@10:46 - "Where have [The Guard] been?" In reserve. The Guard are the Elites of Napoleon's army, and they weren't committed often because if he loses them, he loses an extremely valuable unit. In addition to that, why they're not committed at the outset of a fight is if they are routed, as in the case of Waterloo, their loss is devastating for morale and would likely cause a general rout.
I don't believe the British transported Napoleon to St. Helena out of hatred. He was send to St. Helena purely because that he was a loose cannon who couldn't be trusted. Despite his second short exile, he did have British admirers and for the most part, was treated well by the British and the Allies on St. Helena. For example, Hudson Lowe the Governor of St. Helena and Napoleon's jailer so to speak, allegedly restricted/limited firewood to Napoleon meant to keep him warm. Lowe insisted Napoleon cough up silver for the firewood, this in turn allegedly caused Napoleon to burn furniture to keep warm. After word got back to Britain about his treatment by Lowe it caused such a scandal that his firewood supply was restored and Lowe a short time later was recalled to Britain.
not sure if you guys gives a damn but if you guys are stoned like me during the covid times then you can watch pretty much all the latest series on instaflixxer. I've been streaming with my gf during the lockdown =)
I visited Waterloo a couple of times in 1998 - Rubbermaid had their European headquarters there for a while after moving there from Luxembourg. I stayed in the 1815 hotel, right on the edge of the battlefield close to the lion monument.
Hi! I enjoyed watching you guys react to this series. However, I'd like to echo a request made by some who have previously commented on your channel. There are two videos in the series you have missed - NAPOLEON'S VIETNAM: SPAIN 1809-1811 and SALAMANCA 1812. These two videos fit into the series between Wagram 1809 and the Invasion of Russia 1812. They'll give you an idea of how the guerrilla war in Spain was a drain on France's manpower and how Napoleon's subordinates performed when not under his direct supervision (Napoleon never returned to Spain after the initial invasion). It also helps illustrate why the Duke of Wellington was Britain's best and most respected military commander of the age. If you're sad that the series is finished, don't despair, there's a bit more to see! As others have, I also recommend moving on to the series on Napoleon's Marshals after this. Although Napoleon was undoubtedly the dominant historical figure of this period, the cast of characters around him was, arguably, every bit as interesting. Best wishes from a former resident of the Chicago suburban area! (Channahon, near Joliet)
You should see this amazing video about the peace that was made after the napoleonic war. Made by Historia Civilis. Video name is The congress of Vienna. It is in two parts. It shows a less anglican skued story of the last year, 1814. And gives a fair critisism of the different players and nations at the end of the war. It also answers many of the questions that you have asked during this reaction series. I think you would really like it.
Interestingly enough, after Napoleon's defeat it was Wellington that insisted Napoleon not be executed but sent again into exile. Josephine and Wellington were lovers before she and Napoleon married and there was much respect between the two generals for their courage.
Actually, Napoleon disrespected Wellington and underestimated his ability as a General. He famously called Wellington "the sepoy general" implying that we was only good enough to defeat Indian armies. History records that in Portugal, Spain & Holland, Wellington got the better of Marshals Soult, Massena, Jordan, Marmont & Napoleon's brother, Joseph. The only confrontation he had with Napoleon he was on the victorious side having captured 2 French Imperial Eagle standards, having outwitted Marshal Ney, having completely repulsed the famous Imperial Guard, and having lastly obliterated the Old Guard (when they refused his offer to surrender peacefully).
@@ssrmy1782 As you say, Napoleon was proven wrong in the Iberia, Wellington beat some of his best Generals including Soult who the Emperor considered one of his top 3 Marshals.
Wellington had the foresight to guess that Napoleon would again break his agreements and try to regain power. He also guessed the likely point of attack and the previous year had been surveying the territory around the French/Belgian border and had identified Waterloo as a good place to confront the French. He was concerned that his army had lost many of the experienced British troops from the peninsular war and was a mixture of some British, German and Dutch. The Dutch, led by the Prince of Orange, proved the least reliable though capable of fighting well under good leadership. Sadly their Prince was not the person to provide this, and was described by Wellington as “brave but very stupid “..
Wellington, in my opinion, didn't do anything great in the battle of Waterloo. The Prussians saved the day and his men fought well and bravely. He hasn't accomplish anything worth mentioning except succeeding in buying time for Prussia to join them. No matter how hateful people want to portray Napoleon... in the end, his military genious, his social reforms (he was a very good politician also... many of his reforms are still in use today) made him one of the greatest leader of his time. Many think he was a tyrant, I don't think he was. From the French revolution to his last days on earth, he changed Europe, forever, in so many ways.
