they retired* but yes

@@FieldMarshalYT It actually _sounds_ like you say tired although it becomes clear later what you did say.

Poltava was Sweden VS Russia, right...?

@@NobleKorhedron yup

​@@NobleKorhedron it marks the beginning of the end for the Swedish empire

the most fascinating part imo is how King Charles XII was offered the opportunity to mediate the issue of Spanish succession, and he turned it down. If he had mediated, he could've possibly prevented the war in its entirety and potentially made allies that could've helped him in the Great Northern War.

Yes. Plus, Bach and Handel were composing masterpieces every year.

I know. Before this video I knew that Malplaquet was a battle thanks to "Empire Deluxe" which has a city named after it and that the war of the Spanish Succession had something to do with "Colonization". Now I know 10,000 times as much it seems.

Heir not “hair”. Just starting to watch it. I also know no nothing of this

Oh dear. I am sure you are presenting a high quality video but i simply cannot stand mispronunciation. Hair for heir ( pronounced “air”). And hag for Hague… good luck but i suggest a third party review prior to posting

Better known outside of France as "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow."

This song is still known and sang for kids: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eqt4fa-Vnbe2qmw.html

In the song he is called "Malbrouk"

@@erichammer2751= the two melodies have nothing in common. Try to listen on YT.

Try on YT “malbrough s'en va-t-en guerre”; You'll see the two melodies are not at all the same.

Fortunately I got a new script writer. He writes for the channel Warhawk and is superb. He also pisses those scripts out like nothing so it's a load off for me. I'm getting to work on the Spanish campaign of 1710 as we speak!

@@FieldMarshalYT Good job well done sir

If you’ve watched the latest video on Napoleon’s Italian campaign, he also used the same tactic to force Wurmser’s army into Mantua at the battle of San Giorgio.

Napoleon was more of a flanking or blasting you to pieces from a distance kind of guy and his center attack only happened because his planned attack on the wings failed or were bogged down long enough before the prussians arrived. His plan was to crush the brits then fight the prussians and heby the time he decides to launch the attack he's already under heavy pressure from the arriving prussians

Napoleon failed because the Prussians arrived

It's what I love to do

He didn't come back because of machinations back in England. Marlborough was the best General of the war. Malplaquet was a setback but nevertheless, yet another victory...Luckily for France.

@@paulbantick8266 He did comeback, Marlborough launched two more campaigns after Malplaquet and both were very successful, the problem was that he had run out of time to move against Paris because the British were leaving the war after securing favorable terms.

Glad to see this video's steam hasnt run out, thank you very much!

I agree about the scholarship (since I contributed to its content), but where are the credits?

But the map should not show Paris on the banks of the Somme, or it should show the Seine running west to Normandy.

Thanks man!

All under one week, even got me enough watch hours to become monetized

Battle duration would have been more than your lifespan 🤐😐

He has already uploaded it

@@Heisenberg882 thank you

More like strategic victory but thank you!

Allied victory*

It was an allied victory. As I am old school, I don't even go by the idea of a "strategic victory", instead I would say a ''near-Pyrrhic victory" for the Grand Alliance. The reason I'd argue against it being a "strategic" victory is that as well is because the main strategic goals of France were not actually met. It was also famously a tactical defeat for France too, so claiming it as a "French victory" is some jest, surely?

@@kyriakospentheides thank you for sharing, I always had a problem with it being classified as on of Marlborough 's victories.

@@kyriakospentheides It is a french victory because the allied forces lost so much during this batle that they had to cancel their invasion of France. The Maréchal de Villars who was in command of the french army send a letter to Louis XIV after the battle saying :"another lost like this one and we will win the war".

Compared to other historical events, it gets very little coverage. There werent very many videos on it on YT before I started making them.

@@FieldMarshalYT Thanks for reply. What I meant was that anyone who likes history has heard of this war or at minimum about battle of Blenheim or Malplaquet. If you are talking about normal people, 80% of them don't know when ww2 started...

Hopefully this gave you the inspiration you needed for Gettysburg

@@FieldMarshalYT Oh it did

Yep! Ive kept this in mind in more recent videos

Unfortunately 18th century wars are often glossed over despite their significance in influencing the outcome of world history.

