That calvary charge though Mhm it is so cool i wish we didn't have all this future stuff now. I wish it was oldern day fighting like line infantry and Cav Charges.
1. Wellington referred to his soldiers as 'scum' because that's what they were, convicts, murderers, rapists, thats where the brits got their soldiers while officers were almost always rich people who bought their patent, while in France you had to join the army whether you liked it or not. That doesn't mean anything, the soldiers were proud of being 'scum', they were called 'red devils' by the french while the french were called 'frogs' by the brits. It also doesn't mean Wellington was cold to his soldiers, from what I've read he was like that with everybody. Also a sidenote, Horatio Nelson once was being followed by two spanish vessels, and he was with his crew in a small ship, running for his life, when a 'soldier' of his called Tom Hardy fell into the ocean, and Nelson was like 'by God I can't lose Tom Hardy!'. So he made them turn back the boat even though that would mean going to battle against two ships, but because he turned around the two spanish ships thought that he was turning around cause he had seen help coming from the horizon (why would he turn about ?), so they turned around too and run ! Lol ! But that only proves that's its not like the french are the good side of the force and the brits the dark side, like this documentary makes one belive.
2. The rifled cannon thing is indeed true, it gave such an advantage to the brits that they had a unique brigade, 'the Green Jackets', skirmishers who could shoot from 300 yards or more while the common rifle could be innacurate at even 50 yards. The downside is that it takes some time to reload it, and the French didn't have it cause Napoleon thought it was useless in battle.
On the eve of the battle of Waterloo Wellington was ridding in a carriage with some of his staff on the way to the Ball held that evening, someone asked Wellington how he though the battle would go , He looked out of the carriage window and his eye fell on a drunken British soldier staggering along the pavement with a prostitute on each arm , Wellington replied " It all depends on that article there " .
Is the outcome of this not known to Americans? I can only presume not with the retarded questions in the first couple of minutes…'Can the British hold out against this onslaught?' , 'Will the allied forces defeat Napoleon?'……Naw!! The French cuffed the allies, thats why France still hold an empire stetching across Europe.
Also, again this switching between British and English, so casual, so deliberate. DO these people not realise England and Britain are not fucking synonymous??
where was the charge of the British heavies?? and the countercharge of the French lancers and huzzahs? ??? a select pieces of the battle is displayed in this programme, and those of which was displayed were grossly inaccurate. where were the rifles in the sandpit? the troops of other allies that stood their ground? the brave deeds of the French troops that suffered the charges of both heavy and light Cavalry?
Very mixed content on here, a lot of bad interpretations milling around (in spite of it being a reasonably nicely made reconstruction) At @8:25 what is said there is a total revisionist misunderstanding of real historical context; ''The Allies declared war on him, so he did not create the war, the war came to him''… erm, when even seconds earlier, it was rightly pointed out that Napoleon didn't want a war in 1815, mostly because he wasn't ready! People can lie about these things and try and twist them all they like, truth is IF Napoleon was allowed to regain his Grande Armee's truth strength (as the Allies of the Coalitions had already seen him do multiple times e.g. when he came back from the disastrous campaign in Russia, even though he'd lost half a million men and almost all/if not all the tens of thousands of horses they took, and wasted millions from the French coffers, such was his fame and influence, that within months he'd rebuilt the Grande Armee to over half million man strong strength again) then it was asking for Napoleon to attack them again.
If anyone seriously things Napoleon Bonaparte would not have lunged straight for that chance if he could take it, then they must have forgotten that everyone friend or foe of Napoleon in his day, had to at least acknowledge his greatness. Wellington himself, spoke of Napoleon that, on the battlefield, him merely being there made the difference of 40,000 men. His men would fight fanatically for him. Europe and beyond had been torn apart by conflicts lasting decades and here we see the Allies have a golden opportunity to bring Napoleon down.
Not only had Napoleon spat in the face of the clemency he was shown – as much as this video and others try and make it seem cruel Napoleon got a ''tiny Mediterranean Island'', actually I think he got very lucky to not be more severely punished for the warmongering he'd been responsible for and the treatment of Prussia for example. Blucher, for example, outright wanted Napoleon brought to Prussia to be trialed and executed for his war crimes. In fact, Blucher basically wanted to shoot Napoleon himself – but he'd deposed a new government of a Constitutional Monarchy of King Louis XVIII totally illegally. Of course, as many would agree, Napoleon was by far the better leader and the short-lived return of any kind of Monarchy in France, was bound to be kicked out again eventually, but the literal fact remains that Napoleon escaped exile and confinement to Elba, and with his 600 retainers and loyalists, and dodged British Royal Navy and French Monarchal Navy patrols, and basically invaded France to cause fresh rebellion against King Louis XVIII (who promptly scampered over to England in imposed exile, once he realised all his armies were defecting to Napoleon, getting out long before Napoleon got to Paris) Napoleon knew exactly what he was doing. He didn't have to come back; he knew it'd be a gamble and he knew Britain and the other allies, who'd fought with him for so long, wouldn't tolerate him coming back without a fight.
