So yeah VidCon took a lot out of my schedule. I was actually working on two videos at the same time. The other is halfway edited by now, so look forward to that next week. Check out Armchair Historian's video: ruclips.net/video/OE_dtHRITY8/видео.html
Napoleon still had family ties with Austria. Just maybe if he could defeat the British and Prussians, he could get the momentum to reach a settlement. After all, the Coalition was at each other's throats just moments before Napoleon returned to France.
The Allies were firm in their resolution not to negotiate. Even if Napoleon had annihilated Wellington and Blucher completely - very unlikely - there were still half a million more Allied troops coming right at him. He would have been in exactly the same position as 1814, except with both sides having rebuilt their armies. It would have been a longer and bloodier campaign, but the result would surely have been the same. There might have been a psychological effect if Wellington, a figure of great political significance, had been killed or captured - and it seems Napoleon was well aware of this - but, even without Wellington, Metternich would have held the Coalition together and maintained the strict policy of not negotiating.
"My enemies are many, my equals are none. In the shade of olive trees, they said Italy could never be conquered. In the land of pharaohs and kings, they said Egypt could never be humbled. In the realm of forest and snow, they said Russia could never be tamed. Now they say nothing. They fear me, like a force of nature, a dealer in thunder and death. I say, I am Napoleon, I am Emperor."
It seems like part of Napoleon's early death was attributed to the really crappy living conditions that the British forced on him on St. Helena. If Napoleon was properly taken care of instead of basically being put under house arrest with nothing to do except exist, and with the warden being as abusive he was, I would argue that Napoleon's chances of living longer would've increased exponentially. Furthermore, it's still debated as to what his actual cause of death was. While his father did have stomach cancer, its also a possibility that the british, wanting to throw off criticism of their treatment of Napoleon, fabricated the exact cause in order to shift blame away from them and onto something like hereditary causes. Overall, Napoleon's cause of death isn't exactly cut and dry, and if the British can create such a well-parroted lie as Napoleon being a manlet (when he was actually just average for the time), then I wouldn't say that it's exactly out of place to consider that his cause of death under British supervision could've been a similar story. I get the whole "crappy living conditions" thing from Napoleon: A Life, by Adam Zamoyski. One of the people staying with Napoleon was allowed to return home, so they had their clothing stitched on the inside with writings of how horrible things were there, allowing everyone to know of the British abuse of Napoleon.
The problem with the idea "the Brits did dang well done it" is that both the doctors Napoleon had in to St. Helena, the catholic Irishman Barry O'Meara, who was in Napoleon service prior to his surrender, followed by the Italian François Carlo Antommarchi (who was employed to the position by Napoleon's mother and uncle because Napoleon didn't trust the doctors his british captors suggested) in 1818, were both some of the principal sources of information of the mistreatment he received while on the island. But neither of them thought this mistreatment caused his death. It would seem odd that people who would call out his British captors would also somehow go along with your "British plot". Antommarchi wrote "The Last Moments of Napoleon" in 1825 which was published in Paris which is where we get most of the information about Napoleon's death and it concluded he died from stomach cancer. Antommarchi life post St Helena doesn't seem to be one in which he received any help from Napoleon's enemies and in fact seems to avoided going anywhere where strong anti Napoleon sentiment existed. After leaving France, he helped the Polish uprising in 1830-31 oppose Russia, then back to France before moving to Louisiana (where he donated the bronze death mask of Napoleon to the people of New Orleans) then Mexico and finally Cuba. I might add he wasn't particularly wealthy at all during at any stage, he mostly worked as an itinerant physician. Even the subsequent "deliberate arsenic poisoning" hypothesis falls flat when locks of Napoleon's hair both pre and post exile when analysed in the 2008 show he had arsenic level 100 times modern average levels from when he was boy. High arsenic level of course not being uncommon for the time as it was used in all manner everyday items like glues and dyes. Interesting you have high regard for Adam Zamoysk's extensive biography (which is hardly complementary of its subject) but don't seem to have taken what he said on the death with the same degree of close study.
@@user-uy6uc5ey5q Interesting. It seems that I've made an error in my conclusion being blinded by the hope that Napoleon could have survived. I apologize. I should have looked into it further and with a clearer head.
So attack while Russia is divided in different weak and underdeveloped principalities while you posses the biggest and most powerful army in the world and an empire which goes from Kazakhstan to Korea
@@SP-rt4ig Another example is in South America. Pedro II managed to stabilize Brazil with 14 years after 9 years of disastrous Regencies. Five years later and a civil war started in the regency would end with an Imperial victory.
The invasion of GB was alredy postponed because of the advanced season, even If ALL of the british fleet was lost, Britain still had an advantage in number of ships, these had also better sea crew who shot faster, even if Britain lost the 27 ships at Trafalgar, an invasion of GB wouldn't happen and maybe not in 1806 but eventually, France would lose the war at sea anyways, she had lost so many battles that her Navy was crippled
I've made the Alternate Battle of Trafalgar video. From all the research I've done on Trafalgar, a true Franco-Spanish victory would have been impossible, the crews were just in too bad a condition to outright win. The Royal Navy blockades meant the Franco-Spanish crews had little experience at sea or with naval gunnery, the best they could do is train their crews with a musket and turn them into crack shots. Best they could hope for is a pyrrhic victory where the Royal Navy loses some of their best ships in the charge and then retreats to fight another day. Then you would have the Franco-Spanish alliance breaking down as it did historically which would divide the naval strength of both nations in half, leaving the Royal Navy once again dominant.
Napoleon's plans for the invasion of Britain had already been foiled by the fleet movements earlier in the year and Napoleon had moved east to Ulm. Trafalgar was of huge psychological importance - setting the seal on Britain's dominance of the Seas for the next Century - but strategically of little significance.
"Napoleon would've been more successful if he took a defensive stance." Lol nah, Napoleon was at war with Britain, Prussia, Russia and Austria. France would be defeated in a matter of weeks. Napoleon's decison to attack while his enemies were divided was a smart strategic decision.
Lol you are underestimating Napoleon Grande armée untouched by the Russians winter with still it's veteran in charge. Btw i took a dump to the wall of St Paul's Cathedral so i could pay my "respect" to you sir Wellington, still very proud of it🧐
@@theveryproudmoroccan2834 what would have the prussians do alone? Yeah right, nothing. Do not forget the six days campaign. Wellington was also smart at defending he tired napoleon's forces keepimg he's own forces at low casuality rate letting napoleon fall into he's own trap by attacking wellington's farm houses, and most importantly delaying for the prussians to arrive and pursue the tired french. I hate this kind of Prussaboos/Kaiserboos saying " PrUSsiA iS ThE bESt " and "can not be beaten" Like bro learn about the seven years war, it was a prussian victory in the end but in the early war they lost many men and battles not to mention prussia during the 4th coalition...oh god.
Why everybody says that Napoleon was not the same as younger?The Waterloo campaign was a military masterpiece and he created a new, fully equiped(if you not consider some exceptions like for example the lack of military uniforms in the ranks of the national guard,as we know from some historical records that half of the men serving as guardes nationale didn't have the uniforms they were supposed to) and really experienced army when the economy of France was really bad (even then against all the odds he managed to make the french economy better).Pay some respect for that great man :(.
@Hoàng Nguyên Alright,so in the 21st of May 1940 general Weygan took the command of the 1st army group and planned a counter attack against the Germans (which was really likely to succeed) for the 24th of May.At the same time Lord Gort(the commander of the British Expeditionary Force) had taken orders from the British goverment to organise a retreat to the town of Dunkirk while destroying all the vehicles and ammunition of the expeditionary force in his way there. The English started the retreat to Dunkirk without saying anything to the French and the front broke forcing the French to retreat too. The ironic part of this was the fact that the BEF harashed the French forces more than the Germans did. Why you ask? Well...during their retreat the English captured most of the key points behind the frontlines and left there a part of their force. When the frontlines broke the French needed to pass threw those key points to be able to retreat. ALTHOUGH the British didn't let them pass unless they destroyed most of their equipment (artillery,vehicles,ammunition e.t.c). Yeah...as you can guess they were THE PERFECT allies.
@@josephchristopherdeboulogn2365 as much as I like bashing the britbongs, you can't entirely blame them for our defeat. The Belgians not accepting the maginot line and our fucking shit high command took a big part too. Like they say "les français sont des lions commandés par des cons".
