Continuing on I agree siege warfare was his Achilles. The writer Bernard Cornwell (who I know a lot of Napoleonic buffs don't care for but is knowledgeable) argues part of the problem was all his experience with sieges were against the Mahratta armies in India, and a lot of luck went his way, too, so he never really had a defeat to learn from (He repeated a lot of the same mistakes at Badajoz that he made at Gawilghur) and had no real tactics beyond throwing men at the walls.
@expertstrategy can you name a battle that isn't a siege? Although I see if you count retreating (Although they were really tactical withdrawals) after a battle a 'defeat' I'd see where you get that idea from - suddenly some of his victories like Talavera and Busaco become 'defeats' but I disagree with that definition, as the withdrawals were part of a broader strategy that in the end worked brilliantly...
@thedictatorfan you could call him 'lucky' if Waterloo was his only famous victory. It isn't. As for the difference in armies, I think you exaggerate. The bulk of the army that served under Wellington in the Penninsula was in Canada at the time - he had three strong elite battalions in the form of 95th Rifles, Coldstream Guards and the KGL which definitely helped but no more than the Imperial Guard would have Bonaparte (if deployed better) Also, Wellington fielded a lot of inexperienced Dutch.
OMG, did somebody say they 'wouldn't call Wellington anything special'... so being a career soldier for 20 years and never losing a battle, when fighting against a third of Napoleon's marshalls and l'Empereur himself doesn't do it for you? You must only rate two or three generals in the history of the world..
@JPH1138, Wellington lost many battles and sieges during his military career. He retreated into Portugal three times, and he's very crappy at siege warfare, and he always lost a great deal of men before taking a city from the French. He is a great commander there is no doubt about that.
I think that people exaggerate Wellington's greatness. He is incredibly lucky. 1st it rains the the day before so the shells don't bounce.2nd Conscripts vs regulars isn't a fair fight. Napoleon has the Old Guard but he has a lot of drafted soldiers that have no combat experience. Wellington has a army of trained soldiers. That being said a win is a win but he isn't even close to Napoleon's. Wellington couldn't pull off a Austerlitz or have the Charisma to lead the French armies in Italy.
The uninformed jingoism of some of the British posters here is embarrassing me. People, I apologise on behalf of my people. No wonder the world thinks we're arrogant ignoramuses.
That being said, I find a common flaw in US programmes about this period suffer from fundamental errors when it comes to historical accuracy and detail.
And I'm British and a great admirer of the Duke of Wellington, yet I find these "no American general was good" comments childish in the extreme, not to mention false and really perplexing to anyone who knows anything about US military history.
@Freez57fr Wellington wasn't quite Irish in any meaningful sense. The Anglo-Irish ascendancy was a peculiar social group: patrician, socially pretty separate from the 'native' Irish, and, all told, more English than Irish.
@Freez57fr The French were not outnumbered for the majority of the battle yet failed to defeat the force that was more less equal in to their own number in Wellington's army. Napoleon's Army was 69,000 men, Wellington's was 68,000 men, Bluchher didn't arrive until late in the battle when Napoleon had already failed.
25,000 men of Wellington's army were British, 26,000 were German troops (including the KGL) and 17,000 were Dutch and Belgians making roughly a third of his army British, not 20%.
@Freez57fr Blcuher's arrival was planned and Wellington fought the battle only as a delaying action so Blucher could arrive and the Coalition could attack Napoleon with superior number. Blucher's arrival can in no way be used to deminish Wellington's part in the victory at Waterloo.
And I wish you'd grow out of the phaze your in of calling the English "Engaylish". It is an utterly pathetic, purile and childish pun and just make you look petty and hateful.
@Freez57fr I get that you're a Francophile but you could at least do your own country a favor by behaving like an adult and not resort to petty insult without provokation.
1. The Allies were outnumbered for most of the battle.
2. The Brits played the most important part of the allied defense, they were the only troops with any experience and Wellington made sure to place them at the front .
3. Wellington saw himself as British, he was born in Ireland into and English family.
4. And he did not have his "ass saved", all of Napoleons attacks failed and it was Wellingtons troops that actually caused the French to be swept from the field not just Blucher.
@tribetng He was Anglo-Irish. His family was both of Irish and English descent. He rejected his Irish roots and claimed to be solely English - famously saying the being born in a stable did not make you a horse.
@historybuff2001 Well I certainly dont doubt that the British generalship at New Orleans could have been better but Packenham was certainly not Wellington, he wasn't even Ross. Which still brings up my question. Why cite Jackson as a great General if you think the battle he's famous for was won more because of British incompetance than Jackson's own skill?
Why not cite Scott who accomplished far more in the field than Jackson and who reviced international regonition for his abilities?
@11nytram11 because jackson was not a professional such as the british claimed to be,he fought mainly against indians,there was no west point educated officers at the time and the U.S. was almost entirely made up of militia units.should have been no match for the well seasoned british soldiers and officers who could not adapt thier tactics when the situation called for it.
@11nytram11 oh yeah, how much skill does it take to mow down an enemy from behind breastworks?more of the credit must be given to the men themselves for not turning tail.i do agree about wellington and scott though, wellington himself said scott was the greatest general of his time for what he did but that was the mexican war.
no side won or lost anything it was a tie actually, i dont remember you beating our navy .i dont remember suing for peace so far as new orleans neithe side knew the war was over at the time of the battle.
we didnt lose either what would you do if someone was kidnapping your sailors ? it was called impressment and we still stomped you bad at new orleans, as a result of horrible british overconfidence and incompetence!
@historybuff2001 New Orleans was after the war had ended. We kicked your fat asses in the real war. We destroyed your economy, crushed your navy, defeated your army when it invaded Canada and forced you to sue for peace after we began attacking your coast . It was an American defeat. There is no other way to look at it.
@historybuff2001 So...if you attribute the British defeat at New Orleans to overconfidence and incompetance on the part of the British and not through any great ability on the part of Jackson and the Americans, then why did you bring forward Jackson's name to oppose TheLiberalKnight who was saying that America had never produced any great generals?
The Duke of Wellington title was created in 1814, Waterloo was fought in 1815. Arthur Wellesley was not the "future Duke of Wellington" when Waterloo was fought, he was the established Duke of Wellington. There is more than a year difference between Wellesley becoming the Duke of Wellington and the Battle of Waterloo being fought.
What a typical American fucking documentary. Wellington was a BRITISH GENERAL, not the 'allied general'. Stupid cunts! Trying to undermine the fact that Britain produced far superior general to America.
@TheLiberalKnight While Wellington was a British General he was als oa Coalition General. In Spain he was Generalisimo and commanded the British, Portuguese and Spanish forces by the end and at Waterloo he commanded British, Dutch, Belgians and German troops and a Corps of Prussians. It's a tribute to him that he managed to get all those nations working cohesively and won his battles and campaigns.
@11nytram11 Yes, but my point is, it's not as if he lead coalitions that only consisted 1/3 British. British troops were always the bulk of his armies. On top of that, he was a British general, who was educated in Britain, and learnt warfare in Britain. This American documentary is merely trying to undermine the British, as they usually do. It's jealousy- who the fuck can name a single American general? They are all terrible.
@TheLiberalKnight Lets not go over the top here. I can name several American Generals without trying - Winfield Scott, Nathaniel Green, Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, Omar Bradley and more - and the Duke of Wellington himself recognized Scott as the greatest living soldier in 1847. The Americans have always had more of a love affair with Napoleon anyway and studied him in great detail while neglecting other generals so mistakes when talking about Wellington are bound to happen.
