@MrPandaRTWJr Beat? You obviously have not studied the war in detail. Maybe you should try looking up the battle of bladenburg and the events following it. Or even look at a casualty lists of america vs. Britain. And also try looking at a globe, see canada? You might notice that it is not owned by the US, and that is all totally indicative of America winning the war.
@MrPandaRTWJr I hope that was a joke. In 1812, Britain inflicted the worst defeat on America in all of American history. We walked straight into your capital city and burned it down. You also had to sign a peace treaty once we were finished with Napoleon because you realised how much of an arse kicking you were about to recieve.
@TheLiberalKnight 1812 wasn't the worst defeat in American history that was Vietnam. Britain burned down our capital but we burned the Canadian parliament. The peace treaty part was true but we then went to beat your asses in the battle of new orleans.
@MrPandaRTWJr Find me an article showing that the Americans burnt down the Canadian Parliament, because unless there is a a gap in my history (which is possible) you are making that up. Also, have I mentioned the Battle of Bladensburg?
@aquabumblebee i agree with you on the fact we did get our asses kicked for the most part.. ill get an article about it for you :) (it was a canadian government building im not sure if it was parliament.. Im not an expert on this war)
@aquabumblebee if u search google for Canadian parliament burned in 1812 you'll find many results (not just wikipedia) but like i said we did get our asses kicked in 1812.
@MrPandaRTWJr Well then I owe you a apology, as I said before I appreciate your graciousness with regards to "getting your asses kicked". I suppose we got our just desserts in 1776 in Yorktown, so swings and rounds a-bouts I guess. I hope our keyboards will clash elsewhere on the internet one day....
@MrPandaRTWJr Burned down the Canadian parliament? Like that means anything. Canada wasn't a British dominion until the 1860s. In 1812, Canada was still being settled in. Washington DC was in a completely different league, president Maidson promised to 'defend DC until the last man', but typical of Americans, his words were bolder than his actions, and he fled like a flea when the British infantry arrived.
@TheLiberalKnight fled like a flea? yes madison did flea yes he promise to defend it to the last man yes we ran away like little girls, but we still won the war.
@MrPandaRTWJr Won the war? You tried to invade Canada and you failed. I wonder why you were desperate for peace once we'd beaten Napoleon Bonaparte in Europe? Hmmm...
@MrPandaRTWJr You are like a German nazi in 1939, you are so obsessed with your nationalist cause that you don't understand reality and fantasty. Any American who thinks they won the war of 1812 deserves to be laughed at. You win a war if you succeed in at least one of your war aims- name me a single war aim that America completed in 1812.
@TheLiberalKnight i can name four 1 we burned british parliament 2 we defended Beltimore 3 we defended New Orleans 4 we stopped any invasion into america from canada. We then won the war of 1812 yes we got our asses kicked but we still won.
@MrPandaRTWJr 1. British parliament? NO AMERICAN ARMY HAS STEP FOOT IN WESTMINSTER, RETARD!
2. YOU ATTACKED US, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
You are mentally ill! Defending your territory is not a war aim! Britain didn't declare war on you! You tried to invade Canada, and you failed! Britain didn't dream of conquering American territory! Therefore you lost all of your war aims, which was to conquer Canada and the royal navy, and you were humiliated! Accept it! Just admit it!
@TheLiberalKnight i meant canadian parliament sorry. defending territory is a war gain and we won the war... we lost many battles but in the end we won
After Waterloo, Britain became the world's only hyper power and was completely ahead of all other countries. Pound Sterling adopted the gold standard in 1816, making it the strongest currency on the planet. British industry was untouchable. The British economy attracted 40% of world investment. The industrial technology was so advanced that it took decades for everyone else to catch up. The Royal Navy's undisputed power lead to record levels of investment, and globalization as we know it.
@slizzler1 Germans in British service along with other troops, who were british, aswell as being commanded by british officers/ german officers... what a dick you are...
What don't you understand about the King's German Legion Battalion and elements of a Hanoverian battalion defending La Haye Sainte not being British.
But go ahead and spew out more 'only British fought the French at Waterloo' myth shit.... I'll use pure facts to take your crap apart each and every time.....
@slizzler1 I think you're on drugs... anyway I never said it was purely British combatants... so what if Dutch, Belgian, Prussian, and other troops fought?! it was commanded by a British Field Marshal and went down as a British victory I don't see what you're trying to get at??? do you want the Germans to take the new title of the main victors at the battle of Waterloo because they defended some shithole farm from the frogs for half the day?! Dick...
Fair-warning..... by the time we have ended our dialogue you will feel extremely stupid.
Over the years I have made morons like yourself who attempt to spread ultra-nationalist fuelled history misinformation, look very idiotic - particularly about the Waterloo campaign.
You've shown how grotesquely stupid you are about the battle in dismissing La Haye Sainte's strategic importance as being a 'shithole farm'.
Are you aware that Wellington was not going to fight at Waterloo if he did not believe in Blucher's gutsy promise to stop retreating safely back to Prussia after Ligny, and instead risk his army going to help Wellington?
Of course you didn't know that. But don't worry I will be teaching you a lot you should know that you will hate looking up and finding out is true.
It's nice to hear you admit Wellington the IRISHman/ Briton orchestrated the victory.
@slizzler1 HE was an Anglo Irish, not the full thing, also what kind of dick are you? ... I mean... is this alll you care about? a battle that happened 200 years ago ok smart arse 187 years ago... I mean............... The fact is the british did most of the work... you got a problem with that? you gonna some how pick that apart? you weirrdo get a life...........
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX Im sorry but i have to put in my opinion; Brussels would have fallen had it not been for the Prussians. Wellington's army was crumbling and the Prussian reenforcement of 40,000 troops that outflanked Napoleon's army was just enough to push Napoleon back. Wellington gives a rather different acount of events in his dispatches but to give the Prussians the credit they deserved would have undermined British interests in Europe at the time.
Born in Ireland = Irish, but he is still British.
British did most of the work - that old myth line that gets laughs from experts.
It wasn't the British that stopped Ney from occupying Quatre Bras on June 15th, making it possible for Quatre Bras to be fought on June 16th.... saving the campaign.
It wasn't the British who collapsed the French right wing at Waterloo.
Half the battalions holding Mont St.Jean were not British.
@slizzler1 I'm not even reading waht you put now... you're just some weird, and I mean weird geek who'se got a pure obsession with the battle of waterloo... I like history, but YOU need to get a feckin grip you freak.
The topic was who was defending La Haye Sainte..... now you attempt to deflect away from the fact I have exposed your ignorance on the subject.
Who gives two-shits for your ignorant outdated myth-based fantasy that Waterloo was a 'British victoty' when all studious, realistic experts of the battle are aware that only 25,000 of the combined Allied-Prussian force of 125,000 was actually British.
Please keep yapping your BS..... I enjoy educating ignorance
@slizzler1 Also... You just called it the Kings German 'LEGION' ... then Battalion... do you even know what a division is you little wanker! there's a huge difference between them... and if you meant there was a (single) battalion defendig the farm... use the fucking letter a... I mean... waht the fuck are you.. German or somethign silly like that?!
There were two brigades of KGL with Wellington at Waterloo. One brigade was north of La Haye Sainte - ONLY ONE BATTALION of that brigade occupied La Haye Sainte- along with about a couple of companies of Hanoverian survivors of a battalion that was run over by a French cavalry attack earlier in the afternoon.
I can dance circles around you all day regarding Waterloo facts....
I invite you to keep flapping your lips so that I can expose you as inadequate.
Why're some people comparing Hitler to Nap?! Hitler is not fondly remembered by the Germans while Nap is still loved and adored by the French. He stopped persecution of the Jews. Hitler not only made it worse but murdered millions. The Code de Napoleon is forms the basis of most democratic countries' laws up to today while Hitler's Nuremberg laws were crappy. Unlike Hitler, he was an excellent general while Hitler's generals did all the dirty work. He rarely murdered opponents unlike Hitler.
@noelwym123 hitler got most of his military skills from being in the trenches of wwi, napoleon graduated from the military academy at Brienne. the two have different mentalities in engaging battles. if hitler studied at westpoint, wwii would be a different story.
@virgilxoxo1 Napoleon would calculate the chances of defeating the enemy first while Hitler was totally convinced that Aryan "supremacy" would defeat everybody else. In the !st Italian campaign, Napoleon had stronger enemies but outmaneuvered them before defeating them. Hitler was mad like during the final stage of the siege of Stalingrad, when the Russians were rolling over the Nazis, Hitler told the field marshal to fight to the end, but he wisely surrendered. Now, who's smarter?
How is Napoleon 'smart' - he could have ended his days comfortably on Elba- instead he jumps into a ridiculous escapade knowing that the Allies would start another war to finally crush him in 1815. What a pointless waste of so many lives as a result in the 1815 summer hostilities.
@slizzler1 If you are thrown out of throne to be some petty governor of a tiny island, would you be happy? And anyway, the French started to view their new Bourbon king as a colourless Coalition puppet compared to Napoleon.