@@sergentsaucisse8290 Yep - considering that the BEF was there to support what was essentially a French show, it's hardly surprising that when the speed of the German attack caused panic & indecision in the French military leadership (who were supposed to be directing the actions of the BEF), that there was going to come a point when Gort had to make a decision - he'd already been told by the Belgians that his northern flank was going to fall. France could have, perhaps should have, won the Battle of France - they had the troops, the tanks, a decent air force, but they had the wrong people in command. Proper deployment of armour, as advocated by de Gaulle, and numerous other things would have led to a different outcome. The BEF was just a minor part of the forces under the French and pretty much incidental to much of what happened. I think JCdeB is a bit of a fantasist with his Wegand theory! And by the way, I love France and I'd rather be French than British with all this Brexit shite going on. We went to Oradour-sur-Glane in June; a shocking event, a horrific bit of history we don't know about in the UK.
What if Cleopatra and Mark Anthony defeats Octavio at Actium? What If Technocracy Succeeded? What if the Commonwealth of England never returns to monarchy, and the Cromwells stayed in power?
Let's get you up on the Leaderboard interestingly, one thing that could happen would be no renaissance, as thanks to the fourth crusade, Venice got rich, which spearheaded the Renaissance.
qing like the other dynastys were men't to fall some reason where more Europe imperialism the qing being dominated by Manchus which was becoming more and more abusive towards the han people as the manchus were (and still are) dominating china and refusing to modernize and im surprised that they even lasted as long as they did
@@grandinquisitor8335 many reforms in the qing empire were brought in, but the empress dowager regent cixi, along with ultra conservative factions, repealed all of them during her son's minority and the dynasty actually was losing its manchu identity by the time it was abolished, that's actually a big part of the reason why manchu culture is so rare now, they mostly assimilated into han culture (although those who weren't assimilated were discriminated against due to their unpopularity). You could probably go into a what if the final emporer had been of age when he inherited the throne, likely leading to a more sun-yat sen influenced approach assuming that he liberalises the country or what if japan had invaded all of china and installed the now adult emporer as a puppet, likely with a severely decentralised administration that would probably in truth be directly accountable to the japanese government and with the emporer having little influence and being more of a figurehead as he basically was in manchuria.
When the snow starts speaking Finnish. Russians: *heavy breathing When the jungle starts speaking Vietnamese Americans: *heavier breathing When Waterloo starts singing Rule Britannia and Land of Hope and Glory The French: *very heavy breathing*
8:26 “Time has changed , he was older , the gas was running “. Yet in the Six Days Campaigns he won 6 battles in 5 days , crushing Bluchers army 56,000 Prussians with just 30,000 men Inflicting 25,000 casualties and losing only 3,500 men 🙄
Napoleon is still Napoleon even if he was getting less sharper and less refined he was still the best general in Europe bar none so yes Napoleon was likely getting a bit tired
HEY GUYS I GOT AN IDEA! Let's retreat from Russia, and cross over a single bridge over a frozen river in a winter blasted icy hellscape, while we are literally starving, and being picked off by Russian infantry one by one
Napoleon taking the fight to the Coalition was absolutely the smartest move. He was not at all a universally beloved leader when he returned. He had the support of the military, and Paris but most of the rest of the country was lukewarm at best about his return, and some regions like the Vendee were in open rebellion. France would never have fought a guerilla war against the Allies because they just wanted the fighting to be over. Napoleon needed to win a quick early victory to inspire confidence and buy time to raise more troops and prepare the defense of Paris.
@@uriargaman7241 His bedroom may have been colored in scheele's green, which contains arsenic, which could cause cancer in long term exposure. Sleeping in the bedroom for years probably counts.
The whole reason Napoleon went to Belgium was because the British and Prussian armies split, there was a valid reason behind it, not just "hurr durr im going to be aggresive"
My my At Waterloo Napoleon did surrender Oh yeah And I have met my destiny in quite a similar way The history book on the shelf Is always repeating itself Waterloo I was defeated, you won the war Waterloo promise to love you for ever more Waterloo couldn't escape if I wanted to Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you Waterloo finally facing my Waterloo My my I tried to hold you back, but you were stronger Oh yeah And now it seems my only chance is giving up the fight And how could I ever refuse I feel like I win when I lose Waterloo I was defeated, you won the war Waterloo promise to love you for ever more Waterloo couldn't escape if I wanted to Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you Oh, oh Waterloo finally facing my Waterloo So how could I ever refuse I feel like I win when I lose Waterloo couldn't escape if I wanted to Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you Waterloo finally facing my Waterloo Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you Oh, oh Waterloo finally facing my Waterloo Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you
Then he would have never gotten the emotional trauma as a child from that one fall, he would have never became a general and he would have never became emperor. All of the worlds problems come from that one fall napoleon had when he was 6, while playing outside
PotatoBaby Really all modern problems are the result of the American Revolution (as much as I love my country and it breaks my heart to say). Without the American Revolution, there is no French Revolution. The very ideals don’t even exist. Napoleon would just be some random Army Officer who gets onto Wikipedia for that one time he did something that you’d see in a fun facts video on French History at best, without the American Revolution.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 And that wouldn't have happened without the debt from the 7 years war which was caused by Prussia [which created Germany] fighting a war with Austria over Silesia. Which went out of control.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 Even without the American Revolution, the situation in France pretty much guareenteed that the French revolution would happen eventually.
@Wisemankugel Memicus "the ideal" well the lumière existed before the american revolution (in fact the french philosopher influenced your founding father for the American constitution) and most of the reason of the french revolution was because of the philosopher, debt ,military force from Austria and the desire of Louis XVI to do the same thing that Louis XIV (most absolut monarchy). I don't know if without the American revolution got a butterfly effect, because history is really hard to grasp (i know that, as someone working in that field) but the American revolution did not directly created the french revolution, it was mainly the event i have given you at the beginning (at best half of the debt was because of our alliance with the rebels, but won or lost would have made the same result).
I think france may have centralised earlier as Eleanor of aquitaine may have not had her marriage to the king of france annulled and may have had a son, since the angevin founder (in england) Henry I (I think the first could be the second) might not seem like such a good match, although maybe he would still seem like a good marriage opportunity since he did have claims on brittany and normandy anyway. Basically if you want to be optimistic, france could have been more unified sooner and so may have been more powerful throughout the middle-ages, possibly leading it to having more land west of the rhine, while britain would probably eventually dominate a north sea empire of itself, denmark and norway after the union could become better established (since Harald also planned on invading denmark and knut had very recently united the north sea kingdoms). Alternatively, france could still have issues unifying if eleanor still gets her marriage annulled and continues to marry Henry of anjou since they would still have all of western, southern, and a significant amount of northern france, a 100 years war probably wouldn't happen though since I doubt england would put as much effort into backing an angevin claimant to the french throne as they did trying to put their own angevin king on the french throne, the angevin dynasty, not ruling england also probably wouldn't invoke agnatic-cognatic primogeniture as a way to claim the throne of france since that claim was based on english law (whic in this timeline may actually maintain the tradition of the witangamot, which had survived invasions from scandinavians), and without england as a crutch, Henry's rebellious children may have actually split his lands into many pieces as they almost did. So again france may have still reaped the benefits of weaker vassals, just with an incredibly powerful dynasty as a load of now bickering vassals. While england, not dominating wales, scotland and ireland through the hiberno-normans, cumbrio-normans and anglo-normans who spread into these areas within williams lifetime (i think), may have more issues uniting the british isles since the focus would now be on the north sea. either way, the crusades would also be very different probably, don't know how though. Emma of normandy would also be a slightly less interesting historical figure for me At least that's what I think could happen. After that there might be changes in how much france and britain colonise other lands but idk if we would really know much that far into an alternative timeline.
You could probably speculate about how things would play out for the next century or so, but after that it seems it would be next-to impossible, since so much of our history would be radically, unimaginably different.
I'd bet that that alternate England would colonize the new world centuries earlier with the Viking knowledge of Vinland (and yes I know the Normans were Vikings too) leading to the Age of Discovery happening centuries earlier too
making an alternate timeline where Napoleonic France never fell is like making a timeline where the Empire of Brazil didn't collapse, you would have to distort a lot of historic events in favor of France or Brazil, as what condemned both was the path they chose.
Napoleon took opium the night before Waterloo and actually overslept - which was very out of character for him. When he woke up, he took another hit and was way out of it during the battle. He had a lot of pain to deal with, hence the drugs. Had he not taken them, he probably would have won. Even with Napoleon high, the Battle of Waterloo was still a “near-run thing” according to the Duke of Wellington.
@@acat6145 He didn't win because, Blucher basically, Blucher was also a high reason why he lost at Leipzig There's a lot of reasons but at the end blucher arriving early and on time was the reason
@@cherno_alpha7605 if you look at it deeper, it's Austrians that started both wars anyway. Austria declaring war on Serbia in WW1, and Hitler (an Austrian) taking power in Germany
While France wouldn’t remain the master of Europe, I think the French empire may have survived at least 1 more generation. Napoleons brothers showed an eye for administration and would have been able to keep the empire together during the regency of Napoleon II. Speaking of Napoleon II, in our timeline the apple ended up falling not that far from the tree. He was a very competent military leader and administrator. Not on the same level as his father, but up there.