@11nytram11 I'm sorry, but not a single American general comes close to the likes of Bonaparte, Duke of Malborough, Wellington, Ceaser, etc. I mean, even the junior grand army generals like Marshal Ney completely outclass the likes of Robert E Lee. Robert E Lee is famous because he was the best general in the American civil war- therefore, Americans think he must be something special. He isn't. Ney or Wellington would utterly destroy him on the battlefield.
@Mistermax30 Robert E Lee is an over rated general. If American wasn't the biggest power on earth, nobody would even know about Robert E Lee. He's apparenly the greatest general ever, just because he's American.
@TheLiberalKnight No one said he was the "greatest general ever". However, he did successfully fight off numerically superior opponents, and he had a good record in the Mexican American war...
@Mistermax30 Then you clearly haven't looked into it. Wellington is not as good as the Duke of Malborough, but you only need to look at the Peninsular battles to see that he was something 'special'. Ney performed brilliantly against the Russians.
The problem here is that Robert E Lee was fighting fellow Americans. No offense, but Americans are not exactly renouned for being good soldiers. Ney was fighting some of the most powerful armies on earth.
@MathezarT Yes, Americans are not good soldiers. They performed awfully in the war of 1812, awfully in Vietnam, their worst performance was in WW1, etc. You've had some good moments, like WW2, but your record is pretty abysmal. I say this because I'm sick of Americans claiming their military is superior to all.
@MathezarT How do you define modern? If you mean 1500-2012, there are several militaries far superior to America's today. Spain, France, and Britain, are the most obvious examples.
@TheLiberalKnight We have strayed from the original post that said that Americans are poor soldiers. I am guessing that you are British, and I am also guessing that you never served in the military either. I have served in the American Army and have worked with soldiers from England, and I would not make such an outlandish statement as to call all servicemen from another country poor soldiers. You may not like Americans, but reality is that we have produced good soldiers.
@MathezarT I like everything America stands for (bar republicanism), and I like a lot of Americans. The thing that irritates me is this nationalism. This idea that all militaries in the world are inferior to the American one. Vietnam for example, if Germany had the same resources as America had, they would have the country in a month.
@TheLiberalKnight the one thing americans have that you brits never had is guts
we have a productive industry bar none thats what god gave us to keep you eurotrash in your place..you englsih were on rations in the winter of 1947 you almost all starved to death we had to save you ONCE AGAIN with the marshall plan..so be a good poodle and keep stfu long live napoleon and thank god for the french we never could have won at yorktown without them..
@TheLiberalKnight your english your whole culture is a joke the mighty british empire..look at you now a feeble nanny state licking the boots of the mighty american empire.. how humiliated you must be..and think about it its all down to the french navy in yortown harbor in 1781..almost as humiliating as the dutch at medway in 1667..look at you now you and your sad little island..long live france
@TheLiberalKnight I think you are trying to fault America for one of its strengths. I agree that the Nazis could have quickly gained control of Vietnam. But they were a brutal totalitarian regime bent on world domination. America, with its goal of spreading democracy will not and cannot operate in the same way.
@MathezarT No, I said Germany, not the Nazis. This is what irritates me.
In Vietnam, if Britain had the resources America had, we would have Vietnam in a month. But unlike the Americans, we would conquer the country instead of 'liberate' it. You can only liberate a country if you force a fair system of governance on them, as Britain did in India. The Americans think they can leave after a war and succeed, but it doesn't work like that.
@TheLiberalKnight you liberated india, ask any indian about that rubbish yeak like you liberated ireland you worthless british filth.. funny how you englsih were all peacenicks during nam..cowards..we were brave enough to admit we were wrong we had become imperialists like the vile english another british disease your whole culture is a disease riddled be imperial thelft and socialism creating depedent dole suckers..do not be so bold to think somoene like you from a diseasesed culture may
@TheLiberalKnight The Raid on the Medway, sometimes called the Battle of the Medway, Raid on Chatham or the Battle of Chatham, was a successful Dutch attack on the largest English naval ships, laid up in the dockyards of their main naval base Chatham, that took place in June 1667 during the Second Anglo-Dutch War. d a favourable peace for the Dutch. It was the worst defeat in the Royal Navy's history
@TheLiberalKnight The Dutch, under nominal command of Lieutenant-Admiral Michiel de Ruyter, bombarded and then captured the town of Sheerness, sailed up the River Thames to Gravesend, then up the River Medway to Chatham, where they burnt three capital ships and ten lesser naval vessels and towed away the HMS Unity and the HMS Royal Charles, pride and normal flagship of the English fleet. The raid led to a quick end to the war an
@TheLiberalKnight the dutch a nation of cheese making pot smoking prostitues a nation the size of a postage stamp most of which is under sea level, my god the dutch navy had to get drunk to leave port(dutch courage) and they totally anihilated your glorius navy..shit that took chutzpah ... how humilaiting for you
@TheLiberalKnight But again you are talking about a fundamental difference between British and American foreign policy and not saying anything about the ability of the average American to fight a war. American wars have mostly been lost by politicians, not the soldiers.
@TheLiberalKnight Thanks LK, and I would agree with you that Lee was as a general was overrated. I think it is pretty clear that his early success has more to do with the disorganized weak leadership of the Union, than his abilities as a general. When Grant was brought over from the West, that was the beginning of the end for Lee and the South.
@MathezarT we did NOT deserve to win in vietnam we were the agressor no better than hitler and the nazis and now? now we are rome we were a grand republic like rome we have moved into the decadent and cruel empire phase and our fall is not far
@TheLiberalKnight if yoiu were so powerful in 1940 why were you begging FDR for ships guns and money? BEGGING BEGGING and what about lend lease? you were already a lion with false teeth
@ImperialGlory1920 i gave up everything but irish whiskey long ago..you know you english are so pathetic why do you even bother getting up in the morning? i know about your culture i'm not stupid you get so drunk you piss yourself and fall asleep on the tube..a nation of worthless drunks trying to relive past glory..and resenting your benifactor the united states a nation that has accomplished 100 x more than your rotting empire ever did
@MrBillcale I wouldn't consider obesity to be an accomplishment. Severe ignorance due to an isolationist govenment can't really be considered an accomplishment either. The only 'empire' that is rotting is the American influence over the world. The Chinese have robbed your industry from underneath your noses and are now laughing at 'American authority', as are other countries that America considers to be evil. The next 200 years will be China's and India's
@aspiringdrummer17 Obesity in the United Kingdom is a growing health concern with health officials stating that it is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in the United Kingdom. According to Forbes, United Kingdom ranks 28 on a 2009 list of fattest countries.[1]
@MrBillcale Obesity levels in France have doubled between 1995 and 2004 (to 11.3% of the population).[2] However, France has the lowest obesity rate in Europe.[5]
Nord-Pas-de-Calais is considered the fattest region in France. Fifty-one percent of the population here is considered either overweight or obese. This is in contrast with France's national average at 42 percent.[1] Between 1992 and 2000, in the region obesity in girls double while the total for boys grew by 195%
@aspiringdrummer17 Adult obesity rates have almost quadrupled in the last 25 years, with 22% of Britons now obese.[2] Poor Britons are more likely to be obese than their wealthy fellow citizens.[3] The South-East of England is considered to be the slimmest region in the United Kingdom with an obesity level of 18% which compared to Sweden’s fattest region has 16% of its population obese.[
@aspiringdrummer17 4] Birmingham is considered the European Union’s fattest city. 29% of the adult population are classified as obese while the European average is 14%.
