Excellent essay. Well researched and presented. I look forward to seeing how this channel develops. 👍
@SirGalahadC20 сағат бұрын
10:11 The grenadier, who specializes in melee and shock combat, asking if it was a club is hilarious. Edit: first timestamp was horrible.
@keeperofthecheese23 сағат бұрын
I've seen it said in many documentaries that the french struggled to maintain formations over distance, and really struggled to form line near the enemy.
@jackofswords7Күн бұрын
I doubt the French could fire faster because the French were, in large part, conscripts. And deploying conscripts from column into line must have been a nightmare for French officers. Basically, British discipline defeated French ardour and noise which is probably what defeated many other of France's adversaries who also lacked discipline.
@ATimeOfEaglesКүн бұрын
The French firing faster did surprise me somewhat, but sources from all sides do seem to suggest it to be the case. The sources used in the video were actually from British officers who witnessed it first hand, many of whom are unlikely to downplay their own troops, and so if they say the French fired faster, I’m inclined to believe them. Remember though, fast fire does not always equal accurate fire. You are right that the French were mostly conscripted, but the word itself doesn’t simply imply poor quality of troops. La Grande Armee were mostly conscripts and yet were probably the most tactically proficient and disciplined army of the period. Of course the British never fought this army, and absolutely the quality of the French ‘conscripts’ decreased as the wars went on, but they were still, very often, capable troops. The biggest impact for the decrease in French quality to my mind, was not the increasing number of raw recruits, but the ever decreasing amount of experienced officers. Marching in columns or lines is not that difficult, but having the experience of when to use certain formations is the part that the French begin to miss. On the flip side, for many of these British ‘volunteers’, it was often a choice between begging on the streets, prison, or join the army. So yes, they technically volunteered, but rarely did it mean that they wanted to be there, or that they held some deep seated hatred of the French or Bonaparte, or held any desire to be a soldier. They were often not the best and brightest that Britain had to offer, and there is a reason that Wellington (unfairly) refers to them as the scum of the earth. I also think that you are being very unfair to the other adversaries of the French in this period, by suggesting that they all lacked discipline. The were fine and brave troops, often drilled to the ninth degree, particularly the Prussians. The French simply brought a new style of warfare which gave them the edge over these nations. The British were not the only disciplined troops. It is exactly why I was motivated to research this topic because it never sat right with me the whole idea, too often pushed, that the British were just simply superior. They weren’t, but I couldn’t deny that they were winning a higher proportion of tactical engagements against the French than other nations. So they must have been doing something differently. Hence the video :)
@1943colinКүн бұрын
If the British beat the French, how is it that they control no part of France as they once did? This is just typiclal British arrogance!
@rogerdubarry85052 күн бұрын
The British charge was introduced by Wolfe, who saw its effectiveness as employed by the highlanders during the Jacobite uprising. He incorporated it into British methods in Canada.
@andrewhodgson87532 күн бұрын
They didn't. The Prussians did.
@Ftanftangfnarrr2 күн бұрын
They paid other countries to do most of the fighting.
@iantait3092 күн бұрын
One area not covered is British gun power, which I belive was better than the French.
@juliantimothy89452 күн бұрын
The Superiority of the Royal Navy over the French and Spanish navies during the Napoleonic Wars like those of the 18th Century was that the Fleet was at sea blockading French fleets in port keeping the British Tars at peak fitness, and perfrormance whilst repeated cannon practice from clearing the decks for action meant that not only was the average Royal navy ship able to clear for action faster than its opponents, with the possible exception of the Dutch Fleet, the Royal navy also practised gun drill and gunnery to minimise the time a warship could "Clear For Action" and deliver a heavier rate of Fire. The rather unique British practice of paying Prize Money for captured ships made many sailors and especially their officers, very rich - Especially for the smaller warships below the size of Frigate because they had vastly greater options for taking prizes. Indeed, for most of the most effective Royal Navy Officers such actions made their names and fortunes securing them fame and advancement in a service were advancement was on merit up to Post Captain and 'Buggins Turn' after that to Admiral with a few exceptions of very effective naval officers getting early appointment to admiral on merit. The Fire Superiority and Fire Discipline of the British Infantryman does in fact go back to the English Civil War where two sides could blaze away at each other all day using the European Method of open files so that a row of Muskeeteers could either fire and retire to form a new back rank to load leaving the second row to fire and retire likewise OR for the front rank to fire and have the loaded rear rank pass through to the front to form a mew fire rank for the unit to fire and advance. Enormous quantities of expensive powder was consumed which was a major difficulty for the Royalists. At the same time Montroses Royalist Army in Scotland was winning victory after victory in Scotland by forming in 3 or 4 closely packed ranks and advancing very close to the enemy and firing a devastating first volley at very close range followed by dropping their muskets and charging home with their swords and targets to break their opponents. In England both sides and the Royalists mainly adopted a modified version of Montroses tactics by advancing to very close, less than 20 paces, with their musketeers in 3 or 4 closely packed carrying loaded muskets to advance quickly alongside their pikemen to fire a single massed volley at very close range followed by charging home with clubbed muskets alonside their pikemen - usually enough to break a regiment using conventional European Tactics. Against Cavalry the tactic was to hold fire to an even closer range, less than 10 paces, with 6 to 8 muskets firing at each mopunted man in the cavalries front rank - enough to bring down the entire front rank and saome of the second rank either stopping an enemy cavalry charge dead OR breaking a cavalry unit using a pistol caracole against them. After the Civil War the New Model Army adopted the fire tactics under Cromwell in the wars against the enemies of the British Commonwealth. The fire tactics continued in the British Army after the Restoraration in an army continually at war from the end or the English Civil War to the peace of UItrecht, the Peace Treaties signed between April 1713 to February 1715 to end the War of the Spanish Succession also known in the UK as the Malburian wars. Brtitish Fire discipline and Fire Tactics continually evolved between the end of the English Civil war and the end of the Seven Years War in 1763. The technological changes were the complete replacement of matchlock muskets requiring a slow burning match to fire the musket with firelock muskets using a flint to strike a spark to fire. The speed of loading and firing was improved by first replacing the wooden ramrood with an iron ramrod and then the 12 apostles with paper cartridges and improved musket drill reducing the number of steps and commands to fire and load a musket speeding up the rate of fire. The need for pikes was reduced and ended by introducing a Bayonet to fit to the musket to convert the musket to a spear - initially a plug bayonet that was pushed into the muzzle of the musket barrel preventing the musket being loaded and fired and then the ring baynet that fitted to the outside of the barrel allowing the musket to be loaded and fired with the bayonet attached. Throughout the period from the end of the English Civil War to the end of the Seven Years War the French persisted in firing halted 4 ranks deep and opening fire at ranges in excess of 100 yards when the vast majority of musket balls would bury themselves in the ground short of their target causing minimal casualties whereas British Fire doctrine was to reserve fire until the range was less than 30 paces before firing a devastating first volley. Before the introduction fo iron ramrods and paper cartridges o facilitate efficient musket loading the charge to break the enemy would include pursuing the broken enemy BUT with efficient loading Battalions were required to halt on the enemy position and reload to face