I was pretty sure the first move wasn't a cavalry charge, but a march against Hougumont. @adekoon you can't force the cavalry to charge against such a compact group of pikes, really.
That the thing that happend at Waterloo in the afternoon.
Marchal Ney commited the bulk of the french cavallry against the allied center. The allies formed squares right on time and withstood the attack.
But you understand it better if you see the 1970 movie "Waterloo". Rod Steiger as Napoleon compared to Christian Clavier is like John Rambo compared to Miley Cyrus.
It was suggested that Waterloo be called La Belle Alliance, before Waterloo was chosen, they worked together. Also, why conquest of paradise for the music?
@kingbleah Incorrect – the Act of Union 1800 saw the Union of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 and the adoption of the new Union Flag with St Patrick's cross included. It has remained unchanged ever since.
The battle of Waterloo has been analysed without end since it ended. There is a short quote from a French general following Napoleons defeat at Waterloo. Find it on wiki and read that little section. It is pragmatic and objective and does not attempt to lay the victorious outcome of the coalition forces on any one particular nation. To argue that it was one over the other is senseless.
the belgian and the dutch helpt them basterds remeber our small countrys fougt while the austrian did not show thier face!!!!!!! cowerds!!!!!! The english won because of thier strengt the prussians did fougt in the last hour!!!! the british did the most. so dont see the prussians as the heroes of waterloo!!!!!
Yeah thats the Version the english historians created...if you want to take a closer look at the events you should read the Book "1815 The Waterloo Campaign the German Victory by Peter Hofschroer" one of the most famous historians when it comes to the napoleonic wars. Just some data from his book: Total number of allied forces (Bluchers and Wellingtons) 210.890 men of these 32.418 were British, 24.501 were Dutch-Belgians and 153.971 were Germans.
I agree with you, the Anglo-saxons always try to change history: they defeated Napoleon while 80% of the Allied forces were Germans in the Waterloo campaign, they defeated Hitler while 80% of the Allied forces were Soviets... It's the same shit every time with them... The fact is that the Engaylish and their retarded American cousins never won a war by themselves, but always try to take the credit of the victory.
If we take a look at Wellingtons army at Waterloo we will see that 23.991 men were british, 17.784 men were Netherlanders and 25.886 were Germans from the german states Hannover, Brunswick , Nassau and the Kings German Legion. If you read the book you will find out that the Prussian army played a decisive role in the Battle of Waterloo even before the battle had started that day.
I dont say the germans alone won the battle, without the british forces the campaign would have been lost , but i dont like these english versions of history saying we british won the war with a little help of the germans and dutch. Sorry but this is simply not true..it was an allied victory, british dutch belgian and german soldiers fought and died side by side.
@SMSSeydlitz I think the key of the Waterloo campaign victory for the allies was Quatre Bras, where the Prince of Orange disobeyed Wellington to assembled his Dutch army in Nivelles and decided to defend Quatre Bras instead. The Prince of Orange was proven to be right and managed to fend off the French attack quite a time. Without the Prince of Orange, Napoleon would be able to successfully maneuvered his army and the Anglo-Dutch-German and Prussian forces would be destroyed.
@fighterforEGYPT I'd like to know how the Austrians were "cowards" considering they were at war with France virtually non-stop between 1793 and 1814, even after the loss of the Holy Roman Empire they reformed and were active through most of the seven coalitions against France. They were also part of the Seventh Coalition, but considering Napoleon and his army went north, and Austria is miles away to the east, they were hardly going to "arrive at the last minute" were they? Think about it...
The english did defeat napeleon, the prussians arrived just before we won. We had already held for days. the french excuse is that napoleon had piles. Dont go slagging off the british when youve only heard one side of the argument.
@DOOMSHARPE The Prussians arrived just before you and your allies to be crushed. If the Prussians didn't arrive, Lobau corps and the rest of the Imperial guard could be sent to the center. I know you and your allies did a great job by camping and holding the ground from the French for hours but please don't take all the credits. Yours "only" consisted a third of the army. Yes, Duke of Wellington was the commander, but don't forget Chasse's division, which routed the Middle Guard.
@riku288 Yes.. I suppose your alternative of letting Robespierre remain in power as dictator, mass executioner and possibly even Emperor himself, is a better alternative than war? Idiot... men go to war for different reasons – the French had theirs, and the coalition forces each had their own too, and that was usually in the name of returning a monarch to the French throne. The Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars are far more than "sheep" – every man had a reason. Even if it was for gin.
@kruat43 Sorry, you got some idiots replying to you. The reason Prussia isn't in this clip, is because it comes from the miniseries "Napoleon" which focuses mainly on the French side of things. The Waterloo battle is the worst recreation in the series - Austerlitz and Eylau were much better done. The Waterloo battle even makes a Sharpe series battle look good (cough). Anyway, the recreation didn't focus much on the Prussians, just some of the British engagements a few times but not in depth.
@expertstrategy thank you thank you my men... i will find you a sex slave and give you 100 horses and the head of your enemy xD ( ok that is a little bit creepy) :D
@9911aleksey Agree, he didn't really have plenty of choices for picking his commander in chief. The marshals who returned to him were Davout, Ney, Suchet, Soult, Jourdan, Brune, Mortier,Lefebvre, and Serurier if I'm not mistaken. From all of them, Davout was definitely the best. Brune was later assasinated, Mortier was sick, Soult ability was wasted by being the chief of staff, while Lefebvre and Serurier were aging.
@9911aleksey Yep, Wellington even praised Soult for his tactics how ever Soult often relied too much to his subordinates which eventually lead to his failure (failed in execution).
@9911aleksey, you know, Marshal Soult is an exceptional corps commander, and Napoleon once remarked Soult as the "Greatest tactician of Europe" but the one major weakness is that he is not as effective in battle when he is fighting as an individual. Teamwork is something he's very good at.
@9911aleksey, many of those wars you mentioned were in reality a win. The French didn't lose the HYW since the English were kicked out by 1453. France didn't lose WW I either as opposed to popular belief. WW II, France was recognized as a winner of WW II, and they occupied part of Germany for many decades.
Napoleon is just lucky that Bulgaria was enslaved by the Ottoman Empire at that time or his glory would not stop in Russia but we would of have slain those french dogs like in WW1.
You all people fucking stupid who say Russian winter, Napoleon's cause failures. -5C is great frost yes?? ahaha in November 1812 in moscow be +10C. Winter, winter this is stupid . Kutuzov was great russian general in 1812. You europeans fucking pussies. Russian people are strong and not winter did victory but brave russian people and serfs ( like black slaves in USA,a little bit more human than that of slaves).
@vitjoki91@vitjoki9 if you knew your history you would know that the winter took out more then 50% of Napoleon's army and you guys didn't do much that was the russian plan... make a few ambushes and trick Napoleon deeper into Russia and also robbing his supply lines and then when he reached Moscow russians burned it down about the battle there were around 500,00 soldiers in TOTAL but of tactical reasons the russians retreated and then they made a fort
@vitjoki91 the unexpected charge from west made the soldiers flee so he forced to make the russian reinforcements join early all in all Napoleon won but lost alot of men
about brave people.. you can say this about all the soldiers there joined battles... cause they knew the risk
everybody there joins a battle is brave... learn to shut your mouth before you speak you cunt
i dont know if this is true but my physics teacher told us that the reason napoleon lost the battle at waterloo because he absorbed mercury (i cant remember how) making him go abit mad which caused him to make bad decisions in the battle
@flyinjoethebest Many people of the time were taking things , or coming into inadvertant contact with things that would give any doctors of today the shudders -- Let alone their diets !
