@kenkaish I believe that it is called "Napoleon", but it is in French, so you have to look for it in that language, not English. If you put "napoleon francais" in the youtube search box you should find it. I did. Good luck.
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL The thing that struck me after reading adam zamoyskis book "1812 Napoleons fatal march on moscow" or whatever it was called was that napoleons troops always swore by him no matter how bad things got.
That to me is a sign of greatness. He had lots of faults however to which some people seem blind.
Merely attacking Russia is a bad idea if you ask me.
PS its a good book kind of like first hand eyewitness accounts crafted together
@zenoist2,at Peninsular war,the French army were new conscripts and the British troops were veterans,the British got helps from Spanish resistance and Portugese too.The commander of Peninsular war wasn't Napoleon.
@Napoleon74578 so Napoleon should have taken that into account but he didnt> he didnt even seem to realise the conditions his troops were facing in Spain.
His answer was to hang a few rebels burn a few farms. This measure historically only inflames the local populace to hatred and to fight on when otherwise they might not have ie the french resistance in WW2 , Germany anywhere in WW2 the Boer war circa 1900 when the British were the culprits Im ashamed to admit etc
More than 50% of the french losses in Iberia resulted from guerrilla tactics,and several of the Luso-British victories were defeats,written as victories by Wellington propaganda......
The best thing about napoleons 1812 Russian campaign was the crossing of the Bereszina if youre a Napleon fan.
he was trapped and facing total annhialtion.
Luckily he had incredibly brave Dutch engineers who built 2 bridges in icy waters so the army could escape
. a lot of them were swept way and drowned
The russians were closing in by this time and threatening the whole river crossing but napoleons troops fought a magnifcent rearguard action with the Italians doing particularly well,
I hope you have a good day, tomorrow, it will be the 4th of July, and I'm going to lay down on the grass in the football fields of my school, and watch the fireworks. The 1812 overture is one of my favorite kinds of music. It's really gets to me.
A lot of the French survivors claimed to have survived purely on tea,
What does stand out is the incrediible toughness of these men when they were starving abd had temps of minus 40cF at times.. thjeyd wake up and see dead bodies around the camp fire frozen to death/
If you want to starve to death while walking hundreds of miles Napleon is your man. Add to that the jolly freezing to death in sub zero temperatures so hardly anyone survived and Napoleons sheer genius for kilimg off an army becomes apparrent
@zenoist2, Napoleon never liked the Bourbons in Spain, and they were worthless as his allies. He attempted to supplant them and install his brother, Joseph, as the new king of Spain. Napoleon acknowledged that Spain was a grave mistake while he was in St. Helena.
@zenoist2, yes, but you have to admit that the French lasted for a long time before they were finally defeated. Fighting a two front war in Spain and Eastern Europe. Hitler couldn't even last that long. I know that Napoleon made some very stupid mistakes, but even geniuses aren't flawless.
In 1812, during the Russian Campaign, there was nothing Napoleon could do for his soldiers while on the retreat, since the army was out of supplies and his troops cannot live off the land. Napoleon was smart to retreat rather than stay and fight in Russian territory. Hitler ordered his soldiers to make their last stand, most notably in Stalingrad, where he condemned the lives of 200,000 soldiers.
I think you're an okay guy, and i only wish good for you. Just ignore what I said about you earlier. I can be a little harsh when i'm caught up in the moment.
@zenoist2, even though we have different opinions, we can still be good friends. Even after Napoleon's disasterous campaign in Russia, he created another army filled with raw conscripts and even many teenage boys, who are as old as I am or younger. Napoleon fought against the battle-hardened veterans of the Allied armies, and won great battles such as Bautzen, Lutzen, Chateau Thierry, Brienne, Dresden, etc...
@zenoist2, I change my mind, I'm going to keep on posting more comments before I go to sleep. Napoleon can be overrated at times, I know that just as people overate Wellington. Both Wellington and Napoleon have totally different fighting styles. Napoleon is like a sword because he is the master of the offensive. Wellington is like a shield because he is the best when it comes to defending.
@zenoist2, even though we are both overzealous in our arguements, at least we can still act like civilized people. Even the most enemies can make peace.
@zenoist2, Queen Elizabeth I sent an English Armada in 1588, and it was destroyed by the Spanish. It was sent shortly after the English defeated the Spanish Armada. Sorry it sounded confusing to you.
@zenoist2, Hope you have a nice day too. this is my last comment. You're quite persistent and i like persistent people. I never back down from an arguement btw.
@zenoist2, you can post as much propaganda as you like, because you rely on myths, and movies as your source for information. I've read tons of books, and you probably read zip. I don't block people either.
Wellington in Spain had the Portugese and Spanish as his allies, and the British greatly focused their effort in the Iberian Peninsula. Wellington's army swelled to over 100,000 by 1813, and he had over 52,000 Brits. He's in a much better situation than Napoleon was in Italy or Egypt. Welly lost many battles and sieges, and yet, he is still fighting, but he's very crappy in siege warfare, and had trouble overwhelming a tiny French garrison, and when he wins, it's usually at a great cost of men.
Napoleon had little to no reinforcements in Italy, and he had an army under 40,000 men, and he own battle after battle, such as Arcole, Rivoli, Mantua, Hohenlinden, etc...he conquered northen italy in a year. In Egypt, he was hugely outnumbered by the Ottomans and Mamluks at the Pyramids, and won a decisive victory at Mt. Tabor, and Abukir, no reinforcements or supplies ever came because the Royal navy destroyed the French fleet at the Nile.
"Its the true extent of napoleons genus" Napoleon's real extent of his genius comes from the campaigns of Italy, Spain, Austria, Prussia, France 1814, Italy. I can agree that he did badly, but your precious Wellington retreated to Portugal three times, and he's very crappy in siege warfare. It took him six years to liberate the Iberian peninsula when it only took Napoleon 19 days to conquer Prussia, and less than a year to subjugate Italy.