new enemies and especially the enemy second line to defeat them. The British Army soon dropped the 4th rank as their presence was to replace casualties in the first 3 ranks that could fire with a very complicated manouvre to lock the first 3 ranks into a firing position so all 3 ranks could fire increasing the time taken between firing volleys - something not needed for a 2 deep line thereby increasing the rate of fire fo a 2 deep line. Depending upon its fire discipline the battalions of the British Army carried out regular musket drills to ensure that in the heat of battle musket drill would be second nature to its men - The French Napoleonic armies did not bother with such live firing musket drills - I read somewhere that a French Recruit would complete his training firing a maximum of 10 individual rounds and not in a battalion firing exercise. The only other nation that carried out regular battalion firing exercises was the Prussian army often with targets comporising a cloth battalion frontage in which after each volley the number of holes was through the cloth were counted - I have the anaysis somewhere (I think in the Prussian Infantry Regulations of 1756) that proved very few bullets would hit an opposing battalion at ranges above 40 or 50 paces. The purpose of such target practice was to demonstrate to the offciers and men what an effective range was and where to point a levelled musket at that range for the fire to be effective. With regard to Battalion Volley Fire it can only be used when a battalion is stationary and a reserved first volley is very effective against attacking Infantry and charging cavalry BUT cannot be used effectively in attack or against supporting cavalry BECAUSE supporting cavalry can charge home before the infantry is reloaded. For that reason the British and Prussian Armies adopted platoon fire with a battalion divided into 8 equal size fire platoons that keep up a continuous fire by firing in pairs. Platoon fire is ideal for keeping a continuous fire up whilst advancing or retiring and holding a reserve fire to use against charging cavalry. The long peace of 25 years between the peace of Utrecht and the start of the War of the Austrian Succession meant the British Army had no battalion officers experienced in British fire tactics and British Infantry started the War of the Austrian Succession battalion volley firing at ranges over 100 tards like the French and lost their advantage over the French. British Battalion officers and their battalions had to learn the hard lessons of the previous 100 years again and when they did they could defeat the battalion volleying French foes with ease. In both the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War British Infantry were able to advance in line against multiple lines of French cavalry forcing them to charge and defeat the the frontal chage with devastating short range fire proving that well trained infantry could defeat charging cavalry whilst in Line - The Prussians also did the same against the Austrian Cavalry at Mollwitz in 1741. Wellington's Peninuslar Army were well drilled and had regular battalion firing exercises so that Wellington could depend on the fire discipline of his infantry battalions in the heat of battle and for his battalion officers to make the correct use of that fire discipline in battle to defeat the French - Namely reserving the frist fire to 30 paces or less followed by an immediate bayonet charge against a shaken enemy. I think it is worth noting that the Napoleonic tactics used by the French during the Napoleonic Wars were not developed by Napoleon BUT by the Ancien Regime Royal strategists such asJean-Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval; Jean-Pierre du Teil; Jacques Antoine Hippolyte; and Pierre-Joseph Bourcet - New thinking developed to find a way to defeat the British Infantry superiority on the battlefield against the Fremnch for the previous 100 years. They moved the French Army away from the Linear infantry tactics of Prussia and Britain dependant on musketry and emphasised the "flexible use of artillery" to dominate the battlefield and replace the fire power of the infantry and abandoned the cadenced slow marching in lines across the battlefield to maximise a unit's firepower in favour of rapid manouvre to attacking in columns and their specially developed "Ordre Mixte" for the French Demi-Brigades comprising a 3 battalions - the flanking battalions in Columns of Attack to provide the shock tactics supported by the firepower of the 3rd battalion deployed in line in the centre between the 2 battalions deployed in column. The second wave of the Old Guard attack at Waterloo was in Ordre Mixte comprising 3 battalions fo Grenadiers.
@ATimeOfEagles2 күн бұрын
Thanks for such a detailed and interesting comment. I'm not going to address all of it because I feel I mentioned much of it in the video. However, one thing you state: 'Against Cavalry the tactic was to hold fire to an even closer range, less than 10 paces' is not likely because if a charging horse is brought down that close, its momentum will simply career into the defenders. 30 paces is the usual 'last chance' for firing at charging cavalry from what I've read, so as to avoid the wounded horse crashing into the formation. In terms of the French tactics, I have a video discussing their development coming very soon, same with order-mixed. As for the Guard attack, the second wave was three battalions as you say, but it was made up of two chasseur and one grenadier battalion, all of which, as far as I'm aware, where in squares.
@Praeses043 күн бұрын
Its very interesting that British infantry tactics seem so similar in spirit to the Caroleans Sweden used over a century ago to punch above their weight as well. The power of morale/discipline and well timed shock
@richardscales95603 күн бұрын
Short range volley followed by change. Sounds very Roman. Pilum and Gladius
@mathswithgarry71043 күн бұрын
Goddammit, I am never going to believe anything ever again, ever!
@Dlugia23 күн бұрын
Highly impressed with this video and research. Rare to have details like this on YT for this era of history. Well done!
@harryzero15664 күн бұрын
Firing 3 rounds per minute was possible if the infantry was standing.
@rowlandmak4 күн бұрын
The French lost almost all of their veterans in Russia in 1812. The French the British faced at Leipzig and Waterloo were much less experienced, thus affecting their efficacy.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
Leipzig? - As for Waterloo that's a pretty ocmmon myth, after the war with all the prisoners and garrisons released the French had more then enough trained/vetran troops to put in the field at Waterloo, while a good portion of the British veterans where either disbanded or sent to America at the time of Waterloo, only the 5th Division was a largely veteran formation.
@gigie5554 күн бұрын
History is written by the victors. The myth is that the British beat the Grande Armee. It was the Russian invasion of 1812 and to a lesser extent the Spanish occupation war that proved Napoleon's downfall. The last big battle that sealed his fate was the Battle of Leipzig, where Russia and it's Austro Prussian allies won decisively. Waterloo wasn't even a sideshow as by then his Grande Armee was reduced to a ragtag bunch of recent young conscripts. Easy pickings for Wellington. Similar to WWII, the US-British often make a similar claim when it was in fact the Soviet Union that finished the Wehrmacht. By the time they made their big charge on the Normandy beaches, Hitler's army was already badly beaten and bloodied on the eastern front. The same fallacy again....if it wasn't for the US and the British, we would all be speaking German. LOL The US-British are great at finishing wars, but not at enduring them.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
You just read the title and didn't watch the video did you...
@gigie5553 күн бұрын
@@Delogros I did watch the video and all it discussed was military tactics. But the title of the video was very misleading, was it not?
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
@@gigie555 Not in the slightest no... What would you have called it "how the british generally beat the french including but not exclusivly Waterloo" - At no point in the video did he claim the British defeated the "grande Armee", everyone knows thats the French army that went into Russia... and stuff like this " it wasn't for the US and the British, we would all be speaking German" The only people in my experience that say that are Americans to the British when they want to annoy us, no one says it seriously... In any case US and british support for the USSR came in more ways then simply the Western front, without the almost 30,000 aircraft and 13,000 tanks the USSR would have been in some serious trouble... The supply system here went one way but that's fine it's what allies do but lets not pretend it wasn't important as well.