This blog has taught me so much. I usually find your that your videos an exercise in futility, however this one made sense. History will always play it self out. Thanks
THAT is the REAL question to me. Unlike his uncle, Napoleon III was actually respected by some European courts (including Queen Victoria, who described him as a remarkably deep thinking leader). If he doesn't botch diplomacy with the Russians in the 1860s, there's a good chance Alexander II allies with him in 1870. Assuming the French and their ally Russia win, Napoleon III would be seen as a hero in France and his opponents ousting attempts likely all fail. He was ill by that time though, so that would mean Napoleon IV would come to power at just 17 years old in 1873. Assuming the dynasty survived a brief regency, the young prince turned Emperor would face a difficult situation. The Germans would likely still unite eventually despite their defeat (in fact, it might have given them extra motivation to do so), but also would hold a strong hatred of the French. They would want revenge, virtually guaranteeing World War I. Napoleon IV was said to not be a big fan of Britain, but likely would end up continuing the partnership out of necessity. There would be improvement in Austro-German ties plus France's warmer relations with Russia would quickly alienate the Ottomans. I honestly think World War I might have been even more vicious under this timeline. Assuming the Allies win still and Napoleon IV lived long, he would probably reign until the 1920s (nearly 50 years possibly). I'm not sure what happens after that, as the Bonaparte dynasty would have to survive both the Great Depression and World War II, which is far from a guarantee. It's fascinating to think about though.
Yeah Napoleon had been on a downward trajectory since the 4th coalition. His problem was that the Habsburgs were growing deformed, inbreed brains. And then the peninsula war was happening... And the n he invaded Russia, and a lot of the newly French Germans were pissed he had killed so many of them at Borodino, and then he lost at Leipzig. If you had said "What if Tsar Alexander surrendered at Borodino", then, that would make sense. Then, Napoleon can send a massive campaign into Spain and Portugal, maybe decisively kick the Brits in their pants, and suddenly, Napoleon can go back to building the massive army of his dreams. But, even if he won at Leipzig, it was already over. Napoleon couldn't sustain a conflict after he was first deposed. So, at Waterloo, Napoleon had already lost.
The trouble with historians' perspectives on napoleon's condition at waterloo is that a lot of the "evidence" and testimonies of napoleon's character come from letters of people who eventually are revealed to have had some misgivings and bias against him.
Too implausible. All that water from the melting glaciers and icecaps has to go SOMEWHERE. It can't disappear into thin air. The law of conservation of matter is very clear about this.
@@DarDarBinks1986 Wouldn't be the first time Cody intentionally ignored how the planet worked in order to give a scenario a chance. Look at his videos about if Greenland and the Sahara were green.
@@DankeDummkopf I've seen the one about the Sahara before. That would at least make for interesting history. Perhaps Africa as a whole would have fared far better (i.e., no slave trade and colonization, or at least not so much).
"What if Napoleon never fell? Well, he would have died of stomach cancer eventually anyway." Thanks for that brilliant insight. Ten minutes and eleven seconds of my life I'll never get back.
he died of stomach cancer because once he tried to suicide and failed,and plus,the place he was in St. Helena had high lead levels so...if he still got to stay in france he would be fine and probably die at a natural age.
That ending was kind of anticlimactic, I thought that this would have ended in a Global French empire. Although it may just be that I’ve been playing so much Total War: Napoleon, that I’ve somehow got it mentally ingrained in my head that whenever there is an alternate history involving Napoleon, the ideal outcome would be a world map painted in French imperial blue.
Well honestly even with this anticlimatic ending, it just sounds wrong, Napoleon without Russia and with Spain dealt with more or less properly means the Grande Armée can actually rest and since its Napoleon it would reform 1806 style with hella loyal Marshalls who are also some of the most skilled of Europe by themselves, even without Napoleon the Marshalls alone loyal and at full strenght wouldve pushes back a few more coalition if they stayed on the defansive due to regency. It wouldnt be one hyper european power. But most Marshalls would probably get along if needed to both educate the young eagle properly (and the lil guy while most definitly not his father would learn from the best of the best in this term) etc... Honestly those what ifs are rly endless
@@acat6145 i dont think it would end up like our world, not even close, the Grande Armée alone would make sure France stays together even with the rise of Nationalism, Napoleon's son may not have the talent of his father, but while it took a true genius to make France rise to this point only an incompetant would be able to let it fall once more without crushing losses, and considering Napoleon brought together an actual meritocracy his son would truly receive the knowledge from the best and at least stabilise the empire just by existing. The problem comes with HIS succession however, as it would be a time where Napoleon's legacy wouldve gotten to old to even advise and the french pride would likely lead it to its fall after a full reign starting with regency to get corrupt and rise tensions all around
Obama wins reelection anyway, as before. Trump gets the nomination slightly easier come 2016 because it's proved that cranks from out of the party establishment can get the nomination based on a few slogans and a fervent base. That's... only slightly 'alternate' history. Can't imagine any game changing events to occur based on something so early.
Thing is, if it wasn’t genetic any number of outside factors could have caused the cancer from 1812-21. Assuming he stayed in France and maybe assisted in Spain he could have avoided wherever he developed it. Which opens up to the fact Napoleon could have devastated the British expedition in Spain. He could have sued for peace but his chances for holding onto power greatly depended on finding Allies. Russia was a wildcard. Austria&Prussia were waiting to strike. Spain&Portugal had been put into the dirt. Britain no. America wouldn’t ruin their trade with Britain. So all that left was the ottomans. Honestly I think Napoleon was doomed the moment he invaded Spain. He threw away his last chance for some Allies but also, we can only imagine, simply I think he was drunk on power and convinced himself only he could defeat Britain. So he doubled down on the continental system, invaded Spain&Portugal, learned nothing from the Spanish resistance and invaded Russia, learned nothing from Russia or his exile, and attacked head on when he returned. Poetically Napoleon was his own worst enemy and set himself up for failure
I don't know why, but it seems very poetic to me that Napoleon spent the rest of his life on a rock contemplating in his head what minor tactical change just might have achieved him victory at Waterloo. Sort of the perfect end, to the perfect drama, that was the life of Napoleon Bonaparte. Know What I Mean?
Just a point of critique on the assertion about "What if Napoleon was just defensive instead". (old vid, I know, but still) Napoleon chose to attack Belgium, because his goal was to destroy the British and Prussian section of the Coalition army as it was forming, as those two parts were isolated from the rest. It was his highest chance of succeeding, which failed actually because of both his own hesitation, but also that of the army chasing the Prussians, which disobeyed his orders a few times, and made critical errors which allowed the Prussians to arrive. Wellington was close to breaking by the end of Waterloo. Part of the plan did rely on the Belgians rising up if he got to Brussels, and then annexing them back into France. He would then, with the British and French bested, turn to the rest of the Coalition and say "In 100 days, I have bested two major armies. Do you guys really want to try again?" and threaten them into giving France a decent peace deal. Let them keep more land, with him as Emperor.
Moscow was still their symbolic captial and functional center of european part of russia. He was trying to show the force of la grande armée to russians. Not conquering their entire land.
@@ivanvoronov3871 But the Grande Armée could have followed the coast, and could have gotten supplies through the Baltic Sea, since the British didn't have a big naval force there. And forts never stopped Napoleon before.
@@eldaxeruskalocraw4213 first of all you discount the Russian Baltic fleet which was quite formidable. Not to mention the swedish fleet which was also strong. The French fleet will never be able to get to St Petersburg. And even if they did the Forts in St Petersburg are sea Forts and they are very numerous. The city was designed to never be approachable by sea. And ni one ever has. Moscow was already a very tough victory. St Petersburg would be even harder
I honestly think that Napoleon’s caution during the 100 Days was mainly due to his failed invasion of Russia and his loss at the hands of the 6th Coalition. I believe that those defeats made Napoleon doubt himself and his skill as a commander. If the invasion of Russia never happened and he won the War of the 6th Coalition (which probably would’ve happened anyway, regardless of if he invaded Russia or not) he most likely wouldn’t have become as passive as he did in reality. Though I will admit, some degree of passivity does come with age and experience.
I think waterloo was the perfect ending to napoleons story. Him dying of cancer after "Winning" the war would just be unclimactic but the famous battle of waterloo was just a movie and storybook ending.
