The fall of La Haye Sainte exposed Wellington’s centre which Napoleon attacked with his imperial guard.
This attack was defeated on the eastern side by British, Brunswick and Nassau, and fresh Dutch troops, and on the western side by Maitland's British troops.
@mwillis1000 Apart from the Dutch who did it as well. In fact the British foot guards took on the remnant of one regiment of the middle Guard Chasseurs after ( after ) the Dutch had roughly handled them.
@tigerarmyrule, the 52nd Light Infantry outnumbered the MG Chasseurs by more than two to one, hence, they have more firepower, and they routed the 4th Chassuers.
Did you know that at Waterloo, the average British battalion was numerically superior than the average French or Prussian battalion?
@mwillis1000, the Dutch under Chasse were the ones who decisively defeated the French Middle Guard Grenadiers under Louis Friant, after Halkett's brigade, Brunswickers, Hanovarians, and Nassauers were routed. The British Foot Guards and the 52nd Light Infantry regiment defeated the Middle Guard Chasseurs of the 3rd and 4th.
Napoleon wasn't the most liberal and kindest of rulers, but he was a great leader. An enlightened despot is the most accurate description of him.
Of course the Old Guard did not break as we know but no harm gilding the lily for dramatic effect I suppose. The attack by the Guard was in fact 5 battalions of the Middle gurard numbering no more than 3,000 and Maitlands British guards did not face the Grenadiers but again the lily is being gilded.
@tigerarmyrule, the British Foot Guards believed they defeated the Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard, hence, they recieved the title of "Grenadier Guards". They only fought against the Middle Guard Chasseurs of the 3rd and 4th.
@expertstrategy You are correct.and of course as I have explained to mwillis1000 the 3rd Chasseurs had been badly mauled and depleted by the time the British foot guards entered the fray. It is likely there were fewer than 400 of them at the time.
@dog75k, La victoire est en nous was played during the French capture of Moscow.
The Pas de Charge is the battle march of the Guard. You can find this in the history books about Napoleon's campaigns. The Old Guard also sang some other songs.
this man that think him a horse from same county as we..so be his horesss brave they hold the them you see...sergar was born on this feild..this we true to our word..
The old guard had one of the most fearson reputations. Only at waterloo did they break! Nothing could stand up to he british/allied line that coul fire round a minute
@barry8472 i thought it was the brittish were trained to fire three rounds a minute? not 1 a minute, as the french where trained to fire 2 rounds a minute.
& at that i mind reading that when the oldguard marched over in range of the brittish line alot of the brittish on the frontlines had run out of ammo & were ordered to fire their ramrods which each one tore through 3-4 men in a line and the shock from a volly is what made the old guard break ranks & flee, fearing a "new weapon".
@expertstrategy Elements of the Old Guard were, but they made up a small minority as the rest were either dead or fighting at Platnicot with what remained of the Young Guard. The Old guard was at the ambush(if you would call it an ambush)of Maítland´s guards even if they made up a tiny minority.
@TheWellington1014, the Old Guard wasn't even sent toward the Allied center. It was only the Middle Guard of the 3rd and 4th Grenadiers and Chasseurs. The Old Guard was always held in reserve, and yes they were sent at Plancenoit.
@TheWellington1014, 15,000 men, are you referring to Comte D'Erlon's infantry attack? I seriously doubt there were 15,000 Imperial Guardsmen who attacked the Allied center.
@EddieExile Yes, one point - this charge was really suicidal - 5 bat. vs outnumbering forces (on the plato stood aprox. 10000 infantrymen only + 2 cav. brogades), another point - Allied army (In vast majority this words are about British, because even the best of German's troops had been created by British warfare style, we should remember it - we can't say about Hannoverians as about "Germans at Waterloo") was, perhaps, the only army, that hadn't been afraid of Napoleon's army
@EddieExile and Wellington, though he respected Napoleon as a general and was carefull against him, was, perhaps, the only commander, who hadn't been afraid of Napoleon.
That's right - and in contrast Napoleon didn't respect Wellington as a general despite Wellington's successes against the French in Spain.
This meant that Wellington ensured in advance that Blucher would join him at Waterloo whereas Napoleon arrogantly and stupidly dismissed the need for Grouchy's forces.
As stated - it was the middle guard that broke and fled without orders, but it is still valid to say that the middle guard "had a fearsome reputation and only at waterloo did they break".
And there is no evidence to indicate that the old guard would have performed any better in the circs.
France conquered Prussia since 1806 until 1813 we raped their army after 16 days of combats and you payed them because you didn't have the guts to fight us at the land and alone you admit you was inferior to us
All Britain has is your channel, if Uk would be landlocked for sure you would be our bitch and then the bitch of the german
Uk never conquered a powerful country alone and you still think you are better than France rofl !!
And the fact is that the UK wasn’t a land power but a sea power with a much smaller population than France, so France was owned by the British at sea, and also on land when the numbers were equal.
And Prussia/Germany has been raping France since 1815.
The “French” grand armee included forces from 11 other nations - Netherlands, Poland, Austria, Italy, Bavaria, Saxony. Prussia, Westphalia, Switzerland, Portugal and Croatia - so you shut up deluded anglophobe.
@EddieExile expect Napoleon never declared war. If someone attacked against him, marched his lands etc. he went war against them, and that way congeured some areas from them
@EddieExile, David G Chandler thought that comparing Napoleon to Hitler was ridiculous in his book, "The Campaigns of Napoleon".
It's an obvious and widely known fact that it was the Allies who were the real warmongers, and Napoleon didn't declare war on them in any occassion. However, Napoleon wasn't a complete pacifist either. He did send French troops to Portugal to enforce the Continental System, and he did invade Russia for very similar reasons, but overall, he was mostly defending.
As I said when Napoleon/Hitler went on their rampages all over Europe, they said they were defending their own countries and and were getting their retaliation in first.
@EddieExile, Napoleon and France were the ones who were always being declared war upon. France never declared war in the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 Coalition Wars. Napoleon often sent peace proposals to his rivals before a war began.
There is no historical evidence that the people of Haiti were gassed out in massive numbers. A brutal war occured there. Historians have already contradicted Claude Ribbe's claims, and concluded that they were just mere suppostions.
Many historians deny that Napoleon's and Hitler's genocides occurred, and both Napoleon and Hitler claimed that they wanted peace before their rampages through Europe.
@EddieExile, those so-called genocides Napoleon issued in Haiti never even occured, that's why it was never mentioned by historians. Claude Ribbe's just one of those dumb historians. You ought to question everything you read and detect false info. while you read history books.
I've quite read enough to know that Napoleon had no plans to conquer Europe unlike Hitler. Mein Kampf is basically the blue print to his future. He planned to conquer Europe from the very beginning of his rule.
@EddieExile, people who hate Napoleon are frequently without logic. Those who are unbiased are filled with logic. I don't admire or hate Napoleon because I've dedicated myself into being unbiased. I know bull crap when I read it.
There is no historical evidence that this genocide in Haiti occured. If it did happen, then we would have strong evidene to support it. I've read enough to distinguish between Napoleon and Hitler. There is massive evidence to support that the Holocaust occured.
@EddieExile, Napoleon was far from being a saint, but he is nothing in comparison to Hitler. He commited some atrocities as well, such as ordering the execution of 3000 Turkish prisoners at Jaffa.
If there is any real evidence to prove Napoleon did order the people of Haiti to be gassed out in mass numbers then I'm waiting for some proof. I seriously doubt that Claude Ribbe even has any.
