If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks. Join the channel (Pleb Tier) to gain access to the Nations of Charlemagne Q&A, and all episodes in this series (see playlist).
Regarding Napoleon's haemorrhoids, imagine the effects on a modern-day commander of being rendered incapable of driving a motor vehicle or being a passenger in one. A massive and crippling disability.
Really fantastic series, thanks very much to AM and all the Panelists. I'm very taken by the idea of Metternich as the Last European. Very thought provoking idea.
Bravo for such an ambitious series superbly done. The demise of Napoleon was the moment Europe collectively held it's breath and cooperatively decided their future - truly a first in world history. Napoleon left a great legacy in the Napoleonic code which found its way into the legal codes of all Western Nations. He also developed civil administration in a form much imitated. If not for Napoleon liberal movements would have exploded throughout Europe much earlier than they did. For all the hell Europe endured many of the wars were forced on Napoleon and would have continued regardless of his existence. As always, history is a mixed bag of good and bad but it is only by learning history in depth one can be aware of the nuances. Cheers to the entire crew for a fantastic series.
Funny that, a man who tried to take over Europe, got stopped in Russia during winter, and was eventually pushed all the way back by the "Allies". Very interesting sequence of events.
@@justinallen2408 Both were revolutionary-nationalistic figures with agressivly expansionist ideologise. Both of them achived power after the collapse the original monarchical system and a inept republic. Both of them had some ego problems and both them were little bit shorter than it was desirble. I think they have some pretty good connection even if it is not perfect.
Russians expect invasions from Western Europe on a regular basis. The recent conflict is a direct result of this cultural expectation. The days of Russia trusting the West and supporting its economy with cheap energy and goods are very much over now, thanks to the grasping classes of the West.
Many concepts that underpin the modern world were championed by Napoleon - meritocracy, equality, property rights, the abolition of feudalism and on and on. However his other legacy is years of war that, arguably, set the whole of Europe’s economic progress back a generation or more. Thanks so much for the excellent streams Apostolic Majesty.
I don't see how idea of green line going up less doesn't perfectly belong to the rest of the things you attributed to the underpinnings of the modern world and if it does, the whole economic setback doesn't make much an argument in reactionary sense.
It's far enough back in time that this statement is utterly ridicolous. How could you possibly know or prove this in any way. It's equally as ridicolous to hold the opposite view btw. Also, wouldn't the spesifics of how and when he won possibly have far reaching effects too?
He already did win. Equality, Jewish emancipation and the codification of the French Revolution are his achievements that still make our world the trainwreck that it is.
Aside from the Rothchilds, the Jews are scapegoats for the Venetians to British Imperialists who have tried to suffocate the world and who eventually corrupted the United States and turned it into the muscle for empire.
I've been reading Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna as of late. Alexander I actually had quite the poor opinion of the Bourbons, especially Louis XVIII. He actually was open to installing Bernadotte as the leader of France and was even sympathetic to Napoleon's wish that he abdicate in favor of his son. It was Talleyrand who, as the one minister available to treat with the arriving monarchs since Napoleon ordered the rest of the government and his family to flee the capital, convinced him that the Bourbons were the only rulers with the potential to lead a stable France due to their historic legitimacy and was able to manipulate both the senate and Alexander, himself, into declaring for the Bourbons and agreeing on the prospect. Alexander I actually agreed to this without consulting a plethora of other allies in the coalition who had not yet reached Paris and also couldn't go back on his word when Napoleon approached him with that offer to abdicate in favor of his son as Talleyrand argued that everyone he had declare for the Bourbons would be subject to harsh reprisals leading to the opposite of a stable French society in the interim. It was probably the wrong decision to reinstate Louis XVII, all things considered, but it makes sense why Alexander I's popularity as a liberator (supposing that popularity was legitimate and not the result of the French people not wanting to be associated with Napoleon any longer for fear of reprisal) wouldn't have translated to his own.
The river and its tributaries at Borodino made any sweeping misleading tactial moves, surprise or local superiority pretty much impossible, so Napoleon had to either slog through it in a frontal assault or not give battle. Seeing as the Russians were denying battle and his whole strategy depended on being able to fix and crush them or near enough, he was hardly goimg to decline battle. This is the problem of trying to twist or reimagine reality to suit your plan rather than being flexible and adapting a plan... He had this idea of what he wanted to do and kept at it regardless of danger. It can be argued that he had no choice; i.e when you embark on such an endeavour where your logistics are stretched and the enemy has most of the options, it's a gamble and you kind of have to just bite the bullet and drive forwards and not get distracted or waylaid to stand any chance of success. This is where one of Napoleon's worst traits comes into play; he was very stubborn. Stubborn people gamble when they shouldn't and lose. The enitire premise and launching of the campaign were a stubborn gamble and by even embarking upon it he recklessly rolled the dice when no such thing should have been considered. If Napoleon played the stock market he'd go broke pretty quick. One of the best tactitians who ever commanded in battle... but a terrible strategist. Nothing he embarked upon produced any results longterm.
