The French Revolution & Napoleonic Era

This is a video about the French Revolution and the era of Napoleon which followed it. The video is intended for high school students taking world history or AP World History.

[@brysonwest93]

Intended for high school AP history students, enjoyed by this 60ish mother of two! Very interesting and well delivered. Thank you.

[@tommyodonovan3883]

Great Show

[@Aquadoc1962]

Really enjoyed the first half on the French Revolution, but the half on Napoleon was way off and portrays him in a terribly inaccurate light. In Napoleon's own words "I didn't start any of those wars, but I finished most of them." Napoleon was a great man and in no way should be compared to the fool Hitler. On a side note, he big admirer of George Washington and sent flowers to his funeral, also declaring 10 days of mourning in France. He also went to Mass every day he was in Paris, despite the ant-church sentiment of republicans. He never actually had 'absolute' control and was always subject to the political whims of the times. British history always characterizes as a power hungry tyrant trying to conquer the world because he was short. He was actually 2 inches taller than most men of his time and he was too much of a realist to risk war which for him was a roll of the dice. His fist act as Emperor was to make peace, but no way would Great Britain and other monarchies leave France alone and watch her example and ideas spread over Europe.

[@theccpisaparasite8813]

Amen. A ridiculous comparison.

[@svenkonig453]

I disagree on one point. Napoleon is a Nationalist, while he wasn't a "Fascist," his concept of it became fundamental long term for these ideologies. There are many similarities between the two, not in terms of individual decisions, but ideological organization of Government. It is also known as "Caesarism." The ideas are perpetuated by populism and revolutionary concepts as opposed to reactionary ones. The German's (ethnically speaking) didn't start either war. But they cost the lives of millions as a result. The death of Archduke Ferdinand wasn't desired. The treaty of Versailles was not desired. Giving away Prussia to Poland, was not desired via annexing the nation (several times post ww1, and post ww2). I think it is a bad argument to suggest that because someone attends church a few times, that he was a 'good person.' The Monarchists attended churches regularly. Attending a religious event is irrelevant to a person's character. There are people in US Prisons today who have committed terrible crimes and they are Christian in spite of their actions. Mourning a public figure doesn't necessarily insinuate good character either especially if you hold a bias in favor of said character. U.S and British History is very biased, but that can be expected in any country in which history is subjectively taught facts and their own personal perspective of said events. Hence the facts are generally the same, but the opinion is not. I think it is within reason that a radical idea is often feared due to the nature it arose from. We see this in the 1900s in Russia with the end of their Monarchy, we saw this with their revolution in Russia where they also had a civil war between the party split from Leninists, Trotskyists. We saw this in Germany in the 1920s to 1930s in which they also had a "Split" of ideological ideas and violence was the answer. These acts are not things to be welcomed in open arms and hospitality when they have been everything but hospitable to their opponents. Much could be said with these comparisons with the former two examples mentioned and why it had negative consequences overall.

[@Aquadoc1962]

I don't see Napoleon as a nationalist, if anything he evolved more into a monarchist setting himself up as emperor and most of his family as kings and queens. Maybe he could be both, I don't know. I agree that religious activity does not determine a persons character, and religion itself is nothing more than one group of people trying to control the minds and hearts of another group of people. Being a Roman Catholic myself many years ago I can say that when going to Mass I was doing something good and positive. Napoleon went to Mass more than 'just a few times.' He went to Mass every day in Paris and even had chaplain priests he took on campaign. However, I would not judge a person's character but what type of government organization they institute as a national leader. If anything, Napoleon was a realist, not delusional like Hitler. He tended to use what worked and as a result, succeeded. One thing about trying to make comparisons between the two is the fact that Napoleon came first, he was so successful and made an enormous imprint on our society. During his own lifetime and down through the ages he has been imitated and still is today. The only thing Hitler has today is a bunch of neo-nazi nut cases who think that idiot was some sort of genius. So who was Napoleon? Well, those who knew him, at least early on when he went to command the Army of Italy, say he was a nerd or geek of sorts. He was very good at mathematics, history and geography. He made most of his important decision by crawling around on maps on the floor of his command tent moving little color blocks calculating march distances, supply lines, objectives, army moral and that sort of thing. Hitler knew none of that. He was a mere corporal who got gassed in WWI Any time Hitler got involved in military decisions it usually ended up in disaster for the German army. In a sentence, Napoleon was a person very good at making inter-related, mutually supporting decisions. I sense that you really don't know much about him, no offense, I didn't either until I started reading books by non-English authors and by re-fighting his campaigns and battles by doing what he did, only with computer software instead of little colored blocks! In another hundred years Napoleon will still be great and Hitler will be a terrible little footnote in history.

