hitler was a great man but he was definately NOT a military genius, he never even took command of an army or designed plans. napoleon won almost every major battle he was present in (except in Aspern essling, in which he was heavily outnumbered by the austrians) Thats why after the ceasefire treaty the allies planned to engage the french marshals and beat them one by one and avoid engaging with napoleon directly
The reason why napoleon is often seen in a bad light was because France had Europe's most liberal democracy in theory under the First republic. However Democracy failed under the jacobin Terror and napoleon is often blamed for not carrying on the Revolution yet he was much more liberal than many of the autocratic monarchs of Europe.
@zenoist2 Wellington was defeated when the Prussians arrived. British weren't even 25% of the allied force at Waterloo. So sad Brits never had such a mighty general as Napoleon.
@MaxRWF Lol, you are a joke. Britain made up 50% of the allied forces at Waterloo. They were lead by a British general, Wellington, who successfully held Napoleon off the hill for the duration of the fight until Blucher arrived. You need to get over the fact we beat you. You can try to rewrite history and say Britain had nothing to do with it, but you only look like a spasticated cunt.
Brits never had such mighty generals? Um, Duke of Malborough? Undefeated.
@TheLiberalKnight You're the joke. Prussians made up 50% of the allied force ; Brits 25% (counting the Irish) ; and the rest made up of Dutch, Belgians, Hanovrians, Brunswickers... Marlborough ? Like every other British generals, he fought France to the last drop of Prussian and Austrian blood... Saying that Britain won Waterloo alone is like saying Belgium won WWI by itself : ridiculous. Did Britain ever conquered a single civilised nation ? Nope. That tells a lot... lol
@MaxRWF So you're saying India is not a civilized country. Not only are you a historically illiterate nationalist, but you are also racist.
Malborough utterly destroyed France every time he engaged in battle with her. Undefeated.
Sorry, you can talk your bullshit all day- but who won Waterloo? Britain. Who won the 7 years war? Britain. Who won the Napoleonic wars? Britain. Who created the largest empire in history, covering 26% of the planet? Britain.
@TheLiberalKnight India didn't even exist in the 18th century, it was made of plenty feudal states which were no match for European tactics and weaponry. Building a vast colonial empire was just a side job for France, while slaughtering primitive tribesmen is the only act of "bravery" that Brits did by themselves. It's so convenient for Brits to fight only with allies ; if they win, they can pretend that "they" won against a powerfull ennemy. When they fail, they still can blame their allies...
@MaxRWF Lol, you just make up so much bullshit because you are extremely sore about the fact that FRANCE WAS BEATEN and was always one step behind Britain for the next century!
You are jealous, I see.
England is not a warrior nation. We are natural sailors, not warriors. The fact that we beat France, a fine warrior nation, on more than one occasion, shows skill. You are jealous because our empire enlightened the world.
@TheLiberalKnight Your "enlightened" empire (lol) invented the first modern ethnic cleansing (Great upheaval), genocide (an Gorta Mór) and concentration camps (Boer Wars). France brought the civil code, the metric system, the rights of men to the world. You're insulting, I'm just giving facts. You're jealous, not me. You're the one who insult France in a video about France. I've never been on a British video to insult British people...
@MaxRWF People will look back at the British empire, and see it was the empire that industrialized the world, created trains, steam engings, dreadnought battleships, along with art, music and rich culture.
I will not criticize France. I admire France greatly.
I notice you only mentioned British acts of cruelty towards France. Need I remind you of the sheer French brutality towards your colonies? You gave the British a great reputation of being liberal and kind.
Britain not warriors? Expansion means war and Britain expanded..a lot, crushing everything in their ways..just like France, the Romans and any nation who's borders expand out of their own. Britain like France were always in wars around the globe. Also, you speak like Britain beat France singlehandedly...apart from the seas they could never have beaten France in Europe...ever.
@Robineux99 Be careful what you wish for. As a Canadian, surely you're happy that Britain went around colonising?
People do not understand the British empire. It was based on trade and expanded mostly by private trading companies and diplomacy rather than the national elected government.
Britain beat France on mainland Europe several times... however I don't dispute the French army is better than the British one.
@TheSmallfire66 Yes, the French army was superior to the British army. Britain was the greatest maritime power on earth. Her navy was near invinsible. Britain spent nearly all of her military budget on the navy. The British army was always intended to be small but professional. The French had the opposite tactic, a massive army but a lacklusture navy.
@AKADevious C'est bien vrai, dans ce cas la on pourrai dire que tout les Grands de l'Histoire sont des assassins, d'Alexandre le Grand à Napoléon en passant par Jules César et des centaines d'autres, la guerre et la violence sont ancrée dans les gênes de l'Homme tout autant que l'amour et la passion...
@turner2123 Yeah,I know that Austerlitz is so great battle.Everybody agree on that.I like battle of Jenna because french were so outnumbered by the Prussians(more than Austerlitz) and Davout crushed them.Its maybe his masterpiece,not Napoleons.Battle of Jenna and Auerstadt are the same battle,dont forget that.
@svensksoldat91 It's a mini series of 4 episodes of 1 hour 30 minutes each. This series is simply called "Napoleon. " With as main actor Christian Clavier and director of this series is Yves Simoneau
Napoleon granted religious freedom to the Jews, Hitler killed them. Napoleon felt his Civil Code was his greatest work, Hitler felt cleansing the world of "sub-races" was his greatest work. Napoleon on his own was a military genius; Hitler was not. Napoleon loved his family, Hitler despised his. Napoleon inherited France's wars, Hitler initiated his wars.
I am not saying Napoleon was a Saint. Far from it. But, Hitler was much worse then Napoleon.
@JoeHooker11 Exactly. Napoleon probably loved his family a little too much lol when he put many of them on the throne. Although Louis did a good job as king of Holland.
@thejohn95 Yeah, how have they been called again? The Imperial millstones? Louis was okay, Joseph did okay until he was given Spain, then, he just couldn't get a handle on the situation, but the rest was bumbling fools. Especially his sisters.
@JoeHooker11 compared to hitler napoleon was a saint, as per all reasons mentioned above, L'empereur was quite possibly the best thing to happen to the West.
@JoeHooker11 According to new research, probably Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler. Google "The French Fuhrer: Genocidal Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler" I don't know, but evidence supports this claim, although I must agree that Napoleon left us much more than death than Hitler did: His code, his institutions, his military genius. Hitler had none of the mentioned.
@gnossticc "I must agree that Napoleon left us much more than death than Hitler did:" I strongly disagree. Hitler killed far more people than Napoleon ever did.
Napoleon killed very few people by his own hand. He never ordered any mass executions of civilians.
@jeffkodiac Not at all. Go to wikipedia, wait a minute, wait a minute! Many people say that Wiki ain't a reliable source, but hey! The bibliography in the botton is written by serious historians. Napoleon, the greatest conqueror since Cæsar and Alexander also made big mistakes due to his blind ambition. He thought he was a God! And he was, but a human god.
I am not saying that Napoleon was only doing good things of course he made bad things but the comparison with Hitler is absurd . For example under Napoleon the jews had rights that had nevr known before .
@JoeHooker11 Well, Napoleon didn't declare war on anyone. All the other nations declared war on him since he was a nobody who rose to be the Master of Europe.
@JoeHooker11 Couldnt have put it better myself and i'm british Napoleon is a massive hero of mine. Those bashing Britain during those wars. We had the most professional army in the world it was small so always thats a disadvantage we needed other forces to bulk ours up france had a good core army but the rest were poor conscripts and they never fought as well as pros but it was the UK that funded every single coalition. The UK also started the industrial revolution rance the civil revolution.