A excellent stream. One minor error, the French, eventually, took La Haye Sainte, when the King's German Legion ran out of ammunition, the French did not take Hougoumont, held by the British Foot Guards, at all.
@@omarbradley6807 The 95th withdrew, in good order, after they too ran out of ammunition. Both the light companies of the King German Legion and the 95th were using baker rifles, not the Brown Bess musket, and both ran out of ammunition.
Rule of thumb for continentals who don't know anything about the wider strategic picture (or any Anglo-French clashes before Waterloo) and heap scorn and derision on the UK for not supplying as much manpower as them against Napoleon; Success suddenly starts to be measured by how many of your men die 😆
If Metternich is the last 'European' who is the first? Charlemagne? That would be poignant. I'd almost want to say Machiavelli. A system of separate but shared monarchical legitimacy spanning the continent, distinct from the previous conception of ultimate Roman sovereignty.
Thank you all so much! However, I’m left feeling how much we missed a French or German perspective on everything. Other nationalities too. Seemed very Anglocentric.
Napoleon just wanted Brazil the richest region in the world, but he was defeated 3 times in Portugal. Also the Royal family went to live in Rio de Janeiro, so he got inside old poor Europe with snow and famines.
Napoleon is undeniably one of the great men of history, right next to Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. You have to be British to give him the hate these guys do 😛
Did they ever imply that he was not a "great man"? One can criticise "great men" for their flaws no? Just as one could with Ceasar or Alexander. It's also a fact that the man who rhymes with Shitler was also a "great man" and he is deserving of critique i hope you agree. If you actually want to refute their "hate" then focus on their arguments and facts rather than their nationality as it makes you seem unreasonable (because you are btw, British people are capable of being objective and correct or being correct when not objective too)
I don't think he was a great man. He didn't have any strategic or political vision. He just wanted to own Europe. He also failed due to his own arrogance and believed he could win any war through battle victories.
I don't see the hate. They are being pretty neutral. Napoleon was a big man, and big men have big flaws. Anyone who reads his memoirs or his annotations on other books (like his notes on The Prince) will show a deeply petty, severely narcissistic man who holds huge grudges and lets the grudges drive him. He was the cornerstone of the 19th Century, the starting gunshot of European generalised liberaliem, nationalism and industrialisation. He basked in the fruits of the Revolution (which allowed him to climb the ranks and gave him his wealth of capable officers) and exported the most moderate ideas that came from it to the rest of Europe. He was, literally, a man of consequence, like Brassens sang (cheekely, but bot wrongly).
Napoleon didn't fail, he was just at such a big disadvantage that he couldn't have won no matter what he did, and unlike Hitler's Germany, he won every single one of his battles until Waterloo when his advance started to run out of steam, there's just so much you can do when limited by what you have...and his suicidal march to moscow was a desperate move, even he knew there was no hope of victory if he didn't make the russians surrender. If Napoleon had more people and more Industrial capabilities...half of europe would be speaking french by now.
@@donjuanmckenzie4897 no he wasn't, every battle was in the favour of their opponents who simply had more men all the time which was very important when musket lines are the bulk of your army, the coalition against french never really found one on one, they always had huge armies with soldiers from all members marching to the battlefield.
Napoleon did not win all his battles or campaigns until Waterloo wtf are you talking about? 😂 Not even close 🤦🏻♂️ Maybe pick up a history book before making comments 🤷🏻♂️
I wonder if even with all the pushback, ridley's scott's movie isn't sending the same exact message as this stream. Every time we see napoleon on screen, he is an emotionally driven man making emotionally driven decisions. I know i'm playing the devil's advocate and no one will agree with me, but i couldn't help but notice a lot of things you guys said about his actions and reactions feature as highlights in the movie. Perhaps, just perhaps, the movie was trying to take the artistic liberty of sending a message, not conveying history as it happened, and that message is "napoleon is not god".
