How NAPOLEON Actually WON the Battle of Waterloo
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 июн 2024
- Did you know that Napoleon actually won the Battle of Waterloo? Here's how he turned this Battle into a great victory. Actually there was nothing to lose at Waterloo. Then Napoleon was not even himself there.
And finally how this Battle became its actual BIGGEST Victory?
Let's explore how.
#napoleon #waterloo #wellington #napoleonicwars #bonaparte
I actually forgot to mention that I was inspired by an ENGLISH author, Stephen Clarke and his book: "How the French won Waterloo"
Brilliant victory! Fun video, man)
His most underrated victory imo, thank you 😀
I have two questions.
1. Have you ever been to Waterloo before?
2. Have you also been to Trafalgar Square? If so, tell me your perspective since you’re a frog…uhhh, (clears throat) I mean Frenchman. 😅
I have never been to Waterloo BUT I went to Trafalgar Square a couple times. If I'm totally honest, I don't have any particular memories of it, but they were mainly weekends with mates, with a very "limited" cultural dimension.
@@ToonStory-fh4gn Oh nice, next time you go to London, you should view the Burghers of Calais statue by Auguste Rodin, it’s a monument for the nobles of Calais that were almost executed by King Edward 3, after the siege of Calais in 1347. You’ll find it in Victoria Square Garden near the river Thames.
This was really interesting, Napoleon was one of a kind, so complicated but no fictional character could come close, he probably took pleasure in being the ultimate man of mystery 😊. Thank you as always for the video and commentary, you do this RUclips thing right!
Yes, a riddle in a puzzle, but ultimately a legendary figure. Thank you so much 😀
Amazing Video!
Thank you!!!
@@ToonStory-fh4gn The detail on this , i just thought napoleon lost like i was told to in school.
There's a post-hoc scenario that barely now is being made somewhat public: the winter year of 1816, respectively the famine years of 1816-1819.
It's incredibly wild to even try and speculate how things would evolve if the status quo, with Napoleon, remained - be it a pyrrhic peace or still under war conditions.
If Waterloo wouldn't have happened, then his reign could come to an abrupt end as a favor to the other powers to mitigate the damages of famine & diseases, and to allow any foodstuffs (with other perishable goods) for the wider populace.
Yes, very interesting perspective. I think VTH also did a special video about this, I'll try and check it out. Anyway I am convinced that in the event of Napoleon winning at Waterloo he can by no mean sustain a prolonged war. I have an idea or two about this, maybe I'll do a video on the topic. Thank you!
Great video
Thank you 😀
Very enjoyable and informative, as always!
Thank you 😀
Great video!
Thank you!
Loving these original videos of yours!
Thank you, glad you like it 😀
My ancestor fought against Napoleon in Austerlitz, Leipzig and he was also present in the campaing in France in 1814. Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube in March 1814 was his last In the Austrian army- He was injured there. Still he was Napoleon's great fan. From written sources I was able to see he admired Napoleon even he was his enemy. This was the reason why I learned German language because my ancestors were Austrians and Germans eventhough I am Czech today. He spoke about Napoleon with great respect in matter of statemanship and military stuff. If your enemies admire you.. you are doing your job very well I think.
Wow thank you for sharing this! The 1814 campaign was incredible, one of the most underrated in history I think. Sorry if I'm wrong, but didn't you mention the re-enactments of Austerlitz a few months ago?
@@ToonStory-fh4gn I did. Every year the action is bigger and bigger, 2019 was the biggest though. Covid in 2020 made it impossible and from 2022 many reenactors from Russia are missing too now because they will not get their visa to travel here.
It is amazing you have preserved the memory of such a distant ancestor! Thank you for sharing.
And about that last sentence, well, Hitler was and is admired by some too).
@@RussianEagles Didn't know it until I stated to dig in my family history ;)
Could you do a video on The June Rebellion Of 1832 a forgotten uprising that is famously portrayed in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables
Interesting! Why not, have you seen the French series produced a few years ago?
@@ToonStory-fh4gn I have seen the English dub with Gerard Depardieu and Virginie Ledoyen
It's easy to lose track of all the french revolutions.