@EddieExile you know when people compare napoleon to hitler they remenber me of women sometimes when they say "ah you men you're all alike". that's exactly how you sound, just because they where military national leaders who "britain" hated-(napoleon would have settled for peace with britain anytime before the continental system, but it was your economic agenda that pushed war with france)- it does not make them alike!!! in fact i love napoleon and HATE hitler and so do polish people, ask them!
So you conclude that because Napoleon and Hitler were alike, that means all men are alike. Yoou sound like the woman.
In The Crime of Napoleon by Claude Ribbe tates that Napoleon authorised genocide in Haiti gassing rebellious blacks more than a century before the Nazis' extermination of the Jews. His accusations refer to the extreme methods used to put down a ferocious uprising in Haiti at the start of the 19th century
So you conclude that because Napoleon and Hitler were alike, that means all men are alike. Yoou sound like the woman.
In The Crime of Napoleon by Claude Ribbe tates that Napoleon authorised genocide in Haiti gassing rebellious blacks more than a century before the Nazis' extermination of the Jews. His accusations refer to the extreme methods used to put down a ferocious uprising in Haiti at the start of the 19th century
So you conclude that because Napoleon and Hitler were alike, that means all men are alike. Yoou sound like the woman.
In The Crime of Napoleon by Claude Ribbe tates that Napoleon authorised genocide in Haiti gassing rebellious blacks more than a century before the Nazis' extermination of the Jews. His accusations refer to the extreme methods used to put down a ferocious uprising in Haiti at the start of the 19th century
You may love Napoleon, but that is not proof he was not a monster; At various times, he, his commanders, and his troops committed atrocities. So did the British Empire and so did the Nazis. Atrocities are horrific acts of violence against innocents.
Why don't you ask people who witnessed atrocities if atrocity-committing actors should be 'loved'.
@slizzler1 thank you so much priest, i feel a better human being now. there isn't one country in the world who hasn't commited atrocities, you blame napoleon for jaffa and for spain when the british were the largest slave-traders in history, napoleon fought for values and for france, whereas the monarchies of europe fought for their social privileges and britain for their money-greed.
if you're english lecturing me like that for god's sake go kiss your queen's feet!!!
I never claimed that history is not filled with a vast array of atrocities committed in various continents by various players of various races and various cultures.
Is that your best lawyer defense for Napoleon's atrocities?
If you are defending a killer in court is your defense to the jury going to be; 'Well there are lots of killers everywhere!'
Why do crybabies assume that critics of Napoleon are 'pro-British'?
Plus- where is Napoleon's loving value's system on your values barometer regarding the forced conscription of European soldiers into his army; Equivalent to Hitler's slave/forced labour recruitment/ deportation enacted across Nazi occupied Europe, and similar to Britain's horrific Press Gang enslavers of innocent British-subject citizens.
What were the social privileges of Napoleon conscripting 14 and 15 year old boys in his 1814 campaigns.
@slizzler1 i already said jaffa was different. napoleon didn't force conscription on foreigns because he thought it'd be fun, why didn't austria,russia,prussia and britain stop declaring war on him then? again stop with the hitler thing it makes you look stupid and i don't fancy debating with stupid people. for every evil napoleon did he did 10 goods. if he was such a bad guy why did:
- the french people love him even after escaping elba?
@slizzler1 ok...you seem to have a hard time understanding my point in the conscription thing, maybe if i put it as a question, ok: napoleon forced conscription in all those territories but WHY did he do it? because EVERYONE ELSE KEPT ATTACKING HIM!!!
don't speak of objectivity because you refuse to analyse the context in wich an action is taken!! guess what, times were brutal they still are,wake up!! you're the kind of person who will blame someone for acting in self defense so give me a break.
Do you reread your idiotic logic before posting???
What kind of stupidity do you not see about trying to defend Napoleon FORCING conscription on States and Nations he ruled as a dictator by saying he was 'forced' to make non-Frenchmen fight for him against armies who declared war on Napoleon himself- and not the territories he was a dictator over.
@EddieExile Well ONE time -_- Other times it WAS seld defence.. Aggressive self-defense. And about Hitler, not all his actions were wrong, i think you would do the same thing if you would be him. (expect you wouldn`t kill thousends of inicents of course) But attacking against russia/Britain was stupid, useless, and pointless
@EddieExile Well ONE time -_- Other times it WAS seld defence.. Aggressive self-defense. And about Hitler, not all his actions were wrong, i think you would do the same thing if you would be him. (expect you wouldn`t kill thousends of inicents of course) But attacking against russia/Britain was stupid, useless, and pointless
@EddieExile Well ONE time -_- Other times it WAS seld defence.. Aggressive self-defense. And about Hitler, not all his actions were wrong, i think you would do the same thing if you would be him. (expect you wouldn`t kill thousends of jews of course) But attacking against russia/Britain was stupid, useless, and pointless
In Italy, Napoleon was only a mere general out of many, and not the leader of a nation, and he was posted there by the Republican government, with the task of driving the Austrians out of Italy. He was ordered to attack in Italy.
Actually- you are technically correct; what I meant about Italy was he occupied the land as part of his Empire - progressively taking it over- him as King of Italy, and then dictating Sardinia and Naples- putting his relatives on their thrones.
So yes- he didn't attack Italy, but he aggressively took control over it.
Actually- you are technically correct; what I meant about Italy was he occupied the land as part of his Empire - progressively taking it over- him as King of Italy, and then dictating Sardinia and Naples- putting his relatives on their thrones.
So yes- he didn't attack Italy, but he aggressively took control over it.
@slizzler1 Of course not! Im saying, he never declared war. Clear difference. But declaring war against another nation isn`t so bad, but ONLY if they have insulting you somehow (crossing borders, insulting...)
@slizzler1 Yeah, i agree, but invading is different thing than declaring war, what i know, they declared war TO Napoleon. (or alliance where they were)
@EddieExile Napoleon never declared war against this "powerful group of nations"...It was the British who have paid to other countries to fight.
You can't comparate Hitler and Napoléon ! Napoleon didn't a genocide, he wasn't arrogant and he wasn't a dictator...He has done great things for France and for the world ( as the Civil Code which has inspired many countries ).
@EddieExile At this time, all this countries were included in the French Empire which were countries under our power. It is therefore normal that they fight for us.
Why do the English always have to question the great French strategists?
@EddieExile, sorry, but there is no evidence that Napoleon issued any deliberate order to mass exterminate the blacks of Haiti. Both the French and the Haitians were brutally slaughtering each other anyway. Some generals such as Rochambeau were monsters.
On the other hand, Dessalines was a very brutal person, and it's a known fact that he ordered the massacre of the white people of Haiti. Check the 1804 Haiti Massacre. Not to mention that he executed 800 French soldiers by drowning them.
Napoleon decided to cancel his plans for the invasion of England before the Battle of Trafalgar occured.
"But they succeeded most most times and there aren't enough characters allowed to list those."
I can only recall, British successes in Egypt, seas, Ireland, Malta, Belgium 1815, French colonies, and Iberian Peninsula. The French defeated the British more frequently than vice versa. Also, Wellington was even repulsed by the French three times in 1809, 1811, and 1812.
@expertstrategy there were a lot of things wich determined napoleon's defeat in belgium:
- ney's dubious loyalty/incompetence througout the campaign
- grouchy's inexperience and the failure to chase down the prussians
- weather
- napoleon leaving davout(for me his best marshall along with dead lannes and traitors murat and bernadotte) in paris because he trusted no one else...
in the end even if napoleon won in belgium he wouldn't be able to defeat the russians and austrians(half a million).
