Napoleon by Adam Zamoyski and Andrew Roberts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 окт 2018
- An unmissable set-to between Adam Zamoyski and Andrew Roberts discussing Napoleon. Was he a military genius, a Romantic superhero, a demigod, or was he a compulsive warmonger, a tyrant, or monstrous psychopath. Napoleon was all of these things at certain times, but none of these things all of the time.
Calling a man 'ordinary', during a lengthy discussion about said man, which takes place almost 200 years after said ordinary man's death, is sort of the best ever counter-argument to calling him 'ordinary'.
A person can be extraordinary but also ordinary. Napoleon undoubtedly was a remarkable man, incomprehensibly ahead of the rest militarily and probably intellectually too, but maybe Zamoyski prefers to view him through a lens through which we view ordinary people too because Napoleon might be best understood altogether when treated not as if he is a God. That said, Napoleon is certainly a truly unprecedented historical figure.
*Two mates pretend to hate each other for 1 hour*
“Pretend” huh?
I'm genuinly trying to see Napoleon from Adam's perspective, and I do sometimes see his point, perfectly intelligible points, but I just cannot agree with it. It seems as though he compares Napoleon by some counterfactual world, that he was not as good as he could have been, if not for his mistakes and blunders etc.
But Andrew is right that if we compare Napoleon to those of his period, his greatness looks evident. Compared to anyone before or since, his greatness is almost undeniable, of course if we are talking strictly in terms of greatness as an adjective of magnitude.
He had an era named after him, we talk about his legacy, the effects and consequences of his leadership today, if he wasn't that great, we wouldn't really know him, but most of the world does, surely that's case closed?
I must say that I was quite shocked the first time I listened to Zamoyski and his arguments which are sometimes quite ludicrous. But after listening to him many times and after reading his book I feel that he is not so much trying to “undermine” the importance and greatness of Napoleon, but rather to make other people stop deifying him and his accomplishments. He sees Napoleon as a man of great talents and he obviously admires his accomplishments, but he still points out to him being just a man with flaws which are more often than not overlooked. He sees what greatness Napoleon had in him, and wants him to be “god-like”, a trait which many people crave to interpret through his actions and victories. He sees the potential and capacity which (in his view) is undermined by the immanent flaws all of us posses. He wants people to stop romanticise about him (or any other historical person, country or era) and realise that while his rise to power was very much derived from Napoleon’s sheer willpower and talent, it (and Napoleon himself) was still a product of the time in which he lived in. On the other hand, when he did achieve power, his downfall (and that of France’s) was very much tied to his decisions and personality traits, rather than that of his subordinates simply because he pushed them aside and ignored their advice.
Excellent summary, my view is almost the same. I think you've hit the proverbial nail square on the head there mate
What is lovely about this discussion, is that though they totally disagree, nevertheless they really like one another (obviously they are the greatest of friends)
What a fun and interesting discussion! It was all super interesting. I'm on the side that Napoleon is one of the greatest leaders in history and an absolutely extraordinary person.
Napoleon may have been an ordinary man, but there can be no doubt that he did extraordinary things
@@jcrosby4804 I’m gonna switch positions and agree with you, been listening to Roberts audiobook on my ride to work and extraordinary doesn’t do him justice. He was a force of nature.
The thing is Adamis from a polish aristocracy himself being a Count.
He simply has that mentality that someone from the lower class can sweep away his aristocratic friends( they all stick together), is ludicrous.
Andrew a fabulous book.
Napoleon was a Genius.
😊🏴☠️🎈
I admire both of these gentlemen. Amazing writers
British Imperialist Indeed, but I’m inclined to lean more towards favoring the position illustrated by Mr. Roberts.
@@cocotaveras8975 "but I’m inclined to lean more towards favoring the position illustrated by Mr. Roberts." You could have just said "but I favour Mr Roberts' position". Talk about glib.
@@cocotaveras8975 stop talking rubbish
Napoleon.. an extraordinary person. More extraordinary for being just ordinary.
the ultimate self made man
As a proud English man I’ve always been an admirer of napoleon the great 👍
Napoleon was so great that they named an entire era after him. He was great and his memory will remain alive in France forever.
Longue vie à l'empereur Napoléon
😘
truly the mark of a real truth seeker: Look at the outward appearance and conclude that any further inquiry that reveals something contrary to it must be dismissed.