Historians have argued for years. Yeah, from that part of the narrative of the historical events, the Coalition did declare war on Napoleon as an individual himself, and called him ''A disturber of the peace…and an enemy of humanity who needed to be stopped'' among other such things. But it was the way that the guy said it, I really don't like it. It sounds sympathetic to Napoleon. Fact is, it would be a fool to underestimate Napoleon, and a much bigger fool to sit idly by and let him act like a passive player in Europe, then sitting by and watching him rebuild the Grande Armee. Obviously they wisely distrusted Napoleon's intentions. Give Napoleon another 600,000 soldiers by 1816-17. See what happens. Does he just, sit around? I don't think so. Get real, I say. Remember, Napoleon had once bullied on Russia and Austria and kept them under the duress of the French military machine in that time, to carry on the unhelpful ''Continental System'' against the British (where the French banned themselves and all of mainland Europe from trading with Britain, to make them lose the war – which failed catastrophically with the Russians especially thriving on trade with Britain, and wanting it back, getting more and more pissed off about it until they turned against Napoleon because it was harming their economy so badly) Napoleon still thought of them having betrayed him, and as far how Napoleon looked on the British…clearly he wanted to invade Britain throughout his career.
He gambled on splitting the Anglo-''mixed smaller factions'' forces under Wellington, from Blucher's Prussians; to send the British back to their ships and scatter the British allies e.g. the Dutch, and swing round on the Prussians and hit them with almost everything he had left. Though, massive Russian and Austrian armies were separately on their way to France regardless, so even if that perfect scenario played out for Napoleon – who by the way wasn't physically or mentally in the best shape at this point, lacking confidence in himself after the initial enthusiasm of his return, and riddled with illness and discomfort including having piles and a bad stomach – then the chances are, he'd lose anyway. He must have known. But his pride came before his fall and he'd lost the gamble. Hindsight shows had he waited even just another year or two on Elba, if he returned then he would have come back to a more well recovered France (still far from its peak, but theoretically in far better shape than just coming right back to the war-torn country) On Elba, the British and their allies allowed Napoleon to have a palatial mansion and gardens, to run Elba, to manage its infrastructure and organisation bodies, and to reign over it, with an honour guard of 1,000 frenchmen. Other defeated military leaders from history would have dreamed of being treated like that. Oh poor him, he got a Mediterranean island for a prison. Many would have been given only the gratitude of the blade or firing squad. It was what the likes of Blucher would have preferred (though Wellington certainly held Napoleon in high esteem and wouldn't have allowed that to happen to Napoleon) Indeed, during the Battle of Waterloo, he forbade the British Royal Artillery (who had Napoleon in their line of fire for a fairly long time) from aiming and firing at him.
I just don't like the slightest insinuation that Napoleon's act of coming back in the first place, wasn't what really caused the renewed warring going on until and including Waterloo… Truth is, Napoleon broke all the rules and should have known better. But in his fears and impetuousness, he just couldn't stand the idea that Frenchmen and Frenchwomen would stop loving him. That his glory would fade. Ironic, considering his impact on history still stands to this day, and he is known far and wide to many tens of millions, even if just in passing for some, though in much greater detail for others, fascinated in his life. Truth is, Napoleon fucked up. It is that simple really.
Rifled muskets don't necessarily have better firepower than smoothbore muskets. They just have better accuracy. Because of the grooves in the way, it's harder to ram down through a rifled barrel than a smoothbore barrel, making rifled musket take longer time to reload.
Why is it that every "bad guy" has some sort of illness that favours the winning side or puts the person in a bad position? Hitler allegedly had parkinsons, mikro penis, one ball and mental disturbenses as well as drug abuse. Now Napoleon lost because he was sick? Some people take to much liberty when they write history, that's for sure.
That calvary charge though Mhm it is so cool i wish we didn't have all this future stuff now. I wish it was oldern day fighting like line infantry and Cav Charges.
What the fuck are those bearskins?