He fell because his friends and allies betrayed him. Napoleon's goal at Waterloo to win and then negotiate for peace from a position of strength. The wars in Africa, Russia, and Spain had made them tired of war. His death by arsenic poisoning does not happen. Arsenic poisoning most likely from mold on/in the wall paper may have led to stomach cancer. Since his doctor had refused to sign the autopsy report, some even wonder if he’d been poisoned. Of 31 symptoms of arsenic poisoning discovered by 1950s scientists since 1821, Napoleon presented 28, so Forshufvud asked a Scottish university to conduct a newly-invented arsenic-detection test. Neutron activation analysis (NAA) was carried out on hairs from Napoleon’s head dated to 1816, 1817 and 1818 - he was a prodigious gifter of locks - and revealed fatally high levels of arsenic in his system. In the 1980s the poisoning debate veered in a different direction, theorising that Napoleon could simply have absorbed enough arsenic from his environment to kill him off. A 19th-century house was saturated in arsenic: cosmetics, hair tonic, cigarettes, sealing wax, cooking pots, insect-repellent powders, rat poison, cake icing - all were toxic. When a Newcastle University chemist experimented on a scrap of Longwood wallpaper stolen by a 19th-century tourist, he discovered poisonous gases exhaled by a mould growing behind it could even have contributed to napoleon’s fatal decline.
I like how you brought up his failing health. But I will say that I bet while the continental system would fall, much of Europe would have still been under France's sway such as Spain, Italy, the Lowland countries, and western Germany. One of France's most underrated strengths during Napoleon's time was that he appointed capable leaders based on merit that led to many of his victories on the battlefield. While there easily could have been a squabble for the throne, it is possible the tradition of merit before family ties could have kept France afloat given the rest of Europe was mostly behind in this regard.
This is fine and dandy but it ignores one crucial event that *really* lost Napoleon the war against Britain: letting Robert Fulton go instead of funding his design for steamships and practical submarines. The French *had the inventor of the steamship working within its borders*, but Napoleon dismissed him and he left to build steamships in the united states instead. If he hadn't done that the French would have leveled the playing ground at sea in the long run by having a significant technological advantage over the British.
So yeah VidCon took a lot out of my schedule. I was actually working on two videos at the same time. The other is halfway edited by now, so look forward to that next week. Check out Armchair Historian's video: ruclips.net/video/OE_dtHRITY8/видео.html
What if Bismarck never able to unite Germany
A.H.H are you going to be joining the youtubers union fairtube?
how about u do a video what if the ottoman empire at this point was taking the same industrial revolution as England and u better speak well of them
Part 2
AlternateHistoryHub What if Japanese lose in the Russo Japanese War?
Napoleon's goal at waterloo wasn't to take over Europe again. His goal was to win and then negotiate for peace from a position of strength.
EPIC statement. I'm really grateful nowadays we have different kinds of media to learn about HISTORY: books, the internet and TV. ;)
Yup
Probably he would become another king in the middle of the others
Napoleon still had family ties with Austria. Just maybe if he could defeat the British and Prussians, he could get the momentum to reach a settlement. After all, the Coalition was at each other's throats just moments before Napoleon returned to France.
The Allies were firm in their resolution not to negotiate. Even if Napoleon had annihilated Wellington and Blucher completely - very unlikely - there were still half a million more Allied troops coming right at him. He would have been in exactly the same position as 1814, except with both sides having rebuilt their armies. It would have been a longer and bloodier campaign, but the result would surely have been the same. There might have been a psychological effect if Wellington, a figure of great political significance, had been killed or captured - and it seems Napoleon was well aware of this - but, even without Wellington, Metternich would have held the Coalition together and maintained the strict policy of not negotiating.
"My enemies are many, my equals are none.
In the shade of olive trees, they said Italy could never be conquered.
In the land of pharaohs and kings, they said Egypt could never be humbled.
In the realm of forest and snow, they said Russia could never be tamed.
Now they say nothing.
They fear me, like a force of nature, a dealer in thunder and death.
I say, I am Napoleon, I am Emperor."
Total war
Sega first
I understood that reference!
What a chad.
Vive L'EMPURE! VIVE LA FRANCE 🇫🇷!
Also Tchaikovsky wouldn't have written that dope 1812 Overture where the cannon officially became an instrument.
So true
The Cannon canonically became an instrument
1800s Europe: everyone vs. France
1900s Europe: everyone vs. Germany
2000s Europe: everyone vs. Russia
2020: everyone vs China
unenthusiastic salt but the EU is either hell bent on hating Russia, or is hell bent on rebuilding the Silk Road
@@unenthusiasticsalt2123 but china isn't in Europe
Luiz Bangayan I hope so. China is the last real communist power left, we beat them. We beat the Bolsheviks for good.
@Deez Nuts yeah then we have to just beat the most evil country and bam done the world will be in peace
Thanks for working with me Cody, your video came out excellent!
You rock dude
@@aaronberta3958 ya
How would you know? It just came out. AAAAAAA
Wait the video came out 3 mins ago and this comment was 6mins ago
your videos are also pretty good with your brilliant commentry so thank u for that
Napoleon wouldn't have fallen if he had used Skillshare
Napoleon wouldn’t have been invaded if he protected his and France’s IP address with NordVPN
Progamer move
Thats Probably true.
Nor if he used NordVPN or Brilliant. Or if he played Vikings: War of Clans. Or if he did anything relating to the sponsor monopolies.
@France MilkywayGalaxy NAUTTP NATHDTC AVGCP ASITH well even some third world country can defeat France now.
"No amount of planning wins against the grim reaper"
*CGP Grey wants to know your location*
"China is a sleeping giant, let her sleep because if she awakens slit her throat!"
@@SirAntoniousBlock where is this Quote from?
@@ThePro-qn6wr Err that one is mine, but the original quote _"“Let China sleep. For when she wakes, the world will tremble”._ was supposedly Napoleon.
@@SirAntoniousBlock oh, thanks for telling me :D
It seems like part of Napoleon's early death was attributed to the really crappy living conditions that the British forced on him on St. Helena. If Napoleon was properly taken care of instead of basically being put under house arrest with nothing to do except exist, and with the warden being as abusive he was, I would argue that Napoleon's chances of living longer would've increased exponentially. Furthermore, it's still debated as to what his actual cause of death was. While his father did have stomach cancer, its also a possibility that the british, wanting to throw off criticism of their treatment of Napoleon, fabricated the exact cause in order to shift blame away from them and onto something like hereditary causes. Overall, Napoleon's cause of death isn't exactly cut and dry, and if the British can create such a well-parroted lie as Napoleon being a manlet (when he was actually just average for the time), then I wouldn't say that it's exactly out of place to consider that his cause of death under British supervision could've been a similar story.
I get the whole "crappy living conditions" thing from Napoleon: A Life, by Adam Zamoyski. One of the people staying with Napoleon was allowed to return home, so they had their clothing stitched on the inside with writings of how horrible things were there, allowing everyone to know of the British abuse of Napoleon.
The British are know for having no honor in every domain. It is possible than the body inside the Invalide is not the body of Napoleon.
Caesar is now big brain
@@gamercarmen3957 apparently he survived 23 stab wounds and got revived by the Gods.
The problem with the idea "the Brits did dang well done it" is that both the doctors Napoleon had in to St. Helena, the catholic Irishman Barry O'Meara, who was in Napoleon service prior to his surrender, followed by the Italian François Carlo Antommarchi (who was employed to the position by Napoleon's mother and uncle because Napoleon didn't trust the doctors his british captors suggested) in 1818, were both some of the principal sources of information of the mistreatment he received while on the island. But neither of them thought this mistreatment caused his death. It would seem odd that people who would call out his British captors would also somehow go along with your "British plot".
Antommarchi wrote "The Last Moments of Napoleon" in 1825 which was published in Paris which is where we get most of the information about Napoleon's death and it concluded he died from stomach cancer. Antommarchi life post St Helena doesn't seem to be one in which he received any help from Napoleon's enemies and in fact seems to avoided going anywhere where strong anti Napoleon sentiment existed. After leaving France, he helped the Polish uprising in 1830-31 oppose Russia, then back to France before moving to Louisiana (where he donated the bronze death mask of Napoleon to the people of New Orleans) then Mexico and finally Cuba. I might add he wasn't particularly wealthy at all during at any stage, he mostly worked as an itinerant physician.
Even the subsequent "deliberate arsenic poisoning" hypothesis falls flat when locks of Napoleon's hair both pre and post exile when analysed in the 2008 show he had arsenic level 100 times modern average levels from when he was boy. High arsenic level of course not being uncommon for the time as it was used in all manner everyday items like glues and dyes. Interesting you have high regard for Adam Zamoysk's extensive biography (which is hardly complementary of its subject) but don't seem to have taken what he said on the death with the same degree of close study.
@@user-uy6uc5ey5q Interesting. It seems that I've made an error in my conclusion being blinded by the hope that Napoleon could have survived. I apologize. I should have looked into it further and with a clearer head.
If you're invading Russia, learn from the Mongols and invade from the east.