12:10 when the British surrounded the Old Guard if Napoleon, Duke of Wellington proposed them to surrender: "Merdé!" ("Sh*t!") - was the answer (probably the commander - Colonel Cambron). So the British shoot them with the buckshot on a close distance, burying the Old Guard forever.
10:52 an interesting question but not much would have really changed in the grand scheme. Britain although losing their primary army in a Waterloo defeat still had its overwhelming navy to prevent a French invasion. Prussia not joining Britain at Waterloo would still have an army under bluchers command in any case as well as more armies behind them in reserve further towards Germany. Not only this, the Austrians and Russians had already sent armies West to face Napoleon in 1815. Napoleons plan was to defeat prussian and Britain before isolating the Russian and Austrian armies and defeating them individually before they could all join and pose a larger threat. A very desperate and ambitious plan considering the resources he had at that time. Dresden was Napoleons last hoo ra and even then the campaign was turning against him, he should never have ventured into Russia
@@lupus5338 the only real way he could have won was by battering the prussians properly at ligny not giving them time to regroup. Then go on to Waterloo and defeat a very lonely Wellington. As I said in my original post though, I don’t think much would have changed much. He would still have to fight the rest of Europe (Sweden, Austria, Russia, even Spain) with very stretched resources and no allies Could napoleon have won Waterloo? Yes very possible. Could he have won the 100 days campaign (or the war of the 7th coalition) IMO no, there was far to much stacked against him with the resources he had
It's kinda crazy when you step back and think about who started those "Napoleonic wars"... Back then... the military commanders were all using the same doctrine. Attack is the best defense. This school of thought was the idea that you absolutely had to attack your ennemies if yiu wanted to win. In WW1, the French commanders still had that mentality, so did the central powers. What i'm trying to outline here is the fact that Napoleon only incaded other nations as a defensive move. He was a threat to the many different monarchy throughout Europe... so they had to create 4 coalition to bring him down... and everytime, Napoleon simply swept through Europe taking territory at the expense of the coalitions. Napoleon thought the same... if you want to win, you gotta invade and go on the offensive.
I thought it was a stupid thing to say. Of course it took two armies. It clearly stated at the beginning that individually, each army was outnumbered by the French. You don’t go up against Napoleon outnumbered.
Napoleon surrendered to the British - he called them the most generous of his enemies. The battle was won the moment the Old Guard retreated, the cry went up in the French ranks 'La Gard Recule' and the route began.
Napoleon surrendering to the British after his defeat at Waterloo is literally Shakespearean in so many ways. The Brits throughout 23 years of nearly continuous war was Napoleon's most steadfast enemy that never surrendered to him and was the main driving force behind the coalitions against him. Britain as Napoleon guessed correct was the major power that would less likely have the least angry against him and treat him far more humanely than say the Prussians who want him dead or alive.
The French were starting to break by the time the Prussians arrived but their impact helped to make a more complete rout from which the French could not recover.
Napoleon was a monster, he rampaged across Europe, Russia and Egypt. He was responsible for 100s of 1000s of deaths. He cared nothing for his men. He abandoned them in Egypt and he abandoned them in Russia. He was lucky to be allowed to live out his final years on St Helena.
No! The English Empire, the Russian Tsar, the Austrian Emperor, and the Prussian King were the real monsters! They started the whole war to crush the French Revolution!🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻
"Napoleon is responsible for more battles than half of US history combined" Well, from 46 US presidents, only about 4-5 of them never send an Army to wage war/invasion/combat/military intervention on foreign land.
You wonder what would have happened? Well Wellington wouldn’t have turned to fight with the Prussian promise. He would have retreated and left the road open to a Brussels. He would have got more reinforcements of experienced units. So he would have been stronger, but the loss of Brussels may have changed things, but the amount of armies against the French means unlikely they would have won this one long term.
I like your reaction,guys..I hope you can continue on the history reaction trail here...there is also,Napoleons marchals from Epic history,a great serie,that as well....
didnt know what Ney smoked that day but surely a good stuff that make him so high to take such unnecessary and fatal assault. Napoleon was like : where have you been? Ney : just taking a stroll around the British square formations.
He saw the British reform behind the step rise and road and withdraw back . It was a misty day and smoke haze stayed around low to the ground . he made a call to charge in as they wanted the road to open to Brussells . Historians have said Napoleon had piles problem this day and was absent at the exact hour and time . Hindsight distorts the mi-nute decisions
I enjoyed your journey into Napoleonic Wars, nice reactions ! Btw Ridley Scott is planning to direct a biopic on Napoleon with Joachim Phoenix. Could be awesome, even though i’m a bit worried ... Anyway, please watch the WW1 series from Epic History TV
My Regiment King's Dragoon Guards were part of the Heavy Brigade Cavalry now called 1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards (Look it up on Wikipedia) and we still celebrate Waterloo every year.