@gigie5553 күн бұрын
@@Delogros There was no way the Soviet Union received 30,000 aircraft and 13,000 Tanks from lend lease. They received a few thousand trucks and Shermans, a few hundred aircraft etc The Soviets produced most of their own...T-34 tanks., artillery and Sturmoviks and they were the workhorses of the Eastern front, But please stick to my main point....was the title of the video misleading?...."How the British Beat the French"??? Would you not call that BS?
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
@@gigie555 I only know the British numbers off hand, 7,500 aircraft, 5,220 tanks so I've simply extrabilated a likely amount the US sent, it's going to be at a bare minimum 18,000 aircraft however. "hey received a few thousand trucks and Shermans, a few hundred aircraft etc" i don't use this word lightly but that is an outright lie... In the early part of the war after the USSR front lines had collapsed and they had lost much of their equipment it was lend lease that kept them afloat, ultimately home production would take over you're right but not in the first months after the invasion. i already answered your "main point" it was literally the first thing I answered... I would call your misinterpretation of the title BS and mostly because no one thinks that way except people who are already a little insecure about this topic, no reasonable history books omit who did what in the Napolionic wars though I find a lot of continental folk like to ignore Britain, portugal and Spain and though I understand why to some degree it does seem a little silly given those where the first armies into mainland France.
@philipcoriolis66144 күн бұрын
Hubris
@HuwiteNFI4 күн бұрын
Thouroughly enjoyable video.
@robertmills86404 күн бұрын
Excellent Presentation 👍👍👍
@shirleywells43134 күн бұрын
wellington would have lost the battle ,without the arrival of the prussians, propaganda overides truth.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
I'm not really sure how that's relevant... I mean Wellington gets more credit for Waterloo because he fought the entire day blucher didn't and no one denies the Prussians where needed for the victory but their arrival was part of a plan it wasn't some random event based on Bluchers amazing strategic skills... in fact he was much later then he should have been. the 2 armies needed each other for various reasons, Wellingtons army was new and multinational which caused logistical and command and control problems while Bluuchers army had a fair amount of militita in it to make up the numbers, bluchers failure at ligney despite a numerical advantage in men and canon shows that.
@Andre993284 күн бұрын
Actually the Prussians did beat the French at Waterloo. Without them the British Army would have been wiped out.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
Not actually true, for a start the Prussians where late them ariving was part of the plan, second it was the Anglo-Allied army not the British army and 3rd Wellington had stationed 2 full divisions less then 2 miles North to cover a retreat if he had to make one, his army in all liklihood would have been able to withdraw with such a strong rear guard and an exhausted Ferench army.
@Andre993283 күн бұрын
@@Delogros both the British and the French army were almost broken when the Prussians arrived. Napoleon had do divert a substantial amount of troops to fight the Prussians on his right wing. Those troops would have made the difference. The British army was in no shape to perform any operations whatsoever, so devastated was the British army. The pursue of the French army was conducted by the Prussians. Napoleon would still have lost the war, but the British army would have been destroyed.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
@@Andre99328 The French army was in much better shape then the Anglo-Allied army, this is partly because Welligton didn't fully trust his 17,000 Dutch troops because of their history with France for the past 2 decades and as a result he didn't commit them until he had to but it meant Welington was essentially outnumbered by 21,000 men. Napoleon diverted roughly 14,000 men to fight the Prussians, the bulk of the French pressure was still on Wellington. The Anglo Allied army could have withdrawn if it wanted to... when you get beaten up for a while as an army that doesn't somehow make you imobile, the French where also exhausted especially their cavalry which would have made withdrawing even easier. i also really wish you'd stop calling it the "British army" innacurately. Correct, unlike the British who had been fighting all day the Prussuan light cavalry was fairly fresh, Allied cavalry had been quite badly mauled stopping French cavalry and infantry attacks. Afraid not, in all liklihood the Anglo-Allied army would have retreated in tact to the North along it's lines of communication, however the Prussian army caught near Brussels on it's own might have been in trouble caught between Napoleon and Grouchy. At the end of the day Welingtons army held and the Prussian army flanked, typical hammer and anvil and the anvil may not be the glamorous part of the tactics but it's arguably more important then the hammer, Wellington held for longer at Waterloo on his own then Blucher managed at ligny despire the Prussians enjoying a significant manpower and artillery numerical advantage, Wellington was outnumbered and had almost 100 less canon then the French did but by the time the Prussians arrived he'd held for over an hour longer then they managed at Ligney.
@thomasmain59865 күн бұрын
Napoleon was not the commander he had been, not even a year ago in 1814 where he had fought a a epic campaign against overwhelmingly powerful Allied armies. He allowed the French to squander their advantages, if the French had not attacked Wellington's defensive position, the day would have gone better for them. Wellington had created killing zones on the slopes in front of his position, due to the terrain, his army had some protection because of the Ridge were he could hide the bulk of his army. What was required was some tuning maneuver probably through Papelotte turning the British left and getting the French artillery onto the Ridge firing along the ridge not at it. Hougomont and La Haye Saint should have been left well alone. With the Second Corp dropping back to reserve to support the 1st Corp.
@Demun16495 күн бұрын
The English fought against the French 41 times, and lost 24 times, so the ENGLISH are way behind. The English did not win Waterloo, they were beaten, troops were running away to Brussels. If Blucher had not stayed true to his promise, the English would have lost.
@spitsfreeman4 күн бұрын
British.
@Demun16494 күн бұрын
@@spitsfreeman The Britons are the indigenous people, the CELTS. There was NO "Britain" until the Ac of Union. It was ENGLAND who LOST the One Hundred Years War. Your comment shows the inadequate education of history in the Anglo-Saxon-dominated lands they illegally occupied between 420 and 600 AD.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
That sounds like far to few times... Also worth pointing out France on land was far far more powerful then England then Britain was, i nthose 41 battles (I still think it's more) how often do the French outnumber the English/British I wonder, and whats the tally in naval battles?
@Demun16493 күн бұрын
@@Delogros "I stil think it's far more". Hardly the quote of a student of history, who uses references. I strongly suggest, basically because I am a trained teacher, that you purchase the "Encyclopedia of War", all 3 volumes, written by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod. They are very expensive, but if you did buy them, and then study them, you would KNOW, rather than just "assume", "deduce", or "presume". The use of the word, "think", is not the phrase of an educated person. Mind you, you could refuse to be educated, to know rather than "pseudo-think". But then you wouldn't KNOW that your country has existed for 247 years, had just 16 years of peace in that time, and has been at war for 93% of its existence. You are not worth conversing with. BLOCKED.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
@@Demun1649 Jesus, i wasn't expecting a crying session from you ROFL
@m.h.gpaterson86325 күн бұрын
An excellent coverage - thank you - but - somewhere in an Infantry Field Manual of the time, I formed a slightly different opinion of the "volley fire". Yes, volley and charge - but a slightly different emphasis. TLDR. Assuming full strength battalions - circa six companies of 100 +/- 20. The "Colour" company was smaller - perhaps 50 men around the Ensign and the Regimental colour. The Colonel being in command. A battalion would deploy in two lines - the men one arms-length apart (as still today). with the rear rank then taking half a pace to fill the space between the men in the front rank. The battalions would be arrayed with the light company on the left flank and the grenadier company on the right flank. The Colour company in the centre - with usually three companies deployed either side. The Light company would deploy forward as skirmishers, falling back as the enemy advanced, then falling back into line on their left flank positions. At the appropriate moment - the Colonel would give the order to fire to the front rank of the Colours .... with the companies on either side taking fire in succession. Then the rear rank would receive the order to fire - with the successional effect along the whole line. Three rounds a minute was normal, with the first volley loaded of course - so perhaps four in the first minute or so. It might take something like fifteen seconds for the front rank to complete its whole volley - with the centre (rear rank) volleying after (say) ten seconds. This continuous run of fire would account for both the French and the Americans reporting that it was like someone running a stock down a picket fence. Then - the bayonet charge - once the Colonel judged that the enemy was suitably confused. Three ranks - and sometime four if there were sufficient men - was the usage for squares, as the front rank was kneeling. As I remember - the two standing ranks fired volleys into the approaching cavalry (much as described), firing at approx. 100 yards (horses are bigger and the aim point was the horse), then at say 60 yards with a final - double volley - including the kneeling rank, who then braced their weapons against their knees. Horses don't like sharp pointy things. Finally - the point of aim. I don't know when it began, it may well have been Marlborough (or before), but the chant of the sergeants was "Aim for the balls" (and heaven help the soldier that aimed high). I note that this was still the chant of the sergeants in my Service days .... albeit some 150 years later.
