ooof. That's burned for life.

Nazi Germany: Uno reverse card.

Now stupid boomers and trolls would say the contrary

@@nobblkpraetorian5623 de Gaulle: UNO reverse card

@@nobblkpraetorian5623 LMAO!!!

Brunswick: What the fu- *dies*

Will never understand why Napoleon didn't use Douve in waterloo and on his right flank like he always did

@@jabronis33 The only reason he was not was because of Louis-Alexandre Berthier's death before the campaign. Davout had the skills to organize the Army of the North but he would have better served Napoleon in the field.

@@celston51 makes sense, Berthier was crucial and Napoleon desperately needed somebody else to do the role when he died

@@jabronis33 Napoleon left Davout in charge of Paris despite Davout telling him that if he won the coming battle nobody could take Paris, but if he lost nobody could hold Paris for him. I cannot imagine Davout losing at Quarte Bra like Ney did or ordering the moronic cavalry charges against infantry in squares. It must have been fate that France's greatest Marechal was left out of the Waterloo campaign.

Great stuff, thanks.

Very interesting, thank you

The man almost shot his emperor lol jesus!

Nc Info, but u forgot one thing. When Lasalle captured Stettin with nothing but his cavalry, Napoleon wrote to his Superior, (Murat) "If your light cavalry captures fortified towns, I'll have to discharge my Engineer Corps and have my heavy artillery melted down."

Napoleon preferred to negotiate. He had achieved peace with Russia until Alexander murdered his father and reneged on the peace treaty.

RiverBeer Wish he ruled the French Army in 1940 instead of old useless generals

@@seahawkwhite The lack of good generals WAS the problem in 40, most of them were old generals relying on tactics from the last war. Younger generals like De Gaulle showed that he was competent to repel the germans unlike others.

@@lsatep "Napoleon is the MOST overrated military leader in history" You're wrong, historians and military specialists have proven that he was a true genius (his tactics in inferiority are still studied today). Then he was 100 years ahead of his time because he had predicted that the superpowers would be formed (China, Russia, USA), several of his sentences prove it, and he wanted France to be one of his super- powers; it was the case for 15 years, but it ended up failing it's true. Even being a genius, it is very difficult to fight alone against all of Europe for 20 years, it is impossible to anticipate all the betrayals, all the reactions (like the fire in Moscow where the population preferred to burn the city and starve rather than fall into the hands of Satan described as such by English propaganda) Egypt was not a disaster, it remained French for 2 years (victory in the Battle of the Pyramids, Mont Thabor and Aboukir ...) but it was the Directory that sent Napoleon there to remove this general who was becoming too ambitious, and Napoleon knew that he had not had enough means to do better in Egypt. Spain I agree with you, it is THE great disaster: it was our ally it became our enemy because of the looting of certain French soldiers in the churches, in an ultra Catholic country; the church and the English took the opportunity to demonize the French and it was guerrilla warfare ... Russia has been a disaster yes when we see this army of 600,000 men crossing the Niemen and only returning with 80,000 men. But there too did Napoleon have a choice? Tsar Alexander no longer respected the Treaty of Tilsit: he traded with the English and brought troops to Poland, because he had in fact never agreed to lose Poland. After Russia, for me it was all over. Leipzig, ok he might have had to keep the army he had left to defend France, he missed troops, he was clearly outnumbered, even if he succeeded in exceptional maneuvers and interspersed doubt in the enemy (that is to say genius) !!! For Louisiana, we didn't lose it but sold it. In 1803, France organized the sale of Louisiana to the United States. It was Napoleon Bonaparte who made this choice, because he was aware that he could not defend this immense territory against the English and that its sale would pose problems for the British Empire. You know, it was in 1806 that Napoleon ordered the construction of l'arc de triopmhe to the glory of the Grande Armée, and it was justified at that time, given the incredible victories ... I believe, as De Gaulle said, that his record cannot be reduced to the fact that he left France smaller than he found it. He brought eternal glory to France. Who can boast of having dominated Europe (and the world?) For 20 years? He is one of the 5 most legendary characters in the history of the world with Cesar, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne ... We could make great films on Napoleon (but of course Hollywood prefers to make films on WW2) You know, no territorial occupation certainly leads to a definitive conquest. Look at the wishes for independence of Catlogne, Quebec, Scotland ... Look at the Rome that was said to be eternal, it ended up falling. Who tells us that in 200 years the USA or China will not be cut in two, following civil wars or other? Nothing stays forever.