Elle est malheureusement peu connue. C'est dommage étant donné que même si nos armées quittent le champs de bataille, on leur inflige une telle concentration de morts et de chaos qu'ils doivent sérieusement remettre en question leur chance dans la victoire finale. Malplaquet a presque annulé à elle toute seule les terribles défaites de blenheim, ramilies et oudenarde. En tout cas, merci De Villars de nous avoir sauvé, tout ça en infériorité numérique. Maintenant à notre tour de propager la bonne parole en faisant connaître cette bataille !

BS. Death and destruction being called "glory"...

@@e.s.6275 No , not that ; it is the way that individual men face death and destruction , that is called glory .

@@bernardotorres4659 there is no sense in facing death for the sake of destruction, and self-destruction. Therefore, glory in this context is nonsense.

@@e.s.6275 Wars are terrible things and very undesirable , but they do occur , and they are unavoidable in spite of their undesirability and their terribleness.

Depuis Louis XIV jusqu'à Napoléon. Trop fort pour eux. 😮

@@Raisonnance.Louis XIV, Revolutionary France and Napoleon I. But not all of Louis XV’s reign, France lost the Seven Years’ War and it was Prussia who had the coalition against them in that time. Also for the American War of Independence, during the time of Louis XVI, it was Britain facing the coalition. I agree for Louis XIV and Napoleon though, but not the whole time in-between.

Yes, check my community posts

La chance. 😢

I guarantee you, you are not the only person who has brought up the issue of pronunciation.

I'd refer to the Prince of Orange's attack on the French right as the "Pickett's Charge" of this war. Definitely my favorite battle of the period to study.

@@FieldMarshalYT oh okay.

Marlborough: "Prince, see to your division" Prince of Orange: "Sir, I have no division!"

That's what I meant.

34,000 casualties at Kunersdorf vs 41,000 at Malplaquet. The numbers I used in this video are a bit outdated as it's more likely the French suffered 17,000 while the allies suffered moreso around 24,500.

@@FieldMarshalYT Your numbers are not outdated since the consensus of historians who studied the battle is of about 11,000 French casualties and 22-24,000 allied losses. Only one Dutch primary source claims 17,000 casualties. Also the deathtoll was largely superior at Malplaquet than at Kunersdorf.

But Napoleon was almost 100 years later!

This was not a victory, albeit not exactly a defeat either.

@@FieldMarshalYT geopolitically, no, not a victory. Militarily, it was a victory. Defending against a numerically superior enemy, inflicting 2 to 3 times as many casualties, and retiring from a strategically insignificant field without incurring a route would absolutely be considered a victory in any military academy.

@@tbuxt3992 “Militarily, it was a victory” In order to qualify as a military victory they would have had to stand their ground against the allied army, which they did not. Inflicting higher casualties is not enough to make Malplaquet a French victory. “Defending against a numerically superior enemy” Both the Allies and the French had about 90,000 men according to multiple historians. The main difference was that the French army was occupying a strong defensive position while the Allied army had to attack without the necessary numerical superiority required to guarantee a victory. The fact that the allies still managed to dislodge the French is an achievement in of itself, heavy casualties were inevitable. “Inflicting 2 to 3 times as many casualties” Most modern historians put the Allied losses at 20,000 and French losses at 17,000. Double casualties is already unbelievable enough, triple is ludicrous. “Retiring from a strategically insignificant field” Which for the allies enabled them to besiege Mons and later on besiege the other fortresses of Northern France while for the French it was just another source of casualties. “Would absolutely be considered a victory in any military academy” The battle which you’re describing would most likely be considered a tactical failure but an operational and strategic success for the retreating army in military academies. However, as I have made clear, none of the things you have described apply to the battle of Malplaquet.