@SteveRose-iq1cs6 күн бұрын
The British army was supported by Portuguese and Spanish during the Peninsula war. And the Prussians dipped the valence at Waterloo.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
Mostly Portugese, regular Spanish forces didn't do much to help the British and vice versa till about 1812, after the battle of Talavera Wellignton had serious trust issues not overly helped by the battle of Barosa later as Cadiz and the Spanish just generally had trust issues all the way through, not unreasonably.
@uncletiggermclaren75926 күн бұрын
The french won, because Nappy CONVINCED THEM that they could win. They are really dangerous if they BELIEVE en mass , and third rate as soon as they stop believing, as anyone who has watched them playing a team sport knows. NEVER let them get their heads up, or even The Mighty All Blacks are no match for them. And Wellington reinforced and defended and maneuvered and defended and retreated and defended, and each time the French DID NOT WIN . . . until they started to doubt, and then it was just a matter of destroying them. A war that we understood not came over the world and woke Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke. They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people's reign: And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again. Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then; Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men. In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains, We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains, We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought, And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke; And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke. C. K. Chesterton.
@jasonallen17127 күн бұрын
Great video.
@Arltratlo7 күн бұрын
did you know, many Brit soldiers in Waterloo been Germans, the ones at the hot spots been the Kings German Legion...i know, its not taught in UK school books! plus: Wellington had lost without Blücher and the Prussians...
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
It's literally in all UK books, not really school books becayuse we don't generally cover this period in great detail. Wellington held until the Prussians arrived which was all part of the plan, neither could win without the other as Ligney proves.
@Arltratlo3 күн бұрын
@@Delogros funny, we did it in history class... we have a Waterloo memorial at our old cementary, with the names of the fallen soldiers of our town militia.... many local men went to England, to fight against Napoleon... in the Kings German Legion in Spain and later at Waterloo
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
@@Arltratlo if you can find me a book where the KGL isn't mentioned i'd be impressed, Wellington thought the KGL where some of his best troops and he activly thought they where his best cavalry... anyone who is read a British history book knows about the KGL... it's weird to me that other countries with no evidence think the British obscure the facts like that :S
@DieNibelungenliad8 күн бұрын
An excellent video! I would add the French columns had a propensity to fire from afar and then rush forth with light cavalry leading the charge at what they thought were weak men ahead, only to be mauled by a line of close range British gunnery followed by a charge
@fundamentos34398 күн бұрын
They didn't. The British Empire of the XIXth. Century was founded on the millions of dead of Continental soldiers.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
What are you on about?
@vickyking34088 күн бұрын
Surely the british praticed with live fire,where as the french did not! Further more the french lost a lot of the verts and had a lot of raw conscribes
@CrichtonNo58 күн бұрын
Such a fantastic video, so well researched and preset es and yet like every English KZreadr talking history of this period, completely unable to look up the pronunciation of the name Dundas.
@AdrianBritton10 күн бұрын
Really enjoyed your video on the balloon, shame Napoleon didn't have one at Ligny (amongst other battles) to clarify who the column was approaching from his left! I look forward to more videoss from you.
@huntergray398510 күн бұрын
I saw the title and all I could think was 'which time?'
@britishmuzzleloaders12 күн бұрын
Fantastic video. Great analysis that maintains the 'proper' view of looking at British successes vs the French.
@acidpunker113 күн бұрын
How did we beat the French? Coz we're f££king English! - Doesn't need a video!
@scorpa692913 күн бұрын
Cold steel and gin.
@davidkemp421213 күн бұрын
La bataille la plus importante c'est la derniēre. Le soldat anglais était plus discipliné que le soldat francais pas plus courageux.
14 күн бұрын
Yes,the French manoeuvred in column but,almost,always against the British,they were doing the attacking.Switching from column to line was a delicate matter as when best to do it.
@santander631716 күн бұрын
Thank you
@minot.893116 күн бұрын
Wellington fought sitting on his arse. The defence of a reverse slope suited the British volley and charge tactic... but since it was an entirely unimaginative tactic, indeed arguably a lack of of tactics, Wellington is rightly in my opinion not universally regarded as a great general.
@Ubique29278 күн бұрын
Absolutely incorrect with useless reasoning.
@DieNibelungenliad8 күн бұрын
I'd rather beat my foe from the comfort of my home than be running for my life
@knightowl357716 күн бұрын
" They don't like it up 'em!"… Corporal Jones.
@thomasscullion944916 күн бұрын
BRITISH ARMY NOT ENGLISH
@Demun16495 күн бұрын
With a majority of the enslaved Celtic population.
@hariseldon25775 күн бұрын
It was a direct quote from Napoleon, not the author of the video.
@hariseldon25775 күн бұрын
@@Demun1649 Never had slavery in Britain for almost 1000 years. Your chip is showing.
@thomasscullion94495 күн бұрын
@@hariseldon2577 well he was wrong as well
@Demun16494 күн бұрын
@@hariseldon2577 WOW. THAT is an ego. Stealing the name of the best brain in the entire history of the human empire. You are an insult to all thinking people. And if I was in charge of the Asimov Estate, I'd have you in court immediately. No slavery in almost 1000 years. So, no slaves since 1024? You might be fair at psychohistory, but you know nothing about social history. Serfs, from 1066 until 1665, were, in the full definition of slavery, tied to the land and the local rulers, couldn't go anywhere without written permission. A woman, on her wedding night, had to spend the night with the local petty lord of the manor. Tenant farmers, and beast holders, had to seek approval for every sale, every trip to market. 1665 ruined the criminal exploitation of free people. In the 1800s, workers in mills and factories were owned by the business. In 1922, we won our freedom from the English, and ended slavery. You should try some extra education. And cease using a great man's name.
@paulbromley668717 күн бұрын
Which time ?
@microbestudent235717 күн бұрын
This guy knows too much
@RT-far-T17 күн бұрын
Blucher and the Prussians turned up and turned the tide....but that would ruin our loud patriotic songs.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
he was actually late and the fact he turned up as the 2 of them planned doesn't mean the Prussians won the battle, the allies won the battle but it's not unreasonable to give more credit to the army that fought all day.