@@savate4 "Look at the Rome that was said to be eternal, it ended up falling." Sure, but if count from ~500 BC to 1453 AD, they lasted quite some time.

@@pg-ve9ze you mean from 500 BC to 5OO AD no ? France: 500 AD to 1940. Germany: from 1870 to 1918, and from 1936 to 1945. URSS: from 1945 to 1990. USA: from 1945 to 2020. China: from 2020... It's a joke 😉

And nine years later the Prussians would deal the death blow to Napoleons Army at Waterloo.

@@generalripper7528 "by herself" is the keyword. Was Waterloo strictly a battle between the Grande Armée and Prussia?! The Prussians joining the party did save the British though.

@@Itachi951000 That's why I said "deal the deathblow", which shows how quickly things can change. Napoleon became too arrogant.

@@generalripper7528 without Wellington and the British the Prussians would have easily been beaten again at Waterloo. That's not even debatable.

@@keelyleilani1326 Good that I never stated anything to the contrary ...

Dude : Marshal Davout, they have at least twice more men than us!! Davout : It is sad , they are not nearly enough .

@@imrealisticc you ruined it

Davout: *leaves french wine* Prussians: Oh! Neptune

More like Davout: "Hold my baton."

Wait a sec...are you suggesting that big foot and ghosts don't belong on the _history_ channel? How dare you.

Napoleon was an extraterrestrial from Beta Carotena

@@Feyser1970 lmao

well im not seeing any pawn shop and storage container bids here so this channel is FAIL.

​@@gavins9846 PREACH!!!

History is, in a sense, written by the winners. Most of the people in the world never heard about the battle of Jena. But look how the English managed to spam Waterloo everywhere, turning this battle into the most important event of the Napoleonic wars (while it was a battle without any importance, it didn't change anything to the outcome, Napoleon was finished at this point and could not win the war). The English even managed to turn Waterloo as a crushing "British" victory (while most Allied troops on the battlefield were Germans, with also a lot of Dutch, the British were not even 20% of the total coalition forces most of the British troops being Scots or Irish or King's German legion not English of course). The fact that you mentionned "after a crushing defeat at Waterloo" says all... You don't mention the Spanish guerilla, the Russian campaign, the battle of Leipzig, which were by far much more important than "Waterloo" in Napoleon's downfall. No, you mention Waterloo (where Napoleon was totally outnumbered and had to fight 2 armies). So yes, History is written by the winners. Should I say, the British (because if there is a country that should claim victory for Waterloo, it would be Germany, but they don't brag over and over like the Brits who want the world to believe they defeated single-handedly the French while they couldn't do shit on their own). Of course English propaganda doesn't work for those who actually study the facts, but for the common uneducated people especially in the anglo-world, the Napoleonic wars are basically: "Napoleon conquered Europe then the British defeated him a Waterloo and saved the world". Sad but true. But Napoleonic wars isn't the only fact English try to rewrite. Look at the 100 years war with English bragging over and over about Agincourt, but of course are totally amnesic about all the crushing English defeats that happened after. Same thing about the so-called Spanish armada: English claim that they became the major world power after the defeat of Spanish armada: what a joke. Not only the English own armada was totally destroyed in Spain just one year after so the English totally lost the initiative they had won one year before (and English are totally amnesic about that), but Spain was still the major European power until France overtook them in the mid 17th century. The English didn't become the major power until the end of the Napoleonic wars, when Spain and France were on their knees. The British view of History is characterized by bias, revisionnism, and above all a totally selective memory.