The imperial Guard were Napoleon’s hammer and would usually deliver the final coup de grâce to seal victory. That’s why they were not used in the early stages.
There are archaeological digs on the battlefield today with the help of Veterans of the British Army. If you want to know, what it looks like today, whatch one or two of their videos on the channel waterloo uncovered. (Link: ua-cam.com/channels/z11kf9s8aQpkfLmatuGstw.html ) By the way: La Belle Alliance, Napoleon's Headquarters during a part of the battle, is a disco today. And do you know the Abba song called Waterloo? In Germany the battle usually was named Battle of La Belle Alliance, but since the song got popular, this changed to Waterloo. The French called the battle after Mont St. Jean, where Wellington had his headquarters.
Napoleon was undoubtedly one of history´s most charasmetic and brilliant military generals/leaders. His soldiers,even foreign soldiers from countries he invaded,adored him and would in many times,as we have seen here,gladly sacrifice their lives for him,how many leaders can say the same? He could for sure,mesmerize both friends and foes,noone less brilliant could do as much as he did with the overwhelming odds that were against him,already starting in the early revolutionary wars in the 1790s in France. His ego though,became his downfall. He refused the allied peace suggestion to stay on as emperor if he went back to the old French borders,his ego couldnt take that,and he continued fighting,despite impossible odds until he was finally,for the last time,contained at Saint Helena...
The Congress of Vienna was eventually able to reorganize Europe after the final defeat of Napoleon. One of the things they did was create the Kingdom of Belgium out of the Dutch Republic and chose the widowed son-in-law of Britain's King George III, Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gothe, as the new King of Belgium. Leopold had been Victoria's cousin, Princess Charlotte's, husband. Charlotte died in childbirth along with her baby which is how the British crown settled on Victoria's head. Leopold was the brother of both Victoria's mother and Victoria's Consort, Prince Albert's, father.
No Belgium became a thing in 1830. And it was part of Austrian Habsburg Monarchy before the French Revolution. Current day Belgium was merged with the Netherlands in the Congress of Vienna.
Napoleon was the 19th century equivalent to the dictators of the 20th century and like them he left a trail of death and destruction behind him. He had an impact in terms of the time similar to Hitler. I
Yeah no, there are huge differences etween him and the20th century dictators. He freed Jews, and reestalished Poland, the opposite of Hitler, and he fought most wars defensively
@@KamfrenchieHe was a direct equivalent to Hitler in a military sense. A tyrant that invaded half a dozen countries. His troops commited war crimes especially in Spain & Russia. The end result of his militarism was the destruction of millions of lives across Europe, complete military and political failure. In fact, he left the Germanic nations as the dominant land power in Europe, and Britain as the dominant sea power. That's how much of a disaster he was for France. His stupidity cost 500,000 Frenchmen their lives in the invasion of Russia in 1812. As a comparison that's the same number of French civilian & military deaths in WW2. He made the 2 cardinal sins of warfare still taught at military academies today as things not to do (fighting multiple enemies simultaneously on multiple fronts, and invading Russia without regard to weather / supply lines). By the time he got to Moscow he had a 500 mile long salient. Idiotic to say the very least. People need to look at themselves and ask why they try to excuse military aggression from this guy, whilst being horrified at others who did the same. As for defensive militarism, could you please explain in detail the attacks on France made by Haiti, Syria, Egypt & Malta -- which caused France to invade those places in self-defence?