@slizzler1 Excuse me! The French didn't really mind when he took over, with a majority of them voting in favour of him. It was a last try, after all, wasn't it looking all over for Nap at Austerlitz?
The point is not about most French 'minding' his 1815 return..... Most Germans didn't mind sHitler provoking the Allies and winning wars - until 1941 showed them the Nazis were eventually taking them all over a cliff.
The point is Napoleon's escapade was never going to work -never.
Napoleon had Austerlitz planned- expecting Davout to arrive; much like Wellington only fought at Waterloo expecting Blucher to arrive.
@slizzler1 I meant when he became emperor for the first time, not after Elba. The Germans didn't really care since Hitler had practically brainwashed them, somewhat like N. Korea. Napoleon couldn't exactly guarantee whether the Prussian were coming and unfortunately sent Grouchy of all people after Blucher. I only mention Brits to prove that Napoleon wasn't the only one who had flaws and the Coalition wasn't really goody-two-shoes.
Naploleon seized power before making himself Emperor was my other point.
The Prussians should not have logically moved to Wellington after their beating at Ligny - that was a real risk that could have destroyed the Prussians, but it was worth it if it worked.
Napoleon screwed up by sending Grouchy after the Prussians hours later than he could have- and normally would pursue a beaten enemy. That's why Grouchy didn't have a good idea of the real retreat route of Blucher.
@slizzler1 Exactly! But did the French whine? No. That's why I believe Trafalgar was important. If Napoleon managed to cross the Channel, Britain would be quite doomed and since Britain was somewhat of the Coalition's treasurer, the Coalition will most probably collapse. Not to forget, Waterloo wouldn't have happened. He should have brought Louis Nicolas Davout instead of making him minister since Louis is the second best general in my point of view.
Napoleon's cross invasion of Britain could have been a Gallipoli type of disaster [ an 1805 Waterloo ] on the beaches for the French - and what if Napoleon's invasion troops were all stuck on the beaches while the Russians and Austrians marched through to France without any opposition and Britain capturing the stranded French on British shores.
@slizzler1 An interesting debate, won't you agree. Thank you for being a worthy but still annoying match. Good day for now, as I'm going to watch Smosh.
@slizzler1 You seem to enjoy making fun of people's opinions. Not to forget you've a tendency to insult and tease just because people don't share your ideas. The French invasion of Wales went rather unhindered. Only a dumb ass would attack a heavily fortified area. It would be like the Allies invading Calais instead of Normandy on D-Day.
@slizzler1 If you haven't noticed, there's the word 'crybaby' in a number of your posts. If you don't call that mocking, I'm not sure what you want to call it. Historical facts aren't always FACTS. Nobody knows for sure why Marshal Ney launched that crazy charge at Waterloo. Nobody knows for sure why Marshal Grouchy was eating strawberries(if he was) when he should have joined Napoleon at Waterloo. If they are indeed facts, there will be no historians arguing whether Napoleon is evil or what.
Do you think honestly that Grouchy was munching strawberries and that was why he didn't march to Waterloo? LOLOL
Facts are facts > misinformation and myths/ speculations are not facts.
Here are the facts. He would never have made it on time to Waterloo. The Prussians were ahead of him [ Blucher] and behind him [ Thielmann's lll Corps at Wavre].
Ney launched his charge because it looked like Wellington was retreating.
@slizzler1 He was just twenty-four miles away from Waterloo. The Prussians may arrive first but the appearance of his fresh troops at Waterloo might give the Allies a scare. Maybe he wasn't eating strawberries, but he must have been doing something till he dismissed the sound of the guns as thunder.
When you say 'just 24 miles away' you are not studying the complete picture. Get a good map and see the terrain between Grouchy and Napoleon.
The terrain was muddy and in few valley routes.
The three Corps of Blucher were marching to Waterloo along those routes. Blucher only needed one Corps to turn around and block any move Grouchy made. aAdded to that, the Prussian corps at Wavre would attack Grouchy's flank and rear.
@slizzler1 Taking risks is not being stupid, if that is so, all generals are idiots. He was obviously not at his best at Waterloo but if only the Napoleon from 1805 was there rather than the Napoleon of 1815, then things would be much different. And anyway, Waterloo was not as important as Trafalgar although Waterloo is indeed important.
Nobody gives a fk if being stupid with idiotic risk taking affects only that idiot.
His dumb escape from Elba uselessly cost the lives of thousands of soldiers.
His Waterloo campaign was actually one of his best strategized campaigns ever - but his opponents took risks throughout the campaign that paid off - especially exploiting the mistakes of Napoleon's poorly chosen wing commanders - and his own mistakes after Ligny.
Running from Elba was an ego mistake -not military
@slizzler1 John Moore caused lots of lives to be lost when overextended his supply lines. All great generals will certainly blunder one way or another.
@noelwym123 Hah ha ha ha "rarely" you say? Can you quantify the number that is OK versus Not OK? The Corsican dwarf was a butcher. His men lootred and raped. He was responsible for millions slaughtered. What a sad admission that he is adored by the French. I hope you are wrong, otherwise that is like condemning the French to mass naivety and stupidity. Outside of France educated military men find him to be a deranged megalomaniac. Anyway as he deserved, he died a bitter broken man.
@verziehen Ahem. No. 1, he never wanted war. He sent letter requesting for peace to Vienna and London on Christmas but always got a "No!". If you call him a butcher, then a lot of 'good' people are also butchers. Governments on both sides in World War One and World war Two plus the Vietnam war are butchers. Even Barack Obama would be a killer since lots of people have lost and are losing their lives in Iraq and and Afghanistan respectively. If he's so 'deranged', aren't all the other rulers of
@noelwym123 You are a very slow learner, but eventually you get there. I must say I thought you were a lost cause for a while there. Indeed all warmongers are butchers. I am beginning to realise that English is not your first language. Alas you slip up with difficult words like "good". Mahatir Mohamed the ex Prime Minister of Malaysia decribed Europe as "The Continent of Holocausts" which well sums up the machinations of the various megalomaniacs in Europe over hundreds of years.
@verziehen Europe the same? George III, Tsar Alexander, Francis and company conquered other peoples but nobody complains about them. The Brit throne is also very bloodstained and the Brits respect them. Even if he decided to sit down and wait during the War of the Third Coalition, how sure are you that the Coalition will not go after him although he wanted peace. The Coalition hated him because he was a nuisance to their interests. He may not be perfect but he definitely ought to get respect.
@verziehen History is always written by the victors. A drop of dirty water in the sea won't make it unclean. Have you forgotten the great contributions Napoleon has made? For one, he united France which was being torn apart by Republicans and Royalists alike. He promoted republicanism in the French satellite states despite being an absolute monarch himself. He also contributed to the sciences like when he funded Volta's creation of the battery. Nap also liberated oppressed people like the Poles
"We must always remember that history is written by the winners."
That's the worst cliche line floating around used particularly by those who are too lazy to study history.
History is written by winners, losers, scholars, objective writers, biased writers, demented writers, liars, intellects, archivists, plagiarizers, cheap-imitators, geniuses, morons.
It's up to individuals to read topics thoroughly, INSTEAD of being too lazy and make excuses not to.
@slizzler1 Winston Churchill said that! Yes, I do partially agree with you which is why I read Horrible Histories along other history books because Terry Deary criticizes both parties. And if you hadn't noticed, most history books state that Britain is responsible for abolishing the slave trade, but like in the Barmy British Empire, everybody forgets to mention how much profit had been made in the first place, the suffering of the slaves and many people who died because of it. History is British
@slizzler1 I write my points of view, while you going around telling people that their points of view are wrong. I can speak what's in my mind and I don't need self-righteous prig to tell me what I should believe. Enough said.
All I did was use facts proving your misinformation is wrong.
Can't you take factually based criticism?
I don't care what you would like to believe- I'm free to comment on your comments- just like observers are free to check any references and decide for themselves.
@slizzler1 Facts can prove more than one thing. I can take it, in fact, I like it when somebody corrects my facts. However, you seem more like trying to change my opinion than correcting my facts.
Ohhhh - poor crybaby - so let's see; you making comments about Napoleon having no comparison to sHitler is somehow not you trying to change others opinions on Napoleon!???
LOL - grow up..... all I did was use facts to show errors in your opinions.
@verziehen Not to mention he gave religious freedom a chance by emancipating the Protestants and Jews, the latter being heavily criticized by the anti- Semitic kings of Europe. The exiled nobles could return home without fear that their heads will roll and abolished the unfair system of feudalism for which peasants were very thankful for. The Coalition hated him for threatening their position and interests and so, eventually destroyed him. But his legacy lingered on and caused a trouble later.
The Napoleonic Code -> conscripting civilians from foreign nations who were under French occupation - to suffer in campaigns like the Russian fiasco in 1812.
Much like the Nazis enforcing slave labour from citizens in Nazi-occupied territories in WW2..
Napoleon forcing 14 and 15 year olds to fight in 1814 - much like sHitler barbarically called up similar aged German boys to fight in hellish urban warfare in Berlin in 1945.