The Corps system is timeles and had many names. One army wich miost would know is the Mingols employed a corps system in every campaign I know off. I do not know enough about Roman or very early Greek states? They are not armies I have studied I believe they did but I leave this to someone who knows. I am of the opinion most early Turkic nomadic groups had some form of self contained small unit systems.
nah.. a degenerate that destroyed A LOT of what traditional Europe had to offer and opened the doors for far worse things to happen in the future. Great man, for sure.. but also a degenerate - historically speaking.
@@misterkefir Typical propaganda talk from a brainwashed libtard. I'm joking about the libtard it's just a funny word. But far far from degenerate, it was the other monarchs who were degenerates
If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks.
Join the channel (Pleb Tier) to gain access to the Nations of Charlemagne Q&A, and all episodes in this series (see playlist).
This channel is better than 4 years of university lectures i attended. Thank you
Regarding Napoleon's haemorrhoids, imagine the effects on a modern-day commander of being rendered incapable of driving a motor vehicle or being a passenger in one. A massive and crippling disability.
I understood it more of a stomache cancer/digestive issue more so than booty polyps. Care to provide sources?
Digestive issues cause haemerroids
Beautiful. Brilliant. Based.
God Bless, gentlemen.
Excellent, as we've come to expect from AM and his articulate and informed panel. Thank you!
Really fantastic series, thanks very much to AM and all the Panelists.
I'm very taken by the idea of Metternich as the Last European. Very thought provoking idea.
Bravo for such an ambitious series superbly done. The demise of Napoleon was the moment Europe collectively held it's breath and cooperatively decided their future - truly a first in world history. Napoleon left a great legacy in the Napoleonic code which found its way into the legal codes of all Western Nations. He also developed civil administration in a form much imitated. If not for Napoleon liberal movements would have exploded throughout Europe much earlier than they did. For all the hell Europe endured many of the wars were forced on Napoleon and would have continued regardless of his existence. As always, history is a mixed bag of good and bad but it is only by learning history in depth one can be aware of the nuances. Cheers to the entire crew for a fantastic series.
Funny that, a man who tried to take over Europe, got stopped in Russia during winter, and was eventually pushed all the way back by the "Allies". Very interesting sequence of events.
Definitely different set of circumstances though
Indeed, the Ukraine and Caucus was the goal by madman Hitler
@@justinallen2408 Both were revolutionary-nationalistic figures with agressivly expansionist ideologise. Both of them achived power after the collapse the original monarchical system and a inept republic. Both of them had some ego problems and both them were little bit shorter than it was desirble. I think they have some pretty good connection even if it is not perfect.
Russians expect invasions from Western Europe on a regular basis. The recent conflict is a direct result of this cultural expectation. The days of Russia trusting the West and supporting its economy with cheap energy and goods are very much over now, thanks to the grasping classes of the West.
Not even the first time this happened (looks at the King of Sweden in the Great Northern War)
Many concepts that underpin the modern world were championed by Napoleon - meritocracy, equality, property rights, the abolition of feudalism and on and on. However his other legacy is years of war that, arguably, set the whole of Europe’s economic progress back a generation or more. Thanks so much for the excellent streams Apostolic Majesty.
He, and France owe for margarine and the metric system. The principles of civilization require retribution and no exceptions can be granted.
@@Sarah-ok6xq 😂😂
I don't see how idea of green line going up less doesn't perfectly belong to the rest of the things you attributed to the underpinnings of the modern world and if it does, the whole economic setback doesn't make much an argument in reactionary sense.
Napoleon's major legacy was a enormous crop of widows and orphans in France and most other European nations...
@@99IronDuke Yes, exactly.
I love it when men play injured. Thanks for taking the field while you are less than tip-top shape AM, and wish you a quick and speedy recovery!
We'd have a better world had Napoleon won
It's far enough back in time that this statement is utterly ridicolous. How could you possibly know or prove this in any way. It's equally as ridicolous to hold the opposite view btw. Also, wouldn't the spesifics of how and when he won possibly have far reaching effects too?
He already did win. Equality, Jewish emancipation and the codification of the French Revolution are his achievements that still make our world the trainwreck that it is.
Aside from the Rothchilds, the Jews are scapegoats for the Venetians to British Imperialists who have tried to suffocate the world and who eventually corrupted the United States and turned it into the muscle for empire.
