Austerlitz when

Could you do Aspern Esserling?

@@morisscramdoodle1220 It's a Statu quo battle lmao why this one instead of Leipzig. it's only significance is the loss of General Jean Lannes.

10:09 That corpse was hit so hard it flipped 180° instantly! ...kidding aside, great video! That's probably one of the very few animation mistakes I've seen in the entire time I've watched your channel, which just shows how good of a job your team has done up to this point.

Every war sure has a deadly part in it

What about Jena-Austerlitz

Wasn't waterloo THE bloodiest?

@@Opama_ borodino had between 68 and 80k deaths waterloo had around 50k casualties. so no waterloo wasnt the bloodiest.

@@Opama_ Waterloo wasn't the bloodiest at all. Leipzig, Wagram, Borodino, Aspern-Essling, Eylau were bloodier. Lutzen and Bautzen were also possibly bloodier. Bodorino was by far the bloodiest day.

@@margaretkairu7418 ut was bloody but the battle of aspern, wagram and many more beats it, the large battles where brutal in the napoleonic wars

@Thank me later 🅥 You are the bot.

You don't say

Wellington's Victory (Beethoven), Parade (Satie), "At the Hunt polka/Auf der Jagd" (Strauss), and others would like a word with you...

IMO his campaigns of 1813 and 1814, although he lost, were his most brilliant. Racing around trying to counter hopeless odds.

Не стоит забывать о партизанских движениях, от последствий которых и погибло большинство, поэтому победа над французами это не достижение наших военных, и не природных условий, это достижение всего народа, который героически сражался с оккупантами

Oh, of course, General Frost is a favorite excuse for Europeans, from Napoleon to German Nazis, who either drown in mud or freeze to death, but this, of course, is by no means connected with the courage and valor of Russian soldiers and officers ...

@@user-oo2sf6fy4s сапрыга, ты вроде русский, а почемуто пишешь на английском и полную ахинею несёшь

Everyone knows that Napoleon was defeated by England, which spent the entire war on the island and in the battle of Waterloo, where the remnants of the guards and armed peasants who had not yet frozen to death in Russia, who had to be trained to reload muskets during the battle, nevertheless defeated the remnants of Napoleon's army ...

Oversimplified reference

Good ol oversimplified

Wurttemberg would have had to conscript 20% of the whole kingdom to get those numbers.

Wurttemberg supplied 12,000 soldiers. I don't know where they got their info but it's very strange. And less than 1/4 of the army was German, so that's even worse

I believe he mistook wurttemberg for the entire confederation of the rhine + prussia. Wurttemberg only supplied around 30-50k men

​@@randomhumanbeing4182 Yeah I was wondering why Wurttemberg did not conquer France and the rest of Germany LMFAO

Yes! Bavaria famously had the largest army, and they supplied about 30.000 men of the VI. Korps.

the point was to stall Napolean until winter. and they did.

That's not what a Phyrrhic victory is. A Pyrrhic victory is a victory where more is actually lost than gained. At Borodino, the French won the field and Moscow. They also inflicted far more losses. The campaign became a disaster because Moscow was set on fire and because Napoléon stayed one month there waiting for a Russian surrender. Kutuzov wanted to defend Moscow in another battle but had to withdraw when he learned the full scale of his losses at Borodino.

The victory gained him nothing in the end.

@@michaelsinger4638 Because he made bad decisions after

@@lahire4943 moscow is worthless at this point, the city has been evacuated, it serves no strategic point at this time, meanwhile the Grande armee is exhausted, already lacking men and can't refill their numbers, Borodino and Moscow is a strategic lost for Napoleon, he got nothing yet lost so many, the upcoming retreat and many defeats suffered in it would be the final nail in Grande armee's coffin This is by any definition, is Phyrhiic tactical victory but a strategic loss.

Sergei Bondarchuk knows his stuff, he'd make Waterloo a few years later.

you are absolutely right. Sergei Bondarchuk is a great Soviet director. He was so trusted by the Soviet Ministry of Cinema that he gave him 2 divisions of soldiers as extras. This is a wonderful film based on one of the greatest books in history. Leo Tolstoy was a brilliant writer.

Haven’t you watched the video ? France won at Borodino and conquered Moscow….Without that harsh winter, history would have been very different indeed.