@JoeHooker11 you just hitler because some historians say some bad things about him. HItler was a better Speaker and more eloquent than Napolean, hitler did not despise his family he actually cared for his mother when she was sick, Hitler fought WW1 a war much more dangerous and diffucult than most of Napoleans wars. Hitler conquered more land than Napolean. The holocaust is overexagerated and hitler was great at many other things that Napolean wasnt.
"Hitler conquered more land than Napolean." What you say is so ridiculous , do you know that the German was motorized in WW2 and not the French army in the Napoleonic wars . Napoleon was a military genius he has won dozens of battles by himself . Does not compare the military greatness Napoleon with Hitler, not compare the incomparable.
@jeffkodiac ok , you can say Napolean was a military genius, but her is what true. Hitler lived in a time that warfare was harder than when Napoleans wars. There was machine guns during his time period, there werent any during Napoleon. Germans were fighting a whole bunche of nations. Nazi Germany at its peak has more land conquered and more satellite states Napoleon had during his time period . Napoleon was exiled from his land and lost the his last battle against Wellington.
"Germans were fighting a whole bunche of nations" Look at the war of the first coalition the French was alone against the whole Europe . "that warfare was harder than when Napoleans wars" not really the army of this time fight with baionette and the Grande Armée was able to walk 60 kilometer per day .Remember that hitler was defeated in 5 years when in Napoleonic wars the French fighting during 23 years and Hitler lost the last battle too .
@jeffkodiac ya but hitler had World wars, anyways Napoleon may have been a great army commander and a historical figure. Im not arguing that he was a bad leader or fighter or whatever you want to call it, Hitler was good at his own affairs, like reunifying germany, making it the strongest country during his regime, pushing his army through most of europe and russia, Napoleon was also good at his own stuff too, im not going to go into it, however in the end, you cant really disregard. type limit
Don't you think that at the time it's of Napoleon it's world war too ? The French revolution wars and Napoleonic wars was wars between the most powerful nations of the world of this time .What I can say about Hitler is that he was a very great orator .
Napoleon detached his whole army from the coast of the channel to south germany in a few weeks in 1805. And that only with horses and boots.
Imagine todays couch-potatoes or even todays mechanised soldiers marching that distance in that time. I always think about how different we are living today compared to those people 200 years ago. Today, our biggest problems is if we can grab cheap gasoline for our car.
it were not the "wars of France" BUT the wars of the calcified & reactionnary Europe of kings united who attacked France between 1789 & 1815 to destroy the young Republic & the ideas of the Revolution which represented a big danger for the shameful privileges of the old aristocracy in front of the new ideas & the sovereign peoples
As you see young American, the truth is very different as your old deceptive anglo-saxon vision as always about the History of France...
If anybody wants to see a real Napoleonic battle, watch 'War and Peace' - the most expensive movie in history and over 100,000 real (not cloned) men on the screen.
Itsnot 100% Napoleon fault that most major monarchy country in Europe were against France A great deal happened before he came to Power his first assignement as a General was against Austria in an ongoing war who wanted to restore French monarchy and War was part of europe for the last 100 years. The only main difference was the rest of Europe didnt want the idea of the french revolution to spread to Europe. In a sense it worked for a while but then France Republic was savec by the napoleon era
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh no...please don´t talk about Hitler! Hitler wasn´t born at this time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Napoleon was the Terror in Person his Soldires was flesh to burn for the anymies. His own soldier love him sure, but for he their was gun-food for his own ideas, he was wasting all the blood in the wars only for his pleasure to unit Europe. nothing against Jews-faith...but Jews was pursue in all centurys! O.k most in the Nazi-Regime thats clear...but earlyer in all centurys,too.
Napoleon was hardly a terror. He was a genius in my eyes. As was Hitler. now before you QQ about the jews dying etc just listen to why I think that. He essentially hypnotised the Reich hell even the British Royals fell under his spell. Politically he was a genius. As was Napoleon equal to his prowess on the battlefield.
@akesbaltine sorry genius...I´m German and I can´t see that! Because Germans has the burden of the third Reich. You said British Royals fell under his spell... okay... but he was stupid and wrote it all down in his "Mein Kampf!" All his stupidness he wrote down! He said Arians were tall, blond, blue eyed German...he was small, dark, brown eyed Austrian!
@JavertGermany : Austrians are German speakers, but under the Habsburgs they developed a multi-ethnic empire that disgusted Hitler who dreamed of a "pure" German nation. In Vienna in his youth there were Jews, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Slovenians, Croatians, Italians, etc. Vienna was a cultural capital thanks to the Habsburgs: Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, Mahler, Klimt, Freud, etc. Actually, it should be the capital of Europe, as it is in the center of north and south, east and west.
Yes he gots the Mass of people who wanted to be lead. Right! Thats because of Napoleon he downed the German National Thoughts in thise time. A thought of beeing a big Country. In thise times we was little states of Braunschweig, Westfalen and so on. A thought of beeing Germany....
@akesbaltine The British royals were NOT under Hitler's spell. The Duke (ex-King Edward VIII) and Duchess of Windsor alone were, and that annoyed the royal family a great deal. The Duke made a fool of himself fawning over Hitler and the Nazis.
er.. i think the difference was that the nazis made the persecution of the jews a matter of the state, and literally planned on the annihilation of an entire race. this was NOT like the pogroms in the medieval period. please read up on the definition of genocide
Is it incorrect? I am Napoleonic War historian buff, and am endeavoring to procure historical accurate films that are precise in minute details. May I ask for your assistance? You appear most learned and informed.
if the prussians would have stormed the hill the night before when the french deployed they would have driven napoleons forces into jena where they could not retreat and massacre his army. but their generals were to old and outdated, thankfully they reformed after this defeat.
Yes, when the austrians and prussians knew Napoleon was on his way to fight them, they saw apocalypse coming to them. Thats what is apocalyptic in Napoleon.
Absolutely right. Napoleon was a general first and a tyrant second; Hitler was a demagogue and a cult of personality. Both made the mistake of invading Russia. Hitler had even less of an excuse since he had a pact with Stalin, he had Stalin bedeviled and fooled and could dominat in any way politically, and he was opening up another front (Germany was in N. Africa, had yet to finish off Britain either by air nor sea). However, Nap was fighting in Spain in 1812.
A prominent historian, David Chandler, once said if you compares Hitler to Napoleon; nothing could be more degrading to the latter and more flattering to the former.
Nap had his bad points - but in most of his wars he was not the agressors. He was simply better than his opponents.
Napoléon in Venice burned symbolically the doors of the Jewish ghetto and gave freedom to the Jews. Through his brother, he put an end to the spanish Inquisition. In Germany, he abolished serfdom where it still existed. He had his darkside (slavery in the Caribbean ), nevertheless his army brought modernity wherever it went.
Also, in comparison of Hitler to Napoleon Hitler's own generals tried to kill after Normandy invasions (Valkyrie anyone?). There were more than a few non SS German soldiers who did not care much or hated Hitler. Napoleon's troops would have run through a wall of spikes for him. Compare Napoleon more to Julius Ceasar who was beloved by their troops in a meglamaniacal way for sure. But one has to respect such a military genious who received so much praise.
Hitlers fault Germany lost the War he was a great political leader but He didnt know shit about War. But Napoleon where a great War general. So they cant be compared your right. Stalin was the same as hitler just a great leader but not good at Wars or politics.. Wonder how the world would look like if Germany would have won the War it was 1 or 2 things that made them loose it first all the tanks sent to Russia and second why start war against russia? =P
Invading Russia or starting a European war is not enough to make a serious comparison. Many rulers invaded Russia: Poles, Swedes, Turks, French and British in the 1850s, Wilhelm IInd in 1914 It would be silly to compare them. Or you should add Wilhelm IInd of Germany, Charles XII of Suede, etc.
People who compare Napoleon with Hitler usually do so since these two names are the only ones they know in history.