@luciadegroseille-noire807317 күн бұрын
If my Patric o'Brien is correct, the navy hoped for three rounds every five minutes.
@Anglo_Saxon118 күн бұрын
Fun fact,more soldiers were killed at Waterloo in 1 day than in the whole of the American Revolutionary War (8 years).
@derin11117 күн бұрын
“Fun” is perhaps not the best choice of word?
@Anglo_Saxon117 күн бұрын
@@derin111 I wasn't suggesting that people dying in war is fun in any way but i take your point.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
That's also not true, certianly when you factor in disease and the like. maybe 10,000 dead at Waterloo and it's somehting in the region of 60,000 dead in the revolution.
@Anglo_Saxon13 күн бұрын
@@Delogros I'm only talking about actual combat battlefield deaths many died in North America due to disease and lack of sustainance I appreciate that.
@Delogros3 күн бұрын
@@Anglo_Saxon1 Cool, it's also not acurate I believe but at least that makes sense. The Allies lost 4,700 KIA, the French is probably around 8,000 or something in that area. the USA on it's own lost 6,800 men KIA in the revolution, the French and Spanish another 2,250 and given you've got to then factor in multiple other countries and indian tribes it seems unlikely to me the number won't be over 12,700 men... However I don't know off hand so I can't say it's wrong without significant research just that i find it unlikely given the easily accessible information.
Пікірлер
Excellent essay. Well researched and presented. I look forward to seeing how this channel develops. 👍
10:11 The grenadier, who specializes in melee and shock combat, asking if it was a club is hilarious. Edit: first timestamp was horrible.
I've seen it said in many documentaries that the french struggled to maintain formations over distance, and really struggled to form line near the enemy.
I doubt the French could fire faster because the French were, in large part, conscripts. And deploying conscripts from column into line must have been a nightmare for French officers. Basically, British discipline defeated French ardour and noise which is probably what defeated many other of France's adversaries who also lacked discipline.
The French firing faster did surprise me somewhat, but sources from all sides do seem to suggest it to be the case. The sources used in the video were actually from British officers who witnessed it first hand, many of whom are unlikely to downplay their own troops, and so if they say the French fired faster, I’m inclined to believe them. Remember though, fast fire does not always equal accurate fire. You are right that the French were mostly conscripted, but the word itself doesn’t simply imply poor quality of troops. La Grande Armee were mostly conscripts and yet were probably the most tactically proficient and disciplined army of the period. Of course the British never fought this army, and absolutely the quality of the French ‘conscripts’ decreased as the wars went on, but they were still, very often, capable troops. The biggest impact for the decrease in French quality to my mind, was not the increasing number of raw recruits, but the ever decreasing amount of experienced officers. Marching in columns or lines is not that difficult, but having the experience of when to use certain formations is the part that the French begin to miss. On the flip side, for many of these British ‘volunteers’, it was often a choice between begging on the streets, prison, or join the army. So yes, they technically volunteered, but rarely did it mean that they wanted to be there, or that they held some deep seated hatred of the French or Bonaparte, or held any desire to be a soldier. They were often not the best and brightest that Britain had to offer, and there is a reason that Wellington (unfairly) refers to them as the scum of the earth. I also think that you are being very unfair to the other adversaries of the French in this period, by suggesting that they all lacked discipline. The were fine and brave troops, often drilled to the ninth degree, particularly the Prussians. The French simply brought a new style of warfare which gave them the edge over these nations. The British were not the only disciplined troops. It is exactly why I was motivated to research this topic because it never sat right with me the whole idea, too often pushed, that the British were just simply superior. They weren’t, but I couldn’t deny that they were winning a higher proportion of tactical engagements against the French than other nations. So they must have been doing something differently. Hence the video :)
If the British beat the French, how is it that they control no part of France as they once did? This is just typiclal British arrogance!
The British charge was introduced by Wolfe, who saw its effectiveness as employed by the highlanders during the Jacobite uprising. He incorporated it into British methods in Canada.
They didn't. The Prussians did.
They paid other countries to do most of the fighting.
One area not covered is British gun power, which I belive was better than the French.
The Superiority of the Royal Navy over the French and Spanish navies during the Napoleonic Wars like those of the 18th Century was that the Fleet was at sea blockading French fleets in port keeping the British Tars at peak fitness, and perfrormance whilst repeated cannon practice from clearing the decks for action meant that not only was the average Royal navy ship able to clear for action faster than its opponents, with the possible exception of the Dutch Fleet, the Royal navy also practised gun drill and gunnery to minimise the time a warship could "Clear For Action" and deliver a heavier rate of Fire. The rather unique British practice of paying Prize Money for captured ships made many sailors and especially their officers, very rich - Especially for the smaller warships below the size of Frigate because they had vastly greater options for taking prizes. Indeed, for most of the most effective Royal Navy Officers such actions made their names and fortunes securing them fame and advancement in a service were advancement was on merit up to Post Captain and 'Buggins Turn' after that to Admiral with a few exceptions of very effective naval officers getting early appointment to admiral on merit. The Fire Superiority and Fire Discipline of the British Infantryman does in fact go back to the English Civil War where two sides could blaze away at each other all day using the European Method of open files so that a row of Muskeeteers could either fire and retire to form a new back rank to load leaving the second row to fire and retire likewise OR for the front rank to fire and have the loaded rear rank pass through to the front to form a mew fire rank for the unit to fire and advance. Enormous quantities of expensive powder was consumed which was a major difficulty for the Royalists. At the same time Montroses Royalist Army in Scotland was winning victory after victory in Scotland by forming in 3 or 4 closely packed ranks and advancing very close to the enemy and firing a devastating first volley at very close range followed by dropping their muskets and charging home with their swords and targets to break their opponents. In England both sides and the Royalists mainly adopted a modified version of Montroses tactics by advancing to very close, less than 20 paces, with their musketeers in 3 or 4 closely packed carrying loaded muskets to advance quickly alongside their pikemen to fire a single massed volley at very close range followed by charging home with clubbed muskets alonside their pikemen - usually enough to break a regiment using conventional European Tactics. Against Cavalry the tactic was to hold fire to an even closer range, less than 10 paces, with 6 to 8 muskets firing at each mopunted man in the cavalries front rank - enough to bring down the entire front rank and saome of the second rank either stopping an enemy cavalry charge dead OR breaking a cavalry unit using a pistol caracole against them. After the Civil War the New Model Army adopted the fire tactics under Cromwell in the wars against the enemies of the British Commonwealth. The fire tactics continued in the British Army after the Restoraration in an army continually at war from the end or the English Civil War to the peace of UItrecht, the Peace Treaties signed between April 1713 to February 1715 to end the War of the Spanish Succession also known in the UK as the Malburian wars. Brtitish Fire discipline and Fire Tactics continually evolved between the end of the English Civil war and the end of the Seven Years War in 1763. The technological changes were the complete replacement of matchlock muskets requiring a slow burning match to fire the musket with firelock muskets using a flint to strike a spark to fire. The speed of loading and firing was improved by first replacing the wooden ramrood with an iron ramrod and then the 12 apostles with paper cartridges and improved musket