[@svenkonig453]

@@Aquadoc1962 Caesarism is a fundamental aspect in both Bonapartism and Fascism. It relies on populism, which is also what National "Socialism" relies on in order to obtain power. The Catholic church also blindly supported the NSDAP as did they with Napoleon. Fascism left a massive mark on society as well, from technological advances such as computers, radar, jet fighters, semi-automatic weapons (see STG-44 stock being used for most modern weaponry), tanks, utilizing air superiority (we still do this today), Paratroopers (falshirmjager), the Freeway system, such as the autobahn. Advancement of Tanks as a technology utilizing Panzer IV and Panthers essentially leading to further development of this technology we use today, Stealth fighters are specifically from that regime as well (stealth fighter jets). FDR used Fascist concepts to reinvest national investments(taxes) into rebuilding society and providing a "A Chicken in every pot." The empowerment of labor unions was a result as well via political groups, or syndicates (Mafia) mindset. This would later be used by the American Italian Mafia to utilize power in the USA and was fundamental in pushing other rights, though not directly a consequence of the NSDAP the concept derives from their organization. Hitler's Moustache was American, Eugenics was British, his ideologies took other concepts from Protestants (Martin luther's book "The Jews and their lies") , his support and ideas came from the Christian traditionalists in Europe. He further took a lot of his ideas from former Royalists, along with other radicals ideals from Royalists and Nationalists alike. Side note: Neo-Nazis only use symbolism of the third reich, they do not actually represent the ideology itself, nor Fascism. Hitler wasn't a "White supremacist", he was a Germanic Supremacist. His ideology put fundamental pressure on Germanic Nationalism and culture, he did not impose an Egalitarian idea of Marxism for "White people." which is perpetuated by modern "Neo-Nazis." Which I think is very overlooked simply due to the hate aspect. We generalize that often. There was propaganda targeting white supremacists from the NSDAP identifying the "KKK" as a degenerate organization, and shown as "Liberators" , this can be seen via google search. Like Napoleon, the Germans. This is in no means defense of either ideology, but an analysis of their differences that are key proponents of both. In contrast, I would say the German Nationalist Party made it's imprint on society technologically, and as a result, redefined global politics and future wars that would come as a consequence of it. I.e the re-drawing of the middle eastern nation's borders. The first agreements ever made were the Haavara agreement which was the idea of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine, later on this would be perpetuated by the British and Americans. Obviously the Haavara agreement did not last due to the reluctance and failure of other groups to listen and be expatriated. Which would lead to other atrocities. Napoleon won most of his battle outnumbered by using the concept of Defeat in Detail. where you focus your army on the weaker portion of an enemies line using superior numbers as opposed to taking on the entire force outnumbered. Many generals prior to Napoleon would use this tactic, the Romans, Greeks, the US Confederacy early on, etc. When Hitler was subject to tear gas in WW1, he was also a runner, and the Kaiser's military did not allow equal opportunities for the youth to be made officers. The consequences of Napoleons circumstances were due to the Revolution itself more so than ability, when he repressed a riot, he gained attention. Like wise, Hitler's suppression of the Anti-fa communists was also seen as a positive outcome, as most people in other social classes were fearful of Communism. While the German Military was poorly organized and limited in power structure, it was inevitably going to take an effect on his Generals. Napoleon also didn't have to worry about Enigma, or aerial bombardments, tanks, or other technologies being produced as a consequence of their military advancement. Wars were barely being fought in "lines" as they were. As a consequence of WW2 we do not fight battles in lines anymore. What Hitler lacked in Militaristic capacity, he succeeded in the administration, and giving charismatic speeches. Napoleon wasn't charismatic or likeable early on, it was his military successes and actions that won people over, for Hitler, it was the opposite in many cases. But this one detail does not necessarily change the fundamental political aspects shared between the two individuals, while the latter being far more extreme than Napoleon, they both used Caesarism. Arguably, I could say the same, but I don't think the details of color blocks really define a political ideology , I think those are an aspect of his militaristic understanding of war, this however, does not change the political circumstances and being one founding concept later used in Fascism.