@expertstrategy Wellington had no men. a v small army with no reinforcements. What the hell do you expect him to do?One single battle lost would be the end of him.
He had to operate within these constraints.. he was a bloody good general and much better than napoleon.
He finally met Napoleon at waterloo and totally beat him.
My position is Napoleon was a fairly good general he could easily beat crappy opposition. as soon as he came up against anyone actually good like Wellingtom at waterloo he was a useless prick and totally outclassed.
He suffered a massive defeat in his first meeting with Wellington at Waterloo
@zenoist2, Napoleon fought and defeated very good generals, such as Archduke Charles, Schwarzenburg, Kutusov, Bennigsen, Bagration, Blucher, they wern't crappy at all. etc... Both Wellington and Blucher defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, but you make it sound as though he did all the work. The only good generals Wellington actually defeated were Soult, Massena, and Bessieres, but he never fought against Davout, Lannes, Murat, or Suchet.
and avoid Russia 1812? Its the true extent of napoleons genus having a huge armyr resort to cannabilism and gettled whittled down to practically zero.
@zenoist2, yes, he failed strategically in Russia, but he didn't fail as a military leader. He and his marshals kept the Russian army at bay, and they crossed the Berezina River due to the incredible effort of the engineers. Invading Russia isn't always a bad idea as you think, the Mongols, Poles, French and British (Crimean War).
@zenoist2 "Its the true extent of napoleons genus" Napoleon's real extent of his genius comes from the campaigns of Italy, Spain, Austria, Prussia, France 1814, Italy. I can agree that he did badly, but your previous Wellington retreated to Portugal three times, and he's very crappy in siege warfare. It took him six years to liberate the Iberian peninsula when it only took Napoleon 19 days to conquer Prussia, and less than a year to subjugate Italy.
@zenoist2, actually, I'm not imagining it. Everybody including historians knows that Napoleon was winning by the time the Prussians arrived. I don't see why you don't.
I do believe Wellington said this "Give me night, or give me Blucher." he acknowledged that the battle was the "damnest near run".
@expertstrategy winning the batle at any time is open to dispute.
What is beyond doubt is that the old guard broke and ran and napoleon was defeated in a massive defeat. he was utterly crushed and waterloo entered the english language as a crushing defeat.
@zenoist2, Waterloo just proves that Wellington is helpless without foreign aid, and he needs the Prussians to help defeat Napoleon. If he actually fought the emperor in a one vs one engagement without foreign reinforcements, he'd probably lose badly. It can even be argued that Ney is a better commander than Wellington, since Ney won over him at Redinha, Pombal, and Quatre Bras.
Anthony999ism,72000 and 68000 troops??!!U say that it's slightly outnumbered??Napoleon got around 4000 more than Wellington.But,actually Prussia made the Coalition victory
@Napoleon74578 Please read properly, I said that the Anglo-allies INFANTRY slightly outnumbered the French. But with combined forces of cavs and arts, the French slightly outnumbered the Anglo-allies.
You are so partisan in your point of view that it's ridicoulous!
Welly Welly Welly, God himself? for you and English maybe, but for people in the rest of the world he is not comparable with the greatness of Napoleon!
Continuous if it makes you happy, it's the principal.
I accept that Wellington is a grand commander, but at Waterloo, it proves that he can't defeat Napoleon alone without foreign aid, and he nearly lost the battle, despite the fact that the French lost most of their cavalry, and the mud severely reduces the firepower of the artillery. The French were already exhausted by 7:00 pm, and 50,000 fresh Prussian soldiers arrive and defeat the French.
it seems both sides had fought to a standstill more or less. then the promised Prussians arrived and tipped the scales decidedly. in Wellingtons favour.
Wellington was promised the these troops and fought the battle accordingly.
@zenoist2, Napoleon once said that you can be 90% sure of winning a battle, and leave the rest of the 10% to chance, and that's what happened at Waterloo. He was very close to winning, until Prussian reinforcements arrived.
History proves that Wellington barely held on, and the Prussians finished the job. That's basically the perfect summary.
if you get bored bored of waterloo look at the navy battles.
trafallgar nile. The simple fact is british troops were rather good Hence napoleons crushing defeat at waterloo. Luckily for Naloleon Welliington wasnt sitting on the hill at austerlitz or he would have got exacty nowhere..
@zenoist2, There are tons of reasons why Napoleon is better. Even at Waterloo where Napoleon wasn't his same usual more aggressive self, Wellington still had a lot of trouble holding him off, despite having the high ground, and he can barely defeat him without Prussian help. So there. I don't really see what you get if Wellington defeats an old, sick, and indecisive Napoleon of 1815. It's like a youngster beating an old man. I would like to see him fight against the Napoleon of 1805.
@expertstrategy thats why napoleon suffered a crushing defeat then at waterloo? I think he was pretty ill in later years actually. Putting arguments aside what do you think his illness was?
I have coleiacs disease which is a total intolerance to wheat flour gluten and can give you cancer of fthe stomach which is quite jolly when it gets you. You basically cant eat anything on a can much.
@zenoist2, Napoleon had a lot of stomach problems, and many historians agree that it was hereditary. I for one am quite alergic to grass when I mow the lawn, but over time, my immunity system has build itself up, and so, I don't sneeze as much as i used to.
At Waterloo, Napoleon and Wellington's armies were both quite exhausted, and the French already suffered many casualties, and when the Prussians arrived, everything was lost.
@expertstrategy No argument there about the battle..theyd literally come to a standstill bothy exhausted. Then the prussians arrived and made it a total slaughter.
Anway back to the point of his stomach.
It was probably some thing easily treatable today but crippled Napoleon back then as it was unknown and there was no cure.. He wasnt at his best at waterloo.