@@mexicomax77 Winter was coming regardless. Napoleon expected that he'd just turn up at Moscow and the Csar would make peace, because that was how it was done. He never expected the Russians to burn Moscow, but even then, when it was clear that his army couldn't winter in Moscow, Napoleon hesitated for weeks. Kutuzov and the Csar outplayed Napoleon, who waited far too long in Moscow for a peace offer that would never come.

People claiming that winter won most wars for Russia are stupid... like in 1941 USSR *advanced* in *winter* , when defending would've been easier

@@mexicomax77 what won ? So what if they captured moscow ?

@@mexicomax77 Napoleon lost over 50% of the army before winter

Donbass za nami, s nami Bog, Rossiya za nami, s nami Bog!

I think he confused Marshal Ney with Marshal Murat.

I also noticed this as well. I think someone on his research staff mentioned Wurttemberg as a part of the German contingent making up that percentage of the army, but someone else misreading it. As for the comment on Ney: yeah, he wasn't commanding the cavalry, that was Murat. Also wasn't a really distinguished or famous Marshal by this stage of the war, wouldn't be until the retreat from Moscow that the army considered him a legend. Think again, someone confused him for Murat, who would be a better fit to mention given how highly regarded he was by the French and the Russians as a cavalryman (the Cossacks considered capturing him and making him a member of their band). I really hope Griffin and team fix the error and reupload this.

I totally agree. Stopped watching after the Ney comment as it makes me wonder how accurate the rest of the video is. Sad because normally I like the Armchair Historians stuff.

It also claims that the rumour of the Russian commander "critically wounded Russian moral". Do they even realise what that means? It means Russian morale was dying. Well, it wasn't. So what use is such a statement?

Nevertheless the 1814 campaign is considered one of the most sophisticated of Napoleons actions. He managed to defend France from numerous coalition armies and make several significant defeats to the allied troops

Yes. The classic

Dont forget about animators bruh

How was it amazing? It was riddled with inaccuracies and was vanilla af. Good animations tho

@@rhysnichols8608 Polish troops had French skins xD

@@rhysnichols8608 can you sum up some inaccuracies?

@@That-Belgian-Guy Saying 1/2 of Napoleons army was from Würtenburg was a glaring fault. That would be 25% of their whole population. Würtenberg made up 12,000 men so idk where he got 250,000 from. The entire Rhine confederation of which Würtenberg was a part gave 110,000 men. Describing Ney as a cavalry commander when he was an infantry leader Giving a very poor description of the actual reasons Napoleon invaded Russia. There are more pointed out in other comments

This version of the song comes from the armchair historian's video game "fire and maneuver"

who cares.

@@LastBrigadierme

​@@LastBrigadierme

Napoleon absolutely abused conscription from a vast French population at the time.

I noticed that too, these "historians' try to protect Napoleon as possible. They do not want to come to terms that Napoleon was nothing more than a goon who hijacked a powerful military from a lost and confused nation, and waged total war on Europe, ending in defeat. It does Europe no favors glorifying this, not today, not in 1938, not in 1799.

anxiety and constipation

It's definitely the most complex in my opinion

I find russian history very interesting.

I'm french and you know. I'm fascinate with Russia. I love this country almost as I love France. Such a land of genius, pride and strength. From Poltava to Berezina until WW2. Huge.

Russian history is that of a country failing at everything it does and still coming out as a major power.

@Floron doing Germany, the Balkans, Turkey, and Italy pretty dirty there.

Ney wasn't that famous before the Russian Invasion, but he was very admired during the retreat from Russia. He led his corp during the retreat and escaped russian encirclement (an amazing feat considering the odds). Napoleon even called him 'The Bravest of the Braves'.

@@trollege9618 Yes, I completely forgot that lol. It was after the Invasion that Ney got his reputation of "The Bravest of the Brave". But it was more on Davout that is more famous during the invasion, so we're both in the right here.

Yeah it's incredible they asserted such a thing. Württemberg contributed with 12,000 soldiers... The Confederation of the Rhine contributed with 110,000 soldiers, which is still far from 1/3 of the infantry and 1/2 of the cavalry.

Join the grand armee and see the world they said, all I found was my grave.

Those days still has chivalry type of warfare, that died in the late 18th century in Europe.