@Von Staufenberg "the Empire upon which the sun never sets" I always found this nickname funny. UK wasn't the only empire upon which the sun never set. Upon the French empire too and even still today he never sets.

Scotty Boy The British and certain Swedes (Abba).

In Britain Napoleon is remembered as one of the greatest generals and military strategists of all time, he's not considered evil like Hitler was, indeed the fact that his name is still remembered and discussed by everyone even to this day shows how much of an impact he had on Britain. Of course they relish the fact that he eventually lost, he was the enemy after all and lets not try to pretend he was some saint fighting for freedom, he was a conqueror like Alexander the Great, taking other people's lands, but everyone was doing it at the time and there is a great historical admiration in Britain for what Napoleon was and managed to achieve.

"History is always written by the victors" is a vastly overused line frequently (not in every single case, but very often) wielded by ignorant revisionists.

Send my peace to the marshal 😂❤

Boney himself lies in hotel des invalides!

And did you see it?

Did you manage to go there?

Davout over Lannes? Hm, interesting choice. But yeah, Napoleon made a lot of marshals. What was it to them, a four-star or five-star general?

Tragic? Not. He created far more tragedy than he had to endure.

6 coalitions agaisnt france. And still, some said thats "napoleonic wars" -_-"

Pfft Europes whole history is filled with tragedy from all sorts of Kings, Emporers and Republics. Napoleon in my opinion was a truly great man and leader of a nation. The whole of Europe declared war on a man, not a nation. That says a lot.

@@daaichommie708 He was a conqueror. Great tactician, no doubt about that, but also an authoritarian figure.

What leader isnt? He's no Eric Cartmen

skiteufr lol Prussia is not Germany. Germany wasn’t born yet

@PIXELFAIL like the french army in 1940 who had old tactics. And Napoleon was able to reach Moscow without mechanization. Hitler not with tanks and trucks. Bonaparte the best :D

Radio Ray Me too!

Abdul D Prussia kinda formed modern day Germany

Haha I am Best Well you right but Germany was not united. They had like 70 independent states not sure but if Germany was united under Bismarck then Napoleon would have got his ass kicked.

150% discipline was achieved when Bismarck took power, at this time the Prussians didn't know what strategy to do against Napoleon, conventional warfare wouldn't work, guerilla warfare would, Spain did that, employing scorched earth, Russia did that and Napoleon lost the invasion of Spain and Russia respectively

@@ahistoryfanatic5683 Sort of true. Bismark's Prussia was stronger, but so was Frederick the Great's Prussia. By Napoleonic wars, Prussian army was weaker than it had been during Frederick the Great's era, as in Frederick the Great's army would have been able to defeat Napoleonic era Prussian army. That changed later in war, and foundations for Prussian army that would be most effective military machine in Europe until end of WW2 were laid.

6/6/6 Emperor-General + Elan > 150% discipline

Dex4Sure Napoleon never intended to occupy Russia nor tame it. He intended to enforce the Continental Blockade again and force Alexander under his will again. He never intended for a long war and intended to stay in Smolensk to start diplomatic talks again.

​@@ahistoryfanatic5683 Napoleon (1769 -1821), Bismarck (1815-1898) = Bismarck was not a player until long after Napoleon time, or I'm missing something ??? cheers :)

Great work mate

Yeah we essentially had to place two battles on the same map to make it look seamless.

@@HistoryMarche just a question can you recommend me your favourite history books like a reading list or something

That's a pretty broad question, there are tons of books that I like, but I can tell you what I'm reading right now: "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by William F Engdahl

HistoryMarche the battle map and animations were excellent. Well done! And also subbed to your channel.

Thanks to his successors. This is the Prussian's lowest point.