In Later life as prime minister of Britain Wellington's breakfasts were reported to be a glass of champagne , a bottle of claret , two large glasses of Port , porridge , two beefsteaks , a pork chop and four eggs . Given that the green colour in the wallpaper was Arsenic ... you see ?
lol, they failed when the romans marched in, they failed in the beginning of the hundred years war, they failed under napoleon, they failed in the beginning of WW1, they failed in WW2, they failed in the indochina war ....
@Oesterreich1156, France succeeded in Hundred Years War, and they did very well under Napoleon for most of the time until the end. WW I isn't a French defeat, France defeated every German offensive, and they had more success in the Balkans than the British did. WW II, France wins in the end. Review your history before I further make you look like an idiot.
@Oesterreich1156, nobody could have stopped the Romans during that time, that includes the Britons, Vandals, Greeks, Egyptians, Carthaginians, etc...the Romans even conquered Germania under Emperor Marcus Aurelius, but his inept son lost it. btw, France didn't exist in that time, it was only Gaul.
@Oesterreich1156 and you fail in history.... failed when romans marched in? lol France did not exist in Roman time only Gaul whitch were bigger then France is today and failing in the beginning of the hundred years war? lol I must say ofc they do when the brits suddenly attack them just because they want the crown the brits had prepared 2 years to make that war and then French did not expect it at all
@Oesterreich1156 I guess not they failed under Napoleon.... nobody would conqure Europe without getting alot of enemies Napoleon was outnumbred in most battles and still won most of them the battle on Waterloo was on won by the brits cause
-They had the hill
-2 farms
-They were Defensive
-They had their allies
What Napoleon had was
-Mud on the field so his cannons took longer to move
-Stupid commander like Micheal Ney there charged with all Napoleon's cav with no inf support
@Oesterreich1156 -He had no support -he had to get up a hill with his soldiers -he was outnumbred cause of the Prussia reinforcements Probably more but I have forgot it then WW1? HA you clealy are a idiot The french was not cowards at all they defended their country from the Germans and in the end made them on retreat from their front WW2 Maybe they got conqured but there were still soldiers and rebellions there fought agianst the Germans soo congratz you just showed us how idiotic you are cunt
Napoléon, traitre à sa partie la Corsica, comme ses parents, Carlo, le père, et Letizia (née Ramolino), catin et maitresse du comte de Marboeuf (bourreau et gouverneur de la Corse). La famille Bonaparte fuira la Corse, pourchassées par les milices paolistes, quand sera édifié le royaume anglo-corse en 1794. Un affront que le dictateur fera payer très cher à son peuple quand il parviendra au Pouvoir en 1799. La Corse sera mise à feu et à sang.
Someone who really studies history knows that history is written by winners, losers, academics, liars, students, scholars, biased, megalomaniacs, whiners, idiots- etc etc.....
Someone who really studies all of this can then formulate an objective truth.
@slizzler1, you know, it seems as though the only time Napoleon was defeated in battle, is when he is vastly outnumbered, and he rarely loses a battle when the odds are even.
Apsern-Essling, Leipzig, La Rothière, Montmartre, Laon, and Waterloo are all battles where Napoleon was hugely outnumbered and lost, mainly because of that. It seems like that using their brains isn't sufficient for the Allies, so they rely on overwhelming numbers to decide the outcome. cont)
In war, many commanders of even the highest talents would love overwhelming superiority in numbers to achieve victory; war is a deadly game- the stakes for losing are too high to not use every advantage possible. The Allies had talented commanders, but many incompetent ones too. Troop quality is also a key in victories.
'outnumbering' an enemy is not what decides many battles.
What matters is having a sufficient military power to achieve a victory.
Such components can include advantages in troop quality, supplies, terrain, leadership, morale, weather, etc.
At the end of WW2, Allied scouts were driving into German towns which surrendered thousands of armed German troops at once. Of course, you know other victories in history achieved by sides that were massively outnumbered> Siege of Alesia
@slizzler1, the thing about me is that i don't allow my national pride to tamper my view in history. I'm not even afraid to criticize the historical flaws of my own country, because in history, i'm as unbiased as a historian could be.
Only uncivilized dumbdumbs with ego issues will be screeching out 'unpatriotic'.
They are dangers to free societies.
We saw this with the neocons during the Bush years. They trained half of America to yell out 'unpatriotic' at anybody who spoke out against their right wing policies, and their unprovoked war in Iraq.
The funny thing about all these deviants who like to yell 'unpatriotic', is that they are typically ignorant, anti-social, whining, and cowards.
@slizzler1, I've read something quite interesting. The reason why the Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard wear large red plumes at the tip of their furry bearskin caps is because it will exaggerate their height, and it will even make the enemy infantry shoot at them with their muskets aimed higher than is necessary, therefore, their chances of missing the target are great.
But the red plumes will also give away their position very easily, and the enemy will spot them before they can.
that was very interesting debate material..... very insightful analysis of the pros and cons of Napoleonic headgear being purposefully tall to make soldiers look more 'imposing'.
@slizzler1 Sorry, maybe I didn't write a proper sentence, what I actually meant was that usually, winners acknowledge them as the "good guys". For example at WWI, the Germans got most of the blame(Somewhat like the evil guys). Winners usually wrote propaganda or whatsoever. Yes, it may not be true or objective, but they had the power of propaganda (ex:British in Napoleonic Wars)
But I was pointing out that this line is used by people who don't know how to study history;
In a way it insults those writers and witnesses of history who have recorded an objective/ real truth of a historical event; because misinformation is spread by such inaccurate 'one liners' that no other histories exist other than inaccurate stories/ propaganda of biased writers on a victorious side.
@9911aleksey I think it was more to do with the fact that britain only had one regular army, of about 50,000 men in the field, and so W simply could not afford to risk losing it or sufferng very heavy casualties in risky attacks. It was a very well trained army - and Europe's only professional army - but very valuable. That is why he was careful with it, it had less to do with whether he felt it could cope (it was highly trained). But I agree with you overall - he is best known for defence
@9911aleksey It's a lazy myth to call W a defensive general - go and study his campaigns in detail and see how he defeated the French in Spain and Portugal through superb offensive moves, culminating at Vittoria. In fact, W drove the French out of Spain - hardly a defensive only general. However, he is best remembered for Waterloo, and of course there, due to the quality of his army, he had to defend and wait for help.
@THthefirst, Wellington defeated Soult, Massena, and other marshals while he was mainly in the defensive, such as at Salamanca and Bussaco, and Fuentos Onoro. When Messena invaded Portugal in 1810, Wellington stripped the lands bare of food and equipment in an attempt to starve out of the French, it worked out well, but it also effected the Portugese population as well. For several months, a stalemate broke out before the French had to retreat.
@9911aleksey, I wouldn't say that he took chlidren into his army, I'd say that they were young boys like 17 or eighteen years old. Napoleon was quite successful in 1814 with an army of raw recruits against seasoned veterans of the Allied armies.
Sometimes Napoleon can act ruthless and humane at certain periods. He's even a very lenient type of man, and he was even willing to pardon a German nationalist who attempted to assassinate him in 1809.
@9911aleksey. I've read a lot about Napoleon, and there were some things about him which disturbed me a little, but I swallowed them without hesitation. I want to have an unbiased view about Napoleon. I can respect him both as a person and a leader, but not always.