@slizzler1 The Allies in World War I also used conscripting, then they too are guilty. The Britain in World War I executed many boys who got into the army.
There were NO British troops holding the farmhouse of La Haye Sainte. This clip is full of idiotic lies.
Wellington's Waterloo army comprised of roughly 35% of British troops at the most. The rest of the army was composed of Dutch, Belgians, Hanoverians, KGL, Nassauers, Brunswickers; Wellington's entire line was intermingled with the various contingents of troops - both on the Front lines and in the reserves.
@slizzler1 There were Germans in La Haye Sainte, who were fighting under the British Colours. Hence the term British against French. But your right BOTH armies used various troops from different countries. But this happens even today (British Gurkhas for example, they are not British but fight under the British Colours.)
The clip-host is an idiot - he has no clue about who were British and not British amongst the Allied army- he keeps saying British for everything. He has no education about the battle. Swiss troops fighting with Grouchy were not 'French' - they were Swiss..... African colonial troops fighting under French command in WW2 were not French- they were Africans..... Gurkha units were not 'British' only commanded by British.
This is how myths and silliness about history facts spreads.
That's not even a pround for anglo saxons anyway (boers war was on 1880, i was close admit it :) ) so let's say americans and english invented concentration camp *clap clap* and you swear napoleon of nazi the man who made this video is so a dumb -wait for it- ass
I think it's more fair to say that "english invented concentration camps and interned 250 000 people during the boer war, just like Hitler" than "napoleon = hitler". And waterloo isn't a british victory they would have been ass kicked without prussians.
@Thepatriot781 Why do you say 'English' when you mean British Empire - including Irish, Australians and South Africans? What you say British when you mean British and Allies? Why do you say 'been ass kicked' when you mean 'continued to hold the French at bay'?
Just because english is the dominant ethnic group and rule scotish irish gaelics and people in the dominions. British king is the english one. You really think that if napoleon could have ruled europe he couldn't invade great britain ?
@Thepatriot781 I think you need to read up a bit more and are probably guilty of lazy thinking. The English don't rule the others. I think you made a mistake. Also, the British king is the English and Scottish one but I don't expect you to understand that either. Though the claim to the French throne has passed ;) And yes, I think Napoleon couldn't invade Britain and that was because of the Royal Navy.
British though their navy was the most powerfull too when they were beaten by the french one renewed during american war of independance. And yes english ruled the other people, how could you explain wars in ireland, usa, the asking for dominion independance and the political ambition for scottish independance ?
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL mate it was a failure, there were thousands of casualties with very little ground gained, the battle of the Somme is in the books as one of the greatest military blunders of all time, and its all thanks to the british.
and the germans were already halted from the swiss alps to belgium
and just to let u know the aussies had been in Australia a good 100 years after the first settelers, but it doesnt matter wat generation they were cause they were all true blue aussie.
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL do u realise tht wat u just said made absolutly no sense. however u did touch on another example of british stupidity, the Somme, a brit plan tht got thousands of men killed, cause of arrogant stupid planning, then u have Gallipoli a very important part of Australian history where the ANZAC's made a name of themselves, thousands of ANZAC's were killed and the plan failed because of bad British planing and arogance britain is an arogant nation. look at the current news for eg.
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL there was also mass murder, there is a big story here in australia of 3 of our soldiers who were condemed by the brittish for the murder of civilians which they did under brittish orders, orders they could no disobey under the punishment of death, in the end they were executed and there names tarnished because of brittish arrogance and stupidity, and yes i have no love for the brittish, i am also of Irish decent and hold citezenship an the brits opressed my ancestors.
@shiyboy4 If you are of Irish descent, you might like to read up about the 16th (Irish) Division and 36th (Ulster) Division. And find out why many Irish Republicans joined the British Army. Even today, Irish citizens serve as volunteers in the British Army. Don't rely on the movies to tell you about Australian (or Irish) history. And, check out where Wellington was from, and the city where there is a large obelisk to his memory.
@flexdream have u heard of the Black and Tans? British Soldiers who were ex criminals sent to Ireland to give Britain a military presence, while they were in Ireland they did terrible things, they had a game where they would break into peoples houses take their babies, they would then get together and toss the baby into the air and see if they could catch it on the end of their bayonets.
@shiyboy4 Yes I've heard of the Black and Tans, but I can't believe you believe that story about babies being bayonetted - how likely is that? If you really do believe that I'm wasting my time.
@flexdream well considering they were all criminals hired out of prisons id say its very beleivable, hell if u dont beleive that then u probably dont beleive in the Nazi Genocide, or even Stalins Genocide. or 911, or Poll Pot, do u beleive the stories of pedophiles who kill and then rape children in that order, what about that american couple who raped and killed there own 8 month old baby. if those attrocities can happen then this one easily could dont be so ignorant u twat.
@shiyboy4 You are a stupid bigot. You probably believe that in WW1 German soldiers tossed Belgian babies on their bayonets, and that in Gulf War 1 Iraqi soldiers took Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and let them die. Lean some manners and some facts, in any order you like.
@slizzler1 I presume you're implying that I support the massacre of Drogheda? Do you have any evidence to support that claim, or is this just another 'assertion'? What makes you think I support it? I understand a bit about why it happened but I don't condone it.
@slizzler1 I have to try and guess what you mean because you seem unable to express yourself clearly. What do you mean by Cromwell's adventures? I dunno. You're not a bigot like shiboy but you do have trouble expressing yourself or reading what I write.
@slizzler1 er .. didn't you recognise "What do you mean by Cromwell's adventures?" as a question? I guess not. You do seem to have difficulties in reading.
@slizzler1 I don't know what you mean because you're too stupid to say, even when I ask you directly. In fact you get emotional and irrational when I try and guess. I have no idea what you mean, and I have no reason now to think I'd be any better informed for knowing.
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL well considering ur a brit ur probably not gonna admit it, but the brits were the worst people in history, they even had death camps in south africa during the boer war
so Its gona act like Napolean had no chance... yeah my ass, he damn near won at Waterloo, and Britian stop acting like your the greatest military power in the world...you were almost crushed by Napolean, Joan of Arc sent you running, you couldnt hold the thirteen colonies, you all hid in subway tunnels in WW2, and lost control of India and South Africa, (and they didnt even fire bullets) just saying.
@KingBeezyB1994 Where to begin ... but let's just stick with India. Britain gave independence freely to India, many would even say it was done too quickly, and that led to the division of British India into India and Pakistan. Apart from the Indian Mutiny in 1857, there was no rebellion against British rule in India, and even then many, if not most, Indian troops remained loyal. During both World Wars Indian troops fought for the British, and Nepalese Gurkhas still serve in the British Army.
"Britain gave independence freely to India, many would even say it was done too quickly"
Amazing.... colonies got fed up with Britain after WW2 being oppressive on racial/ cultural lines. Britain lacked the resources to maintain their former crushing control any longer..... Remember the Amritsar massacre of 1919- which even Churchill denounced as 'uncivilized'.
Britain was not benevolent in 'free-ing' colonies . They finally reached the point where they had no choice but to yield
@slizzler1 You misread me, I wrote 'too quickly', not 'too soon'. The understandable rush to independence led to violent partition between India and Pakistan, with an estimated 200 000 to 1 million deaths. Even the lower figure is awful.
After WW2 the British socialist government was very keen to give India independence. The main architect of Indian independence, Mahatma Gandhi, was ardently non-violent, and force had very little to do with the struggle for Indian independence.
@slizzler1 You're incoherent and not making sense now. Unspecified assertions are not 'truths'. What relevance is it if Gandhi considered supporting Japan? Are you saying that independence did not create partition?
I'm saying you are delusional in every respect of the word regarding history of repressed colonies in Imperial Empires. No clue at all. But that's your choice of viewing without objectivity, and historical accuracy> Just like this clip is full of idiot error-filled crap with its 'British this- British that' BS as if only the British fought Napoleon.
@slizzler1 When you make something up and can't substantiate it, it doesn't become true when you write it down. At least we are both against animal cruelty :)
If you weren't so narcissistic you'd have the wisdom and humility to read a book and learn facts rather than grandstand on pompous fantasy reworking of historical events.
But go ahead- don't do any research. You'll meet others later in life who will laugh at your gibberish.
@KingBeezyB1994 The Thirteen Colonies. This was very much a civil war. The colonists were divided, that's why we now have Canada distinct from the US. Some in Britain supported the Revolutionaries, and the Revolutionaries believed they were heirs of freedoms arising from their British heritage. The British crown would probably have defeated the rebels if it had not been for French intervention. Ironically, that was was payback by France which turned to blowback in 1789.
@KingBeezyB1994 And finally, yes it was Wellington himself, who said " It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life". Not surprising after being outnumbered on the battlefield by Napoleon and holding on succesfully with the Allied army until the Prussians arrived. Thankfully Waterloo marked an end to a period of troubled and bloody warfare in Europe.