The mongols never fully suceed in invading Russia
Imagine how France would attack Russians from east
So attack while Russia is divided in different weak and underdeveloped principalities while you posses the biggest and most powerful army in the world and an empire which goes from Kazakhstan to Korea
@@szymongrela6557 It would require an impossible amount of supplies that I doubt even the British could manage
Luca ventinove The Russian principalities weren’t underdeveloped then. Also I don’t think their army was the biggest (definitely the best though).
Don’t think we didn’t notice that parody of Childish Gambino.
Where?
Africa
Nathan Schmitz 8:12
Hey tigerstar
I can’t believe this man is from Missouri.
Never doubt an 11-year-old's ability to rule an empire. He may surprise you.
Carolus Rex was only 14 when he became king of Sweden.
@@SP-rt4ig Another example is in South America. Pedro II managed to stabilize Brazil with 14 years after 9 years of disastrous Regencies. Five years later and a civil war started in the regency would end with an Imperial victory.
@@DonMadruga72 The difference between 14 and 11 is *immense*.
Napoleon wasn't 11 year old lol
Sup Willie
i just realised that even though the napoleonic wars lasted for more than a decade, i never took into account napoleon would age
I think the more interesting scenario would be if the Battle of Trafalgar ended in French Victory
Hastings 1805
The invasion of GB was alredy postponed because of the advanced season, even If ALL of the british fleet was lost, Britain still had an advantage in number of ships, these had also better sea crew who shot faster, even if Britain lost the 27 ships at Trafalgar, an invasion of GB wouldn't happen and maybe not in 1806 but eventually, France would lose the war at sea anyways, she had lost so many battles that her Navy was crippled
I've made the Alternate Battle of Trafalgar video. From all the research I've done on Trafalgar, a true Franco-Spanish victory would have been impossible, the crews were just in too bad a condition to outright win. The Royal Navy blockades meant the Franco-Spanish crews had little experience at sea or with naval gunnery, the best they could do is train their crews with a musket and turn them into crack shots. Best they could hope for is a pyrrhic victory where the Royal Navy loses some of their best ships in the charge and then retreats to fight another day. Then you would have the Franco-Spanish alliance breaking down as it did historically which would divide the naval strength of both nations in half, leaving the Royal Navy once again dominant.
Napoleon's plans for the invasion of Britain had already been foiled by the fleet movements earlier in the year and Napoleon had moved east to Ulm. Trafalgar was of huge psychological importance - setting the seal on Britain's dominance of the Seas for the next Century - but strategically of little significance.
The problem is the Royal Navy is still a major threat and amphibious invasions are really hard and logical nightmares.
Simple Answer: ABBA would've had one less song on their greatest hits playlist.
ABBA probably wouldn't be popular considering Waterloo is the song that they won Eurovision with. That win skyrocketed their careers
TRAFALGAR ! I was defeated, but will be back for more !
S7yx0 that doesn’t have the same ring to it tbh
"Waterloo, where wellington did surrender!" Just doesn't have the same ring, does it?
How could I have forgotten the most important repercussion!
"Napoleon would've been more successful if he took a defensive stance." Lol nah, Napoleon was at war with Britain, Prussia, Russia and Austria. France would be defeated in a matter of weeks. Napoleon's decison to attack while his enemies were divided was a smart strategic decision.
There’s never a time when you should defend if you’re wanting to last long. Quote from George Patton about it
This is coming from the duke of wellington
Lol you are underestimating Napoleon Grande armée untouched by the Russians winter with still it's veteran in charge. Btw i took a dump to the wall of St Paul's Cathedral so i could pay my "respect" to you sir Wellington, still very proud of it🧐
Arthus Wellesley the most overrated general of all time. It was the Prussians that won the day and it was mainly because Napoleon had stomach cancer.
@@theveryproudmoroccan2834 what would have the prussians do alone? Yeah right, nothing. Do not forget the six days campaign. Wellington was also smart at defending he tired napoleon's forces keepimg he's own forces at low casuality rate letting napoleon fall into he's own trap by attacking wellington's farm houses, and most importantly delaying for the prussians to arrive and pursue the tired french. I hate this kind of Prussaboos/Kaiserboos saying " PrUSsiA iS ThE bESt " and "can not be beaten" Like bro learn about the seven years war, it was a prussian victory in the end but in the early war they lost many men and battles not to mention prussia during the 4th coalition...oh god.
0:05 as a brazilian, i'm very offended
thank you reminding us of that
Same
Yearly reminder: 7:2
AlternateHistoryHub: "Napoleon and Waterloo, name a more iconic duo."
Me: PFFT that's easy. AlternateHistoryHub and The Armchair Historian of course.
How do I see you everywhere?
r/comedy cemetery
Thomas Teunter r/ihavereddit
We meet again you are everywhere
i got both of their videos on waterloo in my recommendations
I never fell.
I live on in the hearts and minds of revolutionaries and contrarians the world over.
you would rule the usiverse
You are emperor of our minds
Saying you never fell is like saying Hotzendorf was competent
I have a massive cock
SHORT
I love how all the history Channels here are friends, like they have their own secret club
“What if napoleon never fell?”
Well.. He would get less bruises, that’s about it..
*You sir, are a genius*
Why everybody says that Napoleon was not the same as younger?The Waterloo campaign was a military masterpiece and he created a new, fully equiped(if you not consider some exceptions like for example the lack of military uniforms in the ranks of the national guard,as we know from some historical records that half of the men serving as guardes nationale didn't have the uniforms they were supposed to) and really experienced army when the economy of France was really bad (even then against all the odds he managed to make the french economy better).Pay some respect for that great man :(.
The eternal anglo fears the frenchmen. Anglo demon blood runs through the veins of Cody
@Hoàng Nguyên Don't forget that because of them the battle of France was lost.If you want I can tell you more about it.
@Hoàng Nguyên Alright,so in the 21st of May 1940 general Weygan took the command of the 1st army group and planned a counter attack against the Germans (which was really likely to succeed) for the 24th of May.At the same time Lord Gort(the commander of the British Expeditionary Force) had taken orders from the British goverment to organise a retreat to the town of Dunkirk while destroying all the vehicles and ammunition of the expeditionary force in his way there. The English started the retreat to Dunkirk without saying anything to the French and the front broke forcing the French to retreat too. The ironic part of this was the fact that the BEF harashed the French forces more than the Germans did. Why you ask? Well...during their retreat the English captured most of the key points behind the frontlines and left there a part of their force. When the frontlines broke the French needed to pass threw those key points to be able to retreat. ALTHOUGH the British didn't let them pass unless they destroyed most of their equipment (artillery,vehicles,ammunition e.t.c). Yeah...as you can guess they were THE PERFECT allies.
@@josephchristopherdeboulogn2365 as much as I like bashing the britbongs, you can't entirely blame them for our defeat. The Belgians not accepting the maginot line and our fucking shit high command took a big part too. Like they say "les français sont des lions commandés par des cons".
@@sergentsaucisse8290 Yep - considering that the BEF was there to support what was essentially a French show, it's hardly surprising that when the speed of the German attack caused panic & indecision in the French military leadership (who were supposed to be directing the actions of the BEF), that there was going to come a point when Gort had to make a decision - he'd already been told by the Belgians that his northern flank was going to fall. France could have, perhaps should have, won the Battle of France - they had the troops, the tanks, a decent air force, but they had the wrong people in command. Proper deployment of armour, as advocated by de Gaulle, and numerous other things would have led to a different outcome. The BEF was just a minor part of the forces under the French and pretty much incidental to much of what happened. I think JCdeB is a bit of a fantasist with his Wegand theory!
And by the way, I love France and I'd rather be French than British with all this Brexit shite going on. We went to Oradour-sur-Glane in June; a shocking event, a horrific bit of history we don't know about in the UK.
What if Cleopatra and Mark Anthony defeats Octavio at Actium?
What If Technocracy Succeeded?
What if the Commonwealth of England never returns to monarchy, and the Cromwells stayed in power?
It was Agrippa who defeated Antony and Cleopatra, Octavian was in Rome I think.
Octavian was in Actium . Agrippa worked as commander of the fleet
Cromwell did stay in power. He died in power. His son on the other hand...
@@charlesdewitt8087 I mean the Cromwell family.
@@gabrielferreira1531 Ah, my mistake.
Cody: "Napoleon and Waterloo, name a more iconic duo"
Me, an intellectual: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
you call yourself an intellectual but can’t spell intellectual correctly.. lol
Midway and the Japanese getting fucked
Australia and emus
It's so funny when people refer to themselves as "intellectual". Absolutely no one respects them from that point.
Its so funny when people are so serious about a joke
the universal powers that be simply didn't want the frenchman to win, which makes me feel bad for him.
What if all of the land/land bridges that flooded after the ice age somehow managed to stay after the ice age?
Yeah because that would be easy to predict
I doubt that. The end of an ice age means melting ice. All that water has to go SOMEWHERE.