@nrjelley, in this case, you can compare them with many other people too ! Not enough for linking them.
Napoleon never cared much about races at one point he considered making his career in the Ottoman army. He was glad to have soldiers from all nations and races in his Grande Armee - muslims, blacks, Jews, etc. He was definitely a product of the Enlightenment - which Hitler wanted to bury.
@TheArtofWar1789 well, you say that, but It was due to the French Naval blockade of our American ports that cost us the rebellion (because that's what it was), not the 'American resisitance'. If the French hadn't have done so, we would have crushed the rebelion pretty easily. Never mind, we moved onto a even more prosperous country......India!
@nrjelley Idd if the French did not helped the Americans, you guys could easily crushed those "peasants". The only thing I find positive about the invasion of India is that you
"Or you should add Wilhelm IInd of Germany, Charles XII of Suede, etc."
No, he shouldn't. It was Russia which invaded swedish held territories in 1700 and Germany in 1914 respectively, not the other way round.
"People who compare Napoleon with Hitler usually do so since these two names are the only ones they know in history."
Not too far fetched, actually. Monsieur l'Empereur committed a genocide too. Under his supervision an estimated million of black haitians werde murdered.
Correction: A hundredthousand. It has also been established that the french utilized the cargo holds of their ships as improvised gas chambers. See Claude Ribbe: "Le Crime de Napoléon". Besides plunging the whole of Europe in series of davastating wars is bad enough anyway. Fuck L'empereur!
@Thespides, I know Claude Ribbes' book: It is not serious history, rather a propaganda-fiction novel disguised as history. The only time, around 1800, when the French seriously considered gassing people was in Britanny and Vendee, against the royalists and catholics. They finally decided than drowning them by hundreds was more expedient.
It is widely generally accepted that Monsieur Napoleon wanted the rebellious blacks of haiti to be exterminated and replaced by more docile african slaves and that he acted accordingly. The only really controversial thing about Ribbes' book is the gas chambers. No offense meant, but a genocide is still a genocide, gas chambers or not. As for Charles XII, in a way he certainly was a conqueror. Yet he merely tried to conquer in order to defend the loot of his precursors.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no friend of swedish imperialism, I'm glad their evil empire went down. But the fact remains that Peter I. (a conqueror too, and much more suited as a role model for Napoleon btw) was (amongst others) the agressor. The swedish invasion was - to quote you again - only a consequence of a russian invasion. Just as the german "invasion" of Russian in WWI was.
@Thespides, Napoleon wanted all rebels to be exterminated, whether they were blacks of Haiti, white Vendéens, Catholic Italians, or Spanish guerillas. Just as he praised obedient soldiers and citizens, whatever their color and religion.
@Thespides Good - though, it is not difficult to agree on te fact that he was a dictator ! It was an interesting paradox of that tragic period, that two of the most radical revolutionary generals of the 1790s, Bonaparte and Bernadotte, became later respectively "emperor of the French" and king of Suede.
@Thespides, the allegation that Napoleon used poison gas chambers is absurd. That was a German invention in WW I, the author Ribbes is an idiot just like Alan Schom. Napoleon was nothing compared to Hitler, he was no genocidal killer, I can assure you.
Are you kidding? Chemical agents, both liquid and gaseous, have been applied in warfare since antiquity. Modern use of industrally produced poison gas was already proposed by the british and the americans by the mid 19th century. As for WWI... The first to use it then were ironically the french, first using teargas in 1914.
"is absurd"
The way Ribbe describes it, it was utterly feasible.
Killing a 100K civillians for the sake of it is certainly a genocide. The means by which this is achieved doesn't matter, I've said it already. I'll certainly agree on the lesser scale of it though.
@Thespides, do you know the definition of genocide? It is the deliberate extermination of a group of people or a tribe. Take the Rwanda civil war for example, Tutsi and Hutu mercilessly slaughtering each other.
then every war is a genocide: american and english bombing raids killed far more than 100 000 citizens in france, germany and other parts of europe. They did the same with japans. So roosevelt is a genocidal killer ? washington is a genocidal killer for having wiped out the amerindian.
All wars lead to the killing of citizen.
A genocide is the complete extermiantion of a particular type of people not just just killing people.
@Thespides, In 1914 Germany declared war against Russia. That Russia invaded Eastern Prussia was only a consequence, just as Germany invaded Russia subsequently. And you can't deny that Charles XII of Suede was a great conqueror, a model for Napoleon a century later.
No matter how you slice it: It were russian troops which crossed the russo-german border first, thus invading germany. Besides, that germann declaration of war was preceded by a russian mobilisation. Which was a calculated move to pressure the germans into either declaring war or put themselves at a serious advantage by passively waiting until the russian army had deployed in full strength. Said declaration of war was - to put it your way - only a consequence.
@Fridomfry True as this may be, I think the reason compare Hitler and Napoleon so much is because of the fact that they are 2 of the most dynamic characters in history. That's the only explanation I can come up with.
@Fridomfry Actually Napoleon and Hitler do have some similarities. I think they both were military geniuses. YES I KNOW Hitler may have killed millions, but what about Hiroshima or Nagazaki? Hitler was actually demented, but throughout history, many thoudsands, or even millions have been massacred at one time, still, noone has been so defamed. Dont forget that the Napoleonic wars costed at least 12 millon lives. An empire is built only on the sacrifice of many men and the talent of a few.
@Djarzel Wow yes man, from you comment, which of course reflected your great understanding of the world history, i can finally see that your arguments are much more solid than mine, and that debating with you is futile. Thank you for teaching me such a great lesson.
Calling Napoleon genius is like calling jack the ripper an artist. He was god at killing masses of people. Saying that Austerlirz and Jena were mastepieces isnt right, becuse they were bloodbaths. Killing one man makes you an murderer, killing thousands a genius of warfare. It shouldnt be so much epicnes in war, and we shouldnt admire those who lead it.Thats just keeping war acceptable in society. People who were in war know that, for those who werent i wish that they dont learn it same way...
@antun88 personally. I respect napoleon in a general way. I think his first campians during the revolution and after in Italy were just and neccesary. But when he becomes the empereror everything changes. Napoleon turns his army towards a bloody offensive that would last for more than ten years and kill at least 2 million. I am always in awe at the genius of generals such as Napoleon, but it always becomes a filthy game that takes desperate fights to end it. enough said....
@m1grand70 Well before Napoleonic wars, Europe had been ruled by arrogant royal elite who was even family raleted. Napoleon had given him self a mission to end their rule over Europe. Becoming an Emperor, he wasnt trying to become one of them, its rather an atempt to strengthen his power against enemies in state. View of a bloodthirsty, egoistic, Emperor Napoelon is distorted, because winers write history. Actually he faught agaist their horrific world order, but failed in Russia... other view
To those who compare Napoleon with Hitler: Sure Napoleon was a rough warlord, and became a dictator. Yet he was also a son of the Enlightenment: He had been educated as an officer-engineer; he believed in reason and science; he didn't care about races and religions; he was a good manager and law maker in peacetime (he did not start a single war until 1808).
The very contrary of Hitler's basic background and beliefs.
Yes people who compare the two are often incredibly stupid. Also one thing you did not mention he did not plan and commit genocide and he actually treated jews good
preatty much look at how similair the 2 empires are napoleon tried to rule europe so did hitler, a huge war was fought to bring napoleon down, and ww2 wuz fought to bring down hitler! scary how similair the 2 dictators were
You're an idiot if you actually believe that. They are 2 very different people with very different ideas. For one Napoleon didn't promote mass genocide. He was also responsible for the Napoleonic code which influenced almost all of Europe and most of western civilization as we know it today.