Unnecessary funfact: the phrase "turn in one's grave" was coined in 1801 in the UK so just be weary against putting it too early in your historical fiction.

you might now it, but when Napoleon enters Berlin at the end of this video he visits Fredrick's grave and says "If this man was still alive, I wouldn't be here today"

Mr. Chopstick I would say that the Prussian's lowest point is in World War 1 (They still exist at that point)

Same with Napoleon during the World Wars

We must not forget Lannes or Oudinot either. Wasn't he wounded like 8-10 times?

@@thunderbird1921 probably double that and he lived til his 80s

Ney was simply passionate about warfare I believe.

@@thunderbird1921 Oudinot was wounded more than 36 times if I remember correctly. His friend commented on his scarred and damaged body whilst visiting a bathhouse. Think it's mentioned in the video "Napoleons Marshals".

Ney seems to be stuck in Medieval French warfare tactics. Keeps frontal charging at enemy lines!

Ouais il a dit ça pour être gentil. Pour lui rendre hommage.

Frederick suffered some terrible defeats and blamed anyone but himself for loses, on several occasions defeats so bad all his guns were captured and the army had to be rebuilt from scratch. Napoleon would thrash Frederick.

Rhandolph Stearman Then why did he rank him among the best military commanders :)

Jason Jason cuz he didn’t know shit about German history idfk

Jason Jason What? Okay first of all ":)" isn't funny even for sarcasm, second, it's not because someone get defeats that he is bad, but Frederick II is inferior to Napoleon, let's be real here, Frederick invented the oblique order, but he had a much better army than his opponents and a miracle happened when Russia stopped the war, Napoleon didn't rely on any miracle, only his tactics and strategies, Frederick's victories are over-exaggerated while most people don't know about Jena or Toulon, why? Because the English and the Germans, after beating Napoleon, tried so badly to ruin his image as a great conqueror, but they never succeeded

I agree. Pleasant soft Scottish accent.

Truth there. In WW II the Japanese soldiers had no shortage of fighting spirit but they were hamstrung by an officer corps which was completely divorced from reality. For example, the advance down the Malay Penninsula was conducted by troops largely foraging off the land and riding bicycles which Japanese industry had sold to the Vietnamese in large numbers. This approach worked so it convinced the planners that they did not need to concentrate on logistics. When the US Marines landed on Guadalcanal they faced an enemy which was short on supplies. The islands of the South Pacific didn't have the cultivated fields of Indochina so there was precious little to forage.

Don’t forget 1870

@Nogent I don’t need the history. I have read the books.

@Nogent zee Prussians were using horses in 1940. Imagine if they were fully militarized

@Nogent 1940

Blucher didn't Fought Davout in Leipzig nor In Waterloo .

@@Durahan82 what IF blucher faced davout in waterloo if davout was commanding French right wing. Blucher - " why I have nightmare of aurstedt"

@@AdityaSingh-iz5zs Apparently, the very last action of the Napoleonic Wars came at the gates of Paris, where Blucher did indeed come up against Davout for the second time.

@@Conorp77 but davout didn't engage him I think. He sended general Rapp.

They're cuirassiers. Garde du Corps, to be precise

When was that they sent their Hussars?

@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 They were not sent. Some Prussian hussars went on their own at the French embassy in Berlin and sharpened their blades on it's stairs, boasting that the war would be over in a few weeks. In this they were right and i wonder how they felt and what happened to these idiots.

@@generalripper7528 This is history and not a game about having the last laugh and this would be a debate without end (what about WW1? Shall we speak about all the French conquest of the various German principalities ?) All the Europeans leaders were dictators, the only difference being that Napoleon actually gave more rights to its people, like equality before the law wich is a big thing. And you forgot the most important thing: Napoleon and France didn't declare war, it was the English and their European pawns who did.

solwen FYI the officers begged the French to not parade them past the embassy after Berlin was occupied, but the French rightly did so. Dope heads thought they were still fighting under Frederick the Great

ok

napoléon is the greatest

Davout

@@maxoemusguenter2523 Napoleon and Davout ha

Bernadotte will be reminded as a vicious man in History.