That I’ll never know
What videos did you use for your video?
A bit of total war, a bit of a documentary by th French Museum of the Army, and a LOT of Waterloo by Bondartschuk
@@ToonStory-fh4gnbased Waterloo 1970 ❤
Napoleon should of waited till us British,had elevensies,lunch or tea,we British don't fight without a good cup of tea.
Fantastic video my friend,one question when did Napoleon become leader,i.e. What age.
Thanks bro, I know it's not polite to attack someone before he had his tea or coffee sorry about that!
I guess Napoleon first became a leader at Toulon aged 24. Then he reached the power at 30ish after the Brumaire Coup.
I know lol,it's just so uncivilised my friend.
Napoleon didnt lose at waterloo he just factory reset France :D
You should check the year without summer by cevile VTH just recently did a video on it i think youd enjoy it
Hearing chant of the onion on a french channel is perfect
Haha thank you, yes I just saw that VTH did a video on it. I'll check it out!
Chant of the Onion is a banger!
Here's a question, if you managed to time travel and ended up on St Helena whilst Napoleon was in exile, what would be your top three questions or subjects? 🤔
Oh! That's a fun one.
1. What would you say is your main flaw?
2. Why didn't you listen to Talleyrand after Austerlitz?
3. Have you been happy in your life?
@@ToonStory-fh4gn Excellent questions 👏
@@ToonStory-fh4gn
Assuming I know Napoleon, I figure this is what he would say:
1. My main flaw was depending on bad generals and marshals (he was bitter during his time on St. Helena).
2. Because I was the one to achieve all the glory for France, not Talleyrand, a politician.
3. I was happy when my son was born.
@@Dragonite43 Hahaha really sounds like a bitter and bored Napoleon, well done :)
I have nothing but admiration for record of French military and France in general. That said , I will have to reply the reasons you listed from my perspective ( as neither French , nor Roast Beef )
1) Napoleon's return from his exile in Elba was not universally popular in France either in 1815. Again insurrections started in Vandee and additional French troops maybe as many as a division was diverted to supress them. Combined with the might of Coalition ( which quickly mobilised because Napoleon picked a bad time to escape from Elba and regain power in France since all Coalition soverigns and leaders were at Conferance of Vienna at that point and instead of communicating over vast distances therefore wasting time to give Napoleon a breathing window to consolidate his power , they agreed almost instantly to outlaw Napoleon and his new regime. Interestingly Duke of Wellington was in Conferance of Vienna and he was the least antagonistic to Napoleon's return to lead France since at this point if Bourbons were proven that unstable against return of Napoleon , then Napoleon himself maybe only stabilising figure to head France , was his reasoning. But he was overturned by other heads of state , especially by Prussian Queen Louise and Russian Tsar Alexander I who outlawed Napoleon ) , I agree that there would be further decisive battles that would push France over the edge eventually. Waterloo Campaign in total during 15-18 June 1815 which Napoleon lost , broke the myth of Napoleon's invincibility aura across Europe though. That is significant. Before that he was impossible to defeat. After Waterloo , he could not gloss over the fact that Armee du Nord lost half of its strength on 18th June 1815 , he the Emperor left the battlefield to control political damage and Prussians followed by British were free to invade French territory from north. He could change French public perspective with brilliant propaganda before like during his return from Egypt in 1799 and leaving Armee due Orient in Egypt without orders (due to political unrest and unpopularity of Directory) or after Russian Campaign 1812 on the reasoning thar the weather and distances defeated his army not enemy directly etc. Waterloo was a straight four battles campaign in four days ( Ligny , Quatre Bras , Wavre annd main decisive battle at Mont St. Jean where Waterloo is) and Napoleon lost it straight from public perspective and his invicibility myth for even most ardent Bonapartist was broken after 22 years of war.
