the judge and the prosecutor combined. Napoleon also reintroduced slavery in it's colonies.
I have often wondered where this nonsense comes from. Le Code Civil des Francais (Napoleonic Code) is a body of civil law standardised by Napoleon from the various codes preceding it. The maxim in civil law codes is ‘In dubiis benigniora preferenda sunt’. This includes the Roman Dutch Law used in my country ( replaced in the Netherlands by the Napoleonic Code), although English Common Law is used here for criminal procedure because of the Napoleonic Wars. Some systems emanating from the Napoleonic code has taken this a step further. Under Italian law you cannot be sentenced until all appeals are exhausted. While you are correct about the reintroduction of slavery, the Revolutionary government only abolished slavery in three colonies fearing economic repercussions, hardly commendable.
@@seamonster936 Yes, although France mainly feared another military uprising, like in Haiti.
I'm sorry, but I didn't get your point before that? You wondered where what came from?
Jaunty Angle The erroneous believe that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent, that is not the case in civil law. And it wasn’t the case under the French Civil Code instituted by Napoleon.
Jaunty Angle Yes I meant they didn’t abolish slavery in the other colonies because it would have left them at a disadvantage when all other European Powers engaged in the slave trade. Although prominent Revolutionary leaders abhorred slavery, notably Robespierre.
@@seamonster936 Yes, abolishing slavery was surely one of the most expensive decisions in British history.
(With regards to making compensations claims).
I know this was a bit of a footnote to the whole thing, but the impact on European Colonisation of Africa is probably bigger than was implied.
Colonising Africa was unpopular with large parts of the elite in Europe, and often met with ambivalence from the population. The move from informal empire to formal colonies wasn't inevitable.
Bismarck actively pushed France to seek colonies in Africa in an attempt to 'compensate' for the loss of Alsace-Lorraine/military prestige. If you take this, and Leopold of Belgium out of the equation, then it's possible you don't see formal empires in Africa (or not outside of very small ports to protect trade routes)
France had effectively lost control of Spain by 1813 and never would have been able to keep it
If the sixth coalition was defeated, the Frenchs would had keep Spain, As the French stoped from contesting Spain after 1813, but, if the coalition was defeated, all the frenchs would had fell upon the British again, just like in 1812, and force them back to Portugal
@@omarbradley6807 no it’s not that simple. Spain was in open bloody revolt for years. It was not going to be held.
0:45
Napoleon: Who's laughing now?
Russia and its winter: We are
correct
PORTUGAL CRLLLLLL!
Guys, join the Discord Server and chat with other fans and sometimes General Knowledge as well. Over Christmas and New Year you can also achieve higher ranks there more easily
When General Knowledge and Vox both release a video about Napoleon in the same day
Yeah coincidence but this video about if and that video was about why does Napoleon put his hand in
yes
But Vox is just part of the "American basic knowledge"
@@omarbradley6807 Vox is also part of the "We will seem neutral however are obviously promoting democrat"
Sweden loosing Finland and not getting Norway? Oh belive me, there would soon enough be another war against Denmark. xD
Invade Russia in winter, they said
It'll be fun, they said
The most sucesful invations of Russia happened always on winter, And Napoleon didn't begun his gamble in winter bur in summer
Tambora volcano in Indonesia has stopped him forever at Waterloo hahaha..
When I see every napoleon's pic . Looks like he is getting heart attack
France, takes a while to get their act together but when they do, hoo boy
@Blackà Đønz the UK is a rouge french colony
@Blackà Đønz never underestimate Portugal
"Takes a while"
--> literally 900 years during which nothing happened in Europe without France either approving it or losing a war to accept it.
7:32 like...Poland was the only true and loyal ally of French, they fought bravely across entire continent and beyond (Haiti). A Pole was an only foreigner to be granted the rank of Marschall of France. After it all, the French would just agree to give Poland to Russia?
Well the French would've most likely cared about their empire more than they would have cared about a loyal ally.
And they still had Spain.
@@_casanova who they betrayed and were fighting
Would be really difficult for France to defend Poland from Russia, and geographically its far away from France
probably the resurrection of the western roman empire
It's an interesting counterfactual
Stating the EU is the successor to Napoleon's French Empire is as accurate as stating it's the 4th German Reich.
It's also not per se better than either of the empires mentioned, it's useful in keeping the continent at peace yes, but at the same time it's also a bureaucratic behemoth with little to no elected representatives or officials.
The lack of critical thinking or any trace of intellect and knowledge in this comment is astonishing. Let’s ignore the fact that you said that the EU, a bastion of democracy, peace, citizen protections and human rights, is “not per se better” than the 3rd Reich, which is a completely moronic and ridiculous claim, which shows a great deal of ignorance. Not only does the EU have an entire parliament elected by EU citizens, but all of its other major official figures are indirectly democratically elected as well. For example the EU commission is nominated by the European council, which is formed by the heads of state of the EU countries, who are elected in their own respective countries since every member of the EU is a democracy, and then approved by the EU parliament, which is directly elected by the EU citizens. It’s pretty standard in every single democratic country that isn’t a presidential or semi-presidential republic that the prime minister is indirectly elected and not directly elected by the citizens; for example in Italy the prime minister is nominated by the President of the Republic, who isn’t directly elected by citizens either, and then approved by Parliament, in a similar way to how the President of the EU Commission is nominated by the European Council and then approved by the EU parliament; that doesn’t make neither Italy nor the EU not democratic.
I would even agree with extending the powers of the EU parliament, which is elected directly by EU citizens, or making the President of the Commission a directly elected figure, to boost the democratic legitimacy of the EU, but that is precisely what people like you don’t want, because it would strengthen the EU. Which is ironic considering one of your main criticism of the EU is the fact that many officials aren’t directly elected by citizens, and shows that either you don’t even properly understand what your saying, which is very likely, or your criticism of the EU is in bad faith, which is the case for many politicians who oppose the EU like Nigel Farage who admitted after the brexit referendum that the majority of what he promised during its campaign was bs