Thanks for watching! Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media: Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT
I am Jim from Scotland in our British history we have won 🇬🇧 1,105 Battles English Scottish Welsh Irish nations always have fought together against all foes who would come against Great Britain
10:41 when he says the british army he is specifically talking about the british troops in spain, not the entire british army, as they did say they were small forces. They were new recruits and we also likely didn't want to risk a bigger force at this point.
Jim from Scotland did you know you had a lady called MALINDA BLALOCK 1842 to 1901 who fought with the confederate army until wounded,She was sent home where upon she switched sides and fought with the union army she was one tough lady
Jim from Scotland did you know you had a lady called MALINDA BLALOCK 1842 to 1901 who fought with the confederate army until wounded,She was sent home where upon she switched sides and fought with the union army she was one tough lady
Experienced = been in many battles. Well-trained = you have had a lot of practice and have high discipline. A lot of Americans imagine the British army of this time period as being 'the biggest and the best' in the world, probably because of the way they learn about the American War of Independence. In military terms the War of Independence was more of a side-note of the wider geopolitics of the time, in fact it only really has significance because of what the US is today, rather than what it was at the time. Britain's main focus was in the European theatre, where it was primarily a naval power, with one of the smallest armies: well-trained, very well-equipped, but inexperienced and small. The army was always used as more of a projection of naval power onto land, rather than a conquering, overwhelming invasion force; the vast majority of Britain's military budget was spent on its navy. The continental armies of France, Austria, Russia and even Prussia on the other hand would field 100, 000s of troops and had some very experienced troops among them (e.g. Napoleon's Old Guard) who had seen many battles. Their objectives in war were typically mass-invasion and forcing favourable peace terms or regime change on their enemies. France in particular was the military powerhouse of its era, having a booming population due to its strong agricultural base and benefiting from the reforms of the revolution (and Napoleon), which brought in a new post-aristocratic, meritocratic regime that funnelled its best military minds into leadership positions of the army. Britain was in fact wealthy and populous enough to field similar sized armies to the continental countries, but it made more sense for it to maximize whatever would best defend itself from invasion and so for Britain, being an island nation, a strong navy was the obvious choice.
“Why did he say the British Army were inexperienced?” He was referring to the army of soldiers specifically sent to Spain, who were personally short of battle experience, and not the British Army itself.
It’s in context, the French army had been in a constant state of war over the preceding 10 years. Britain didn’t have a large standing army and hadn’t actually been involved in that much fighting on the mainland, during the wars of the third and fourth coalition. It’s main contribution was money rather that troops on the ground. Don’t forget the Royal Navy was always our primary service. Large navy but small army.
@@eddiel7635 correct, however having such a small army also lent itself to being the most professional and well trained in the entirety of Europe. Trained using actual black powder and shot - something many nations didn’t do due to their lack of good powder supplies and spare ammunition - they were also the most disaplined maybe outside of the Prussian - still adhering to the flogging standards of punishment and they made sure troops were regularly drilled to the point of perfection. France on the other hand while it’s troops had seen 10 years of war, had very little veterans overall. Due to the large numbers of casualties continuing to be suffered its standard line battalions rarely had much experienced soldiers outside those assigned to the Grenadiers and Voltigeurs. Tho after Russia, even Napoleons light infantry would suffer from lack of experience.
@@eddiel7635 note you didn’t have to be in 2/3 lines to reload. If your talking about reloading, British troops were known for being able to do between 3-4 volleys a minute with our most experienced units sometimes being able to reach up to 5-6 volleys a minute. As for fighting in 2 lines. Yes the British preferred a regime of fighting 2 ranks deep as to allow for the most amount of firepower to be brought to bear on a greater front. Compare this to the French who used ranks of 3+ (plus representing that they could have more) as they found it easier to drill their conscripted troops in this fashion and also gave them the idea that they were quite the bigger force. As for some additional info that usually doesn’t get covered. The French battalion as we saw in the instructions video on Nap tactics, show the French to use 6 Companies; 1 Grenadier, 4 Line, 1 Voltigeurs. The British battalion on the otherhand deployed in 10 companies; 1 Grenadier, 8 Centre/line, 1 Light Infantry. However a interesting thing too note was that the British regiments only contained 2 Battalions - 1 Fighting Battalion and 1 Home/Reserve battalion where new troops were trained and held until required to be sent to replace casualties of the 1st battalion. The French Regiment had 3 battalions - 2 fighting and 1 home/reserve. Worked exactly like the British. (Note exception apply. Some British regiments contained considerably more battalion but the standard was 2. Same for the French) As for larger formations. A British brigade was made up of 3 British Battalions and 1 Portuguese Battalion (formed in the same way as the British). Along with them would be a detachment 1 Company of either the 95th Rifles or the 5/60th (5th battalion, 60th Foot) who were both Rifle Battalions. These were organised in the standard 10 company strength but didn’t fight together much but were primarily dispersed amongst other units of battle. - a couple interesting notes: 1. A British would most of the time form what was known as a Light Battalion. These were formed by taking the 3 Light Companies front the British, the Light of the Portuguese and The rifle Company and forming them into a single Battalion with the most senior Captain amongst them taking overall command. This was primarily done as to help keep better organisation during march and battle, and it have a central command structure/figure to the units to call orders if they were to be used as a full battalion - primarily skirmishing at the front of the battle lines before moving to the flanks or rear when the enemy’s main line takes attack. 2. You’ll probably start to note the increase in officer French officer deaths through the peninsular war. This can be marked down to the Rifles who’s training was to target such men. 3. Skirmishers fought in an interesting fashion during the Napoleonic wars. Besides fighting dispersed and instead of line, they also fought in pairs. One man would shoot and the other watch and pick targets. After the first fires he will begin reloading and the second would take their time to aim and shoot with the first reloading and if done picking and spotting. It was also quite known within the Rifle Companies that those who had poor accuracy skills were usually paired with the best marksmen in the battalions. These men were usually sent there to learn/get tortured into being better marksmen, however, some commander also taught said men to “reload quicker” and instead of shooting, to pass their weapon off to the marksman and to reload his rifle and to keep continuing this process. 4. A 3rd Rifle battalion did serve in the peninsular war. It was one of the KGL Light Battalions (can’t remember if it’s the 1st or 2nd). And while these men did serve spread out, they were primarily spread amongst the KGLs units and Guard units. - KGL standing for King’s German Legion
Though they had a well trained army, they hadn't had much combat experience aside from campaigns in Egypt during the War of the Second Coalition and one in Flanders in the War of the 1st Coalition.
@@deepyamandas1192 yes 100% true but I felt the need to mention them as they weren't mentioned at all... Plus let's not forget sir Arthur Wellesley who was the mastermind behind both, especially assaye which earned him his reputation
The Biggest mistake Napoleon made in Spain was trying to take over in the first place. Spain was a French ally and no real threat by this point. Napoleon turned the Spanish against him just at the point they would have been a useful ally, providing military access to invade Portugal and prevent a British resurgence on the main land.
About 3 miles from where I live is the cliff-top graveyard of Tynemouth Priory. In this graveyard stands the headstone of Corporal Rollo, who died at a ripe old age and, it tells us proudly that "he held the lantern" at the burial of Sir John Moore at Corruna. I imagine that the old soldier milked that story for all it was worth, and probably never had to buy himself a pint.
At this period in history Britain relied mostly on the Royal Navy for defence and to control the seas and internationoal trade and used blockades, diplomacy and money for most internationalal relations and conflicts. , the colonies were defended on land mostly by local troops. Due to having large land borders that couldnt be easily protected from invasion the major continental powers had large conscript armies, where larege numbers of people would be called up and quickly trained whenever they were needed. Britain, not having to worry so much about invasion instead went for maintaining a small profesional army of very well trained soildiers which would mostly be used for raiding and supporting allies, rather than staging land campaigns. So Britain's army didn't see a lot of major battles, but was much better trained and drilled due to the soildiers being full time profesionals, rather than being called up from other profesions at short notice..
Spain effectively was Spain's Vietname the word guerrilla came from this war. It tied down valuable troops that would've been useful for the invasions of austria/russia
Portugal was, and is, Britain's oldest ally. Trade with Portugal was not the prime concern, it was maintaining a foothold on continental Europe. Wellesley would soon return and begin training the Portuguese army into a formidable fighting force. THEN, they would take care of the French. Stay tuned :)
William Beresford, 1st Viscount Beresford He was appointed Marshal and Commander in Chief of the Army by Decree of 7 March 1809 and took the command on 15th of the same month. At that time, French general Marshal Soult had already crossed into Portugal where he occupied Porto. Beresford quickly overhauled the Portuguese forces, bringing them in line with British discipline and organization, and from the General Headquarters (then at the Largo do Calhariz), he dispatched many "daily orders" altering points of the infantry ordnance, creating a general command of artillery, establishing the separation of the battalions, firing incompetent or corrupt officers and promoting or appointing appropriate replacements.
"Why fixate on Portugal?" It's the oldest alliance in the world and has been active since 1373. Britain and Portugal's national interests were always closely aligned through the centuries. The treaty was even referenced as recently as 1939 by portugal reaffirming that the alliance still stood.
Last invoked by Portugal in 1961 to ask us to get the Indians to release Portuguese prisoners of war following the Indian invasion of Goa. Last invoked by Britain in 1982 to allow the Falklands task force to use facilities in the Azores.
The alliance of Scotland and France happened around the same time and as far as I know lasted till England and Scotland merged with the succession of James VI in 1707 but still a lot of friendliness between the two countries
@@deanstuart8012 as an Indian, the Goa episode has always been sort of funny to me. Nothing signals the end of your status as a military power than getting your butt kicked by Indians.
@@thatindiandude4602 disagree. Indian troops have generally performed very well over the years and there is no shame to losing to them. However the small Portuguese garrison was 5,000 miles from home with no possibility of relief and sadly the Indian treatment of the Portuguese POWs fell well short of the Geneva Convention requirements. Hence Portugal invoking the Treaty of Windsor to try and save their men.
@@deanstuart8012 I kind of disagree with this statement as well. During the 1940s and into the 1970s, the military hierarchy and troops were remnants of the British indian army. The best men, the best equipment left to Pakistan after 1947 independence. What remained in the Indian army was a shell of the former colonial army. I mean, the Portugese was outnumbered yes, but it surprise me from my Armchair, how easily the Indians overran them, since I view Indian military as mediocre till today.
@@samosmapper9687 Oh, clearly. It's just interesting to see these cultural differences. I've never see anybody drink water or soft drink with ice during winter.
''Inexperienced'' but very well trained. Those particular troops would have been fresh recruits who either had never seen combat before or maybe saw some combat in the Flanders campaign of 1792 but that would have been over 10 years prior. Compared with the French forces who had been fighting almost nonstop since the revolution...
A portion of the troops may have been veterans of the Indian wars under Wellesley. While many of the soldiers that fought in India were either Indians or HEIC men, there were a few regiments of regular British infantry and cavalry.
@@zarabada6125 I'm sure but I think even those troops could be said to be ''inexperienced'' given the completely different environment and enemy forces they were facing. Certainly more experienced in that they knew what it's like to be shot at though I agree
@@fiachnaodonnell7895 Actually, there were some vital lessons from those wars that helped a lot in the Iberian campaign. Especially around logistics, intelligence and scouting. Napoleon may have had a different outcome in Russia if he had gained the same lessons as Wellesley. The Iron Duke was always cautious about leaving his supply lines insecure. But you are correct on the point that only some of the experiences in India would be directly translatable to a European campaign. There would also be the factor that the army had, at best, a portion of its strength as veterans. The bulk would be relatively green troops
Out of all the reactors I watch, and there have been many, you are the best, Passionate about learning, doing your own research, exploring the topics, great stuff, keep it up!
This was the start of the war in spain.. My Ancestor Richard Rowe was in the 2nd Foot regiment under Wellington and was there in the battle of Vittoria that kicked the French out of Spain.. :)
The British focused most of their resources on their navy, as they were always an island nation, but not their armies. They were nowhere near as experienced as the royal navy by the time of the Peninsular War. That's one reason they didn't invade France until the end because although they could technically reach the french shores, Napoleon's army would've wiped them out instantly. Napoleon dominated the continent, Britain the seas. Their armies got more experience during the Peninsular War, and that's why they were almost a match to Napoleon by the time of Waterloo.