@zenoist2, medicine in that time was still kind of primitive. You should look up Dr. Dominique Larrey, he was the best battle surgeon of his time, and he performed hundreds of amputations in the aftermath of Borodino.
The French won more than fifty wars against England/Britain. In the Middle Ages, they just thrashed the English in so many conflicts that it's not even funny.
Bouvines? La Rochelle?
Beachy Head? Landen?
Yorktown? Minorca?
Fleurus? Redinha?
The only time you actually win a war against France is when you are allied with stronger nations.
@mwillis1000, Empire Total War is really fun. You get to fight in three different continents. I was playing as france on very hard, and i managed to conquer most of the 13 colonies of Britain, and i made peace with the Iroquis for over 30 years. i'm still at war with the Dutch, but their cities are very well garrisoned.
Im GB and i have pretty much kicked the French out of America and Canada, i was at war with an Indian tribe and they asked for peace, i accpeted without reading the terms, and i find out they asked for Ireland so, Ireland is under the control of Native Americans! LOL. Its such a hectic campaign. I want to play as Maratha and Poland. Sweeden too.
@expertstrategy its a very good game napoleon total war is good too. well worth buying
You get to replay these battles. I made a right mess of the pensilular camapign and lost a batlle straight away on the British side that was it I was out no reinforcements no nothing. Its pretty difficult.
@zenoist2, yes, in the game of the Peninsular Campaign for NTW, it's difficult to get more men, but the British have the Spanish and Portugese to help them out. I was playing as Britain on very hard, and I already took many regions and I have two experienced armies.
@mwillis1000, if you play as the Austrian Empire in ETW, then your line infantry units will have 200 men each, they have 40 more men than the rest of the line infantry in Europe.
@mwillis1000, France is my favorite faction to play as because their position in N. America and S. America is more difficult to maintain, so therefore, it's a real challenge.
@zenoist2 "English history never gets a massive defeat but is full of victories." so you're saying that the battles of Hastings, Bouvines, La Rochelle, Patay, Formigny, Castillon, English Armada 1588, Landen, Neerwinden, Camaret, Fontenoy, Roucoux, Saint Cast, Fort Carillon, Yorktown, Fleurus, Redinha, etc...are all not massive defeats?
It sa well known fact the brirish are superior and the whole world is too to the french in practicakly very batte l theyve fought and the whole world is too
AgoIcourt? Crecy?
Trafalgar?
Dien bien phu?
Algeria?
the french are a race a utter losers. as soon as they meet the British the they lose battle of nile?
They have always been second rate to GB throughout history and always will be.
@Anthony999ism If wellington would have lost one single battle in the Peninsula war disastrously that was it game over,
He obviously had to be careful.
A lot of people seem to not realise this, one defeat and that was the end of the british Army.
he couldnt afford it unlike the fench who could count on reinforcements,
Losing battles to the british was second nature to them and they just sent in reinforcements for all the good it did them when Wellington kept beating them all .
@zenoist2, i seriously doubt that Wellington won at Redinha, Pombal, Talavera, Burgos, San Sebastian, Toulouse, and Quatre Bras. He retreated into Portugal three times.
@zenoist2 Wellington lost few battles in the Peninsula and he won battles against some Napoleon's marshals such as Soult, Marmont, Massena, however the french he fought were not as good as the french in Germany, Soult even sometimes out maneuvered him but failed because he lacks of fine troops and execution. Marshal Ney also beat him several times in Portugal.
@zenoist2 Wellington got the high ground, it rains the day before which made Napoleon hard to maneuver his artillery, Welly's infantry even slightly outnumbered Napoleon's but yes, Napoleon got more cavs and arts but both of them can't work well if the ground is muddy. But yes, Napoleon and Ney made some errors at that day.
@9911aleksey, that's a good point. Wellington won many of his battles when he fought on the defensive, since that is probably his best advantage. Napoleon was both good on the defense and offensive, but he's better on the offensive when it comes to taking the initiative, and bringing the fight to his enemy's land.
You said : "Look at history Waterloo", no you should say look at Zenoist2 history of Waterloo and this history is a little bit different of the reality facts.
Have you ever considered becoming a writer? you have definitely talent for create stories!
@zenoist2, All Wellington did was defend, and he only won because of the Prussians. Both Wellington and Blucher defeated Napoleon together since they were both important.
I am very aware of the history of the battle of Waterloo, but your version is ridiculous and propagandic.
Did you know that Maitland's British Guards retreated before the 4th Chasseurs? There are absolutely no Grenadiers at that point.
You are right but with this guy you can't talk seriously, he is to much partisan, not objective and a little bit racist with France, have a look at : Napoleon - Russia 1812 video.
So when he says bullshits i answer him in the same way, there is nothing more to say at this kind of guy.
I perfectly know that Napoleon was not a genius in very battles he made, if i said "continue your Litany....." to Zenoist2, it's because this guy is absolutely partisan and no objective with the facts.
@9911aleksey, it's true that Napoleon's military capabilities gradually slowed down in the later years of his reign. At Waterloo, he was no longer the aggressive type of general, but instead he was a sick and indecisive man, and he almost won the battle.
@9911aleksey, I have enormous respect for Napoleon, and I'm also aware of his blunders. It's impossible for people like Zenoist to be objective in history since they allow their own national arrogance and chauvinism to blind them from the truth in history. It's very difficult for Zeno to swallow the fact that Wellington is far from being Napoleon's equal in battle. Waterloo only proves that Arthur is helpless without foreign aid. 1 vs 1, Napoleon would defeat him.
@zenoist2, It wouldn't matter if Napoleon left Russia two weeks earlier. The winter would come anyway. It will take him a couple of months for Napoleon to get out of Russia. The reason why he stayed in moscow for many weeks is because he expected a Russian diplomat to arrive with terms of peace, since it was traditional in that time to seek peace when a capital was captured.