Think a bit before you decide to make such an utterly retarded comment.
ok first of all i was just comparing them, yes i agree that napoleon wasnt promoting mass genocide, but he was still trying to rule all of Europe and egypt! yes napoleon wasnt a total asshole unlike hitler but he still brought many families pain and suffering! both Armies got f'd up in russia, and both armies sufferd incredibly. dont just look at the men themselves look at their military histories! its scary how similiar they were
You could say that, however, Napoleon wasn't the genocidal megalomaniac as Hitler was. One merely tried to apply a European Union-esqe state in the 19th century. The latter, Hitler, wanted to rule by force, let alone murdered 18 million innocents.
Yeah most leaders can not be compated to Hitler except Stalin his evil twin. Napoleon was no Hitler. One can argue he was a defender of French independence from aristocratic rule; whether it was by their own king or some other European king. Then his vision became a united European union under his rule..the empire or successor to European empires of the past (Holy Roman, Charlemagne, Roman etc.). Did he go too far! yes his ego did get in his way like many other leaders.
Napoleon was no Hitler. An aggressor yes but not mad killer of innocent civilians. And as a military commander Hitler was nothing compared to Napoleon. Rummel was the real brilliant tactician for the Germans. Napoleon made mistakes and after 125 years to review them Hitler repeated them and more so. Napoleon>>>>Hitler as military leader without question.
rommel greater than guderian or manstein? It is something I know little about and so I ask this question without challenge to your assessement. What do you think of this?
Agreed. And embarassingly so many of it is my own fellow Americans. It is mainly fringe extremist right wingers of the bad sort. And, I consider myself moderately conservative voting Libertarian or Independent in elections. So screw politics more about ignorance. I don't agree with all French politics but come one folks lay off. History proves that things work better in the world when USA and France are on the same side and not bickering with one another.
hitler was a great man but he was definately NOT a military genius, he never even took command of an army or designed plans. napoleon won almost every major battle he was present in (except in Aspern essling, in which he was heavily outnumbered by the austrians) Thats why after the ceasefire treaty the allies planned to engage the french marshals and beat them one by one and avoid engaging with napoleon directly
dividednation44 6 days ago
that is kinda unrealistic.
timeline of this battle. prussians get ready to fire.
french,and prussian artillery fire. franch attack prussians run. it definitely went longer than that
Prussia75 3 weeks ago
@Sokra01 Thats why we have Marines.Just in case we have to.
Marinesofairsoft1121 3 weeks ago
Thats not looking like jena. i live near jena and in the movie it looks like eastrussia
TheHobelmeister 1 month ago
what movie is this from? i want to see the whole film.
armandorivas82 2 months ago
@armandorivas82
It´s from the Napoleon TV-series from 2005 with Christian Clavier.
But I can tell you, the serie is not very good.
Clavier as Napoleon and the low budget battle scenes are not very believable.
Sokra01 1 month ago
yeahhhh Jena its my town...im from Jena xDDDD
xxxSlatexxx 3 months ago
guys, im english and napoleon bonaparte the 1st is on my people who inspire me list on facebook. the end
wigster600 3 months ago 12
@wigster600
and ? That proves what?
cumbas 1 month ago
"Zuruck !" : Ahahahahaha !
LaFayette2512 5 months ago
Any one who compares Napoleon to Hitler could not be more degrading to N and more flattering H. One was a military genius, the other was a wannabe
TalonMercenary 5 months ago
@TalonMercenary
Not only that. N gave modern laws to the world, H only killed millions.
Sokra01 1 month ago
Comment removed
Villeroi8 7 months ago
Vive la France, vive l'Empereur !!
Yann022 7 months ago
The reason why napoleon is often seen in a bad light was because France had Europe's most liberal democracy in theory under the First republic. However Democracy failed under the jacobin Terror and napoleon is often blamed for not carrying on the Revolution yet he was much more liberal than many of the autocratic monarchs of Europe.
MrGidderz 7 months ago
is this scene deleted or so in the dvd...????
Have the napoleon series but i can't seem to remember this scene....
eyederrick 8 months ago
droles de batailles quand meme à cette époque : de la musique à volonté , et une gonzesse par dessus le marcher lol
homoKaliptus 8 months ago
russia 1812 waterloo 1815. thats how good napoleon was and what hes remebered for.
zenoist2 8 months ago
@zenoist2 You mean Austerlitz, Jena, Essling, Eylau, battle of the piramids, and so on ??
eyederrick 8 months ago
@zenoist2 Wellington was defeated when the Prussians arrived. British weren't even 25% of the allied force at Waterloo. So sad Brits never had such a mighty general as Napoleon.
MaxRWF 5 months ago
@MaxRWF Lol, you are a joke. Britain made up 50% of the allied forces at Waterloo. They were lead by a British general, Wellington, who successfully held Napoleon off the hill for the duration of the fight until Blucher arrived. You need to get over the fact we beat you. You can try to rewrite history and say Britain had nothing to do with it, but you only look like a spasticated cunt.
Brits never had such mighty generals? Um, Duke of Malborough? Undefeated.
TheLiberalKnight 5 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight You're the joke. Prussians made up 50% of the allied force ; Brits 25% (counting the Irish) ; and the rest made up of Dutch, Belgians, Hanovrians, Brunswickers... Marlborough ? Like every other British generals, he fought France to the last drop of Prussian and Austrian blood... Saying that Britain won Waterloo alone is like saying Belgium won WWI by itself : ridiculous. Did Britain ever conquered a single civilised nation ? Nope. That tells a lot... lol
MaxRWF 5 months ago
@MaxRWF So you're saying India is not a civilized country. Not only are you a historically illiterate nationalist, but you are also racist.
Malborough utterly destroyed France every time he engaged in battle with her. Undefeated.
Sorry, you can talk your bullshit all day- but who won Waterloo? Britain. Who won the 7 years war? Britain. Who won the Napoleonic wars? Britain. Who created the largest empire in history, covering 26% of the planet? Britain.
TheLiberalKnight 5 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight India didn't even exist in the 18th century, it was made of plenty feudal states which were no match for European tactics and weaponry. Building a vast colonial empire was just a side job for France, while slaughtering primitive tribesmen is the only act of "bravery" that Brits did by themselves. It's so convenient for Brits to fight only with allies ; if they win, they can pretend that "they" won against a powerfull ennemy. When they fail, they still can blame their allies...
MaxRWF 5 months ago
@MaxRWF Lol, you just make up so much bullshit because you are extremely sore about the fact that FRANCE WAS BEATEN and was always one step behind Britain for the next century!
You are jealous, I see.
England is not a warrior nation. We are natural sailors, not warriors. The fact that we beat France, a fine warrior nation, on more than one occasion, shows skill. You are jealous because our empire enlightened the world.
TheLiberalKnight 5 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Your "enlightened" empire (lol) invented the first modern ethnic cleansing (Great upheaval), genocide (an Gorta Mór) and concentration camps (Boer Wars). France brought the civil code, the metric system, the rights of men to the world. You're insulting, I'm just giving facts. You're jealous, not me. You're the one who insult France in a video about France. I've never been on a British video to insult British people...
MaxRWF 4 months ago
@MaxRWF People will look back at the British empire, and see it was the empire that industrialized the world, created trains, steam engings, dreadnought battleships, along with art, music and rich culture.
I will not criticize France. I admire France greatly.
I notice you only mentioned British acts of cruelty towards France. Need I remind you of the sheer French brutality towards your colonies? You gave the British a great reputation of being liberal and kind.
TheLiberalKnight 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight
Britain not warriors? Expansion means war and Britain expanded..a lot, crushing everything in their ways..just like France, the Romans and any nation who's borders expand out of their own. Britain like France were always in wars around the globe. Also, you speak like Britain beat France singlehandedly...apart from the seas they could never have beaten France in Europe...ever.