@CipiRipi00 it doesnt help that napoleon invaded and took swedish pomerania

@@freewal To some, yeah, but in all biography of the man, he won respect and love from everyone he was put in charge of. His Swedish prisoners risked his live to make him king. The Saxons he led to death flocked to him in the middle of the battle. The city of Lubeck where he defeated Blucher gave him a massive celebration when he returned 9 years later with a Swedish army. The honourable Ney is best friend. General Vandammne who could not bother with Davout or Soult looked at him as a savior. Except for the Prussians, they despised him for making them do the hard work and he saved their capital. Napoleon actually think highly of him, initially anyway.

Just so you know it was France and half of Germany against Prussia.

@lol shit yes

@@eintrachtfrankfurt6402 At least France has already win a war since her creation, while Germany never won a war since her creation 🙂

@@eintrachtfrankfurt6402 I don't speak nazi

@@user-rj3ub4fd4u Baguette and frogs' legs

Marshal Davout nicknamed the Iron Marshal because of his strict discipline was probably Napoleon's finest Corps commander. Davout was virtually throughout his career never defeated in a pitched battle and when outnumbered more than 2:1 his III Corps, (26,000) vs. the main Prussian force, (64,000) at Auerstedt still came out on top to the point Napoleon didn't believe that the III Corps had defeated the main Prussian force "Your Marshal must be seeing double!", a reference to Davout's poor eyesight.

The drawing that Felician Myrbach made of the sword sharpening incident a hundred years later is one of my favorites!

Using memes as a History jokes, there going to be tax on that

I was waiting for a comment like this, and I wasn't disappointed.

Still salty about 1808 amigo >:(

Napoleon I Bonaparte well the French lost in the end so idk what to tell you

Well, they do....as you fell over Prussian queen's charm at negotiations! 😁

Napoleon I Bonaparte *laughs* *in* *blücher*

@L'Aigle Sadly, this is very true.

@L'Aigle Of course there's always that one brainwahed Anti-American idiot in the comment sectuon that blames America for everything.

The Napoleonic Wars were hardly the only wars Prussia fought in. Prussia's record overall when compared to Austria's is much more favorable.

@@brainwasher9876 That's very debatable. In 1742 the Habsburgs had lost the Imperial throne, Bohemia and Silesia and were strategically isolated, but the Habsburg army not only reformed itself but actually managed to retake most of its lost territory, even despite being up against a coalition of France, Bavaria and Prussia. Even the Seven Years war was effectively a draw - Frederick II kept Silesia at the cost of ruining both his army and his economy. And after that, the Prussian military record gets even more questionable. Prussian involvement in the Revolutionary Wars was limited to a timid performance at Valmy which ended in retreat before the battle had even begun in earnest. In 1814 it was a secondary partner to Austria and Russia and was utterly dependent on support from them and on British subsidies. The war with Denmark in 1848 was a humiliating farce, whilst in 1864 and 1866 Prussia enjoyed immense technological superiority. Even then, at Koniggratz there were several moments in which luck played a vital role in Prussian victory. Compare this with Austria, which for most of its history was having to fight on multiple fronts in Germany, Italy and the Balkans, and it really puts things in perspective. Was the Habsburg Army perfect? Lord, no. It was geared towards survival rather than winning battles and conquering land. But it kept the Habsburg monarchy intact for 400 years through several crises which could very easily have destroyed it. Even in 1918, the Empire broke up before the Army did.