@aspiringdrummer17 A quarter of Birmingham's 11 and 12 year olds are considered obese.[4]
The National Obesity Forum in 2011 cited Denmark's tax on foods containing more than 2.3% saturated fat as an example which must be followed. people that live in glass houses? should not throw stones
@aspiringdrummer17 Obesity in France has been increasingly cited as a major health issue in recent years. It is now considered a political issue whereas before it would have been an issue reported on television talk shows or in women's magazines just a few years prior.[1] There is a myth about French people not getting overweight or obese.[2] The myth is so strong that some scientists think that there is a connection between obesity and genetics.[
@aspiringdrummer17 Obesity levels in France have doubled between 1995 and 2004 (to 11.3% of the population).[2] However, France has the lowest obesity rate in Europe.[
@aspiringdrummer17 Obesity in the United States has been increasingly cited as a major health issue in recent decades. While many industrialized countries have experienced similar increases, obesity rates in the United States are among the highest in the world with 74.6% of Americans being overweight or obese.[2] Estimates have steadily increased, from 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[3] to 26.6% in 2007,[4] to 33.8% (adults) and 17% (children) in 2008.
@aspiringdrummer17 i dont see much difference between american and british obesity levels your almost as fat as the americans french being the thinnest in europe mr steak and kidney pie
@aspiringdrummer17 Overall, the French, along with the Italians and the Swiss, are considered among the slimmest people in Europe on average.[6] 38.5% of men and 26% of women in France are considered overweight while 60% of men and 43% of women in Germany are considered overweight.[7] Estimates show that 16% of French five-to-11-year-olds are obese. Obesity in that age is set to increase to more than 20% by 2010.
@MrBillcale I'm sure a computer program that was capable of such things would be put to better use than this, not that such complex things would be attainable by someone of your mental constitution francois
@aspiringdrummer17 its an x k red 21 technique a double bluff look lady you obviously dont understand the world of espionage..oh you english think your soooo superior but would you like to know where youd be with out the good old USA to protect you? well i'll tell you!THE SMALLEST F*CKING PROVINCE IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE THATS WHAT so dont call me stupid just thank me! if it were not for us youd all be speaking german going dutzland duetzland uber allus..
@MrBillcale How would we be speaking German if we were a small Russian province? If you're going to spout the same old 'we saved your asses' drivel, at least get SOME facts right! We don't think we're superior btw, we're just tired of Americans thinking that THEY'RE superior. If you could exercise some modesty every now and again then things wouldn't be too bad
@aspiringdrummer17 do me a big favor google 61st Academy Awards Best Supporting actor..and yes we are superior we are mongrels from every ghetto and hell hole that can spit out a refugee every dirty peasant that had the guts to hop on a boat and work for a better life instead of stay home and suck off the dole we are so much better than you
@MathezarT The T-34 had the coil-spring Christie suspension of the BT, using a "slack track" tread system with a rear-mounted drive sprocket and no system of return rollers for the upper run of track, but dispensed with the weighty and ineffective convertible drive. It had well-sloped armour, a relatively powerful engine and wide tracks
@MathezarT The Christie suspension is a suspension system developed by American engineer Walter Christie for his tank designs. It allowed considerably longer movement than conventional leaf spring systems then in common use, which allowed his tanks to have considerably greater cross-country speed and a lower[citation needed] profile. The system was first introduced on his M1928 design, and used on all[citation needed] of his designs until his death in 1944.
@TheLiberalKnight all we have to do is push a button little man..and numbers do matter you euro trash never got that, in ww2 it took 4 shermans to take out a panzer fine german tank the panzer but hard to produce and even harder to transport due to size and fuel, the sherman was easy to make more manuverable and eays to transport over the atlantic we planned it that way wee knew it was inferior tank for tank but we could make 10 to their one and not just du to bombing
@TheLiberalKnight the failure of the krut mind is it pride arrogance in quality they mad the bst still do, we made things easy as did the soviets with the t34 a model they basically bought form us the suspension of the t 34 its major advance along with slopping armor borrowed from the krauts was an american wiles suspension system t34 was a good tank not the best but esy to produce in great numbers we knew that thats why we run things now MASS PRODUCTION OF CRAP will win out over hand made
@TheLiberalKnight so like the sherman tank the average american soldier might not be the best man for man, we know that! you think we are stupid its planned that way! we have to train 1.5 million soldiers than it does to train 227,160 we have 6 times the soldiers you build a nice rolls royce and brag fine.. we have 1000 chevy trucks out actually doing shit, polish your nice rolls royce we will bury it in radio active waste any time you even look wrong sat us
@Mistermax30 Then you clearly haven't looked into it. Wellington is not as good as the Duke of Malborough, but you only need to look at the Peninsular battles to see that he was something 'special'. Ney performed brilliantly against the Russians.
The problem here is that Robert E Lee was fighting fellow Americans. No offense, but Americans are not exactly renouned for being good soldiers. Ney was fighting some of the most powerful armies on earth.
@Mistermax30 Then you clearly haven't looked into it. Wellington is not as good as the Duke of Malborough, but you only need to look at the Peninsular battles to see that he was something 'special'. Ney performed brilliantly against the Russians.
The problem here is that Robert E Lee was fighting fellow Americans. No offense, but Americans are not exactly renouned for being good soldiers. Ney was fighting some of the most powerful armies on earth.
@historybuff2001 The war of 1812 was nothing to be proud about. A, you didn't win, B, your president and country was humiliated, C, you were picking on us whilst we were occupied with Napoleon, who was a million times more of a threat than America, so you were cowards, and D you failed to kick us out of Canada.
Why do Americans think they won the war of 1812? It is a joke, surely?
Hitler just like the Napolean would make the same mistakes, FAILED TO DEFEAT BRITAIN and FAILED TO DEFEAT RUSSIA, And then the 2 Unite and become unstoppable! This was the First World War, France,United States,etc were at war with Britain, France also at war with Prussia,Russia,etc.
@martynrobin121 Shut up YOur wrong dont try and make yourself sound smart. Hitler was a corporal the whole way through and is just as important as Pvt. John Taylor..... A guy I made up... He is just as important as a made up person, so he did not play any part in WWI
@austinoltj Your crazy, You said "Hitler wasnt in WW1", Just look back! You are wrong Hitler was in the Great War. And obviously Hitler was more important in World war 2, Hes the guy who started the war and the leader of the European Axis powers.
"in order to reconquer all that he had lost" ..ahh please. Napoleon wasn't stupid. Ofcourse all he wanted was to make France great by economics and stuff. He never planned to conquer all of Europe again, that would never work and he knew it.
it is funny how they mess up the map of Europe, Wellingtons title, and their reference on Prussia lead in the so called German Empire (that was not existent at the time)
i was always curious about the units that served in napoleon's army the same for Wellington's and Blucher's prussian army, and that of austria and russia.
@CrimsonGuard1992 for one it states that the english provided 100,000 men to the allied army which is untrue, only about a third of that number were british, the rest of the army was made up of belgians and prussians, the prussians being nearly all of the other two thirds. also it sort of takes wellingtons feelings about his soldiers out of context, he called soldiers that disobeyed orders to loot french caravans rather than pursuing the fleeing enemy scum... after a battle in the peninsular war
@Krandolph17 Not quite. A third of Wellington's troops were British, another third Germans and most of the rest Dutch and Belgians, The Prussian army was, well, largely Prussian, but there were also a lot of Poles because Prussia had picked up a lot of Polish territory as a result of the various partitions of Poleland a few years back. And of course, the Prussian army also had a lot of Russians from the Russo- German legion.