@zenoist2, It's true that Napoleon made many mistakes while campaigning in Russia, but that one blunder doesn't discount over 20 years of military glory. The winter did in fact kill off most of his army, and the Grande Armee's situation aggitated since it was out of supplies, and they can't live off the barren land of Russia. Napoleon and his marshals fended off the Russians successfully in many rearguard actions, and the army was safe out of Russia after the Battle of Berezina.
Moscow burned, therefore French victory.
LeHappiste 5 days ago
@LeHappiste Nope.
vitjoki91 4 days ago
whats the name of the movie?
MyFace62 2 weeks ago
the name of the movie??
kenkaish 2 weeks ago
@kenkaish I believe that it is called "Napoleon", but it is in French, so you have to look for it in that language, not English. If you put "napoleon francais" in the youtube search box you should find it. I did. Good luck.
kaunas88 2 weeks ago
С НАТО тоже самое будет.
Szhiga 3 weeks ago 4
I am Russian, but i regret Napoleon lost!!!
DdharmaInitiative 3 weeks ago
@DdharmaInitiative А чего его жалеть то ,его никто не звал в гости....
Vanyaaynav 3 weeks ago
@DdharmaInitiative
I am french and love Russia. Fuck Napoleon. Never fight against russians. They are people of God
mellomann08 1 week ago
@mellomann08
Fuck YOU!!! russians are people of Devil!!!
DdharmaInitiative 1 week ago
@DdharmaInitiative
Take poison, Nazi
mellomann08 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DdharmaInitiative Fuck YOU!!! germans are people of Devil!!!
Vietkong1000 3 days ago
@mellomann08
you are not french, you are a fucking russian liar!!!
DdharmaInitiative 1 week ago
@DdharmaInitiative
Ferme la bouche
I am from France
mellomann08 1 week ago
@mellomann08
Come on you are not French .
jeffkodiac 1 week ago
eeww frostbite
americanliberal09 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Best documentary on The War of 1812! Watch here
youtube.com/watch?v=7tbHixL3xIc youtube.com/watch?v=FcBf2PNlF64
youtube.com/watch?v=gv5ErRc0kM8
MedDanila 1 month ago
What movie is this?
zfish1995 2 months ago
Жадность фраера сгубила.
Vanyaaynav 5 months ago 2
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL The thing that struck me after reading adam zamoyskis book "1812 Napoleons fatal march on moscow" or whatever it was called was that napoleons troops always swore by him no matter how bad things got.
That to me is a sign of greatness. He had lots of faults however to which some people seem blind.
Merely attacking Russia is a bad idea if you ask me.
PS its a good book kind of like first hand eyewitness accounts crafted together
zenoist2 7 months ago 2
@zenoist2,at Peninsular war,the French army were new conscripts and the British troops were veterans,the British got helps from Spanish resistance and Portugese too.The commander of Peninsular war wasn't Napoleon.
Napoleon74578 7 months ago
@Napoleon74578 so Napoleon should have taken that into account but he didnt> he didnt even seem to realise the conditions his troops were facing in Spain.
His answer was to hang a few rebels burn a few farms. This measure historically only inflames the local populace to hatred and to fight on when otherwise they might not have ie the french resistance in WW2 , Germany anywhere in WW2 the Boer war circa 1900 when the British were the culprits Im ashamed to admit etc
zenoist2 7 months ago
@Napoleon74578 the french still lost.
zenoist2 4 months ago
@Napoleon74578
More than 50% of the french losses in Iberia resulted from guerrilla tactics,and several of the Luso-British victories were defeats,written as victories by Wellington propaganda......
ViriathusVingathor 3 weeks ago
The best thing about napoleons 1812 Russian campaign was the crossing of the Bereszina if youre a Napleon fan.
he was trapped and facing total annhialtion.
Luckily he had incredibly brave Dutch engineers who built 2 bridges in icy waters so the army could escape
. a lot of them were swept way and drowned
The russians were closing in by this time and threatening the whole river crossing but napoleons troops fought a magnifcent rearguard action with the Italians doing particularly well,
zenoist2 7 months ago
I hope you have a good day, tomorrow, it will be the 4th of July, and I'm going to lay down on the grass in the football fields of my school, and watch the fireworks. The 1812 overture is one of my favorite kinds of music. It's really gets to me.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy I like victoire est a nous.
Thats quite brilliant. maybe im over imaginitave at times But I can see the French troops marching to battle and totally inspired with it.
They would have been full of confidence and ready to take on the world.
They had a great record up until then apart from spain where they kept losing against wellington.
Unfortunatelty Wellington was there.
Napoleons nemesis it seems.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, you know, Napoleon disregarded Spain as a slideshow, and his focus was primarily concentrateed in central and eastern Europe.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
How to lose a massive army in one easy lesson so its utterly worthless and crap.
zenoist2 7 months ago
I dont like napoleon or the french army but think fucking helll those guys were tough the ones that survived.
Total respect there/ I can admire Napoleons army as well as think hes a dick.
zenoist2 7 months ago
A lot of the French survivors claimed to have survived purely on tea,
What does stand out is the incrediible toughness of these men when they were starving abd had temps of minus 40cF at times.. thjeyd wake up and see dead bodies around the camp fire frozen to death/
zenoist2 7 months ago
If you want to starve to death while walking hundreds of miles Napleon is your man. Add to that the jolly freezing to death in sub zero temperatures so hardly anyone survived and Napoleons sheer genius for kilimg off an army becomes apparrent
zenoist2 7 months ago
Spain was a french ally to start with. One of napoleons mad ideas. The French turned against ther ally and more or less had a fait accompli.
The populace was naturally enraged especially when napoleon had a long list of victims shot.
One day youre trusted next day youre shot great eh?
