As the other’s said, don’t invade, especially under such cynical circumstances. Once the war began it was clear that the Spanish people were not as receptive to revolutionary ideals, Napoleon should have adjusted to this reality and pulled out of the country at a favorable moment. If not that, then he should have fully committed men and materials to taking all major cities in Spain and fully defeating the Supreme Junta/Cortes. There were several years of relative peace that Napoleon could have committed more troops to Spain to this end, but didn’t.
OK, Frenchy! This is a question for me, because I was thinking a lots of my time for solve this problem. If I was on the Napoleon position, I got plan A or plan B for solve this problem and not provoke Spaniards in the bloody Guerilla war ( 1808 - 1814 ) with Grand Armee. Plan A could be not removed Bourbones of the Spanish throne. That mean even maybe return Spanish King back to Madrid, when the situation become ( in Spain ) more stable. That would not solve a problem on Iberian peninsula, but Spain would stay French ally after 1808. In that timeline, would never exploded bloody Guerilla war with France and never become so big Napoleon problem, when he got a battlefront in Austria ( 1809 ) or in Russia ( 1812 ). Plan B could be a little bit different. French army can stay to Iberian peninsula ( because the British possible intervention ), but I never install my brother Joseph to the Spanish throne. Maybe, after that could be again possible Guerilla war with Spaniards, but I would not provoke more troubles with a new King Joseph. But, then, if happened like that, I would fully concentrated on this problem. Even, I must cancel my plans about intervention in Russia, in the years 1812 or 1813. What you think about that and could Napoleon solve the Spanish problem if he used plan A or B? Please, let me know! Your friend, Dalibor!
Something I find very interesting here is the famous painting of the Madrid uprising that shows Mameluk soldiers being attacked by Spanish civilians. This would've been an incredibly striking image for the Spanish, as the presence of foreign, Muslim soldiers occupying Spain harked back to Charlemagne's struggle against the Ummayads, and the later Reconquista. Sending Mameluks to Madrid was a PR disaster.
“I think the most important thing here is that the British Army is not destroyed.” I agree. Keeping one’s military forces intact and one’s means of supply open and functioning is more important than taking ground or settlements. Prior to the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon was furious with Murat for allegedly abandoning the pursuit of of the enemy Austro-Russian army in order to seize Vienna.
“Putting your arrogant brother on the Spanish throne” The historian Adam Zamoyski argues that Joseph Bonaparte’s “uselessness” may largely be due to Napoleon micro-managing him and refusing to give him free rein or autonomy. Apparently Joseph was a decent King in Naples and when he was made King of Spain, he did try to reform Spain and win over the Spanish people (but again he was micro-managed by Napoleon who refused to grant him free rein in Spain, and it didn’t help that the French military were looting, pillaging and committing atrocities throughout Spain)
And Joseph was appointed at the worst possible moment. But I can also totally see how Napoleon would micro-manage him, and never listen to him as he did with a lot of its subordinates
The guerrilla was more organized than foreign people believe, and figures like El Empecinado attest to this. On the other hand, it is not only because of the weight of the chuch, but also the Court's intrigues in favor of Ferdinand, and also the atrocities that the French army committed in Spain, that decanted the radicalism that has always united Spaniards when historically someone from outside has invaded us. Finally, it is an insult to say that Spain was very backward when there were a little Renansaice with Charles III of Spain, as demostrated international figures like Balmes or Celestino Mutis and even before the Bourbones we had universities like Salamanca whose economic School influenced in Austria or Alcalá de Henares (in that place Mazzarino and Carles II of UK) where formed. And also greates spaniards intelectuals of both continents where reunited in Cádiz directed the provisional goverment and designed a liberal Constitution which would have prevented the independece of many overseas territories or at least delayed it for several decades
“Who said Dunkirk?” If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend this video: The MAIN reason why Germany lost WW2 - Oil (by TIKHistory) Lewis (TIKHistory) talks about Dunkirk in the video.
There is an argument put forth that Spain would have eventually imploded into chaos no matter what Napoleon did, thanks to the War of Spanish Succession.
Marshal Soult, the Duke of Damnation. For me, he is similar to the generals of the Whermacht in WW2; brilliant in tactics, bad in long-term strategy. His actions of widespread plundering and looting in Spain contributed to the overall dilemma for France in Spain; that no amount of military victories would have allowed France to pacify the Spanish people.