@@ssrmy1782 For one, before copy pasting a text that's full of bad approximation, maybe format it a bit. A tyrant compared to who ? The absolutist monarchies of mainland europe ? The tsar ? Napoleon was an autocrat, but a much more liberal ones than his opponents, with the possible exception of the UK. You conveniently leave out the fact that many of the wars were defensives ones, while Hitler fought no defensive war at all. Plus, at the end of the first war in italy, before he set out for Egypt, Austria hungary actually gained territory despite being defeated by Napoleon. To just focus on the end result is hindisght 2020. Nobody knows the future, it wasn't a foregone conclusion. It's also funny you attribute all of this to his militarism, and none to any other rulers. As if they were angels, or had no agency. Remind me who partitionned Poland during the French revolution ? Britain was already the dominant sea power, and the revolution had strenghtened it when many aristocrat fled to Britain. How were german states the dominant military power directly after his reign ? Prussia had been highly regarded even before Napoleon made himself known. The army that invaded Russia wasn't made of simply frencchmen, there were a bunch of allies too, so simplifying this as 500k frenchmen is wrong too. Military theorists and academy greatly praise Napoleon and recognize him as a genius. They do also aknowledge that it made him overconfident, but saying he paid no attention to logistic is again blatantly untrue. The logistic proved insufficient, not absent. He did try to improve it, but the improvement wasn't good enough. """could you please explain in detail the attacks on France made by Haiti, Syria, Egypt & Malta -- which caused France to invade those places in self-defence?"""" cute. completely strawmanning as if i had said all his campaigns were defensive, but those can easily be explained. Haiti was a very important colony for finances due to how profitable sugar was, and the colonial lobby was influential. Hence the expedition to retake it. The Egyptian campaign was meant to prevent British access to India. Malta was needed as a base to reach it, and the marching into Syria was the only way to return to Europe after the fleet was sunk at Aboukir and no diplomatic option was reached.
@@Kamfrenchie No copy & pasting, more fascination at the fact that my comment was removed -- which speaks for itself. If you adore a tyrant it's a you problem, not a me problem. Thankfully, the lunatic failed in all of his objectives.
The reason he keeps saying the bloodiest battle in every one is because at the time of each battle they were the new bloodiest not the bloodiest ever, hope this help abit.
He was the creator of the structure of the modern Army , General Lee was was an avid student of Napoleon , West Point used Napoleonic teachings for its future Civil War officers.
you got to remember, like Hitler, Napoleon was getting ready for years for these wars... so everyone was playing catch up... with most great leaders throughout history, this is the case... It's like your getting ready for ages for a game of monopoly, with your friends.. getting house's and hotels and cash ... then just out of the blue... saying GOOOO! i call it cheating... but that, in history, is the way to win... in my opinion...
I’m just going to give you a heads up throughout the entire Napoleon series by epic history TV they partnered up with a channel called history Marche, This is why it looked so well however when you review this particular episode on Waterloo you’ll notice that looks a bit bad this is because of two reasons first reason is that they didn’t partner with history Marche for this and two this is one of the most earliest videos I think the only things earlier were blackbeard and World War I. Just make certain that your presenters are aware of this fact and yes you did miss Salamanca and Napoleans Vietnam. And yes I will also recommend to view Napoleans marshals series but also by epic history TV just one thing the first few episodes deal was six marshals a piece think the first two episodes do so might be a good idea to split it into three and there least 30 to 40 minutes a piece. But they do cover all 26 of Napoleans Marshalls ranked from 26 to 1. I just finished this series myself and it is very informative.
Had the Prussians not arrived when they did Wellington would have very likely lost. But no, of course he is the one known for defeating Napoleon, when it was actually a team effort, with Blücher getting no glory.
@10:46 - "Where have [The Guard] been?"
In reserve. The Guard are the Elites of Napoleon's army, and they weren't committed often because if he loses them, he loses an extremely valuable unit. In addition to that, why they're not committed at the outset of a fight is if they are routed, as in the case of Waterloo, their loss is devastating for morale and would likely cause a general rout.
Napoleon usually commits them when he wants to finish of the enemy but at waterloo they were outnumbered and outgunned
I don't believe the British transported Napoleon to St. Helena out of hatred. He was send to St. Helena purely because that he was a loose cannon who couldn't be trusted. Despite his second short exile, he did have British admirers and for the most part, was treated well by the British and the Allies on St. Helena.
For example, Hudson Lowe the Governor of St. Helena and Napoleon's jailer so to speak, allegedly restricted/limited firewood to Napoleon meant to keep him warm. Lowe insisted Napoleon cough up silver for the firewood, this in turn allegedly caused Napoleon to burn furniture to keep warm. After word got back to Britain about his treatment by Lowe it caused such a scandal that his firewood supply was restored and Lowe a short time later was recalled to Britain.
Next want watch on Napoleon’s Marshal series! So cool and interesting
GODDAMN IT MAN LET THEM GET OFF NAPOLEON. Let THESE people watch oversimplified too
not sure if you guys gives a damn but if you guys are stoned like me during the covid times then you can watch pretty much all the latest series on instaflixxer. I've been streaming with my gf during the lockdown =)
@Phoenix Abram Definitely, have been using InstaFlixxer for months myself :)
Good reaction guys. The commentary improves after every episode. WW1 by epic history would be cool next.
I visited Waterloo a couple of times in 1998 - Rubbermaid had their European headquarters there for a while after moving there from Luxembourg. I stayed in the 1815 hotel, right on the edge of the battlefield close to the lion monument.