@EddieExile How the hell were the French "Nazis"? Napoleon was a martyr compared to sHitler. That's not to say he was perfect, but he was from the "evil" man a lot of stereotypical, ignorant and uneducated Brits seem to think.
@EddieExile How the fuck were the French "Nazis"? Napoleon was a martyr compared to sHitler. That's not to say he was perfect, but he was from the "evil" man a lot of stereotypical, ignorant and uneducated Brits seem to think.
@EddieExile what made napoleonic france anything similar to nazi germany? one spreads the civil code abolishes serfdom in europe and the monarchs of europe constantly declare war on him(france), the other spreads opression,violates every international treaty in the world, invades countries without declaration of war, and is racist and unequalitarian.
if anything the 20th century britain was more alike nazi germany than napoleonic france. for one you're all germanic peoples and authocracies!!
Hats off to the old guard. No army, no general could win in Napoleon's shoes at Waterloo.
To fight off two armies required Napoleon to dislodge Wellington and it is by no mean feat that the old guard, the most experienced and elite infantry in Europe had displayed uncommon valor.
The only alternative to help France win against overwhelming odds is to have a defensive campaign relying on guerilla tactics whilst attacking the coalition armies in separate battles.
@JustAPuffin napoleon defeated prussia in three weeks!! a major european power in a time there were no transport trucks,railways or aircraft. that's how napoleon fucked germany. and britain just hid in their shit island during the whole wars!!!
@boss180888 Britain controlled the seas, was in the Peninsula for 6 years, and had troops all round the world expanding and defending it's empire. Because of the Royal Navy's strength, Britain didn't need to "hide" on it's island. It was well defended from the sea.
@boss180888 At no point did I claim it "was a match", only that it was not inactive and did not hide anywhere. The British and Austrians were two of the most aggressive countries, given that they kept going through all seven coalitions against France, starting in the Revolutionary Wars, right up until Waterloo. Virtually unbroken opposition.
@MarcusBritish, you do have a valid point. Britain was the most persistent enemy of France in that time. The British were most successful in the Iberian Peninsula than in any other part of Europe. They suffered many setbacks when it comes to invading. The Walcheren Campaign was a major disaster, and I think it was the largest concentrated British invasion since the Battle of Cartegena de indias.
The British army was a match for the French army of Spain, but it's no equal to La Grande Armee.
@expertstrategy I would say that the French army was only unable to get the better of the Anglo-Portuguese force because it was unable to bring its vast numbers to bear, as it tried to hold all of Spain instead of concentrating against the small British army. This allowed Wellington to destroy the French in small doses, which did take 6 years, but it proved a massive drain on Napoleon's efforts on the continent. 120,000 extra may have proved useful in defending France come 1814.
@MarcusBritish, yes, but Napoleon did personally arrive in Spain with his elite veterans from Germany, and other parts of central Europe. He did manage to chase the British out of Spain, leaving the Spanish alone to fight the superior French army.
@EddieExile, yes, the British fought well against hastily trained French conscripts in Spain, but apparently, they never fought against the real thing, the Grande Armee.
lol - your trolling is becoming weaker and therefore more obvious
The "grand armee" first used for the French army which failed to invade England in 1803-1805 can be used for French armies throughout the Napoleonic wars, including the French armies destroyed in peninsular war.
@EddieExile, I seriously doubt the British could have done any significant harm to the French armies in the Iberian Peninsula without the Spanish guerillas (who did the most fighting by killing 30 or 50 French troops per day) and Portugese. The Spanish even abandoned the British wounded to the French after Talavera. British and Spanish cannot even work with each other very well..
I don't know how I'm "trolling" by pointing out historical facts. I'm not even being aggressive in my comments.
@EddieExile, another reason why Napoleon gave up the invasion of England was because his admirals were unable to perform their tasks at the exact time he expected them to. Napoleon is terrible when it comes to sea matters.
@EddieExile, The British didn't always succeded. From what I know, the French stopped the British at Boulogne three times, Vendee, Low Countries in 1793-1794, 1799, 1809, and 1814 (bergen op zoom), Spain 1809, Naples 1806, Southern France 1793, Germany 1806-1807. British naval assistance didn't stop the French from taking Prussian cities such as Danzig, and Turkey 1807-1809. General Sebastiani and French engineers oversaw the defenses of Istanbul and drove the British squadron away.
@expertstrategy Napoleon personally visited Spain only once, between October 1808 and January 1809, taking most of his Guard and élite troops with him when he left – his remaining troops became a second-line in quality, experience and equipment – new recruits were often not French. Also, that was against Sir John Moore's forces. He had a different approach, which unfortunately did not go as well as he might have hoped. Wellington had more need to "prove himself", in some ways.
The Walcheren Campaign involved very little fighting, but equally heavy losses from sickness on both sides (only 106 British soldiers were lost in combat) and the rest withdrew on 9 December 1809.
@EddieExile Walcheren could be considered an economic disaster though, it was a waste of £8 million. The British army also drove the French from Egypt and defeated elite French and Polish legions at the battle of Maida.
The UK bankrolled much of the Napoleonic wars and the UK national debt increased from £270 million to £800, so although £8 million was a lot of money to waste at the time, I would say it wasn't enough to be a disaster.
@EddieExile, I was impressed that Britain spent three times more money in the Napoleonic Wars than France did. They had to pay for the army, navy, militia, not to mention funding their allies with millions worth in weapons and uniforms.
Britain did have the best economic system in the world at that time.
@EddieExile, actually, it was a pretty big disaster, almost half of the 40,000 men were dead, wounded, captured, and sick. After the campaign was concluded, these men were added to Wellington's permanent sick list in Spain.
It was both an economic and military disaster, but you're right that there was little fighting. The British captured the town of Flushing.
Love the movie, but it is not historically correct, I read an article where historians determined that it was not Maitlands men who broke the French but a Dutch brigade with support from troops from Brunswick..
during the french revolution some people of france came to america, one of those was the French 500, they setlled in what now is my counties city park. they faced very harsh conditions. and it turns out napoleon was supposed to move to the united states but didnt due to the conditions
@stephenBWilly I thought he didn't come to America because the British had interfered. The famous story of him having to hide in a barrel (which he never did) to get through the British blockade comes to mind.
@whowantsabighug, perhaps. I think one of his parents was British, but I don't know for sure. So if you spend your childhood growing up with two parents who speak through different accents, then I supposed either you might have a mixed accent (if it's possible) or you might develop a British accent.
One big mistake in this movie I regret here, really. It was not the Old Guard, but the Middle and Young Guard taking the lead, where the 1st Old Guard functioned as the last reserve regiment behind that column. When the first guard regiments started to rout, the 1st OG regiment was the only formation first still advancing and then withdrawing in full order and with fierce resistance still inflicting impressive casaulties in such a whicked situation. The square was the height of their bravery.
@projectbrumaire "Didnt the Old Guard look just like the middle guard anyway?"
From all accounts the Middle Guard didn't look like much of anything. The French army had been mobilised so quickly that they tended to wear whatever came to hand.
Actually most of the combatants were dressed in mud because that was what they had slept in the night before.
@projectbrumaire no, usualy the middle guard didn't wear those bearskin hats and if they did, they still wore slightly different uniforms or greatcoats with attachments. It's clearly the Old Guard spearheading this advance in the movie, alone because you see the oldest of the old ones in the first rank, remembering the first scenes when Napoleon says goodbye to his Old Guard before leaving to Elba. You have the same guys here,. But still, the young guard was supposed to lead, not the other wo.