I've visited the actual Waterloo battlefield. It's quite interesting to see the actual field. It's more hilly than I originally imagined. I can't even imagine a battle involving tens of thousands of soldiers on each side. It must have been both terrific & horrifying.
@AlpineWilfy, I greatly admire Wellington, I think he's the best commander of the Allied nations against France.
Many people actually believe Wellington was undefeated, but that's a huge lie. He lost many battles in his military career. That's part of my myth breaking.
@AlpineWilfy, I guess I got caught up in the moment with Zenoist2. I was trying to get at him. The victories Wellington won in the Peninsular War are impressive. He defeated two French invasions of Portugal and ingeniously stopped Massena's invasion with a stalemate, which soon resulted in the retreat of the French.
For a French hater like you, the motto of your country does not make you crazy? "DIEU ET MON DROIT" beautiful motto isn't it? and the the motto of the " Most Noble Order of the Garter" "HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE" the higher of the British orders of chivalry.
@pennbzh i have no problem with it. france are crap at eveything as history proves. they had a good general in napoleom so naturally elevate him to genius.
napoleion was crap compared to Weliington though.
@zenoist2, comparing Wellington to Napoleon is a big joke. Napoleon seldom had any trouble trying to overwhelm a tiny garrison unlike his Brit counterpart. Welly had a lot of trouble in siege warfare, he failed to take Badajos (1811), and even when he did capture it in 1812, he lost a great deal of men. At Burgos, he had 35,000 Portugese and Brits against 2000 French, and he lost badly. There was also (1st ) San Sebastian, where his first assault failed. He retreated to Portugal three times.
Best thing napoleon acheived was to utterly get crushed and wipe out any trace of french influence in a few places of the globe so that english influence took over world wide
And now English is the worlds language.
if it wasnt for Napoleon the british couldnt have cared less about all these places they inherited
@zenoist2, Napoleon's legacy gave birth to future revolutions which occured in many places around the world. The Code Napoleon influenced the laws and civil codes of many nations in Europe, Latin America, N.America, Middle East, and Africa. So technically, French influence was very broad in the world.
Napoleon is included among the top three best military commanders in history. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and Napoleon. I don't see Welly involved anywhere. Historians even concluded that if Marshal Davout was at Quatre Bras instead of Ney, then Wellington would have been defeated very shortly.
The original French army was truly great I agree full of passion and fighting spirit that had sprung straight from the revolution and its morale that wins battles.
300 spartans lost but thats not the point.
By 1815 however napoleons best troops had all been killed off in years of unending war especially after Russia 1812 and he had an army mostly of conscripts who didnt even want to be there.
They were obviously rubbish and got defeated at waterloo.
@zenoist2, Napoleon's conscripts fought like lions. He even had an army of young men in 1814, and he won the Six Day's Campaign while being greatly outnumbered. You are over obsessed with Waterloo, and you treat it as if it were the only victory you can actually boast about. Stop pretending that Wellington defeated Napoleon without the help of the Prussians. It's very obvious that it takes a 2-1 advantage to defeat him. The Royal Navy was filled with drafed men and American sailors (illegally)
I am Happy to read you and to see truth said to Zenoist2, this guy is bounded! unfortunately my English is not so good so i have some difficult to speak with that obsessed guy. It's crazy to see how English guys are obsessed by Waterloo," we won we are the best" etc.., i think Zenoist2 is obsessed by his hate of France and i think English are maybe a little bit jealous of Napoleon. England is a great Nation but England always liked plotting quietly on their island, not glorious
@pennbzh, plotting is what the British tend to do. Since the age of Louis XIV to Napoleon I, England/Britain has waged countless coalitions against France, but most of them failed miserably. 80,000 British died in Haiti from 1794-1798, mostly due to disease and the ceaseless guerilla attacks of Toussaint and Governor Leveaux.
Do not believe that England was so strong at that time, Navy yes, army not at all, if Napoleon had successfully landed in England in 1805, he would have won easily, all historian are agree on that point, but facts are facts England is an island with a good navy at that time and their best general to defend them : General Channel.
Being an island has always been the greatest strength of England, that have saved them several times.
Yes England ruled the world by the seas with a great sea Empire, no problem with that, but Napoleon ruled Europe and at that time it was the hardest think to do, with a fabulous army, the greatest since centuries.
You are english and you defend english history it's natural but try to be a little more impartial and please stop always wanting to minimize what Napoleon did with his great army on earth, because ruled Europe from Spain to Russia in 1812, not many countries did it.
Wellington is just known to be winner of Waterloo ( to the detriment of Blucher), it illustrate very well what i said : collect laurels to the detriment of, " we are the best, we won waterloo, we are we are.." don't worry everybody knows the music
Compare Wellington to Napoleon, good joke, you make me laugh, i have nothing to answer you, your stupidity answer for you very well
Maybe it's the greatest Wellington who won Austerlitz,Iéna,Ulm,Wagram,Eylau,Friedland, Who knows?
@zenoist2, Napoleon's brother, Joseph, ruled Spain. The French controlled a huge portion of Spain. Wellington did lose many battles, not to mention he was driven back into Portugal three times. Waterloo is hardly a crushing victory. 25,000 French dead and wounded in comparison to 24,000 Allied dead. You call that a victory? It literally takes sheer numbers to defeat Napoleon or otherwise, he would have kicked your arses.
Said European countries under Napoleon are losers when English were protected by the channel is too easy. The only thing the British have done in this story, was waiting, praying that the storm has passed (Thanks Channel), plotting, make alliances in the hope that others will do the job and land at the end and collect laurels. Very very good foreign policy because it was well paid but in the end it's not very glorious.
Facts : Allies won France loose but what a great army it was.
@pennbzh you are misled. Dont forget a long drawn out war needs a LOT of money and thats one reason why GB won.
They could raise the money with trade between various places in the world coming in as britiain ruled the seas. Napoleon was a bit of a dick not to see this or maybe he did but couldnt do anything
France was curt off and had no trade or money coming in and was bound to lose eventually..
France was twice as populous as GB at this time so would naturally have more cannon fodder.
@zenoist2 i do not agree. im polish and napoleon gave us country and freedom from prussia, austria and russia. he didnt treat us like shit. but then unfortunately we lost in russia.
really napoleon copy his title, france was empire only in name,in europe only 2 monarchs have the rights over the title of Emperor and the legal continuity of the roman heritage{west and east empires} was the holy roman emperor and the Czar of russia,napoleon was only a general full of greed, the true first dictator, napoleon was a ursurper and his dynasty the bonaparts is a lineage of snakes,even other french houses as capets,bourbons and orleans dont recognize the bonapart as a dinasty.
@gueropalma1990, Napoleon was elected as a monarch by the popular vote of the people, how is that being a usurper? Many Roman emperors were voted into position. The Hanovarian Kings were elected to rule Britain. He legally created his own dynasty. Many monarchs recognized Napoleon as a legitimate monarch except Britain. Alexander admired Napoleon for a while. How was Napoleon a "true dictator"? Aren't all monarchs and emperors dictators? What's the difference?
Revolutions start for a reason-> the participants realize they risk swift death for their effort if they fail; so it is only in situations of severe desperation that revolutions start..... monarchy/dictator-glorifiers are clueless about such things> on a humanity/ social injustice level.