One underlying factor that constantly sort of clouded Napoleon's judgment and decision-making during his imperial era was his fear of plots against him at home. In my opinion, his paranoid use of the secret police only exacerbated this situation. While there were undoubtedly real plots and genuine threats, his knowledge of everything at all times made him perceive them as more dangerous than they probably were. Obviously, this wasn't the sole factor that led to his major mistakes, but I do believe it had an impact on how he perceived his power position, not just in France but across Europe. If a Napoleon completely certain of his abilities had handled Spain in the same way as this Napoleon did, I don't think he would have followed the exact same path.
Yes, his regime was extremely young, it followed a period of intense turmoil and his dynasty was far from secure. And above all, unlike the Bourbons, he had no outside support. It's ironic, though, that a man defined by his clear-sightedness on the battlefield should find it so hard to see things politically.
Hi, i know this video is 7 months old, i just wanted to make this comment. You talked about how campfires can be used to decieve the enemies into thinking you have more troops or your soldiers are positioned in a certain way. To this i want to add a strategy that was used in a battle during the warring states in China, where the general while retreating gave an order to reduce the number of campfires and kept reducing it as they kept retreating, that made the enemy miscalculate the ammount of soldiers he had and, believing the number of soldiers to be much lower than the real one the pursuers fell in a trap and got surrounded and defeated Found the battle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maling
Thank you and sorry for this late answer! I think it is a common tactic used a lot during different conflicts, but I did not know about this specific battle. Before clicking on the article I was expecting to find Cao Cao as the architect of this deception tactic, but I was wrong! Cheers!
What do you think Napoleon should have done differently here?
Don't invade his ally. His actions just opened Spanish vast colonies to Britain.
An unnecessary war that bleeded the empire, he could perfectly avoid it
As the other’s said, don’t invade, especially under such cynical circumstances.
Once the war began it was clear that the Spanish people were not as receptive to revolutionary ideals, Napoleon should have adjusted to this reality and pulled out of the country at a favorable moment.
If not that, then he should have fully committed men and materials to taking all major cities in Spain and fully defeating the Supreme Junta/Cortes. There were several years of relative peace that Napoleon could have committed more troops to Spain to this end, but didn’t.
Napoleon and Hitler made the same mistake of invading Europe without first defeating England.
OK, Frenchy! This is a question for me, because I was thinking a lots of my time for solve this problem. If I was on the Napoleon position, I got plan A or plan B for solve this problem and not provoke Spaniards in the bloody Guerilla war ( 1808 - 1814 ) with Grand Armee. Plan A could be not removed Bourbones of the Spanish throne. That mean even maybe return Spanish King back to Madrid, when the situation become ( in Spain ) more stable. That would not solve a problem on Iberian peninsula, but Spain would stay French ally after 1808. In that timeline, would never exploded bloody Guerilla war with France and never become so big Napoleon problem, when he got a battlefront in Austria ( 1809 ) or in Russia ( 1812 ). Plan B could be a little bit different. French army can stay to Iberian peninsula ( because the British possible intervention ), but I never install my brother Joseph to the Spanish throne. Maybe, after that could be again possible Guerilla war with Spaniards, but I would not provoke more troubles with a new King Joseph. But, then, if happened like that, I would fully concentrated on this problem. Even, I must cancel my plans about intervention in Russia, in the years 1812 or 1813. What you think about that and could Napoleon solve the Spanish problem if he used plan A or B? Please, let me know! Your friend, Dalibor!
Something I find very interesting here is the famous painting of the Madrid uprising that shows Mameluk soldiers being attacked by Spanish civilians. This would've been an incredibly striking image for the Spanish, as the presence of foreign, Muslim soldiers occupying Spain harked back to Charlemagne's struggle against the Ummayads, and the later Reconquista. Sending Mameluks to Madrid was a PR disaster.
Excellent point! Thank you
Admire your enthusiasm for history and your knowledge. Enjoying you comments and views. You know your stuff !
Thank you 😀
"Gentleman, when the enemy is commited to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon."
Nelson.
“The series Sharpe”
I love that series. What it lacks in budget, it makes up for with TALENT.
I need to see that one!
“I think the most important thing here is that the British Army is not destroyed.”
I agree. Keeping one’s military forces intact and one’s means of supply open and functioning is more important than taking ground or settlements.
Prior to the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon was furious with Murat for allegedly abandoning the pursuit of of the enemy Austro-Russian army in order to seize Vienna.