Imagine mongol empire in america
what? how could you possibly predict anything meaningful from that?
Mapping Mapping britian would be f*cked
Napoleon : slowly dying of cancer even if he held unto power
What if Hitler kept his title as fuhrer in 1945 : *Not now Ferb"
Napoleon: I have an army.
Russia: we have winter.
Napoleon: you cannot defeat me
Russia: I know, but he can-
*Winter rises from the mountain*
Hitler had the same conversation too
@@Canada1994 And Karl XII
And the Cossacks, Kutuzov, and Time
@@jaykilbourne1110 Kutuzov didn't do much. It was mostly disease, lack of supplies and the weather
Cody: “Sometimes in life you simply cannot change nature”
Also Cody: “What if Pangea still existed?”
Please do what if the Qing dynasty never fell or what if Byzantium never fell to the ottomans.
What if the Fourth Crusade never happened (specifically the sack of Constantinople) would also be quite interesting.
Let's get you up on the Leaderboard interestingly, one thing that could happen would be no renaissance, as thanks to the fourth crusade, Venice got rich, which spearheaded the Renaissance.
qing like the other dynastys were men't to fall some reason where more Europe imperialism the qing being dominated by Manchus which was becoming more and more abusive towards the han people as the manchus were (and still are) dominating china and refusing to modernize and im surprised that they even lasted as long as they did
@@grandinquisitor8335 many reforms in the qing empire were brought in, but the empress dowager regent cixi, along with ultra conservative factions, repealed all of them during her son's minority and the dynasty actually was losing its manchu identity by the time it was abolished, that's actually a big part of the reason why manchu culture is so rare now, they mostly assimilated into han culture (although those who weren't assimilated were discriminated against due to their unpopularity).
You could probably go into a what if the final emporer had been of age when he inherited the throne, likely leading to a more sun-yat sen influenced approach assuming that he liberalises the country or what if japan had invaded all of china and installed the now adult emporer as a puppet, likely with a severely decentralised administration that would probably in truth be directly accountable to the japanese government and with the emporer having little influence and being more of a figurehead as he basically was in manchuria.
Byzantium boner
When the snow starts speaking Finnish.
Russians: *heavy breathing
When the jungle starts speaking Vietnamese
Americans: *heavier breathing
When Waterloo starts singing Rule Britannia and Land of Hope and Glory
The French: *very heavy breathing*
You sir win internet with that.
more like when the forest near waterloo starts speaking Prussian
When the waves start speaking English
Germans: heavy breathing
When the winter come 3 days early: *Heaviest breathing*
When the roofs start speaking Korean
8:26 “Time has changed , he was older , the gas was running “. Yet in the Six Days Campaigns he won 6 battles in 5 days , crushing Bluchers army 56,000 Prussians with just 30,000 men Inflicting 25,000 casualties and losing only 3,500 men 🙄
Napoleon is still Napoleon even if he was getting less sharper and less refined he was still the best general in Europe bar none so yes Napoleon was likely getting a bit tired
6:40 So Cody is getting married? Congratulations.
The Armchair Historian looks kind of creepy in the thumbnail
He sounds like that aswell.
Griffin always looks creepy, because he is.
He was the reason Napolean failed in the first place.
Looks like that guy in the park ogling the kids
HEY GUYS I GOT AN IDEA! Let's retreat from Russia, and cross over a single bridge over a frozen river in a winter blasted icy hellscape, while we are literally starving, and being picked off by Russian infantry one by one
Nelson NoName well that was the only solution and the Strategy before that was really good
To be fair it was 3 bridges..
I really look up to napoleon as my historical icon. He never gave up. Even after being completely exiled he came back to try again.
Napoleon taking the fight to the Coalition was absolutely the smartest move. He was not at all a universally beloved leader when he returned. He had the support of the military, and Paris but most of the rest of the country was lukewarm at best about his return, and some regions like the Vendee were in open rebellion.
France would never have fought a guerilla war against the Allies because they just wanted the fighting to be over. Napoleon needed to win a quick early victory to inspire confidence and buy time to raise more troops and prepare the defense of Paris.
When you realize Napoleon wasn't really that short and he was probably the average height of a french man at that time period
Slightly higher, actually
Geez your everywhere
mhm
Some people also say that the wallpaper on the house that he was exiled to was coded in poison causing him to get the stomach cancer
Poison doesn't cause cancer.
@@uriargaman7241 His bedroom may have been colored in scheele's green, which contains arsenic, which could cause cancer in long term exposure. Sleeping in the bedroom for years probably counts.
The whole reason Napoleon went to Belgium was because the British and Prussian armies split, there was a valid reason behind it, not just "hurr durr im going to be aggresive"
Russia only has ever had 2 good generals: January and February.
Starwarsfan quote by Napoleon. Always give credit. You didn’t think of that
Starwarsfan
And yet Napoleon was never in Russia at that time. He invaded in lateJune, and left russian territory in early december
Hans Günther : )
What about Zhukov
Chuikov and Zhukov might beg to differ.
What if my loo didn't have water?
Exactly! :-)
My my
At Waterloo Napoleon did surrender
Oh yeah
And I have met my destiny in quite a similar way
The history book on the shelf
Is always repeating itself
Waterloo I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo couldn't escape if I wanted to
Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo finally facing my Waterloo
My my
I tried to hold you back, but you were stronger
Oh yeah
And now it seems my only chance is giving up the fight
And how could I ever refuse
I feel like I win when I lose
Waterloo I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo couldn't escape if I wanted to
Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you
Oh, oh Waterloo finally facing my Waterloo
So how could I ever refuse
I feel like I win when I lose
Waterloo couldn't escape if I wanted to
Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo finally facing my Waterloo
Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you
Oh, oh Waterloo finally facing my Waterloo
Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you
ABBA!!! I love this song
Take my like you glorious viking
This comment has been claimed by SME
Vikingen took me 2 reads of the begging to realise it was the Waterloo song
Ja för fan! Roligt nog är en ABBA-text bland det sista jag förväntade mig.
"What if Napoleon won at Waterloo?"
Well, that's be a waterloophole!
I'll close the door on my way out
French Soldier : So we are at war with?
Napoléon : *Y* *e* *s*
Then he would have never gotten the emotional trauma as a child from that one fall, he would have never became a general and he would have never became emperor. All of the worlds problems come from that one fall napoleon had when he was 6, while playing outside
PotatoBaby Really all modern problems are the result of the American Revolution (as much as I love my country and it breaks my heart to say). Without the American Revolution, there is no French Revolution. The very ideals don’t even exist. Napoleon would just be some random Army Officer who gets onto Wikipedia for that one time he did something that you’d see in a fun facts video on French History at best, without the American Revolution.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 And that wouldn't have happened without the debt from the 7 years war which was caused by Prussia [which created Germany] fighting a war with Austria over Silesia. Which went out of control.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 Even without the American Revolution, the situation in France pretty much guareenteed that the French revolution would happen eventually.
@Wisemankugel Memicus
"the ideal"
well the lumière existed before the american revolution (in fact the french philosopher influenced your founding father for the American constitution) and most of the reason of the french revolution was because of the philosopher, debt ,military force from Austria and the desire of Louis XVI to do the same thing that Louis XIV (most absolut monarchy).
I don't know if without the American revolution got a butterfly effect, because history is really hard to grasp (i know that, as someone working in that field) but the American revolution did not directly created the french revolution, it was mainly the event i have given you at the beginning (at best half of the debt was because of our alliance with the rebels, but won or lost would have made the same result).
Wisemankugel Memicus “without the american revolution, there is no French Revolution.” That is the biggest piece of BS ive ever seen in my life
What if Harald Hadrada became King of England instead of William the Conqueror?
I think france may have centralised earlier as Eleanor of aquitaine may have not had her marriage to the king of france annulled and may have had a son, since the angevin founder (in england) Henry I (I think the first could be the second) might not seem like such a good match, although maybe he would still seem like a good marriage opportunity since he did have claims on brittany and normandy anyway.
Basically if you want to be optimistic, france could have been more unified sooner and so may have been more powerful throughout the middle-ages, possibly leading it to having more land west of the rhine, while britain would probably eventually dominate a north sea empire of itself, denmark and norway after the union could become better established (since Harald also planned on invading denmark and knut had very recently united the north sea kingdoms).