@projectbrumaire That cannot be true, alone due to the fact that they were not the Old Guard. The middle Guard Grenadiers may have worn very similar looking hats, coats, uniforms etc, but there for guarantee was a difference. The Old Guard had the Chasseurs and they allready looked like the Grenadiers, with the slightly difference that they wore bearskin hats, without golden plate and different color feder. Also, due to the reputation and political status, they allways were differed.
@EmperorofTerra, Maitland's British Foot Guards only fought against the Middle Guard Chasseurs of the 3rd and 4th, while the Grenadiers under Friant fought against Chasse, Halkett, Kruse,and other German units on the British Guard's left.
The British Grenadier Guards don't deserve the title of "grenadier" because they never fought against the French grenadiers throughout the whole battle.
@EmperorofTerra The old guard retreated in good order because they were in the rear and never faced the full withering fire of the massed British ranks.
@EddieExile Mate, the one's who received the volleys ..... were killed. The entire Imperial Guard withnessed what happened to their comrads, because the british line practically hit them from all sides. When the first ranks started to retreat, the others followed but only the old guard held in lines, shot some volleys before they slowly fell back and then destroyed parts of the advancing british cavalry. After that, the entire british cavarly did not dare anymore a direct assault on them.
@EmperorofTerra The fact remains that the old guard never faced the full force of the British fire so their good order was not fully tested.
And the British cavalry did charge the old guards squares as ordered, but did not continue to mount stupid and futile cavalry charges against infantry squares like Ney did.
Grouchy just couldn't make it on time.
jjammer17 2 days ago
Sad... So sad... Redcoats cant die
ArtovolpiProd 3 days ago
Vive Le Old Guard! Vive Le France! Vive Le Napoleon , Vive La Crambonne!
12345668587 3 days ago
Actually we were the ones to break them
V
V
V
mwillis1000 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fall of La Haye Sainte exposed Wellington’s centre which Napoleon attacked with his imperial guard.
This attack was defeated on the eastern side by British, Brunswick and Nassau, and fresh Dutch troops, and on the western side by Maitland's British troops.
EddieExile 6 days ago
VIVE LA FRANCE ! VIVE L'EMPEREUR !
benjiAkatosh 6 days ago 2
@benjiAkatosh GOD SAVE OUR GRACIOUS QUEEN, LONG LIVE OUR NOBLE QUEEN!
riggerrogger101 5 days ago 3
@riggerrogger101 HEIL DIR IM SIEGERKRANZ HERRSCHER DES VATERLANDS HEIL, KAISER, DIR!
Vampirewolfking 4 days ago
Napoleon was a tyrant. And we stopped him!!!
Our soldiers were the only ones in history to beat Napoleons guards too.
mwillis1000 1 week ago
@mwillis1000 Apart from the Dutch who did it as well. In fact the British foot guards took on the remnant of one regiment of the middle Guard Chasseurs after ( after ) the Dutch had roughly handled them.
tigerarmyrule 1 week ago
@tigerarmyrule, the 52nd Light Infantry outnumbered the MG Chasseurs by more than two to one, hence, they have more firepower, and they routed the 4th Chassuers.
Did you know that at Waterloo, the average British battalion was numerically superior than the average French or Prussian battalion?
- British battalion 665 men
- Prussian battalion 610 men
- French battalion 520 men
expertstrategy 1 week ago
@mwillis1000, the Dutch under Chasse were the ones who decisively defeated the French Middle Guard Grenadiers under Louis Friant, after Halkett's brigade, Brunswickers, Hanovarians, and Nassauers were routed. The British Foot Guards and the 52nd Light Infantry regiment defeated the Middle Guard Chasseurs of the 3rd and 4th.
Napoleon wasn't the most liberal and kindest of rulers, but he was a great leader. An enlightened despot is the most accurate description of him.
expertstrategy 1 week ago
@mwillis1000, how have you been doing all this time?
Anything new happened?
expertstrategy 1 week ago
@mwillis1000 rubbuish,
12345668587 3 days ago
Of course the Old Guard did not break as we know but no harm gilding the lily for dramatic effect I suppose. The attack by the Guard was in fact 5 battalions of the Middle gurard numbering no more than 3,000 and Maitlands British guards did not face the Grenadiers but again the lily is being gilded.
tigerarmyrule 1 week ago
@tigerarmyrule, the British Foot Guards believed they defeated the Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard, hence, they recieved the title of "Grenadier Guards". They only fought against the Middle Guard Chasseurs of the 3rd and 4th.
expertstrategy 1 week ago
@expertstrategy You are correct.and of course as I have explained to mwillis1000 the 3rd Chasseurs had been badly mauled and depleted by the time the British foot guards entered the fray. It is likely there were fewer than 400 of them at the time.
tigerarmyrule 1 week ago
Charge of the Guard is very impressive!
genWathier 3 weeks ago
"Then on to Brussels"
Dont worry Napoleon, Brussels will be yours one day (I am not a right wing nut.. that was a joke)
j3parrots 3 weeks ago
@expertstrategy Doesn't matter @TalonMercanary had it right. It is called La Victoire est et nou"
dog75k 3 weeks ago
@dog75k, La victoire est en nous was played during the French capture of Moscow.
The Pas de Charge is the battle march of the Guard. You can find this in the history books about Napoleon's campaigns. The Old Guard also sang some other songs.
- "The Victory is Ours"
- "Let us watch over the Empire"
- "The March of the Consular Guard"
- "March of the Grenadiers"
- "Marseillaise"
- "I Like Onions Fried in Oil"
expertstrategy 3 weeks ago
@expertstrategy You sure? When i type Pas de Charge in youtube the results sound nothing like this.
dog75k 3 weeks ago
can someone tell me the name of the tune the French start playing at 2:25 please
dog75k 3 weeks ago
@dog75k, It's called "Pas de charge"
expertstrategy 3 weeks ago
What is the name of the old guard march ??
thebritish25 3 weeks ago
@thebritish25, the old guard march is called "pas de charge"
expertstrategy 3 weeks ago
@thebritish25 La Victoire est et nou
TalonMercenary 3 weeks ago
this man that think him a horse from same county as we..so be his horesss brave they hold the them you see...sergar was born on this feild..this we true to our word..
okeoak 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
genWathier 4 weeks ago
Ronny5001 im sorry that was a typo on my pad. I did mean to say 3 rounds a minute
barry8472 1 month ago
The old guard had one of the most fearson reputations. Only at waterloo did they break! Nothing could stand up to he british/allied line that coul fire round a minute
barry8472 1 month ago
@barry8472 i thought it was the brittish were trained to fire three rounds a minute? not 1 a minute, as the french where trained to fire 2 rounds a minute.
& at that i mind reading that when the oldguard marched over in range of the brittish line alot of the brittish on the frontlines had run out of ammo & were ordered to fire their ramrods which each one tore through 3-4 men in a line and the shock from a volly is what made the old guard break ranks & flee, fearing a "new weapon".
ronny5001 1 month ago
@barry8472, sorry, but the Old Guard was never committed against the Allied center. It was the Middle Guard.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy Elements of the Old Guard were, but they made up a small minority as the rest were either dead or fighting at Platnicot with what remained of the Young Guard. The Old guard was at the ambush(if you would call it an ambush)of Maítland´s guards even if they made up a tiny minority.
TheWellington1014 1 month ago
@TheWellington1014, the Old Guard wasn't even sent toward the Allied center. It was only the Middle Guard of the 3rd and 4th Grenadiers and Chasseurs. The Old Guard was always held in reserve, and yes they were sent at Plancenoit.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@TheWellington1014, I never read anything about a tiny minority of the Old Guard supporting the attack against the Allied center.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy Well, there was, but remember their was 15,000 men in the attack and even if their wasn´t well who cares?