Really

@@Thefrogking234 that sounds very unlikely

@@mikestauffer7033 it said it's possible but unlikely

@@Thefrogking234 i doubt it very much, he was boosted to join french officer college, i don't see why he would want to join the russian army, especially during the revolution, considering his name, i call it BS

@@mikestauffer7033 well the Russians were hiring foreign officers to fight the ottomans and he was having a tough time due to the debt when his father died which he had to take care of and the French army kept discharging him so he tried to join the Russians but as you can see they didn't let him in

Lmao

Hehe i'm French and my girlfriend is from Württenberg ! Lovely region, People and traditions ! 😍

xD thats so bloody cold

@@vermilion6966 When he invaded it was very hot, when he was leaving he and his army was freezing to death all the way back to France though. I would know, i am a Moscow native. )

@@russkayaimperiya4918 I wonder how napoleon wouldve redrawn your country if you didnt keep retreating until general winter arrived

@@smal750 All i have to say is two Russian proverbs: “A man who threatens with the sword will die by the sword.” And “A Russian can only control Russia, as Russia is already impossible to rule by a Russian himself.”

про полмиллиона никто не говорил, он поминал, что в Россию вошло 400 с чем-то тысяч. точное число войск при Бородино у него есть. и там 130 на 125 или типа того

@@MisanthropyFerret я говорю не про Бородино, а про общую численность войска

я бы ещё отметил, что не упомянут тот факт, что Москва не была столицей (и уже несколько лет как на тот момент имела меньше населения, чем Питер). здесь же мы слышим что взятие Москвы "логически" привело бы к сдаче всего и вся царём

I love finding comments like this. It’s so easy to forget about the remaining battles of the napoleonic wars. Too many people just think Borodino, retreat, exile then Waterloo!

@@robnixon8832 And there's also just before Waterloo, Quatre-bras won by Ney against Wellington, ans Ligny, led by Napoleon against Blücher and that almost reverse the cours of the war because Blücher fell from his horse and it was only luck that the french cavalry didn't found him under his dead horse. In fact, in the whole campagne of Belgium, only Waterloo was a defeat, thanks for the intervention of Blücher and the determination of Wellesley to hold the line.

Wrong, because both campaigns in 1813 and 1814 ended in total DEFEAT! There was nothing brilliant about the 6 Day Campaign when Napoleon foolishly went on the offensive and was out of position to defend Paris, that fell easily to the coalition. Nor the campaign in 1813 where Napoleon was trapped and smashed at Leipzig. Both campaigns were utter failures by Napoleon. It is no coincidence that as the French military got weaker, Napoleon did not look as "brilliant" anymore. Especially after Borodino, which was the point in time the French military became second-rate. And if you look at the retreat from Russia, the Leizpig Campaign, 1814 France, and the Waterloo Campaign, you will see four of the most poorly led campaigns in the history of warfare. If history was being honest, people would see that Napoleon had four consecutive terrible losing campaigns, four straight years as the French army was second-rate. It is clear that those early military successes France had more to do with the might of the French military, in spite of Napoleon. Even the French Revolutionary Wars ended in victory. And in the case of the War of Second Coalition, in spite of Napoleon, not because of him. Not with the disaster at Egypt and the near disaster at Marengo.

to Hazel Mel: _"both campaigns in 1813 and 1814 ended in total DEFEAT!"_ I said: _"there were still impressive victories ahead"_ . How amazing victories in battles won against all odds couldn't qualify as "victories" will remain a mystery. You just needed a pretext to spew your venom. _"There was nothing brilliant about the 6 Day Campaign"_ You're funny. Somehow you missed the fact that the French tiny "army" was totally outnumbered and somehow miraculously trounced the Russo-Prussian army, inflicting to it an (literally) incredible number of casualties. It was a desparate attempt and there was nothing to expect except defeat. It was nothing short of a miracle that Napoleon and his young unexperienced little army was able to to do anything at all - let alone ridiculizing his mighty opponent. He should have been smashed right away. You're an extremely dishonest and biased individual. _"was out of position to defend Paris, that fell easily to the coalition"_ There was nothing to do to win. And somehow the tiny army defending Paris managed to inflict way more casualties to the huge coalition army attacking it, before having to surrender. _"Nor the campaign in 1813 where Napoleon was trapped and smashed at Leipzig"_ This tend to happen when you're so much outnumbered - a fact that you couldn't ignore. The manpower of France was reduced by ~ one GENERATION of constant wars (1792-1813 (1815 in total)). France was exhausted on account on fighting the major powers of Europe for so long and had to rely more and more on unexperienced very young conscripts. The quality was bound to decrease and yet Napoleon still managed to win impressive victories, somehow. I wonder from which country with such a fantastic military history you are - that you can allow yourself to (try to) belittle such impressive achievements.