Robineux99 4 months ago
@Robineux99 Be careful what you wish for. As a Canadian, surely you're happy that Britain went around colonising?
People do not understand the British empire. It was based on trade and expanded mostly by private trading companies and diplomacy rather than the national elected government.
Britain beat France on mainland Europe several times... however I don't dispute the French army is better than the British one.
TheLiberalKnight 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Wellington won cause he walked Napoleon into a trap
If Wellington fought Waterloo at a fair ground, then Napoleon would've won.
TheSmallfire66 3 months ago
@TheSmallfire66 that could be true.
TheLiberalKnight 3 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Well, yea I guess. But French line infantry at that time were of better quality than the legendary British line infantry.
TheSmallfire66 3 months ago
@TheSmallfire66 Yes, the French army was superior to the British army. Britain was the greatest maritime power on earth. Her navy was near invinsible. Britain spent nearly all of her military budget on the navy. The British army was always intended to be small but professional. The French had the opposite tactic, a massive army but a lacklusture navy.
TheLiberalKnight 3 months ago
@AKADevious C'est bien vrai, dans ce cas la on pourrai dire que tout les Grands de l'Histoire sont des assassins, d'Alexandre le Grand à Napoléon en passant par Jules César et des centaines d'autres, la guerre et la violence sont ancrée dans les gênes de l'Homme tout autant que l'amour et la passion...
benjiAkatosh 9 months ago
Jena is Napoleon masterpiece.Complete destruction of Prussian army
SuperBradva 9 months ago
@SuperBradva Austerlitz is his master piece -> destroye the austrian AND (great part of) russian army
turner2123 9 months ago
@turner2123 Yeah,I know that Austerlitz is so great battle.Everybody agree on that.I like battle of Jenna because french were so outnumbered by the Prussians(more than Austerlitz) and Davout crushed them.Its maybe his masterpiece,not Napoleons.Battle of Jenna and Auerstadt are the same battle,dont forget that.
SuperBradva 9 months ago
the prussian queen is extremely beautiful, courageous and noble, god bless her.
astridbelge 9 months ago
Hold your fire it's a blonde! Lol
lebarosky 10 months ago
maybe if Napoleon wouldnt have invaded rusia , he would have had enought troops to conquer Europe and then fight the russians outside Russia
excl0213 10 months ago
His life was a bittersweet symphony...The greatful victories like Austerlitz and horrible disasters like Waterloo...
MegaShine1994 1 year ago
Moscow was captured by Swedish Jacob dela Gardie, Russia by Mongols, Tatars. It is not so uncommon.
niilomio 1 year ago
which movie is this??
svensksoldat91 1 year ago
@svensksoldat91 A&E's Napoleon miniseries
JoeHooker11 1 year ago
@svensksoldat91 It's a mini series of 4 episodes of 1 hour 30 minutes each. This series is simply called "Napoleon. " With as main actor Christian Clavier and director of this series is Yves Simoneau
Clement69002 1 year ago
Napoleon granted religious freedom to the Jews, Hitler killed them. Napoleon felt his Civil Code was his greatest work, Hitler felt cleansing the world of "sub-races" was his greatest work. Napoleon on his own was a military genius; Hitler was not. Napoleon loved his family, Hitler despised his. Napoleon inherited France's wars, Hitler initiated his wars.
I am not saying Napoleon was a Saint. Far from it. But, Hitler was much worse then Napoleon.
JoeHooker11 1 year ago 71
@JoeHooker11 Exactly. Napoleon probably loved his family a little too much lol when he put many of them on the throne. Although Louis did a good job as king of Holland.
thejohn95 1 year ago
@thejohn95 Yeah, how have they been called again? The Imperial millstones? Louis was okay, Joseph did okay until he was given Spain, then, he just couldn't get a handle on the situation, but the rest was bumbling fools. Especially his sisters.
JoeHooker11 1 year ago
@JoeHooker11 compared to hitler napoleon was a saint, as per all reasons mentioned above, L'empereur was quite possibly the best thing to happen to the West.
MobiusJM 8 months ago
@JoeHooker11 According to new research, probably Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler. Google "The French Fuhrer: Genocidal Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler" I don't know, but evidence supports this claim, although I must agree that Napoleon left us much more than death than Hitler did: His code, his institutions, his military genius. Hitler had none of the mentioned.
gnossticc 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gnossticc "I must agree that Napoleon left us much more than death than Hitler did:" I strongly disagree. Hitler killed far more people than Napoleon ever did.
Napoleon killed very few people by his own hand. He never ordered any mass executions of civilians.
expertstrategy 6 months ago
@gnossticc
It's only a phamplet without objectivity written by a black writter against Napoleon .
jeffkodiac 6 months ago
@jeffkodiac Not at all. Go to wikipedia, wait a minute, wait a minute! Many people say that Wiki ain't a reliable source, but hey! The bibliography in the botton is written by serious historians. Napoleon, the greatest conqueror since Cæsar and Alexander also made big mistakes due to his blind ambition. He thought he was a God! And he was, but a human god.
gnossticc 6 months ago
@gnossticc
I am not saying that Napoleon was only doing good things of course he made bad things but the comparison with Hitler is absurd . For example under Napoleon the jews had rights that had nevr known before .
jeffkodiac 6 months ago
@JoeHooker11 perhaps as a person and character napoleon was much nicer and humane than hitler,
but, i believe anyone could have good in him/her we are all humans its just that someone could be nicer than the other in someway or another xD
1236sason 6 months ago
@JoeHooker11 Well, Napoleon didn't declare war on anyone. All the other nations declared war on him since he was a nobody who rose to be the Master of Europe.
NeverWorthWatching 6 months ago
@JoeHooker11 Napoleon was a military genius, Hitler was far from it
puchy110 3 months ago
@JoeHooker11 Couldnt have put it better myself and i'm british Napoleon is a massive hero of mine. Those bashing Britain during those wars. We had the most professional army in the world it was small so always thats a disadvantage we needed other forces to bulk ours up france had a good core army but the rest were poor conscripts and they never fought as well as pros but it was the UK that funded every single coalition. The UK also started the industrial revolution rance the civil revolution.
Challis1989 3 months ago
@JoeHooker11 you just hitler because some historians say some bad things about him. HItler was a better Speaker and more eloquent than Napolean, hitler did not despise his family he actually cared for his mother when she was sick, Hitler fought WW1 a war much more dangerous and diffucult than most of Napoleans wars. Hitler conquered more land than Napolean. The holocaust is overexagerated and hitler was great at many other things that Napolean wasnt.
islamloverist 3 months ago
@islamloverist
"Hitler conquered more land than Napolean." What you say is so ridiculous , do you know that the German was motorized in WW2 and not the French army in the Napoleonic wars . Napoleon was a military genius he has won dozens of battles by himself . Does not compare the military greatness Napoleon with Hitler, not compare the incomparable.
jeffkodiac 3 months ago 14
@jeffkodiac ok , you can say Napolean was a military genius, but her is what true. Hitler lived in a time that warfare was harder than when Napoleans wars. There was machine guns during his time period, there werent any during Napoleon. Germans were fighting a whole bunche of nations. Nazi Germany at its peak has more land conquered and more satellite states Napoleon had during his time period . Napoleon was exiled from his land and lost the his last battle against Wellington.
islamloverist 3 months ago
@islamloverist
"Germans were fighting a whole bunche of nations" Look at the war of the first coalition the French was alone against the whole Europe . "that warfare was harder than when Napoleans wars" not really the army of this time fight with baionette and the Grande Armée was able to walk 60 kilometer per day .Remember that hitler was defeated in 5 years when in Napoleonic wars the French fighting during 23 years and Hitler lost the last battle too .
jeffkodiac 3 months ago
@jeffkodiac ya but hitler had World wars, anyways Napoleon may have been a great army commander and a historical figure. Im not arguing that he was a bad leader or fighter or whatever you want to call it, Hitler was good at his own affairs, like reunifying germany, making it the strongest country during his regime, pushing his army through most of europe and russia, Napoleon was also good at his own stuff too, im not going to go into it, however in the end, you cant really disregard. type limit
islamloverist 2 months ago
@islamloverist
Don't you think that at the time it's of Napoleon it's world war too ? The French revolution wars and Napoleonic wars was wars between the most powerful nations of the world of this time .What I can say about Hitler is that he was a very great orator .
jeffkodiac 2 months ago
@jeffkodiac Hitler was fairly inept for a military leader, he's lucky Germany had the best generals and well trained soldiers.