Not a good idea. Anyway this really pissed people off as it would. and the whole of spain was in revolt.
its where the word guerilla comes fom meaning little war.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, Napoleon never liked the Bourbons in Spain, and they were worthless as his allies. He attempted to supplant them and install his brother, Joseph, as the new king of Spain. Napoleon acknowledged that Spain was a grave mistake while he was in St. Helena.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@zenoist2, yes, but you have to admit that the French lasted for a long time before they were finally defeated. Fighting a two front war in Spain and Eastern Europe. Hitler couldn't even last that long. I know that Napoleon made some very stupid mistakes, but even geniuses aren't flawless.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
In 1812, during the Russian Campaign, there was nothing Napoleon could do for his soldiers while on the retreat, since the army was out of supplies and his troops cannot live off the land. Napoleon was smart to retreat rather than stay and fight in Russian territory. Hitler ordered his soldiers to make their last stand, most notably in Stalingrad, where he condemned the lives of 200,000 soldiers.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
I think you're an okay guy, and i only wish good for you. Just ignore what I said about you earlier. I can be a little harsh when i'm caught up in the moment.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy THANK YOU. youre a good guy too.
A shame we have different opinions
respect.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, even though we have different opinions, we can still be good friends. Even after Napoleon's disasterous campaign in Russia, he created another army filled with raw conscripts and even many teenage boys, who are as old as I am or younger. Napoleon fought against the battle-hardened veterans of the Allied armies, and won great battles such as Bautzen, Lutzen, Chateau Thierry, Brienne, Dresden, etc...
expertstrategy 7 months ago
expertstrategy is half clever and has a brain.
Hes a good lad.
Unfortunately we seem to be totally opposed.
I think Napoleon is very over rated and pretty shit.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, I change my mind, I'm going to keep on posting more comments before I go to sleep. Napoleon can be overrated at times, I know that just as people overate Wellington. Both Wellington and Napoleon have totally different fighting styles. Napoleon is like a sword because he is the master of the offensive. Wellington is like a shield because he is the best when it comes to defending.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy That sounds a pretty sensible comment. Get your sleep man youre OK.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, even though we are both overzealous in our arguements, at least we can still act like civilized people. Even the most enemies can make peace.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy "even though we are both overzealous in our arguements"
Lol in a nut shell.
Im fighting Wellingtons side and youre napoleons. we seem to both agree that both of them were good generals.
I just think Wellington was better and you do not.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@expertstrategy Yes i know we argue like anything but can respect each other. I certainly respect you anyway.
If this was a world stage some country (USA) might find it as an exuse to go to war with all the horrible deaths it entails.
I totally hate war but find it fascinating.
zenoist2 7 months ago
If you ask me, I think Wellington isn't better than Marlborough 100 years before.
expertstrategy 7 months ago 2
"Castillon, English Armada 1588, ". Hmm that was a victory for the english.
Yet another victory against hopeless odds. The spanish fleet was scattered far and wide and a lot of them ended up being wrecked near Ireland.
you really should look at what you cut and paste.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, Queen Elizabeth I sent an English Armada in 1588, and it was destroyed by the Spanish. It was sent shortly after the English defeated the Spanish Armada. Sorry it sounded confusing to you.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
I'll be going to sleep now because I have church tomorrow.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy Take care man I like you even if we disagree. never the twain shall meet it seems.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, Hope you have a nice day too. this is my last comment. You're quite persistent and i like persistent people. I never back down from an arguement btw.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
Unlike total turds i dont block people from commenting
. even If i disagree. If they want to appear to be sad fuckers who have to block comments its up to them.
Napoleon fans just cant hande constructive criticsm at times.
Criticise the man and your blocked,
You Fucking idiots.
Coment all you like peeps.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, you can post as much propaganda as you like, because you rely on myths, and movies as your source for information. I've read tons of books, and you probably read zip. I don't block people either.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
Wellington in Spain had the Portugese and Spanish as his allies, and the British greatly focused their effort in the Iberian Peninsula. Wellington's army swelled to over 100,000 by 1813, and he had over 52,000 Brits. He's in a much better situation than Napoleon was in Italy or Egypt. Welly lost many battles and sieges, and yet, he is still fighting, but he's very crappy in siege warfare, and had trouble overwhelming a tiny French garrison, and when he wins, it's usually at a great cost of men.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
Napoleon had little to no reinforcements in Italy, and he had an army under 40,000 men, and he own battle after battle, such as Arcole, Rivoli, Mantua, Hohenlinden, etc...he conquered northen italy in a year. In Egypt, he was hugely outnumbered by the Ottomans and Mamluks at the Pyramids, and won a decisive victory at Mt. Tabor, and Abukir, no reinforcements or supplies ever came because the Royal navy destroyed the French fleet at the Nile.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
"Its the true extent of napoleons genus" Napoleon's real extent of his genius comes from the campaigns of Italy, Spain, Austria, Prussia, France 1814, Italy. I can agree that he did badly, but your precious Wellington retreated to Portugal three times, and he's very crappy in siege warfare. It took him six years to liberate the Iberian peninsula when it only took Napoleon 19 days to conquer Prussia, and less than a year to subjugate Italy.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy Wellington had no men. a v small army with no reinforcements. What the hell do you expect him to do?One single battle lost would be the end of him.
He had to operate within these constraints.. he was a bloody good general and much better than napoleon.
He finally met Napoleon at waterloo and totally beat him.
zenoist2 7 months ago
hmm I have an incredibly shit idea
Lets Invade Russia!
zenoist2 7 months ago
I wouldnt worry my head off about If I were you. napoleon was utter shit when faced with wellington and totally outclassed.
Winning against 3rd rate generals might look good on paper but it hardly cuts.
As soon as napoleon meets wellington he suffers a catastrophic defeat.
I wonder how that came about?
zenoist2 7 months ago
My position is Napoleon was a fairly good general he could easily beat crappy opposition. as soon as he came up against anyone actually good like Wellingtom at waterloo he was a useless prick and totally outclassed.