@gueropalma1990, the Bourbons abandoned the French people, and Marie Antoinette's husband, Louis XVI attempted to escape from Austria and gain military aid from his wife's brother and reclaim the throne of France. This was high treason. The Bourbons were forcibly installed on the French throne by foreign bayonets, therefore, they are the real usurpers, in 1814, and they aggitated France's condition, by resurrecting feudalism, noble privileges, etc...
and tell me WHY louis escape? and not that wasnt treason, he want save france from that terrorist revolution he want save his country from snakes like Bailly,riqueti,guillotin,marat,danton and robespierre, moreover, will not stand for any French Dynasty,malicious snakes, and his weakness destroy Europe and as a side effect of its bloody terrorist revolution today there are extreme left, populism, demagogy and communism
@gueropalma1990, he wanted to gain foreign military aid to retake his throne, yes, that is high treason and he was executed as a traitor to the people. Napoleon restored order and he was disgusted with the ravages of the Revolution, but he retained many of the principle ideals such as Freedom of Religion, right to property, divorce, etc...Revolution has it's defects and advantages, just like any other revolution.
ee
Sembulaga 2 weeks ago
@Sembulaga
Sembulaga 2 weeks ago
for all those peopkle still question why there is battle of austerlitz in this video on which i once commented and i will comment the same way again:
ironical compare to waterloo
Austerlitz Napoleon at its height
Waterloo Napoleon at its ...
Hate it or love it...
ares1815 2 months ago
Why is the battle of Austerlitz in this video?
teamminecraftify 2 months ago 2
Holland
NOlifer97 2 months ago
Of course I enjoyed it!
Epic and marvelous video... the music is perfect!
WerewolfNihil 2 months ago
what's the name of the song??
BOMGOBONGO 2 months ago
@BOMGOBONGO Conquest of paradise
lamageek 1 week ago
2:22 spiderman?
thomaswni 3 months ago
@thomaswni no 42nd Black Watch
wHYSTORYw 3 months ago
The My Battle
www24housePL 3 months ago
there is Austerliz battle in this viedeo XD
wHYSTORYw 3 months ago
I was pretty sure the first move wasn't a cavalry charge, but a march against Hougumont. @adekoon you can't force the cavalry to charge against such a compact group of pikes, really.
learningtotowerrush 3 months ago
I was pretty sure the first move wasn't a cavalry charge, but a march against Hougumont.
learningtotowerrush 3 months ago
@learningtotowerrush
Sure, but what do you expect from a movie that dates the battle at April 18th?
Sokra01 2 months ago
@Sokra01 epic feeling is what counts here, clever boy
sainte5 1 month ago
what the hell is wrong with the french cavalry at 1:14 just goin around in circles while the british infantry is shooting them???
adekoon 3 months ago
@adekoon
That the thing that happend at Waterloo in the afternoon.
Marchal Ney commited the bulk of the french cavallry against the allied center. The allies formed squares right on time and withstood the attack.
But you understand it better if you see the 1970 movie "Waterloo". Rod Steiger as Napoleon compared to Christian Clavier is like John Rambo compared to Miley Cyrus.
Sokra01 2 months ago
@Sokra01 Personally, I prefer a French actor for a French Emperor.
donga33260 2 months ago in playlist NAPOLEON WAR
@Sokra01 yes but they obviously tried to get inside the squares not just run around them
adekoon 1 month ago
It was suggested that Waterloo be called La Belle Alliance, before Waterloo was chosen, they worked together. Also, why conquest of paradise for the music?
FrancisBerryman 4 months ago
the flag is incorrect the cross in union flag was just white.
as the new untied kingdom went to war together as one.
the flag shown includes wales .
kingbleah 4 months ago
@kingbleah Incorrect – the Act of Union 1800 saw the Union of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 and the adoption of the new Union Flag with St Patrick's cross included. It has remained unchanged ever since.
MarcusBritish 3 months ago in playlist MarcusBritish's favorites
The battle of Waterloo has been analysed without end since it ended. There is a short quote from a French general following Napoleons defeat at Waterloo. Find it on wiki and read that little section. It is pragmatic and objective and does not attempt to lay the victorious outcome of the coalition forces on any one particular nation. To argue that it was one over the other is senseless.
1977Harrier 4 months ago
england kill napoleon!!!!!!
statis1000 4 months ago
english won because of the prussian yes yes....
the belgian and the dutch helpt them basterds remeber our small countrys fougt while the austrian did not show thier face!!!!!!! cowerds!!!!!! The english won because of thier strengt the prussians did fougt in the last hour!!!! the british did the most. so dont see the prussians as the heroes of waterloo!!!!!
fighterforEGYPT 5 months ago
@fighterforEGYPT
Yeah thats the Version the english historians created...if you want to take a closer look at the events you should read the Book "1815 The Waterloo Campaign the German Victory by Peter Hofschroer" one of the most famous historians when it comes to the napoleonic wars. Just some data from his book: Total number of allied forces (Bluchers and Wellingtons) 210.890 men of these 32.418 were British, 24.501 were Dutch-Belgians and 153.971 were Germans.
SMSSeydlitz 4 months ago
@SMSSeydlitz
I agree with you, the Anglo-saxons always try to change history: they defeated Napoleon while 80% of the Allied forces were Germans in the Waterloo campaign, they defeated Hitler while 80% of the Allied forces were Soviets... It's the same shit every time with them... The fact is that the Engaylish and their retarded American cousins never won a war by themselves, but always try to take the credit of the victory.
Freez57fr 3 weeks ago
@fighterforEGYPT
If we take a look at Wellingtons army at Waterloo we will see that 23.991 men were british, 17.784 men were Netherlanders and 25.886 were Germans from the german states Hannover, Brunswick , Nassau and the Kings German Legion. If you read the book you will find out that the Prussian army played a decisive role in the Battle of Waterloo even before the battle had started that day.
SMSSeydlitz 4 months ago
I dont say the germans alone won the battle, without the british forces the campaign would have been lost , but i dont like these english versions of history saying we british won the war with a little help of the germans and dutch. Sorry but this is simply not true..it was an allied victory, british dutch belgian and german soldiers fought and died side by side.
SMSSeydlitz 4 months ago
@SMSSeydlitz I think the key of the Waterloo campaign victory for the allies was Quatre Bras, where the Prince of Orange disobeyed Wellington to assembled his Dutch army in Nivelles and decided to defend Quatre Bras instead. The Prince of Orange was proven to be right and managed to fend off the French attack quite a time. Without the Prince of Orange, Napoleon would be able to successfully maneuvered his army and the Anglo-Dutch-German and Prussian forces would be destroyed.
Anthony999ism 3 months ago
@fighterforEGYPT I'd like to know how the Austrians were "cowards" considering they were at war with France virtually non-stop between 1793 and 1814, even after the loss of the Holy Roman Empire they reformed and were active through most of the seven coalitions against France. They were also part of the Seventh Coalition, but considering Napoleon and his army went north, and Austria is miles away to the east, they were hardly going to "arrive at the last minute" were they? Think about it...
MarcusBritish 3 months ago in playlist MarcusBritish's favorites
The english did defeat napeleon, the prussians arrived just before we won. We had already held for days. the french excuse is that napoleon had piles. Dont go slagging off the british when youve only heard one side of the argument.
DOOMSHARPE 5 months ago
@DOOMSHARPE The Prussians arrived just before you and your allies to be crushed. If the Prussians didn't arrive, Lobau corps and the rest of the Imperial guard could be sent to the center. I know you and your allies did a great job by camping and holding the ground from the French for hours but please don't take all the credits. Yours "only" consisted a third of the army. Yes, Duke of Wellington was the commander, but don't forget Chasse's division, which routed the Middle Guard.