And knowing when you just have to live to fight another day is an indispensable quality, but one that not all officers have.
“Putting your arrogant brother on the Spanish throne”
The historian Adam Zamoyski argues that Joseph Bonaparte’s “uselessness” may largely be due to Napoleon micro-managing him and refusing to give him free rein or autonomy.
Apparently Joseph was a decent King in Naples and when he was made King of Spain, he did try to reform Spain and win over the Spanish people (but again he was micro-managed by Napoleon who refused to grant him free rein in Spain, and it didn’t help that the French military were looting, pillaging and committing atrocities throughout Spain)
And Joseph was appointed at the worst possible moment. But I can also totally see how Napoleon would micro-manage him, and never listen to him as he did with a lot of its subordinates
The guerrilla was more organized than foreign people believe, and figures like El Empecinado attest to this.
On the other hand, it is not only because of the weight of the chuch, but also the Court's intrigues in favor of Ferdinand, and also the atrocities that the French army committed in Spain, that decanted the radicalism that has always united Spaniards when historically someone from outside has invaded us.
Finally, it is an insult to say that Spain was very backward when there were a little Renansaice with Charles III of Spain, as demostrated international figures like Balmes or Celestino Mutis and even before the Bourbones we had universities like Salamanca whose economic School influenced in Austria or Alcalá de Henares (in that place Mazzarino and Carles II of UK) where formed. And also greates spaniards intelectuals of both continents where reunited in Cádiz directed the provisional goverment and designed a liberal Constitution which would have prevented the independece of many overseas territories or at least delayed it for several decades
“Who said Dunkirk?”
If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend this video:
The MAIN reason why Germany lost WW2 - Oil (by TIKHistory)
Lewis (TIKHistory) talks about Dunkirk in the video.
I think I saw that one, anyway I appreciate TIKs videos!
Cuando hables español, aprenderás más historia de la que te cuentan.
Thank you
There is an argument put forth that Spain would have eventually imploded into chaos no matter what Napoleon did, thanks to the War of Spanish Succession.
I think so, they will have a very loooooong and painful 19th century after that
Marshal Soult, the Duke of Damnation.
For me, he is similar to the generals of the Whermacht in WW2; brilliant in tactics, bad in long-term strategy.
His actions of widespread plundering and looting in Spain contributed to the overall dilemma for France in Spain; that no amount of military victories would have allowed France to pacify the Spanish people.
... while it often just takes one decisive victory to kick you out of an hostile country
Pov: you are Napoleon's ally
If you're Napoleon's ally, there's a good chance he'll have crushed your hand first before signing the agreement.
One underlying factor that constantly sort of clouded Napoleon's judgment and decision-making during his imperial era was his fear of plots against him at home.
In my opinion, his paranoid use of the secret police only exacerbated this situation. While there were undoubtedly real plots and genuine threats, his knowledge of everything at all times made him perceive them as more dangerous than they probably were.
Obviously, this wasn't the sole factor that led to his major mistakes, but I do believe it had an impact on how he perceived his power position, not just in France but across Europe.
If a Napoleon completely certain of his abilities had handled Spain in the same way as this Napoleon did, I don't think he would have followed the exact same path.
Yes, his regime was extremely young, it followed a period of intense turmoil and his dynasty was far from secure. And above all, unlike the Bourbons, he had no outside support.
It's ironic, though, that a man defined by his clear-sightedness on the battlefield should find it so hard to see things politically.
@@ToonStory-fh4gn very well put!
Hi, i know this video is 7 months old, i just wanted to make this comment. You talked about how campfires can be used to decieve the enemies into thinking you have more troops or your soldiers are positioned in a certain way. To this i want to add a strategy that was used in a battle during the warring states in China, where the general while retreating gave an order to reduce the number of campfires and kept reducing it as they kept retreating, that made the enemy miscalculate the ammount of soldiers he had and, believing the number of soldiers to be much lower than the real one the pursuers fell in a trap and got surrounded and defeated
Found the battle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maling
Thank you and sorry for this late answer! I think it is a common tactic used a lot during different conflicts, but I did not know about this specific battle. Before clicking on the article I was expecting to find Cao Cao as the architect of this deception tactic, but I was wrong! Cheers!
@@ToonStory-fh4gn no prob, i wasn't really expecting an answer being the vid 7 months old, nice to spread some knoledge