Longue vie á ľempereur Napolèon
The Army of Italy really is one of the finest historical examples of the old adage "an army of (ill-equipped) sheep led by a lion"
Somewhat inaccurate, the army of Italy were far from useless sheep, yes they were under equipped and under paid but they sometimes performed miracles, enduring napoleons endless marching and constantly beating enemies against the odds.
One of the most British discussions on the Man i´ve ever seen/ listened to! Watch the intelligence squared bit between these two gents have at Napoleons historical imprint, brilliant!..
You can tell despite opposing on certain issues they have great respect for each other. An interesting debate both healthy and informative
It's been 200 years, and very probably more ink has been spilled about Napoleon than about anyone else who has ever lived. Yet the man remains elusive.
As such, at this point I don't think a consensus will ever be reached on Napoleon. He was so complex and multifaceted that everyone who looks at him sees something different that says more about the person looking than it does about him. So Napoleon remains an figure of endless fascination.
I don't really think he was only complex, he was a man who came onto the scene when his society was looking for a leader who was competent and luckily for him he was able to see which way the diplomatic terrain was moving and was able to survive the revolution. He was also seen as very capable as many of the other officers had fled from France or had been guillotined. He then made his own mythos and legend about himself. He was very smart and calculated but he always had a complex that he was not one among the royals and believed that as a general he had to maintain the glory of France - like what Zamoyski said which I believe entirely. He was never able to settle down as he thought if he himself could become emperor, what is to say someone would not be able to topple him? I think we make him more complex then need be.
Why Napoleon couldn't stop fighting and declare "enough is enough" is ALSO a subject with multiple perspectives. For instance, he couldn't stop in 1802 after the Peace of Amiens because the British could not tolerate this revolutionary upstart ruling a powerful France, broke the peace and funded five coalitions to fight him. This one is self-evident.
After Russia, he couldn't stop even when he was badly losing in 1813 but when the Allies were still willing to let him keep his throne. They made two separate peace offers that year - the first one was very generous - and he rejected them both. If he wanted only to maintain the glory of France and live up to the Bourbons, this makes no sense.
How to explain this? One historian I came across puts it aptly when he says that Napoleon had no sense of limits. He felt he could take on all of Europe and win. And he did win, for a long time. Finally, when he was on a permanent retreat after losing a catastrophic number of troops at Leipzig, he apparently still thought that he could somehow turn things around. Not just get favourable peace terms, but win. But that was simply not possible, even for him, so he fought until he was literally given the boot by France itself - _after_ winning his incredible string of four victories against a more powerful opponent in the Six Days' Campaign in 1814.
valar I think it is probably slightly old now but a 1945 book on Hamlet says that Napoleon is second behind Jesus than the character of Hamlet. But surely with development in the Middle East Prophet Muhammad is up there now as well as Chinese universities development and their previous hagiography of Mao means he’s surely up there. Plus Hitler and Stalin. But still top 5.
@Vincent Boies It certainly was.
@@clevercat9774 Well yes, certainly Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha are top 3. I should have said of secular figures. I think he is ahead of Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. because he has a 100-year headstart of fame/notoriety on them. But he was not a cruel, mass-murdering bastard like they were.
Napoleon didn't have an education? He excelled in the Military School at Math and Ballistics. He was an avid reader and had a great memory. If for nothing else, he was great for those reasons (but anonymous in this event).
Napoleon would have never been Napoleon without reading hundreds of book over and over
The fact that he is an 'ordinary' man by their words, and had conquered Europe, revolutionised governing policies, employed army strategy way ahead of it's time to win battles is the exact reason why he is Napoleon The Great.
If Napoleon wasn't exceptional, we would not still be talking and debating about him today, more than 200 years later...Vive l'Empereur, Vive la Revolution, Vive la Republique !
Good publicty... We still talk about David 3000 years after, and he wasn't exceptionaly great, didn't he?
Both of you are a wonderful "waste of time".
I can watch you for hours and loving your way to debate. - Brilliant! 🍀
Thank you very much for that. 🙂
If Napoleon wasn't great then no one is.
Love these guys
Zamoyski seems compelled to undermine Napoleon's military talents, and I don't feel that will ever work for him.
Fantastic debate !
I enjoy the playful though rigorous cross examination style, though Adam stands up to it effectively
Wonderful...!
Whether or not Napoleon deserves to be called "great", he was certainly not "ordinary"! Not when an entire age is named after him. And yes he was in fact a military genius by any standard.
