Great video, very well put together.

Dear sir, yours reasoning is wrong the british had Richard Sharpe. And that my dear sir is actual soldiering

@danielomar9712

5 күн бұрын

Agreed !

Great video, a lot of research and delivered in an easy to understand format.

Excellent ideas in your video, not sure about some ideas but you give pause for thought.

Very well argued!Well done!

Great video busting many myths about the British army... I would love for this to be a series that covers every coalition army!!!

Excellent. I am working on a Waterloo campaign game and Napoleonic (and American Civil War) corps level system for a good publisher and this gets my thumbs up. Dropping you a subscription.

Looking through your comments, i see some that object with your video title and seem to not have watched the whole video. This is great work, better and more concise than others while also being detailed and logical. Your debubking of old long-held ideas is top notch. Keep up the work and i hope to see more videos out on further topics, this channel seems to be a hidden gem. I myself want to make a series discussing the waterloo campaign, and i hope to produce something as nuanced and intelligent as this.

Good video: very thorough and without being too long-winded.

First class. The stoicism of the Redcoat though was played down but another factor was the British army was a regular army, professional and often facing mass conscript troops which the cocky Brits looked down on giving them a sense of superiority. They had a certain hubris that stemmed way back to Blenheim.

@goltandburlach

3 күн бұрын

After all the beatings of the early peninsula hubris, not really the "professional army hubris is much later thing 1850s and later Wellington considered his troops scum and in most case was not far off. Experienced in fights and differences from others in Europe (volunteering rather than conscripted conscripted)

Sources cited within the first couple minutes. Great video! Happily subscribed

An excellent vid.

You forgot one important contribution to the British Army success, specially during the Peninsular War. The Portuguese. Not only did they burned out their own country under Wellington ‘s request (lines of Torres Vedras) in order to make life unbearable for the French, the Portuguese militia (ordenanças) made sure their suffering be even greater and very important, at least 30% of the British Army was Portuguese (not forgetting crack marksmen caçadores). Lastly, Wellington branded the Portuguese as the fighting cocks of the British Army.

@markdavids2511

5 күн бұрын

@@TimSerras as they should of been when fighting for their own country.

It seems to me that you describe the psychological impact very well - including that of the soundscape: The French view... Advancing from their form-up line after an indirect artillery preparation that left them a lot of ground to cover, so they started pot-shots that weakened their formation; The meeting with skirmishers, direct artillery fire - but the stoic silence of the British Infantry holding fire as the French crested the hill; That close range volley hitting you like artillery, and out of the smoke, three cheers followed by a bayonet charge. Look at it from the English side: Your officers have put you behind a hill, protecting you; Your officers are out to the front, placing themselves at risk, getting eyes on what is happening; The enemy crests the hill with their formation straggling as they try to reload and catch up with each other, so their fire-power - and smoke - is thinned; You see them go down under your volley and cheer, and before the smoke has cleared, you have at them with your bayonet. That would work. I'm with your line of thought.

I read the French account, as described, in Berwick many years ago , it does not however complete the story, as it was the artillery 12lb that often were the amassed to thin the ranks, that the French would employ indirect firing , as well as cavalry to do the work of the British Bayonet charge. British artillery during Napoleonic used round and grapeshot ,as opposed to indirect round and explosive shot. The French artillery was very good ,but against targets reverse sloped also depended upon the ground . Soft ground made the indirect fire less effective , in both maneuver of the guns and effect of the explosive. Unfortunately by WW1 this direct vs indirect artillery use proved the undoing of the BEF, as much as the machine gun . Alan Mallinson, 1914 Fight the Good Fight, worth a read.

Thank you for an excellent, and well balanced, summary of the key points.

@fintonmainz7845

13 күн бұрын

"Well balanced" Nonsense

@robgazzard4432

12 күн бұрын

​@@fintonmainz7845 i see your other negative comments in the chat. If you can not respect my opinion i suggest you do not comment further. Good day sir.