@@jauntyangle5667 actually, because of the civil war, it was parliament that didn't trust the monachy having a large standing army. This is why the Army Act (now the Armed Forces Act ) has to be renewed every five years, and the reason why the army is called the British Army and not the Royal Army (like the Royal Navy and Royal Airforce).
Remember from the Trafalgar vid, what ship types there were? You can send a courier to a port which you controlled, there where the smaller ships, like sloops dedicated to receive messages and they sail off to find the fleet(s) to inform about xyz.
Napoleon's blunder. Because he turned an ally into an enemy, through the arrogance of putting his own brother on the throne. This also provided a way for Britain to use its small army, initially supporting Portugal, it's old ally, and then helping Spain through off the Bonapart hegemony. As you rightly observe communications were vital. In those days it would be done by fast horsemen bearing messages, even relays of horsemen. The French did have fixed intervisible signal stations to send messages by semaphore or lights at night, but they were not very flexible in a campaign situation. There is an epic poem in English literature abut Sir John Moor and his retreat to Corunna, but I can't recall the details. I'll have to look it up. This opening of the peninsular war did not go well for the British, see how the next stage progresses!
The documental (I suppose a British production) curiously don't say anything of the massive destruction of industrial infraestructures and factories in Andalucía by the British troops. French invasion was a tragedy for Spain but British intervention was deliberately destructive for spanish economy. And the British troops were worst on rapping women that french. An horrible War.
The Burial of Sir John Moore after Corunna (1817) Charles Wolfe Slowly and sadly we laid him down, From the field of his fame fresh and gory; We carved not a line, and we raised not a stone, But left him alone with his glory.
"I've gotta do everything myself, don't I?" A perfect summary of Napoleon. Leaving the issue of some of his subordinates' incompetence aside, he was such a relentless micromanager! Andrew Roberts writes: "Napoleon was able to compartmentalize his life to quite a remarkable degree, much more so even than most statesmen and great leaders. He could entirely close off one part of his mind to what was going on in the rest of it; he himself likened it to being able to open and close drawers in a cupboard. On the eve of battle, as aides-de-camp were arriving and departing with orders to his marshals and reports from his generals, he could dictate his thoughts on the establishment of a girls’ school for the orphans of members of the Légion d’Honneur, and shortly after having captured Moscow he set down the regulations governing the Comédie-Française. No detail about his empire was too minute for his restless, questing energy. The prefect of a department would be instructed to stop taking his young mistress to the opera; an obscure country priest would be reprimanded for giving a bad sermon on his birthday; a corporal told he was drinking too much; a demi-brigade that it could stitch the words ‘Les Incomparables’ in gold onto its standard. He was one of the most unrelenting micromanagers in history, but this obsession with details did not prevent him from radically transforming the physical, legal, political and cultural landscape of Europe."
Portugal is England's oldest and truest ally. The alliance has stood for 900 years. It was Portugal that rejected Napoleon 's continental system and Britain that supported them.
What you must realise is that the British Army has always been a small entity. The army in India at the time was privately run by the East India Company and had nothing to do with the actual British Army. Therefore most money went to the navy and their fighting troops, the marines.
Sir Arthur Wellsley, second son of a Dublin Magistrate. Joined his elder brother in the East India company, thats where he learnt war fare. Inexperienced army, we fighting in other arenas. It has to be noted that in general terms armies looted the areas they were in food taken from locals. No popular with folk. Arthur Wellesley, was good at logistics and didn't approve of that type of providing for troops. His men appreciated his views and knew that they would be provided for. He coined the phrase, an army marches on its stomach. They did have chains of communication, flags on ships, carrier pigeons, bugles in battle. Its quite complex. They would have battle plans, with various scenarios worked out. You asked why, we didn't like the French been at war with them, on and off, for centuries. Portugal was a long standing allies, so would help them. Napoleon was creating havoc, across Europe, yet to take on Russia. 1812 overture, War and Peace, gives their take. During this little lull in proceedings, I believe we nipped across the pond to have a little fair well party in Washington. You asked about war at sea, there was a very, different sea captain, Thomas Cochrane, a bit controversial man, mentioned on UA-cam, many films, based on his activities. All ways trouble, wherever he went.
0:30 The Peninsular War was called that because it was fought in the Iberian peninsula (where Spain and Portugal are) 0:45 Spain’s fleet fought alongside the French fleet at Trafalgar 10:33 Most of the British army was inexperienced because they hadn’t had to fight a major land war since the American Revolution. Some regiments were stationed in India and took part in campaigns there, but the majority of soldiers were Indian. The major advantage the British had was that their army was the only professional army in Europe, everyone was a volunteer (even though sometimes recruited when they were drunk). The armies of Europe were made up of conscripted soldiers who fought only until the war was over, but the British army was similar to modern armies in that men made a career out of it. Britain always had a small army and during that time would rather spend money on their allies (the Austrians, Russians, Prussians, etc) to fight Napoleon on land than to send their army into Europe. When they realized the others were hopeless against Napoleon, the British decided to send their army to defeat Napoleon in Spain and Portugal first, but also to come to the defence of Portugal, Britain’s oldest ally since 1373. 13:57 Yes, the Baker rifle was much more accurate. The grooves inside the rifle makes the bullet spin as it leaves the gun and had a killing range of approximately 200 yards, while most muskets at the era were so inaccurate it was said that a man could stand fifty paces away from an aimed musket and have a decent chance of surviving. That’s partly why the armies of that time needed to fire all together, to ensure that some damage was done to the enemy. In the Plunket story of shooting the French general, his comrades said that it was a lucky shot. So when they saw the French general’s aide come to help him, Plunket killed the aide from the same distance, proving that it wasn’t luck but skill. 14:50 Messengers on horseback would ride between cities or military stations where they would change horses and continue. After certain distances, when the men became too tired, they would hand the message to another messenger who would then continue the journey, changing horses at the next stopping point. Once they got to the general area where Napoleon was, they would ask where he was specifically so they could hand the message over. A messenger would have been sent to tell the British navy of Moore’s plan to march to Corunna and await the ships for evacuation. 18:00 it’s a very similar situation the British would have to face during World War 2 at a place called Dunkirk in northern France. It’s an incredible story worth checking out. 21:35 It depends on your point of view. To the Spanish it could be seen as a betrayal, but to the British he helped save the army to give it a chance to fight another day. 21:37 Britain had an obligation to land in Portugal because the two countries had an alliance that spans back to 1373 (the oldest alliance still in place in the world). In regards to trade, all the wealthy trading countries were in Europe, and if the French prevented them from trading with Britain, Britain had nowhere else to turn to. They couldn’t sell the spices from India in India because they already had it. Other regions near India either wouldn’t trade or had spices of their own or were already trading with the Indians. America was self-sustaining, and the colonies that belonged to the European nations couldn’t do business with them as well because they were either the enemy or they produced the goods Britain wanted to sell themselves. 23:03 the situation in Spain became much worse for the French because of the Spanish civilians who revolted against the French and formed bands of guerillas (the term guerilla comes from this war, which literally translates to little war). Towards the end of the Peninsular War, Napoleon’s messengers had to be escorted with entire regiments of horsemen through dangerous territory because there were so many armed Spanish guerillas. The guerilla war became very brutal, with both sides committed atrocities (the French would massacre populations where the guerillas worked, and the Spanish would torture captured French soldiers). Also, the British send another general to Portugal and Spain, the Duke of Wellington, and he defeats every French army sent against him, never losing a battle. Napoleon had to commit more and more soldiers to Spain, which weakened his position in the east against Austria and Russia. The war in the Peninsula is also known as the Spanish Ulcer because of all the problems it caused Napoleon. 24:10 After the Battle of Trafalgar, the naval aspect of the Napoleonic Wars don’t really have an important role. The British victory assured British dominance of the sea and the French never really posed a naval threat anymore, so it’s not usually talked about after 1805. There is a series of books and a tv series called Sharpe, about a rifleman (the one with the green uniform and the Baker rifle) as he fights in the Peninsular War under the Duke of Wellington Hope this helps you and everyone else!
United Kingdom since Cromwell has never had a large army of land, its strategy has always been to support troops from other countries against the dominant power of Europe (Spain and later France) Also after the 7-year war that left the British empire with many debts, that is why increased taxes in the ungrateful colonies and the US war of independence, which was not only fought in the thirteen colonies, it was fought on other fronts, Menorca knows it well. UK was very indebted, without the looting of India it would have gone bankrupt, which is what happened to France, that's why Revolution. That is why a large part of his army was discharged after the end of the war and the army that went to Spain and Portugal was a "novice" By the way the rifles is a sign that the UK was industrializing, it is curious how that is never mentioned in the documentaries, both the new cannons of their ships (I do not remember how they say in English), as the rifles were very important weapons advantages. In Spain we hate Wellington same as Napoleon (although Napoleon is admired, after all, all of Europe ,except UK, has Napoleon's civil code), he let us carry the full weight of the fight and when he advanced he made sure to destroy all the industries in the country, which the brutal French repression did not do. The funny thing is that Napoleon was defeated by Spain and Russia and the UK has fame, they are the best propagandists in history.
Thank you SoGal for your interesting youtube reactions, they are interesting to follow historic events with you..I hope you enjoy this as much as Im sure that many of us viewers do...:)..
See Anglo-Portugese Treaty of 1373. Always available except for when Portugal wasn't independent. Activated numerous times over the centuries through to the present day. Peninsula war was a case in point. Army evacuated but they'd be back. The Portuguese knew this too. Both parties had centuries of form to refer to. Remember, both are maritime nations and understand these manoeuvres and use of the sea.
On vous a bien botté le cul ! You have Frenchbashing, we have history... Je vous aime tout de même mais bon refaites pas l'histoire, je dirais pas plus de généralités car pour moi un peuple peut changer mais comme on dit chez nous "messieurs les anglais tirez les premiers"
@@piepiep2368 He wasn't saying anything controversial here, it's a fact that the control of Spain was partial, and hindered by guerilla warfare. Don't give other french people a bad name by overreacting to his comment.
14:50 at this point you had the early "post" systems, which means that instead of one man delivering an message you would have relay, given it to the next rider and after that to the next one and the next and so on. This allowed for relative fast transition of messages, at least for nobility and important government functions.
Arthur Wesley and his forces saw a lot of action in India before being sent to Spain. The English had the only professional army in Europe. They were a smaller force but highly professional. They used the lash in those days and were known for accurate volley fire and being soul snatchers with the bayonet.
and the only army in Europe that trained with gunpowder in their weapons, usually everybody else first fired a loaded musket was in their first battle.
Suggest watching british ITV show Sharpes war ..Fantastic series on Napoleonic wars , might not be true but still amazing , and if you like that , THan watch the hornblower series.
It still amuses me that they chose a sandy haired Yorkshire man to play a dark haired Essex man (the character from the original book series grew up on the streets of London). However to someone coming to it as a fresh story, it doesn't really matter.
The 95th Rifles is the prominent unit in the TV drama/mini-Series "Sharpe" (starring Sean Bean). Based on a series of novels by Bernard Cornwall. The 95th would later form the Royal Green Jackets (now renamed and amalgamated into the "The Rifles")
As a former British Army officer of over 30 years service, I admire hugely what you are doing. To many of your generation (including my own kids) fail to realise that without an understanding of history, you cannot put present times into proper perspective and avoid the errors of the past as we move into the future. I urge you to study Wellington's Peninsular campaigns from 1809 to 1813 as an example of military genius - including patience, operational and tactical excellence and resilience. You would best do it over 4-5 videos. I would also recommend you read Wellington in the Peninsula by Jac Weller - a fairly short but quite outstanding volume. I have studied most of Wellington's battlefields in Spain and Portugal - a stunning experience!! Keep it up - you are doing brilliantly!!
It might be worth you going back to the Kings and Generals channel and wathcing their videos on the Battle of Vimeiro, The Seige of Zaragoza, The battles of Bailen and Tudela and the Battle of Somosierra and Corrunia (That one essepcially).
Britain always had a small elite army, they didn't rely on numbers to win a battle, so while British troops do have experience fighting in wars, Britain never had to use all of it's troops, so most of the British Army at this point didn't have a lot of experience. Plus much colonial stuff that happened came from private companies, such as the East India Company which took control of ALL OF INDIA, in 1800, the East India Company had a private army of over 200,000 troops, twice the size of Britain's actually army.