By all measures Frederick II was supposed to lose the Seven Years War. Prussia was a fledgling power that simultaneously took on three of Europe's greatest land powers and fought them to a standstill. That Austria had the backing of France AND Russia and *still* lost is testament to how badly Austrian armies needed reform--which the Empress attempted to do, to limited success, but was mired by rampant political corruption. Austria's performance during the French revolution was practically non-existent so it's impossible to compare them there. Austrian cavalry during the Napoleonic Wars was considered the finest in Europe at the time, but their middling performance was a result of nepotism allowing poor-quality officers to lead them. If these men were lucky, their regiments were skilled enough to salvage their reputations.Prussia in the Napoleonic Wars was a shadow of its former self even before Jena. After their initial losses Prussia lost most of its territory and money and it's only natural that it relied on British subsidies to field an effective army. Didn't Austria also take significant British subsidies? Achieving technological and organizational superiority is a success in itself. It was in part Prussia's opponents' fault in its wars with Denmark, Austria and France in the late 1800s that Prussia was able to dominate them so easily, and it certainly wasn't a stroke of luck. A win is a win, and simply chalking up Austria, Denmark, and especially France's massive materiel, technological, and tactical blunders is a disservice to Moltke, Roon, etc.

Yet the Prussians ultimately sealed Napoleons fate at Waterloo. Hubris.

@@generalripper7528 He's not wrong, it wasn't by themselves. Took a coalition to take him down, wouldn't exactly say hubris when it's facts. ;)

@@LordKamos777 Yes, the facts are that the Prussians dealt the deathblow to Napoleon's Army at Waterloo, which resulted in Napoleon being exiled to a rock in the middle of the South Atlantic.

@Dex4Sure Pretty sure the Soviets won WII and not some people hiding on an island until the last 11 month of the war

@@generalripper7528 It is "the fact" the same as "I came with a gun and shot a wounded person in the face, thus killing him" is "I DEALT THE DEATHBLOW" is fact. Lying by omission is not a fact. It is a lie.

Oh, you are that guy that makes foxhole videos, haha.

You are not wrong

if only i knew who composed it..... it has a link in the description to the website but not what song it is.

Sudarshan G my advice to hitler he must complete berlin moscow axis and then attack allies

Funny, I was playing with my balls

any good mods you could recommend?

TwoFistsOneHalleluja i dont play mods mostly but i reccommend ww1 mod

@@TwoFistsOneHalleluja darthmod for Napoleon Total War. There are others but i cant remember them.

Marshal Davout: "I see the odds have improved for the Prussians." III Corps: "But we never play the odds!"

he was not in waterloo but he was never defeated in battle

He was. He played a key role at Austerlitz, see my video on that if you haven't already. But during 'the Hundred Days' Napoleon appointed him Minister of War, which meant he was in Paris for the crucial battles. In hindsight perhaps a big mistake.

Napoléon might be the primary figure of that period, but Davout was definitely a genius of his own. Always making the impossible possible, by far the second most competent and loyal Marshall.

@@noxumbra3429 Who's the best for you?

Jean Lannes is the the third best marshall of the empire

Durant les années 1800 au début l'armée de Napoléon a tenu sa réputation...Très bien tenu même

@@unpseudopascommelesautres997 But the pride of the French Army under Napoleon still led to its downfall. The invasion of Russia was insanity, Sweden's war against Russia a generation earlier should have been all the evidence Napoleon needed that defeating Russia in the field won't end a war against them. In his pride he thought he could overcome this problem that nobody before or sense has overcome, and it cost him his Empire.

@@hagamapama Chaque homme fait des erreurs, il en fait une qui lui a sûrement coûté l'Europe. A cause de coalition, dit toi que si il les aurait pris un par un à la fois, il serait maître d'Europe

@@unpseudopascommelesautres997 The strength of Russia is its landmass and population, the weakness of Russia is its economy and infrastructure. Russia can commit massive numbers of troops to defend its territory but Napoleonic era Russia could not throw the same huge quantities of troops into an attack because she could not pay for them. Napoleon wins that war by maintaining the territory he has taken and crushing any effort to invade his half of Europe. The war against Napoleon put a huge strain on the financial resources of the Coalition. If he plays defense eventually the Coalition members would either have to sue for peace or go bankrupt and face revolution at home.