@fintonmainz7845

12 күн бұрын

@@robgazzard4432 if you cannot bear to be corrected when you're wrong: I would suggest that you don't interact with other people. Bye now

@robgazzard4432

12 күн бұрын

@fintonmainz7845 given I was expressing an opinion it can not be wrong. People dislike trolls, so I would advise you keep you unwelcome thoughts to yourself.

@fintonmainz7845

12 күн бұрын

@@robgazzard4432 I'm not the cause of your problems bob

Don't forget that the Swedes continued on with the innovations of GAII, with the Carolean infantry using similar tactic to even more devastating effect until 1721 and even later.

I take it you haven’t seen Ridley Scott, we were far better at trench warfare..

An interesting video, with some good tactical analysis, especially the point about limited availability of cavalry in the Peninsular War. However, I am surprised that one additional more strategic factor is not addressed - the fact that the British did not engage the best or the bulk of the French Grande Armee. There were two reasons for this. First, as you acknowledge, the high water mark of French tactical capability, and therefore its success, was 1804-07, before the Peninsular War. By 1808-09, the effects of attrition had started to diminish the quality of the French Army, but even so Moore was quickly bundled out of Iberia when Napoleon led his best troops into Spain. Second, after 1808, Iberia was a secondary seat of operations to that of mainland Europe; Napoleon starved it of prime troops especially after 1811. Nor was French strength in the Peninsula focused only on Wellington’s Army; Spanish regular and irregular forces tied up vast numbers of troops, preventing their concentration against Wellington. By 1813-15, the French Army was a poor shadow of the 1805 vintage. Had Wellington’s Peninsular Army faced the Grande Armee of 1804-07, and certainly in any strength, then it too would likely have been bested. When it did so finally at Waterloo, the French cupboard was pretty bare. Nevertheless, the result was ‘close’ and, arguably, only secured by the intervention of the Prussian’s from mid-afternoon onwards. More myths to be busted!

@ATimeOfEagles

14 күн бұрын

Great comment! Thanks, and I agree with much of what you've said. It certainly would have been interesting if the 'prime' Grand Armee, led by Napoleon, would have faced Wellington's 'Peninsular Veterans', though I think we would both agree who the likely winner would have been.

@DaniilDude

5 күн бұрын

Spain was the primary and, in fact, the main front from 1809 to 1812.

An Army Marches on its stomach stated Napoleon. English Breakfast. Eggs bacon sausage toms mushrooms black pudding fried slice tea. French Breakfast A croissant.

@lindsayheyes925

4 күн бұрын

😂

@goltandburlach

3 күн бұрын

Sure, can you find ot in Spain or Portugal?

@lindsayheyes925

3 күн бұрын

@@goltandburlach Yes but the sausages taste different.

wonder if buckshot rather than ball would have been more effective from muskets at those ranges?

Why? One word; Wellington. Good video, subbed.

@thedon8772

11 күн бұрын

No sorry the Prussians arriving to save Wellingtons arse!! Go and do some proper research.

@davidpryle3935

10 күн бұрын

I’d say the fact that at this stage of the campaign the very best of the French troops lay dead in the vastness of Russia, might have had some bearing on the result of the war.

@northernlight8857

7 күн бұрын

So Wellington was fighting the French all alone. Good to know.

Brits culturally have the best of both worlds; Germanic cooperation and Gallic flair... Greatest combination of teamwork and individual character

@skiteufr

13 күн бұрын

They don't have any gallic flair lol

@heofonfyr6000

12 күн бұрын

@@skiteufr said nobody with a brain ever

@jayonenote7527

10 күн бұрын

Doesn't seem to work on the Football pitch

@heofonfyr6000

10 күн бұрын

@@jayonenote7527 I don't know much/give a shit about football but I have enough intelligence to point out that the premiership is by far the best and most skillful by a long way... and that there are also more leagues in England than in every other country, meaning the England players play a lot more and better football than the others and are completely uninterested in training in or exerting themselves for a national team. what is a huge point of pride and the highlight of the careers of world football players is an annoyance for England players.