drill reducing the number of steps and commands to fire and load a musket speeding up the rate of fire. The need for pikes was reduced and ended by introducing a Bayonet to fit to the musket to convert the musket to a spear - initially a plug bayonet that was pushed into the muzzle of the musket barrel preventing the musket being loaded and fired and then the ring baynet that fitted to the outside of the barrel allowing the musket to be loaded and fired with the bayonet attached. Throughout the period from the end of the English Civil War to the end of the Seven Years War the French persisted in firing halted 4 ranks deep and opening fire at ranges in excess of 100 yards when the vast majority of musket balls would bury themselves in the ground short of their target causing minimal casualties whereas British Fire doctrine was to reserve fire until the range was less than 30 paces before firing a devastating first volley. Before the introduction fo iron ramrods and paper cartridges o facilitate efficient musket loading the charge to break the enemy would include pursuing the broken enemy BUT with efficient loading Battalions were required to halt on the enemy position and reload to face new enemies and especially the enemy second line to defeat them. The British Army soon dropped the 4th rank as their presence was to replace casualties in the first 3 ranks that could fire with a very complicated manouvre to lock the first 3 ranks into a firing position so all 3 ranks could fire increasing the time taken between firing volleys - something not needed for a 2 deep line thereby increasing the rate of fire fo a 2 deep line. Depending upon its fire discipline the battalions of the British Army carried out regular musket drills to ensure that in the heat of battle musket drill would be second nature to its men - The French Napoleonic armies did not bother with such live firing musket drills - I read somewhere that a French Recruit would complete his training firing a maximum of 10 individual rounds and not in a battalion firing exercise. The only other nation that carried out regular battalion firing exercises was the Prussian army often with targets comporising a cloth battalion frontage in which after each volley the number of holes was through the cloth were counted - I have the anaysis somewhere (I think in the Prussian Infantry Regulations of 1756) that proved very few bullets would hit an opposing battalion at ranges above 40 or 50 paces. The purpose of such target practice was to demonstrate to the offciers and men what an effective range was and where to point a levelled musket at that range for the fire to be effective. With regard to Battalion Volley Fire it can only be used when a battalion is stationary and a reserved first volley is very effective against attacking Infantry and charging cavalry BUT cannot be used effectively in attack or against supporting cavalry BECAUSE supporting cavalry can charge home before the infantry is reloaded. For that reason the British and Prussian Armies adopted platoon fire with a battalion divided into 8 equal size fire platoons that keep up a continuous fire by firing in pairs. Platoon fire is ideal for keeping a continuous fire up whilst advancing or retiring and holding a reserve fire to use against charging cavalry. The long peace of 25 years between the peace of Utrecht and the start of the War of the Austrian Succession meant the British Army had no battalion officers experienced in British fire tactics and British Infantry started the War of the Austrian Succession battalion volley firing at ranges over 100 tards like the French and lost their advantage over the French. British Battalion officers and their battalions had to learn the hard lessons of the previous 100 years again and when they did they could defeat the battalion volleying French foes with ease. In both the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War British Infantry were able to advance in line against multiple lines of French cavalry forcing them to charge and defeat the the frontal chage with devastating short range fire proving that well trained infantry could defeat charging cavalry whilst in Line - The Prussians also did the same against the Austrian Cavalry at Mollwitz in 1741. Wellington's Peninuslar Army were well drilled and had regular battalion firing exercises so that Wellington could depend on the fire discipline of his infantry battalions in the heat of battle and for his battalion officers to make the correct use of that fire discipline in battle to defeat the French - Namely reserving the frist fire to 30 paces or less followed by an immediate bayonet charge against a shaken enemy. I think it is worth noting that the Napoleonic tactics used by the French during the Napoleonic Wars were not developed by Napoleon BUT by the Ancien Regime Royal strategists such asJean-Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval; Jean-Pierre du Teil; Jacques Antoine Hippolyte; and Pierre-Joseph Bourcet - New thinking developed to find a way to defeat the British Infantry superiority on the battlefield against the Fremnch for the previous 100 years. They moved the French Army away from the Linear infantry tactics of Prussia and Britain dependant on musketry and emphasised the "flexible use of artillery" to dominate the battlefield and replace the fire power of the infantry and abandoned the cadenced slow marching in lines across the battlefield to maximise a unit's firepower in favour of rapid manouvre to attacking in columns and their specially developed "Ordre Mixte" for the French Demi-Brigades comprising a 3 battalions - the flanking battalions in Columns of Attack to provide the shock tactics supported by the firepower of the 3rd battalion deployed in line in the centre between the 2 battalions deployed in column. The second wave of the Old Guard attack at Waterloo was in Ordre Mixte comprising 3 battalions fo Grenadiers.
Thanks for such a detailed and interesting comment. I'm not going to address all of it because I feel I mentioned much of it in the video. However, one thing you state: 'Against Cavalry the tactic was to hold fire to an even closer range, less than 10 paces' is not likely because if a charging horse is brought down that close, its momentum will simply career into the defenders. 30 paces is the usual 'last chance' for firing at charging cavalry from what I've read, so as to avoid the wounded horse crashing into the formation. In terms of the French tactics, I have a video discussing their development coming very soon, same with order-mixed. As for the Guard attack, the second wave was three battalions as you say, but it was made up of two chasseur and one grenadier battalion, all of which, as far as I'm aware, where in squares.
Its very interesting that British infantry tactics seem so similar in spirit to the Caroleans Sweden used over a century ago to punch above their weight as well. The power of morale/discipline and well timed shock
Short range volley followed by change. Sounds very Roman. Pilum and Gladius
Goddammit, I am never going to believe anything ever again, ever!
Highly impressed with this video and research. Rare to have details like this on YT for this era of history. Well done!
Firing 3 rounds per minute was possible if the infantry was standing.
The French lost almost all of their veterans in Russia in 1812. The French the British faced at Leipzig and Waterloo were much less experienced, thus affecting their efficacy.
Leipzig? - As for Waterloo that's a pretty ocmmon myth, after the war with all the prisoners and garrisons released the French had more then enough trained/vetran troops to put in the field at Waterloo, while a good portion of the British veterans where either disbanded or sent to America at the time of Waterloo, only the 5th Division was a largely veteran formation.
History is written by the victors. The myth is that the British beat the Grande Armee. It was the Russian invasion of 1812 and to a lesser extent the Spanish occupation war that proved Napoleon's downfall. The last big battle that sealed his fate was the Battle of Leipzig, where Russia and it's Austro Prussian allies won decisively. Waterloo wasn't even a sideshow as by then his Grande Armee was reduced to a ragtag bunch of recent young conscripts. Easy pickings for Wellington. Similar to WWII, the US-British often make a similar claim when it was in fact the Soviet Union that finished the Wehrmacht. By the time they made their big charge on the Normandy beaches, Hitler's army was already badly beaten and bloodied on the eastern front. The same fallacy again....if it wasn't for the US and the British, we would all be speaking German. LOL The US-British are great at finishing wars, but not at enduring them.
You just read the title and didn't watch the video did you...
@@Delogros I did watch the video and all it discussed was military tactics. But the title of the video was very misleading, was it not?