He suffered a massive defeat in his first meeting with Wellington at Waterloo
. Says it all really.
Welington was by far the better general.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, Napoleon fought and defeated very good generals, such as Archduke Charles, Schwarzenburg, Kutusov, Bennigsen, Bagration, Blucher, they wern't crappy at all. etc... Both Wellington and Blucher defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, but you make it sound as though he did all the work. The only good generals Wellington actually defeated were Soult, Massena, and Bessieres, but he never fought against Davout, Lannes, Murat, or Suchet.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy Yeah I know,
he wasnt as good as wellington though..Thats all im saying.
Wellington was by far the better general.
He actually hated war but was peculiarly good at it.
a famous quote of his was there is nothing so melancoly about a battle won unless its a battle lost or something like that.
zenoist2 7 months ago
Comment removed
expertstrategy 7 months ago
why dont you Napoleon fans admit he just totally fucked it up? Invading Russia is a mad idea in any shape or form.
Napoleon was a dick for even thinikng about it.
zenoist2 7 months ago
why dont you guys comment on this video>?
and avoid Russia 1812? Its the true extent of napoleons genus having a huge armyr resort to cannabilism and gettled whittled down to practically zero.
Good planning there I think not!
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, yes, he failed strategically in Russia, but he didn't fail as a military leader. He and his marshals kept the Russian army at bay, and they crossed the Berezina River due to the incredible effort of the engineers. Invading Russia isn't always a bad idea as you think, the Mongols, Poles, French and British (Crimean War).
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@zenoist2 "Its the true extent of napoleons genus" Napoleon's real extent of his genius comes from the campaigns of Italy, Spain, Austria, Prussia, France 1814, Italy. I can agree that he did badly, but your previous Wellington retreated to Portugal three times, and he's very crappy in siege warfare. It took him six years to liberate the Iberian peninsula when it only took Napoleon 19 days to conquer Prussia, and less than a year to subjugate Italy.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
It wasn't exactly a standstill since Napoleon was winning, and then the Prussians arrived and smashed his right flank.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy Napoleon wasnt winning at all at waterloo at any point whatsover.
Can you honestly imagine Weliington suddenly giving up his hill top position?. Nor can I. In youre dreams man.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, actually, I'm not imagining it. Everybody including historians knows that Napoleon was winning by the time the Prussians arrived. I don't see why you don't.
I do believe Wellington said this "Give me night, or give me Blucher." he acknowledged that the battle was the "damnest near run".
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy winning the batle at any time is open to dispute.
What is beyond doubt is that the old guard broke and ran and napoleon was defeated in a massive defeat. he was utterly crushed and waterloo entered the english language as a crushing defeat.
One of my fave battles.
Spin all you like ,Napoleon lost.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, Waterloo just proves that Wellington is helpless without foreign aid, and he needs the Prussians to help defeat Napoleon. If he actually fought the emperor in a one vs one engagement without foreign reinforcements, he'd probably lose badly. It can even be argued that Ney is a better commander than Wellington, since Ney won over him at Redinha, Pombal, and Quatre Bras.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy I could be a total knob and block you but ill leave that for napoleon fans who hate any criticsm of their favourite dwarf.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, criticism is something i'm used to in history.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@zenoist2, blocking me will only prove that you're a coward.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
Thjis is from a French TV mini serees if anyones interested.
You can get it via p2p and torrents.
zenoist2 7 months ago
Anthony999ism,72000 and 68000 troops??!!U say that it's slightly outnumbered??Napoleon got around 4000 more than Wellington.But,actually Prussia made the Coalition victory
Napoleon74578 7 months ago
@Napoleon74578 Please read properly, I said that the Anglo-allies INFANTRY slightly outnumbered the French. But with combined forces of cavs and arts, the French slightly outnumbered the Anglo-allies.
Anthony999ism 7 months ago
I have no problem with admitting Napoleon napoleon was a very good general.
Wellington was much better though as proved in history.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2
You are so partisan in your point of view that it's ridicoulous!
Welly Welly Welly, God himself? for you and English maybe, but for people in the rest of the world he is not comparable with the greatness of Napoleon!
Continuous if it makes you happy, it's the principal.
pennbzh 7 months ago
@pennbzh im not partisan at all i just recognise crapness go and figure.
If the feanch are crap tough luck.
zenoist2 7 months ago
I accept that Wellington is a grand commander, but at Waterloo, it proves that he can't defeat Napoleon alone without foreign aid, and he nearly lost the battle, despite the fact that the French lost most of their cavalry, and the mud severely reduces the firepower of the artillery. The French were already exhausted by 7:00 pm, and 50,000 fresh Prussian soldiers arrive and defeat the French.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy your most honest opinion yet.
it seems both sides had fought to a standstill more or less. then the promised Prussians arrived and tipped the scales decidedly. in Wellingtons favour.
Wellington was promised the these troops and fought the battle accordingly.
There was no luck about it at all.
Wellington is just better than Napoleon.
HIstory proves it.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, Napoleon once said that you can be 90% sure of winning a battle, and leave the rest of the 10% to chance, and that's what happened at Waterloo. He was very close to winning, until Prussian reinforcements arrived.
History proves that Wellington barely held on, and the Prussians finished the job. That's basically the perfect summary.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
if you get bored bored of waterloo look at the navy battles.
trafallgar nile. The simple fact is british troops were rather good Hence napoleons crushing defeat at waterloo. Luckily for Naloleon Welliington wasnt sitting on the hill at austerlitz or he would have got exacty nowhere..
Wellingtons the better general just accept it.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, There are tons of reasons why Napoleon is better. Even at Waterloo where Napoleon wasn't his same usual more aggressive self, Wellington still had a lot of trouble holding him off, despite having the high ground, and he can barely defeat him without Prussian help. So there. I don't really see what you get if Wellington defeats an old, sick, and indecisive Napoleon of 1815. It's like a youngster beating an old man. I would like to see him fight against the Napoleon of 1805.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy thats why napoleon suffered a crushing defeat then at waterloo? I think he was pretty ill in later years actually. Putting arguments aside what do you think his illness was?