Napoleon is and was Great Amazing
Napoleon doesn't seem ordinary to me at all haha
Perhaps it’s a good thing to sit together with someone to disagree for English speakers without a referee. But for us Spanish speakers it is very tense. We tend to draw spades, in Spain knifes and in Central America, machetes, that also serve as tools for cutting sugar cane stems. These battles are quick and bloody! Albeit, we owe a great deal to Napoleon! I am compelled to know more about this great man! One thing, he wasn’t a little person at all. One quick anecdote. My first love’s father was Spanish. Dad, being of British origin told me that Gibraltar was taken as payment for the help from the Brits to outs Napoleon from Spain. I told that to my father in law...it wasn’t received very well. My girlfriend was surprised by my defiance. But no blades were drawn nor his duel pistols taken from their case.
The presumed subject of the debate - the greatness or lack thereof of Napoleon - is a bit silly and both Adams and Zamoyski know it. At best it is a prism through which to think through the particular epoch and man. Zamoyski articulates the continental and aristocratic perspective of him and it is true that the final balance of his rule was not great: France defeated and returned to its Directorate borders, Paris occupied by neighboring princes, the Bourbons restored. It was not a necessary outcome but one of choice: Napoleon's choice. One cannot understand the circumstances of his downfall and operatic return in 1816 without employing a highly skeptical view of qualities. And this is what Zamoyski does. Andrew Robert's focus is true if one thinks of the dizzying heights which Napoleon reached and the extraordinary power he gained for himself to order Europe the way he wanted.
If he was able to live another 20-30 years we could have very likely had a photograph of an elderly Napoleon
Wouldn’t even have taken that long theoretically, though whether the tech reached St Helena would be at the whim of the British.
Very interesting to watch these two in action.
But who the hell did the English subtitles. So many error!
*errors
I think that's because they're automated.
I found the crown of France in the gutter and i picked it up. #Napoleon_Bonaparte_Made_France_Great_Again
You want me back?
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 yessssssire
Good video!
At the beginning of several videos of Adam Zamoyski i thought he had a "negative view" about Napoleon Life but i also noticed it that he "admired Napoleon" in his on way
In what way? Just curious tbh.
I agree. He agrees that Napoleon did some amazing things -but he doesn’t think he rose to greatness. I thoroughly enjoyed his book
If Frederick and Catherine can be "the Great", it's not unreasonable to use that term with Napoleon
Sometimes Adam is very inarticulate but usually fluent when he knows what he is talking about
I don't get it!!!. Adam Zamoyski 's main Napoleonic thrust is that Napoleon was a "very ordinary man", and he tells us this again and again!!!!
My point is simple, if Napoleon was such a "very ordinary man" why did he (Zamoyski) spend so much time and effort writing a huge tome about a "very ordinary man". If he was that ordinary we would never have heard of Napoleon.
I prefer this opinion of Napoleon by Hendrik van Loon written in 1921.
"Here I am sitting at a comfortable table loaded heavily with books, with one eye on the typewriter and the other on Licorice the cat, who has a great fondness for carbon paper, and I am telling you that the Emperor Napoleon was a most contemptible person. But should I happen to look out the window, down upon Seventh Avenue, and should the endless procession of trucks and carts come to a sudden halt, and should I hear the sound of the heavy drums and see the little man on his white horse in his old and much-worn green uniform, then I don't know, but I am afraid I would leave my books and the kitten and my home and everything else to follow him wherever he cared to lead. My own grand-father did this and Heaven knows he was not born to be a hero.... If you ask me for an explanation, I must answer that I have none. I can only guess at one of the reasons. Napoleon was the greatest of actors and the whole European continent was his stage. At times and under all circumstances he knew the precise attitude that would impress the spectators most and he understood what words would make the deepest impression.
At all times he was master of the situation.
Even today he is as much a force in the life of France as a hundred years ago"......
Because Napelon has become a phantom myth and larger then life. Zamoyski makes him human again, with flaws and weaknesses like the rest of us.