KingLeonidas3267 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeffkodiac Hitler was fairly inept for a military leader, he's lucky Germany had the best generals and well trained soldiers.
KingLeonidas3267 1 month ago
@jeffkodiac
Napoleon detached his whole army from the coast of the channel to south germany in a few weeks in 1805. And that only with horses and boots.
Imagine todays couch-potatoes or even todays mechanised soldiers marching that distance in that time. I always think about how different we are living today compared to those people 200 years ago. Today, our biggest problems is if we can grab cheap gasoline for our car.
Sokra01 1 month ago
@jeffkodiac Hitler wasnt a good militarial leader, his subordinents however, were the real geniuses.
asianbananacat 4 weeks ago
@jeffkodiac hitler was not a military genius. he led a nation with a ton of military geniuses
Prussia75 3 weeks ago 3
@Prussia75
You are right the Germans in WW2 have had very good generals .
jeffkodiac 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
cumbas 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JoeHooker11
it were not the "wars of France" BUT the wars of the calcified & reactionnary Europe of kings united who attacked France between 1789 & 1815 to destroy the young Republic & the ideas of the Revolution which represented a big danger for the shameful privileges of the old aristocracy in front of the new ideas & the sovereign peoples
As you see young American, the truth is very different as your old deceptive anglo-saxon vision as always about the History of France...
cumbas 1 month ago
Great serie is this
juultjuh99 1 year ago 2
Vive l'Empereur !
Treyppa 1 year ago
Short! Why do you say Short when you look at me? Oh, You Foolish American!
RoseWood5566 1 year ago
If anybody wants to see a real Napoleonic battle, watch 'War and Peace' - the most expensive movie in history and over 100,000 real (not cloned) men on the screen.
RodinaZovet 1 year ago
The most expensive movie ever made is Titanic. I'm sure of it.
RoseWood5566 1 year ago
can someone please tell me what this movies' name is?
amarante8888 1 year ago
@amarante8888 Napoleon. From 2002.
van1980 1 year ago
This is a much Bigger and better production than Sharpe. TV Sharpe show pisses me off so much,they depict great battles as mere skirmishes.
DarthFanta 1 year ago
Itsnot 100% Napoleon fault that most major monarchy country in Europe were against France A great deal happened before he came to Power his first assignement as a General was against Austria in an ongoing war who wanted to restore French monarchy and War was part of europe for the last 100 years. The only main difference was the rest of Europe didnt want the idea of the french revolution to spread to Europe. In a sense it worked for a while but then France Republic was savec by the napoleon era
seb2455 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh no...please don´t talk about Hitler! Hitler wasn´t born at this time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Napoleon was the Terror in Person his Soldires was flesh to burn for the anymies. His own soldier love him sure, but for he their was gun-food for his own ideas, he was wasting all the blood in the wars only for his pleasure to unit Europe. nothing against Jews-faith...but Jews was pursue in all centurys! O.k most in the Nazi-Regime thats clear...but earlyer in all centurys,too.
JavertGermany 2 years ago
Napoleon was hardly a terror. He was a genius in my eyes. As was Hitler. now before you QQ about the jews dying etc just listen to why I think that. He essentially hypnotised the Reich hell even the British Royals fell under his spell. Politically he was a genius. As was Napoleon equal to his prowess on the battlefield.
akesbaltine 2 years ago 8
@akesbaltine sorry genius...I´m German and I can´t see that! Because Germans has the burden of the third Reich. You said British Royals fell under his spell... okay... but he was stupid and wrote it all down in his "Mein Kampf!" All his stupidness he wrote down! He said Arians were tall, blond, blue eyed German...he was small, dark, brown eyed Austrian!
JavertGermany 1 year ago
@JavertGermany I thought Austria was a Germanic country?
nrjelley 1 year ago
@JavertGermany : Austrians are German speakers, but under the Habsburgs they developed a multi-ethnic empire that disgusted Hitler who dreamed of a "pure" German nation. In Vienna in his youth there were Jews, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Slovenians, Croatians, Italians, etc. Vienna was a cultural capital thanks to the Habsburgs: Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, Mahler, Klimt, Freud, etc. Actually, it should be the capital of Europe, as it is in the center of north and south, east and west.
FRAGIORGIO1 1 year ago
@akesbaltine Hey think about it.
Yes he gots the Mass of people who wanted to be lead. Right! Thats because of Napoleon he downed the German National Thoughts in thise time. A thought of beeing a big Country. In thise times we was little states of Braunschweig, Westfalen and so on. A thought of beeing Germany....
Grüße
JavertGermany 1 year ago
@akesbaltine The British royals were NOT under Hitler's spell. The Duke (ex-King Edward VIII) and Duchess of Windsor alone were, and that annoyed the royal family a great deal. The Duke made a fool of himself fawning over Hitler and the Nazis.
FRAGIORGIO1 1 year ago
er.. i think the difference was that the nazis made the persecution of the jews a matter of the state, and literally planned on the annihilation of an entire race. this was NOT like the pogroms in the medieval period. please read up on the definition of genocide
garythegit 1 year ago 2
I preffer Waterloo with C. Plummer!
JavertGermany 2 years ago
A real teribble Movie! I hate it because nearly nothing is correct and the uniforms look horrible!
JavertGermany 2 years ago
Is it incorrect? I am Napoleonic War historian buff, and am endeavoring to procure historical accurate films that are precise in minute details. May I ask for your assistance? You appear most learned and informed.
gloria25031 1 year ago
"Zurrück! Dx!!!" *running as a Prussian Soldier*
vass02 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
prussian soldiers were the best!!
riesenurschreimann 2 years ago
Obviously not ;)
AppiusClaudiusPulche 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
filthy fucking jews
warchildjew 2 years ago
if the prussians would have stormed the hill the night before when the french deployed they would have driven napoleons forces into jena where they could not retreat and massacre his army. but their generals were to old and outdated, thankfully they reformed after this defeat.
GinTonicdrink 2 years ago
How brave is that coach driver!
He drive right between the Prussian and French lines.
gv1955 2 years ago 3
Vive L'empereur!
AthaNapo1994 2 years ago 52
@AthaNapo1994 VIVE L´empereur!!!
arthemispower 1 year ago
@AthaNapo1994 - Vive l'Empereur*
jacarradicefrench 5 months ago
Goethe about Napoleon: "there is something from apocalypse in this man"
xr1983kr 2 years ago 3
Yes, when the austrians and prussians knew Napoleon was on his way to fight them, they saw apocalypse coming to them. Thats what is apocalyptic in Napoleon.
MrPlantagenet 2 years ago 5
Rule 1, page one, First paragraph in the great book of war : do not march on Moscow.
Rule 2, don't fight with a land army in mainland China.