Ok just wanted to share what I've read:
1. Wellington referred to his soldiers as 'scum' because that's what they were, convicts, murderers, rapists, thats where the brits got their soldiers while officers were almost always rich people who bought their patent, while in France you had to join the army whether you liked it or not. That doesn't mean anything, the soldiers were proud of being 'scum', they were called 'red devils' by the french while the french were called 'frogs' by the brits. It also doesn't mean Wellington was cold to his soldiers, from what I've read he was like that with everybody. Also a sidenote, Horatio Nelson once was being followed by two spanish vessels, and he was with his crew in a small ship, running for his life, when a 'soldier' of his called Tom Hardy fell into the ocean, and Nelson was like 'by God I can't lose Tom Hardy!'. So he made them turn back the boat even though that would mean going to battle against two ships, but because he turned around the two spanish ships thought that he was turning around cause he had seen help coming from the horizon (why would he turn about ?), so they turned around too and run ! Lol ! But that only proves that's its not like the french are the good side of the force and the brits the dark side, like this documentary makes one belive.
2. The rifled cannon thing is indeed true, it gave such an advantage to the brits that they had a unique brigade, 'the Green Jackets', skirmishers who could shoot from 300 yards or more while the common rifle could be innacurate at even 50 yards. The downside is that it takes some time to reload it, and the French didn't have it cause Napoleon thought it was useless in battle.
I do Not Like diz dokumetnari
Naolaon got rekt skrub
On the eve of the battle of Waterloo Wellington was ridding in a carriage with some of his staff on the way to the Ball held that evening, someone asked Wellington how he though the battle would go , He looked out of the carriage window and his eye fell on a drunken British soldier staggering along the pavement with a prostitute on each arm , Wellington replied " It all depends on that article there " .
16:50 when you are caught by le mom using phone at 3am
Is the outcome of this not known to Americans? I can only presume not with the retarded questions in the first couple of minutes…'Can the British hold out against this onslaught?' , 'Will the allied forces defeat Napoleon?'……Naw!! The French cuffed the allies, thats why France still hold an empire stetching across Europe.
Also, again this switching between British and English, so casual, so deliberate. DO these people not realise England and Britain are not fucking synonymous??
the British army were all professional a large portion of the French army were conscripts .also the British army were all veterans of peninsula war
where was the charge of the British heavies?? and the countercharge of the French lancers and huzzahs? ??? a select pieces of the battle is displayed in this programme, and those of which was displayed were grossly inaccurate. where were the rifles in the sandpit? the troops of other allies that stood their ground?
the brave deeds of the French troops that suffered the charges of both heavy and light Cavalry?
Vive la France !
Very mixed content on here, a lot of bad interpretations milling around (in spite of it being a reasonably nicely made reconstruction) At @8:25 what is said there is a total revisionist misunderstanding of real historical context; ''The Allies declared war on him, so he did not create the war, the war came to him''…
erm, when even seconds earlier, it was rightly pointed out that Napoleon didn't want a war in 1815, mostly because he wasn't ready!
People can lie about these things and try and twist them all they like, truth is IF Napoleon was allowed to regain his Grande Armee's truth strength (as the Allies of the Coalitions had already seen him do multiple times e.g. when he came back from the disastrous campaign in Russia, even though he'd lost half a million men and almost all/if not all the tens of thousands of horses they took, and wasted millions from the French coffers, such was his fame and influence, that within months he'd rebuilt the Grande Armee to over half million man strong strength again) then it was asking for Napoleon to attack them again.
If anyone seriously things Napoleon Bonaparte would not have lunged straight for that chance if he could take it, then they must have forgotten that everyone friend or foe of Napoleon in his day, had to at least acknowledge his greatness.
Wellington himself, spoke of Napoleon that, on the battlefield, him merely being there made the difference of 40,000 men. His men would fight fanatically for him. Europe and beyond had been torn apart by conflicts lasting decades and here we see the Allies have a golden opportunity to bring Napoleon down.
Not only had Napoleon spat in the face of the clemency he was shown – as much as this video and others try and make it seem cruel Napoleon got a ''tiny Mediterranean Island'', actually I think he got very lucky to not be more severely punished for the warmongering he'd been responsible for and the treatment of Prussia for example. Blucher, for example, outright wanted Napoleon brought to Prussia to be trialed and executed for his war crimes. In fact, Blucher basically wanted to shoot Napoleon himself – but he'd deposed a new government of a Constitutional Monarchy of King Louis XVIII totally illegally. Of course, as many would agree, Napoleon was by far the better leader and the short-lived return of any kind of Monarchy in France, was bound to be kicked out again eventually, but the literal fact remains that Napoleon escaped exile and confinement to Elba, and with his 600 retainers and loyalists, and dodged British Royal Navy and French Monarchal Navy patrols, and basically invaded France to cause fresh rebellion against King Louis XVIII (who promptly scampered over to England in imposed exile, once he realised all his armies were defecting to Napoleon, getting out long before Napoleon got to Paris)
Napoleon knew exactly what he was doing. He didn't have to come back; he knew it'd be a gamble and he knew Britain and the other allies, who'd fought with him for so long, wouldn't tolerate him coming back without a fight.