@heofonfyr6000

10 күн бұрын

@@skiteufr coming back to this comment thread I read your comment again, and while I probably said enough before... damn.... just damn, man.... you're out of your mind 😂 how in the hell does the UK, home to more Celts than any other western European country, not have Gallic flair? 🤡 are you completely insane?

Napoleon 1st won 47 battles, 7 were indecisive and 10 lost, name me a single general who has done as much since the time when humans discovered writing.

@FrereAlain-dc3kl

10 күн бұрын

Je pensais qu'il en avait gagné plus et perdu moins. Ça dépend peut-être ce qu'on appelle ''bataille.''

@FrereAlain-dc3kl

10 күн бұрын

Par exemple, la bérézina est une victoire contrairement aux idées reçues

@CROM-on1bz

10 күн бұрын

@@FrereAlain-dc3kl Je pense aussi que la majeure partie de sa plus belle campagne, la campagne de France a été englobée en une seule et même bataille. Alors que de mémoire il y a eu une centaine d'affrontements.

@paulmcgee1867

6 күн бұрын

No need completely unnecessary wars

@theprancingprussian

5 күн бұрын

There was a blinded Czech genral who never lost a battle in the Hussite wars, 20 - 100 casualties, peasants with farming tools against mounted knights

The reason why the British were so adept at war, was simply because they were use to fighting each other. The English and Scots constantly fought each other. It came to a point, through royal marriage, where both nations came together and combined their fighting men as one entity. The Europeans also fought dynastic claims against each other in mass groups armies. I don’t the British would’ve engaged in mass set piece battles against napoleons armies. The casualties would’ve enormous. It rather would’ve been small raids, cutting the enemies supply lines, outflanking them and picking them off tactics.

Which time ?

If my Patric o'Brien is correct, the navy hoped for three rounds every five minutes.

3 ranks is more fire power over time than 2. The way we kept winning is smaller battalions and faster formations less soldiers to get into position meaning more tim3 shooting.. this could break formations before they even form due to fast heavy losses. As the French ranks were forming into line they were in essentially a block formation. I.e. massive easy to hit target you don't need to be accurate just fast and consistant

@ a time of eagles, if you read a Sharpe book you will find British troops don't just fire quicker because of training and he gives a very good reason. Lol he says the British trained with live ammo when others didn't. So we are the only ones really training to shoot at all:)

I suspect it was more the British Training to wait till Enemy was too close to miss then aim low so as to miss less as well as reload fast that made the difference.

Boney thought he would win by lunch, Redcoats said, Tea breaks over lads, Get into em!

Drachinifel you tube for naval. British rations were twice that of french sailors, perhaps that explains the rate of fire. He even has a video where he recreates a week's rations. Did British soldiers eat more than the french?

Fun fact,more soldiers died at Waterloo in 1 day than in the whole of the American Revolutionary War (8 years).

@derin111

21 сағат бұрын

“Fun” is perhaps not the best choice of word?

@Anglo_Saxon1

20 сағат бұрын

@@derin111 I wasn't suggesting that people dying in war is fun in any way but i take your point.

@ 9:56 Here, my personal experience may help: In terms of accuracy? It depends. The earlier charge used for the Charleville is certainly more accurate than that of a Brown Bess. But that's not because of anything special regarding the Charleville. It's simply that the ball was a tighter fit (0.65'" for a 0.69" bore). IIRC, the ball in Napoleon's time was, however, closer to 0.62" or 0.63". It's not a big difference, but that does, in fact, decrease accuracy quite noticeably beyond ~80 yards. It's not dramatic, but it's still noticeable. If you compare that latter charge to the Brown Bess charge (0.69 in 0.75), then the two are actually about the same in accuracy. This is certainly what the Prussians observed in their weapons tests. Of course, all this is from a mechanical standpoint and assumes the soldier has gained mastery over either weapon. It tells us nothing about how easy it is to aim either weapon. In this case, the cheek rest that the M1777 and its corrected version come with helps with the consistency of aim, and having a dedicated front sight (instead of one doing double duty as a bayonet lug) helps the recruit learn to aim with the M1777, faster than the Brown Bess (at least, that's my experience). But that's still relative: I find that both are not that hard to learn. TBH, though, the M1777 and its corrected version are both superior to the Brown Bess, whatever the cartridge used. This is for reasons that have little to do with accuracy: they're easier to field strip and repair; they handle better (though admittedly, that's a low bar when it comes to muskets), and the construction is just stronger (and this for a variety of reasons). That's consistently been the case for French muskets since the 1720s in my experience: the muskets are better designed, easier to clean, fieldstrip, and repair, and just handle better (I own an M1746 French musket, as well as a long land pattern. No prizes for guessing which I prefer for sports shooting...)