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP THIS DOCUMENTARY IS! When are the British going to quit lying about Napoleon? Throughout this entire abortion of a documentary, they keep stating that the army under Wellington is British! Only a 3rd were British! The next thing they do is compare Napoleon to Hitler! How stupid is that! Napoleon was trying to defend France from British bank-rolled coalitions to force the Monarchy back on the French People! I'm not saying he was a saint but neither were the Brits!
@rylege Wars fought in the name of a King, or Queen, are rarely noble. Personally, I wouldn't care if Britain became a Republic - we have the "greatest" royalty in the world, in terms of fame and popularity, but we don't really need it.. they're just an example of class - royalty and us common folk. As for the Brits not being Saints - the Napoleonic Wars are far too complex to sum up in a few words. But Wellington was a great man, regardless of who or what he fought for, he was a fine general.
@MarcusBritish Absolutely far too complex! And far too over Nationalized still to this day. This documentary shows that Britain still has not shed it's Victorian era Anti-Bonaparte propaganda. It's time to set the history straight for once. And it's not just Britain, the Russians capitalized on this as well.
This video clearly supports the british, and I happen to know tons of stuff about Waterloo, I can say over 80% of this videos content, is not correct.
Napoleon was also outnumbered by more than twice his numbers.
@hherlevdk He was not outnumbered 2:1. And that is only partially true for when the British and Prussian armies combined (which was about halfway through the battle itself). The combined allied forces outnumbered the French, but only when combined. This video is on the whole accurate, though is of course pretty biased in favour of the British (but is also a British production, so would be undoubtably anyway).
@z1Predatorian1zOwnz my point in saying that america was fighting 1v1 is due to the fact that in the memoral battles that defeated teh japanese it was american vs japan, amercia decimated the japanese fleet, teh austrialian fleets were being beaten and most of the british fleet was deystroyed. china never launched a succseful offensive untill teh US had caused japan to divert most of thier forces to fighting them. if america had not joined the war axis prob woulda won, Opr. torch was
Too many whining arseholes and "know it alls" here who have clearly never read up on the battle and understood it - especially several bloody American's who wouldn't understand unbiased historical research if it shit in their face - too busy rewriting their own history, and trying to find Europe on a map to know any better.
This vid is lacking a LOT of key details and is inaccurate at times. It is too pro-British, and suits low-grade US education level morons in its basic approach to the event.
@MarcusBritish I'm an American and I happen to agree with you! Most Americans are ignorant. This is a terrible documentary, from comparing Napoleone to Hitler to never mentioning the other nationalities under Wellingtons command. Most American might not even know that though we were not officially allied with Napoleon we certainly helped him with trade, ship-building. There were also many in the Governement to include Jefferson who whispered that Europe would be better if Napoleon succeeded.
@rylege And perhaps they were right.. I don't think Britain would ever have bowed down to a French Emperor, but they may have welcomed a Republican Britain, in time. We rely too much on royalty, and I find Royalists an unusual breed of hypocrites - they favour a Royal Family on one hand, and curse taxes, national debts, foreign wars on the other. They're either Tories or idiots.
@MarcusBritish With the Bourbons the British knew precisely what they were dealing with, but not Napoleone. He was not a part of the Members only club, and did not adhere to the rules established for centuries and was far too talented politically and militarily. They were not going to tolerate that next door. I suppose after 1805 and the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire at the hands of Napoleone, they really got nervous.
Lol comparing Hitler to Napoleon, there are a few resemblances, but between a brilliant tactician and a genocidal killer?
lubi125 1 week ago 2
@aquabumblebee
HeirofShimazu 2 weeks ago
Typical British view - not very objective.
anonymusum 2 weeks ago
I thought this was a total war empire vid
lifegiver2012 2 weeks ago
@MrPandaRTWJr Beat? You obviously have not studied the war in detail. Maybe you should try looking up the battle of bladenburg and the events following it. Or even look at a casualty lists of america vs. Britain. And also try looking at a globe, see canada? You might notice that it is not owned by the US, and that is all totally indicative of America winning the war.
aquabumblebee 1 month ago
@aquabumblebee look up the Battle of New Orleans
MrPandaRTWJr 3 weeks ago
@MrPandaRTWJr Of course! One battle is the deciding factor of an entire war, how could I be so stupid?!
aquabumblebee 3 weeks ago
Then in the war of 1812 America beat this proffesional British army........
MrPandaRTWJr 1 month ago
@MrPandaRTWJr I hope that was a joke. In 1812, Britain inflicted the worst defeat on America in all of American history. We walked straight into your capital city and burned it down. You also had to sign a peace treaty once we were finished with Napoleon because you realised how much of an arse kicking you were about to recieve.
TheLiberalKnight 3 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight 1812 wasn't the worst defeat in American history that was Vietnam. Britain burned down our capital but we burned the Canadian parliament. The peace treaty part was true but we then went to beat your asses in the battle of new orleans.
MrPandaRTWJr 3 weeks ago
@MrPandaRTWJr Find me an article showing that the Americans burnt down the Canadian Parliament, because unless there is a a gap in my history (which is possible) you are making that up. Also, have I mentioned the Battle of Bladensburg?
aquabumblebee 3 weeks ago
@aquabumblebee i agree with you on the fact we did get our asses kicked for the most part.. ill get an article about it for you :) (it was a canadian government building im not sure if it was parliament.. Im not an expert on this war)
MrPandaRTWJr 3 weeks ago
@MrPandaRTWJr I commend you on your graciousness, it's more than I can say for most your internet-based comrades.
aquabumblebee 3 weeks ago
@aquabumblebee if u search google for Canadian parliament burned in 1812 you'll find many results (not just wikipedia) but like i said we did get our asses kicked in 1812.
MrPandaRTWJr 3 weeks ago
@MrPandaRTWJr Well then I owe you a apology, as I said before I appreciate your graciousness with regards to "getting your asses kicked". I suppose we got our just desserts in 1776 in Yorktown, so swings and rounds a-bouts I guess. I hope our keyboards will clash elsewhere on the internet one day....
aquabumblebee 3 weeks ago
@MrPandaRTWJr Burned down the Canadian parliament? Like that means anything. Canada wasn't a British dominion until the 1860s. In 1812, Canada was still being settled in. Washington DC was in a completely different league, president Maidson promised to 'defend DC until the last man', but typical of Americans, his words were bolder than his actions, and he fled like a flea when the British infantry arrived.
TheLiberalKnight 3 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight fled like a flea? yes madison did flea yes he promise to defend it to the last man yes we ran away like little girls, but we still won the war.
MrPandaRTWJr 3 weeks ago
@MrPandaRTWJr Won the war? You tried to invade Canada and you failed. I wonder why you were desperate for peace once we'd beaten Napoleon Bonaparte in Europe? Hmmm...
TheLiberalKnight 3 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight we still won and we kicked the british asses at New Orleans
MrPandaRTWJr 3 weeks ago
@MrPandaRTWJr You are like a German nazi in 1939, you are so obsessed with your nationalist cause that you don't understand reality and fantasty. Any American who thinks they won the war of 1812 deserves to be laughed at. You win a war if you succeed in at least one of your war aims- name me a single war aim that America completed in 1812.
TheLiberalKnight 3 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight i can name four 1 we burned british parliament 2 we defended Beltimore 3 we defended New Orleans 4 we stopped any invasion into america from canada. We then won the war of 1812 yes we got our asses kicked but we still won.
MrPandaRTWJr 3 weeks ago
@MrPandaRTWJr 1. British parliament? NO AMERICAN ARMY HAS STEP FOOT IN WESTMINSTER, RETARD!
2. YOU ATTACKED US, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
You are mentally ill! Defending your territory is not a war aim! Britain didn't declare war on you! You tried to invade Canada, and you failed! Britain didn't dream of conquering American territory! Therefore you lost all of your war aims, which was to conquer Canada and the royal navy, and you were humiliated! Accept it! Just admit it!
TheLiberalKnight 3 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight i meant canadian parliament sorry. defending territory is a war gain and we won the war... we lost many battles but in the end we won
MrPandaRTWJr 3 weeks ago
@MrPandaRTWJr You DID NOT WIN THE WAR OF 1812!
You are so indoctrinated with your own nationalist propaganda, it's like a Nazi claiming that Germany won WW2.
TheLiberalKnight 3 weeks ago
After Waterloo, Britain became the world's only hyper power and was completely ahead of all other countries. Pound Sterling adopted the gold standard in 1816, making it the strongest currency on the planet. British industry was untouchable. The British economy attracted 40% of world investment. The industrial technology was so advanced that it took decades for everyone else to catch up. The Royal Navy's undisputed power lead to record levels of investment, and globalization as we know it.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight until America came along......
cheezycrackers221 3 weeks ago
This video has been presented to you by the PR department of the Duke of Wellington.
Heartoftheclock 1 month ago
Comment removed
noelwym123 2 months ago
slizzer1 should be washed down a toilet bowl.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwymP
Stop squeaking little man.
slizzler1 2 months ago
The paintings accompanying the clip do not match the dialogue.
it's a stupid myth claiming only British defended Hougoumont when in fact many nationalities on the Allied side were there.