TheWellington1014 1 month ago
@TheWellington1014, 15,000 men, are you referring to Comte D'Erlon's infantry attack? I seriously doubt there were 15,000 Imperial Guardsmen who attacked the Allied center.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@TheWellington1014 As I remember there were 5 bat. of Mddle guard, the Old guard covered them from the rear...
genWathier 1 month ago
@genWathier That's right - and the imperial guard broke and fled.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile Yes, one point - this charge was really suicidal - 5 bat. vs outnumbering forces (on the plato stood aprox. 10000 infantrymen only + 2 cav. brogades), another point - Allied army (In vast majority this words are about British, because even the best of German's troops had been created by British warfare style, we should remember it - we can't say about Hannoverians as about "Germans at Waterloo") was, perhaps, the only army, that hadn't been afraid of Napoleon's army
genWathier 4 weeks ago
@EddieExile and Wellington, though he respected Napoleon as a general and was carefull against him, was, perhaps, the only commander, who hadn't been afraid of Napoleon.
genWathier 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
EddieExile 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@genWathier
That's right - and in contrast Napoleon didn't respect Wellington as a general despite Wellington's successes against the French in Spain.
This meant that Wellington ensured in advance that Blucher would join him at Waterloo whereas Napoleon arrogantly and stupidly dismissed the need for Grouchy's forces.
EddieExile 4 weeks ago
@barry8472
As stated - it was the middle guard that broke and fled without orders, but it is still valid to say that the middle guard "had a fearsome reputation and only at waterloo did they break".
And there is no evidence to indicate that the old guard would have performed any better in the circs.
EddieExile 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile "And there is no evidence to indicate that the old guard would have performed any better in the circs."
maybe or maybe not. Nobody knows what would have happened.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
Whats the song that starts around 2:20
b0ywithhat 1 month ago
"If I had made one mistake in my life, I should have burned Berlin!"
zooeyhall 1 month ago
@zooeyhall
He's lucky he didn't else the Prussians would have destroyed Paris.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile
What is your problem ?
France conquered Prussia since 1806 until 1813 we raped their army after 16 days of combats and you payed them because you didn't have the guts to fight us at the land and alone you admit you was inferior to us
All Britain has is your channel, if Uk would be landlocked for sure you would be our bitch and then the bitch of the german
Uk never conquered a powerful country alone and you still think you are better than France rofl !!
You are pathetic
Spark02ify 1 month ago
@Spark02ify
Don’t have a problem at all - just stating facts.
And the fact is that the UK wasn’t a land power but a sea power with a much smaller population than France, so France was owned by the British at sea, and also on land when the numbers were equal.
And Prussia/Germany has been raping France since 1815.
Maybe it’s you that’s pathetic froggie boy.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile Shut up ! You used a coalition of 6 nations for defeat us so shut up fucking francophobe.
donga33260 1 month ago
@donga33260
The “French” grand armee included forces from 11 other nations - Netherlands, Poland, Austria, Italy, Bavaria, Saxony. Prussia, Westphalia, Switzerland, Portugal and Croatia - so you shut up deluded anglophobe.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile But to gather that big army you need excellent genius, not just military, but other ways too. Commander, Napoleon, was that kind of man
TheRomanRuler 1 month ago
@TheRomanRuler
To invade and make war against a far more powerful group of countries, you need to be an arrogant and deluded meglomaniac dictator.
Napoleon and Hiller were that kind of man.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile expect Napoleon never declared war. If someone attacked against him, marched his lands etc. he went war against them, and that way congeured some areas from them
TheRomanRuler 1 month ago
@TheRomanRuler
France declared war on Austria in 1792 - and both Napoleon and Hitler always claimed that their invasions were in self defence.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile It was Republic of France that declared the war, Napoleon was a general in Italy during that war.
Vampirewolfking 1 month ago
@EddieExile, David G Chandler thought that comparing Napoleon to Hitler was ridiculous in his book, "The Campaigns of Napoleon".
It's an obvious and widely known fact that it was the Allies who were the real warmongers, and Napoleon didn't declare war on them in any occassion. However, Napoleon wasn't a complete pacifist either. He did send French troops to Portugal to enforce the Continental System, and he did invade Russia for very similar reasons, but overall, he was mostly defending.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy
As I said when Napoleon/Hitler went on their rampages all over Europe, they said they were defending their own countries and and were getting their retaliation in first.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile, Napoleon and France were the ones who were always being declared war upon. France never declared war in the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 Coalition Wars. Napoleon often sent peace proposals to his rivals before a war began.
There is no historical evidence that the people of Haiti were gassed out in massive numbers. A brutal war occured there. Historians have already contradicted Claude Ribbe's claims, and concluded that they were just mere suppostions.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@EddieExile, Napoleon even offered up French occupied Hanover to Britain in exchange for peace before Prussia declared war in 1806.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy
Many historians deny that Napoleon's and Hitler's genocides occurred, and both Napoleon and Hitler claimed that they wanted peace before their rampages through Europe.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile, those so-called genocides Napoleon issued in Haiti never even occured, that's why it was never mentioned by historians. Claude Ribbe's just one of those dumb historians. You ought to question everything you read and detect false info. while you read history books.
I've quite read enough to know that Napoleon had no plans to conquer Europe unlike Hitler. Mein Kampf is basically the blue print to his future. He planned to conquer Europe from the very beginning of his rule.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy
As I said, apologists for both Napoleon and Hitler deny that they intended to create their European empires and deny that their genocides occurred.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile, people who hate Napoleon are frequently without logic. Those who are unbiased are filled with logic. I don't admire or hate Napoleon because I've dedicated myself into being unbiased. I know bull crap when I read it.
There is no historical evidence that this genocide in Haiti occured. If it did happen, then we would have strong evidene to support it. I've read enough to distinguish between Napoleon and Hitler. There is massive evidence to support that the Holocaust occured.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@EddieExile, Napoleon was far from being a saint, but he is nothing in comparison to Hitler. He commited some atrocities as well, such as ordering the execution of 3000 Turkish prisoners at Jaffa.
If there is any real evidence to prove Napoleon did order the people of Haiti to be gassed out in mass numbers then I'm waiting for some proof. I seriously doubt that Claude Ribbe even has any.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@EddieExile you know when people compare napoleon to hitler they remenber me of women sometimes when they say "ah you men you're all alike". that's exactly how you sound, just because they where military national leaders who "britain" hated-(napoleon would have settled for peace with britain anytime before the continental system, but it was your economic agenda that pushed war with france)- it does not make them alike!!! in fact i love napoleon and HATE hitler and so do polish people, ask them!
boss180888 1 month ago
@boss180888
So you conclude that because Napoleon and Hitler were alike, that means all men are alike. Yoou sound like the woman.
In The Crime of Napoleon by Claude Ribbe tates that Napoleon authorised genocide in Haiti gassing rebellious blacks more than a century before the Nazis' extermination of the Jews. His accusations refer to the extreme methods used to put down a ferocious uprising in Haiti at the start of the 19th century
EddieExile 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boss180888
So you conclude that because Napoleon and Hitler were alike, that means all men are alike. Yoou sound like the woman.
In The Crime of Napoleon by Claude Ribbe tates that Napoleon authorised genocide in Haiti gassing rebellious blacks more than a century before the Nazis' extermination of the Jews. His accusations refer to the extreme methods used to put down a ferocious uprising in Haiti at the start of the 19th century
EddieExile 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boss180888
So you conclude that because Napoleon and Hitler were alike, that means all men are alike. Yoou sound like the woman.