Alternatively, france could still have issues unifying if eleanor still gets her marriage annulled and continues to marry Henry of anjou since they would still have all of western, southern, and a significant amount of northern france, a 100 years war probably wouldn't happen though since I doubt england would put as much effort into backing an angevin claimant to the french throne as they did trying to put their own angevin king on the french throne, the angevin dynasty, not ruling england also probably wouldn't invoke agnatic-cognatic primogeniture as a way to claim the throne of france since that claim was based on english law (whic in this timeline may actually maintain the tradition of the witangamot, which had survived invasions from scandinavians), and without england as a crutch, Henry's rebellious children may have actually split his lands into many pieces as they almost did. So again france may have still reaped the benefits of weaker vassals, just with an incredibly powerful dynasty as a load of now bickering vassals. While england, not dominating wales, scotland and ireland through the hiberno-normans, cumbrio-normans and anglo-normans who spread into these areas within williams lifetime (i think), may have more issues uniting the british isles since the focus would now be on the north sea.
either way, the crusades would also be very different probably, don't know how though.
Emma of normandy would also be a slightly less interesting historical figure for me
At least that's what I think could happen. After that there might be changes in how much france and britain colonise other lands but idk if we would really know much that far into an alternative timeline.
You could probably speculate about how things would play out for the next century or so, but after that it seems it would be next-to impossible, since so much of our history would be radically, unimaginably different.
I'd bet that that alternate England would colonize the new world centuries earlier with the Viking knowledge of Vinland (and yes I know the Normans were Vikings too) leading to the Age of Discovery happening centuries earlier too
Achievement unlocked: Hard Ruler
making an alternate timeline where Napoleonic France never fell is like making a timeline where the Empire of Brazil didn't collapse, you would have to distort a lot of historic events in favor of France or Brazil, as what condemned both was the path they chose.
Napoleon took opium the night before Waterloo and actually overslept - which was very out of character for him. When he woke up, he took another hit and was way out of it during the battle. He had a lot of pain to deal with, hence the drugs. Had he not taken them, he probably would have won. Even with Napoleon high, the Battle of Waterloo was still a “near-run thing” according to the Duke of Wellington.
That is a weird excuse for why Napoleon didn’t win
That's a nice myth to continue propagating
@@acat6145 He didn't win because, Blucher basically, Blucher was also a high reason why he lost at Leipzig
There's a lot of reasons but at the end blucher arriving early and on time was the reason
What if the US Senators were still appointed by the states' legislature?
The Republicans would control 2/3 of the Senate, states would have more rights, the government would be less centralized.
People might care about more than just the senate and presidential elections.
Less taxes, less big government intervention, more isolationist
joltcoaming so...everything would be better?
@@STM1066 probably, fuck the 17th amendment
What if Alexander the Great didn't die young
That's right Imature kids who didn't understand the implications of what killing people would do they just wanted to have fun.
He will die older, duh
He'd make the most of the night😏
fjf sjdnx No he was 33
He would have tried to invade Arabia.
Why when something happens in Europe its always you three
France,Germany,Russia
Germany, having started the Protestant league, Marxism, both world wars and the Holocaust: *avoids eye contact and sweats nervously*
@@tentathesane8032 Oh i guess you are right i will get the England out
@@tentathesane8032 Germany never start WW1, Austria did
@@cherno_alpha7605 Austria was very much considered a german state, as its inhabitants are all ethnically german.
@@cherno_alpha7605 if you look at it deeper, it's Austrians that started both wars anyway.
Austria declaring war on Serbia in WW1, and Hitler (an Austrian) taking power in Germany
That moment you realize a joke in, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, was staring you strait in the face and you had no idea.
Could you talk about the world of wolfenstein.
Yeah do it
It's ok you took a while. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and we're glad you're back. :)
There's an pair of HoI4 mods along these lines called "Emperor of the World" and "Apres Moi le Deluge".
If you have the game I totally recommend them!
While France wouldn’t remain the master of Europe, I think the French empire may have survived at least 1 more generation. Napoleons brothers showed an eye for administration and would have been able to keep the empire together during the regency of Napoleon II. Speaking of Napoleon II, in our timeline the apple ended up falling not that far from the tree. He was a very competent military leader and administrator. Not on the same level as his father, but up there.
Sseth, Internet Historian AND alternatehistoryhub in one day!? Oh God... its... so... good
Never invade Russia in the Winter unless you're the Mongols
Mongolia themselves live in winter
This blog has taught me so much. I usually find your that your videos an exercise in futility, however this one made sense. History will always play it self out.
Thanks
Napoleon: *Wins at Waterloo*
Also Napoleon: _your gonna have a bad time_
AlternateHistoryHub and Internet Historian make a video on the same day...
Coincidence?
I think not!
Both are historians but very different types
Which is better? Napoleon's design in "What if Napoleon never came to power?" or the one in this video?
This one
I’ve loved this channel for a long time, and it’s so interesting to see how much its style has changed over time.
I think you're forgetting the most glaring difference in a world in which Napoleon didn't lose at Waterloo.
We would've lost a banger ABBA song.
Alright, but what if Napoleon III never fell?
THAT is the REAL question to me. Unlike his uncle, Napoleon III was actually respected by some European courts (including Queen Victoria, who described him as a remarkably deep thinking leader). If he doesn't botch diplomacy with the Russians in the 1860s, there's a good chance Alexander II allies with him in 1870. Assuming the French and their ally Russia win, Napoleon III would be seen as a hero in France and his opponents ousting attempts likely all fail. He was ill by that time though, so that would mean Napoleon IV would come to power at just 17 years old in 1873. Assuming the dynasty survived a brief regency, the young prince turned Emperor would face a difficult situation. The Germans would likely still unite eventually despite their defeat (in fact, it might have given them extra motivation to do so), but also would hold a strong hatred of the French. They would want revenge, virtually guaranteeing World War I. Napoleon IV was said to not be a big fan of Britain, but likely would end up continuing the partnership out of necessity. There would be improvement in Austro-German ties plus France's warmer relations with Russia would quickly alienate the Ottomans. I honestly think World War I might have been even more vicious under this timeline. Assuming the Allies win still and Napoleon IV lived long, he would probably reign until the 1920s (nearly 50 years possibly). I'm not sure what happens after that, as the Bonaparte dynasty would have to survive both the Great Depression and World War II, which is far from a guarantee. It's fascinating to think about though.
Yeah Napoleon had been on a downward trajectory since the 4th coalition. His problem was that the Habsburgs were growing deformed, inbreed brains. And then the peninsula war was happening... And the n he invaded Russia, and a lot of the newly French Germans were pissed he had killed so many of them at Borodino, and then he lost at Leipzig. If you had said "What if Tsar Alexander surrendered at Borodino", then, that would make sense. Then, Napoleon can send a massive campaign into Spain and Portugal, maybe decisively kick the Brits in their pants, and suddenly, Napoleon can go back to building the massive army of his dreams. But, even if he won at Leipzig, it was already over. Napoleon couldn't sustain a conflict after he was first deposed. So, at Waterloo, Napoleon had already lost.
IVE WAITED FOR THIS ALTERNATE HISTORY VIDEO FOR A LONG TIME
The trouble with historians' perspectives on napoleon's condition at waterloo is that a lot of the "evidence" and testimonies of napoleon's character come from letters of people who eventually are revealed to have had some misgivings and bias against him.
What if Doggerland had remained above the ocean, linking the UK and Mainland Europe?
Too implausible. All that water from the melting glaciers and icecaps has to go SOMEWHERE. It can't disappear into thin air. The law of conservation of matter is very clear about this.
@@DarDarBinks1986 Wouldn't be the first time Cody intentionally ignored how the planet worked in order to give a scenario a chance. Look at his videos about if Greenland and the Sahara were green.
@@DarDarBinks1986 a french Guy called alterhis did it
@@DankeDummkopf I've seen the one about the Sahara before. That would at least make for interesting history. Perhaps Africa as a whole would have fared far better (i.e., no slave trade and colonization, or at least not so much).
@@londegel he also did the Napoleon thing first.
"What if Napoleon never fell? Well, he would have died of stomach cancer eventually anyway." Thanks for that brilliant insight. Ten minutes and eleven seconds of my life I'll never get back.
Yeah no joke this video was a waste of time
he died of stomach cancer because once he tried to suicide and failed,and plus,the place he was in St. Helena had high lead levels so...if he still got to stay in france he would be fine and probably die at a natural age.
@@buffoonustroglodytus4688 this RUclips channel is trash
I didn't know you were married, man! I'm glad you and your wife found each other!
Probably he because overthrew the Spanish King and put a French one to become king of Spain, invading russia, or losing at Leipzig.
That ending was kind of anticlimactic, I thought that this would have ended in a Global French empire. Although it may just be that I’ve been playing so much Total War: Napoleon, that I’ve somehow got it mentally ingrained in my head that whenever there is an alternate history involving Napoleon, the ideal outcome would be a world map painted in French imperial blue.
Well honestly even with this anticlimatic ending, it just sounds wrong, Napoleon without Russia and with Spain dealt with more or less properly means the Grande Armée can actually rest and since its Napoleon it would reform 1806 style with hella loyal Marshalls who are also some of the most skilled of Europe by themselves, even without Napoleon the Marshalls alone loyal and at full strenght wouldve pushes back a few more coalition if they stayed on the defansive due to regency.