Half the troops affected by the French cannonade on Mont St.Jean were NOT British - they were various nationalities including mostly Germans.
Wellington did NOT order his men to lie down - he pulled them back from the hill crest.
LA HAYE SAINTE WAS NOT DEFENDED BY BRITISH TROOPS. THEY WERE GERMANS.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 Germans in British service along with other troops, who were british, aswell as being commanded by british officers/ german officers... what a dick you are...
XxGREATxBRITAINxX 2 months ago
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX
What don't you understand about the King's German Legion Battalion and elements of a Hanoverian battalion defending La Haye Sainte not being British.
But go ahead and spew out more 'only British fought the French at Waterloo' myth shit.... I'll use pure facts to take your crap apart each and every time.....
What's your next myth, wanker?
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 I think you're on drugs... anyway I never said it was purely British combatants... so what if Dutch, Belgian, Prussian, and other troops fought?! it was commanded by a British Field Marshal and went down as a British victory I don't see what you're trying to get at??? do you want the Germans to take the new title of the main victors at the battle of Waterloo because they defended some shithole farm from the frogs for half the day?! Dick...
XxGREATxBRITAINxX 2 months ago
Comment removed
slizzler1 2 months ago
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX
Fair-warning..... by the time we have ended our dialogue you will feel extremely stupid.
Over the years I have made morons like yourself who attempt to spread ultra-nationalist fuelled history misinformation, look very idiotic - particularly about the Waterloo campaign.
You've shown how grotesquely stupid you are about the battle in dismissing La Haye Sainte's strategic importance as being a 'shithole farm'.
You disrespect its defenders' suicidal bravery.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX
Are you aware that Wellington was not going to fight at Waterloo if he did not believe in Blucher's gutsy promise to stop retreating safely back to Prussia after Ligny, and instead risk his army going to help Wellington?
Of course you didn't know that. But don't worry I will be teaching you a lot you should know that you will hate looking up and finding out is true.
It's nice to hear you admit Wellington the IRISHman/ Briton orchestrated the victory.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 HE was an Anglo Irish, not the full thing, also what kind of dick are you? ... I mean... is this alll you care about? a battle that happened 200 years ago ok smart arse 187 years ago... I mean............... The fact is the british did most of the work... you got a problem with that? you gonna some how pick that apart? you weirrdo get a life...........
XxGREATxBRITAINxX 2 months ago
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX Im sorry but i have to put in my opinion; Brussels would have fallen had it not been for the Prussians. Wellington's army was crumbling and the Prussian reenforcement of 40,000 troops that outflanked Napoleon's army was just enough to push Napoleon back. Wellington gives a rather different acount of events in his dispatches but to give the Prussians the credit they deserved would have undermined British interests in Europe at the time.
thingy777 2 months ago
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX
Born in Ireland = Irish, but he is still British.
British did most of the work - that old myth line that gets laughs from experts.
It wasn't the British that stopped Ney from occupying Quatre Bras on June 15th, making it possible for Quatre Bras to be fought on June 16th.... saving the campaign.
It wasn't the British who collapsed the French right wing at Waterloo.
Half the battalions holding Mont St.Jean were not British.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 I'm not even reading waht you put now... you're just some weird, and I mean weird geek who'se got a pure obsession with the battle of waterloo... I like history, but YOU need to get a feckin grip you freak.
XxGREATxBRITAINxX 2 months ago
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX
Of course you won't read it.
Like all the other idiot-ultra Nationalists who get educated in Waterloo clips about the true facts, you run away terrified of learning the truth.
Don't worry- everyone else will read the facts from these references, and laugh at you crybaby nationalists and your useless fantasies of the battle.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX slizzer1 is an annoying stuck-up prig who, isn't he?
noelwym123 2 months ago
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX
I will pick apart anymore BS you bring up.
Very gladly.... I'm not done educating you - not by a long shot.
See you soon , crybaby.
slizzler1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX
The topic was who was defending La Haye Sainte..... now you attempt to deflect away from the fact I have exposed your ignorance on the subject.
Who gives two-shits for your ignorant outdated myth-based fantasy that Waterloo was a 'British victoty' when all studious, realistic experts of the battle are aware that only 25,000 of the combined Allied-Prussian force of 125,000 was actually British.
Please keep yapping your BS..... I enjoy educating ignorance
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 Also... You just called it the Kings German 'LEGION' ... then Battalion... do you even know what a division is you little wanker! there's a huge difference between them... and if you meant there was a (single) battalion defendig the farm... use the fucking letter a... I mean... waht the fuck are you.. German or somethign silly like that?!
XxGREATxBRITAINxX 2 months ago
@XxGREATxBRITAINxX
There were two brigades of KGL with Wellington at Waterloo. One brigade was north of La Haye Sainte - ONLY ONE BATTALION of that brigade occupied La Haye Sainte- along with about a couple of companies of Hanoverian survivors of a battalion that was run over by a French cavalry attack earlier in the afternoon.
I can dance circles around you all day regarding Waterloo facts....
I invite you to keep flapping your lips so that I can expose you as inadequate.
slizzler1 2 months ago
Stupid BS video -
I hope nobody takes this clip seriously.
I give it thumbs down for its stupidity.
Right at the start, the knob-host says the battle was fought in July 1815- it was fought on June 18th 1815.
Then it says he was 'Emperor' again after getting back to France from Elba!
- he was in fact 'public enemy' no.1 in Europe at that point.
The clip said Napoleon planned to dominate Europe in 1815.... PURE BS.
Blucher didn't retreat to Waterloo- he went to Wellington's aid.
slizzler1 2 months ago
Without Prussian army,,,no victory for Wellington ! Thanks to Blücher !
christmar67 3 months ago
@christmar67 Without Welington no victory for Blucher... and your point is?
Thunderous71 2 months ago
a warlord and a gentleman...
virgilxoxo1 3 months ago
if napoleon would bathe more often, he wouldn't be so sick during crucial times.
virgilxoxo1 3 months ago
He forgot to eat his licorice...
TheS4MM 6 months ago
Why're some people comparing Hitler to Nap?! Hitler is not fondly remembered by the Germans while Nap is still loved and adored by the French. He stopped persecution of the Jews. Hitler not only made it worse but murdered millions. The Code de Napoleon is forms the basis of most democratic countries' laws up to today while Hitler's Nuremberg laws were crappy. Unlike Hitler, he was an excellent general while Hitler's generals did all the dirty work. He rarely murdered opponents unlike Hitler.
noelwym123 6 months ago 5
@noelwym123 hitler got most of his military skills from being in the trenches of wwi, napoleon graduated from the military academy at Brienne. the two have different mentalities in engaging battles. if hitler studied at westpoint, wwii would be a different story.
virgilxoxo1 3 months ago
@virgilxoxo1 Napoleon would calculate the chances of defeating the enemy first while Hitler was totally convinced that Aryan "supremacy" would defeat everybody else. In the !st Italian campaign, Napoleon had stronger enemies but outmaneuvered them before defeating them. Hitler was mad like during the final stage of the siege of Stalingrad, when the Russians were rolling over the Nazis, Hitler told the field marshal to fight to the end, but he wisely surrendered. Now, who's smarter?
noelwym123 3 months ago 2
@noelwym123
How is Napoleon 'smart' - he could have ended his days comfortably on Elba- instead he jumps into a ridiculous escapade knowing that the Allies would start another war to finally crush him in 1815. What a pointless waste of so many lives as a result in the 1815 summer hostilities.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 If you are the owner of a huge company and you are suddenly kicked out and forced to be a owner of a very tiny company, would you like it?
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
I'm sure you hear this often....
I have no clue WTF you are squawking about.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 If you are thrown out of throne to be some petty governor of a tiny island, would you be happy? And anyway, the French started to view their new Bourbon king as a colourless Coalition puppet compared to Napoleon.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
Why don't you make that 'would you be happy' speech in the cases where Napoleon put his brothers and generals on other nations' thrones.
Spain, Holland, Naples, Italy, ...
And do you have similar speeches for his invasions of Haiti and Egypt.?
Napoleon seized power as a dictator in France - he had no throne> he made one.
Escaping from Elba was a megalomaniac moronic suicidal adventure-> tens of thousands of soldiers suffered for no reason as a result.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 Excuse me! The French didn't really mind when he took over, with a majority of them voting in favour of him. It was a last try, after all, wasn't it looking all over for Nap at Austerlitz?
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
The point is not about most French 'minding' his 1815 return..... Most Germans didn't mind sHitler provoking the Allies and winning wars - until 1941 showed them the Nazis were eventually taking them all over a cliff.
The point is Napoleon's escapade was never going to work -never.