React to Napoleon Marshals series by Epic History, its also very well done.
Yes,please do,very interesting serie that one too.
History is something Americans know little
Hi! I enjoyed watching you guys react to this series. However, I'd like to echo a request made by some who have previously commented on your channel. There are two videos in the series you have missed - NAPOLEON'S VIETNAM: SPAIN 1809-1811 and SALAMANCA 1812. These two videos fit into the series between Wagram 1809 and the Invasion of Russia 1812.
They'll give you an idea of how the guerrilla war in Spain was a drain on France's manpower and how Napoleon's subordinates performed when not under his direct supervision (Napoleon never returned to Spain after the initial invasion). It also helps illustrate why the Duke of Wellington was Britain's best and most respected military commander of the age.
If you're sad that the series is finished, don't despair, there's a bit more to see!
As others have, I also recommend moving on to the series on Napoleon's Marshals after this. Although Napoleon was undoubtedly the dominant historical figure of this period, the cast of characters around him was, arguably, every bit as interesting.
Best wishes from a former resident of the Chicago suburban area! (Channahon, near Joliet)
You should see this amazing video about the peace that was made after the napoleonic war.
Made by Historia Civilis. Video name is The congress of Vienna. It is in two parts.
It shows a less anglican skued story of the last year, 1814. And gives a fair critisism of the different players and nations at the end of the war.
It also answers many of the questions that you have asked during this reaction series. I think you would really like it.
What's interesting is that Napoleon wanted to come to the US, but the American government didn't want him here. That was probably a wise decision.
Interestingly enough, after Napoleon's defeat it was Wellington that insisted Napoleon not be executed but sent again into exile. Josephine and Wellington were lovers before she and Napoleon married and there was much respect between the two generals for their courage.
Actually, Napoleon disrespected Wellington and underestimated his ability as a General. He famously called Wellington "the sepoy general" implying that we was only good enough to defeat Indian armies. History records that in Portugal, Spain & Holland, Wellington got the better of Marshals Soult, Massena, Jordan, Marmont & Napoleon's brother, Joseph. The only confrontation he had with Napoleon he was on the victorious side having captured 2 French Imperial Eagle standards, having outwitted Marshal Ney, having completely repulsed the famous Imperial Guard, and having lastly obliterated the Old Guard (when they refused his offer to surrender peacefully).
@@ssrmy1782 As you say, Napoleon was proven wrong in the Iberia, Wellington beat some of his best Generals including Soult who the Emperor considered one of his top 3 Marshals.
Wellington had the foresight to guess that Napoleon would again break his agreements and try to regain power. He also guessed the likely point of attack and the previous year had been surveying the territory around the French/Belgian border and had identified Waterloo as a good place to confront the French. He was concerned that his army had lost many of the experienced British troops from the peninsular war and was a mixture of some British, German and Dutch. The Dutch, led by the Prince of Orange, proved the least reliable though capable of fighting well under good leadership. Sadly their Prince was not the person to provide this, and was described by Wellington as “brave but very stupid “..
Wellington, in my opinion, didn't do anything great in the battle of Waterloo. The Prussians saved the day and his men fought well and bravely. He hasn't accomplish anything worth mentioning except succeeding in buying time for Prussia to join them.
No matter how hateful people want to portray Napoleon... in the end, his military genious, his social reforms (he was a very good politician also... many of his reforms are still in use today) made him one of the greatest leader of his time.
Many think he was a tyrant, I don't think he was. From the French revolution to his last days on earth, he changed Europe, forever, in so many ways.
You should react to the videos in the series you missed, Napoleons Vietnam Spain 1809-1811 and Wellington Strikes Salamanca 1812.
12:10 when the British surrounded the Old Guard if Napoleon, Duke of Wellington proposed them to surrender:
"Merdé!" ("Sh*t!") - was the answer (probably the commander - Colonel Cambron).
So the British shoot them with the buckshot on a close distance, burying the Old Guard forever.
10:52 an interesting question but not much would have really changed in the grand scheme. Britain although losing their primary army in a Waterloo defeat still had its overwhelming navy to prevent a French invasion. Prussia not joining Britain at Waterloo would still have an army under bluchers command in any case as well as more armies behind them in reserve further towards Germany.
Not only this, the Austrians and Russians had already sent armies West to face Napoleon in 1815. Napoleons plan was to defeat prussian and Britain before isolating the Russian and Austrian armies and defeating them individually before they could all join and pose a larger threat. A very desperate and ambitious plan considering the resources he had at that time.