@@joegerhardusa9017 seeing that a.m. is a staunch Catholic I’m sure he would disagree
I've been reading Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna as of late. Alexander I actually had quite the poor opinion of the Bourbons, especially Louis XVIII. He actually was open to installing Bernadotte as the leader of France and was even sympathetic to Napoleon's wish that he abdicate in favor of his son. It was Talleyrand who, as the one minister available to treat with the arriving monarchs since Napoleon ordered the rest of the government and his family to flee the capital, convinced him that the Bourbons were the only rulers with the potential to lead a stable France due to their historic legitimacy and was able to manipulate both the senate and Alexander, himself, into declaring for the Bourbons and agreeing on the prospect. Alexander I actually agreed to this without consulting a plethora of other allies in the coalition who had not yet reached Paris and also couldn't go back on his word when Napoleon approached him with that offer to abdicate in favor of his son as Talleyrand argued that everyone he had declare for the Bourbons would be subject to harsh reprisals leading to the opposite of a stable French society in the interim.
It was probably the wrong decision to reinstate Louis XVII, all things considered, but it makes sense why Alexander I's popularity as a liberator (supposing that popularity was legitimate and not the result of the French people not wanting to be associated with Napoleon any longer for fear of reprisal) wouldn't have translated to his own.
I hope your throat gets better
Great stuff. PS it was Marmont in the campaign for France who had to get off his horse and show the recruit how to fire
It has been a truly great series.
The river and its tributaries at Borodino made any sweeping misleading tactial moves, surprise or local superiority pretty much impossible, so Napoleon had to either slog through it in a frontal assault or not give battle.
Seeing as the Russians were denying battle and his whole strategy depended on being able to fix and crush them or near enough, he was hardly goimg to decline battle.
This is the problem of trying to twist or reimagine reality to suit your plan rather than being flexible and adapting a plan... He had this idea of what he wanted to do and kept at it regardless of danger.
It can be argued that he had no choice; i.e when you embark on such an endeavour where your logistics are stretched and the enemy has most of the options, it's a gamble and you kind of have to just bite the bullet and drive forwards and not get distracted or waylaid to stand any chance of success.
This is where one of Napoleon's worst traits comes into play; he was very stubborn.
Stubborn people gamble when they shouldn't and lose.
The enitire premise and launching of the campaign were a stubborn gamble and by even embarking upon it he recklessly rolled the dice when no such thing should have been considered.
If Napoleon played the stock market he'd go broke pretty quick.
One of the best tactitians who ever commanded in battle... but a terrible strategist.
Nothing he embarked upon produced any results longterm.
I know it's a discussion about how, but my instinctive reaction to the question 'how did Napoleon fail' is; 'how could he have won?'
Not go on a war on 2 fronts at the 2 most distant corners of Europe at the same time.
Exceptional
A excellent stream. One minor error, the French, eventually, took La Haye Sainte, when the King's German Legion ran out of ammunition, the French did not take Hougoumont, held by the British Foot Guards, at all.
After the 95 light withdrew in disorder from the back of La Haye Saint, the King German Legion was mopped
@@omarbradley6807 The 95th withdrew, in good order, after they too ran out of ammunition. Both the light companies of the King German Legion and the 95th were using baker rifles, not the Brown Bess musket, and both ran out of ammunition.
@@omarbradley6807 you're arguing with a guy called Iron Duke about Waterloo?
@@juliantheapostate8295 not a good idea.
I fell asleep with RUclips still open and woke up to this 💀💀💀💀
Rule of thumb for continentals who don't know anything about the wider strategic picture (or any Anglo-French clashes before Waterloo) and heap scorn and derision on the UK for not supplying as much manpower as them against Napoleon;
Success suddenly starts to be measured by how many of your men die 😆
If Metternich is the last 'European' who is the first? Charlemagne? That would be poignant. I'd almost want to say Machiavelli. A system of separate but shared monarchical legitimacy spanning the continent, distinct from the previous conception of ultimate Roman sovereignty.
I would say Charlemagne, hence why I wanted to end on a brief discussion of Metternich.
That intro music is still awesome
Thank you all so much!
However, I’m left feeling how much we missed a French or German perspective on everything. Other nationalities too. Seemed very Anglocentric.
I've got the same conclusion. Very interesting discussion but I was missing other nations points of view.
Definitely a biased approach.
No mention of Kulm 1813? That also bit into any gains made at Dresden. Forces that were sorely needed at Liepzig.
Napoleon just wanted Brazil the richest region in the world, but he was defeated 3 times in Portugal. Also the Royal family went to live in Rio de Janeiro, so he got inside old poor Europe with snow and famines.
Napoleon is undeniably one of the great men of history, right next to Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. You have to be British to give him the hate these guys do 😛
Or you'd have to remember that Napoleon was an exporter of liberalism
@@lordnorthumberland277you're talking as if absolute monarchy is desirable or something.