A no brainer there. The French have always been beaten. By everybody.

@vincentlefebvre9255

9 күн бұрын

About no brainer....like you.....France is the nation with the most military victories in history ! Btw you should start reading books.

@Snuffy03

9 күн бұрын

@@vincentlefebvre9255 Really? Let's see. 100 Years War, the English. Various conflicts with England and Spain during rhe 16th and 17th Century France lost. Seven years war, 1754-1763, lost to the English. 1791-1804 Haiti beat them. Naval War 1796 to the US. Napoleanic period, lost to an alliance of European powers. 1860's lost to Juarez and his Mexican peasants. 1871, Franco-Prussian War lost to Prussia. WW1 almost beaten by Germany, saved by US intervention. WW2, surrendered to the Germans in 55 days! Also beaten by the Japanese in Indochina. 1945-1954, beaten by the Viet Minh. 1954-1962, beaten by the Algerians. Since then, if they did win, it's because they had allies like the US, Britain, and other NATO countries. So, read a history book? Maybe you should bone up on history.

We hid all there garlic and salad dressing...ho.ho.ho

Thanks for this video. An interesting line of argument. I agree with much of what you say. I'd like to offer a few observations: 1. When French infantry were deployed in line they showed as much grit and stoicism as the allied troops (in the Peninsular) e.g. Fuentes. 2. I agree with your emphasis on morale. Allied field and general officers were very good at judging when an enemy formation was ready to break ... 3. ... which leads to the point that the allied formations did not always volley then charge. There are plenty of accounts of more protracted platoon firing before the charge was made (i.e. one volley was not necessarily sufficient) ... 4. ... which then suggests you may have begged the line v column debate: because again there are plenty of accounts of; (a) the line wrapping around the head of a column; and (b) columns attempting to deploy under fire but failing. Personally I believe the controversy is in the nature of the question. It is one of those hypothetical "x was better than y" comparisons and to my mind they always ignore the context. A French infantry attack only ever met an Allied infantry defence in the context of a multitude of interrelated factors. Someone mentioned below the degradation of the French Army - and even that sits within the context of a nation so traumatised by decades of war that when the Allied army entered France the local people did not complain! I have read the argument that, by 1815, Napoleon headed an already failed social, economic and political system; and that this was reflected in a hamstrung general command system (certainly evident in Spain). Someone else mentioned Wellington himself. He had an untold impact on the morale of Anglo-Portugese soldiers (e.g. his reception at Sorauren). Even a Spanish force held off Soult's attempt to relieve San Sebastian (1813). It could be argued the French armies in western Spain began to lose faith in themselves after Bussaco; and that after Salamanca even the Generals had lost their self-confidence. I could go on. One of the things which always strikes me when reading the personal accounts of the Peninsular is the quality of tactical decision making by Allied field officers and brigade commanders. They seemed to know how to manoevre and deploy so as to create a local superiority of firepower, and how and when to exploit a brittle enemy formation. It's funny that Wellington is criticised for failing to allow subordinates the latitude to act independently, but he had a knack for placing formations in the right time and place, so they could do the job they became so good at. Finally, I think it's worth listening to Wellington's own opinion. Even in 1808 (in his personal correspondence with Castlereagh for example) Wellington believes he can beat the French: and his justification? Line versus Column.