What tends to be overlooked about the peninsular was is how geographically isolated from the rest of Europe ideria is. Spain is no only cut of from France by the pyrenees....its a lot of miles away from the main European centres of power/population. Add to this at the time poor roads. No railways or steam ships. Napoleon was effectively sending his men MUCH further away than it looks at first glance.
They did have to transport horses, and they did this by hoisting each animal aboard by a sling pulley system, and put into specialty constructed stalls, sadly hundreds of horses at Coruña were put down to stop them being captured.
Portugal was an old ally to britain. In supporting their ally they fight Napoleon, in fighting Napoleon they prevent France to become too powerfull, so that they are not a threat for Britain and conquer it. Not supporting your allies would make you untrustworthy and being untrustworthy means, that no one believes your promises and treaties and they would not support you in your hour of need. Also allies are better trading partners than enemies.
5:20 the most funny thing is that priests in spain and russia encouraged the population to act and attack the french, causing that the french had to fight a war of atrittion and eventually being expelled from territory, and that was the end of napoleon xd
La Coruña, Dunkirk. You have to defeat Britain and not let them get away. Their superpower is to keep fighting, even after defeat, until someone else comes along to ally with them.
Britain, uses mostly its Navy at this time. It didn`t have a major land battles sofar...just ignore the Walcheren expedition. Now is the time Britain got really involved in the fighting. And then...out of the blue in 1812...some small ex colonists tried to invade Canada...how unsportsmanlike.
Regarding the British army, I feel like because their navy has been so dominating at some point, most people in the english-speaking world systematically overestimate the land forces. Britain's land army was rarely up the standards of the other main great powers, historically speaking (even if it depends specifically on when). Maybe it's partly because that common myth in USA about the strength of the British army during the war of independence, in many videos I saw about the American Revolution I often heard them being called "the country with the strongest army in the world" (while nothing really indicates that, apart from the Navy: they indeed had the strongest navy in the world at that point, but this and that are two different things).
Retreat by sea is a tactic mastered by them. They can always hide in the waves to lick their wounds and comeback. That's the edge that normally made the english succeed more so than other countries
What's the point wasting your entire military force in battle's that are not needed? Even some of our greatest victories came through retreat, Agincourt for example, Henry 5 was in full retreat for weeks before committing to battle and we then wiped out the French army and it's aristocracy in one swift action.
@@mustardtopdog9064 well battle is always eventually needed in conflicts however might as well delay if the odds are stacked against you and that's what retreating by sea allows you to do besides of course generalship. That is the trump card of the brits over the continental europe nations
@@RodolfoGaming it was precisely the denial of this ability that forced Cornwallis to surrender Charleston to Washington and co thanks to the French navy blockade of the harbour.
Aranjuez palace is regarded as 'The little Versailles', it is a nice place to visit if you plan to go to Spain sometime after the pandemic. That British Army never saw battle until then. They were frehsmen in essence but they had good leaders and good equipment. Communications were horse messengers and relays on the route to change horse regularmy to allow the animals to rest. Napoleon always said were he was going so the messengers knew were to go. A few years later the first optical telegraphs were in place for faster communication. (two arms on a tower moved by puleys and cords, set in different positions to tell a message. The tower were in visual range of eachother every few kilometers. The message coding was secret and each tower had a crew with a codebook and retransmitted the moves to the next tower, and so on. The final telegraph in Paris sent the code to the Tuileries palace where it was decoded. So in essence no telegraph operator on the way knew what message they were relaying. A message transmitted by optical telegraph made it through in barely a few hours instead of several days. It was the next improvement before the radio telegraph at the end of the 19th Century and later the radio spoken transmission. It is said that Napoleon didn't understand Spanish interests and heart and therefore didn't get their approval. Naval context at this point it not that important, French and Spanish fleets are not a threat to the Royal Navy by that point and don't really count. They are completely out of the game
I reccommend watching the "Sharpes" series of videos.Stars Sean Bean pretty historucally accurate. He also did "Sean Beans' Waterloo". Don't forget USA had its own Napoleonic War.....
Most were green troops, they had never seen battle before. What makes the British different is the training, leadership and most importantly, Iron discipline. Those were the three main qualities.
As I didn't know too much about `Napoleonic wars` its educating me too. What did surprise me were the ferocity of the French retaliations upon the Spanish. Obviously nowhere near the same scale of German such retaliations in WW2 but; rather similar in some ways. Wish I could give answers to some of Sogals questions-but this is a learning curve for me too.
I think the British Army was inexperienced at fighting on the continent at that point, however they were exceptionally well trained. Most would probably not seen action at this point. One thing that was unique at the time was training with live ammunition, which made a huge difference. Portugal is Britain's oldest ally , since 1386. Making it the oldest alliance in the world. Also a huge amount of trade was done with Portugal at that point. One of the reasons Britain was keen to defend Portugal against Napoleon. The 95th Rifle Regiment that is mentioned, became massively famous both at the time and recently. It's sister regiment was the 60th Royal American Rifles, raised in North America in 1755. It two would see service in the Peninsular War. The US Rangers are also a distant cousin of the 60th & 95th regiments. The communication was restricted to messengers on horseback, but it was massively important to keep the messages and information flowing at this time as you can imagine a real headache for the commanders. The Royal Navy would have had a squadron based just off the coast hence why they could mobilise so quickly, to extract Moore's Army. Spain and Portugal make up the Iberian Peninsula hence the name Peninsular War. I hope that answers some of your questions, loving the series. You should check out Empire of the Sea with Dan Snow. Fantastic series on the history of the Royal Navy and Britain in general. I know you are getting a lot of suggestions for Sharpe. It is a great drama series set in this era. Not very historically accurate. Also may look dated in places with some dodgy acting and cheesy lines . Still worth a look. Keep the reaction videos coming.
21:49 the 'why'of Portugal goes AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL the way back to 1373. The Kingdom of Portgal (now the Republic of Portugal) and the Kingdom of England (now, ofc, the United Kingdom) signed a treaty that - save for the 60 years when Portugal was subsumed under the Iberian Union (during which England went to war with Spain in support of the deposed Portugese royal house) - has held ever since. The nations have not waged war against each other, or - as independent states - been on opposing sides of other wars.
Britain, since she lost her continental possessions, had always focused on the navy, to protect the islands from invasion. Once in a while, they engaged directly in continental wars, and did produce great leaders and generals - like John Churchill, 1. Duke of Marlborough and an ancestor of Winston Churchill. But mostly they relied on continental alliances. Even their own continental wars were mostly fought with local alliances, mercenaries and other hired troops. Ath the beginning of the Revolutionary Wars, the Britsh Army numbers just a few tenthousand men, and even at its peak never passes a quater of a million in total. Napoleon's army that went to Spain was bigger than all the British forces combined. Before the Peninsular Campaign(s), most of Britain's engagement in the various coalition wars were on side fronts, diversions, supports... and while some of them were indeed successful military, many of them were squandered by inept leadership, lack of discipline, logistics and support and disease. But the army learned from its initial mistakes (as did most of Napoleon's opponents) and improved greatly on training and discipline... if not always on leadership. Still, the successes in the Peninsular Campaign were to a large part due to Wellesly's (or Wellington's, as he is better known by his granted title) tennacity.
The reason for the inexperienced British army was that it never saw combat in the field that is how men in war would be tested gaining experience from that experience in combat. To your question on Napoleons ability to know what was going on is that he like many generals at the time had communication lines to send and receive information this is how he knew what was going on in Paris at the time. For the question of how the British Navy knew is that maybe the army sent messages to them saying I will be here etc, to tell you that General More needed those men to guard and hold his flank so the rest of the army was able to be put on those ships, it might be horrible to hear that but it does happen.
Fun anecdote from me: when I was a teenager I saw a bit of "Sharp" Episode (the one where an English officer gets confused by a doppelagent). Now for me, the Uniform Sharp is wearing looked black. And black for me was the "prussian" color. So I basically though for a while that Sharpe was an Prussian Officer argument with an British ally. Much later I actually learn the context of the series (I didn't watch the episode to its end).
Britain traditionally had a small army but a huge and powerful navy. At no time did they have an army equal in size to the French. Instead they tended to shore up coalitions of other European armies with financial and material aid. Even Wellington's army at Waterloo was basically a hodgepodge of British, Dutch and German troops fighting alongside Blucher's Prussians.
The soldiers who fought in the America’s have long since retired. It was just a point in time where the majority of the army hadn’t had a major war in recent times. From this point on the British army went from strength to strength as global colonisation burst into full flow. Over the next 100 years major fighting in Europe, Africa, India and the America’s made the army formidable.
The British army was actually pretty much derided, even in the UK, and very much in comparison to the Royal Navy, during this period and had not fought in a major European war in some time; you're likely thinking back to the American Revolution. That said, Wellington was a top-notch commander, and Sir John Moore was the creator of the Light Division - which included the infamous 95th Regiment of Foot 'the Rifles' - and as with many conflicts in which our nation has been involved, we punched above our weight and came out extremely bloodied but victorious. You may also be interested in this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance The longest surviving alliance between two nations, which remains in place to this day.
10:40 because up to that point Britain hadn’t really engaged in land combat. The excursions they made across the Continent, to the Netherlands and Britanny were small in nature and disastrous. British troops were involved in repelling French forces from Syria, but once again they were small in nature and it had happened a decade before the events of the video. The Royal Navy had majorly conducted Britain’s involvement in the war, they had easily gained the most experience compared to the army. Also, Moore’s death was eerily similar to Nelson’s. Receiving news of his success just before his death
The reason he said the British army was inexperienced was because British army had not seen much action or faced down the main French army by 1808 it would years later until British and main French armies would go muzzle to muzzle at Waterloo in 1815. at this time the British forces had been battling French splinter forces like at the Battle of Vimeiro on 21st August 1808. The British army was not a weak force by any means they where a professionally drilled, well equipped, well supplied and expertly lead and was contently a major threat to the French during the peninsular war and was the only force the French never truly defeated in battle. the inexperience was from the fact that the British forces weren't as battle hardened as their French opponents who themselves had been fighting on mainland Europe for the past 20 years at that stage and where professional veterans lead by Napoleon himself and for a force of just 30'000 fresh British troops facing off against Napoleons near 100,000 battle hardened veterans was just pure suicide. so the British retreated and left Spain to live and fight another day which they did, returning sometime later and truly crushed the French at Talavera in 1809, Badajoz in 1812 and Salamanca in 1812. The British became Frances most determent enemies aiding the Spain's in forcing out the French.
A series of novels by Bernard Cornwell covers the green-coated 95th Rifles in some detail, both historical and following a ficticious officer Richard Sharpe. Several of the incidents in the Spain - Portugal vs. the French business in the Peninsular War are covered quite well.
I am Jim from Scotland in our British history we have won 🇬🇧 1,105 Battles English Scottish Welsh Irish nations always have fought together against all foes who would come against Great Britain
You should read the Sharp books by Bernard Cornwell or watch the very popular TV series based om his books. The 95th Rifles are used as the basis for some of the books.
The question of how they got messages from France to Napoleon in Spain: A messenger would ride his horse "into the ground", basically at extreme speed and stop off at a castle/palace/barracks/stronghold for food and - more importantly - a new horse. The messenger could then ride that horse without thought about conserving it's strength because he would just get another new horse every 50-100 miles. Meaning that he could deliver his message within two to three days with relative ease.
On the point of how Napoleon knew what was happening in Paris, the French had a substantial 'optical' (towers with wooden arms/sails or flags to transmit messages) telegraph system so Napoleon was well informed on events in France.
10:40 I think that is largely a myth many Americans fall victim to because to make the Independence War see as a bigger victory, american historians (and all the many wannabes) tend to overplay how strong the british army was, painting it as one of the strongest if not the strongest of the world, even thou there are some plain measurements (like marching step speed) which make them fall behind. Besides of that: even if your army has 1000 and more years of history, that doesn't help your 18 year old recruits who never seen an battle. In other words: think of armies as of generations. If an army had many victories 20-30 years before an conflict you can save assume that besides the officers, no one has actual experience in an army.
23:40 it will become more clear as you watch more videos, but Spain was basically a warzone for years to come, often compared to "Vietnam". Meaning that the France would keep losing troops there and keep have to station there many.