Anthony999ism 5 months ago
English like to say : "We have won in Waterloo !!" But if you won, it's because the Prussians has intervened for help you during the battle...
imDeeZr 5 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight I don't understand. I speak about this war, not about the culture.
riku288 6 months ago
fuck france, fuck england, fuck prussia, fuck austria, fuck russia.
They all were imperialist states that sent men to be killed far of their homes for not any reason. All these men are sheeps.
riku288 6 months ago
@riku288 You can't judge an entire country on war. You could have just as easily praised those countries for their culture.
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
@riku288 Yes.. I suppose your alternative of letting Robespierre remain in power as dictator, mass executioner and possibly even Emperor himself, is a better alternative than war? Idiot... men go to war for different reasons – the French had theirs, and the coalition forces each had their own too, and that was usually in the name of returning a monarch to the French throne. The Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars are far more than "sheep" – every man had a reason. Even if it was for gin.
MarcusBritish 3 months ago
@MrAop2 exactly! KING of italy
adekoon 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know the Prussians were there also. Why were they left out of the clip?
kruat43 7 months ago
I know the Prussians were there also. Why were they lrft out of the clip?
kruat43 7 months ago
@kruat43 Because Prussia ist too glorious to show it in a film
Fischfiletesser 7 months ago
@kruat43 They were late to the battle. But still managed to fight.
FrogsGames 6 months ago
@kruat43 Because english like to think they defeated Napoleon alone. Makes them happy inside, even if false.
6U4RD1AN 6 months ago
@kruat43 Sorry, you got some idiots replying to you. The reason Prussia isn't in this clip, is because it comes from the miniseries "Napoleon" which focuses mainly on the French side of things. The Waterloo battle is the worst recreation in the series - Austerlitz and Eylau were much better done. The Waterloo battle even makes a Sharpe series battle look good (cough). Anyway, the recreation didn't focus much on the Prussians, just some of the British engagements a few times but not in depth.
MarcusBritish 3 months ago
PLEASE TELL ME THE NAME OF THE SONG!!!PLEASE
Smilinginmygrave 7 months ago
@Smilinginmygrave, Conquest of Paradise is the name of the song.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy thank you thank you my men... i will find you a sex slave and give you 100 horses and the head of your enemy xD ( ok that is a little bit creepy) :D
Smilinginmygrave 7 months ago
@Smilinginmygrave, I think what you said is quite funny.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@Smilinginmygrave Vangelis from the movie 1492 discovery of paradise.
Joeasia1981 7 months ago
@Smilinginmygrave Read the fucking description.
FrogsGames 6 months ago
the prussians changes this battle
sideburnbasher 7 months ago
A very bad choice of films. The British look more like statues or toy soldiers than actual combattants.
jggrow 7 months ago
@9911aleksey I think it's better to assigned Soult as the Minister of War since I've read that he's pretty good at politics.
Anthony999ism 7 months ago
@9911aleksey Agree, he didn't really have plenty of choices for picking his commander in chief. The marshals who returned to him were Davout, Ney, Suchet, Soult, Jourdan, Brune, Mortier,Lefebvre, and Serurier if I'm not mistaken. From all of them, Davout was definitely the best. Brune was later assasinated, Mortier was sick, Soult ability was wasted by being the chief of staff, while Lefebvre and Serurier were aging.
Anthony999ism 7 months ago
@9911aleksey Yep, Wellington even praised Soult for his tactics how ever Soult often relied too much to his subordinates which eventually lead to his failure (failed in execution).
Anthony999ism 7 months ago
@9911aleksey, you know, Marshal Soult is an exceptional corps commander, and Napoleon once remarked Soult as the "Greatest tactician of Europe" but the one major weakness is that he is not as effective in battle when he is fighting as an individual. Teamwork is something he's very good at.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@9911aleksey Yeah, he should have chose Suchet or Davout instead of Ney. I think they are more competent than Ney.
Anthony999ism 7 months ago
@9911aleksey, oh, that explains it.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@9911aleksey, many of those wars you mentioned were in reality a win. The French didn't lose the HYW since the English were kicked out by 1453. France didn't lose WW I either as opposed to popular belief. WW II, France was recognized as a winner of WW II, and they occupied part of Germany for many decades.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
Napoleon is just lucky that Bulgaria was enslaved by the Ottoman Empire at that time or his glory would not stop in Russia but we would of have slain those french dogs like in WW1.
xxpoonednoobxx 7 months ago
@xxpoonednoobxx pardon, chiens de français, et les tuer, ça ne se dit pas!
Titoumimicalinou 7 months ago
@xxpoonednoobxx, Bulgaria lost WW I. Look up the Vardar Offensive.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
You all people fucking stupid who say Russian winter, Napoleon's cause failures. -5C is great frost yes?? ahaha in November 1812 in moscow be +10C. Winter, winter this is stupid . Kutuzov was great russian general in 1812. You europeans fucking pussies. Russian people are strong and not winter did victory but brave russian people and serfs ( like black slaves in USA,a little bit more human than that of slaves).
vitjoki91 7 months ago
@vitjoki91 @vitjoki9 if you knew your history you would know that the winter took out more then 50% of Napoleon's army and you guys didn't do much that was the russian plan... make a few ambushes and trick Napoleon deeper into Russia and also robbing his supply lines and then when he reached Moscow russians burned it down about the battle there were around 500,00 soldiers in TOTAL but of tactical reasons the russians retreated and then they made a fort
SRWellington2 7 months ago
@vitjoki91 the unexpected charge from west made the soldiers flee so he forced to make the russian reinforcements join early all in all Napoleon won but lost alot of men
about brave people.. you can say this about all the soldiers there joined battles... cause they knew the risk
everybody there joins a battle is brave... learn to shut your mouth before you speak you cunt
SRWellington2 7 months ago
@SRWellington2, Michel Ney once quoted that the snow killed more Frenchmen than did Russian bullets.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
wow, no jokes about his height I'm surprised.
a7vtank 7 months ago
WHAT IS THE SONG PLEASE
regergekowns 7 months ago
@regergekowns
Tunes of clips are often shown in the lower right corner under the clip;
this clip says the music is;
"Artist: Vangelis
"Conquest of Paradise"
slizzler1 7 months ago
i dont know if this is true but my physics teacher told us that the reason napoleon lost the battle at waterloo because he absorbed mercury (i cant remember how) making him go abit mad which caused him to make bad decisions in the battle
flyinjoethebest 8 months ago
@flyinjoethebest Many people of the time were taking things , or coming into inadvertant contact with things that would give any doctors of today the shudders -- Let alone their diets !
In Later life as prime minister of Britain Wellington's breakfasts were reported to be a glass of champagne , a bottle of claret , two large glasses of Port , porridge , two beefsteaks , a pork chop and four eggs . Given that the green colour in the wallpaper was Arsenic ... you see ?
zarquon53 7 months ago
@flyinjoethebest
Your physics teacher should just stick to physics lol.
There were many military reasons why the battle ended as it did-> not merely because Napoleon himself made a few bad gambling decisions.
slizzler1 7 months ago
His error was to invade russia. Causing his downfall. That's what happen to hitler.
docilepeeps 8 months ago
it was..a good attempt
arcticwarrior09 8 months ago
1:09 lol frenchmen failed :D
Oesterreich1156 8 months ago
@Oesterreich1156
Like always eh? XD
mwillis1000 7 months ago
@mwillis1000
lol, they failed when the romans marched in, they failed in the beginning of the hundred years war, they failed under napoleon, they failed in the beginning of WW1, they failed in WW2, they failed in the indochina war ....