You totally miss the point, I’ve always been a great admirer of Napoleon, I’ve been devouring everything about the man for decades & decades & I’m just as hooked on him now as I was forty odd years ago, I never tire of reading new biographies of the great man & of studying this period in history & Ive learnt enough about him to see him warts & all. The very fact Napoleon was just another human being makes his achievements all the more incredible & Zamoyski isn’t trying to take anything away from that, just the opposite. He’s not making an attempt at character assassination here, its almost as if your saying “how dare you!” I stopped looking upon Napoleon as some mystical figure years ago & its helped me to appreciate his achievements more than ever. If you cant see his flaws, his weaknesses then you are doing yourself a disservice by only seeing what you want to see & getting all hurt when you sense some implied criticism as if you’ve just overheard someone make a derogatory comment about your youngest child’s toilets habits. A student of history keeps an open mind & try’s not to appraise historical events & individuals through 21st century eyes. The reason Adam Zamoyski has written such a “tome” of a biography is because he finds Napoleon, the man, fascinating, as I said its not an exercise in character assassination.
OneTrackMind69 thats it, quite right.
Crazy quote
That’s the reason why great generals are great!
They revolutionize the rules of war! I don’t get his argument at all! Why don’t you think the allies copied him??
Napoleon was a great man... because we're the same height.
Lmao
Tylor Lack if you are referring to his caricature’s height then he might be taller than you
Tylor Lack He’s taller than me!
It is pretty telling in my opinion to go after a man who, in the form of a teenager losing his virginity, comes in for mockery & ridicule. Not telling of Napoléon, but rather the motives of the man making such an appalling attack.
I think Adam may be shorter than Napoleon and that may explain a lot!
I think deep down Adam knows how disastrously mistaken he is
Would Napoleon have united Europe ( not with Russia) and created an EU 100 years earlier which would have seen no world war one and two. Obviously counterfactual histories are not true but have a significance for our modern leaders.
Good point by Adam @ 54mins.
How can you haven60:battles if you truly win them?
If those battles victories were complete one wouldn’t have to fight then over and over again.
Treaty writing is part of the battle.
The “warmonger” who had to keep fighting his battles because he was too generous to his enemies.
Interesting perspective to deny a staple of history. A man who came from the lower class. A man who put a crown on its knees. This man is great. His army loved him and he put himself in danger along with his men, unlike the leaders of that time. Vive l'Empereur. Nothing like all the monarchies of the age terrified of someone like him, I wonder why.
Napoleon is GREAT, the facts are clear.
Roberts quite fancies himself as a celebrity.....he wants a BBC show
Napoleon against the SuperPowers at that time, and created.series of coalition against him, and beat all of them. Ordinary? Cmon
It’s honestly wild to hear two historians fail to come to a consensus on a titular historical figure. Typically the cake is baked but here people seem unable to not bring their personal opinions into it. To this day he’s still beguiling which is sort of fascinating…
Nobody except Julius Caesar was greater than Napoleon. He can replace all false gods we worship. Battle of arcola amply demonstrated how a man should literally die for goal or cause. Emerson described him as prophet for modern man & uses a verse from holy Koran for it. God give us same fire
Andrew is far more articulate
Fred Barker Agreed! By far!
Why all the hate for Adam. Weird
Because the Napoleon fanboys cant seem to stomach the fact that Adam views him as a human being with both positive and negative aspects, they prefer propaganda and hero worship of a demi god.
The term "genius" is grossly overused. The term applies to a very select group. The vast rest of us must bring our faculties to bear (however ordinary they may be). Then, hopefully, we can recognize our time and place to use them and achieve something. I suspect Napoléon recognized when to strike the hot iron and did so with his apparent capacity for work, management skill and drive. So, in that sense I agree with Adam.
I don’t know who qualifies if Napoléon doesn’t.
It doesn’t take a divine greatness or an Uber intellect to be a widely popular leader. I would just cite my own country of India as an eg.
How anyone that had three entire armies destroyed (1.Egypt, 2.Russia, 3.Waterloo and two armada's besides 1.Nile, 2.Trafalgar) by his direct incompetence/indifference/abandonment can be called 'Great' or a 'Genius' is beyond reason - that is until one acknowledges the plain FACT that, long before he was a general, when he was still but a lowly artillery officer, he anonymously produced not one but three news circulars (1.for the army, 2.for wealthy Parisians and 3.for the common French populace) in which he roundly labeled every officer but himself incompetent and claimed successes that were not his. Napoleon had a genius for propaganda but little else. His Pattern: Claim everything positive for himself while heaping all the blame for everything bad on others - develop a cult of worshipers and remove everyone else. The good laws created during the revolution (such as ending slavery) he reversed or ruined. Infrastructure that was already built or in the planning stages long before his rise, he claimed as his. Sadly biographers feed into the misinformation by quoting directly from Napoleon's own memoirs (as if they can be trusted.) Wellingtons opinion matters little as he was also interested in self promotion - after all who could be greater than the man who defeated the 'greatest general'? Furthermore, historians neglect his conscription en mass. The American revolution demonstrated that anyone (dirt farmers and peasants) could win against those of noble birth. The monarchs of Europe were slow to grasp this and even slower at implementing this. France poured out rivers of blood fighting against all the powers at once in the revolution and were not overrun. Napoleon continued this model which ensured that he always had peasant soldiers to fill and die in his ranks while the opposing armies were whittled down by attrition. Just add up the losses the French army sustained through those years vs the other armies. Do historians never consider this? Napoleon great? No. The worst General ever? A very good candidate.