@oarfrost The various generals were desperate for men and didn't care where they came from with the result that were someone to carefully examine the muster rolls of any of the armies, they would probably come up with a few Sioux warriors.
@CrimsonGuard1992 Wellesley had no patience for disobedient troops, and since the majority of his army in belgium in 1815 were not brittish trained troops they werent up to his standards, he didnt hate his troops, he was seen crying over the carnage of a siege in india.
also, I doubt napoleon went around looking completely pissed constantly, and they sort of make him out as a nineteenth century hitler, although ruthless and ambitious, napoleon hardly qualified as a despot in my opinion
@slimes23 i think wellington was easily just as good as an attacker except for siege warfare. And his family always thought of themselves as anglo-irish
I dislike american speaking narrators, often making the history sound as a bad hollywood action movie. And may I draw your attention to the map of the French Empire. Jutland (Jylland) and Denmark was not ruled from Paris. An act of political friendship between the Kingdom of Denmark and Napoleon's French Empire was negotiated to fend of Russian claims on Danish territory in Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg.
just a shame that we never learn from history. After the battle of waterloo, not even 100 years later, Europe would be plunged into two world wars. Lets hope future generations learn.
@Isthisthelongestname Well technically he seems like a company officer only in charge of maybe just a mere 120 men he does have to shouyt out orders just spek to his company or battalion
seeing how the battle went, we MAY have had bayonet's up our arses. But we won, that's not to say that French don't excel in Heavy.Cav, we excel in infantry/Archers.
Mate, i'm Briish lol. It has nothing to do with taking sides or reality - i'm simply commenting on the "acting". Thought that part was bloody awful, thats all...
Eh. Whatever. This battle would have lost, millitary to the French if our Prussian guys didn't arrive, as shown by Wellington on the run. France can win a few victories, but mainly, who gave people the Commonwealth? OH RIGHT, that was us, I forgot France was a dictatorship and that we abandoned our empire.
Not to mention we were fighting Spain, France, AND America. And USA thinks they beat us on their own. Alone, nobody could. Try fighting 3000 miles from home. It's hard.
@WolfytheWolf5667, true the Americans didn't win the Revolutionary war alone, and Britain and her colonies was being attacked by the French, Spanish and Dutch everywhere.
In the War of 1812, we were alone against Britain, not to mention that we had far fewer Native allies compared to the British who had over a dozen, not to mention that they had the largest fleet and an army of professional volunteers.
We Americans didn't have any significant advantages, and yet the war was a draw.
Napoleon was one of those men who changed the face of history. Although he was one of the greatest military minds the world had ever known, he had a fatal flaw. Hubris. He thought that he could re-make the world in his own image, and was overconfident.
I wish they would stop saying the future Duke of Wellington. He was already the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo! It was created for him in 1814 for his success in the Peninsular.
It is a mistake in the map. Denmark was never under Napoleon's control, Denmark sided with Napoleon after the unprovoked British attack on Copenhagen in 1802.
Do you know who made this video? I am a history teacher and I would like to see if I could buy it for my class.
MathezarT 2 weeks ago
Continuing on I agree siege warfare was his Achilles. The writer Bernard Cornwell (who I know a lot of Napoleonic buffs don't care for but is knowledgeable) argues part of the problem was all his experience with sieges were against the Mahratta armies in India, and a lot of luck went his way, too, so he never really had a defeat to learn from (He repeated a lot of the same mistakes at Badajoz that he made at Gawilghur) and had no real tactics beyond throwing men at the walls.
JPH1138 1 month ago
@expertstrategy can you name a battle that isn't a siege? Although I see if you count retreating (Although they were really tactical withdrawals) after a battle a 'defeat' I'd see where you get that idea from - suddenly some of his victories like Talavera and Busaco become 'defeats' but I disagree with that definition, as the withdrawals were part of a broader strategy that in the end worked brilliantly...
JPH1138 1 month ago
@thedictatorfan you could call him 'lucky' if Waterloo was his only famous victory. It isn't. As for the difference in armies, I think you exaggerate. The bulk of the army that served under Wellington in the Penninsula was in Canada at the time - he had three strong elite battalions in the form of 95th Rifles, Coldstream Guards and the KGL which definitely helped but no more than the Imperial Guard would have Bonaparte (if deployed better) Also, Wellington fielded a lot of inexperienced Dutch.
JPH1138 1 month ago
OMG, did somebody say they 'wouldn't call Wellington anything special'... so being a career soldier for 20 years and never losing a battle, when fighting against a third of Napoleon's marshalls and l'Empereur himself doesn't do it for you? You must only rate two or three generals in the history of the world..
JPH1138 1 month ago
@JPH1138, Wellington lost many battles and sieges during his military career. He retreated into Portugal three times, and he's very crappy at siege warfare, and he always lost a great deal of men before taking a city from the French. He is a great commander there is no doubt about that.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
Captured Napoleon ???
5350drolet 1 month ago
Napoleon did not flank Wellington at all at Waterloo. He just marched forward up the slopes to attack. Foolish.
haynes1776 2 months ago
I think that people exaggerate Wellington's greatness. He is incredibly lucky. 1st it rains the the day before so the shells don't bounce.2nd Conscripts vs regulars isn't a fair fight. Napoleon has the Old Guard but he has a lot of drafted soldiers that have no combat experience. Wellington has a army of trained soldiers. That being said a win is a win but he isn't even close to Napoleon's. Wellington couldn't pull off a Austerlitz or have the Charisma to lead the French armies in Italy.
thedictatorfan 2 months ago
@thedictatorfan True, Wellington was great defensively, but in a complex battle of maneuver like Austerlitz, he would have utterly failed...
Mistermax30 1 month ago
The uninformed jingoism of some of the British posters here is embarrassing me. People, I apologise on behalf of my people. No wonder the world thinks we're arrogant ignoramuses.
That being said, I find a common flaw in US programmes about this period suffer from fundamental errors when it comes to historical accuracy and detail.
fjnjn 4 months ago
And I'm British and a great admirer of the Duke of Wellington, yet I find these "no American general was good" comments childish in the extreme, not to mention false and really perplexing to anyone who knows anything about US military history.
fjnjn 4 months ago
@Freez57fr Wellington wasn't quite Irish in any meaningful sense. The Anglo-Irish ascendancy was a peculiar social group: patrician, socially pretty separate from the 'native' Irish, and, all told, more English than Irish.
fjnjn 4 months ago
Why the Brits are so full of themselves about this battle?
1- The French were heavily outnumbered (70.000 French vs 120.000 Allied)
2- The Engaylish were only 20% of the Allied soliders on the battlefield (80% of them were Dutch, German and Prussians)
3- Wellington was Irish, and he had his ass saved by Blucher and the Prussian army.
By the way, this documentary is just like all the documentary of the History Channel, just ridiculous and full of mistakes.
Freez57fr 4 months ago
@Freez57fr The French were not outnumbered for the majority of the battle yet failed to defeat the force that was more less equal in to their own number in Wellington's army. Napoleon's Army was 69,000 men, Wellington's was 68,000 men, Bluchher didn't arrive until late in the battle when Napoleon had already failed.
25,000 men of Wellington's army were British, 26,000 were German troops (including the KGL) and 17,000 were Dutch and Belgians making roughly a third of his army British, not 20%.
11nytram11 4 months ago
@Freez57fr Blcuher's arrival was planned and Wellington fought the battle only as a delaying action so Blucher could arrive and the Coalition could attack Napoleon with superior number. Blucher's arrival can in no way be used to deminish Wellington's part in the victory at Waterloo.