Oesterreich1156 7 months ago
@Oesterreich1156
Very true!
mwillis1000 7 months ago
@Oesterreich1156, France succeeded in Hundred Years War, and they did very well under Napoleon for most of the time until the end. WW I isn't a French defeat, France defeated every German offensive, and they had more success in the Balkans than the British did. WW II, France wins in the end. Review your history before I further make you look like an idiot.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@Oesterreich1156, nobody could have stopped the Romans during that time, that includes the Britons, Vandals, Greeks, Egyptians, Carthaginians, etc...the Romans even conquered Germania under Emperor Marcus Aurelius, but his inept son lost it. btw, France didn't exist in that time, it was only Gaul.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@Oesterreich1156 and you fail in history.... failed when romans marched in? lol France did not exist in Roman time only Gaul whitch were bigger then France is today and failing in the beginning of the hundred years war? lol I must say ofc they do when the brits suddenly attack them just because they want the crown the brits had prepared 2 years to make that war and then French did not expect it at all
under Napoleon? I guess not
SRWellington2 7 months ago
@Oesterreich1156 I guess not they failed under Napoleon.... nobody would conqure Europe without getting alot of enemies Napoleon was outnumbred in most battles and still won most of them the battle on Waterloo was on won by the brits cause
-They had the hill
-2 farms
-They were Defensive
-They had their allies
What Napoleon had was
-Mud on the field so his cannons took longer to move
-Stupid commander like Micheal Ney there charged with all Napoleon's cav with no inf support
-He was attacker
-
SRWellington2 7 months ago
SRWellington2 7 months ago
@SRWellington2
i just fucking telled that they failed ! and that's the goddamned truth !
Oesterreich1156 7 months ago
@Oesterreich1156 yes but you don't have an argument on how they failed...
SRWellington2 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Napoléon, traitre à sa partie la Corsica, comme ses parents, Carlo, le père, et Letizia (née Ramolino), catin et maitresse du comte de Marboeuf (bourreau et gouverneur de la Corse). La famille Bonaparte fuira la Corse, pourchassées par les milices paolistes, quand sera édifié le royaume anglo-corse en 1794. Un affront que le dictateur fera payer très cher à son peuple quand il parviendra au Pouvoir en 1799. La Corse sera mise à feu et à sang.
CorsicaNustrale 8 months ago
Winners wrote history
Anthony999ism 8 months ago
@Anthony999ism
That's a line that lazy people use;
Someone who really studies history knows that history is written by winners, losers, academics, liars, students, scholars, biased, megalomaniacs, whiners, idiots- etc etc.....
Someone who really studies all of this can then formulate an objective truth.
slizzler1 7 months ago
@slizzler1, you know, it seems as though the only time Napoleon was defeated in battle, is when he is vastly outnumbered, and he rarely loses a battle when the odds are even.
Apsern-Essling, Leipzig, La Rothière, Montmartre, Laon, and Waterloo are all battles where Napoleon was hugely outnumbered and lost, mainly because of that. It seems like that using their brains isn't sufficient for the Allies, so they rely on overwhelming numbers to decide the outcome. cont)
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy Except at Battle of Caldiero, where Napoleon outnumbered the Austrian by 1000 men.
Anthony999ism 7 months ago
@expertstrategy
In war, many commanders of even the highest talents would love overwhelming superiority in numbers to achieve victory; war is a deadly game- the stakes for losing are too high to not use every advantage possible. The Allies had talented commanders, but many incompetent ones too. Troop quality is also a key in victories.
re-
-Napoleon's invasion of Russia
-Gulf War
slizzler1 7 months ago
@slizzler1,....Napoleon is truely a military genius, since it literally takes many, many men to defeat him in battle, even when he's outnumbered.
btw, who do you think would win if Napoleon fought against Alexander Suvorov?
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy
'outnumbering' an enemy is not what decides many battles.
What matters is having a sufficient military power to achieve a victory.
Such components can include advantages in troop quality, supplies, terrain, leadership, morale, weather, etc.
At the end of WW2, Allied scouts were driving into German towns which surrendered thousands of armed German troops at once. Of course, you know other victories in history achieved by sides that were massively outnumbered> Siege of Alesia
slizzler1 7 months ago
@slizzler1, the thing about me is that i don't allow my national pride to tamper my view in history. I'm not even afraid to criticize the historical flaws of my own country, because in history, i'm as unbiased as a historian could be.
Some people may view what I do as unpatriotic.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy
Only uncivilized dumbdumbs with ego issues will be screeching out 'unpatriotic'.
They are dangers to free societies.
We saw this with the neocons during the Bush years. They trained half of America to yell out 'unpatriotic' at anybody who spoke out against their right wing policies, and their unprovoked war in Iraq.
The funny thing about all these deviants who like to yell 'unpatriotic', is that they are typically ignorant, anti-social, whining, and cowards.
slizzler1 7 months ago
@slizzler1, I've read something quite interesting. The reason why the Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard wear large red plumes at the tip of their furry bearskin caps is because it will exaggerate their height, and it will even make the enemy infantry shoot at them with their muskets aimed higher than is necessary, therefore, their chances of missing the target are great.
But the red plumes will also give away their position very easily, and the enemy will spot them before they can.
expertstrategy 7 months ago
@expertstrategy
that was very interesting debate material..... very insightful analysis of the pros and cons of Napoleonic headgear being purposefully tall to make soldiers look more 'imposing'.
slizzler1 7 months ago
@slizzler1 Sorry, maybe I didn't write a proper sentence, what I actually meant was that usually, winners acknowledge them as the "good guys". For example at WWI, the Germans got most of the blame(Somewhat like the evil guys). Winners usually wrote propaganda or whatsoever. Yes, it may not be true or objective, but they had the power of propaganda (ex:British in Napoleonic Wars)
Anthony999ism 7 months ago
@Anthony999ism
Yes I know what you were meaning to say.
But I was pointing out that this line is used by people who don't know how to study history;
In a way it insults those writers and witnesses of history who have recorded an objective/ real truth of a historical event; because misinformation is spread by such inaccurate 'one liners' that no other histories exist other than inaccurate stories/ propaganda of biased writers on a victorious side.
People should know; researching reveals truths
slizzler1 7 months ago
@9911aleksey No argiung there ,he was brilliant at times.
He was also bad though.
His Russia 1812 campaign wasnt exactly genius.
zenoist2 8 months ago
Napoleom seems to vary from a genius to pure idiocy.He did win some great battles and show true genius but he also made a lot of mistakes.
Invading Russia was a bad idea.
zenoist2 8 months ago
Interesting posts here. for those wo think wellington only fights defensively look at his india camapign.
The man was brilliant at offensive as well.
hes better than Napoleon
zenoist2 8 months ago
@9911aleksey I think it was more to do with the fact that britain only had one regular army, of about 50,000 men in the field, and so W simply could not afford to risk losing it or sufferng very heavy casualties in risky attacks. It was a very well trained army - and Europe's only professional army - but very valuable. That is why he was careful with it, it had less to do with whether he felt it could cope (it was highly trained). But I agree with you overall - he is best known for defence
THthefirst 8 months ago
@9911aleksey It's a lazy myth to call W a defensive general - go and study his campaigns in detail and see how he defeated the French in Spain and Portugal through superb offensive moves, culminating at Vittoria. In fact, W drove the French out of Spain - hardly a defensive only general. However, he is best remembered for Waterloo, and of course there, due to the quality of his army, he had to defend and wait for help.