He won more battles than Alexander and Caesar combined, most to defend France from any number of coalitions of European nations that chose to attack him.
What a bitter irony.
Military genius who was completely outplayed in 1812, by the military ignorant and the man who cried after Austerlitz battle like a boy - Alexander I
He executed 2000 prisoners in acre
Yes, because they reneged on their parole.
They first lied and then many of them had the plague and there was no food. So the only solution was execution.
Jaffa, not Acre. Napoleon lost the siege of Acre.
Yeah because they had slaughtered French envoys which is a war crime and also had been captured at previous battles, they were set free due to lack of supplies to feed them all (a merciful course of action) but then they fought against the French again and broke their parole, so they were made an example of. Quite nasty but most generals would do the same thing
27:55
*Here's a video on why Napoleon was better than Louis XVIII: **ruclips.net/video/86gr1_pyVVQ/видео.html*
Mr Zamoyski, about Napoleon I agree with you 100%.Lots to say but you are right.Very amuzing.
He is partially right and, many times, wrong.
@@chrisanza2880
How about a Dialectic? Lets expand our ideas by reflecting on one another views.
I think Adam is wrong to say Napoleon is not a milliatry genius. Agreed?
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 I believe Zamoyski was quite right when he said Napoleon was a brilliant tactician , but a poor strategist. If Napoleon was a military genius, to which if we call him that we must agree and realise that it is not because he had some unique otherworldly thing that no other general had, no, it was merely the fact that he study hard and actually put the effort into his work. He is great for doing this, but it’s not like he was just supremely brilliant, he was just a hard worker, and I feel that was his greatest strength and one of the most admirable qualities of him, if not THE most admirable quality-then we must question ourselves as in such cases as the 1812 Russian campaign, he strategically failed in every respect: he didn’t get Alexander to sue for peace, he didn’t manage to create suitable supply lines, and failed to make an ally of Russia. Napoleon was a brilliant military tactician, a good politician (in regards to Frances private affairs, not so much in foreign ones), but not enough of a myth to tolerate both successfully.
True, it came from even the after years after these wars, there are, strangely, some British that apreciate their foe. Foolish. He was a despisable carácter, as noticed Beethoven.
The fact that he was unable to maintain stable control over a relatively small country like Spain, and he still thought it was a good idea to go ahead an invade Russia, seems to suggest that his best days as a lucid thinker were over, if nothing else.
He had little choice, Russia became increasingly hostile towards his client state, Duchy of Warsaw and began trading with his enemy, UK.
It was a hostile power, hence he had to either attack or be attacked.
Yes, he botched it, but it's not like he had much choice.
Also you completely ignore his victories over Austria and Prussia...
And Naples...
@@martianemperor5137 So, since he was going to be attacked...the BEST response is to force march his troops deep into Russia and lose his army? Makes sense. His stupid move into Russia, was just that. He bought into his own Myth. He also lost all that North American land by wasting his troops in Haiti and Spain, and having to sell cheap. Nappy showed his true colors when he abandoned his army in Egypt and lied about the invasion when he got back to Paris, as his men suffered back in Cairo.
@@Rexicano
He had no plan to march all the way to Moscow.
He wanted to defeat the Russian Army near the border. He wanted to force the Russians to make peace.
He wanted them back into the Continental System. "Stop trading with Britain".
The Russian army drew him further and further into Russia.
@@Rexicano
He didn't abandon his army in Egypt either.
They were repatriated back to France by the Royal Navy under treaty he pre-approved before he left.
To call him "Nappy" betrays immaturity
@@Rexicano
Seriously, not even Adam Zamiyski would agree with anything you said.
😑
"The man behind the Myth". Well, it was not a "man".....