When he says the British army was inexperienced, he doesn't mean the entire army he means the army that was in Spain. Whilst they did have some experienced troops most were stationed outside of Europe. In response to Nepolean the British Army had a masive recruitment drive as they were significantly out numbered. it was much more convienient to Ship the new recruits from england than experienced troops from India.
During peace time British army is always disbanded and budget cut , also British army was only made of volunteers unlike everywhere else used conscription they had army's around the world but they were needed there so new army's were raised trained and equipped , the officers generals would be experienced but they men of the American revolution had retired mostly
You really make me laugh with your comments like how you know nothing of Europen history yet you do this you are brilliant I love you steve from the uk lol
My father's regiment the Duke of Wellington's now part of the Yorkshire Regiment has battle honours on it's flag from Portugal, Spain and France mainly Waterloo as they fought their way through. My father did his national service and as soon as he finished basic training he was sent the same afternoon from Halifax, England to Keyna, Africa to fight the Mau Mau in the 1950's.
I found this absolutely fascinating. I too have heard of the Peninsula War but know very little about it. Also, a channel that deals in history and knowledge and er, stuff. I would love to hear your take on the lunatic line. Colour me subscribed.
@@SoGal_YT The Lunatic Line was a nickname given to the Uganda Railway, built at the behest of the British government between 1896 and 1903. It stretched from Mombassa on the East coast of Africa to Lake Victoria and was so costly in terms of lives lost and financial resources consumed that it earned the name: Lunatic Line.
Messages got around by horse - messenger boats, Sloops or Frigates (small fast things). Heliograph, Semaphore was also available. Messages might go out in multiples - to all possible destinations, to ensure they got through. Constant communications would have been maintained for as long as possible - the moment he decided to retreat to Corunna, messages would have gone out asap.
As you noted earlier, the British had not been involved much on land since Toulon, so how would they be experienced? The Royal Navy was dominant, but Britain never had a significant army (until 1917).
They actually recaptured French occupied Egypt and defeated French Army of Orient in Egypt at Battle of Alexandria in 1801 but that was it and even that was a medium sized battle compred to Austerliz or Jena Campaigns
@@LordInter Correction , British Army did go to Egypt and took it from French. Won all the battles after landing on Alexandria in 1801 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Abukir_(1801) , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alexandria (British Army commander Genral Sir Ralph Abercromy died in this battle) , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cairo , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Alexandria , the Egytian artifacts like Rosetta Stone British took over from French after taking the place from French can be seen in British Museum in London today.
@@merdiolu indeed, my hometown (army) regiment fought in Egypt and took their “back badge” from the Battle of Alexandria. But as you say, these were not really significant battles.
@@lawrencegough I would say Landings on Aboukir , Battle of Alexandria , Sieges of Alexandria and Cairo were strategically significant battles. But there were not large scale like Austerlitz , Jena-Auerstadt or Friedland Campaigns in terms of number forces involved.
As for how Moore managed to get the navy ready to evacuate at Corunna, I'll briefly explain what probably happened (I've found nothing specific for that evacuation). Moore would have had light messenger units, much faster that the rest of the Army. Moore would know where a naval unit was at port, and would have ordered his messengers to ride ahead and contact the nearest naval unit at port. From here, there are two possibilities. If the port had no transport fleet - This naval unit would most likely have a specific despatch boat (a small messenger ship, often a sloop of war) or another ship that could be used for this purpose. They would be expected to roughly know the position of a transport fleet nearby, so would be sent to find it and pass on Moore's orders. If the transports were at port, it's just a case of telling them where Moore was heading. Naval communications before the invention of modern wireless signalling was pretty difficult stuff, and essentially came down to meeting one another and passing on messages by signal flags, shouting or passing over a letter physically. Knowing where other ships were posted was therefore essential. Even easier was to find the unit before they left port.
It's a pretty common myth that the British army were a unparalleled fighting force. This probably comes from the American revolution and the common narrative of the underdog American victory. What you must remember is that Britain was primarily a naval power. It's navy certainly was the best in the world. However comparatively the British army was small but very well drilled. Considering the British weren't very active in the land battles up to this point they basically had minimal experience in the field.
Regarding communication - several methods were employed and often used in conjunction: despatch rider, mechanical telegraph and semaphore (not to mention carrier pigeon). In the late 1700's a message was sent over 70 miles by the Royal Navy in less than five minutes - better than some internet services today.
If you like poetry, there's a very famous poem about the death of general Moore, by Charles Wolfe, look it up. It starts: Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, As his corse to the rampart we hurried; Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot O’er the grave where our hero we buried. We buried him darkly at dead of night, The sods with our bayonets turning; ... I've visited General Moore's tomb at Coruña, it's at a nice spot overlooking the sea.
Portugal was an old ally of Britain & I vaguely remember reading somewhere that a number of British merchants had large investments in the lucrative Port trade at the time as obviously Napoleon had blocked the wine trade between Britain & Europe.
I think it was less that Napoleon regretted getting involved with Spain and more that he should not have tried to put his brother on the throne. That really united Spain against him and even while he controlled Spain there were nonstop Guerilla attacks. Which is where the term comes from.
Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke of Wellington is an interesting figure in his own right. He had a rich and varied military and political career. Starting out as minor Irish nobility and becoming one of the most famous men in history. Famously beating Napoleon at Waterloo as well as serving as Prime Minister.
In terms of speed of communication, you may want to read about the Optical Telegraph system. This was a chain of towers that could pass visually coded messages over great distances in a short space of time. Both the French and the British used such systems during the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. How far the message could get into Spain from Paris in 1808, I am unsure but the message would certainly have had a shorter journey to Napoleon than conventional communication. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telegraph
Another point is that due to logistics, a single courier can travel far greater distances than an army. They have no artillery or baggage trains to haul and they can make or break camp in a short space of time. For an army to make camp, they first have to find a suitable spot and then march their men into sufficiently spaced locations. An isolated courier was at risk of being intercepted or killed (and many of them were) but messages did go ahead of the main force.
Manuel Moreno Alonso (Seville, 1951) is one of our best specialists (Spain) in the complex transition period between the 18th and 19th centuries, marked in Spain by such important events as the terrible war crisis that followed the Napoleonic invasion, the rise of liberalism and the Constitution of Cádiz, or the ferocious reintroduction of absolutism at the hands of the felon king, Fernando VII. Moreno Alonso crowns his extensive bibliography on these issues with this monumental analysis of what he calls "the war of the English", a name with which he refers to the great conflict that Spanish historiography knows as the "War of Independence", although between the English It is called the “peninsular war”. Such a difference in names hides the stories and assessments that both historiographies have been making in the 200 years since that catastrophe; some divergences that constitute the main plot of the book, as indicated by the subtitle: "History as a battlefield", although the author focuses on the study of the English version of the war, which has prevailed with few exceptions since the first studies -such as Napier's canonical work, published in 1828- to those of current historians. This justifies the denomination of "war of the English", since the story of the same prevailing in those latitudes has counted it as "own thing", reducing the action against the French troops to the intervention of the British armies, with an absolute forgetfulness, and even contempt, of the fight carried out by the Spanish. The insistence on his exclusive leading role has been accompanied, from the beginning, by the mythologization of Wellington and the conversion of the peninsular war into one of the great British national myths, sustaining his national pride. Spanish and British rarely acted together. The misgivings of the former, fueled by the cruelty and the numerous abuses and destructions carried out by the latter, more typical of enemies than allies, joined the contempt of the majority of the English for the Spanish, whom they considered a backward people and uncivil -including Wellington himself, of whom Moreno Alonso highlights his “animosity towards Spanishness”-. But the victory against Napoleon's troops would not have been possible without the efforts of both; in the case of the Spaniards, not so much the regular troops -poorly organized, undisciplined and not very capable, according to the author-, but rather the guerrillas and the permanent and tireless opposition of the common people. The English version does not allow us to understand the defeat of the French, since only the fierce popular resistance explains the successes of a reduced army, inactive for long periods and in a permanent defensive attitude, such as the British troops displaced to the Iberian Peninsula (all the more 30,000 men, when the French had 300,000). Hence the “exceptional wave of Hispanophilia” that then shocked the United Kingdom, soon distorted by the official versions, which would provoke protests from exiled liberals in Great Britain, such as José Canga Argüelles or Antonio Alcalá Galiano. English historiography has been the victim of its own propaganda, which has greatly exaggerated the role of its armies and the genius of its general in chief, turned into a myth against Bonaparte, despite the fact that "none of his decisive battles deserves the consideration of 'great' and not a few of his decisions were wrong, to the point of having been able to turn into resounding disasters”.
Most of the uk army in spain were pressed into service and lightly trained before being sent to spain joining a small army of experienced soldiers ! The experienced soldiers were in africa india, asia and canada expanding the empire! There was a series starring Sean Bean called SHARPE with some historic references and facts! A good series about UK v napoleon. It is on UA-cam for Roger!! Lots of spies and a somewhat realistic view of the british army at that time including the 95th rifles!! Enjoyable tv viewing!!
If you are to continue with your experience of Napoleonic History then at some time you must do a reaction to the Duke of Wellington. As he is the person who beat him at Waterloo.
First of all it was Napoleons Police minister Fouche who betrayed France and gave information to wellington and Blucher. And ultimatly Blucher and the prussians who won the Day att waterloo. Not Wellington. The duke of wellington meant close to nothing regarding Napoleons ultimate demise. Napoleon fought odds 6 to 1 in the final coalition sent against him. And even if General Blucher didnt save Wellingtons army from defeat in the last second at Waterloo. Napoleon would stand close to no chanse against the Russians and Austrians who was allready marching on France from all directions. The idea that Wellington defeated Napoleon is beyond rediculuss. His army was just a hour or 2 away from being massacerd if not the prussians had arrived with 50 000 men that outflanked Napoleons army.
Thanks for watching! Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media:
Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/
Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT
I am Jim from Scotland in our British history we have won 🇬🇧 1,105 Battles English Scottish Welsh Irish nations always have fought together against all foes who would come against Great Britain
10:41 when he says the british army he is specifically talking about the british troops in spain, not the entire british army, as they did say they were small forces. They were new recruits and we also likely didn't want to risk a bigger force at this point.
the war in Spain and Portugal went to 1814.
hope you not badly hit be the weather you getting at the moment
Jim from Scotland did you know you had a lady called MALINDA BLALOCK 1842 to 1901 who fought with the confederate army until wounded,She was sent home where upon she switched sides and fought with the union army she was one tough lady
Jim from Scotland did you know you had a lady called MALINDA BLALOCK 1842 to 1901 who fought with the confederate army until wounded,She was sent home where upon she switched sides and fought with the union army she was one tough lady
Experienced = been in many battles. Well-trained = you have had a lot of practice and have high discipline. A lot of Americans imagine the British army of this time period as being 'the biggest and the best' in the world, probably because of the way they learn about the American War of Independence. In military terms the War of Independence was more of a side-note of the wider geopolitics of the time, in fact it only really has significance because of what the US is today, rather than what it was at the time. Britain's main focus was in the European theatre, where it was primarily a naval power, with one of the smallest armies: well-trained, very well-equipped, but inexperienced and small. The army was always used as more of a projection of naval power onto land, rather than a conquering, overwhelming invasion force; the vast majority of Britain's military budget was spent on its navy. The continental armies of France, Austria, Russia and even Prussia on the other hand would field 100, 000s of troops and had some very experienced troops among them (e.g. Napoleon's Old Guard) who had seen many battles. Their objectives in war were typically mass-invasion and forcing favourable peace terms or regime change on their enemies. France in particular was the military powerhouse of its era, having a booming population due to its strong agricultural base and benefiting from the reforms of the revolution (and Napoleon), which brought in a new post-aristocratic, meritocratic regime that funnelled its best military minds into leadership positions of the army. Britain was in fact wealthy and populous enough to field similar sized armies to the continental countries, but it made more sense for it to maximize whatever would best defend itself from invasion and so for Britain, being an island nation, a strong navy was the obvious choice.
“Why did he say the British Army were inexperienced?”
He was referring to the army of soldiers specifically sent to Spain, who were personally short of battle experience, and not the British Army itself.
that about sums it up
It’s in context, the French army had been in a constant state of war over the preceding 10 years. Britain didn’t have a large standing army and hadn’t actually been involved in that much fighting on the mainland, during the wars of the third and fourth coalition. It’s main contribution was money rather that troops on the ground. Don’t forget the Royal Navy was always our primary service. Large navy but small army.