THthefirst 8 months ago
@THthefirst, Wellington defeated Soult, Massena, and other marshals while he was mainly in the defensive, such as at Salamanca and Bussaco, and Fuentos Onoro. When Messena invaded Portugal in 1810, Wellington stripped the lands bare of food and equipment in an attempt to starve out of the French, it worked out well, but it also effected the Portugese population as well. For several months, a stalemate broke out before the French had to retreat.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
@expertstrategy
great info
slizzler1 7 months ago
from Spain one of the few who says that Napoleon was a great man in history :)
AtLiEbXiIaS 8 months ago
Vive l'empereur!!!
Dimi10b 8 months ago
Niech żyje Cesarz! Hura Hura Hura!
MarekKrassus53 8 months ago
@MarekKrassus53
Niech żyje Książę Poniatowski!
Gracz87 8 months ago
@9911aleksey, I wouldn't say that he took chlidren into his army, I'd say that they were young boys like 17 or eighteen years old. Napoleon was quite successful in 1814 with an army of raw recruits against seasoned veterans of the Allied armies.
Sometimes Napoleon can act ruthless and humane at certain periods. He's even a very lenient type of man, and he was even willing to pardon a German nationalist who attempted to assassinate him in 1809.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
@9911aleksey. I've read a lot about Napoleon, and there were some things about him which disturbed me a little, but I swallowed them without hesitation. I want to have an unbiased view about Napoleon. I can respect him both as a person and a leader, but not always.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
I've visited the actual Waterloo battlefield. It's quite interesting to see the actual field. It's more hilly than I originally imagined. I can't even imagine a battle involving tens of thousands of soldiers on each side. It must have been both terrific & horrifying.
AlternityGM 8 months ago
There were 55 French here.
mwillis1000 8 months ago
@AlpineWilfy, I greatly admire Wellington, I think he's the best commander of the Allied nations against France.
Many people actually believe Wellington was undefeated, but that's a huge lie. He lost many battles in his military career. That's part of my myth breaking.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
@AlpineWilfy, I guess I got caught up in the moment with Zenoist2. I was trying to get at him. The victories Wellington won in the Peninsular War are impressive. He defeated two French invasions of Portugal and ingeniously stopped Massena's invasion with a stalemate, which soon resulted in the retreat of the French.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
Napoleon wasn't problem. The imperialist countries of europe was problem
3DSFuture 8 months ago
Comment removed
SRWellington2 8 months ago
i have no respect at all for surrender monkeys. Ie the french
Sorry. Youre nation is shit and always has been when napoloen got beat. It sa very third rate country.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
zenoist2 8 months ago
@zenoist2
What kind of uncultured you are to say that?
I am ashamed for you and for your compatriots to have a retarted racist like you in their country, sad very sad you are my poor boy.
Nothing in the head!
pennbzh 8 months ago
the only thing the French are good at is losing wars.
zenoist2 8 months ago
@zenoist2
For a French hater like you, the motto of your country does not make you crazy? "DIEU ET MON DROIT" beautiful motto isn't it? and the the motto of the " Most Noble Order of the Garter" "HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE" the higher of the British orders of chivalry.
Not to hard to support?
pennbzh 8 months ago
@pennbzh i have no problem with it. france are crap at eveything as history proves. they had a good general in napoleom so naturally elevate him to genius.
napoleion was crap compared to Weliington though.
zenoist2 8 months ago
@zenoist2, comparing Wellington to Napoleon is a big joke. Napoleon seldom had any trouble trying to overwhelm a tiny garrison unlike his Brit counterpart. Welly had a lot of trouble in siege warfare, he failed to take Badajos (1811), and even when he did capture it in 1812, he lost a great deal of men. At Burgos, he had 35,000 Portugese and Brits against 2000 French, and he lost badly. There was also (1st ) San Sebastian, where his first assault failed. He retreated to Portugal three times.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
Napoleons best troops had been killed in the invasion of Russia 1812
he really made a fuck up there.
Conscripts made up the numbers but they were in no way equivalent to his earlier magnificent army.
zenoist2 8 months ago
Its a REALLY NICE MOVIE =D
asmus2511 8 months ago
Best thing napoleon acheived was to utterly get crushed and wipe out any trace of french influence in a few places of the globe so that english influence took over world wide
And now English is the worlds language.
if it wasnt for Napoleon the british couldnt have cared less about all these places they inherited
Thank you napoleon!!.
zenoist2 8 months ago
@zenoist2, Napoleon's legacy gave birth to future revolutions which occured in many places around the world. The Code Napoleon influenced the laws and civil codes of many nations in Europe, Latin America, N.America, Middle East, and Africa. So technically, French influence was very broad in the world.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
sad very sad to see a guy like him with nothing to say exepted bullshits.
He is jealous, i don't see another possibility.
pennbzh 9 months ago
Napoleon is included among the top three best military commanders in history. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and Napoleon. I don't see Welly involved anywhere. Historians even concluded that if Marshal Davout was at Quatre Bras instead of Ney, then Wellington would have been defeated very shortly.
expertstrategy 9 months ago
@modano1000 i dont think so
adekoon 9 months ago
@greatbritishperson poland was an allie of napoleon!! not his enemy!!
adekoon 9 months ago
@merseyside toure talking about the ira now. the real ira was brave and freed ireland from the british rule.
adekoon 9 months ago
@stig2345 polish cavalry was better
adekoon 9 months ago
@alexismanon81 im from poland and poland was one of the biggest allies of france.
adekoon 9 months ago
@MrAop2 he was a king of italy and emperor of france
adekoon 9 months ago
If its as simple as that why didnt france arm the Irish with muskets give them money and send troops to help?
Much like Britian had done to disaffected countries in europel?
That would have taken a huge amount of resources directly foccussed against napoleon away.
Answer = because thay had no money and they couldnt run the gauntlet of british navy patrolled seas
=The Irish at this time were extremely pissed off with british rule and given a decent chance would have risen up in rebellion.
zenoist2 9 months ago
The original French army was truly great I agree full of passion and fighting spirit that had sprung straight from the revolution and its morale that wins battles.
300 spartans lost but thats not the point.
By 1815 however napoleons best troops had all been killed off in years of unending war especially after Russia 1812 and he had an army mostly of conscripts who didnt even want to be there.
They were obviously rubbish and got defeated at waterloo.
zenoist2 9 months ago
@zenoist2, Napoleon's conscripts fought like lions. He even had an army of young men in 1814, and he won the Six Day's Campaign while being greatly outnumbered. You are over obsessed with Waterloo, and you treat it as if it were the only victory you can actually boast about. Stop pretending that Wellington defeated Napoleon without the help of the Prussians. It's very obvious that it takes a 2-1 advantage to defeat him. The Royal Navy was filled with drafed men and American sailors (illegally)
expertstrategy 9 months ago
@expertstrategy
I am Happy to read you and to see truth said to Zenoist2, this guy is bounded! unfortunately my English is not so good so i have some difficult to speak with that obsessed guy. It's crazy to see how English guys are obsessed by Waterloo," we won we are the best" etc.., i think Zenoist2 is obsessed by his hate of France and i think English are maybe a little bit jealous of Napoleon. England is a great Nation but England always liked plotting quietly on their island, not glorious
pennbzh 9 months ago
@pennbzh, plotting is what the British tend to do. Since the age of Louis XIV to Napoleon I, England/Britain has waged countless coalitions against France, but most of them failed miserably. 80,000 British died in Haiti from 1794-1798, mostly due to disease and the ceaseless guerilla attacks of Toussaint and Governor Leveaux.
expertstrategy 9 months ago
Napoleons conquests in Europe were worth fuck all if he couldnt do anything overseas.