And I wish you'd grow out of the phaze your in of calling the English "Engaylish". It is an utterly pathetic, purile and childish pun and just make you look petty and hateful.
11nytram11 4 months ago
@Freez57fr I get that you're a Francophile but you could at least do your own country a favor by behaving like an adult and not resort to petty insult without provokation.
11nytram11 4 months ago
@Freez57fr
1. The Allies were outnumbered for most of the battle.
2. The Brits played the most important part of the allied defense, they were the only troops with any experience and Wellington made sure to place them at the front .
3. Wellington saw himself as British, he was born in Ireland into and English family.
4. And he did not have his "ass saved", all of Napoleons attacks failed and it was Wellingtons troops that actually caused the French to be swept from the field not just Blucher.
uafchris 3 months ago
@uafchris without blucher napolean would have won waterloo
Prussia75 3 months ago
@Prussia75 Maybe, but it wasn't just the Prussians that routed Napoleon, Wellingtons troops played just an important part.
uafchris 3 months ago
@uafchris I sincerely doubt that, Wellington himself admitted that the Prussians came in the nick of time...
Mistermax30 1 month ago
@Freez57fr TWAT
fringecakeboy 3 months ago in playlist Conquerors - Napoleon
Comment removed
tribetng 5 months ago in playlist Conquerors - Napoleon
@tribetng He was Anglo-Irish. His family was both of Irish and English descent. He rejected his Irish roots and claimed to be solely English - famously saying the being born in a stable did not make you a horse.
11nytram11 4 months ago
Comment removed
tribetng 4 months ago
Comment removed
tribetng 4 months ago
look at the tactics and the armies and draw your own conclusions. jackson was not exactly a professional general,the british were supposed to be.
historybuff2001 5 months ago
@historybuff2001 Well I certainly dont doubt that the British generalship at New Orleans could have been better but Packenham was certainly not Wellington, he wasn't even Ross. Which still brings up my question. Why cite Jackson as a great General if you think the battle he's famous for was won more because of British incompetance than Jackson's own skill?
Why not cite Scott who accomplished far more in the field than Jackson and who reviced international regonition for his abilities?
11nytram11 5 months ago
@11nytram11 because jackson was not a professional such as the british claimed to be,he fought mainly against indians,there was no west point educated officers at the time and the U.S. was almost entirely made up of militia units.should have been no match for the well seasoned british soldiers and officers who could not adapt thier tactics when the situation called for it.
historybuff2001 5 months ago
@11nytram11 oh yeah, how much skill does it take to mow down an enemy from behind breastworks?more of the credit must be given to the men themselves for not turning tail.i do agree about wellington and scott though, wellington himself said scott was the greatest general of his time for what he did but that was the mexican war.
historybuff2001 5 months ago
no side won or lost anything it was a tie actually, i dont remember you beating our navy .i dont remember suing for peace so far as new orleans neithe side knew the war was over at the time of the battle.
historybuff2001 5 months ago
we didnt lose either what would you do if someone was kidnapping your sailors ? it was called impressment and we still stomped you bad at new orleans, as a result of horrible british overconfidence and incompetence!
historybuff2001 5 months ago
@historybuff2001 New Orleans was after the war had ended. We kicked your fat asses in the real war. We destroyed your economy, crushed your navy, defeated your army when it invaded Canada and forced you to sue for peace after we began attacking your coast . It was an American defeat. There is no other way to look at it.
uafchris 5 months ago
@historybuff2001 So...if you attribute the British defeat at New Orleans to overconfidence and incompetance on the part of the British and not through any great ability on the part of Jackson and the Americans, then why did you bring forward Jackson's name to oppose TheLiberalKnight who was saying that America had never produced any great generals?
11nytram11 5 months ago
The Duke of Wellington title was created in 1814, Waterloo was fought in 1815. Arthur Wellesley was not the "future Duke of Wellington" when Waterloo was fought, he was the established Duke of Wellington. There is more than a year difference between Wellesley becoming the Duke of Wellington and the Battle of Waterloo being fought.
11nytram11 6 months ago
What a typical American fucking documentary. Wellington was a BRITISH GENERAL, not the 'allied general'. Stupid cunts! Trying to undermine the fact that Britain produced far superior general to America.
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight While Wellington was a British General he was als oa Coalition General. In Spain he was Generalisimo and commanded the British, Portuguese and Spanish forces by the end and at Waterloo he commanded British, Dutch, Belgians and German troops and a Corps of Prussians. It's a tribute to him that he managed to get all those nations working cohesively and won his battles and campaigns.
11nytram11 6 months ago
@11nytram11 Yes, but my point is, it's not as if he lead coalitions that only consisted 1/3 British. British troops were always the bulk of his armies. On top of that, he was a British general, who was educated in Britain, and learnt warfare in Britain. This American documentary is merely trying to undermine the British, as they usually do. It's jealousy- who the fuck can name a single American general? They are all terrible.
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Lets not go over the top here. I can name several American Generals without trying - Winfield Scott, Nathaniel Green, Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, Omar Bradley and more - and the Duke of Wellington himself recognized Scott as the greatest living soldier in 1847. The Americans have always had more of a love affair with Napoleon anyway and studied him in great detail while neglecting other generals so mistakes when talking about Wellington are bound to happen.
11nytram11 6 months ago
@11nytram11 I'm sorry, but not a single American general comes close to the likes of Bonaparte, Duke of Malborough, Wellington, Ceaser, etc. I mean, even the junior grand army generals like Marshal Ney completely outclass the likes of Robert E Lee. Robert E Lee is famous because he was the best general in the American civil war- therefore, Americans think he must be something special. He isn't. Ney or Wellington would utterly destroy him on the battlefield.
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago 2
@TheLiberalKnight What do you specifically have against Robert E. Lee...
Mistermax30 1 month ago
@Mistermax30 Robert E Lee is an over rated general. If American wasn't the biggest power on earth, nobody would even know about Robert E Lee. He's apparenly the greatest general ever, just because he's American.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight No one said he was the "greatest general ever". However, he did successfully fight off numerically superior opponents, and he had a good record in the Mexican American war...
Mistermax30 1 month ago
@Mistermax30 Exaclty, nothing special. Nothing near the likes of Wellington, Ney, or Napoleon.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight I wouldn't call Wellington or Ney anything special either...
Mistermax30 1 month ago
@Mistermax30 Then you clearly haven't looked into it. Wellington is not as good as the Duke of Malborough, but you only need to look at the Peninsular battles to see that he was something 'special'. Ney performed brilliantly against the Russians.
The problem here is that Robert E Lee was fighting fellow Americans. No offense, but Americans are not exactly renouned for being good soldiers. Ney was fighting some of the most powerful armies on earth.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight Americans not good soldiers? Really?
MathezarT 2 weeks ago
@MathezarT Yes, Americans are not good soldiers. They performed awfully in the war of 1812, awfully in Vietnam, their worst performance was in WW1, etc. You've had some good moments, like WW2, but your record is pretty abysmal. I say this because I'm sick of Americans claiming their military is superior to all.
TheLiberalKnight 2 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight So which military in modern history is superior to America's?
MathezarT 2 weeks ago
@MathezarT How do you define modern? If you mean 1500-2012, there are several militaries far superior to America's today. Spain, France, and Britain, are the most obvious examples.
TheLiberalKnight 2 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight No, I would not start at 1500 since that was 176 years before America was a nation. How about post Civil War America, 1870 to 2012.