@@eddiel7635 correct, however having such a small army also lent itself to being the most professional and well trained in the entirety of Europe. Trained using actual black powder and shot - something many nations didn’t do due to their lack of good powder supplies and spare ammunition - they were also the most disaplined maybe outside of the Prussian - still adhering to the flogging standards of punishment and they made sure troops were regularly drilled to the point of perfection.
France on the other hand while it’s troops had seen 10 years of war, had very little veterans overall. Due to the large numbers of casualties continuing to be suffered its standard line battalions rarely had much experienced soldiers outside those assigned to the Grenadiers and Voltigeurs. Tho after Russia, even Napoleons light infantry would suffer from lack of experience.
@@reecedignan8365 I read years ago that our infantry could reload and fire in two lines rather than the three that was normal, is this true?
@@eddiel7635 note you didn’t have to be in 2/3 lines to reload. If your talking about reloading, British troops were known for being able to do between 3-4 volleys a minute with our most experienced units sometimes being able to reach up to 5-6 volleys a minute.
As for fighting in 2 lines. Yes the British preferred a regime of fighting 2 ranks deep as to allow for the most amount of firepower to be brought to bear on a greater front.
Compare this to the French who used ranks of 3+ (plus representing that they could have more) as they found it easier to drill their conscripted troops in this fashion and also gave them the idea that they were quite the bigger force.
As for some additional info that usually doesn’t get covered.
The French battalion as we saw in the instructions video on Nap tactics, show the French to use 6 Companies; 1 Grenadier, 4 Line, 1 Voltigeurs.
The British battalion on the otherhand deployed in 10 companies; 1 Grenadier, 8 Centre/line, 1 Light Infantry.
However a interesting thing too note was that the British regiments only contained 2 Battalions - 1 Fighting Battalion and 1 Home/Reserve battalion where new troops were trained and held until required to be sent to replace casualties of the 1st battalion.
The French Regiment had 3 battalions - 2 fighting and 1 home/reserve. Worked exactly like the British.
(Note exception apply. Some British regiments contained considerably more battalion but the standard was 2. Same for the French)
As for larger formations. A British brigade was made up of 3 British Battalions and 1 Portuguese Battalion (formed in the same way as the British). Along with them would be a detachment 1 Company of either the 95th Rifles or the 5/60th (5th battalion, 60th Foot) who were both Rifle Battalions. These were organised in the standard 10 company strength but didn’t fight together much but were primarily dispersed amongst other units of battle.
- a couple interesting notes:
1. A British would most of the time form what was known as a Light Battalion. These were formed by taking the 3 Light Companies front the British, the Light of the Portuguese and The rifle Company and forming them into a single Battalion with the most senior Captain amongst them taking overall command. This was primarily done as to help keep better organisation during march and battle, and it have a central command structure/figure to the units to call orders if they were to be used as a full battalion - primarily skirmishing at the front of the battle lines before moving to the flanks or rear when the enemy’s main line takes attack.
2. You’ll probably start to note the increase in officer French officer deaths through the peninsular war. This can be marked down to the Rifles who’s training was to target such men.
3. Skirmishers fought in an interesting fashion during the Napoleonic wars. Besides fighting dispersed and instead of line, they also fought in pairs. One man would shoot and the other watch and pick targets. After the first fires he will begin reloading and the second would take their time to aim and shoot with the first reloading and if done picking and spotting. It was also quite known within the Rifle Companies that those who had poor accuracy skills were usually paired with the best marksmen in the battalions. These men were usually sent there to learn/get tortured into being better marksmen, however, some commander also taught said men to “reload quicker” and instead of shooting, to pass their weapon off to the marksman and to reload his rifle and to keep continuing this process.
4. A 3rd Rifle battalion did serve in the peninsular war. It was one of the KGL Light Battalions (can’t remember if it’s the 1st or 2nd). And while these men did serve spread out, they were primarily spread amongst the KGLs units and Guard units.
- KGL standing for King’s German Legion
I could be wrong, but I believe the Anglo-Portugeuese Alliance is the LONGEST continuous Alliance in history. Yeah I just Wiki'd it. 1386!
and the old alliance between france and scotland ?
@@roms4154 it was not continuous
The Auld Alliance
@@imperatorkoala7637 yes sorry ! Auld alliance !
I’ve heard that aswell
The Peninsular War was the conflict that bled France dry resourcewise, as you'll come to find out later.
Though they had a well trained army, they hadn't had much combat experience aside from campaigns in Egypt during the War of the Second Coalition and one in Flanders in the War of the 1st Coalition.
And trained and experience are two very different things. Each helps, but one without the other makes chaos.
And the fact that in flanders they were defeated too...
Your forgetting the wars against the maharrattas in India... Such as the battles of Seringapatam and assaye
@@danielcharnock2854 only general bairds soldiers that is the small british army in the northern part of spain had served in india
@@deepyamandas1192 yes 100% true but I felt the need to mention them as they weren't mentioned at all... Plus let's not forget sir Arthur Wellesley who was the mastermind behind both, especially assaye which earned him his reputation
The Biggest mistake Napoleon made in Spain was trying to take over in the first place. Spain was a French ally and no real threat by this point. Napoleon turned the Spanish against him just at the point they would have been a useful ally, providing military access to invade Portugal and prevent a British resurgence on the main land.
Yeah he replaced a weak ally and a weak flank with an active enemy and an active warzone
Spain and Portugal make up the Iberian Peninsula - hence, "Peninsular War."
About 3 miles from where I live is the cliff-top graveyard of Tynemouth Priory. In this graveyard stands the headstone of Corporal Rollo, who died at a ripe old age and, it tells us proudly that "he held the lantern" at the burial of Sir John Moore at Corruna. I imagine that the old soldier milked that story for all it was worth, and probably never had to buy himself a pint.
I'll have to check that out the next time I'm down for a fish supper at Marshall's.
At this period in history Britain relied mostly on the Royal Navy for defence and to control the seas and internationoal trade and used blockades, diplomacy and money for most internationalal relations and conflicts. , the colonies were defended on land mostly by local troops. Due to having large land borders that couldnt be easily protected from invasion the major continental powers had large conscript armies, where larege numbers of people would be called up and quickly trained whenever they were needed. Britain, not having to worry so much about invasion instead went for maintaining a small profesional army of very well trained soildiers which would mostly be used for raiding and supporting allies, rather than staging land campaigns. So Britain's army didn't see a lot of major battles, but was much better trained and drilled due to the soildiers being full time profesionals, rather than being called up from other profesions at short notice..
Well Waterloo, Salamanca, Vitoria, Bidaossa, Oporto, Nivelle, Nive, Pyrenees were major battles.
Spain effectively was Spain's Vietname the word guerrilla came from this war. It tied down valuable troops that would've been useful for the invasions of austria/russia
Portugal was, and is, Britain's oldest ally. Trade with Portugal was not the prime concern, it was maintaining a foothold on continental Europe. Wellesley would soon return and begin training the Portuguese army into a formidable fighting force. THEN, they would take care of the French. Stay tuned :)
and spanish guerrillas helped a lot
It is not just the oldest alliance Britian has but it is the oldest known alliance in the world that is still in place. It has lasted over 600 years.
@@Flakey101 England not Britain, as the alliance (with Portugal) goes back to the 1300s.....
William Beresford, 1st Viscount Beresford He was appointed Marshal and Commander in Chief of the Army by Decree of 7 March 1809 and took the command on 15th of the same month. At that time, French general Marshal Soult had already crossed into Portugal where he occupied Porto. Beresford quickly overhauled the Portuguese forces, bringing them in line with British discipline and organization, and from the General Headquarters (then at the Largo do Calhariz), he dispatched many "daily orders" altering points of the infantry ordnance, creating a general command of artillery, establishing the separation of the battalions, firing incompetent or corrupt officers and promoting or appointing appropriate replacements.
Scotland was France's oldest Ally during the Hundred Years War. The English claim the French Crown
"Why fixate on Portugal?" It's the oldest alliance in the world and has been active since 1373. Britain and Portugal's national interests were always closely aligned through the centuries. The treaty was even referenced as recently as 1939 by portugal reaffirming that the alliance still stood.
Last invoked by Portugal in 1961 to ask us to get the Indians to release Portuguese prisoners of war following the Indian invasion of Goa.
Last invoked by Britain in 1982 to allow the Falklands task force to use facilities in the Azores.
The alliance of Scotland and France happened around the same time and as far as I know lasted till England and Scotland merged with the succession of James VI in 1707 but still a lot of friendliness between the two countries
@@deanstuart8012 as an Indian, the Goa episode has always been sort of funny to me. Nothing signals the end of your status as a military power than getting your butt kicked by Indians.
@@thatindiandude4602 disagree. Indian troops have generally performed very well over the years and there is no shame to losing to them. However the small Portuguese garrison was 5,000 miles from home with no possibility of relief and sadly the Indian treatment of the Portuguese POWs fell well short of the Geneva Convention requirements. Hence Portugal invoking the Treaty of Windsor to try and save their men.
@@deanstuart8012 I kind of disagree with this statement as well. During the 1940s and into the 1970s, the military hierarchy and troops were remnants of the British indian army. The best men, the best equipment left to Pakistan after 1947 independence. What remained in the Indian army was a shell of the former colonial army. I mean, the Portugese was outnumbered yes, but it surprise me from my Armchair, how easily the Indians overran them, since I view Indian military as mediocre till today.
SoGal: "It's freezing outside, can't imagine what it felt like to march under that much cold"
Me: *sips tea*
*vodka
(badum tiss)
SoGal: It's freezing winter, temperature in single digits F (=less than -12C)
Also SoGal: puts ice in her water
@@gf1917 because she’s indoors, presumably with a heating system that makes it warmer in her house?
@@samosmapper9687 Oh, clearly. It's just interesting to see these cultural differences. I've never see anybody drink water or soft drink with ice during winter.
''Inexperienced'' but very well trained. Those particular troops would have been fresh recruits who either had never seen combat before or maybe saw some combat in the Flanders campaign of 1792 but that would have been over 10 years prior. Compared with the French forces who had been fighting almost nonstop since the revolution...
Plus the Italian campaign in 1806, although the British only put about 5,000 troops ashore before giving the French a kicking at Maida on 4th July.
A portion of the troops may have been veterans of the Indian wars under Wellesley.
While many of the soldiers that fought in India were either Indians or HEIC men, there were a few regiments of regular British infantry and cavalry.
@@zarabada6125 I'm sure but I think even those troops could be said to be ''inexperienced'' given the completely different environment and enemy forces they were facing. Certainly more experienced in that they knew what it's like to be shot at though I agree
@@fiachnaodonnell7895 Actually, there were some vital lessons from those wars that helped a lot in the Iberian campaign. Especially around logistics, intelligence and scouting.
Napoleon may have had a different outcome in Russia if he had gained the same lessons as Wellesley. The Iron Duke was always cautious about leaving his supply lines insecure.
But you are correct on the point that only some of the experiences in India would be directly translatable to a European campaign.
There would also be the factor that the army had, at best, a portion of its strength as veterans. The bulk would be relatively green troops
The British also used the double line for better musket fire and had very good generals.
Out of all the reactors I watch, and there have been many, you are the best, Passionate about learning, doing your own research, exploring the topics, great stuff, keep it up!
Absolutely spot on!
This was the start of the war in spain.. My Ancestor Richard Rowe was in the 2nd Foot regiment under Wellington and was there in the battle of Vittoria that kicked the French out of Spain.. :)
The British focused most of their resources on their navy, as they were always an island nation, but not their armies. They were nowhere near as experienced as the royal navy by the time of the Peninsular War. That's one reason they didn't invade France until the end because although they could technically reach the french shores, Napoleon's army would've wiped them out instantly. Napoleon dominated the continent, Britain the seas. Their armies got more experience during the Peninsular War, and that's why they were almost a match to Napoleon by the time of Waterloo.
They won at Waterloo because it was an European coalition. Britain had 23,000 troops against 75,000 French troops.
@@Thunderworks Yeah, that's another reason why Napoleon lost the battle
Yes, adding that the monarchy did not trust a large standing army after the English Civil War.