Hitler was a politician and ideologue. Napoleon was a military commander and Emperor. Big difference.
victorcachat 2 years ago 4
Absolutely right. Napoleon was a general first and a tyrant second; Hitler was a demagogue and a cult of personality. Both made the mistake of invading Russia. Hitler had even less of an excuse since he had a pact with Stalin, he had Stalin bedeviled and fooled and could dominat in any way politically, and he was opening up another front (Germany was in N. Africa, had yet to finish off Britain either by air nor sea). However, Nap was fighting in Spain in 1812.
trubengalgold 2 years ago 2
A prominent historian, David Chandler, once said if you compares Hitler to Napoleon; nothing could be more degrading to the latter and more flattering to the former.
Nap had his bad points - but in most of his wars he was not the agressors. He was simply better than his opponents.
midbsaj 2 years ago 4
Napoléon in Venice burned symbolically the doors of the Jewish ghetto and gave freedom to the Jews. Through his brother, he put an end to the spanish Inquisition. In Germany, he abolished serfdom where it still existed. He had his darkside (slavery in the Caribbean ), nevertheless his army brought modernity wherever it went.
selwild2050 2 years ago 4
Also, in comparison of Hitler to Napoleon Hitler's own generals tried to kill after Normandy invasions (Valkyrie anyone?). There were more than a few non SS German soldiers who did not care much or hated Hitler. Napoleon's troops would have run through a wall of spikes for him. Compare Napoleon more to Julius Ceasar who was beloved by their troops in a meglamaniacal way for sure. But one has to respect such a military genious who received so much praise.
trubengalgold 2 years ago 5
Hitlers fault Germany lost the War he was a great political leader but He didnt know shit about War. But Napoleon where a great War general. So they cant be compared your right. Stalin was the same as hitler just a great leader but not good at Wars or politics.. Wonder how the world would look like if Germany would have won the War it was 1 or 2 things that made them loose it first all the tanks sent to Russia and second why start war against russia? =P
lolzas 2 years ago
my grandfather had a dog called Jena heh [/Random information]
acetylslicylsyra 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Napoleon was nothing but a (little) French Hitler. Now delete this truth again, if you dare to.
gotenica 2 years ago
for many countries in the world Bush is seen as the hitler of the early century !!!
jeffkodiac 2 years ago 5
Invading Russia or starting a European war is not enough to make a serious comparison. Many rulers invaded Russia: Poles, Swedes, Turks, French and British in the 1850s, Wilhelm IInd in 1914 It would be silly to compare them. Or you should add Wilhelm IInd of Germany, Charles XII of Suede, etc.
People who compare Napoleon with Hitler usually do so since these two names are the only ones they know in history.
Fridomfry 2 years ago 59
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Or they know history much better than you ever will, frog.
gotenica 2 years ago
@Fridomfry I guess you could compare them, they were both disillusioned, both thought they were superior to any other nation. Both wrong!
nrjelley 1 year ago
@nrjelley, in this case, you can compare them with many other people too ! Not enough for linking them.
Napoleon never cared much about races at one point he considered making his career in the Ottoman army. He was glad to have soldiers from all nations and races in his Grande Armee - muslims, blacks, Jews, etc. He was definitely a product of the Enlightenment - which Hitler wanted to bury.
Fridomfry 1 year ago
@Fridomfry Oh well they both got their arses kicked by Britain so who cares! =)
nrjelley 1 year ago
@nrjelley Yeah the British are always the good ones....not. Don't forget that their arses got kicked during the American War of Independence.
TheArtofWar1789 1 year ago 2
@TheArtofWar1789 well, you say that, but It was due to the French Naval blockade of our American ports that cost us the rebellion (because that's what it was), not the 'American resisitance'. If the French hadn't have done so, we would have crushed the rebelion pretty easily. Never mind, we moved onto a even more prosperous country......India!
nrjelley 1 year ago
@nrjelley Idd if the French did not helped the Americans, you guys could easily crushed those "peasants". The only thing I find positive about the invasion of India is that you
TheArtofWar1789 1 year ago
@TheArtofWar1789 brought civilization. That's all.
TheArtofWar1789 1 year ago
@nrjelley
lol, not really, brits were less than a third of wellington's army, who would probably have lost the battle without the Prussians.
As for WW2, britain didn't win alone, URSS, canada, USA etc were important too :)
Kamfrenchie 1 year ago
@Fridomfry It's a shame to compare Napoléon with Hitler
1piazzola 1 year ago
@Fridomfry
"Or you should add Wilhelm IInd of Germany, Charles XII of Suede, etc."
No, he shouldn't. It was Russia which invaded swedish held territories in 1700 and Germany in 1914 respectively, not the other way round.
"People who compare Napoleon with Hitler usually do so since these two names are the only ones they know in history."
Not too far fetched, actually. Monsieur l'Empereur committed a genocide too. Under his supervision an estimated million of black haitians werde murdered.
Thespides 1 year ago
Correction: A hundredthousand. It has also been established that the french utilized the cargo holds of their ships as improvised gas chambers. See Claude Ribbe: "Le Crime de Napoléon". Besides plunging the whole of Europe in series of davastating wars is bad enough anyway. Fuck L'empereur!
Thespides 1 year ago
@Thespides, I know Claude Ribbes' book: It is not serious history, rather a propaganda-fiction novel disguised as history. The only time, around 1800, when the French seriously considered gassing people was in Britanny and Vendee, against the royalists and catholics. They finally decided than drowning them by hundreds was more expedient.
Fridomfry 1 year ago
@Fridomfry
It is widely generally accepted that Monsieur Napoleon wanted the rebellious blacks of haiti to be exterminated and replaced by more docile african slaves and that he acted accordingly. The only really controversial thing about Ribbes' book is the gas chambers. No offense meant, but a genocide is still a genocide, gas chambers or not. As for Charles XII, in a way he certainly was a conqueror. Yet he merely tried to conquer in order to defend the loot of his precursors.
Thespides 1 year ago
@Thespides
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no friend of swedish imperialism, I'm glad their evil empire went down. But the fact remains that Peter I. (a conqueror too, and much more suited as a role model for Napoleon btw) was (amongst others) the agressor. The swedish invasion was - to quote you again - only a consequence of a russian invasion. Just as the german "invasion" of Russian in WWI was.
Thespides 1 year ago
@Thespides, Napoleon wanted all rebels to be exterminated, whether they were blacks of Haiti, white Vendéens, Catholic Italians, or Spanish guerillas. Just as he praised obedient soldiers and citizens, whatever their color and religion.
Fridomfry 1 year ago
@Fridomfry
I have no objections to that. Looks as if we finally agreed. :)
Thespides 1 year ago
@Thespides Good - though, it is not difficult to agree on te fact that he was a dictator ! It was an interesting paradox of that tragic period, that two of the most radical revolutionary generals of the 1790s, Bonaparte and Bernadotte, became later respectively "emperor of the French" and king of Suede.
Fridomfry 1 year ago
@Thespides, the allegation that Napoleon used poison gas chambers is absurd. That was a German invention in WW I, the author Ribbes is an idiot just like Alan Schom. Napoleon was nothing compared to Hitler, he was no genocidal killer, I can assure you.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@expertstrategy
"That was a German invention in WW I"
Are you kidding? Chemical agents, both liquid and gaseous, have been applied in warfare since antiquity. Modern use of industrally produced poison gas was already proposed by the british and the americans by the mid 19th century. As for WWI... The first to use it then were ironically the french, first using teargas in 1914.
"is absurd"
The way Ribbe describes it, it was utterly feasible.
Thespides 1 year ago
@Thespides
"he was no genocidal killer"
Killing a 100K civillians for the sake of it is certainly a genocide. The means by which this is achieved doesn't matter, I've said it already. I'll certainly agree on the lesser scale of it though.
Thespides 1 year ago
@Thespides, do you know the definition of genocide? It is the deliberate extermination of a group of people or a tribe. Take the Rwanda civil war for example, Tutsi and Hutu mercilessly slaughtering each other.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@Thespides
then every war is a genocide: american and english bombing raids killed far more than 100 000 citizens in france, germany and other parts of europe. They did the same with japans. So roosevelt is a genocidal killer ? washington is a genocidal killer for having wiped out the amerindian.