If this is the case do u think the French could have made great use of this themselves during the Napoleonic wars in general or were the circumstances so different that only the British had more opportunities to use such deadly close quarters morale breaking tactics

@ATimeOfEagles

14 күн бұрын

A good question, but one that I think lacks a definitive answer, or at least so far as my current knowledge and understanding allows, however I'll give my thoughts: Interestingly, Marshal Ney does actually call for a similar technique in his military writings around 1804/5: ‘It would be better, therefore, after the two first ranks have fired, to charge boldly with the bayonet, and by an act of vigour force the enemy to retreat.’ As for why the French didn’t utilise it, I think the higher cavalry threat certainly played a role, but also the declining quality of the French troops as the wars progressed didn’t help. They also had a system that was working for the most part everywhere else, so perhaps they didn’t feel the need to change it. Plus, despite the British showing that it could be used on the offensive, generally the technique was most effective on the defensive, and for that reason I think that it simply may not have suited the French soldier, as Ney himself even admits to in the same writings: ‘The defensive system is ill calculated for the French soldier, unless his excitement be kept up by diversions and successive excursions.’ It is not to say that he couldn’t defend, but standing in silence waiting on the enemy to close was not in his nature. It could be done, as shown at Talavera, but generally he was just better suited to the offensive: ‘In offensive warfare, the French soldier has inexhaustible resources; his active genius, and his bravery in storming, double his energy...’

@mechaboy0226

11 күн бұрын

@@ATimeOfEaglesI see that’s a good way of putting and you are right the use of Calvary in central and Eastern Europe certainly rendered the tactic rather risky If only those very same legendary French Calvary that made an impact at ulm, Austerlitz, Jena, Eylau and Friendland were present in Spain in greater numbers

Not true the British and allied troops were at a numerical disadvantage by 4 thousand until 4 o clock only then did the arrival of the prussans St to make eny difference

We were part of an allied group against the French. What really gets to me is everywhere around the world they teach how wellington beat napoleon at Waterloo. Yet the French teach that napoleon beat wellington.

Blucher and the Prussians turned up and turned the tide....but that would ruin our loud patriotic songs.

Would it be reasonable to assume that compared to the other opponents of the French, they did not fight the British very often. Given that most European armies fought in a Prussian manner, the French trained their mostly conscript army to counter them instead of the British. So given their lack of focus on the British army, and the fact that the British were led by very competent commanders, who knew the strengths and weaknesses of their forces causes the British to have a very good combat record against them.

On the 3-rounds a minute and Sharpe, it is not an argument of those books and TV-shows that the British shoot 3-rounds a minute and the French don't, but that professional soldiers should be able to. Every time it gets brought up, it's because Sharpe is put in charge of a green line-battalion or company to get ready for battle, or is questioned on "what makes a good soldier". Its not presented as a unique British skill. Most often it's Sharpe who says to new officers and men "Can you shoot 3 rounds a minute? the French can, you better be able to as well!".

@ATimeOfEagles

14 күн бұрын

Good point! It is also fair to say as well that Cornwell does have the British using the volley and charge tactic in the first chapter of Sharpe's Tiger. The myth that the British fired faster certainly does exist though, and I used Sharpe as an example because I know that 3-rounds a minute is mentioned, plus it is easily relatable. Perhaps I was a little unfair on Cornwell to include it, but it just helped to get the point across :)

@guidokreeuseler9566

13 күн бұрын

@@ATimeOfEagles True, Sharpe is the most well-known reference to "shoot 3 rounds a-minute". And it is often misread/misheard/misinterpreted in a similar way to the mythical explanation of how the Americans won their War of Indpendence: "Americans used cover and skirmish tactics, the British didn't"

well, fix bayonets worked quite well in Iraq...

It's purely down to firepower. Column (French) against line (British). The line just allows more fire to be able to be brought to bear, particularly against a column, where only soldiers at the front or sides of the column can fire. The ones in the middle and rear of the column, the majority, can't bring their weapons to bear. Now that works in land, but going by Trafalgar, the opposite situation works at sea.