@@jauntyangle5667 actually, because of the civil war, it was parliament that didn't trust the monachy having a large standing army. This is why the Army Act (now the Armed Forces Act ) has to be renewed every five years, and the reason why the army is called the British Army and not the Royal Army (like the Royal Navy and Royal Airforce).
@@firstlast7052 Thanks for the information. Appreciated.
I love seeing people excited about history and wanting to learn from it
Remember from the Trafalgar vid, what ship types there were? You can send a courier to a port which you controlled, there where the smaller ships, like sloops dedicated to receive messages and they sail off to find the fleet(s) to inform about xyz.
Napoleon's blunder. Because he turned an ally into an enemy, through the arrogance of putting his own brother on the throne. This also provided a way for Britain to use its small army, initially supporting Portugal, it's old ally, and then helping Spain through off the Bonapart hegemony.
As you rightly observe communications were vital. In those days it would be done by fast horsemen bearing messages, even relays of horsemen. The French did have fixed intervisible signal stations to send messages by semaphore or lights at night, but they were not very flexible in a campaign situation.
There is an epic poem in English literature abut Sir John Moor and his retreat to Corunna, but I can't recall the details. I'll have to look it up.
This opening of the peninsular war did not go well for the British, see how the next stage progresses!
If you watch the programs Sharpe and Hornblower, you'd be in Spain at the time.
The documental (I suppose a British production) curiously don't say anything of the massive destruction of industrial infraestructures and factories in Andalucía by the British troops. French invasion was a tragedy for Spain but British intervention was deliberately destructive for spanish economy. And the British troops were worst on rapping women that french. An horrible War.
The Burial of Sir John Moore after Corunna (1817)
Charles Wolfe
Slowly and sadly we laid him down,
From the field of his fame fresh and gory;
We carved not a line, and we raised not a stone,
But left him alone with his glory.
didnt soult give him an honorable proper burial again?
"I've gotta do everything myself, don't I?" A perfect summary of Napoleon. Leaving the issue of some of his subordinates' incompetence aside, he was such a relentless micromanager! Andrew Roberts writes: "Napoleon was able to compartmentalize his life to quite a remarkable degree, much more so even than most statesmen and great leaders. He could entirely close off one part of his mind to what was going on in the rest of it; he himself likened it to being able to open and close drawers in a cupboard. On the eve of battle, as aides-de-camp were arriving and departing with orders to his marshals and reports from his generals, he could dictate his thoughts on the establishment of a girls’ school for the orphans of members of the Légion d’Honneur, and shortly after having captured Moscow he set down the regulations governing the Comédie-Française. No detail about his empire was too minute for his restless, questing energy. The prefect of a department would be instructed to stop taking his young mistress to the opera; an obscure country priest would be reprimanded for giving a bad sermon on his birthday; a corporal told he was drinking too much; a demi-brigade that it could stitch the words ‘Les Incomparables’ in gold onto its standard. He was one of the most unrelenting micromanagers in history, but this obsession with details did not prevent him from radically transforming the physical, legal, political and cultural landscape of Europe."
Portugal is England's oldest and truest ally. The alliance has stood for 900 years. It was Portugal that rejected Napoleon 's continental system and Britain that supported them.
What you must realise is that the British Army has always been a small entity. The army in India at the time was privately run by the East India Company and had nothing to do with the actual British Army. Therefore most money went to the navy and their fighting troops, the marines.
Sir Arthur Wellsley, second son of a Dublin Magistrate. Joined his elder brother in the East India company, thats where he learnt war fare. Inexperienced army, we fighting in other arenas. It has to be noted that in general terms armies looted the areas they were in food taken from locals. No popular with folk. Arthur Wellesley, was good at logistics and didn't approve of that type of providing for troops. His men appreciated his views and knew that they would be provided for. He coined the phrase, an army marches on its stomach. They did have chains of communication, flags on ships, carrier pigeons, bugles in battle. Its quite complex. They would have battle plans, with various scenarios worked out. You asked why, we didn't like the French been at war with them, on and off, for centuries. Portugal was a long standing allies, so would help them. Napoleon was creating havoc, across Europe, yet to take on Russia. 1812 overture, War and Peace, gives their take. During this little lull in proceedings, I believe we nipped across the pond to have a little fair well party in Washington. You asked about war at sea, there was a very, different sea captain, Thomas Cochrane, a bit controversial man, mentioned on UA-cam, many films, based on his activities. All ways trouble, wherever he went.
Wasn’t it Napoleon who coined the phrase “an army marches on its stomach”
No, they just raided the countryside, Wellington fed his troops
0:30 The Peninsular War was called that because it was fought in the Iberian peninsula (where Spain and Portugal are)
0:45 Spain’s fleet fought alongside the French fleet at Trafalgar
10:33 Most of the British army was inexperienced because they hadn’t had to fight a major land war since the American Revolution. Some regiments were stationed in India and took part in campaigns there, but the majority of soldiers were Indian. The major advantage the British had was that their army was the only professional army in Europe, everyone was a volunteer (even though sometimes recruited when they were drunk). The armies of Europe were made up of conscripted soldiers who fought only until the war was over, but the British army was similar to modern armies in that men made a career out of it. Britain always had a small army and during that time would rather spend money on their allies (the Austrians, Russians, Prussians, etc) to fight Napoleon on land than to send their army into Europe. When they realized the others were hopeless against Napoleon, the British decided to send their army to defeat Napoleon in Spain and Portugal first, but also to come to the defence of Portugal, Britain’s oldest ally since 1373.
13:57 Yes, the Baker rifle was much more accurate. The grooves inside the rifle makes the bullet spin as it leaves the gun and had a killing range of approximately 200 yards, while most muskets at the era were so inaccurate it was said that a man could stand fifty paces away from an aimed musket and have a decent chance of surviving. That’s partly why the armies of that time needed to fire all together, to ensure that some damage was done to the enemy. In the Plunket story of shooting the French general, his comrades said that it was a lucky shot. So when they saw the French general’s aide come to help him, Plunket killed the aide from the same distance, proving that it wasn’t luck but skill.
14:50 Messengers on horseback would ride between cities or military stations where they would change horses and continue. After certain distances, when the men became too tired, they would hand the message to another messenger who would then continue the journey, changing horses at the next stopping point. Once they got to the general area where Napoleon was, they would ask where he was specifically so they could hand the message over. A messenger would have been sent to tell the British navy of Moore’s plan to march to Corunna and await the ships for evacuation.
18:00 it’s a very similar situation the British would have to face during World War 2 at a place called Dunkirk in northern France. It’s an incredible story worth checking out.
21:35 It depends on your point of view. To the Spanish it could be seen as a betrayal, but to the British he helped save the army to give it a chance to fight another day.
21:37 Britain had an obligation to land in Portugal because the two countries had an alliance that spans back to 1373 (the oldest alliance still in place in the world). In regards to trade, all the wealthy trading countries were in Europe, and if the French prevented them from trading with Britain, Britain had nowhere else to turn to. They couldn’t sell the spices from India in India because they already had it. Other regions near India either wouldn’t trade or had spices of their own or were already trading with the Indians. America was self-sustaining, and the colonies that belonged to the European nations couldn’t do business with them as well because they were either the enemy or they produced the goods Britain wanted to sell themselves.
23:03 the situation in Spain became much worse for the French because of the Spanish civilians who revolted against the French and formed bands of guerillas (the term guerilla comes from this war, which literally translates to little war). Towards the end of the Peninsular War, Napoleon’s messengers had to be escorted with entire regiments of horsemen through dangerous territory because there were so many armed Spanish guerillas. The guerilla war became very brutal, with both sides committed atrocities (the French would massacre populations where the guerillas worked, and the Spanish would torture captured French soldiers). Also, the British send another general to Portugal and Spain, the Duke of Wellington, and he defeats every French army sent against him, never losing a battle. Napoleon had to commit more and more soldiers to Spain, which weakened his position in the east against Austria and Russia. The war in the Peninsula is also known as the Spanish Ulcer because of all the problems it caused Napoleon.
24:10 After the Battle of Trafalgar, the naval aspect of the Napoleonic Wars don’t really have an important role. The British victory assured British dominance of the sea and the French never really posed a naval threat anymore, so it’s not usually talked about after 1805.
There is a series of books and a tv series called Sharpe, about a rifleman (the one with the green uniform and the Baker rifle) as he fights in the Peninsular War under the Duke of Wellington
Hope this helps you and everyone else!
and the spanish guerrillas also were very helpful with sending important information to the duke
Very nicely explained, thank you!
United Kingdom since Cromwell has never had a large army of land, its strategy has always been to support troops from other countries against the dominant power of Europe (Spain and later France)
Also after the 7-year war that left the British empire with many debts, that is why increased taxes in the ungrateful colonies and the US war of independence, which was not only fought in the thirteen colonies, it was fought on other fronts, Menorca knows it well.
UK was very indebted, without the looting of India it would have gone bankrupt, which is what happened to France, that's why Revolution.
That is why a large part of his army was discharged after the end of the war and the army that went to Spain and Portugal was a "novice"
By the way the rifles is a sign that the UK was industrializing, it is curious how that is never mentioned in the documentaries, both the new cannons of their ships (I do not remember how they say in English), as the rifles were very important weapons advantages.
In Spain we hate Wellington same as Napoleon (although Napoleon is admired, after all, all of Europe ,except UK, has Napoleon's civil code), he let us carry the full weight of the fight and when he advanced he made sure to destroy all the industries in the country, which the brutal French repression did not do.
The funny thing is that Napoleon was defeated by Spain and Russia and the UK has fame, they are the best propagandists in history.
Thank you SoGal for your interesting youtube reactions, they are interesting to follow historic events with you..I hope you enjoy this as much as Im sure that many of us viewers do...:)..
See Anglo-Portugese Treaty of 1373. Always available except for when Portugal wasn't independent. Activated numerous times over the centuries through to the present day. Peninsula war was a case in point. Army evacuated but they'd be back. The Portuguese knew this too. Both parties had centuries of form to refer to. Remember, both are maritime nations and understand these manoeuvres and use of the sea.
The french still don't have control over Portugal or half of Spain they only were able to take the north and the capital.
On vous a bien botté le cul ! You have Frenchbashing, we have history... Je vous aime tout de même mais bon refaites pas l'histoire, je dirais pas plus de généralités car pour moi un peuple peut changer mais comme on dit chez nous "messieurs les anglais tirez les premiers"
@@piepiep2368 He wasn't saying anything controversial here, it's a fact that the control of Spain was partial, and hindered by guerilla warfare. Don't give other french people a bad name by overreacting to his comment.
14:50 at this point you had the early "post" systems, which means that instead of one man delivering an message you would have relay, given it to the next rider and after that to the next one and the next and so on.
This allowed for relative fast transition of messages, at least for nobility and important government functions.
Arthur Wesley and his forces saw a lot of action in India before being sent to Spain. The English had the only professional army in Europe. They were a smaller force but highly professional. They used the lash in those days and were known for accurate volley fire and being soul snatchers with the bayonet.
and the only army in Europe that trained with gunpowder in their weapons, usually everybody else first fired a loaded musket was in their first battle.
Suggest watching british ITV show Sharpes war ..Fantastic series on Napoleonic wars , might not be true but still amazing , and if you like that , THan watch the hornblower series.
It's worth it just to see Sean Bean star in something without dying in the first season/film/act.
It still amuses me that they chose a sandy haired Yorkshire man to play a dark haired Essex man (the character from the original book series grew up on the streets of London).
However to someone coming to it as a fresh story, it doesn't really matter.
@@zarabada6125 Paul McGann was originally cast but he broke his leg during filming.
@@zarabada6125 I think it's because Bean was an experienced fencer
The 95th Rifles is the prominent unit in the TV drama/mini-Series "Sharpe" (starring Sean Bean). Based on a series of novels by Bernard Cornwall. The 95th would later form the Royal Green Jackets (now renamed and amalgamated into the "The Rifles")
There is a lot more to come in Spain and it got a lot worse for Napoleon.
As a former British Army officer of over 30 years service, I admire hugely what you are doing. To many of your generation (including my own kids) fail to realise that without an understanding of history, you cannot put present times into proper perspective and avoid the errors of the past as we move into the future. I urge you to study Wellington's Peninsular campaigns from 1809 to 1813 as an example of military genius - including patience, operational and tactical excellence and resilience. You would best do it over 4-5 videos. I would also recommend you read Wellington in the Peninsula by Jac Weller - a fairly short but quite outstanding volume. I have studied most of Wellington's battlefields in Spain and Portugal - a stunning experience!! Keep it up - you are doing brilliantly!!