Like usa in viet nam

Prussia was so puny at that time. When Prussia become big they absolutely smashed the French

@@stormtrooper8420 Do not forget france was fight the rest of europe at the same time 😚 France absolutely raggdolled anyways 😄☺

@@smal750 nobody else was United back then

@@stormtrooper8420 wdym lmao even when Germany was united it got crushed humiliated and occupied 2 times in a couple years when it had to face coalitions while France humiliated 5 european coalitions including russia austria and britain during civil wars and plagues lol France is not on the same league it is factually the country with the greatest military history even without using the numbers of battles won bs

@@smal750 lol since the unification of Germany, France got absolutely dominated by the germans till to this day. Germany economically dominate Europe now. France fought more battles because France formed way before a unified German state.

He led his army during hopeless times like in the 1814 invasion of France

Yeah probably the greatest military dictator

​@@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0This is Caesar, Augustus and Orian

​@@user-cg2tw8pw7jAlexander?????

@@spencertherren6806 Alexander the Great is from a noble ruling family and not just a military leader who made a coup and took control of his homeland like the Roman leaders and Napoleon

@@lsatep Poor bait

@@lsatep how he was an overrated military commander... The guy almost conquered the whole Europe... His tactics is still studied until now... His tactics have won wars in the past... On his 60 battles he only lost 8 of them... Most them as at the end of his empire where the whole europe is fighting against him...how he is an overrated commander if he marched from elba to paris to take his throne back without firing a signle shot from his army? Every great commanders has ups and downs you name it Patton Nimitz Rommel Washington and many more... You cant call someone an overrated commander who almost conquered the whole Europe

You look more Belgian though

Brunwick: "You're outnumbered more than 2:1, surrender!" Marshal Davout and III Corps: "We like our odds!" "Outnumbered, but never outclassed!"

@@lsatep Stop your stupid copy/past. Nobody believe your british propaganda here. If you like History and scientific work, you can't believe a word of your bad propaganda. Napoleon changed the game in Europe and you should thank him for what he gave to Europe and to the rest of the world.

@@lsatep you are just an ignorant and jealous about the French Emperor.I don't want to lose time describing to you who was Napoleon and what he achieved,where is he resting now and the legacy he left. I think you would still have te risk to be a slave today to Old Monarcha if it wasn't for the Emperor.France and He was against all the old reigns of Europe fighting.You give to Ceasar what belongs to Him. Nobody will remeber you or your name but you cant speak with your small intelect (mind) about the Genius Of Napoleon.

Bernadotte was never a Traitor.

@@razorsharpview9090 in the grand scheme of things, yes he was an trator, but not for himself, his new people, would have ripped him apart if he didn't betray napoleon.

@@stefthorman8548Pretty sure Sweden declaring war was Napoleon’s fault

Napoleon: "Hold my Corps!"

Hello there, General Epic History! Your videos will make a fine addition to my collection!

Thanks Curtis! Much appreciated.

Frederick the Great: Bravo, you really outdid it. Frederick William II, may I have a word with you... Truly, Napoleon is one of the great strategists. Legend has it that Julius Caesar himself possessed Napoleon's body, in order to reforge the Roman Empire.

We actually don't need more people like him, people kinda forget that success doesn't equal great personality. And tbh the Prussian army didn stand a chance and I'm pretty sure he was well aware of it. I would rather mention his defense of France at the end of the war, this was a true show of against all the odds and his tactical genius

Napoleon was a mass murderer

Bro Napoleon's ambition kinda cause him an army in Russia and made too much enemies that is more than he could chew

its actually bigger for the French due to the Wehrmacht being prepared for a large scale war in a matter of years, the German generals themselves said that WW2 would quickly be over if France takes on the offensive and not the defensive.

leonidez dionisio Nope, in 1940 France had a population 35M while Germany had 70M. Furthermore, France was going through a large political crisis, no money for the defense. France just could not fight and beat Germany alone in 1940. At Iena, Prussia was able to win but an humiliating defeat was the result instead.