All wars lead to the killing of citizen.
A genocide is the complete extermiantion of a particular type of people not just just killing people.
Now get out of here PC queer.
solwen 1 year ago
@Thespides, In 1914 Germany declared war against Russia. That Russia invaded Eastern Prussia was only a consequence, just as Germany invaded Russia subsequently. And you can't deny that Charles XII of Suede was a great conqueror, a model for Napoleon a century later.
Fridomfry 1 year ago
@Fridomfry
No matter how you slice it: It were russian troops which crossed the russo-german border first, thus invading germany. Besides, that germann declaration of war was preceded by a russian mobilisation. Which was a calculated move to pressure the germans into either declaring war or put themselves at a serious advantage by passively waiting until the russian army had deployed in full strength. Said declaration of war was - to put it your way - only a consequence.
Thespides 1 year ago
@Fridomfry Indeed. And they do so when there is no point of comparison. One was a genius of military tacticts (Napoleon) and the other was demented.
TheMchuquillanqui 1 year ago
@Fridomfry True as this may be, I think the reason compare Hitler and Napoleon so much is because of the fact that they are 2 of the most dynamic characters in history. That's the only explanation I can come up with.
WR12MSH 1 year ago
@Fridomfry Actually Napoleon and Hitler do have some similarities. I think they both were military geniuses. YES I KNOW Hitler may have killed millions, but what about Hiroshima or Nagazaki? Hitler was actually demented, but throughout history, many thoudsands, or even millions have been massacred at one time, still, noone has been so defamed. Dont forget that the Napoleonic wars costed at least 12 millon lives. An empire is built only on the sacrifice of many men and the talent of a few.
AKADevious 10 months ago
@AKADevious no no and no . read more , context is completely differente
Djarzel 9 months ago
@Djarzel Wow yes man, from you comment, which of course reflected your great understanding of the world history, i can finally see that your arguments are much more solid than mine, and that debating with you is futile. Thank you for teaching me such a great lesson.
AKADevious 9 months ago
Calling Napoleon genius is like calling jack the ripper an artist. He was god at killing masses of people. Saying that Austerlirz and Jena were mastepieces isnt right, becuse they were bloodbaths. Killing one man makes you an murderer, killing thousands a genius of warfare. It shouldnt be so much epicnes in war, and we shouldnt admire those who lead it.Thats just keeping war acceptable in society. People who were in war know that, for those who werent i wish that they dont learn it same way...
antun88 9 months ago
@antun88 personally. I respect napoleon in a general way. I think his first campians during the revolution and after in Italy were just and neccesary. But when he becomes the empereror everything changes. Napoleon turns his army towards a bloody offensive that would last for more than ten years and kill at least 2 million. I am always in awe at the genius of generals such as Napoleon, but it always becomes a filthy game that takes desperate fights to end it. enough said....
m1grand70 8 months ago
@m1grand70 Well before Napoleonic wars, Europe had been ruled by arrogant royal elite who was even family raleted. Napoleon had given him self a mission to end their rule over Europe. Becoming an Emperor, he wasnt trying to become one of them, its rather an atempt to strengthen his power against enemies in state. View of a bloodthirsty, egoistic, Emperor Napoelon is distorted, because winers write history. Actually he faught agaist their horrific world order, but failed in Russia... other view
antun88 8 months ago
@m1grand70 im not in awe of him at all hes an asshole. first time he meets wellington it ends in the predictable total crushing of the french.
Fighting crappy disjointed forces might look good on paper but fight the first time he faced a cohesive force with a good general at waterloo he lost.
The guy is a turd.
zenoist2 8 months ago
@zenoist2 who the emperor? an asshole?
040392agh 8 months ago
@zenoist2 Wellington was about to lost at Waterloo. Only Prussian arrival saved him.
AndyCAgi 7 months ago
To those who compare Napoleon with Hitler: Sure Napoleon was a rough warlord, and became a dictator. Yet he was also a son of the Enlightenment: He had been educated as an officer-engineer; he believed in reason and science; he didn't care about races and religions; he was a good manager and law maker in peacetime (he did not start a single war until 1808).
The very contrary of Hitler's basic background and beliefs.
Fridomfry 2 years ago 3
Yes people who compare the two are often incredibly stupid. Also one thing you did not mention he did not plan and commit genocide and he actually treated jews good
mathias1211 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Napoleon was the French equivalent of Hitler.
gotenica 2 years ago
preatty much look at how similair the 2 empires are napoleon tried to rule europe so did hitler, a huge war was fought to bring napoleon down, and ww2 wuz fought to bring down hitler! scary how similair the 2 dictators were
2ndpadrummer 2 years ago
You're an idiot if you actually believe that. They are 2 very different people with very different ideas. For one Napoleon didn't promote mass genocide. He was also responsible for the Napoleonic code which influenced almost all of Europe and most of western civilization as we know it today.
Think a bit before you decide to make such an utterly retarded comment.
refuckulate420 2 years ago 2
ok first of all i was just comparing them, yes i agree that napoleon wasnt promoting mass genocide, but he was still trying to rule all of Europe and egypt! yes napoleon wasnt a total asshole unlike hitler but he still brought many families pain and suffering! both Armies got f'd up in russia, and both armies sufferd incredibly. dont just look at the men themselves look at their military histories! its scary how similiar they were
2ndpadrummer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am not French (thank God) and therefore cannot be an idiot or retarded.
gotenica 2 years ago
You could say that, however, Napoleon wasn't the genocidal megalomaniac as Hitler was. One merely tried to apply a European Union-esqe state in the 19th century. The latter, Hitler, wanted to rule by force, let alone murdered 18 million innocents.
AFP785 2 years ago
Yeah most leaders can not be compated to Hitler except Stalin his evil twin. Napoleon was no Hitler. One can argue he was a defender of French independence from aristocratic rule; whether it was by their own king or some other European king. Then his vision became a united European union under his rule..the empire or successor to European empires of the past (Holy Roman, Charlemagne, Roman etc.). Did he go too far! yes his ego did get in his way like many other leaders.
trubengalgold 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
ROME59 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How dare you insult me, you piece of French manure! Go fuck your whore of a mother, that's what you French are good at.
gotenica 2 years ago
Oh Please...this kind of stupid french bashing starts to be annoying
telex0102 2 years ago 5
Napoleon was no Hitler. An aggressor yes but not mad killer of innocent civilians. And as a military commander Hitler was nothing compared to Napoleon. Rummel was the real brilliant tactician for the Germans. Napoleon made mistakes and after 125 years to review them Hitler repeated them and more so. Napoleon>>>>Hitler as military leader without question.
trubengalgold 2 years ago 3
rommel greater than guderian or manstein? It is something I know little about and so I ask this question without challenge to your assessement. What do you think of this?
aardvaark069 2 years ago
Agreed. And embarassingly so many of it is my own fellow Americans. It is mainly fringe extremist right wingers of the bad sort. And, I consider myself moderately conservative voting Libertarian or Independent in elections. So screw politics more about ignorance. I don't agree with all French politics but come one folks lay off. History proves that things work better in the world when USA and France are on the same side and not bickering with one another.
trubengalgold 2 years ago 4
Vive Napoléon!!!!
intellegence63smart 2 years ago 3
la règle de la France éternelle!
ThrawnDuGard2 2 years ago 3
Viva Napoléon! :D
ThrawnDuGard2 2 years ago 3
fantastic film!!!!where do you find it????
echo123france 3 years ago 2
GREAT!!! KEEP THESE VIDEOS COMING!!!
JohanRegus12 3 years ago 5