Napoleon had Austerlitz planned- expecting Davout to arrive; much like Wellington only fought at Waterloo expecting Blucher to arrive.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 I meant when he became emperor for the first time, not after Elba. The Germans didn't really care since Hitler had practically brainwashed them, somewhat like N. Korea. Napoleon couldn't exactly guarantee whether the Prussian were coming and unfortunately sent Grouchy of all people after Blucher. I only mention Brits to prove that Napoleon wasn't the only one who had flaws and the Coalition wasn't really goody-two-shoes.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
Naploleon seized power before making himself Emperor was my other point.
The Prussians should not have logically moved to Wellington after their beating at Ligny - that was a real risk that could have destroyed the Prussians, but it was worth it if it worked.
Napoleon screwed up by sending Grouchy after the Prussians hours later than he could have- and normally would pursue a beaten enemy. That's why Grouchy didn't have a good idea of the real retreat route of Blucher.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 Exactly! But did the French whine? No. That's why I believe Trafalgar was important. If Napoleon managed to cross the Channel, Britain would be quite doomed and since Britain was somewhat of the Coalition's treasurer, the Coalition will most probably collapse. Not to forget, Waterloo wouldn't have happened. He should have brought Louis Nicolas Davout instead of making him minister since Louis is the second best general in my point of view.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
Invasions don't always = success.
Napoleon's cross invasion of Britain could have been a Gallipoli type of disaster [ an 1805 Waterloo ] on the beaches for the French - and what if Napoleon's invasion troops were all stuck on the beaches while the Russians and Austrians marched through to France without any opposition and Britain capturing the stranded French on British shores.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@noelwym123
My point is not that the Allies did not make mistakes- they started wars and Wellington screwed up a few times in the Waterloo campaign.
I'm pointing out Napoleon's mistakes and bad policies.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 And I'm pointing out the Coalition's mistakes and flaws.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
Good for you.
I point out their flaws too here and there elsewhere.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 An interesting debate, won't you agree. Thank you for being a worthy but still annoying match. Good day for now, as I'm going to watch Smosh.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
Why is the fact you are learning facts somehow annoying to you; I'm enjoying giving you facts. No match for me!
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 You seem to enjoy making fun of people's opinions. Not to forget you've a tendency to insult and tease just because people don't share your ideas. The French invasion of Wales went rather unhindered. Only a dumb ass would attack a heavily fortified area. It would be like the Allies invading Calais instead of Normandy on D-Day.
noelwym123 1 month ago
@noelwym123
Where am I making fun?
Why are you blaming me if you feel like an idiot not knowing historical facts.
Stop acting like a crybaby
Historical facts are not 'opinions'.... so don't play that pathetic game with me.
There is no 'either/ or' regarding facts.
Only a crybaby who cannot admit being wrong will try to smear someone's facts as being 'opinions'.
Napoleon made a lot of dumb ass moves - amongst his classics, was escaping from Elba.
slizzler1 1 month ago
@slizzler1 If you haven't noticed, there's the word 'crybaby' in a number of your posts. If you don't call that mocking, I'm not sure what you want to call it. Historical facts aren't always FACTS. Nobody knows for sure why Marshal Ney launched that crazy charge at Waterloo. Nobody knows for sure why Marshal Grouchy was eating strawberries(if he was) when he should have joined Napoleon at Waterloo. If they are indeed facts, there will be no historians arguing whether Napoleon is evil or what.
noelwym123 1 month ago
@noelwym123
Do you think honestly that Grouchy was munching strawberries and that was why he didn't march to Waterloo? LOLOL
Facts are facts > misinformation and myths/ speculations are not facts.
Here are the facts. He would never have made it on time to Waterloo. The Prussians were ahead of him [ Blucher] and behind him [ Thielmann's lll Corps at Wavre].
Ney launched his charge because it looked like Wellington was retreating.
Napoleon launched half of the charging cavalry.
slizzler1 1 month ago
@slizzler1 He was just twenty-four miles away from Waterloo. The Prussians may arrive first but the appearance of his fresh troops at Waterloo might give the Allies a scare. Maybe he wasn't eating strawberries, but he must have been doing something till he dismissed the sound of the guns as thunder.
noelwym123 1 month ago
@noelwym123
When you say 'just 24 miles away' you are not studying the complete picture. Get a good map and see the terrain between Grouchy and Napoleon.
The terrain was muddy and in few valley routes.
The three Corps of Blucher were marching to Waterloo along those routes. Blucher only needed one Corps to turn around and block any move Grouchy made. aAdded to that, the Prussian corps at Wavre would attack Grouchy's flank and rear.
Grouchy could never appear at Waterloo on time.
slizzler1 1 month ago
@noelwym123
"Hitler told the field marshal to fight to the end, but he wisely surrendered. Now, who's smarter?"
Yes-escaping from Elba was genius!
Napoleon sending in his Middle Guard at Waterloo even knowing the Prussians had destroyed his right wing and right center, was really logical too.
Napoleon should have lost Marengo-but a fantastic general came to his rescue saved. him.
Napoleon was one of the best strategic commanders in history, but he was a moron when his ego kicked-in
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 Taking risks is not being stupid, if that is so, all generals are idiots. He was obviously not at his best at Waterloo but if only the Napoleon from 1805 was there rather than the Napoleon of 1815, then things would be much different. And anyway, Waterloo was not as important as Trafalgar although Waterloo is indeed important.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
Nobody gives a fk if being stupid with idiotic risk taking affects only that idiot.
His dumb escape from Elba uselessly cost the lives of thousands of soldiers.
His Waterloo campaign was actually one of his best strategized campaigns ever - but his opponents took risks throughout the campaign that paid off - especially exploiting the mistakes of Napoleon's poorly chosen wing commanders - and his own mistakes after Ligny.
Running from Elba was an ego mistake -not military
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 John Moore caused lots of lives to be lost when overextended his supply lines. All great generals will certainly blunder one way or another.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
I'm not 'pro-British' - I criticize many Empires.
Why do you crybaby Napoleon-fans always think someone is a Brit-Nationalist when they point out Nappy's flaws?
slizzler1 2 months ago
@noelwym123 Hah ha ha ha "rarely" you say? Can you quantify the number that is OK versus Not OK? The Corsican dwarf was a butcher. His men lootred and raped. He was responsible for millions slaughtered. What a sad admission that he is adored by the French. I hope you are wrong, otherwise that is like condemning the French to mass naivety and stupidity. Outside of France educated military men find him to be a deranged megalomaniac. Anyway as he deserved, he died a bitter broken man.
verziehen 2 months ago
@verziehen Ahem. No. 1, he never wanted war. He sent letter requesting for peace to Vienna and London on Christmas but always got a "No!". If you call him a butcher, then a lot of 'good' people are also butchers. Governments on both sides in World War One and World war Two plus the Vietnam war are butchers. Even Barack Obama would be a killer since lots of people have lost and are losing their lives in Iraq and and Afghanistan respectively. If he's so 'deranged', aren't all the other rulers of
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123 You are a very slow learner, but eventually you get there. I must say I thought you were a lost cause for a while there. Indeed all warmongers are butchers. I am beginning to realise that English is not your first language. Alas you slip up with difficult words like "good". Mahatir Mohamed the ex Prime Minister of Malaysia decribed Europe as "The Continent of Holocausts" which well sums up the machinations of the various megalomaniacs in Europe over hundreds of years.
verziehen 2 months ago
@verziehen It is my first language. FYI, we were a Brit colony before. And what do you mean that I'm a slow learner?
noelwym123 1 month ago
@verziehen Europe the same? George III, Tsar Alexander, Francis and company conquered other peoples but nobody complains about them. The Brit throne is also very bloodstained and the Brits respect them. Even if he decided to sit down and wait during the War of the Third Coalition, how sure are you that the Coalition will not go after him although he wanted peace. The Coalition hated him because he was a nuisance to their interests. He may not be perfect but he definitely ought to get respect.
noelwym123 2 months ago
Comment removed
noelwym123 2 months ago
@verziehen History is always written by the victors. A drop of dirty water in the sea won't make it unclean. Have you forgotten the great contributions Napoleon has made? For one, he united France which was being torn apart by Republicans and Royalists alike. He promoted republicanism in the French satellite states despite being an absolute monarch himself. He also contributed to the sciences like when he funded Volta's creation of the battery. Nap also liberated oppressed people like the Poles
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
"We must always remember that history is written by the winners."
That's the worst cliche line floating around used particularly by those who are too lazy to study history.
History is written by winners, losers, scholars, objective writers, biased writers, demented writers, liars, intellects, archivists, plagiarizers, cheap-imitators, geniuses, morons.
It's up to individuals to read topics thoroughly, INSTEAD of being too lazy and make excuses not to.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 Winston Churchill said that! Yes, I do partially agree with you which is why I read Horrible Histories along other history books because Terry Deary criticizes both parties. And if you hadn't noticed, most history books state that Britain is responsible for abolishing the slave trade, but like in the Barmy British Empire, everybody forgets to mention how much profit had been made in the first place, the suffering of the slaves and many people who died because of it. History is British
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
"Winston Churchill said that! "
Why do you think I care what Churchill quotes you use. He's not my God.
He also wanted to drop poison gas on Germany..... and in Iraq in the 1920s.