Historians have argued for years. Yeah, from that part of the narrative of the historical events, the Coalition did declare war on Napoleon as an individual himself, and called him ''A disturber of the peace…and an enemy of humanity who needed to be stopped'' among other such things. But it was the way that the guy said it, I really don't like it. It sounds sympathetic to Napoleon. Fact is, it would be a fool to underestimate Napoleon, and a much bigger fool to sit idly by and let him act like a passive player in Europe, then sitting by and watching him rebuild the Grande Armee. Obviously they wisely distrusted Napoleon's intentions. Give Napoleon another 600,000 soldiers by 1816-17. See what happens. Does he just, sit around? I don't think so. Get real, I say.
Remember, Napoleon had once bullied on Russia and Austria and kept them under the duress of the French military machine in that time, to carry on the unhelpful ''Continental System'' against the British (where the French banned themselves and all of mainland Europe from trading with Britain, to make them lose the war – which failed catastrophically with the Russians especially thriving on trade with Britain, and wanting it back, getting more and more pissed off about it until they turned against Napoleon because it was harming their economy so badly) Napoleon still thought of them having betrayed him, and as far how Napoleon looked on the British…clearly he wanted to invade Britain throughout his career.
He gambled on splitting the Anglo-''mixed smaller factions'' forces under Wellington, from Blucher's Prussians; to send the British back to their ships and scatter the British allies e.g. the Dutch, and swing round on the Prussians and hit them with almost everything he had left. Though, massive Russian and Austrian armies were separately on their way to France regardless, so even if that perfect scenario played out for Napoleon – who by the way wasn't physically or mentally in the best shape at this point, lacking confidence in himself after the initial enthusiasm of his return, and riddled with illness and discomfort including having piles and a bad stomach – then the chances are, he'd lose anyway.
He must have known. But his pride came before his fall and he'd lost the gamble. Hindsight shows had he waited even just another year or two on Elba, if he returned then he would have come back to a more well recovered France (still far from its peak, but theoretically in far better shape than just coming right back to the war-torn country)
On Elba, the British and their allies allowed Napoleon to have a palatial mansion and gardens, to run Elba, to manage its infrastructure and organisation bodies, and to reign over it, with an honour guard of 1,000 frenchmen. Other defeated military leaders from history would have dreamed of being treated like that. Oh poor him, he got a Mediterranean island for a prison. Many would have been given only the gratitude of the blade or firing squad. It was what the likes of Blucher would have preferred (though Wellington certainly held Napoleon in high esteem and wouldn't have allowed that to happen to Napoleon)
Indeed, during the Battle of Waterloo, he forbade the British Royal Artillery (who had Napoleon in their line of fire for a fairly long time) from aiming and firing at him.
I just don't like the slightest insinuation that Napoleon's act of coming back in the first place, wasn't what really caused the renewed warring going on until and including Waterloo…
Truth is, Napoleon broke all the rules and should have known better.
But in his fears and impetuousness, he just couldn't stand the idea that Frenchmen and Frenchwomen would stop loving him. That his glory would fade. Ironic, considering his impact on history still stands to this day, and he is known far and wide to many tens of millions, even if just in passing for some, though in much greater detail for others, fascinated in his life. Truth is, Napoleon fucked up. It is that simple really.
Rifled muskets don't necessarily have better firepower than smoothbore muskets. They just have better accuracy. Because of the grooves in the way, it's harder to ram down through a rifled barrel than a smoothbore barrel, making rifled musket take longer time to reload.
Is it just me, or did they use some footage from Napoleon total war to describe this event?
This sounds like a replay over and over again
VIVE LA FRANCE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"fate of the world"
Sam Houston used the tactics Wellington employed at Waterloo, to defeat Santa Anna at San Jacinto.
Why is it that every "bad guy" has some sort of illness that favours the winning side or puts the person in a bad position? Hitler allegedly had parkinsons, mikro penis, one ball and mental disturbenses as well as drug abuse. Now Napoleon lost because he was sick? Some people take to much liberty when they write history, that's for sure.
I love wellington stregties as commander