Dresden was Napoleons last hoo ra and even then the campaign was turning against him, he should never have ventured into Russia
What do you think would happen if he had won these wars?
@@lupus5338 what would happen if he won the 100 days do you mean?
@@roboguard96 Waterloo
@@lupus5338 the only real way he could have won was by battering the prussians properly at ligny not giving them time to regroup. Then go on to Waterloo and defeat a very lonely Wellington.
As I said in my original post though, I don’t think much would have changed much. He would still have to fight the rest of Europe (Sweden, Austria, Russia, even Spain) with very stretched resources and no allies
Could napoleon have won Waterloo? Yes very possible. Could he have won the 100 days campaign (or the war of the 7th coalition) IMO no, there was far to much stacked against him with the resources he had
It's kinda crazy when you step back and think about who started those "Napoleonic wars"... Back then... the military commanders were all using the same doctrine. Attack is the best defense. This school of thought was the idea that you absolutely had to attack your ennemies if yiu wanted to win. In WW1, the French commanders still had that mentality, so did the central powers. What i'm trying to outline here is the fact that Napoleon only incaded other nations as a defensive move. He was a threat to the many different monarchy throughout Europe... so they had to create 4 coalition to bring him down... and everytime, Napoleon simply swept through Europe taking territory at the expense of the coalitions. Napoleon thought the same... if you want to win, you gotta invade and go on the offensive.
Doesn't matter .The Frogs Lost against the British everytime since Agincout either on Land or Sea .1805 Trafalgar Lord Admiral Nelson.
I noticed that insult to the British . Regarding the statement about it taking 2 armies to take him out . "Yeah but it's the British" 😂. Oh well
yeah they are clueless. Not all Americans but these are pretty stupid.
I thought it was a stupid thing to say. Of course it took two armies. It clearly stated at the beginning that individually, each army was outnumbered by the French. You don’t go up against Napoleon outnumbered.
Love that you are doing a series on Epic History TV!
Napoleon surrendered to the British - he called them the most generous of his enemies. The battle was won the moment the Old Guard retreated, the cry went up in the French ranks 'La Gard Recule' and the route began.
Napoleon surrendering to the British after his defeat at Waterloo is literally Shakespearean in so many ways. The Brits throughout 23 years of nearly continuous war was Napoleon's most steadfast enemy that never surrendered to him and was the main driving force behind the coalitions against him. Britain as Napoleon guessed correct was the major power that would less likely have the least angry against him and treat him far more humanely than say the Prussians who want him dead or alive.
And today he is dead since 200 years. (5.5.21)
The French were starting to break by the time the Prussians arrived but their impact helped to make a more complete rout from which the French could not recover.
Waterloo is a German victory + Prussian army + Belgium army + Nederland army,,,,British was a minority
Um ur so wrong, the allies were the ones breaking
Did you not hear what the commentator said that was the whole point to keep the armies separated and it was Wallington that outsmarted him
Napoleon was a monster, he rampaged across Europe, Russia and Egypt. He was responsible for 100s of 1000s of deaths. He cared nothing for his men. He abandoned them in Egypt and he abandoned them in Russia. He was lucky to be allowed to live out his final years on St Helena.
Ur a troll it's not like other commanders were better and sometimes u gotta make tough choices
Correct.
No! The English Empire, the Russian Tsar, the Austrian Emperor, and the Prussian King were the real monsters! They started the whole war to crush the French Revolution!🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻
"Napoleon is responsible for more battles than half of US history combined"
Well, from 46 US presidents, only about 4-5 of them never send an Army to wage war/invasion/combat/military intervention on foreign land.
You wonder what would have happened? Well Wellington wouldn’t have turned to fight with the Prussian promise. He would have retreated and left the road open to a Brussels. He would have got more reinforcements of experienced units. So he would have been stronger, but the loss of Brussels may have changed things, but the amount of armies against the French means unlikely they would have won this one long term.
U MISSED OUT ON SALAMANCA 1812 AND NAPOLEONS VIETNAM
I like your reaction,guys..I hope you can continue on the history reaction trail here...there is also,Napoleons marchals from Epic history,a great serie,that as well....
There's a great film made in 1970 called Waterloo, I really recommend you see it if you haven't already :-)
Two hundred years after the battle you can still find musket balls on the site of the battle
didnt know what Ney smoked that day but surely a good stuff that make him so high to take such unnecessary and fatal assault. Napoleon was like : where have you been?
Ney : just taking a stroll around the British square formations.