MathezarT 2 weeks ago
@MathezarT Alright. From 1870-1900, Russia, France, Germany, and especially Britain, were far more powerful than America.
From 1900-1945, Britain was more powerful than America.
1945-1990 the Soviets were never far behind you as far as military power is concerned.
1900-2011 America rules supreme, but by 2015 China will have the economic resources to rival your military.
Therefore since 1776, America has had/will have about 30 years of total dominance.
TheLiberalKnight 2 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight We have strayed from the original post that said that Americans are poor soldiers. I am guessing that you are British, and I am also guessing that you never served in the military either. I have served in the American Army and have worked with soldiers from England, and I would not make such an outlandish statement as to call all servicemen from another country poor soldiers. You may not like Americans, but reality is that we have produced good soldiers.
MathezarT 1 week ago
@MathezarT I like everything America stands for (bar republicanism), and I like a lot of Americans. The thing that irritates me is this nationalism. This idea that all militaries in the world are inferior to the American one. Vietnam for example, if Germany had the same resources as America had, they would have the country in a month.
TheLiberalKnight 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight the one thing americans have that you brits never had is guts
we have a productive industry bar none thats what god gave us to keep you eurotrash in your place..you englsih were on rations in the winter of 1947 you almost all starved to death we had to save you ONCE AGAIN with the marshall plan..so be a good poodle and keep stfu long live napoleon and thank god for the french we never could have won at yorktown without them..
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MrBillcale You are a joke, not even worth my time.
TheLiberalKnight 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight your english your whole culture is a joke the mighty british empire..look at you now a feeble nanny state licking the boots of the mighty american empire.. how humiliated you must be..and think about it its all down to the french navy in yortown harbor in 1781..almost as humiliating as the dutch at medway in 1667..look at you now you and your sad little island..long live france
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight we will always owe the french a debt no matter how snotty they are vive la france!
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight I think you are trying to fault America for one of its strengths. I agree that the Nazis could have quickly gained control of Vietnam. But they were a brutal totalitarian regime bent on world domination. America, with its goal of spreading democracy will not and cannot operate in the same way.
MathezarT 1 week ago
@MathezarT No, I said Germany, not the Nazis. This is what irritates me.
In Vietnam, if Britain had the resources America had, we would have Vietnam in a month. But unlike the Americans, we would conquer the country instead of 'liberate' it. You can only liberate a country if you force a fair system of governance on them, as Britain did in India. The Americans think they can leave after a war and succeed, but it doesn't work like that.
TheLiberalKnight 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight you liberated india, ask any indian about that rubbish yeak like you liberated ireland you worthless british filth.. funny how you englsih were all peacenicks during nam..cowards..we were brave enough to admit we were wrong we had become imperialists like the vile english another british disease your whole culture is a disease riddled be imperial thelft and socialism creating depedent dole suckers..do not be so bold to think somoene like you from a diseasesed culture may
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MrBillcale lecture
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight the greatest culture ever in history
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight The Raid on the Medway, sometimes called the Battle of the Medway, Raid on Chatham or the Battle of Chatham, was a successful Dutch attack on the largest English naval ships, laid up in the dockyards of their main naval base Chatham, that took place in June 1667 during the Second Anglo-Dutch War. d a favourable peace for the Dutch. It was the worst defeat in the Royal Navy's history
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight The Dutch, under nominal command of Lieutenant-Admiral Michiel de Ruyter, bombarded and then captured the town of Sheerness, sailed up the River Thames to Gravesend, then up the River Medway to Chatham, where they burnt three capital ships and ten lesser naval vessels and towed away the HMS Unity and the HMS Royal Charles, pride and normal flagship of the English fleet. The raid led to a quick end to the war an
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight the dutch a nation of cheese making pot smoking prostitues a nation the size of a postage stamp most of which is under sea level, my god the dutch navy had to get drunk to leave port(dutch courage) and they totally anihilated your glorius navy..shit that took chutzpah ... how humilaiting for you
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight But again you are talking about a fundamental difference between British and American foreign policy and not saying anything about the ability of the average American to fight a war. American wars have mostly been lost by politicians, not the soldiers.
MathezarT 1 week ago
@MathezarT Maybe you're right. That's a good point.
TheLiberalKnight 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight Thanks LK, and I would agree with you that Lee was as a general was overrated. I think it is pretty clear that his early success has more to do with the disorganized weak leadership of the Union, than his abilities as a general. When Grant was brought over from the West, that was the beginning of the end for Lee and the South.
MathezarT 5 days ago
@MathezarT Glad someone agrees! Cheers.
TheLiberalKnight 5 days ago
@MathezarT we did NOT deserve to win in vietnam we were the agressor no better than hitler and the nazis and now? now we are rome we were a grand republic like rome we have moved into the decadent and cruel empire phase and our fall is not far
MrBillcale 1 week ago in playlist waterloo
@TheLiberalKnight America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 - 1900)
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight if yoiu were so powerful in 1940 why were you begging FDR for ships guns and money? BEGGING BEGGING and what about lend lease? you were already a lion with false teeth
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MrBillcale Somebody has mental health problems :-)
Calm down, lad. Go and see a doctor.
TheLiberalKnight 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight mad mad you say? of course i'm mad..why do you think i have this outrageous accent?
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MrBillcale Because you smoke?
ImperialGlory1920 1 week ago
@ImperialGlory1920 i gave up everything but irish whiskey long ago..you know you english are so pathetic why do you even bother getting up in the morning? i know about your culture i'm not stupid you get so drunk you piss yourself and fall asleep on the tube..a nation of worthless drunks trying to relive past glory..and resenting your benifactor the united states a nation that has accomplished 100 x more than your rotting empire ever did
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MrBillcale I wouldn't consider obesity to be an accomplishment. Severe ignorance due to an isolationist govenment can't really be considered an accomplishment either. The only 'empire' that is rotting is the American influence over the world. The Chinese have robbed your industry from underneath your noses and are now laughing at 'American authority', as are other countries that America considers to be evil. The next 200 years will be China's and India's
aspiringdrummer17 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Obesity in the United Kingdom is a growing health concern with health officials stating that it is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in the United Kingdom. According to Forbes, United Kingdom ranks 28 on a 2009 list of fattest countries.[1]
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MrBillcale Obesity levels in France have doubled between 1995 and 2004 (to 11.3% of the population).[2] However, France has the lowest obesity rate in Europe.[5]
Nord-Pas-de-Calais is considered the fattest region in France. Fifty-one percent of the population here is considered either overweight or obese. This is in contrast with France's national average at 42 percent.[1] Between 1992 and 2000, in the region obesity in girls double while the total for boys grew by 195%
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Adult obesity rates have almost quadrupled in the last 25 years, with 22% of Britons now obese.[2] Poor Britons are more likely to be obese than their wealthy fellow citizens.[3] The South-East of England is considered to be the slimmest region in the United Kingdom with an obesity level of 18% which compared to Sweden’s fattest region has 16% of its population obese.[
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 4] Birmingham is considered the European Union’s fattest city. 29% of the adult population are classified as obese while the European average is 14%.
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 are you from birmingham mr fatty fat fat?