Zamoyski's analysis and denial of Napoleon as great, is amazingly foolish. Ordinary, little men do not have Ages named after them, reinvent continents, revolutionize military thinking and influence the world to the present day. Zamoyski also comes across as an egotistical snob here, who seems to think himself or others born into wealth as superior to those who forge their own destinies, despite all; Napoleon being the chief example.
I admire Napoleon greatly. But I think Zamoyski's view is intelligent, defensible and nuanced. He's very willing to credit Napoleon's achievements, which I think shows his honesty
@@nathanielbrown5791 No, Zamoyski clearly is anything but nuanced. He speaks from a position of prejudice, likely based in emotion as opposed to an actual command of the facts. Character assassination and sarcasm are not good replacements for actual knowledge or analysis.
@@thomassenbartZamoyski is far more nuanced and sensible in his takes than Roberts, who seems to regard Napoleon as a literal demi god and makes no effort to tell us otherwise in his extremely biased biography. You only care about predjudice when it is directed against Napoleon, Roberts is in fact, more more predjudiced because he basically hero worships the man.
Vive Napoleon the great
Vive l'empereur !
Zamoyski 👎
This guy critiquing Napoleon like he's ever been the head of an army on the battlefield. How deeply arrogant of a position.
I can understand finding mundane things about him, common foibles and insecurities like any other human. Yet he was still supremely remarkable and to posit otherwise is ridiculous. Like seriously has this guy heard himself?
I hope Mr. Zamoyski writes better than he speaks.
Wow. He can make any topic dull. Thank god fro Mr. Roberts
Andrew is better
"Did a whole lot of things" haha, like winning a battle after battle against all Europe united in normal. He was "terribly middle-class"? Well, he was the leader of the French revolutionary army against the European inbred aristocrats. That was the whole point! Typical down-playing modern-day historian.
Andrew Roberts
His biography of Napoleon is essentially a ridiculous attempt to exalt
Wellington and the British troops. There are numerous errors typical of
English falsehoods when talking about Napoleon.
You have to be a child or a kid, in any case you don't understand your objection. The author just can magnificent Wellington and the English troops, when to win Napoleon was the Russian and German blood. Wellington would never have stopped fighting against Napoleon alone, and it is not true that he won all the battles he faced (read the book by Castex on the French-British clashes of the period). The book in question reports the usual British point of view, which makes no sense, except for the Anglo-Saxon public, who lives by propaganda.
@@ninjakid6 In fact, discussing with you is fun and humiliating together, because you are not up to date, given your strong historical stupidity.
Your objections are idiots that provoke ahahahah laughter
Wellington has lost battles that have been real and proper defeats, starting with those that are attributed to victories, such as Talavera or Fuentes de Onoro, but I don't expect a poor man like you to know, having a historical knowledge equal to your intellectual level :-)
Furthermore, the skill of a soldier can be seen precisely in a situation of inferiority and therefore the Germans of World War II and the French of the Napoleonic wars, alone against England, would have taken a single bite. The English do more than make wars, they make others do it, a typical cowardly attitude.
The British troops could never have faced Napoleon alone and Wellington was an excellent defensive general, but far from being a lightning bolt of war. In fact, in front of Massena or Soult, with all the favor of the Spanish guerrilla, he had to wait for the real Grande Armeè to lose in Russia.
In IIWW Britain had to wait for Russian blood (again) and American money to hope to survive.
Of course, it is easy to win with an overwhelming superiority of men, money and means. Much more difficult to really fight.
What is certain is that if you read only propaganda books, your young brain can never rise. Best wishes :-)
@@ninjakid6 Of course I expected your answer. All children try to be right without any basis, and it is fun.
We omit the conception of the 18th century, since it has no bearing on reality, since a victory has both tactical and strategic criteria, and this at any time, and we come to Talavera, where both armies returned to the evening respective positions, with the difference that the British, the day after the battle, moved away, knowing that the bodies of Soult and Ney would arrive to the French. Therefore, the British and not the French have left the field (something your ignorance cannot admit). The army of the "invincible" Wellington retires to Portugal after the battle, or a few hundred kilometers.
Fuentes de Onoro ditto. Bussaco the same.
In Waterloo it goes without saying that Wellington would not even have stopped to fight without the Prussians, yet Napoleon's army was half of Wellington's and Blucher's armies :-)
We also establish that Leonidas was worse than Xerxes, that Hannibal was an idiot and that General Lee was an incapable ahahahha. So that's your level. I don't think we need to add anything else, just think of humbling yourself.