Nobody forgets Britain profited in the Slave trade they abolished being ones who were involved extensively in it???
No wonder you are whining - because of your 'History is British' mentality.
You act like French never wrote history books... nor anyone else.
You are a defeatist.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 I write my points of view, while you going around telling people that their points of view are wrong. I can speak what's in my mind and I don't need self-righteous prig to tell me what I should believe. Enough said.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
All I did was use facts proving your misinformation is wrong.
Can't you take factually based criticism?
I don't care what you would like to believe- I'm free to comment on your comments- just like observers are free to check any references and decide for themselves.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 Facts can prove more than one thing. I can take it, in fact, I like it when somebody corrects my facts. However, you seem more like trying to change my opinion than correcting my facts.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
Ohhhh - poor crybaby - so let's see; you making comments about Napoleon having no comparison to sHitler is somehow not you trying to change others opinions on Napoleon!???
LOL - grow up..... all I did was use facts to show errors in your opinions.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@noelwym123
Yes- he sent psycho-generals with a huge army to liberate Haitians from their fear of slavery- right?
slizzler1 2 months ago
@slizzler1 Queen Victoria sent troops to crush the Jamaicans during the 1865 Jamaican rebellion and Governor Eyre 'rewarded' the rebels.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
I've been on YT for years pointing out many British ugly history facts.
You seem to think I'm in a Britain vs. France contest.
Very small-minded reflex by you.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@verziehen Not to mention he gave religious freedom a chance by emancipating the Protestants and Jews, the latter being heavily criticized by the anti- Semitic kings of Europe. The exiled nobles could return home without fear that their heads will roll and abolished the unfair system of feudalism for which peasants were very thankful for. The Coalition hated him for threatening their position and interests and so, eventually destroyed him. But his legacy lingered on and caused a trouble later.
noelwym123 2 months ago
@noelwym123
The Napoleonic Code -> conscripting civilians from foreign nations who were under French occupation - to suffer in campaigns like the Russian fiasco in 1812.
Much like the Nazis enforcing slave labour from citizens in Nazi-occupied territories in WW2..
Napoleon forcing 14 and 15 year olds to fight in 1814 - much like sHitler barbarically called up similar aged German boys to fight in hellish urban warfare in Berlin in 1945.
----oh nooo- what comparisons to sHitler !!?
slizzler1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slizzler1 The Allies in World War I also used conscripting, then they too are guilty. The Britain in World War I executed many boys who got into the army.
noelwym123 2 months ago
18th july LOOOOOL, ...Maybe they'll make a better one next time i suppose it will be not very hard to improve this sh.....t.
krixx691 6 months ago
18th of JUNE,not July!
sandree7 6 months ago
3:00
There were NO British troops holding the farmhouse of La Haye Sainte. This clip is full of idiotic lies.
Wellington's Waterloo army comprised of roughly 35% of British troops at the most. The rest of the army was composed of Dutch, Belgians, Hanoverians, KGL, Nassauers, Brunswickers; Wellington's entire line was intermingled with the various contingents of troops - both on the Front lines and in the reserves.
slizzler1 6 months ago
@slizzler1 There were Germans in La Haye Sainte, who were fighting under the British Colours. Hence the term British against French. But your right BOTH armies used various troops from different countries. But this happens even today (British Gurkhas for example, they are not British but fight under the British Colours.)
Thunderous71 2 months ago
@Thunderous71
They were Germans is the point.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@Thunderous71
The clip-host is an idiot - he has no clue about who were British and not British amongst the Allied army- he keeps saying British for everything. He has no education about the battle. Swiss troops fighting with Grouchy were not 'French' - they were Swiss..... African colonial troops fighting under French command in WW2 were not French- they were Africans..... Gurkha units were not 'British' only commanded by British.
This is how myths and silliness about history facts spreads.
slizzler1 2 months ago
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL
That's not even a pround for anglo saxons anyway (boers war was on 1880, i was close admit it :) ) so let's say americans and english invented concentration camp *clap clap* and you swear napoleon of nazi the man who made this video is so a dumb -wait for it- ass
Thepatriot781 6 months ago
I think it's more fair to say that "english invented concentration camps and interned 250 000 people during the boer war, just like Hitler" than "napoleon = hitler". And waterloo isn't a british victory they would have been ass kicked without prussians.
Thepatriot781 6 months ago
@Thepatriot781 Why do you say 'English' when you mean British Empire - including Irish, Australians and South Africans? What you say British when you mean British and Allies? Why do you say 'been ass kicked' when you mean 'continued to hold the French at bay'?
flexdream 6 months ago
@flexdream
Just because english is the dominant ethnic group and rule scotish irish gaelics and people in the dominions. British king is the english one. You really think that if napoleon could have ruled europe he couldn't invade great britain ?
Thepatriot781 6 months ago
@Thepatriot781 I think you need to read up a bit more and are probably guilty of lazy thinking. The English don't rule the others. I think you made a mistake. Also, the British king is the English and Scottish one but I don't expect you to understand that either. Though the claim to the French throne has passed ;) And yes, I think Napoleon couldn't invade Britain and that was because of the Royal Navy.
flexdream 6 months ago
@flexdream
British though their navy was the most powerfull too when they were beaten by the french one renewed during american war of independance. And yes english ruled the other people, how could you explain wars in ireland, usa, the asking for dominion independance and the political ambition for scottish independance ?
Thepatriot781 6 months ago
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL mate it was a failure, there were thousands of casualties with very little ground gained, the battle of the Somme is in the books as one of the greatest military blunders of all time, and its all thanks to the british.
and the germans were already halted from the swiss alps to belgium
and just to let u know the aussies had been in Australia a good 100 years after the first settelers, but it doesnt matter wat generation they were cause they were all true blue aussie.
shiyboy4 7 months ago
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL do u realise tht wat u just said made absolutly no sense. however u did touch on another example of british stupidity, the Somme, a brit plan tht got thousands of men killed, cause of arrogant stupid planning, then u have Gallipoli a very important part of Australian history where the ANZAC's made a name of themselves, thousands of ANZAC's were killed and the plan failed because of bad British planing and arogance britain is an arogant nation. look at the current news for eg.
shiyboy4 7 months ago
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL there was also mass murder, there is a big story here in australia of 3 of our soldiers who were condemed by the brittish for the murder of civilians which they did under brittish orders, orders they could no disobey under the punishment of death, in the end they were executed and there names tarnished because of brittish arrogance and stupidity, and yes i have no love for the brittish, i am also of Irish decent and hold citezenship an the brits opressed my ancestors.
shiyboy4 7 months ago
@shiyboy4 If you are of Irish descent, you might like to read up about the 16th (Irish) Division and 36th (Ulster) Division. And find out why many Irish Republicans joined the British Army. Even today, Irish citizens serve as volunteers in the British Army. Don't rely on the movies to tell you about Australian (or Irish) history. And, check out where Wellington was from, and the city where there is a large obelisk to his memory.
flexdream 7 months ago
@flexdream have u heard of the Black and Tans? British Soldiers who were ex criminals sent to Ireland to give Britain a military presence, while they were in Ireland they did terrible things, they had a game where they would break into peoples houses take their babies, they would then get together and toss the baby into the air and see if they could catch it on the end of their bayonets.
shiyboy4 7 months ago
@shiyboy4 Yes I've heard of the Black and Tans, but I can't believe you believe that story about babies being bayonetted - how likely is that? If you really do believe that I'm wasting my time.
flexdream 6 months ago
@flexdream well considering they were all criminals hired out of prisons id say its very beleivable, hell if u dont beleive that then u probably dont beleive in the Nazi Genocide, or even Stalins Genocide. or 911, or Poll Pot, do u beleive the stories of pedophiles who kill and then rape children in that order, what about that american couple who raped and killed there own 8 month old baby. if those attrocities can happen then this one easily could dont be so ignorant u twat.
shiyboy4 6 months ago
@shiyboy4 You are a stupid bigot. You probably believe that in WW1 German soldiers tossed Belgian babies on their bayonets, and that in Gulf War 1 Iraqi soldiers took Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and let them die. Lean some manners and some facts, in any order you like.
flexdream 6 months ago
@shiyboy4
flexi has never heard of Cromwell's 'adventures' in Ireland apparently.
slizzler1 6 months ago
@slizzler1 I presume you're implying that I support the massacre of Drogheda? Do you have any evidence to support that claim, or is this just another 'assertion'? What makes you think I support it? I understand a bit about why it happened but I don't condone it.
flexdream 6 months ago
@flexdream
"I presume you're implying that I support the massacre of Drogheda"
You really are loopy.
How-- How--- do you come up with me implying this suggestion of a 'support' of a massacre?
Are you suffering from a persecution complex on top of everything?
slizzler1 6 months ago
@slizzler1 I have to try and guess what you mean because you seem unable to express yourself clearly. What do you mean by Cromwell's adventures? I dunno. You're not a bigot like shiboy but you do have trouble expressing yourself or reading what I write.
flexdream 6 months ago
@flexdream
zzzzzzzzzzz..... yawn.