He saw the British reform behind the step rise and road and withdraw back . It was a misty day and smoke haze stayed around low to the ground . he made a call to charge in as they wanted the road to open to Brussells . Historians have said Napoleon had piles problem this day and was absent at the exact hour and time . Hindsight distorts the mi-nute decisions
I enjoyed your journey into Napoleonic Wars, nice reactions ! Btw Ridley Scott is planning to direct a biopic on Napoleon with Joachim Phoenix. Could be awesome, even though i’m a bit worried ...
Anyway, please watch the WW1 series from Epic History TV
My Regiment King's Dragoon Guards were part of the Heavy Brigade Cavalry now called 1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards (Look it up on Wikipedia) and we still celebrate Waterloo every year.
Try having a look at the archaeology on Waterloo uncovered especially the work at Hougemont.
You should react to the British empire
The imperial Guard were Napoleon’s hammer and would usually deliver the final coup de grâce to seal victory. That’s why they were not used in the early stages.
Americans knowing nothing is obvious
Am I the only one that noticed Jared and Kelly's episodes changed from UA-camrs react to couples react. Got together through Chicago reacts lol
Now watch The movie Waterloo (1970).
There are archaeological digs on the battlefield today with the help of Veterans of the British Army. If you want to know, what it looks like today, whatch one or two of their videos on the channel waterloo uncovered. (Link: ua-cam.com/channels/z11kf9s8aQpkfLmatuGstw.html ) By the way: La Belle Alliance, Napoleon's Headquarters during a part of the battle, is a disco today. And do you know the Abba song called Waterloo? In Germany the battle usually was named Battle of La Belle Alliance, but since the song got popular, this changed to Waterloo. The French called the battle after Mont St. Jean, where Wellington had his headquarters.
Please have a look at English wars of the roses .
Napoleon was undoubtedly one of history´s most charasmetic and brilliant military generals/leaders. His soldiers,even foreign soldiers from countries he invaded,adored him and would in many times,as we have seen here,gladly sacrifice their lives for him,how many leaders can say the same? He could for sure,mesmerize both friends and foes,noone less brilliant could do as much as he did with the overwhelming odds that were against him,already starting in the early revolutionary wars in the 1790s in France. His ego though,became his downfall. He refused the allied peace suggestion to stay on as emperor if he went back to the old French borders,his ego couldnt take that,and he continued fighting,despite impossible odds until he was finally,for the last time,contained at Saint Helena...
The best
plss react to Napoleons Marshals after this plss.
React to: napoleon infantry Tactics a quick guide by epic history tv
The Congress of Vienna was eventually able to reorganize Europe after the final defeat of Napoleon. One of the things they did was create the Kingdom of Belgium out of the Dutch Republic and chose the widowed son-in-law of Britain's King George III, Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gothe, as the new King of Belgium. Leopold had been Victoria's cousin, Princess Charlotte's, husband. Charlotte died in childbirth along with her baby which is how the British crown settled on Victoria's head. Leopold was the brother of both Victoria's mother and Victoria's Consort, Prince Albert's, father.
No Belgium became a thing in 1830. And it was part of Austrian Habsburg Monarchy before the French Revolution. Current day Belgium was merged with the Netherlands in the Congress of Vienna.
Napoleon was the 19th century equivalent to the dictators of the 20th century and like them he left a trail of death and destruction behind him. He had an impact in terms of the time similar to Hitler. I
Yeah no, there are huge differences etween him and the20th century dictators. He freed Jews, and reestalished Poland, the opposite of Hitler, and he fought most wars defensively
@@KamfrenchieHe was a direct equivalent to Hitler in a military sense. A tyrant that invaded half a dozen countries. His troops commited war crimes especially in Spain & Russia. The end result of his militarism was the destruction of millions of lives across Europe, complete military and political failure. In fact, he left the Germanic nations as the dominant land power in Europe, and Britain as the dominant sea power. That's how much of a disaster he was for France. His stupidity cost 500,000 Frenchmen their lives in the invasion of Russia in 1812. As a comparison that's the same number of French civilian & military deaths in WW2. He made the 2 cardinal sins of warfare still taught at military academies today as things not to do (fighting multiple enemies simultaneously on multiple fronts, and invading Russia without regard to weather / supply lines). By the time he got to Moscow he had a 500 mile long salient. Idiotic to say the very least. People need to look at themselves and ask why they try to excuse military aggression from this guy, whilst being horrified at others who did the same. As for defensive militarism, could you please explain in detail the attacks on France made by Haiti, Syria, Egypt & Malta -- which caused France to invade those places in self-defence?
@@ssrmy1782
For one, before copy pasting a text that's full of bad approximation, maybe format it a bit.