Europe was in a stranglehold with no imports or exports.
British trade was booming at this time despite being banned in Europe by Napoleon. Pretty stupid really.
The losers wre the european countries under napoleons rule.
add the fact he treated them like shit and there was natural resentment.
No trade = no money to fight a war of attrition.
France was destined to lose and be totally conquered.
zenoist2 9 months ago
@zenoist2
Do not believe that England was so strong at that time, Navy yes, army not at all, if Napoleon had successfully landed in England in 1805, he would have won easily, all historian are agree on that point, but facts are facts England is an island with a good navy at that time and their best general to defend them : General Channel.
Being an island has always been the greatest strength of England, that have saved them several times.
pennbzh 9 months ago
@pennbzh No argument there about the army.
Napoleon didnt have a hope in hell of invading Britiain while the navy was ready to defend it.
Englands army has always been small. because theyve never needed a big army.
They dont take it upon themselves to invade European countries unlike Napoleon.
The money was spent on the navy which enabled Britain to rule the world.
Look up the worlds greatest empire and you might find it was british.
France was v poor in comparision always has been.
zenoist2 9 months ago
@zenoist2
Yes England ruled the world by the seas with a great sea Empire, no problem with that, but Napoleon ruled Europe and at that time it was the hardest think to do, with a fabulous army, the greatest since centuries.
You are english and you defend english history it's natural but try to be a little more impartial and please stop always wanting to minimize what Napoleon did with his great army on earth, because ruled Europe from Spain to Russia in 1812, not many countries did it.
bye
pennbzh 9 months ago
@pennbzh he didnt rule Spain or Russia at all.Im sorry but I dont think Napoleon was that good.
It was his magnificent troops in the early years tthat made his name.
He finally meets wellington and is utterly crushed.
Wellington had a habit of winning battles and never lost a single one despite the odds.
Unlike the loser napoloeon.
zenoist2 9 months ago
@zenoist2
Wellington is just known to be winner of Waterloo ( to the detriment of Blucher), it illustrate very well what i said : collect laurels to the detriment of, " we are the best, we won waterloo, we are we are.." don't worry everybody knows the music
Compare Wellington to Napoleon, good joke, you make me laugh, i have nothing to answer you, your stupidity answer for you very well
Maybe it's the greatest Wellington who won Austerlitz,Iéna,Ulm,Wagram,Eylau,Friedland, Who knows?
pennbzh 9 months ago
@zenoist2 hahahaha, fucking mythoman, who give a fuck of wellington, ugly rosebeef, wellington was saved by the prussians
mmtos28 9 months ago
@zenoist2 at the beggining napoleons troops were badly trained. they were only good after few years
adekoon 9 months ago
@zenoist2, Napoleon's brother, Joseph, ruled Spain. The French controlled a huge portion of Spain. Wellington did lose many battles, not to mention he was driven back into Portugal three times. Waterloo is hardly a crushing victory. 25,000 French dead and wounded in comparison to 24,000 Allied dead. You call that a victory? It literally takes sheer numbers to defeat Napoleon or otherwise, he would have kicked your arses.
expertstrategy 9 months ago
@zenoist2
Said European countries under Napoleon are losers when English were protected by the channel is too easy. The only thing the British have done in this story, was waiting, praying that the storm has passed (Thanks Channel), plotting, make alliances in the hope that others will do the job and land at the end and collect laurels. Very very good foreign policy because it was well paid but in the end it's not very glorious.
Facts : Allies won France loose but what a great army it was.
pennbzh 9 months ago
@pennbzh you are misled. Dont forget a long drawn out war needs a LOT of money and thats one reason why GB won.
They could raise the money with trade between various places in the world coming in as britiain ruled the seas. Napoleon was a bit of a dick not to see this or maybe he did but couldnt do anything
France was curt off and had no trade or money coming in and was bound to lose eventually..
France was twice as populous as GB at this time so would naturally have more cannon fodder.
zenoist2 9 months ago
@zenoist2 i do not agree. im polish and napoleon gave us country and freedom from prussia, austria and russia. he didnt treat us like shit. but then unfortunately we lost in russia.
adekoon 9 months ago
@MrAop2
Sorry, misunderstanding of what you said.
pennbzh 9 months ago
@MrAop2
idiot, i know that Napoleon was not a king.
It is gueropalma1990 who said that Napoleon was a dwarf king, i was just repeated what he said to contradict him.
try to follow the conversation instead of saying bullshit.
pennbzh 9 months ago
@pennbzh He was actually king of Italy
ViccardXViccc 9 months ago
@ViccardXViccc
Yes you are right, he was emperor of French and also king of Italy.
pennbzh 9 months ago
really napoleon copy his title, france was empire only in name,in europe only 2 monarchs have the rights over the title of Emperor and the legal continuity of the roman heritage{west and east empires} was the holy roman emperor and the Czar of russia,napoleon was only a general full of greed, the true first dictator, napoleon was a ursurper and his dynasty the bonaparts is a lineage of snakes,even other french houses as capets,bourbons and orleans dont recognize the bonapart as a dinasty.
gueropalma1990 9 months ago
@gueropalma1990, Napoleon was elected as a monarch by the popular vote of the people, how is that being a usurper? Many Roman emperors were voted into position. The Hanovarian Kings were elected to rule Britain. He legally created his own dynasty. Many monarchs recognized Napoleon as a legitimate monarch except Britain. Alexander admired Napoleon for a while. How was Napoleon a "true dictator"? Aren't all monarchs and emperors dictators? What's the difference?
expertstrategy 8 months ago
@expertstrategy
exactly....
Revolutions start for a reason-> the participants realize they risk swift death for their effort if they fail; so it is only in situations of severe desperation that revolutions start..... monarchy/dictator-glorifiers are clueless about such things> on a humanity/ social injustice level.
slizzler1 8 months ago
@gueropalma1990, the Bourbons abandoned the French people, and Marie Antoinette's husband, Louis XVI attempted to escape from Austria and gain military aid from his wife's brother and reclaim the throne of France. This was high treason. The Bourbons were forcibly installed on the French throne by foreign bayonets, therefore, they are the real usurpers, in 1814, and they aggitated France's condition, by resurrecting feudalism, noble privileges, etc...
expertstrategy 8 months ago
and tell me WHY louis escape? and not that wasnt treason, he want save france from that terrorist revolution he want save his country from snakes like Bailly,riqueti,guillotin,marat,danton and robespierre, moreover, will not stand for any French Dynasty,malicious snakes, and his weakness destroy Europe and as a side effect of its bloody terrorist revolution today there are extreme left, populism, demagogy and communism
gueropalma1990 8 months ago
@gueropalma1990, he wanted to gain foreign military aid to retake his throne, yes, that is high treason and he was executed as a traitor to the people. Napoleon restored order and he was disgusted with the ravages of the Revolution, but he retained many of the principle ideals such as Freedom of Religion, right to property, divorce, etc...Revolution has it's defects and advantages, just like any other revolution.
expertstrategy 8 months ago
@gueropalma1990, many of the European monarchs were terrified of the ideals of French Revolution, because it would eliminate their privileges and