In The Crime of Napoleon by Claude Ribbe tates that Napoleon authorised genocide in Haiti gassing rebellious blacks more than a century before the Nazis' extermination of the Jews. His accusations refer to the extreme methods used to put down a ferocious uprising in Haiti at the start of the 19th century
EddieExile 1 month ago
@boss180888
You may love Napoleon, but that is not proof he was not a monster; At various times, he, his commanders, and his troops committed atrocities. So did the British Empire and so did the Nazis. Atrocities are horrific acts of violence against innocents.
Why don't you ask people who witnessed atrocities if atrocity-committing actors should be 'loved'.
slizzler1 1 month ago
@slizzler1 thank you so much priest, i feel a better human being now. there isn't one country in the world who hasn't commited atrocities, you blame napoleon for jaffa and for spain when the british were the largest slave-traders in history, napoleon fought for values and for france, whereas the monarchies of europe fought for their social privileges and britain for their money-greed.
if you're english lecturing me like that for god's sake go kiss your queen's feet!!!
boss180888 1 month ago
@boss180888
I never claimed that history is not filled with a vast array of atrocities committed in various continents by various players of various races and various cultures.
Is that your best lawyer defense for Napoleon's atrocities?
If you are defending a killer in court is your defense to the jury going to be; 'Well there are lots of killers everywhere!'
Why do crybabies assume that critics of Napoleon are 'pro-British'?
It exposes you.
I often criticize British Empire too.
slizzler1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boss180888
"when the british were the largest slave-traders in history, napoleon fought for values and for france"
In fact I criticize all Empires involved in atrocities. Stop irrelevantly whining.
Napoleon reintroduced slavery in the West Indies -if you forgot; I'm not sure why you let that fall off your 'values radar'.
Are you also aware - in the values/ Napoleonic Code' scheme of things, that Napoleon plopped his family on various thrones across Europe?
slizzler1 1 month ago
@boss180888
Plus- where is Napoleon's loving value's system on your values barometer regarding the forced conscription of European soldiers into his army; Equivalent to Hitler's slave/forced labour recruitment/ deportation enacted across Nazi occupied Europe, and similar to Britain's horrific Press Gang enslavers of innocent British-subject citizens.
What were the social privileges of Napoleon conscripting 14 and 15 year old boys in his 1814 campaigns.
Jaffa was defending France?
slizzler1 1 month ago
@slizzler1 i already said jaffa was different. napoleon didn't force conscription on foreigns because he thought it'd be fun, why didn't austria,russia,prussia and britain stop declaring war on him then? again stop with the hitler thing it makes you look stupid and i don't fancy debating with stupid people. for every evil napoleon did he did 10 goods. if he was such a bad guy why did:
- the french people love him even after escaping elba?
boss180888 1 month ago
@boss180888
Amazing- actuslly- no- why am I surprised... you Napoleon idolizers know nothing about being objective nor studying the 'bad side' of Napoleon.
I'm not here defending the equally oppressive Empires- what part about that repeated reality are you not comprehending?
Napoleon FORCED conscription on German States , the Dutch and Belgians , Neapolitans, Italians and and and.......
Do you think I give a fk if you get whiny about my comparing 'bad guy' Napoleon to Nazis??
slizzler1 1 month ago
@slizzler1 ok...you seem to have a hard time understanding my point in the conscription thing, maybe if i put it as a question, ok: napoleon forced conscription in all those territories but WHY did he do it? because EVERYONE ELSE KEPT ATTACKING HIM!!!
don't speak of objectivity because you refuse to analyse the context in wich an action is taken!! guess what, times were brutal they still are,wake up!! you're the kind of person who will blame someone for acting in self defense so give me a break.
boss180888 1 month ago
@boss180888
Do you reread your idiotic logic before posting???
What kind of stupidity do you not see about trying to defend Napoleon FORCING conscription on States and Nations he ruled as a dictator by saying he was 'forced' to make non-Frenchmen fight for him against armies who declared war on Napoleon himself- and not the territories he was a dictator over.
You are floundering ridiculously.
slizzler1 1 month ago
Comment removed
slizzler1 1 month ago
@EddieExile Well ONE time -_- Other times it WAS seld defence.. Aggressive self-defense. And about Hitler, not all his actions were wrong, i think you would do the same thing if you would be him. (expect you wouldn`t kill thousends of inicents of course) But attacking against russia/Britain was stupid, useless, and pointless
TheRomanRuler 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile Well ONE time -_- Other times it WAS seld defence.. Aggressive self-defense. And about Hitler, not all his actions were wrong, i think you would do the same thing if you would be him. (expect you wouldn`t kill thousends of inicents of course) But attacking against russia/Britain was stupid, useless, and pointless
TheRomanRuler 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile Well ONE time -_- Other times it WAS seld defence.. Aggressive self-defense. And about Hitler, not all his actions were wrong, i think you would do the same thing if you would be him. (expect you wouldn`t kill thousends of jews of course) But attacking against russia/Britain was stupid, useless, and pointless
TheRomanRuler 1 month ago
@TheRomanRuler
So you are saying Napoleon was never the attacker against;
Spain
Portugal
Egypt
Haiti
Italy
slizzler1 1 month ago
@slizzler1, you do have some excellent points.
In Italy, Napoleon was only a mere general out of many, and not the leader of a nation, and he was posted there by the Republican government, with the task of driving the Austrians out of Italy. He was ordered to attack in Italy.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy
Actually- you are technically correct; what I meant about Italy was he occupied the land as part of his Empire - progressively taking it over- him as King of Italy, and then dictating Sardinia and Naples- putting his relatives on their thrones.
So yes- he didn't attack Italy, but he aggressively took control over it.
slizzler1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@expertstrategy
Actually- you are technically correct; what I meant about Italy was he occupied the land as part of his Empire - progressively taking it over- him as King of Italy, and then dictating Sardinia and Naples- putting his relatives on their thrones.
So yes- he didn't attack Italy, but he aggressively took control over it.
slizzler1 1 month ago
@slizzler1 Of course not! Im saying, he never declared war. Clear difference. But declaring war against another nation isn`t so bad, but ONLY if they have insulting you somehow (crossing borders, insulting...)
TheRomanRuler 1 month ago
@TheRomanRuler
Amazing;
Marching into Spain and Portugal> ie, invading> is in your books- 'not declaring war'?
You need lessons in objectivity and/or studying the Napoleonic Wars much better.
slizzler1 1 month ago
@slizzler1 Yeah, i agree, but invading is different thing than declaring war, what i know, they declared war TO Napoleon. (or alliance where they were)
TheRomanRuler 1 month ago
@TheRomanRuler
You make no sense at all.
Do you not understand my point that Napoleon invaded Spain and Portugal despite the fact they did not declare war on him?
slizzler1 1 month ago
@slizzler1 NOW i understant. My English learnings are still unfinished
TheRomanRuler 1 month ago
@TheRomanRuler
ok
slizzler1 1 month ago
@EddieExile Napoleon never declared war against this "powerful group of nations"...It was the British who have paid to other countries to fight.
You can't comparate Hitler and Napoléon ! Napoleon didn't a genocide, he wasn't arrogant and he wasn't a dictator...He has done great things for France and for the world ( as the Civil Code which has inspired many countries ).
donga33260 1 month ago
@donga33260
Napoleon was just about the biggest arrogant leader in history; and he was a dictator.
He was the undisputed ruler of France; not a 'monarchy' or elected leader.... Go study his goon - > Fouche.