@@gigie555 Not in the slightest no... What would you have called it "how the british generally beat the french including but not exclusivly Waterloo" - At no point in the video did he claim the British defeated the "grande Armee", everyone knows thats the French army that went into Russia... and stuff like this " it wasn't for the US and the British, we would all be speaking German" The only people in my experience that say that are Americans to the British when they want to annoy us, no one says it seriously... In any case US and british support for the USSR came in more ways then simply the Western front, without the almost 30,000 aircraft and 13,000 tanks the USSR would have been in some serious trouble... The supply system here went one way but that's fine it's what allies do but lets not pretend it wasn't important as well.
@@Delogros There was no way the Soviet Union received 30,000 aircraft and 13,000 Tanks from lend lease. They received a few thousand trucks and Shermans, a few hundred aircraft etc The Soviets produced most of their own...T-34 tanks., artillery and Sturmoviks and they were the workhorses of the Eastern front, But please stick to my main point....was the title of the video misleading?...."How the British Beat the French"??? Would you not call that BS?
@@gigie555 I only know the British numbers off hand, 7,500 aircraft, 5,220 tanks so I've simply extrabilated a likely amount the US sent, it's going to be at a bare minimum 18,000 aircraft however. "hey received a few thousand trucks and Shermans, a few hundred aircraft etc" i don't use this word lightly but that is an outright lie... In the early part of the war after the USSR front lines had collapsed and they had lost much of their equipment it was lend lease that kept them afloat, ultimately home production would take over you're right but not in the first months after the invasion. i already answered your "main point" it was literally the first thing I answered... I would call your misinterpretation of the title BS and mostly because no one thinks that way except people who are already a little insecure about this topic, no reasonable history books omit who did what in the Napolionic wars though I find a lot of continental folk like to ignore Britain, portugal and Spain and though I understand why to some degree it does seem a little silly given those where the first armies into mainland France.
Hubris
Thouroughly enjoyable video.
Excellent Presentation 👍👍👍
wellington would have lost the battle ,without the arrival of the prussians, propaganda overides truth.
I'm not really sure how that's relevant... I mean Wellington gets more credit for Waterloo because he fought the entire day blucher didn't and no one denies the Prussians where needed for the victory but their arrival was part of a plan it wasn't some random event based on Bluchers amazing strategic skills... in fact he was much later then he should have been. the 2 armies needed each other for various reasons, Wellingtons army was new and multinational which caused logistical and command and control problems while Bluuchers army had a fair amount of militita in it to make up the numbers, bluchers failure at ligney despite a numerical advantage in men and canon shows that.
Actually the Prussians did beat the French at Waterloo. Without them the British Army would have been wiped out.
Not actually true, for a start the Prussians where late them ariving was part of the plan, second it was the Anglo-Allied army not the British army and 3rd Wellington had stationed 2 full divisions less then 2 miles North to cover a retreat if he had to make one, his army in all liklihood would have been able to withdraw with such a strong rear guard and an exhausted Ferench army.
@@Delogros both the British and the French army were almost broken when the Prussians arrived. Napoleon had do divert a substantial amount of troops to fight the Prussians on his right wing. Those troops would have made the difference. The British army was in no shape to perform any operations whatsoever, so devastated was the British army. The pursue of the French army was conducted by the Prussians. Napoleon would still have lost the war, but the British army would have been destroyed.
@@Andre99328 The French army was in much better shape then the Anglo-Allied army, this is partly because Welligton didn't fully trust his 17,000 Dutch troops because of their history with France for the past 2 decades and as a result he didn't commit them until he had to but it meant Welington was essentially outnumbered by 21,000 men. Napoleon diverted roughly 14,000 men to fight the Prussians, the bulk of the French pressure was still on Wellington. The Anglo Allied army could have withdrawn if it wanted to... when you get beaten up for a while as an army that doesn't somehow make you imobile, the French where also exhausted especially their cavalry which would have made withdrawing even easier. i also really wish you'd stop calling it the "British army" innacurately. Correct, unlike the British who had been fighting all day the Prussuan light cavalry was fairly fresh, Allied cavalry had been quite badly mauled stopping French cavalry and infantry attacks. Afraid not, in all liklihood the Anglo-Allied army would have retreated in tact to the North along it's lines of communication, however the Prussian army caught near Brussels on it's own might have been in trouble caught between Napoleon and Grouchy. At the end of the day Welingtons army held and the Prussian army flanked, typical hammer and anvil and the anvil may not be the glamorous part of the tactics but it's arguably more important then the hammer, Wellington held for longer at Waterloo on his own then Blucher managed at ligny despire the Prussians enjoying a significant manpower and artillery numerical advantage, Wellington was outnumbered and had almost 100 less canon then the French did but by the time the Prussians arrived he'd held for over an hour longer then they managed at Ligney.
Napoleon was not the commander he had been, not even a year ago in 1814 where he had fought a a epic campaign against overwhelmingly powerful Allied armies. He allowed the French to squander their advantages, if the French had not attacked Wellington's defensive position, the day would have gone better for them. Wellington had created killing zones on the slopes in front of his position, due to the terrain, his army had some protection because of the Ridge were he could hide the bulk of his army. What was required was some tuning maneuver probably through Papelotte turning the British left and getting the French artillery onto the Ridge firing along the ridge not at it. Hougomont and La Haye Saint should have been left well alone. With the Second Corp dropping back to reserve to support the 1st Corp.
The English fought against the French 41 times, and lost 24 times, so the ENGLISH are way behind. The English did not win Waterloo, they were beaten, troops were running away to Brussels. If Blucher had not stayed true to his promise, the English would have lost.
British.
@@spitsfreeman The Britons are the indigenous people, the CELTS. There was NO "Britain" until the Ac of Union. It was ENGLAND who LOST the One Hundred Years War. Your comment shows the inadequate education of history in the Anglo-Saxon-dominated lands they illegally occupied between 420 and 600 AD.
That sounds like far to few times... Also worth pointing out France on land was far far more powerful then England then Britain was, i nthose 41 battles (I still think it's more) how often do the French outnumber the English/British I wonder, and whats the tally in naval battles?
@@Delogros "I stil think it's far more". Hardly the quote of a student of history, who uses references. I strongly suggest, basically because I am a trained teacher, that you purchase the "Encyclopedia of War", all 3 volumes, written by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod. They are very expensive, but if you did buy them, and then study them, you would KNOW, rather than just "assume", "deduce", or "presume". The use of the word, "think", is not the phrase of an educated person. Mind you, you could refuse to be educated, to know rather than "pseudo-think". But then you wouldn't KNOW that your country has existed for 247 years, had just 16 years of peace in that time, and has been at war for 93% of its existence. You are not worth conversing with. BLOCKED.