Did they ever imply that he was not a "great man"? One can criticise "great men" for their flaws no? Just as one could with Ceasar or Alexander. It's also a fact that the man who rhymes with Shitler was also a "great man" and he is deserving of critique i hope you agree. If you actually want to refute their "hate" then focus on their arguments and facts rather than their nationality as it makes you seem unreasonable (because you are btw, British people are capable of being objective and correct or being correct when not objective too)
I don't think he was a great man. He didn't have any strategic or political vision. He just wanted to own Europe. He also failed due to his own arrogance and believed he could win any war through battle victories.
I don't see the hate. They are being pretty neutral. Napoleon was a big man, and big men have big flaws. Anyone who reads his memoirs or his annotations on other books (like his notes on The Prince) will show a deeply petty, severely narcissistic man who holds huge grudges and lets the grudges drive him. He was the cornerstone of the 19th Century, the starting gunshot of European generalised liberaliem, nationalism and industrialisation. He basked in the fruits of the Revolution (which allowed him to climb the ranks and gave him his wealth of capable officers) and exported the most moderate ideas that came from it to the rest of Europe. He was, literally, a man of consequence, like Brassens sang (cheekely, but bot wrongly).
This Pertinois character seems promising.
Napoleon didn't fail, he was just at such a big disadvantage that he couldn't have won no matter what he did, and unlike Hitler's Germany, he won every single one of his battles until Waterloo when his advance started to run out of steam, there's just so much you can do when limited by what you have...and his suicidal march to moscow was a desperate move, even he knew there was no hope of victory if he didn't make the russians surrender.
If Napoleon had more people and more Industrial capabilities...half of europe would be speaking french by now.
He was at a mass advantage that he pissed away due to arrogance. He wasn't anything like Hitler
@@donjuanmckenzie4897 no he wasn't, every battle was in the favour of their opponents who simply had more men all the time which was very important when musket lines are the bulk of your army, the coalition against french never really found one on one, they always had huge armies with soldiers from all members marching to the battlefield.
Napoleon did not win all his battles or campaigns until Waterloo wtf are you talking about? 😂 Not even close 🤦🏻♂️
Maybe pick up a history book before making comments 🤷🏻♂️
this is not correct. Before Waterloo, Napoleon was defeated at Eyalu (arguable), Aspern Essling, the Berezina, and Leipzig.
I wonder if even with all the pushback, ridley's scott's movie isn't sending the same exact message as this stream. Every time we see napoleon on screen, he is an emotionally driven man making emotionally driven decisions. I know i'm playing the devil's advocate and no one will agree with me, but i couldn't help but notice a lot of things you guys said about his actions and reactions feature as highlights in the movie. Perhaps, just perhaps, the movie was trying to take the artistic liberty of sending a message, not conveying history as it happened, and that message is "napoleon is not god".
Napoelon couldve won the Battle of Lepzig! Forget Waterloo. He had a chance of capturing the Tsar some days prior to the battle, iirc
Napoleon might have survived if he had stopped where he was in 1811
The Corps system is timeles and had many names.
One army wich miost would know is the Mingols employed a corps system in every campaign I know off.
I do not know enough about Roman or very early Greek states? They are not armies I have studied I believe they did but I leave this to someone who knows.
I am of the opinion most early Turkic nomadic groups had some form of self contained small unit systems.
Because he was too great for this world that's why
Cause he was french. End of the story
This stream an hour in is ridiculously anti Napoleon. You’d never think they were talking about one of history’s greatest generals
They're angloids, what else did you expect?
Very off topic
It's annoying to admit it, but Napoleon was a truly CHAD figure.
*He was, a LATIN KING.* 🧡🧡🤍🤍🧡🧡
He was arguably an early part of the rot.
Why would it be annoying for napoleon a conqueror to a Chad? Cx
nah.. a degenerate that destroyed A LOT of what traditional Europe had to offer and opened the doors for far worse things to happen in the future. Great man, for sure.. but also a degenerate - historically speaking.
@@misterkefir Typical propaganda talk from a brainwashed libtard. I'm joking about the libtard it's just a funny word. But far far from degenerate, it was the other monarchs who were degenerates
Apostolic Majessty doesn't like Napoleon and all the others go along with it like scared little children.
Marcus Preamble Waffle-Side Track Point-Waffle-Finish.
Unlistenable.
I know it's a discussion about how, but my instinctive reaction to the question 'how did Napoleon fail' is; 'how could he have won?'