@Augustus Caesar and French destroyed this german reich in 1919 with the.... treaty of Versaille

@@leonidezdionisio9915 Yes, not having attacked in september 1939 (more exactly, the French army invaded briefly the German territory then was ordered to come back behind the Maginot line) is a big mistake. At this time, the Wehrmacht wasn't yet able to run 2 fronts in the same time and would have collapsed the same way the French army did in 1940. Hitler and the German high command were conscious of this and the Franco-British passivity has been a lucky surprise for them.

What is interresting in the part of the video where it's said that the Prussian army rested on it's laurels, had old generals using obsolete tactics and was hindered by bureaucracy and internal rivalries. It was the exact same things with post WW1 France. Same causes, same effects ..

Thank you, very kind. Yes his tomb in Les Invalides is quite a sight!

Congratulation for the victory

It's really nice that you let Davout to enter Berlin first.

@@justinian-the-great He'd saved the BEST for last. And Davout is not yet finished...

No one surpases Alexander

@@aimmenromane4791 bah..Napoleon was superior imo at his peak , he lived in much more modern times and had to deal with much more complex situations , was outnumbered many times and still won , led much bigger armies later on , fought a LOT more battles than Alexander , had to fight against multiple powerful opponents at the same time , Alexander only had 1 serious opponent , he was great but Napoleon was more amazing given advanced times he lived in . Anyway ..that just my opinion .

@@bobrob6629 Alexander was unbeaten always fighting far away from home never made massive blunders like NB did. But massive props to the emperor

@Cool Dude yes but he didn't , he lost his first war , over ,... Napoleon had many campaigns that he WON , defeated most powerful countries in the world of his time .

Talking about global scale, Napoleon, Ceasar and Alexander are ok, but Subutai won more battles than Napoleon while often outnumbered and invaded more territory than all three combined, including Jin China, central Asia, Russia (in winter), Khwarizm, Hungary, Poland, etc.

And yet they couldn't ever beat Britain (outside 100 years War). Off the cuff Britain has hammered everyone and has created Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, S. Africa, etc. France created........? France can gather all their former colonies and Britain can get theirs. Who wins?

@@michaelmurphree310 Seven years war, American Revolution, Napoleonic wars, they all had good victories against the British. And the British were tyrants. France would’ve beat the English if there was no English Channel, and you forget about 1066.

@@Corpus.Adamus In the Seven Year’s War, Britain defeated France at sea and kicked them out of Canada and India. 1066 was the Normans, who were French speaking Viking descendants.

@@Corpus.Adamus Also, you can’t call the British tyrants without calling France the same.

Marshal Davout and his legendary III Corps liked to play the odds that for sure

rene L 😂

Fatal eventually, but not instantly, the Duke of Brunswick died one month later in Hamburg from this shot through the eyes.

A year late, but from what I can tell bith Jena and Auerstedt were de jure part of one of the duchies Saxe-Weimar or Saxe-Eisenach. Which duchy it truly belonged to becomes a moot point when those two duchies are combined into the Grand Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach a few years later, and while technically allied with Prussia here, in only a few months, the not-actually-a-grand-duchy-yet-but-two-duchies-ruled-by-the-same-guy will throw in with the Confederation of the Rhine in order to keep itself alive.

@@veevaldi Thanks for the reply, I have been wondering for ages.

The battle of Auerstedt in October 1806, Marshal Davout's III Corps, (26,000) vs. the main Prussian force, (64,000) outnumbered more than 2:1 yet still came out on top. It demonstrates how well drilled and trained Davout's III Corps was and unscores the title of probably Napoleon's finest Corps commander who never technically lost a pitched battle in his career. Davout's III Corps totally deserved that honour of entering Berlin first.