This guy knows too much

I repeat the brunswickers broke 3 times a waterloo and Wellington has to ralli them 3 times many of the allid units were not reliable he ha d to mixe British battalions in with them to steady them were he did this it worked division had no British and they broke and ran

The tactics were British if

From 1792 to 1815, the main opponents of the French were the Austrians, Russians and Prussians in terms of Battle's ratio. They were the ones who did the majority of the work on land by constantly competing against them.

@nathanrainey3821

16 күн бұрын

Who funded those nations ? Who defeated the French at sea all over the world ? The napoleonic wars can’t be one without the British contribution anyone educated in the subject with no bias will tell you that

@tibsky1396

16 күн бұрын

@@nathanrainey3821 Yes, the Brits mainly fought until the last drop of blood of their allies.

@nathanrainey3821

16 күн бұрын

@@tibsky1396 that’s just lie Cus the brits fought then on land multiple times, fought them all over the world on the sea and funded basically every other European power at one point so they could fight the French your literally just being bias or dumb on the subject

@tibsky1396

16 күн бұрын

@@nathanrainey3821 In terms of ratio, not so much compared to their allies since 1792. And it's facts, not bias.

@nathanrainey3821

16 күн бұрын

@@tibsky1396 keep crying the main reason France lost was Britain’s involvement start to finish other nations made peace fought them again a few later etc Britain fought them start to finish at land at sea using wealth to fund the rest of Europe without British involvement France wins keep crying

The British had disastrous and humiliating campaigns on Mainland Europe during the early war. They only had great success on the periphery or extreme of French control such as faraway Egypt where the French were literally starved and isolated but still put up fierce resistance that the British couldn't dislodge them until like a year after Napoleon's abandonment. The Iberian Campaign was characterized by retreats, pockmarked by sieges while the Hanoverian Campaign of 1805 was so bad it's almost forgotten in British historiography and national memory. When the lines between Britain and France were consolidated and Britain focused on the borders of French power, Britain still had a tough time until the victory of 1812. Even in Iberia, the British Army, so fragile due to its small size and always wary of French prowess, kept repeatedly retreating in order not to be destroyed, which was just common sense.

@JohnnieAshton

10 күн бұрын

We Won🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 You only fool yourself.

@silgen

2 күн бұрын

Funny how if you look at a list of battles from the Iberian Campaign, a large majority of them were British victories.

@EzekielDeLaCroix

2 күн бұрын

@@silgen Funny how you list the battles of the Afghanistan and Vietnam Campaign, all of them were American victories. Also, no. The Iberian Campaign vast majority were French victories that could not be capitalized on because of Spanish guerilla warfare and Coalition armies diverting French attention.. The British only won about 12-20(if you really stretch it) of the total 100+ battles that took place.

@silgen

2 күн бұрын

@@EzekielDeLaCroix Really? And how many of these "victories" were against the British?

@EzekielDeLaCroix

2 күн бұрын

​@@silgen Ok. I'll try to condense this in such a way that KZread won't consider it as delicious Spam. In 1807-08, Britain participated from the get go, taking part in two victories out of five against the French in Portugal, and lost the all important In 1808-1809, British participation was only two battles of which they won. While the heavy lifting was done by the Portuguese and Spanish forces at this period. In 1809-1810, Britain participated in about 4 battles. 1 Draw, 2 losses and 1 victory, which reset gains made by the Coalition earlier thanks to the Retreat at Corunna. 1810-1812 the British had 5 victories, 5 defeat, 2 draws. but it was practically a stalemate. The French could not pursue the Allies into Portugal as the Spanish efforts were intensifying and Napoleon was reeling from the 1809 Wagram in central Europe. After Napoleon's 1812 Campaign, the French were on the retreat and Britain snagged 3 victories, 3 defeat. In 1813 onwards, it's 5 victories, 2 defeats but at this point the French were exhausted from Spanish, Portuguese, British and incoming Central European coalition partners. So about 18 clear victories of British participation(I bundled them up with their allies) against the French 20.

Fun fact: The majority of those "British" soldiers at Waterloo were not british but rather belgian, dutch or german (KingGermanLegion, Brunswick, Nassau). Another point: Having 48,000 prussian soldiers at Waterloo probably also helped?!