I have coleiacs disease which is a total intolerance to wheat flour gluten and can give you cancer of fthe stomach which is quite jolly when it gets you. You basically cant eat anything on a can much.
any normal take away food is a strict no.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, Napoleon had a lot of stomach problems, and many historians agree that it was hereditary. I for one am quite alergic to grass when I mow the lawn, but over time, my immunity system has build itself up, and so, I don't sneeze as much as i used to.
At Waterloo, Napoleon and Wellington's armies were both quite exhausted, and the French already suffered many casualties, and when the Prussians arrived, everything was lost.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy No argument there about the battle..theyd literally come to a standstill bothy exhausted. Then the prussians arrived and made it a total slaughter.
Anway back to the point of his stomach.
It was probably some thing easily treatable today but crippled Napoleon back then as it was unknown and there was no cure.. He wasnt at his best at waterloo.
Or borodino he was ill then too.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, medicine in that time was still kind of primitive. You should look up Dr. Dominique Larrey, he was the best battle surgeon of his time, and he performed hundreds of amputations in the aftermath of Borodino.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
The French won more than fifty wars against England/Britain. In the Middle Ages, they just thrashed the English in so many conflicts that it's not even funny.
Bouvines? La Rochelle?
Beachy Head? Landen?
Yorktown? Minorca?
Fleurus? Redinha?
The only time you actually win a war against France is when you are allied with stronger nations.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy
Nope. We beat the French on our larry many times.
mwillis1000 7 months ago
@mwillis1000, i was trying to piss off Zeno, that's all.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy
I just downloaded ETW, its campaign is wayy better than any TW i have played.
mwillis1000 7 months ago
@mwillis1000, Empire Total War is really fun. You get to fight in three different continents. I was playing as france on very hard, and i managed to conquer most of the 13 colonies of Britain, and i made peace with the Iroquis for over 30 years. i'm still at war with the Dutch, but their cities are very well garrisoned.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy
Im GB and i have pretty much kicked the French out of America and Canada, i was at war with an Indian tribe and they asked for peace, i accpeted without reading the terms, and i find out they asked for Ireland so, Ireland is under the control of Native Americans! LOL. Its such a hectic campaign. I want to play as Maratha and Poland. Sweeden too.
What faction do you think is your favorite?
mwillis1000 7 months ago
@mwillis1000, you can also download the Warpath Campaign, where you can play five or six indian factions. I haven't tried it yet.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy its a very good game napoleon total war is good too. well worth buying
You get to replay these battles. I made a right mess of the pensilular camapign and lost a batlle straight away on the British side that was it I was out no reinforcements no nothing. Its pretty difficult.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, yes, in the game of the Peninsular Campaign for NTW, it's difficult to get more men, but the British have the Spanish and Portugese to help them out. I was playing as Britain on very hard, and I already took many regions and I have two experienced armies.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@mwillis1000, if you play as the Austrian Empire in ETW, then your line infantry units will have 200 men each, they have 40 more men than the rest of the line infantry in Europe.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy
I didnt know that.
Poland are raping Austria in my campagin.
mwillis1000 7 months ago
@mwillis1000, the Polish still had a nation until they were conquered and dismantled by Austria, prussia, and Russia
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy
Whats your favorite faction in ETW?
mwillis1000 7 months ago
@mwillis1000, France is my favorite faction to play as because their position in N. America and S. America is more difficult to maintain, so therefore, it's a real challenge.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy thats why they lose the important ones and why they are called surrender monkeys I guess. winning a few unimportant battles
zenoist2 7 months ago
@expertstrategy French history is full of massive defeats against the english when theyu should have won. Crecy Agincourt.
English history never gets a massive defeat but is full of victories.
Just face the fact the English were or are demon soldiers and it all makes sense.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, Yes, the English are very good soldiers, but just like any, they lost tons of major battles.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@zenoist2 "English history never gets a massive defeat but is full of victories." so you're saying that the battles of Hastings, Bouvines, La Rochelle, Patay, Formigny, Castillon, English Armada 1588, Landen, Neerwinden, Camaret, Fontenoy, Roucoux, Saint Cast, Fort Carillon, Yorktown, Fleurus, Redinha, etc...are all not massive defeats?
expertstrategy 7 months ago
im easy in my mind.
British history is full of impossble victories against the French.
French history versus the english is full of defeats
. Maybe the english are just far superiorr to the french in every shape and form? to be honest I dont think they are.
They are at war though or any battle.
zenoist2 7 months ago
It sa well known fact the brirish are superior and the whole world is too to the french in practicakly very batte l theyve fought and the whole world is too
AgoIcourt? Crecy?
Trafalgar?
Dien bien phu?
Algeria?
the french are a race a utter losers. as soon as they meet the British the they lose battle of nile?
They have always been second rate to GB throughout history and always will be.
zenoist2 7 months ago
Napoleon's winning percentage was better compare to Wellington,79% to 73%
Anthony999ism 8 months ago
@Anthony999ism If wellington would have lost one single battle in the Peninsula war disastrously that was it game over,
He obviously had to be careful.
A lot of people seem to not realise this, one defeat and that was the end of the british Army.
he couldnt afford it unlike the fench who could count on reinforcements,
Losing battles to the british was second nature to them and they just sent in reinforcements for all the good it did them when Wellington kept beating them all .
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2, i seriously doubt that Wellington won at Redinha, Pombal, Talavera, Burgos, San Sebastian, Toulouse, and Quatre Bras. He retreated into Portugal three times.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@Anthony999ism Until napoleon finally met weliington at waterloo.
Welington had previously defeated all his best generals so the man must have had some merit.