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 A quarter of Birmingham's 11 and 12 year olds are considered obese.[4]
The National Obesity Forum in 2011 cited Denmark's tax on foods containing more than 2.3% saturated fat as an example which must be followed. people that live in glass houses? should not throw stones
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Obesity in France has been increasingly cited as a major health issue in recent years. It is now considered a political issue whereas before it would have been an issue reported on television talk shows or in women's magazines just a few years prior.[1] There is a myth about French people not getting overweight or obese.[2] The myth is so strong that some scientists think that there is a connection between obesity and genetics.[
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 2] France is ranked as the 128th fattest country.[3] The issue has caused a shock in France.[4]
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Obesity levels in France have doubled between 1995 and 2004 (to 11.3% of the population).[2] However, France has the lowest obesity rate in Europe.[
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Obesity in the United States has been increasingly cited as a major health issue in recent decades. While many industrialized countries have experienced similar increases, obesity rates in the United States are among the highest in the world with 74.6% of Americans being overweight or obese.[2] Estimates have steadily increased, from 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[3] to 26.6% in 2007,[4] to 33.8% (adults) and 17% (children) in 2008.
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 i dont see much difference between american and british obesity levels your almost as fat as the americans french being the thinnest in europe mr steak and kidney pie
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Overall, the French, along with the Italians and the Swiss, are considered among the slimmest people in Europe on average.[6] 38.5% of men and 26% of women in France are considered overweight while 60% of men and 43% of women in Germany are considered overweight.[7] Estimates show that 16% of French five-to-11-year-olds are obese. Obesity in that age is set to increase to more than 20% by 2010.
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MrBillcale You really need to get a life mate
aspiringdrummer17 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 what makes you think i'm real?
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MrBillcale The fact that you're responding to my comments in a non-spamish way despite the fact that you posted a very spam-like number of them
aspiringdrummer17 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 is that proof?
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 perhaps i am a very sophisticated program, there are things in this world that are beyond your philosophy horacio
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MrBillcale I'm sure a computer program that was capable of such things would be put to better use than this, not that such complex things would be attainable by someone of your mental constitution francois
aspiringdrummer17 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 its an x k red 21 technique a double bluff look lady you obviously dont understand the world of espionage..oh you english think your soooo superior but would you like to know where youd be with out the good old USA to protect you? well i'll tell you!THE SMALLEST F*CKING PROVINCE IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE THATS WHAT so dont call me stupid just thank me! if it were not for us youd all be speaking german going dutzland duetzland uber allus..
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MrBillcale How would we be speaking German if we were a small Russian province? If you're going to spout the same old 'we saved your asses' drivel, at least get SOME facts right! We don't think we're superior btw, we're just tired of Americans thinking that THEY'RE superior. If you could exercise some modesty every now and again then things wouldn't be too bad
aspiringdrummer17 6 days ago
@aspiringdrummer17 do me a big favor google 61st Academy Awards Best Supporting actor..and yes we are superior we are mongrels from every ghetto and hell hole that can spit out a refugee every dirty peasant that had the guts to hop on a boat and work for a better life instead of stay home and suck off the dole we are so much better than you
MrBillcale 6 days ago
@aspiringdrummer17 The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles.
MrBillcale 6 days ago
@aspiringdrummer17 From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus, 1883
MrBillcale 6 days ago
@ImperialGlory1920 smoking causes cancer and gave me emphasema but never effected my brain no one smokes here any more tobacco is for trailer trash
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight the doctor said its better to bother the english than battle the voices in my head long live france
MrBillcale 1 week ago in playlist waterloo
@MrBillcale Of course he's mad. He is a frog. btw, this is the frog I was telling you about.
ImperialGlory1920 1 week ago
@MathezarT The T-34 had the coil-spring Christie suspension of the BT, using a "slack track" tread system with a rear-mounted drive sprocket and no system of return rollers for the upper run of track, but dispensed with the weighty and ineffective convertible drive. It had well-sloped armour, a relatively powerful engine and wide tracks
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@MathezarT The Christie suspension is a suspension system developed by American engineer Walter Christie for his tank designs. It allowed considerably longer movement than conventional leaf spring systems then in common use, which allowed his tanks to have considerably greater cross-country speed and a lower[citation needed] profile. The system was first introduced on his M1928 design, and used on all[citation needed] of his designs until his death in 1944.
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight all we have to do is push a button little man..and numbers do matter you euro trash never got that, in ww2 it took 4 shermans to take out a panzer fine german tank the panzer but hard to produce and even harder to transport due to size and fuel, the sherman was easy to make more manuverable and eays to transport over the atlantic we planned it that way wee knew it was inferior tank for tank but we could make 10 to their one and not just du to bombing
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight the failure of the krut mind is it pride arrogance in quality they mad the bst still do, we made things easy as did the soviets with the t34 a model they basically bought form us the suspension of the t 34 its major advance along with slopping armor borrowed from the krauts was an american wiles suspension system t34 was a good tank not the best but esy to produce in great numbers we knew that thats why we run things now MASS PRODUCTION OF CRAP will win out over hand made
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@TheLiberalKnight so like the sherman tank the average american soldier might not be the best man for man, we know that! you think we are stupid its planned that way! we have to train 1.5 million soldiers than it does to train 227,160 we have 6 times the soldiers you build a nice rolls royce and brag fine.. we have 1000 chevy trucks out actually doing shit, polish your nice rolls royce we will bury it in radio active waste any time you even look wrong sat us
MrBillcale 1 week ago
@Mistermax30 Then you clearly haven't looked into it. Wellington is not as good as the Duke of Malborough, but you only need to look at the Peninsular battles to see that he was something 'special'. Ney performed brilliantly against the Russians.
The problem here is that Robert E Lee was fighting fellow Americans. No offense, but Americans are not exactly renouned for being good soldiers. Ney was fighting some of the most powerful armies on earth.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mistermax30 Then you clearly haven't looked into it. Wellington is not as good as the Duke of Malborough, but you only need to look at the Peninsular battles to see that he was something 'special'. Ney performed brilliantly against the Russians.
The problem here is that Robert E Lee was fighting fellow Americans. No offense, but Americans are not exactly renouned for being good soldiers. Ney was fighting some of the most powerful armies on earth.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight yep andy jacxkson sure got messed up at new orleans!
historybuff2001 5 months ago
@historybuff2001 The war of 1812 was nothing to be proud about. A, you didn't win, B, your president and country was humiliated, C, you were picking on us whilst we were occupied with Napoleon, who was a million times more of a threat than America, so you were cowards, and D you failed to kick us out of Canada.
Why do Americans think they won the war of 1812? It is a joke, surely?
TheLiberalKnight 5 months ago
3:00 is VERY inaccurate.
napolian had a withered arm how could he have done his arms like that to stop the soldiers
warspite1995 6 months ago
@r13373 wow no he did not. You stupid to think of that Napoleon lost most control of his artillery before the end.
austinoltj 6 months ago
the acting is so terrible
za2ed00z 6 months ago
funny how Wellington calls his soldiers scum, when in his early life, he was one of them, he rose from private to field marshal
puchy110 6 months ago
@puchy110 No his lowest rank was a Aide-de-Camp which is pretty much a aid to a general. He was never anything less.
austinoltj 6 months ago
Napoleon won more battles than any other general in the history of war. a military genus at that time.
haynes1776 7 months ago
sorry i can't watch this , it's crap.
aimanXIII 7 months ago
Hitler just like the Napolean would make the same mistakes, FAILED TO DEFEAT BRITAIN and FAILED TO DEFEAT RUSSIA, And then the 2 Unite and become unstoppable! This was the First World War, France,United States,etc were at war with Britain, France also at war with Prussia,Russia,etc.
martynrobin121 9 months ago
@martynrobin121 Hitler wasnt in WWI
austinoltj 6 months ago
@austinoltj Hitler fought in the Great war 1914-1918.