@threestepssideways1202

15 күн бұрын

Any of us who have any knowledge of the Battle of Waterloo all know that. The argument normally is on the emphasis of what were the most important actions during the battle. The presentation, however, wasn't just referring to the Battle of Waterloo which makes it an odd thing to focus on given everything else said and the subject of the video

@xornxenophon3652

15 күн бұрын

@@threestepssideways1202 Well, I was quite surprised that he took Waterloo as an example while talking about the qualities of the British soldier. Spain would have been a far better scenario.

@threestepssideways1202

15 күн бұрын

@@xornxenophon3652 Well, we will have to agree to disagree, because I thought the emphasis was on the Peninsular War at least in the evolution of the British tactics against the French. The segment on Waterloo, though early in the running order, seemed to me to be an emphasis of everything learnt before hand, an exclamation if you will, and then he went on to describe why.

@jean-louislalonde6070

15 күн бұрын

The one time when the cavalry (so to speak) arrived right on time!

@paulhone6690

13 күн бұрын

Many of the Belgians ran away the brunswickers broke on three occasions and Wellington had to rally them himself

Excellent explanation: have you covered the French skirmisher and column tactics of the early French revolutionary army? Did they not have to stay in column because they lacked the skill to switch to line during an action? I think the title should be changed and be a bit more specific as to when you were talking about. I'm English: the French have actually beaten us more often than we have won in wars and usually victory was as a component in an alliance. Though the British track record is better than the English alone, the myth of the British victory at Waterloo does incentivise a sloppy chauvinistic attitude to the understanding of history.

How the British Beat the French - "How the British were one of the Allies beat the French." We did not do it alone by any means.

Field Marshall Blucher entered the chat .

"win out", is this the English language?

@imeantherearethedarktownsy5210

10 күн бұрын

Yeah? This is a commonly used term.

@davewolfy2906

10 күн бұрын

@@imeantherearethedarktownsy5210 wrong. It is a Muricanism. Not English.

@davewolfy2906

10 күн бұрын

@@imeantherearethedarktownsy5210 "Yeah?" Is that a question? In what language?

@alanbeaumont4848

6 күн бұрын

Yes, it means to win after a contest or struggle.

@davewolfy2906

6 күн бұрын

@@alanbeaumont4848 not in English English.

That said "Obliged", obligated is American, you have a strange American accent!

Sans l'arrivée des prussiens les anglais auraient pu rembarsuer comme ils en avaient l'habitude. Ils etaient plus juste de dire comment les anglais et les prusdiens ont battus Napoleon, sans oublier les belges les hollandais les hanovriens... . La pluie retardant les operations z permis aux prussiens d'arriver à temps.

Had the French used a mixed order formation at Waterloo; The Young Guard in Line with two columns of the Middle Guard (one on each side of the Young Guard line), the Thin Red line would have been destroyed!! But General Bonaparte failed to keep his tools sharp. The Orde de Mix formation was designed to defeat Fredrick the Great's linear formations, and it did. Bonaparte failed to train his infantry, but then he was a artillerist! General Friant was wounded at a very bad time causing the Middle Guard columns to stall. Waterloo was a comedy of errors for the French! To defeat the British tendency of hiding behind a ridge line was to maneuver against them. Don't do what your enemy wants make them react to your movements.

"How the British Beat the French". By having loads of Germans and United Netherlanders in our army.

Funny that the historical British picturing of Waterloo always downplays the part of the Prussian Release Army. Without Blüchers Flank-Attack the Outcome of the Battle would be much different. Also the key Part of the Non-British Soldiers in the Allied Army, from the newly founded United Netherlands, Hannover, Brunswick and Nassau which together formed the half of Wellington forces just disappeared in many nationalist paintings or other forms of historical rememberance. For Example the farmhouse of Lay- Haye Sainte which was crucial for the defense for Wellingtons Left Flank was garrisoned by Soldiers from Hannover and Hessen-Nassau alone.