2) I definetely agree that Napoleon did not have his winning team of Field Marshalls and General Staff anymore in 1815. Most of them were either dead or refused to serve under Napoleon anymore some even went into straight fallout with Napoleon or a few just went straight went to service of Louis XVIII by then. On that regard I consider death of Berthier was fatal to efficiency for Armee du Nord during Waterloo Campaign. Previously Napoleon was the brain that sent the commands and Berthier being an excellent Chief of Staff , relayed these orders with efficiently and clear meaning to subordinate commands. After his death just before Waterloo Campaign , Napoleon's picking Soult as new Chief of Staff was a huge mistake. Soult was a great Field Marshall but not a good staff officer since he had no Staff training and his attempts to pour commands and intentions of Napoleon on written format , caused a lot of confusion in French command of battle
3) Which brings Grouchy. I think he was wrongly blamed and made a scapegoat by post war critics and especially Napoleon and his acolytes. Grouchy only followed written orders relayed to him by Soult who failed to clear the intentions of Napoleon and put on definite written orders to Grouchy. Dividing French Army after Battle of Ligny on 16th June , late pursuit of retreating British and Dutch forces from Quatre Bras on same days , giving conflicting orders that sent I Corps between Quatre Bras and Ligny therefore corps marching left and right , not giving any direct orders to Grouchy to sever the roads from Wavre to further west therefore missing the chance to isolate Anglo-Dutch army and Prussians , late start to attack on Anglo Dutch Army on Mont St Jean on 18th June , constant head on cavalry charges on British squares etc , all those mistakes were done by Napoleon , Ney and Soult and did not involve Grouchy who followed orders he got previously on best of his ability to push Prussian Army and never give them respite. Grouchy's corps (33.000 men and 100 guns ) actually engaged Prussian rear guard IV Corps at Wavre and defeated them on 18th June but no one could realistically expect him to pull a Desaix performance of Marengo Campaign in 1800 this time in Waterloo and save Emperor no matter how displeased Bonapartist narrative was that he could not do that.
4) Mud is a good but also a suitable excuse. As they said in Waterloo movie ( I do not knowe if it is authentic or not) "We fought with mud on our boots before" ( presumably in Russia)
5) Another factor , I think sould be mentioned is : The battlefield adversary Napoleon faced on June 1815 , were not slow and reactive Austrians of 1795-97 , nor Mamlukes of 1798 lacking of modern military sciences , neither Russians of 1805 under autocracy of an inexperinced Tsar , nor hotheaded Prussians of 1805-1807. Prussians learned a lot and evolved their military since then , Blucher despite being too aggressive for his own good and being defeated several times previously , was a fast quick moving general and Napoleon himself never faced tough British infantry since siege of Toulon in 1793 ( 22 years before). Underestimating British infantry (Maximillian Foy remarked before the battle that British infantry in defence was the devil itself , Napoleon replied that we will defeat them before breakfast) was a fatal mistake and Wellington was a very good general and in my opinion , second best general in entire Europe during Napoleonic Wars. His caution was well justified , he picked the battlefield in Mont St Jean ridge very well and he was cool , calm compatent under fire during the battle , never weakening his lines in flank attack ruse of Napoleon and Jerome and more importantly he had an excellent communication and strategic understanding and cooperation with Blucher and Gneisenau ( Blucher's Chief of Staff who despite not trusting British , agreed to remain in contact with Wellington's forces after Prussian defeat Battle of Ligny instead of retreating east he ordered march to north towards Wavre) and he had absolute belief that he would be relieved and held his position without any panic till Prussians arrived (although five hours late ) with a flanking attack ( stabbing Napoleon from behind would not be a proper phase) There was no this kind of coodination nor joint strategy in previous Coalition armies. And neither Wellington nor Blucher suffered from hemorroids of course a huge advantage commanding the batttle supporting their men. Wellington on horseback whole day under fire constantly , losing his best friends and staff officers , visited besieged British infantry squares under fire encouriging his men while Blucher despite arriving to battlefield after it was won , was encouriging his vanguard corps to march to battle
Napoleon's aura of invincibility from a tactical point of view was shattered by the Austrians at Bassano and Caldiero, from a strategic point of view in Egypt.