It might be worth you going back to the Kings and Generals channel and wathcing their videos on the Battle of Vimeiro, The Seige of Zaragoza, The battles of Bailen and Tudela and the Battle of Somosierra and Corrunia (That one essepcially).
Portugal is England’s oldest ally. Portugal also made port! The English love(d) Port. I know I do.
Britain always had a small elite army, they didn't rely on numbers to win a battle, so while British troops do have experience fighting in wars, Britain never had to use all of it's troops, so most of the British Army at this point didn't have a lot of experience. Plus much colonial stuff that happened came from private companies, such as the East India Company which took control of ALL OF INDIA, in 1800, the East India Company had a private army of over 200,000 troops, twice the size of Britain's actually army.
What tends to be overlooked about the peninsular was is how geographically isolated from the rest of Europe ideria is. Spain is no only cut of from France by the pyrenees....its a lot of miles away from the main European centres of power/population. Add to this at the time poor roads. No railways or steam ships. Napoleon was effectively sending his men MUCH further away than it looks at first glance.
"Having to march through the cold for days/weeks" Oh just wait and you will see how relevant that is later in the series :P
They did have to transport horses, and they did this by hoisting each animal aboard by a sling pulley system, and put into specialty constructed stalls, sadly hundreds of horses at Coruña were put down to stop them being captured.
Portugal was an old ally to britain. In supporting their ally they fight Napoleon, in fighting Napoleon they prevent France to become too powerfull, so that they are not a threat for Britain and conquer it. Not supporting your allies would make you untrustworthy and being untrustworthy means, that no one believes your promises and treaties and they would not support you in your hour of need. Also allies are better trading partners than enemies.
5:20 the most funny thing is that priests in spain and russia encouraged the population to act and attack the french, causing that the french had to fight a war of atrittion and eventually being expelled from territory, and that was the end of napoleon xd
La Coruña, Dunkirk. You have to defeat Britain and not let them get away. Their superpower is to keep fighting, even after defeat, until someone else comes along to ally with them.
Britain, uses mostly its Navy at this time. It didn`t have a major land battles sofar...just ignore the Walcheren expedition. Now is the time Britain got really involved in the fighting. And then...out of the blue in 1812...some small ex colonists tried to invade Canada...how unsportsmanlike.
Time to burn Washington!
@@lawrencegough soon...soon. only a few years until the redcoats are commin!
Regarding the British army, I feel like because their navy has been so dominating at some point, most people in the english-speaking world systematically overestimate the land forces. Britain's land army was rarely up the standards of the other main great powers, historically speaking (even if it depends specifically on when).
Maybe it's partly because that common myth in USA about the strength of the British army during the war of independence, in many videos I saw about the American Revolution I often heard them being called "the country with the strongest army in the world" (while nothing really indicates that, apart from the Navy: they indeed had the strongest navy in the world at that point, but this and that are two different things).
these british, they turn escape into "miracles" corunna,dunkirk ...
Keeps us in the fight Sir!
Retreat by sea is a tactic mastered by them. They can always hide in the waves to lick their wounds and comeback. That's the edge that normally made the english succeed more so than other countries
What's the point wasting your entire military force in battle's that are not needed? Even some of our greatest victories came through retreat, Agincourt for example, Henry 5 was in full retreat for weeks before committing to battle and we then wiped out the French army and it's aristocracy in one swift action.
@@mustardtopdog9064 well battle is always eventually needed in conflicts however might as well delay if the odds are stacked against you and that's what retreating by sea allows you to do besides of course generalship. That is the trump card of the brits over the continental europe nations
@@RodolfoGaming it was precisely the denial of this ability that forced Cornwallis to surrender Charleston to Washington and co thanks to the French navy blockade of the harbour.
Yay I get so happy when I see these uploads. 😆
Aranjuez palace is regarded as 'The little Versailles', it is a nice place to visit if you plan to go to Spain sometime after the pandemic.
That British Army never saw battle until then. They were frehsmen in essence but they had good leaders and good equipment.
Communications were horse messengers and relays on the route to change horse regularmy to allow the animals to rest. Napoleon always said were he was going so the messengers knew were to go.
A few years later the first optical telegraphs were in place for faster communication. (two arms on a tower moved by puleys and cords, set in different positions to tell a message. The tower were in visual range of eachother every few kilometers. The message coding was secret and each tower had a crew with a codebook and retransmitted the moves to the next tower, and so on. The final telegraph in Paris sent the code to the Tuileries palace where it was decoded. So in essence no telegraph operator on the way knew what message they were relaying. A message transmitted by optical telegraph made it through in barely a few hours instead of several days. It was the next improvement before the radio telegraph at the end of the 19th Century and later the radio spoken transmission.
It is said that Napoleon didn't understand Spanish interests and heart and therefore didn't get their approval.
Naval context at this point it not that important, French and Spanish fleets are not a threat to the Royal Navy by that point and don't really count. They are completely out of the game
I reccommend watching the "Sharpes" series of videos.Stars Sean Bean pretty historucally accurate.
He also did "Sean Beans' Waterloo".
Don't forget USA had its own Napoleonic War.....
Most were green troops, they had never seen battle before.
What makes the British different is the training, leadership and most importantly, Iron discipline.
Those were the three main qualities.
As I didn't know too much about `Napoleonic wars` its educating me too. What did surprise me were the ferocity of the French retaliations upon the Spanish. Obviously nowhere near the same scale of German such retaliations in WW2 but; rather similar in some ways. Wish I could give answers to some of Sogals questions-but this is a learning curve for me too.
I think the British Army was inexperienced at fighting on the continent at that point, however they were exceptionally well trained. Most would probably not seen action at this point. One thing that was unique at the time was training with live ammunition, which made a huge difference.
Portugal is Britain's oldest ally , since 1386. Making it the oldest alliance in the world. Also a huge amount of trade was done with Portugal at that point. One of the reasons Britain was keen to defend Portugal against Napoleon.
The 95th Rifle Regiment that is mentioned, became massively famous both at the time and recently. It's sister regiment was the 60th Royal American Rifles, raised in North America in 1755. It two would see service in the Peninsular War. The US Rangers are also a distant cousin of the 60th & 95th regiments.
The communication was restricted to messengers on horseback, but it was massively important to keep the messages and information flowing at this time as you can imagine a real headache for the commanders.
The Royal Navy would have had a squadron based just off the coast hence why they could mobilise so quickly, to extract Moore's Army. Spain and Portugal make up the Iberian Peninsula hence the name Peninsular War.
I hope that answers some of your questions, loving the series. You should check out Empire of the Sea with Dan Snow. Fantastic series on the history of the Royal Navy and Britain in general.
I know you are getting a lot of suggestions for Sharpe. It is a great drama series set in this era. Not very historically accurate. Also may look dated in places with some dodgy acting and cheesy lines . Still worth a look.
Keep the reaction videos coming.
21:49 the 'why'of Portugal goes AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL the way back to 1373. The Kingdom of Portgal (now the Republic of Portugal) and the Kingdom of England (now, ofc, the United Kingdom) signed a treaty that - save for the 60 years when Portugal was subsumed under the Iberian Union (during which England went to war with Spain in support of the deposed Portugese royal house) - has held ever since. The nations have not waged war against each other, or - as independent states - been on opposing sides of other wars.
Britain, since she lost her continental possessions, had always focused on the navy, to protect the islands from invasion. Once in a while, they engaged directly in continental wars, and did produce great leaders and generals - like John Churchill, 1. Duke of Marlborough and an ancestor of Winston Churchill. But mostly they relied on continental alliances. Even their own continental wars were mostly fought with local alliances, mercenaries and other hired troops.
Ath the beginning of the Revolutionary Wars, the Britsh Army numbers just a few tenthousand men, and even at its peak never passes a quater of a million in total. Napoleon's army that went to Spain was bigger than all the British forces combined.
Before the Peninsular Campaign(s), most of Britain's engagement in the various coalition wars were on side fronts, diversions, supports... and while some of them were indeed successful military, many of them were squandered by inept leadership, lack of discipline, logistics and support and disease.
But the army learned from its initial mistakes (as did most of Napoleon's opponents) and improved greatly on training and discipline... if not always on leadership.
Still, the successes in the Peninsular Campaign were to a large part due to Wellesly's (or Wellington's, as he is better known by his granted title) tennacity.
The reason for the inexperienced British army was that it never saw combat in the field that is how men in war would be tested gaining experience from that experience in combat. To your question on Napoleons ability to know what was going on is that he like many generals at the time had communication lines to send and receive information this is how he knew what was going on in Paris at the time. For the question of how the British Navy knew is that maybe the army sent messages to them saying I will be here etc, to tell you that General More needed those men to guard and hold his flank so the rest of the army was able to be put on those ships, it might be horrible to hear that but it does happen.
By the way, the Sharpe people keep mentioning, it's about the Green uniformed rifles.
The 9th rifles
95th rifles (autocorrelation doesn't like 95th! )
Fun anecdote from me:
when I was a teenager I saw a bit of "Sharp" Episode (the one where an English officer gets confused by a doppelagent).
Now for me, the Uniform Sharp is wearing looked black.
And black for me was the "prussian" color.
So I basically though for a while that Sharpe was an Prussian Officer argument with an British ally.
Much later I actually learn the context of the series (I didn't watch the episode to its end).
@@Nonsense010688 I believe the Dark Green die wasn't very good and would go black
Napoleon's Great Blunder: Spain 1808
Russia 1812: Hold my beer
Britain traditionally had a small army but a huge and powerful navy. At no time did they have an army equal in size to the French. Instead they tended to shore up coalitions of other European armies with financial and material aid. Even Wellington's army at Waterloo was basically a hodgepodge of British, Dutch and German troops fighting alongside Blucher's Prussians.
The intro to their vid is so sick. The talavera bit
The soldiers who fought in the America’s have long since retired. It was just a point in time where the majority of the army hadn’t had a major war in recent times. From this point on the British army went from strength to strength as global colonisation burst into full flow. Over the next 100 years major fighting in Europe, Africa, India and the America’s made the army formidable.
The British army was actually pretty much derided, even in the UK, and very much in comparison to the Royal Navy, during this period and had not fought in a major European war in some time; you're likely thinking back to the American Revolution. That said, Wellington was a top-notch commander, and Sir John Moore was the creator of the Light Division - which included the infamous 95th Regiment of Foot 'the Rifles' - and as with many conflicts in which our nation has been involved, we punched above our weight and came out extremely bloodied but victorious.
You may also be interested in this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance
The longest surviving alliance between two nations, which remains in place to this day.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff!!
10:40 because up to that point Britain hadn’t really engaged in land combat. The excursions they made across the Continent, to the Netherlands and Britanny were small in nature and disastrous. British troops were involved in repelling French forces from Syria, but once again they were small in nature and it had happened a decade before the events of the video. The Royal Navy had majorly conducted Britain’s involvement in the war, they had easily gained the most experience compared to the army.
Also, Moore’s death was eerily similar to Nelson’s. Receiving news of his success just before his death
The reason he said the British army was inexperienced was because British army had not seen much action or faced down the main French army by 1808 it would years later until British and main French armies would go muzzle to muzzle at Waterloo in 1815. at this time the British forces had been battling French splinter forces like at the Battle of Vimeiro on 21st August 1808. The British army was not a weak force by any means they where a professionally drilled, well equipped, well supplied and expertly lead and was contently a major threat to the French during the peninsular war and was the only force the French never truly defeated in battle. the inexperience was from the fact that the British forces weren't as battle hardened as their French opponents who themselves had been fighting on mainland Europe for the past 20 years at that stage and where professional veterans lead by Napoleon himself and for a force of just 30'000 fresh British troops facing off against Napoleons near 100,000 battle hardened veterans was just pure suicide. so the British retreated and left Spain to live and fight another day which they did, returning sometime later and truly crushed the French at Talavera in 1809, Badajoz in 1812 and Salamanca in 1812. The British became Frances most determent enemies aiding the Spain's in forcing out the French.
A series of novels by Bernard Cornwell covers the green-coated 95th Rifles in some detail, both historical and following a ficticious officer Richard Sharpe.
Several of the incidents in the Spain - Portugal vs. the French business in the Peninsular War are covered quite well.