@heofonfyr6000

13 күн бұрын

No it doesn't. Stop making things up. You just want to pretend Brits frame it that way so you can talk shit about them. You mentioned nothing any basic British student of Waterloo doesn't know a hundred times over. What's more you reveal your own brutal ignorance and immense bias by even bringing up Waterloo here... 🤦🏻‍♂️ British historians obviously focus on the Peninsula War when comparing British and French forces... a war I bet you know nothing whatsoever about. It would make no sense to go into Waterloo in detail in this context because of the high number of German, Dutch and other forces as well as the British Army itself there being practically raw and fresh out the box... and so they don't do it. This video is about comparing the general relative quality of British over French infantry, which was clearly superior... If you have nothing to say on the actual subject at hand then why comment at all? 🤷🏻‍♂️

By being alliet to shitton of other kingdoms and empires?

They beat the French only just, and with the assistance of their allies working in unison together, the weather, and poor decisions by Napoleons Marshals also contributed to Napoleon losing the day. It was a close call. The Kings German Legion did most of the difficult work. This never was a solo British victory. ^^

Forget the drill books, you're dealing with Napoleon. Flair and imagination. And if you look at the records of the battles, particularly the Penimsula War and how they plated out, your assertion that firepowervwas a myth, is wrong.

the title is completely false. We know that Wellington's army was not only made up of English but of several nations. moreover, towards the end of the battle, Wellington's men were not far from giving in. They owe their salvation to the arrival of Prussia on the right flank of the French

@bertherkendaal3598

13 күн бұрын

Just like the British won WW I and WW II

@pascalplantagenet4802

12 күн бұрын

@@bertherkendaal3598 he French won WW1 too and WW2 you owed your salvation to your island. Even Russia owes its salvation to its immense territory because no country could have beaten Germany at the start. Besides, it took the USA, Russia, Britain, France, Canada... to beat Germany

@bertherkendaal3598

12 күн бұрын

@@pascalplantagenet4802 I am not britsh and that is what I meant, it was a joint efford and not just one country

@user-xt9kl1vm3z

10 күн бұрын

​@@bertherkendaal3598wasn't that the Americans 😂

@silgen

2 күн бұрын

"Not far from giving in", you mean when the broke the Old Guard?

😂 you are just making it up

Sorry but your homework is poorly researched and faulty. 3/10 You must try harder.

The British did not defeat the French

@JohnnieAshton

10 күн бұрын

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

Aside from maritime victories, British victories against the French during that time were all with the UK as part of a coalition against France. This typically British habit of self-aggrandisement through highly selective interpretations of history is truly tiring.

@FelixstoweFoamForge

15 күн бұрын

No one denies that it was a coalition war. The subject of the video is at the tactical level; why did British, or British-trained infantry, like the Portuguese, consistently repulse their French opponents? That's a historical fact. To examine it's aspects is no more self-aggrandisement than to look at the reasons the Americans did so well in single-ship duels during the War of 1812.

@heofonfyr6000

14 күн бұрын

The habit you speak of is utterly non-existent among the British. It is however paramount in continental minds, as you just demonstrated by entirely missing the point.

@user-aero68

14 күн бұрын

@@heofonfyr6000 Saying that historical self-aggrandisement is "utterly non-existent among the British" must be one of the biggest examples of self-delusion I have come across

@charliereader3462

14 күн бұрын

Seems to be an awful lot of spite directed from the continent towards British history these days. Celebrating successes and achievements is fine if you’re French or Dutch or Spanish. But god forbid if those perfidious Brits dare to open their mouths

@user-aero68

13 күн бұрын

@@charliereader3462 It's not spite. Fact is the British tend to harp on and on about their history and achievements. Europeans generally do it far less frequently, and when they do they do so in a far more balanced manner.

How the Brits won? Because prussians came to the rescue 😂! Otherwise Bonaparte would have won

Was it not said you can not stand face to face with the Brittish and win. As the Brittish would not brake.

the title is completely false. We know that Willington's army was not only made up of English but of several nations. moreover, towards the end of the battle, Wellington's men were not far from giving in. They owe their salvation to the arrival of Prussia on the right flank of the French