Here's what a normal person does; they ask for clarification on something they are not sure about.
There you go; youtube has proved useful in teaching you something> on this occasion, commonsense.
slizzler1 6 months ago
@slizzler1 er .. didn't you recognise "What do you mean by Cromwell's adventures?" as a question? I guess not. You do seem to have difficulties in reading.
flexdream 6 months ago
@flexdream
hilarious- what do you think I meant by Cromwell's 'adventures'? Strolls through the countryside and sketching ancient ruins???
slizzler1 6 months ago
@slizzler1 I don't know what you mean because you're too stupid to say, even when I ask you directly. In fact you get emotional and irrational when I try and guess. I have no idea what you mean, and I have no reason now to think I'd be any better informed for knowing.
flexdream 6 months ago
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL well considering ur a brit ur probably not gonna admit it, but the brits were the worst people in history, they even had death camps in south africa during the boer war
shiyboy4 7 months ago
so Its gona act like Napolean had no chance... yeah my ass, he damn near won at Waterloo, and Britian stop acting like your the greatest military power in the world...you were almost crushed by Napolean, Joan of Arc sent you running, you couldnt hold the thirteen colonies, you all hid in subway tunnels in WW2, and lost control of India and South Africa, (and they didnt even fire bullets) just saying.
KingBeezyB1994 7 months ago
@KingBeezyB1994 Where to begin ... but let's just stick with India. Britain gave independence freely to India, many would even say it was done too quickly, and that led to the division of British India into India and Pakistan. Apart from the Indian Mutiny in 1857, there was no rebellion against British rule in India, and even then many, if not most, Indian troops remained loyal. During both World Wars Indian troops fought for the British, and Nepalese Gurkhas still serve in the British Army.
flexdream 7 months ago
@flexdream
"Britain gave independence freely to India, many would even say it was done too quickly"
Amazing.... colonies got fed up with Britain after WW2 being oppressive on racial/ cultural lines. Britain lacked the resources to maintain their former crushing control any longer..... Remember the Amritsar massacre of 1919- which even Churchill denounced as 'uncivilized'.
Britain was not benevolent in 'free-ing' colonies . They finally reached the point where they had no choice but to yield
slizzler1 6 months ago
@slizzler1 You misread me, I wrote 'too quickly', not 'too soon'. The understandable rush to independence led to violent partition between India and Pakistan, with an estimated 200 000 to 1 million deaths. Even the lower figure is awful.
After WW2 the British socialist government was very keen to give India independence. The main architect of Indian independence, Mahatma Gandhi, was ardently non-violent, and force had very little to do with the struggle for Indian independence.
flexdream 6 months ago
@flexdream
Britain was not keen at all. What planet are you from to suggest that in the face of obvious contrary truths???
Are you aware that in WW2 Gandhi was contemplating whether or not to support Japan???
Post independence partition violence related to fkd up rebordering of maps - not 'independence'.
slizzler1 6 months ago
@slizzler1 You're incoherent and not making sense now. Unspecified assertions are not 'truths'. What relevance is it if Gandhi considered supporting Japan? Are you saying that independence did not create partition?
flexdream 6 months ago
@flexdream
I'm saying you are delusional in every respect of the word regarding history of repressed colonies in Imperial Empires. No clue at all. But that's your choice of viewing without objectivity, and historical accuracy> Just like this clip is full of idiot error-filled crap with its 'British this- British that' BS as if only the British fought Napoleon.
slizzler1 6 months ago
@slizzler1 When you make something up and can't substantiate it, it doesn't become true when you write it down. At least we are both against animal cruelty :)
flexdream 6 months ago
@flexdream
If you weren't so narcissistic you'd have the wisdom and humility to read a book and learn facts rather than grandstand on pompous fantasy reworking of historical events.
But go ahead- don't do any research. You'll meet others later in life who will laugh at your gibberish.
slizzler1 6 months ago
@slizzler1 That's the best you can come up with? I'm done here.
flexdream 6 months ago
@KingBeezyB1994 The Thirteen Colonies. This was very much a civil war. The colonists were divided, that's why we now have Canada distinct from the US. Some in Britain supported the Revolutionaries, and the Revolutionaries believed they were heirs of freedoms arising from their British heritage. The British crown would probably have defeated the rebels if it had not been for French intervention. Ironically, that was was payback by France which turned to blowback in 1789.
flexdream 7 months ago
@KingBeezyB1994 And finally, yes it was Wellington himself, who said " It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life". Not surprising after being outnumbered on the battlefield by Napoleon and holding on succesfully with the Allied army until the Prussians arrived. Thankfully Waterloo marked an end to a period of troubled and bloody warfare in Europe.
flexdream 7 months ago
"Britain enjoyed peace for the next hundred years." ...what?
SChoolsFaOl 7 months ago
Why do some soldiers where skirts and some dont
biirraann 7 months ago
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP THIS DOCUMENTARY IS! When are the British going to quit lying about Napoleon? Throughout this entire abortion of a documentary, they keep stating that the army under Wellington is British! Only a 3rd were British! The next thing they do is compare Napoleon to Hitler! How stupid is that! Napoleon was trying to defend France from British bank-rolled coalitions to force the Monarchy back on the French People! I'm not saying he was a saint but neither were the Brits!
rylege 7 months ago
@rylege Wars fought in the name of a King, or Queen, are rarely noble. Personally, I wouldn't care if Britain became a Republic - we have the "greatest" royalty in the world, in terms of fame and popularity, but we don't really need it.. they're just an example of class - royalty and us common folk. As for the Brits not being Saints - the Napoleonic Wars are far too complex to sum up in a few words. But Wellington was a great man, regardless of who or what he fought for, he was a fine general.
MarcusBritish 7 months ago
@MarcusBritish Absolutely far too complex! And far too over Nationalized still to this day. This documentary shows that Britain still has not shed it's Victorian era Anti-Bonaparte propaganda. It's time to set the history straight for once. And it's not just Britain, the Russians capitalized on this as well.
rylege 7 months ago
@rylege Shut up you american pig!!
jayc342009 7 months ago
@jayc342009 Are you attempting a joke or are you really that upset about what I said that you felt the need to call me a pig?
rylege 7 months ago
Comment removed
jayc342009 7 months ago
crap
yinghan307 8 months ago
This video clearly supports the british, and I happen to know tons of stuff about Waterloo, I can say over 80% of this videos content, is not correct.
Napoleon was also outnumbered by more than twice his numbers.
hherlevdk 8 months ago
@hherlevdk He was not outnumbered 2:1. And that is only partially true for when the British and Prussian armies combined (which was about halfway through the battle itself). The combined allied forces outnumbered the French, but only when combined. This video is on the whole accurate, though is of course pretty biased in favour of the British (but is also a British production, so would be undoubtably anyway).
TRUExSIGHTS 8 months ago
@z1Predatorian1zOwnz my point in saying that america was fighting 1v1 is due to the fact that in the memoral battles that defeated teh japanese it was american vs japan, amercia decimated the japanese fleet, teh austrialian fleets were being beaten and most of the british fleet was deystroyed. china never launched a succseful offensive untill teh US had caused japan to divert most of thier forces to fighting them. if america had not joined the war axis prob woulda won, Opr. torch was
animewarrior3 8 months ago
lead by an american gen as well. and once we were in italy the army was around 50% american troops if not more.
animewarrior3 8 months ago
Too many whining arseholes and "know it alls" here who have clearly never read up on the battle and understood it - especially several bloody American's who wouldn't understand unbiased historical research if it shit in their face - too busy rewriting their own history, and trying to find Europe on a map to know any better.
This vid is lacking a LOT of key details and is inaccurate at times. It is too pro-British, and suits low-grade US education level morons in its basic approach to the event.
MarcusBritish 8 months ago
@MarcusBritish I'm an American and I happen to agree with you! Most Americans are ignorant. This is a terrible documentary, from comparing Napoleone to Hitler to never mentioning the other nationalities under Wellingtons command. Most American might not even know that though we were not officially allied with Napoleon we certainly helped him with trade, ship-building. There were also many in the Governement to include Jefferson who whispered that Europe would be better if Napoleon succeeded.
rylege 7 months ago
@rylege And perhaps they were right.. I don't think Britain would ever have bowed down to a French Emperor, but they may have welcomed a Republican Britain, in time. We rely too much on royalty, and I find Royalists an unusual breed of hypocrites - they favour a Royal Family on one hand, and curse taxes, national debts, foreign wars on the other. They're either Tories or idiots.
MarcusBritish 7 months ago
@MarcusBritish With the Bourbons the British knew precisely what they were dealing with, but not Napoleone. He was not a part of the Members only club, and did not adhere to the rules established for centuries and was far too talented politically and militarily. They were not going to tolerate that next door. I suppose after 1805 and the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire at the hands of Napoleone, they really got nervous.
rylege 7 months ago
A waste of 5 minutes of my life, 18th July???? good grief!
52SIRJOHN 8 months ago