@@RussianEagles That is 200 years of hindsight though. Back then Bassano and Caldiero defeats effects were swept away by Napoleon's victories in battles of Rivoli and Fall of Mantua while Napoleonic propaganda in its best effort to amplify victories in Battle of Pyramids , Capture of Jaffa and Battle of Aboukir to make every French to forget or dismiss defeats at Naval Battle of Nile , Fall of French garrison in Malta , Failed Siege of Acre and British victory in Battles of Alexandria and Battle of Canope and Napoleon's desertion of Army of Orient and its eventual surrender to British at Alexandria
@@merdiolu In any case, the phrase "Napoleon's aura of invincibility" in relation to 1815 sounds ridiculous.
Thank you for this very interesting comment. I mostly agree with you, as I said in my video none of my points was really serious:
1) The situation in France was critical in 1815. The country was in economic crisis, very unstable and the army in particular was suffering from budget cuts. Although Napoleon was hated by part of the population, he remained popular with certain sections and towns. This is why he chose his route home very carefully, avoiding royalist towns such as Marseille and Toulon, and preferring loyal towns such as Lyon.
2) Napoleon is responsible here. He treated Berthier badly at the end of his life and did not give him enough credit. He lost his best marshals in the course of his wars and so at some point if he suffers from a lack of talent at his side it is his fault.
3) Grouchy was the perfect scapegoat. Actually we can blame him for lacking vigour when it comes to chasing the Prussians and lacking of initiave but everything he did basically was to follow the orders Napoleon gave him.
4) A muddy terrain cannot be an excuse: it works both ways. The Prussians had to walk on muddy roads too. And the terrain and weather are part of the conditions you have to deal with on the Battlefield.
5) I will quote Napoleon here: "You don't want to fight your enemy too often because they will eventually learn from you" :)
I don't think any of its opponent thought he was invincible, else what is even the point to fight him?
Nor should we underestimate Napoleon's impact on the battlefield (just look at the 1814 campaign).
I agree with much of what was said in the video.
Waterloo was not important at all. It wouldn't have been important if you go back a few years in history. We know exactly what kind of economic crisis the emperor brought to Europe. If and when he had made peace with the British between 1802 and 1804, these two nations would have dominated Europe. Of course, that would have required putting Napoleon's ego aside.
The battle itself was a series of errors and mistakes. Incidentally, contrary to legend, by 2pm (the battle started at 11.35) the Prussian columns were already in sight, so it was no mystery that if there was no quick decision, the battle was lost. That was why the Young Guard was assigned to the defence of Papelotte, which was later reinforced by two battalions of the Old Guard. There were brutal skirmishes there, so BN knew where Blücher was going.
As for the artillery, it was indeed not possible to fire bouncing shells because of the muddy ground, but there was a British officer who described how a single artillery shell had incapacitated 25 of his men. A single solid 12-pound cannonball. The rest we try to imagine.
Even if by some miracle Bonaparte had won the battle, there would have been no peace negotiations as he had imagined. The Holy Alliance was already being formed and the directive was already there that no special peace would be made between the coalition partners and France.
This whole 100 days was a gamble. ...and too many died for it.
Thank you. I also did not mention the lack of vigor in Napoleon's orders especially when it was time to send the Young and Middle Guard, exactly as you mentioned.
In 1815 the opportunity had long passed to achieve a somehow peaceful resolution to the conflicts in Europe, it should have been done after Austerlitz in my opinion.
The 100 days was in my eyes kind of a fan service at this point
All the best from Lyon, France
@@ToonStory-fh4gn Greetings from Hungary. ;)
I really like the Napoleonic era.
not to mention that they had armies available for multiple Waterloos. A lot of people died or worse for a hopeless exercise.
C'est magnifique! There is so much of Waterloo that seems just inexorable...things no one could change. To add a point Wellington after learning of the return to power of Napoleon was briefing officers sent to Vienna to give him the orders to take command of the British and Dutch forces and protect the Belgium. Wellington quite accurately describes how Napoleon will try and defeat in sections the mobilizing Allied forces. Wellington even accurately points to where in Belgium he would have to fight the Anglo Dutch to keep them from joining Blucher. The story goes he pointed to Waterloo on the map.
Thank you so much! The point you mentioned also outline a very important aspect: Napoleon became predictable. That's probably the unavoidable thing when you are a war with everybody for 20 years...