There's a series of movies as well, with Sean Bean in the role of Richard Sharpe.
I am Jim from Scotland in our British history we have won 🇬🇧 1,105 Battles English Scottish Welsh Irish nations always have fought together against all foes who would come against Great Britain
23:40 France had a guerrilla problem, it was a nightmare for them.
You should read the Sharp books by Bernard Cornwell or watch the very popular TV series based om his books. The 95th Rifles are used as the basis for some of the books.
The question of how they got messages from France to Napoleon in Spain: A messenger would ride his horse "into the ground", basically at extreme speed and stop off at a castle/palace/barracks/stronghold for food and - more importantly - a new horse. The messenger could then ride that horse without thought about conserving it's strength because he would just get another new horse every 50-100 miles. Meaning that he could deliver his message within two to three days with relative ease.
On the point of how Napoleon knew what was happening in Paris, the French had a substantial 'optical' (towers with wooden arms/sails or flags to transmit messages) telegraph system so Napoleon was well informed on events in France.
10:40
I think that is largely a myth many Americans fall victim to because to make the Independence War see as a bigger victory, american historians (and all the many wannabes) tend to overplay how strong the british army was, painting it as one of the strongest if not the strongest of the world, even thou there are some plain measurements (like marching step speed) which make them fall behind.
Besides of that:
even if your army has 1000 and more years of history, that doesn't help your 18 year old recruits who never seen an battle.
In other words: think of armies as of generations.
If an army had many victories 20-30 years before an conflict you can save assume that besides the officers, no one has actual experience in an army.
23:40 it will become more clear as you watch more videos, but Spain was basically a warzone for years to come, often compared to "Vietnam". Meaning that the France would keep losing troops there and keep have to station there many.
When he says the British army was inexperienced, he doesn't mean the entire army he means the army that was in Spain. Whilst they did have some experienced troops most were stationed outside of Europe. In response to Nepolean the British Army had a masive recruitment drive as they were significantly out numbered. it was much more convienient to Ship the new recruits from england than experienced troops from India.
During peace time British army is always disbanded and budget cut , also British army was only made of volunteers unlike everywhere else used conscription they had army's around the world but they were needed there so new army's were raised trained and equipped , the officers generals would be experienced but they men of the American revolution had retired mostly
You really make me laugh with your comments like how you know nothing of Europen history yet you do this you are brilliant I love you steve from the uk lol
My father's regiment the Duke of Wellington's now part of the Yorkshire Regiment has battle honours on it's flag from Portugal, Spain and France mainly Waterloo as they fought their way through.
My father did his national service and as soon as he finished basic training he was sent the same afternoon from Halifax, England to Keyna, Africa to fight the Mau Mau in the 1950's.
I found this absolutely fascinating. I too have heard of the Peninsula War but know very little about it. Also, a channel that deals in history and knowledge and er, stuff. I would love to hear your take on the lunatic line. Colour me subscribed.
Never heard of it before...you’ll have to enlighten me 🙂
@@SoGal_YT The Lunatic Line was a nickname given to the Uganda Railway, built at the behest of the British government between 1896 and 1903. It stretched from Mombassa on the East coast of Africa to Lake Victoria and was so costly in terms of lives lost and financial resources consumed that it earned the name: Lunatic Line.
Richard Sharpe, Bernard Cornwall character. Did a TV series 😍😍
14:16 other accounts say he also offed the general's aide when he dismounted to attend to the general.
Napoleons Marechals are also a good series to watch. Definitely recommend watching them, I’ve learned a lot from his series
Messages got around by horse - messenger boats, Sloops or Frigates (small fast things). Heliograph, Semaphore was also available. Messages might go out in multiples - to all possible destinations, to ensure they got through. Constant communications would have been maintained for as long as possible - the moment he decided to retreat to Corunna, messages would have gone out asap.
As you noted earlier, the British had not been involved much on land since Toulon, so how would they be experienced? The Royal Navy was dominant, but Britain never had a significant army (until 1917).
They actually recaptured French occupied Egypt and defeated French Army of Orient in Egypt at Battle of Alexandria in 1801 but that was it and even that was a medium sized battle compred to Austerliz or Jena Campaigns
All of these actions were mostly Marines though correct? I didn't think the British army went to Egypt or Tulon in any great force(?)
@@LordInter Correction , British Army did go to Egypt and took it from French. Won all the battles after landing on Alexandria in 1801 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Abukir_(1801) , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alexandria (British Army commander Genral Sir Ralph Abercromy died in this battle) , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cairo , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Alexandria , the Egytian artifacts like Rosetta Stone British took over from French after taking the place from French can be seen in British Museum in London today.
@@merdiolu indeed, my hometown (army) regiment fought in Egypt and took their “back badge” from the Battle of Alexandria. But as you say, these were not really significant battles.
@@lawrencegough I would say Landings on Aboukir , Battle of Alexandria , Sieges of Alexandria and Cairo were strategically significant battles. But there were not large scale like Austerlitz , Jena-Auerstadt or Friedland Campaigns in terms of number forces involved.
As for how Moore managed to get the navy ready to evacuate at Corunna, I'll briefly explain what probably happened (I've found nothing specific for that evacuation).
Moore would have had light messenger units, much faster that the rest of the Army. Moore would know where a naval unit was at port, and would have ordered his messengers to ride ahead and contact the nearest naval unit at port.
From here, there are two possibilities.
If the port had no transport fleet -
This naval unit would most likely have a specific despatch boat (a small messenger ship, often a sloop of war) or another ship that could be used for this purpose. They would be expected to roughly know the position of a transport fleet nearby, so would be sent to find it and pass on Moore's orders.
If the transports were at port, it's just a case of telling them where Moore was heading.
Naval communications before the invention of modern wireless signalling was pretty difficult stuff, and essentially came down to meeting one another and passing on messages by signal flags, shouting or passing over a letter physically. Knowing where other ships were posted was therefore essential. Even easier was to find the unit before they left port.
It's a pretty common myth that the British army were a unparalleled fighting force. This probably comes from the American revolution and the common narrative of the underdog American victory. What you must remember is that Britain was primarily a naval power. It's navy certainly was the best in the world. However comparatively the British army was small but very well drilled. Considering the British weren't very active in the land battles up to this point they basically had minimal experience in the field.
Regarding communication - several methods were employed and often used in conjunction: despatch rider, mechanical telegraph and semaphore (not to mention carrier pigeon). In the late 1700's a message was sent over 70 miles by the Royal Navy in less than five minutes - better than some internet services today.
If you like poetry, there's a very famous poem about the death of general Moore, by Charles Wolfe, look it up. It starts:
Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O’er the grave where our hero we buried.
We buried him darkly at dead of night,
The sods with our bayonets turning;
...
I've visited General Moore's tomb at Coruña, it's at a nice spot overlooking the sea.
Portugal was an old ally of Britain & I vaguely remember reading somewhere that a number of British merchants had large investments in the lucrative Port trade at the time as obviously Napoleon had blocked the wine trade between Britain & Europe.
Our oldest alliance apparently! Between Britain & Portugal. Which is pretty cool!
@@JackRabbit002 between England and Portugal. The alliance predates the United Kingdom by about 350 years.
I too would recommend the British TV shows " Sharpe " and " Hornblower " as they depict life during these times and mention many of the battles..
I think it was less that Napoleon regretted getting involved with Spain and more that he should not have tried to put his brother on the throne. That really united Spain against him and even while he controlled Spain there were nonstop Guerilla attacks. Which is where the term comes from.
All I say...watch the Sharp`s series...Maybe not as historical accurate...but hell of fun to watch Sharp and Harper bugger their way throug Spain
Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke of Wellington is an interesting figure in his own right. He had a rich and varied military and political career. Starting out as minor Irish nobility and becoming one of the most famous men in history. Famously beating Napoleon at Waterloo as well as serving as Prime Minister.
In terms of speed of communication, you may want to read about the Optical Telegraph system. This was a chain of towers that could pass visually coded messages over great distances in a short space of time. Both the French and the British used such systems during the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.
How far the message could get into Spain from Paris in 1808, I am unsure but the message would certainly have had a shorter journey to Napoleon than conventional communication.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telegraph
Another point is that due to logistics, a single courier can travel far greater distances than an army.
They have no artillery or baggage trains to haul and they can make or break camp in a short space of time. For an army to make camp, they first have to find a suitable spot and then march their men into sufficiently spaced locations.
An isolated courier was at risk of being intercepted or killed (and many of them were) but messages did go ahead of the main force.
Manuel Moreno Alonso (Seville, 1951) is one of our best specialists (Spain) in the complex transition period between the 18th and 19th centuries, marked in Spain by such important events as the terrible war crisis that followed the Napoleonic invasion, the rise of liberalism and the Constitution of Cádiz, or the ferocious reintroduction of absolutism at the hands of the felon king, Fernando VII. Moreno Alonso crowns his extensive bibliography on these issues with this monumental analysis of what he calls "the war of the English", a name with which he refers to the great conflict that Spanish historiography knows as the "War of Independence", although between the English It is called the “peninsular war”.
Such a difference in names hides the stories and assessments that both historiographies have been making in the 200 years since that catastrophe; some divergences that constitute the main plot of the book, as indicated by the subtitle: "History as a battlefield", although the author focuses on the study of the English version of the war, which has prevailed with few exceptions since the first studies -such as Napier's canonical work, published in 1828- to those of current historians. This justifies the denomination of "war of the English", since the story of the same prevailing in those latitudes has counted it as "own thing", reducing the action against the French troops to the intervention of the British armies, with an absolute forgetfulness, and even contempt, of the fight carried out by the Spanish. The insistence on his exclusive leading role has been accompanied, from the beginning, by the mythologization of Wellington and the conversion of the peninsular war into one of the great British national myths, sustaining his national pride. Spanish and British rarely acted together. The misgivings of the former, fueled by the cruelty and the numerous abuses and destructions carried out by the latter, more typical of enemies than allies, joined the contempt of the majority of the English for the Spanish, whom they considered a backward people and uncivil -including Wellington himself, of whom Moreno Alonso highlights his “animosity towards Spanishness”-.
But the victory against Napoleon's troops would not have been possible without the efforts of both; in the case of the Spaniards, not so much the regular troops -poorly organized, undisciplined and not very capable, according to the author-, but rather the guerrillas and the permanent and tireless opposition of the common people. The English version does not allow us to understand the defeat of the French, since only the fierce popular resistance explains the successes of a reduced army, inactive for long periods and in a permanent defensive attitude, such as the British troops displaced to the Iberian Peninsula (all the more 30,000 men, when the French had 300,000). Hence the “exceptional wave of Hispanophilia” that then shocked the United Kingdom, soon distorted by the official versions, which would provoke protests from exiled liberals in Great Britain, such as José Canga Argüelles or Antonio Alcalá Galiano. English historiography has been the victim of its own propaganda, which has greatly exaggerated the role of its armies and the genius of its general in chief, turned into a myth against Bonaparte, despite the fact that "none of his decisive battles deserves the consideration of 'great' and not a few of his decisions were wrong, to the point of having been able to turn into resounding disasters”.
Most of the uk army in spain were pressed into service and lightly trained before being sent to spain joining a small army of experienced soldiers ! The experienced soldiers were in africa india, asia and canada expanding the empire!
There was a series starring Sean Bean called SHARPE with some historic references and facts! A good series about UK v napoleon. It is on UA-cam for Roger!!
Lots of spies and a somewhat realistic view of the british army at that time including the 95th rifles!! Enjoyable tv viewing!!
If you are to continue with your experience of Napoleonic History then at some time you must do a reaction to the Duke of Wellington. As he is the person who beat him at Waterloo.
First of all it was Napoleons Police minister Fouche who betrayed France and gave information to wellington and Blucher. And ultimatly Blucher and the prussians who won the Day att waterloo. Not Wellington. The duke of wellington meant close to nothing regarding Napoleons ultimate demise. Napoleon fought odds 6 to 1 in the final coalition sent against him. And even if General Blucher didnt save Wellingtons army from defeat in the last second at Waterloo. Napoleon would stand close to no chanse against the Russians and Austrians who was allready marching on France from all directions. The idea that Wellington defeated Napoleon is beyond rediculuss. His army was just a hour or 2 away from being massacerd if not the prussians had arrived with 50 000 men that outflanked Napoleons army.