@@CometTheProto You're obviously completely distorting reality. "In order to qualify as a military victory they would have had to stand their ground against the allied army" What counts is who was happy at the end of the day. "Both the Allies and the French had about 90,000 men according to multiple historians." Absolutely not. Most historians give the French between 70,000 and 80,000 men, the allies between 85,000 and 120,000 men. "Most modern historians put the Allied losses at 20,000 and French losses at 17,000. Double casualties is already unbelievable enough, triple is ludicrous." Here is where you lie. The consensus for French losses is between 8,000 to 12,000. It's been established. What you call "most historians" is two partisan Dutch historians. A voluntary lie. That's what's ludicrous. Allied casualties are estimated between 21 to 25,000 men. So not only double casualties is totally believable, but triple is possible too. Funnily you claim the allies didn't have the necessary strength to dislodge the French, but then you claim that them losing vastly more men is ludicrous. Lol. "Which for the allies enabled them to besiege Mons and later on besiege the other fortresses of Northern France while for the French it was just another source of casualties. " The allies' main objective was to take Paris and finally end the war. As a result of Malplaquet, not only would the allies never dream of taking Paris anymore, but they would never attack a French army on the battlefield for the remainder of the war. And you're saying "it was just another source of casualties." Ludicrous indeed.

@@lahire4943 "What counts is who was happy at the end of the day" You're right, let's look at what Madame de Maintenon has to say about Louis XIV after news of the battle reached him: *"Sometimes he has a fit of crying that he cannot control, sometimes he is not well. He has no conversation."* "Absolutely not. Most historians give the French between 70,000 and 80,000 men, the allies between 85,000 and 120,000 men." Michael Clodfelter: 90,000 French Gaston Bodart: 90,000 French John Fortescue: "An equal number of French" No source I have ever come across mentioned 120,000 save for maybe the BritishBattles website (which FYI claimed that the French had just as many). "Here is where you lie. The consensus for French losses is between 8,000 to 12,000. It's been established. What you call "most historians" is two partisan Dutch historians. A voluntary lie. That's what's ludicrous. Allied casualties are estimated between 21 to 25,000 men. So not only double casualties is totally believable, but triple is possible too." The only source which mentions 8,000 casualties is Nicholson, who also provides no explanation whatsoever as to how they got that number, there is no bibliography. 12,000 is one of the lower estimates for the French and only counts killed and wounded. There were also 3,000 prisoners of war which have been excluded from the count. Other sources such as G.W.L. Nicholson put the French killed and wounded at 14,000, add 3,000 prisoners (Bodart's estimate for how many) and you get 17,000, which just so happens to be the numbers claimed by those "partisan Dutch historians" you speak so lowly of. Speaking of historians, may I know what credentials you yourself have to be charging those who have actually studied the subject with something as audacious as a voluntary lie? Especially when the figures given correlate with those given previously by older historians? As for the Allied losses, Clodfelter using allied records puts their count at about 24,000, this number just so happens to include 4,000 missing who would have rejoined their units (as is what usually happens in battles with victorious armies). 20,000. "Funnily you claim the allies didn't have the necessary strength to dislodge the French, but then you claim that them losing vastly more men is ludicrous. Lol." I said the allies didn't have the necessary strength to *guarantee victory,* not that they didn't have the necessary strength to dislodge the French. That comes entirely down to the performance of the commanders, who did in fact manage to dislodge them from that position with equal numbers. Them losing more men is an inevitability, losing triple is ludicrous. Pay attention. "The allies' main objective was to take Paris and finally end the war. As a result of Malplaquet, not only would the allies never dream of taking Paris anymore, but they would never attack a French army on the battlefield for the remainder of the war. And you're saying "it was just another source of casualties." Ludicrous indeed." Perhaps you can try explaining why if the allies could never dream of taking Paris, how over the course of the next two years, Marlborough and Eugene went on to capture five major fortresses in Northern France and come within one fortress (Quesnoy) of Paris itself before it all came tumbling down due to Marlborough's dismissal? As for "never attack a French army on the battlefield," that was due to Villars' own reluctance to accept battle and the fact that he had a perfectly good line of fortresses from which to defend Paris. He had multiple opportunities to fight a battle when the Allies were besieging Douai, Aire, Saint-Venant, and Bouchain, he took none of them and was instead outmaneuvered. "You're obviously completely distorting reality." Rather funny coming from someone who claimed Malplaquet stopped an allied advance on Paris when they calmly resumed their advance in 1710 and 1711.