A tyrant compared to who ? The absolutist monarchies of mainland europe ? The tsar ? Napoleon was an autocrat, but a much more liberal ones than his opponents, with the possible exception of the UK.
You conveniently leave out the fact that many of the wars were defensives ones, while Hitler fought no defensive war at all.
Plus, at the end of the first war in italy, before he set out for Egypt, Austria hungary actually gained territory despite being defeated by Napoleon.
To just focus on the end result is hindisght 2020. Nobody knows the future, it wasn't a foregone conclusion. It's also funny you attribute all of this to his militarism, and none to any other rulers. As if they were angels, or had no agency. Remind me who partitionned Poland during the French revolution ?
Britain was already the dominant sea power, and the revolution had strenghtened it when many aristocrat fled to Britain.
How were german states the dominant military power directly after his reign ? Prussia had been highly regarded even before Napoleon made himself known.
The army that invaded Russia wasn't made of simply frencchmen, there were a bunch of allies too, so simplifying this as 500k frenchmen is wrong too.
Military theorists and academy greatly praise Napoleon and recognize him as a genius. They do also aknowledge that it made him overconfident, but saying he paid no attention to logistic is again blatantly untrue. The logistic proved insufficient, not absent. He did try to improve it, but the improvement wasn't good enough.
"""could you please explain in detail the attacks on France made by Haiti, Syria, Egypt & Malta -- which caused France to invade those places in self-defence?""""
cute. completely strawmanning as if i had said all his campaigns were defensive, but those can easily be explained.
Haiti was a very important colony for finances due to how profitable sugar was, and the colonial lobby was influential. Hence the expedition to retake it.
The Egyptian campaign was meant to prevent British access to India. Malta was needed as a base to reach it, and the marching into Syria was the only way to return to Europe after the fleet was sunk at Aboukir and no diplomatic option was reached.
@@Kamfrenchie No copy & pasting, more fascination at the fact that my comment was removed -- which speaks for itself. If you adore a tyrant it's a you problem, not a me problem. Thankfully, the lunatic failed in all of his objectives.
@@ssrmy1782 oh yeah, anti jews laws being brought back and poland being craved up again are for sure positive development /s
Great reactions
The reason he keeps saying the bloodiest battle in every one is because at the time of each battle they were the new bloodiest not the bloodiest ever, hope this help abit.
If Napoleon won the battle he would still lose the war
No lmao
Ur lost
He was the creator of the structure of the modern Army , General Lee was was an avid student of Napoleon , West Point used Napoleonic teachings for its future Civil War officers.
'He's a winner'. He was more of a murderous megalomaniac. Thousands of lives lost through him.
With british eyes of yours then yes
@@simoun59 Any sane person's eyes.
Most wars he was defending himself for battles caused by Britain.
Why do you not blame the emperors of Russia, Prussia, England, and Austria ?
🤣troll, keep telling urself that
Can you guys watch the Cuban Missile Crisis by TimeGhost History?
you got to remember, like Hitler, Napoleon was getting ready for years for these wars... so everyone was playing catch up... with most great leaders throughout history, this is the case... It's like your getting ready for ages for a game of monopoly, with your friends.. getting house's and hotels and cash ... then just out of the blue... saying GOOOO! i call it cheating... but that, in history, is the way to win... in my opinion...
How was napoleon getting ready for years for these wars ? Comparisons to hitler are unwarranted
"2 people and 2 armies...." You weren't paying attention 🙄
WHO IS KNOW KELLY"S INSTAGRAMM?🤭
Marshal series is the next
He was a tyrant attacked all the nations of Europe ,I agree he was a great leader of men but went down the wrong road through his ego
I’m just going to give you a heads up throughout the entire Napoleon series by epic history TV they partnered up with a channel called history Marche, This is why it looked so well however when you review this particular episode on Waterloo you’ll notice that looks a bit bad this is because of two reasons first reason is that they didn’t partner with history Marche for this and two this is one of the most earliest videos I think the only things earlier were blackbeard and World War I.
Just make certain that your presenters are aware of this fact and yes you did miss Salamanca and Napoleans Vietnam.
And yes I will also recommend to view Napoleans marshals series but also by epic history TV just one thing the first few episodes deal was six marshals a piece think the first two episodes do so might be a good idea to split it into three and there least 30 to 40 minutes a piece.
But they do cover all 26 of Napoleans Marshalls ranked from 26 to 1.
I just finished this series myself and it is very informative.
what? waterloo isnt a waterpark? fall back!
Had the Prussians not arrived when they did Wellington would have very likely lost. But no, of course he is the one known for defeating Napoleon, when it was actually a team effort, with Blücher getting no glory.