It wouldnt be one hyper european power.
But most Marshalls would probably get along if needed to both educate the young eagle properly (and the lil guy while most definitly not his father would learn from the best of the best in this term) etc...
Honestly those what ifs are rly endless
@@Freedmoon44 I mean the end result still kinda seems the same I don’t think Napoleon’s son could be the calibre necessary for keeping together France
@@acat6145 i dont think it would end up like our world, not even close, the Grande Armée alone would make sure France stays together even with the rise of Nationalism, Napoleon's son may not have the talent of his father, but while it took a true genius to make France rise to this point only an incompetant would be able to let it fall once more without crushing losses, and considering Napoleon brought together an actual meritocracy his son would truly receive the knowledge from the best and at least stabilise the empire just by existing.
The problem comes with HIS succession however, as it would be a time where Napoleon's legacy wouldve gotten to old to even advise and the french pride would likely lead it to its fall after a full reign starting with regency to get corrupt and rise tensions all around
There was no Belgium Back then and there were Dutch soldiers at Waterloo as that was in the Netherlands
As an Australian, genuinely appreciate the Gallipoli reference in the intro.
Me: Sees a Napolean video about Waterloo.
Me: Types up the song Waterloo by ABBA.
Waterloo, I was defeated you won the war! Waterloo, promise to love you for ever more
@Carson Price you don't know ABBA?
What if Ron Paul won the 2012 Republican primary?
Too recent
What if Logan Paul prevented the suicide of that random japanese dude
Obama wins reelection anyway, as before. Trump gets the nomination slightly easier come 2016 because it's proved that cranks from out of the party establishment can get the nomination based on a few slogans and a fervent base. That's... only slightly 'alternate' history. Can't imagine any game changing events to occur based on something so early.
@@AdrianArmbruster I think Ron Paul had a good chance to win. People were already sick of Obama in 2012.
Thing is, if it wasn’t genetic any number of outside factors could have caused the cancer from 1812-21. Assuming he stayed in France and maybe assisted in Spain he could have avoided wherever he developed it.
Which opens up to the fact Napoleon could have devastated the British expedition in Spain. He could have sued for peace but his chances for holding onto power greatly depended on finding Allies. Russia was a wildcard. Austria&Prussia were waiting to strike. Spain&Portugal had been put into the dirt. Britain no. America wouldn’t ruin their trade with Britain. So all that left was the ottomans. Honestly I think Napoleon was doomed the moment he invaded Spain. He threw away his last chance for some Allies but also, we can only imagine, simply I think he was drunk on power and convinced himself only he could defeat Britain. So he doubled down on the continental system, invaded Spain&Portugal, learned nothing from the Spanish resistance and invaded Russia, learned nothing from Russia or his exile, and attacked head on when he returned. Poetically Napoleon was his own worst enemy and set himself up for failure
With all of mainland europe you would think napoleon could just build more ships than england had.
"What if napoleon's empire never fell"
Me:
*tries my best not to make an AMLD reference*
Apres moi le deluge
I don't know why, but it seems very poetic to me that Napoleon spent the rest of his life on a rock contemplating in his head what minor tactical change just might have achieved him victory at Waterloo.
Sort of the perfect end, to the perfect drama, that was the life of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Know What I Mean?
Isn‘t there a theory, that the wallpaper in his mansion on St. Helena contained cancerogenic materials?
Do What If Area 51 was Successfully Stormed?
Slam Wall conspiracy theorist would be disappointed that there are no aliens just weapons. Also no matter what they would get arrested
What if 1755 Lisbon Earthquake never happened?
Ya my two fav RUclipsrs collaborating!!
History Lesson: Don't invade Russia.
Worked for the mongols.
Worked for imperial germany.
Unless you're the Mongols.
Napoleon III definitely learned this lesson. Partially why the result was different.
Just a point of critique on the assertion about "What if Napoleon was just defensive instead". (old vid, I know, but still)
Napoleon chose to attack Belgium, because his goal was to destroy the British and Prussian section of the Coalition army as it was forming, as those two parts were isolated from the rest.
It was his highest chance of succeeding, which failed actually because of both his own hesitation, but also that of the army chasing the Prussians, which disobeyed his orders a few times, and made critical errors which allowed the Prussians to arrive. Wellington was close to breaking by the end of Waterloo.
Part of the plan did rely on the Belgians rising up if he got to Brussels, and then annexing them back into France. He would then, with the British and French bested, turn to the rest of the Coalition and say "In 100 days, I have bested two major armies. Do you guys really want to try again?" and threaten them into giving France a decent peace deal. Let them keep more land, with him as Emperor.
Still don't understand why the hell Napoleon had gone for Moscow even though the Russian capital was Petersburg.
Moscow was still their symbolic captial and functional center of european part of russia. He was trying to show the force of la grande armée to russians. Not conquering their entire land.
St Petersburg would be much harder. It was further north and much more defensible. It was designed with forts integrated by Peter unlike Moscow
@@ivanvoronov3871 But the Grande Armée could have followed the coast, and could have gotten supplies through the Baltic Sea, since the British didn't have a big naval force there. And forts never stopped Napoleon before.
@@eldaxeruskalocraw4213 first of all you discount the Russian Baltic fleet which was quite formidable. Not to mention the swedish fleet which was also strong. The French fleet will never be able to get to St Petersburg. And even if they did the Forts in St Petersburg are sea Forts and they are very numerous. The city was designed to never be approachable by sea. And ni one ever has. Moscow was already a very tough victory. St Petersburg would be even harder
I honestly think that Napoleon’s caution during the 100 Days was mainly due to his failed invasion of Russia and his loss at the hands of the 6th Coalition. I believe that those defeats made Napoleon doubt himself and his skill as a commander. If the invasion of Russia never happened and he won the War of the 6th Coalition (which probably would’ve happened anyway, regardless of if he invaded Russia or not) he most likely wouldn’t have become as passive as he did in reality. Though I will admit, some degree of passivity does come with age and experience.
I think waterloo was the perfect ending to napoleons story. Him dying of cancer after "Winning" the war would just be unclimactic but the famous battle of waterloo was just a movie and storybook ending.
He fell because his friends and allies betrayed him. Napoleon's goal at Waterloo to win and then negotiate for peace from a position of strength. The wars in Africa, Russia, and Spain had made them tired of war. His death by arsenic poisoning does not happen. Arsenic poisoning most likely from mold on/in the wall paper may have led to stomach cancer. Since his doctor had refused to sign the autopsy report, some even wonder if he’d been poisoned. Of 31 symptoms of arsenic poisoning discovered by 1950s scientists since 1821, Napoleon presented 28, so Forshufvud asked a Scottish university to conduct a newly-invented arsenic-detection test. Neutron activation analysis (NAA) was carried out on hairs from Napoleon’s head dated to 1816, 1817 and 1818 - he was a prodigious gifter of locks - and revealed fatally high levels of arsenic in his system. In the 1980s the poisoning debate veered in a different direction, theorising that Napoleon could simply have absorbed enough arsenic from his environment to kill him off. A 19th-century house was saturated in arsenic: cosmetics, hair tonic, cigarettes, sealing wax, cooking pots, insect-repellent powders, rat poison, cake icing - all were toxic.
When a Newcastle University chemist experimented on a scrap of Longwood wallpaper stolen by a 19th-century tourist, he discovered poisonous gases exhaled by a mould growing behind it could even have contributed to napoleon’s fatal decline.
What if Germany being united in post WWII instead of being divided?
I like how you brought up his failing health.
But I will say that I bet while the continental system would fall, much of Europe would have still been under France's sway such as Spain, Italy, the Lowland countries, and western Germany. One of France's most underrated strengths during Napoleon's time was that he appointed capable leaders based on merit that led to many of his victories on the battlefield. While there easily could have been a squabble for the throne, it is possible the tradition of merit before family ties could have kept France afloat given the rest of Europe was mostly behind in this regard.
Awesome! My favorite scenario finally got made!
“Some men live and die in the shade of their olive trees. Some men change the world.”
-Napoléon Bonaparte, Emperor of France
as a german i like brazil
to play against us
As an argentinian i agree
I'd like Germany to lose to South Korea again
Seppoleon Vervloet as a north korean i cant agree
What if the Great Tartary survived?
It would be a khanate of different nomadic tribes, like Mongolia or the Stans.
This is fine and dandy but it ignores one crucial event that *really* lost Napoleon the war against Britain: letting Robert Fulton go instead of funding his design for steamships and practical submarines.
The French *had the inventor of the steamship working within its borders*, but Napoleon dismissed him and he left to build steamships in the united states instead. If he hadn't done that the French would have leveled the playing ground at sea in the long run by having a significant technological advantage over the British.