If you "annoy" all the regimes of Europe ahhhaha. In short, the story read by comics, with good and bad. Here too it is embarrassing to answer you, because it is like talking about a child's story (which you probably are). The fact remains that even with Marlbourough the English have never been able to win a single battle with their own blood, but always with that of others. A typical attitude of a nation that has had the good fortune of being an island, otherwise it would have been defeated many times by all the neighbors.
Wellington never fought a battle of annihilation, but he lived only tactical successes, and when he found himself facing marshals, he was always in difficulty, something that the English books do not want to admit, in order not to ruin a myth that does not exist.
Your political considerations on Europe saved by Stalin are the same level of your historical knowledge. Those of a jerk ahahahah No need to say anything.
The British in the Second World War fought as much as the French and perhaps even worse, with the difference that Hitler decided to invade France and never wanted to really invade England. Study, dear little boy.
The rest is a repetition of what you said. It makes no sense, like everything you said. I am a historical researcher in medieval studies, you probably work at MacDonald's. The difference can also be seen here.
I know you will answer me a little boy, and I will be happy to laugh at you again.
@@ninjakid6
Dear Idiot, like all idiots instead of being ashamed of your idiocy, you swim inside ahahhaha
In Talavera the task of the French was to reject Wellington, which in fact happened. In the evening both the contenders remained in the positions of the morning and therefore the field was not really of nobody from the moment that nobody was dislodged from his position. Too bad that, the next day, Wellington escaped and never attempted an attack, despite being in higher numbers. Really a great performance hahahaha.
Exactly the same thing happened to Eylau, and in fact the honors of battle (so called, dear idiot) went to the French, exactly like in Talavera :-).
Not once did Wellington surround and destroy an enemy army, which was almost always formed by the scraps of the French army. At Waterloo, without the soliciting presence of the Prussians, the British and Dutch would have been thrown overboard. Unfortunately the British have stopped being really strong on the earth since the days of Azincourt. Obviously they had great successes later, but it is ridiculous to compare them to the Spanish soldiers of the 500 or to the French soldiers of Louis 14 or Napoleon or to the soldiers of the Kaiser and Hitler. Only a jerk chauvinist like you can do it without being ashamed. ahahahahahhaahha
Hannibal died in exile, just like Napoleon, dear idiot hahahaha
General Lee was an excellent commander, and he is for everyone except you. But then you are an idiot ahahhaah
The Navy has saved you, but above all the blood of others, being the British one a nation that is not really suited to the continental war :-)
On Leonidas and the rest useless to express themselves, you are really too stupid to understand eheheheheheh.
However, we also established here that the Spartans were not well suited to war, because in the end they lost ahahhahahahahahaha
The Torres Vedras lines have indeed defended a line, but never, never, have they destroyed a French army.
So if the battles that are worth to understand if one is a good soldier or an idiot are only those of a won war, we establish that the Germans of the Whermacht were idiots, the soldiers of Napoleon of the incapable and even the Romans were stupid (being the collapsed Roman empire ahahhaha).
I work at the university with a professor of medieval studies and I met Jacques Le Goff, who you probably don't even know who he is. Instead you make cheese sandwiches with Hispanics ahahahah
You will have a great ahahahha career
@@ninjakid6 Dear Idiot ahahahha, I must have caught the point if you can't break off ahahahahah. Talavera was a British defeat and if you don't know it, because you are a poor idiot who only reads filobritannica rubbish. I gave you ample proof of this. By the way, along with his own army, Wellington had another 40,000 Portuguese ahahhaha.
On Waterloo even British historians say and know that Wellington alone would never have risked fighting against an equal number of French ahhahahaha
In the Second World War the British only asked for help from their mother America and their uncle Ivan ... on their own they would end up losing to Germans and Japanese and even the Italians gave them a hahahah.
You are a funny fool and I really hope to read you again for a long time, poor failure who makes sandwiches :-)
Ah ... and how to forget ... modern historians (???) say that Spartans were not worth as soldiers. It is a pity that the Thebans referred to them and that the Thebans, in turn, were defeated by other Greeks and Macedonians ahahhahaha. In short, the Spartans did not know how to make war because after a century and a half ahahahhaha were defeated. And General Lee? It is his fault that the South has lost. It would have been enough to change the general ahahahahahahha. Come on, you idiot tomorrow for the next episode. I am waiting for you, dear Idiot ahahahha.