martynrobin121 6 months ago
@martynrobin121 Shut up YOur wrong dont try and make yourself sound smart. Hitler was a corporal the whole way through and is just as important as Pvt. John Taylor..... A guy I made up... He is just as important as a made up person, so he did not play any part in WWI
austinoltj 6 months ago
@austinoltj What are you talking about?? Adolf Hitler fought in the Great war, Just research!
martynrobin121 6 months ago
@martynrobin121 Ya HE fought as a fuckin corporal idc tho His only importance is WWII. I dont care about his part in WWI.
austinoltj 6 months ago
@austinoltj Your crazy, You said "Hitler wasnt in WW1", Just look back! You are wrong Hitler was in the Great War. And obviously Hitler was more important in World war 2, Hes the guy who started the war and the leader of the European Axis powers.
martynrobin121 6 months ago
@martynrobin121 All i care about is generals their the ones i read my history about.
austinoltj 6 months ago
"in order to reconquer all that he had lost" ..ahh please. Napoleon wasn't stupid. Ofcourse all he wanted was to make France great by economics and stuff. He never planned to conquer all of Europe again, that would never work and he knew it.
Strategos300 9 months ago
Please, what is the name of this documentary?
vorrifmn 11 months ago
This was fucking awesome, this video is perfectly in sync for me
vorrifmn 11 months ago
This so fucking awesome, where can i buy this?
vorrifmn 11 months ago
it is funny how they mess up the map of Europe, Wellingtons title, and their reference on Prussia lead in the so called German Empire (that was not existent at the time)
HoundogAlex 11 months ago
Comment removed
HoundogAlex 11 months ago
BBC is far better at recreating battles make sure you watch Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall of an Empire
TheMD1331 1 year ago
i was always curious about the units that served in napoleon's army the same for Wellington's and Blucher's prussian army, and that of austria and russia.
haynes1776 1 year ago
There are a shitload of inaccuracies in this entire documentary
buttscrew12 1 year ago 9
@buttscrew12 What inaccuracies?
CrimsonGuard1992 1 year ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 for one it states that the english provided 100,000 men to the allied army which is untrue, only about a third of that number were british, the rest of the army was made up of belgians and prussians, the prussians being nearly all of the other two thirds. also it sort of takes wellingtons feelings about his soldiers out of context, he called soldiers that disobeyed orders to loot french caravans rather than pursuing the fleeing enemy scum... after a battle in the peninsular war
Krandolph17 1 year ago
@Krandolph17 Not quite. A third of Wellington's troops were British, another third Germans and most of the rest Dutch and Belgians, The Prussian army was, well, largely Prussian, but there were also a lot of Poles because Prussia had picked up a lot of Polish territory as a result of the various partitions of Poleland a few years back. And of course, the Prussian army also had a lot of Russians from the Russo- German legion.
oarfrost 1 year ago
@oarfrost The various generals were desperate for men and didn't care where they came from with the result that were someone to carefully examine the muster rolls of any of the armies, they would probably come up with a few Sioux warriors.
oarfrost 1 year ago
@oarfrost Really?
Sharker2400 11 months ago
@Sharker2400 Yes
oarfrost 10 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 Wellesley had no patience for disobedient troops, and since the majority of his army in belgium in 1815 were not brittish trained troops they werent up to his standards, he didnt hate his troops, he was seen crying over the carnage of a siege in india.
also, I doubt napoleon went around looking completely pissed constantly, and they sort of make him out as a nineteenth century hitler, although ruthless and ambitious, napoleon hardly qualified as a despot in my opinion
Krandolph17 1 year ago
@buttscrew12 Can't you tell me which?
SackFulloApplez1993 3 months ago
I've heard that actually Napleon was of average height for the time.
owainmeurig 1 year ago
Wellington was not an Englishman. He was Irish. Wellington was probably even better on the attack.
slimes23 1 year ago
@slimes23 i think wellington was easily just as good as an attacker except for siege warfare. And his family always thought of themselves as anglo-irish
donorleone 1 year ago
I dislike american speaking narrators, often making the history sound as a bad hollywood action movie. And may I draw your attention to the map of the French Empire. Jutland (Jylland) and Denmark was not ruled from Paris. An act of political friendship between the Kingdom of Denmark and Napoleon's French Empire was negotiated to fend of Russian claims on Danish territory in Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg.
petermarceltoft 1 year ago
why i think wellington is great?!?
piichuutami 1 year ago
just a shame that we never learn from history. After the battle of waterloo, not even 100 years later, Europe would be plunged into two world wars. Lets hope future generations learn.
zepsterboy 1 year ago
Napoleon didn't march to Paris, he marched to Grenoble
vulpecula999 1 year ago
0.58 "form squares, form squares"
absolutely the weakest, commands ive ever heard - sounds like a teenager whos voice is breaking and with a bayonat up his arse.
Isthisthelongestname 1 year ago
@Isthisthelongestname Well technically he seems like a company officer only in charge of maybe just a mere 120 men he does have to shouyt out orders just spek to his company or battalion
1Historygenius 1 year ago
@Isthisthelongestname
seeing how the battle went, we MAY have had bayonet's up our arses. But we won, that's not to say that French don't excel in Heavy.Cav, we excel in infantry/Archers.
WolfytheWolf5667 1 year ago
@WolfytheWolf5667
Mate, i'm Briish lol. It has nothing to do with taking sides or reality - i'm simply commenting on the "acting". Thought that part was bloody awful, thats all...
Isthisthelongestname 1 year ago
@Isthisthelongestname
Eh. Whatever. This battle would have lost, millitary to the French if our Prussian guys didn't arrive, as shown by Wellington on the run. France can win a few victories, but mainly, who gave people the Commonwealth? OH RIGHT, that was us, I forgot France was a dictatorship and that we abandoned our empire.
Not to mention we were fighting Spain, France, AND America. And USA thinks they beat us on their own. Alone, nobody could. Try fighting 3000 miles from home. It's hard.
WolfytheWolf5667 1 year ago
@WolfytheWolf5667, true the Americans didn't win the Revolutionary war alone, and Britain and her colonies was being attacked by the French, Spanish and Dutch everywhere.
In the War of 1812, we were alone against Britain, not to mention that we had far fewer Native allies compared to the British who had over a dozen, not to mention that they had the largest fleet and an army of professional volunteers.
We Americans didn't have any significant advantages, and yet the war was a draw.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@expertstrategy
Yes but I'd prefer a British world.
For one, no stupid movies like WATERLOO, STARRING JAMES CAMERON, BRUCE WILLIS, WILL SMITH, AND MORE CELEBRITIES WHO CAN'T ACT.
Seriously, British are better than nearly everything, Although
Americans do excel in food production. I simply adore the food. You ever hear of "Ponderosa" in Florida?
WolfytheWolf5667 1 year ago
What is the name of the theme song of this episode ?
Nightbaron61 1 year ago
Napoleon was one of those men who changed the face of history. Although he was one of the greatest military minds the world had ever known, he had a fatal flaw. Hubris. He thought that he could re-make the world in his own image, and was overconfident.
bartthebutcher 1 year ago
@bartthebutcher He was almost correct. :-p
wedge0005 1 year ago
I wish they would stop saying the future Duke of Wellington. He was already the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo! It was created for him in 1814 for his success in the Peninsular.
parkerbowls 1 year ago 2
It is a mistake in the map. Denmark was never under Napoleon's control, Denmark sided with Napoleon after the unprovoked British attack on Copenhagen in 1802.
sjolinpeter 1 year ago