Why not say sHitler's Nazi regime did good things like inspired 'highways' and 'rockets'.? sHitler was still a savage maniac.
slizzler1 1 month ago
@EddieExile At this time, all this countries were included in the French Empire which were countries under our power. It is therefore normal that they fight for us.
Why do the English always have to question the great French strategists?
donga33260 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donga33260
"those countries were included in the French Empire which were countries under our power. It is therefore normal that they fight for us".
Which destroys your claim that it took "a coalition of 6 nations to defeat France alone.
Napoleon did commit genocide in Haiti and he was, like Hitler, an arrogant dictator.
And Hitler left good things for the world, the first motorways, people's car, holiday resorts, rocket science etc
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile, sorry, but there is no evidence that Napoleon issued any deliberate order to mass exterminate the blacks of Haiti. Both the French and the Haitians were brutally slaughtering each other anyway. Some generals such as Rochambeau were monsters.
On the other hand, Dessalines was a very brutal person, and it's a known fact that he ordered the massacre of the white people of Haiti. Check the 1804 Haiti Massacre. Not to mention that he executed 800 French soldiers by drowning them.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
Napoleon decided to cancel his plans for the invasion of England before the Battle of Trafalgar occured.
"But they succeeded most most times and there aren't enough characters allowed to list those."
I can only recall, British successes in Egypt, seas, Ireland, Malta, Belgium 1815, French colonies, and Iberian Peninsula. The French defeated the British more frequently than vice versa. Also, Wellington was even repulsed by the French three times in 1809, 1811, and 1812.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy You're right. I agree with you.
donga33260 1 month ago
Wonder what would have happened if Napoleon still had Massena, Suchet & Davout with him at Waterloo...
brattfaret 1 month ago
@brattfaret, I think the 1815 campaign would be concluded quite differently had the three men you mentioned fought with Napoleon.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy there were a lot of things wich determined napoleon's defeat in belgium:
- ney's dubious loyalty/incompetence througout the campaign
- grouchy's inexperience and the failure to chase down the prussians
- weather
- napoleon leaving davout(for me his best marshall along with dead lannes and traitors murat and bernadotte) in paris because he trusted no one else...
in the end even if napoleon won in belgium he wouldn't be able to defeat the russians and austrians(half a million).
boss180888 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile How the hell were the French "Nazis"? Napoleon was a martyr compared to sHitler. That's not to say he was perfect, but he was from the "evil" man a lot of stereotypical, ignorant and uneducated Brits seem to think.
MarcusBritish 1 month ago
@EddieExile How the fuck were the French "Nazis"? Napoleon was a martyr compared to sHitler. That's not to say he was perfect, but he was from the "evil" man a lot of stereotypical, ignorant and uneducated Brits seem to think.
MarcusBritish 1 month ago
@EddieExile How the fuck were the French "Nazis"? There is no relation.
MarcusBritish 1 month ago
@EddieExile what made napoleonic france anything similar to nazi germany? one spreads the civil code abolishes serfdom in europe and the monarchs of europe constantly declare war on him(france), the other spreads opression,violates every international treaty in the world, invades countries without declaration of war, and is racist and unequalitarian.
if anything the 20th century britain was more alike nazi germany than napoleonic france. for one you're all germanic peoples and authocracies!!
boss180888 1 month ago
Do you know some other movie of napoleon????
Aleksa405 1 month ago
the french were the 19'th century's equivalent of the nazi's....
junkman19571 1 month ago
@junkman19571, I seriously doubt that.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@junkman19571 Bull.
MarcusBritish 1 month ago
The Old Guard held their ground to the end.
TheMchuquillanqui 2 months ago
one thing i love about the old guard is the octopus on their hats
exactinmidget92 2 months ago
@exactinmidget92, no, that's the eagle on the bronze plate on their bearskin caps.
expertstrategy 2 months ago
Hats off to the old guard. No army, no general could win in Napoleon's shoes at Waterloo.
To fight off two armies required Napoleon to dislodge Wellington and it is by no mean feat that the old guard, the most experienced and elite infantry in Europe had displayed uncommon valor.
The only alternative to help France win against overwhelming odds is to have a defensive campaign relying on guerilla tactics whilst attacking the coalition armies in separate battles.
ConstantineJoseph 2 months ago
How many times do the French have to be beaten by Germans and English before they sit down?! lol
JustAPuffin 2 months ago
@JustAPuffin napoleon defeated prussia in three weeks!! a major european power in a time there were no transport trucks,railways or aircraft. that's how napoleon fucked germany. and britain just hid in their shit island during the whole wars!!!
boss180888 1 month ago
@boss180888 Britain controlled the seas, was in the Peninsula for 6 years, and had troops all round the world expanding and defending it's empire. Because of the Royal Navy's strength, Britain didn't need to "hide" on it's island. It was well defended from the sea.
MarcusBritish 1 month ago
@MarcusBritish yes, britain had all the navy and trade but to claim it's army was a match to napoleon's at any point is ridiculous!
boss180888 1 month ago
@boss180888 At no point did I claim it "was a match", only that it was not inactive and did not hide anywhere. The British and Austrians were two of the most aggressive countries, given that they kept going through all seven coalitions against France, starting in the Revolutionary Wars, right up until Waterloo. Virtually unbroken opposition.
MarcusBritish 1 month ago
@MarcusBritish, you do have a valid point. Britain was the most persistent enemy of France in that time. The British were most successful in the Iberian Peninsula than in any other part of Europe. They suffered many setbacks when it comes to invading. The Walcheren Campaign was a major disaster, and I think it was the largest concentrated British invasion since the Battle of Cartegena de indias.
The British army was a match for the French army of Spain, but it's no equal to La Grande Armee.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy I would say that the French army was only unable to get the better of the Anglo-Portuguese force because it was unable to bring its vast numbers to bear, as it tried to hold all of Spain instead of concentrating against the small British army. This allowed Wellington to destroy the French in small doses, which did take 6 years, but it proved a massive drain on Napoleon's efforts on the continent. 120,000 extra may have proved useful in defending France come 1814.
MarcusBritish 1 month ago
@MarcusBritish, yes, but Napoleon did personally arrive in Spain with his elite veterans from Germany, and other parts of central Europe. He did manage to chase the British out of Spain, leaving the Spanish alone to fight the superior French army.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy
Yes there is a British tradition of the Royal Navy evacuating a British army in an untenable position on foreign soil.
This enables the British army to continue the tradition of returning and beating the shit out of the enemy - in this case the French.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile, yes, the British fought well against hastily trained French conscripts in Spain, but apparently, they never fought against the real thing, the Grande Armee.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy
lol - your trolling is becoming weaker and therefore more obvious
The "grand armee" first used for the French army which failed to invade England in 1803-1805 can be used for French armies throughout the Napoleonic wars, including the French armies destroyed in peninsular war.
EddieExile 1 month ago
Comment removed
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@EddieExile, I seriously doubt the British could have done any significant harm to the French armies in the Iberian Peninsula without the Spanish guerillas (who did the most fighting by killing 30 or 50 French troops per day) and Portugese. The Spanish even abandoned the British wounded to the French after Talavera. British and Spanish cannot even work with each other very well..
I don't know how I'm "trolling" by pointing out historical facts. I'm not even being aggressive in my comments.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy
Wellington won far more battles against the French than vice versa - too numerous to list..
And the British and Spanish worked together to create the Spanish ulcer which bled the hated French.