@@krips22 Both 1813 Germany and 1814 France were pathetic military campaigns by Napoleon, which followed up the disastrous 1812 Russia campaign. And you want to defend that, what a disgrace...... The way Napoleon got smashed at Leipzig was way harder than any smashing Napoleon ever did, by far. But you want to be dishonest and tell only half the story, and you do not mention that whatever Napoleon did in 1813 Germany led to him getting trapped and smashed at Leipzig as Napoleon wasted away another entire French army, his second in two years in 1812 and 1813. In 1814 France, you want to give Napoleon credit for taking MEANINGLESS pawns in the Six Days Campaign, and getting himself out of position as Napoleon foolishly went on the offensive and lost Paris easily, checkmate Napoleon, your king Paris was taken while you went after meaningless pawns.. So bad was Napoleon's incompetence in 1814 France, that his own Marshalls fired him for incompetence as Paris fell. But you don't want to mention that, you want to make it seem like Napoleon was "brilliant" in the Six Days Campaign when it was a counter-productive, meaningless, waste of time and resources offensive campaign that ended in Napoleon being dismissed by his own Marshalls as Paris fell easily. And for the last time, stop ignoring the pathetic military results, which absolutely matter. In fact, results are the most important part of any war. When foreign troops capture your capital, occupy your territory after you ran your powerful military off a cliff like Napoleon, those are garbage military results.

More about 100,000, many garrisons survived, also his far away flanks, but those saw little fighting

Happy birthday fellow virgoat 🐐🥳💜

Happy Birthday

Happy birthday!

Im australian too. Nothing of much interest happened down under until WW2 unfortunately. Even nowadays, we are lucky to be geographically isolated but also means not much history is produced in Oceania..

@@mexicomax77 China is rising so you will get your history soon enough.

I mean it was a Penal colony. So it was probably miserable. Had a few fights with the natives probably.

You think that when a thug hijacks a powerful military from a lost and confused nation and wages war on Europe, that is exciting? Let me guess, you are 12 years old, right?

I agree (also nice to See you Here). In Most batlles that Napoleon lost He was in a Bad physical and Psychological conditon.

@@vinz4066 Although he won that one. In most if not all battles Napoléon lost, he was completely outnumbered. Can't do miracles.

Napoleon won at Borodino. Russians retreated.

Borodino is french victory.

It isn't a tactical victory since france couldnt force a overkill win

well, there were Spaniards and Dutch, Italians and Swiss, almost the whole of Europe

Napoleon did not have tactical brilliance, see Eylau, see Wagram, see Smolensk, more battles were slugfest than anything else where the might of the French military won the battle not Napoleon. Napoleon was just a goon who hijacked a powerful military from a lost and confused nation who abused conscription and ended in total defeat.

It would be difficult for large French forces to break through rough terrain of the Utitsa forest without being noted by Russians. In this case it is likely that Kutuzov would retreat from the battle field another time

Napoleon was a master, thus he had good reason to analyze and ultimately decide against Davout's flanking plan. Maneuvers are not that easy. They were already DEPLOYED at Borodino, and to maneuver at such a scale would be very hard to keep a secret. It wasn't like at Ulm, or at Austerlitz where the Allies were aggressive. And the Russians have reserves to match Davout's maneuver. A frontal attack was logical to Napoleon - the Grand Armee had superior artillery, plenty of infantry and cavalry, and he was confident they matched the Russians. And so, the battle of Moskova was bloody.

@@napoleoncorneliusscipio5141 I agree, good luck trying to move 50k worth of troops through thick woods and ravines. Perfect targets for sharpshooters and skirmishers as well. His best chance i think would have been to skirmish in front of the Redoubt and Fleches while simultaneously sending a huge column in between the two fortifications with the hope of cracking the center as he had so many times before.

fun fact: There were 2 purely polish corps at the start of the invasion of russia

Show me the proof.

ok bro

he does look like a creepy wuss

ayyyy scorpo

No

True, love your videos Scorpo :3

Every army lost more men from diseases (nature) than fighting

The Motherland has always had the protection of mother nature herself.