@@Demun1649 Jesus, i wasn't expecting a crying session from you ROFL
An excellent coverage - thank you - but - somewhere in an Infantry Field Manual of the time, I formed a slightly different opinion of the "volley fire". Yes, volley and charge - but a slightly different emphasis. TLDR. Assuming full strength battalions - circa six companies of 100 +/- 20. The "Colour" company was smaller - perhaps 50 men around the Ensign and the Regimental colour. The Colonel being in command. A battalion would deploy in two lines - the men one arms-length apart (as still today). with the rear rank then taking half a pace to fill the space between the men in the front rank. The battalions would be arrayed with the light company on the left flank and the grenadier company on the right flank. The Colour company in the centre - with usually three companies deployed either side. The Light company would deploy forward as skirmishers, falling back as the enemy advanced, then falling back into line on their left flank positions. At the appropriate moment - the Colonel would give the order to fire to the front rank of the Colours .... with the companies on either side taking fire in succession. Then the rear rank would receive the order to fire - with the successional effect along the whole line. Three rounds a minute was normal, with the first volley loaded of course - so perhaps four in the first minute or so. It might take something like fifteen seconds for the front rank to complete its whole volley - with the centre (rear rank) volleying after (say) ten seconds. This continuous run of fire would account for both the French and the Americans reporting that it was like someone running a stock down a picket fence. Then - the bayonet charge - once the Colonel judged that the enemy was suitably confused. Three ranks - and sometime four if there were sufficient men - was the usage for squares, as the front rank was kneeling. As I remember - the two standing ranks fired volleys into the approaching cavalry (much as described), firing at approx. 100 yards (horses are bigger and the aim point was the horse), then at say 60 yards with a final - double volley - including the kneeling rank, who then braced their weapons against their knees. Horses don't like sharp pointy things. Finally - the point of aim. I don't know when it began, it may well have been Marlborough (or before), but the chant of the sergeants was "Aim for the balls" (and heaven help the soldier that aimed high). I note that this was still the chant of the sergeants in my Service days .... albeit some 150 years later.
The British army was supported by Portuguese and Spanish during the Peninsula war. And the Prussians dipped the valence at Waterloo.
Mostly Portugese, regular Spanish forces didn't do much to help the British and vice versa till about 1812, after the battle of Talavera Wellignton had serious trust issues not overly helped by the battle of Barosa later as Cadiz and the Spanish just generally had trust issues all the way through, not unreasonably.
The french won, because Nappy CONVINCED THEM that they could win. They are really dangerous if they BELIEVE en mass , and third rate as soon as they stop believing, as anyone who has watched them playing a team sport knows. NEVER let them get their heads up, or even The Mighty All Blacks are no match for them. And Wellington reinforced and defended and maneuvered and defended and retreated and defended, and each time the French DID NOT WIN . . . until they started to doubt, and then it was just a matter of destroying them. A war that we understood not came over the world and woke Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke. They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people's reign: And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again. Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then; Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men. In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains, We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains, We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought, And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke; And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke. C. K. Chesterton.
Great video.
did you know, many Brit soldiers in Waterloo been Germans, the ones at the hot spots been the Kings German Legion...i know, its not taught in UK school books! plus: Wellington had lost without Blücher and the Prussians...
It's literally in all UK books, not really school books becayuse we don't generally cover this period in great detail. Wellington held until the Prussians arrived which was all part of the plan, neither could win without the other as Ligney proves.
@@Delogros funny, we did it in history class... we have a Waterloo memorial at our old cementary, with the names of the fallen soldiers of our town militia.... many local men went to England, to fight against Napoleon... in the Kings German Legion in Spain and later at Waterloo
@@Arltratlo if you can find me a book where the KGL isn't mentioned i'd be impressed, Wellington thought the KGL where some of his best troops and he activly thought they where his best cavalry... anyone who is read a British history book knows about the KGL... it's weird to me that other countries with no evidence think the British obscure the facts like that :S
An excellent video! I would add the French columns had a propensity to fire from afar and then rush forth with light cavalry leading the charge at what they thought were weak men ahead, only to be mauled by a line of close range British gunnery followed by a charge
They didn't. The British Empire of the XIXth. Century was founded on the millions of dead of Continental soldiers.
What are you on about?
Surely the british praticed with live fire,where as the french did not! Further more the french lost a lot of the verts and had a lot of raw conscribes
Such a fantastic video, so well researched and preset es and yet like every English KZreadr talking history of this period, completely unable to look up the pronunciation of the name Dundas.
Really enjoyed your video on the balloon, shame Napoleon didn't have one at Ligny (amongst other battles) to clarify who the column was approaching from his left! I look forward to more videoss from you.
I saw the title and all I could think was 'which time?'
Fantastic video. Great analysis that maintains the 'proper' view of looking at British successes vs the French.
How did we beat the French? Coz we're f££king English! - Doesn't need a video!
Cold steel and gin.
La bataille la plus importante c'est la derniēre. Le soldat anglais était plus discipliné que le soldat francais pas plus courageux.
Yes,the French manoeuvred in column but,almost,always against the British,they were doing the attacking.Switching from column to line was a delicate matter as when best to do it.
Thank you
Wellington fought sitting on his arse. The defence of a reverse slope suited the British volley and charge tactic... but since it was an entirely unimaginative tactic, indeed arguably a lack of of tactics, Wellington is rightly in my opinion not universally regarded as a great general.
Absolutely incorrect with useless reasoning.
I'd rather beat my foe from the comfort of my home than be running for my life
" They don't like it up 'em!"… Corporal Jones.
BRITISH ARMY NOT ENGLISH
With a majority of the enslaved Celtic population.
It was a direct quote from Napoleon, not the author of the video.
@@Demun1649 Never had slavery in Britain for almost 1000 years. Your chip is showing.
@@hariseldon2577 well he was wrong as well
@@hariseldon2577 WOW. THAT is an ego. Stealing the name of the best brain in the entire history of the human empire. You are an insult to all thinking people. And if I was in charge of the Asimov Estate, I'd have you in court immediately. No slavery in almost 1000 years. So, no slaves since 1024? You might be fair at psychohistory, but you know nothing about social history. Serfs, from 1066 until 1665, were, in the full definition of slavery, tied to the land and the local rulers, couldn't go anywhere without written permission. A woman, on her wedding night, had to spend the night with the local petty lord of the manor. Tenant farmers, and beast holders, had to seek approval for every sale, every trip to market. 1665 ruined the criminal exploitation of free people. In the 1800s, workers in mills and factories were owned by the business. In 1922, we won our freedom from the English, and ended slavery. You should try some extra education. And cease using a great man's name.
Which time ?
This guy knows too much
Blucher and the Prussians turned up and turned the tide....but that would ruin our loud patriotic songs.
he was actually late and the fact he turned up as the 2 of them planned doesn't mean the Prussians won the battle, the allies won the battle but it's not unreasonable to give more credit to the army that fought all day.
If my Patric o'Brien is correct, the navy hoped for three rounds every five minutes.
Fun fact,more soldiers were killed at Waterloo in 1 day than in the whole of the American Revolutionary War (8 years).
“Fun” is perhaps not the best choice of word?
@@derin111 I wasn't suggesting that people dying in war is fun in any way but i take your point.
That's also not true, certianly when you factor in disease and the like. maybe 10,000 dead at Waterloo and it's somehting in the region of 60,000 dead in the revolution.
@@Delogros I'm only talking about actual combat battlefield deaths many died in North America due to disease and lack of sustainance I appreciate that.
@@Anglo_Saxon1 Cool, it's also not acurate I believe but at least that makes sense. The Allies lost 4,700 KIA, the French is probably around 8,000 or something in that area. the USA on it's own lost 6,800 men KIA in the revolution, the French and Spanish another 2,250 and given you've got to then factor in multiple other countries and indian tribes it seems unlikely to me the number won't be over 12,700 men... However I don't know off hand so I can't say it's wrong without significant research just that i find it unlikely given the easily accessible information.
Himself?