But it is true the French were owned by the Royal Navy and failed to invade the UK and gave up before Trafalgar.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile, another reason why Napoleon gave up the invasion of England was because his admirals were unable to perform their tasks at the exact time he expected them to. Napoleon is terrible when it comes to sea matters.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@EddieExile, The British didn't always succeded. From what I know, the French stopped the British at Boulogne three times, Vendee, Low Countries in 1793-1794, 1799, 1809, and 1814 (bergen op zoom), Spain 1809, Naples 1806, Southern France 1793, Germany 1806-1807. British naval assistance didn't stop the French from taking Prussian cities such as Danzig, and Turkey 1807-1809. General Sebastiani and French engineers oversaw the defenses of Istanbul and drove the British squadron away.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy
Of course the British never succeeded every time and you can dig out such occasions.
But they succeeded most most times and there aren't enough characters allowed to list those.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@expertstrategy Napoleon personally visited Spain only once, between October 1808 and January 1809, taking most of his Guard and élite troops with him when he left – his remaining troops became a second-line in quality, experience and equipment – new recruits were often not French. Also, that was against Sir John Moore's forces. He had a different approach, which unfortunately did not go as well as he might have hoped. Wellington had more need to "prove himself", in some ways.
MarcusBritish 1 month ago
@expertstrategy
The Walcheren Campaign involved very little fighting, but equally heavy losses from sickness on both sides (only 106 British soldiers were lost in combat) and the rest withdrew on 9 December 1809.
Hardly a major disaster.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile Walcheren could be considered an economic disaster though, it was a waste of £8 million. The British army also drove the French from Egypt and defeated elite French and Polish legions at the battle of Maida.
engliscwarrior 1 month ago
@engliscwarrior
The UK bankrolled much of the Napoleonic wars and the UK national debt increased from £270 million to £800, so although £8 million was a lot of money to waste at the time, I would say it wasn't enough to be a disaster.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile, I was impressed that Britain spent three times more money in the Napoleonic Wars than France did. They had to pay for the army, navy, militia, not to mention funding their allies with millions worth in weapons and uniforms.
Britain did have the best economic system in the world at that time.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@EddieExile, actually, it was a pretty big disaster, almost half of the 40,000 men were dead, wounded, captured, and sick. After the campaign was concluded, these men were added to Wellington's permanent sick list in Spain.
It was both an economic and military disaster, but you're right that there was little fighting. The British captured the town of Flushing.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy actually it was neither - it had minimal impact on the British economy or war effort.
EddieExile 1 month ago
Love the movie, but it is not historically correct, I read an article where historians determined that it was not Maitlands men who broke the French but a Dutch brigade with support from troops from Brunswick..
PPJ93 2 months ago
whats the name of the march at 4:43??
Wookieproductions22 2 months ago
@Wookieproductions22 It's "La Victoire est à nous" (Victory is ours) ;)
flobrin11 1 month ago
@flobrin11
merci (THX)
Wookieproductions22 1 month ago
during the french revolution some people of france came to america, one of those was the French 500, they setlled in what now is my counties city park. they faced very harsh conditions. and it turns out napoleon was supposed to move to the united states but didnt due to the conditions
stephenBWilly 2 months ago
@stephenBWilly I thought he didn't come to America because the British had interfered. The famous story of him having to hide in a barrel (which he never did) to get through the British blockade comes to mind.
rohirrim90 2 months ago
Would Wellington have had an Irish accent?
whowantsabighug 2 months ago
@whowantsabighug, perhaps. I think one of his parents was British, but I don't know for sure. So if you spend your childhood growing up with two parents who speak through different accents, then I supposed either you might have a mixed accent (if it's possible) or you might develop a British accent.
expertstrategy 2 months ago
what's the name of this French march when the old guard advanced?
championofcathay 2 months ago
@championofcathay, it's called Pas de Charge.
expertstrategy 2 months ago
ah, the good old Redcoats...6:35 rippin people to pieces with THAT little tactic for centuries, lol =P
rofflemows2 2 months ago
One big mistake in this movie I regret here, really. It was not the Old Guard, but the Middle and Young Guard taking the lead, where the 1st Old Guard functioned as the last reserve regiment behind that column. When the first guard regiments started to rout, the 1st OG regiment was the only formation first still advancing and then withdrawing in full order and with fierce resistance still inflicting impressive casaulties in such a whicked situation. The square was the height of their bravery.
EmperorofTerra 3 months ago 13
@EmperorofTerra Probably the best Infantry unit seen for an entire century.
EmperorofTerra 3 months ago
@EmperorofTerra
Didnt the Old Guard look just like the middle guard anyway? So how is the protrayal wrong?
projectbrumaire 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@projectbrumaire "Didnt the Old Guard look just like the middle guard anyway?"
From all accounts the Middle Guard didn't look like much of anything. The French army had been mobilised so quickly that they tended to wear whatever came to hand.
Actually most of the combatants were dressed in mud because that was what they had slept in the night before.
oarfrost 2 months ago
@projectbrumaire no, usualy the middle guard didn't wear those bearskin hats and if they did, they still wore slightly different uniforms or greatcoats with attachments. It's clearly the Old Guard spearheading this advance in the movie, alone because you see the oldest of the old ones in the first rank, remembering the first scenes when Napoleon says goodbye to his Old Guard before leaving to Elba. You have the same guys here,. But still, the young guard was supposed to lead, not the other wo.
EmperorofTerra 2 months ago
@EmperorofTerra
Ah, I always read the Old Guard was practically indestinguishable from the Middle Guard, and that difference was de facto.
projectbrumaire 2 months ago
@projectbrumaire That cannot be true, alone due to the fact that they were not the Old Guard. The middle Guard Grenadiers may have worn very similar looking hats, coats, uniforms etc, but there for guarantee was a difference. The Old Guard had the Chasseurs and they allready looked like the Grenadiers, with the slightly difference that they wore bearskin hats, without golden plate and different color feder. Also, due to the reputation and political status, they allways were differed.
EmperorofTerra 2 months ago
@EmperorofTerra, Maitland's British Foot Guards only fought against the Middle Guard Chasseurs of the 3rd and 4th, while the Grenadiers under Friant fought against Chasse, Halkett, Kruse,and other German units on the British Guard's left.
The British Grenadier Guards don't deserve the title of "grenadier" because they never fought against the French grenadiers throughout the whole battle.
expertstrategy 2 months ago
8:57 lol
CacaLauncher23 2 months ago
@CacaLauncher23 that looks like a surprised looking Rick Gervais.
championofcathay 2 months ago
@EmperorofTerra The old guard retreated in good order because they were in the rear and never faced the full withering fire of the massed British ranks.
EddieExile 2 months ago
@EddieExile Mate, the one's who received the volleys ..... were killed. The entire Imperial Guard withnessed what happened to their comrads, because the british line practically hit them from all sides. When the first ranks started to retreat, the others followed but only the old guard held in lines, shot some volleys before they slowly fell back and then destroyed parts of the advancing british cavalry. After that, the entire british cavarly did not dare anymore a direct assault on them.
EmperorofTerra 2 months ago
@EmperorofTerra The fact remains that the old guard never faced the full force of the British fire so their good order was not fully tested.
And the British cavalry did charge the old guards squares as ordered, but did not continue to mount stupid and futile cavalry charges against infantry squares like Ney did.
EddieExile 2 months ago
Fuck Wellington! That asshole!
bobstride 3 months ago
@bobstride Napoleon tried that and failed.
EddieExile 3 months ago
@EddieExile, LOL, funny joke.
expertstrategy 3 months ago
@expertstrategy True though.
EddieExile 3 months ago
@EddieExile, I know.
expertstrategy 3 months ago
@bobstride fuck you
Pr0pagandaFilms 3 months ago
@Pr0pagandaFilms Fuck the crown! Up the Ra!!!!