Pitted against Napoleon he won a famous victory despite being outnumbered for practically the whole day.
He obviously was better than Napoleon.
This is the only battle we have to compare the two and Wellington wins hands down.
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2 Wellington lost few battles in the Peninsula and he won battles against some Napoleon's marshals such as Soult, Marmont, Massena, however the french he fought were not as good as the french in Germany, Soult even sometimes out maneuvered him but failed because he lacks of fine troops and execution. Marshal Ney also beat him several times in Portugal.
Anthony999ism 7 months ago
@Anthony999ism worked well at waterloo didnt it?
zenoist2 7 months ago
@zenoist2 Wellington got the high ground, it rains the day before which made Napoleon hard to maneuver his artillery, Welly's infantry even slightly outnumbered Napoleon's but yes, Napoleon got more cavs and arts but both of them can't work well if the ground is muddy. But yes, Napoleon and Ney made some errors at that day.
Anthony999ism 7 months ago
@9911aleksey, that's a good point. Wellington won many of his battles when he fought on the defensive, since that is probably his best advantage. Napoleon was both good on the defense and offensive, but he's better on the offensive when it comes to taking the initiative, and bringing the fight to his enemy's land.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
@expertstrategy I can only compare when these generals met in battle.
mapoleon got slaughtered.
He lost
Big style
got thrashed that sort of thing
. He was obviously much inferir to wellington when it came to the crunch
he was all mouth and no balls.
look at history waterloo.
zenoist2 7 months ago
Comment removed
pennbzh 7 months ago
@zenoist2
You said : "Look at history Waterloo", no you should say look at Zenoist2 history of Waterloo and this history is a little bit different of the reality facts.
Have you ever considered becoming a writer? you have definitely talent for create stories!
pennbzh 7 months ago
@zenoist2, All Wellington did was defend, and he only won because of the Prussians. Both Wellington and Blucher defeated Napoleon together since they were both important.
I am very aware of the history of the battle of Waterloo, but your version is ridiculous and propagandic.
Did you know that Maitland's British Guards retreated before the 4th Chasseurs? There are absolutely no Grenadiers at that point.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@zenoist2, every historian would acknowledge that the Prussians guaranteed victory for Wellington, or otherwise, they would lose.
Maybe a few sourpuss British are afraid to acknowledging to the truth.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@9911aleksey
You are right but with this guy you can't talk seriously, he is to much partisan, not objective and a little bit racist with France, have a look at : Napoleon - Russia 1812 video.
So when he says bullshits i answer him in the same way, there is nothing more to say at this kind of guy.
His only policy is to degrade France.
pennbzh 8 months ago
@9911aleksey
I perfectly know that Napoleon was not a genius in very battles he made, if i said "continue your Litany....." to Zenoist2, it's because this guy is absolutely partisan and no objective with the facts.
pennbzh 8 months ago
Im amazed naopleon fans even look at this to be honest.
They seem to suffer a collective memory loss regarding his brilliant sheer genius 1812 Russian campaign where his troops starved and froze to death.
He lost his cavalry never to be replaced and wiped out a huge army singlehandedly.
Now thats NOT what I call genius.
It wasnt only a bad decision or two it was a whole series of them one after another for weeks and months on end
Genius huh?
zenoist2 8 months ago
@zenoist2
Continue your litany, nobody believe you!
pennbzh 8 months ago
@9911aleksey, it's true that Napoleon's military capabilities gradually slowed down in the later years of his reign. At Waterloo, he was no longer the aggressive type of general, but instead he was a sick and indecisive man, and he almost won the battle.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
@9911aleksey, I have enormous respect for Napoleon, and I'm also aware of his blunders. It's impossible for people like Zenoist to be objective in history since they allow their own national arrogance and chauvinism to blind them from the truth in history. It's very difficult for Zeno to swallow the fact that Wellington is far from being Napoleon's equal in battle. Waterloo only proves that Arthur is helpless without foreign aid. 1 vs 1, Napoleon would defeat him.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
Russian campain a disaster for the French army YES! Waterloo a defeat YES!
I am an Napoleon admirer, iam sane, i know the facts, i know truth.
What i criticize is your obsession to reduce the importance of Napoleon because of your hate of France.
I see the truth, but another truth is that it is very hard for an Eglish to be objective with Napoleon.
pennbzh 8 months ago
A really good book on this is
Adam Zamoyski
"1812 Napoleons fatal march on Moscow"
Brilliant book.
Its more of a narrative of eyewitnesses than anything I suppose.
It is not one of these books where x unit consisiting of 2600 men deploys on the left at 3pm etc
ot one of these bppks where X unit de[ploys on the left flank
zenoist2 8 months ago
@9911aleksey
The grande Armee was practically wiped out mostly from bad decisions on Napoleons part.
Napoleon fans hate to admit to anything being wrong with their hero and total genius and have blocked me from commenting on their videos.
They hate the truth if it clashes with their ideas.
Anyway,If he had left Moscow just 2 weeks earlier his army would have escaped the dreadful winter.
There was no reason at all for him to stay there as long as he did.
zenoist2 8 months ago
@zenoist2, It wouldn't matter if Napoleon left Russia two weeks earlier. The winter would come anyway. It will take him a couple of months for Napoleon to get out of Russia. The reason why he stayed in moscow for many weeks is because he expected a Russian diplomat to arrive with terms of peace, since it was traditional in that time to seek peace when a capital was captured.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
@zenoist2, It's true that Napoleon made many mistakes while campaigning in Russia, but that one blunder doesn't discount over 20 years of military glory. The winter did in fact kill off most of his army, and the Grande Armee's situation aggitated since it was out of supplies, and they can't live off the barren land of Russia. Napoleon and his marshals fended off the Russians successfully in many rearguard actions, and the army was safe out of Russia after the Battle of Berezina.
expertstrategy 8 months ago