[@svenkonig453]

@@Aquadoc1962 I will also make point that as a consequence of the NSDAP, and their scientific studies into "race" as a concept, lead to forensic understanding of identifying the human anatomy further from skull sizes, height, and many other careers in the modern era that would utilize these same ideas in forensics to identify human "john doe' cases. While the negative political aspects were discarded, the base was retained. This is only the tip of the marks and consequences left as a result of Fascism, which is founded on Caesarism, much like Napoleon's political career was based on the same concepts. Hitler was a builder, not a General. Napoleon was a General, not a builder.

[@harryedwards4080]

Defeats Britain at Austerlitz??? Nonsense.. The British wasn't even there. Where on earth have you got that information from??

[@kkarx]

Moreover Austerlitz is not a city but a very small town (6k inhabitants) and it was prolly a village at the time of the battle (In 1869 the population was just about 3k).

[@stewarthayhurst1079]

It was just British gold at Austerlitz

[@addylandzaat8080]

First slide: "No major changes to the political order, outside Britain" is incorrect. It might be somewhat true for Spain and France, but not for other parts of Europe. The Act of Abjuration of 1581 is the Dutch declaration of independences from the Spanish king and establishes the Republic of the 7 united Netherlands. It significantly changed the political order in the Low Countries and the balance of power in Europe. The Peace of Westphalia is another important change to the political order. Scholars of international relations have identified the Peace of Westphalia as the origin of principles crucial to modern international relations, including the inviolability of borders and non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. It also made (what would become) Germany a country with different religions in different regions.

[@stewarthayhurst1079]

Why did you miss out Toulon the start he would not have been in Paris without his victory at Toulon which saved the revolution

[@Sammyandbobsdad]

Weren’t the Bourbons placed back on the throne after Napoleon was deposed? How then was Louis XVI the last king of France?

[@svenkonig453]

Because Bourbon fled the country after Napoleon returned. They established a Republic and never put another Monarchy in place after Napoleon's final return and loss at waterloo.

[@abao]

The ration part seemed inaccurate.

[@NukeDoggyDog]

It was. Napoleon's army lived off the land.

[@svenkonig453]

It is accurate on that account. It is also why Scorched earth tactics were so effective against Napoleon in Russia. Most of his men starved during the Summer portion of the campaign including dying from disease like typhus. When winter came, he lost even more men from lack of shelter. The Russians released prisoners after evacuating Moscow, and allowed them to set the city ablaze. Napoleon attempted to stop these acts from unfolding, yet failed due to the roaring fire spreading uncontrollably throughout the city. The Harsh winters and overloaded supply chain with all their sacked goods from each city slowed them tremendously and eventually were ditched for survival. Most men would die as a consequence of the Climate, Scorched Earth Tactics, and Disease. Most of which were a result early on in the campaign.

[@gorge5412]

Looks really good . . . . . . but cannot hear it !

[@stewarthayhurst1079]

got a lot wrong in this very much based on victorian British writings on Napoleon

[@Desert-Father]

27:50 The video should be renamed "A Marxist's View of the French Revolution."

[@Dragblacker]

31:28 How about a mask? Or a virtue-signaling hashtag on social media? That's more in line with the sans-culotte and their mob mentality.

[@oussamatalha1903]

Louis xviiith is the brother of louis xvith not his son

[@MaizeRage23]

I stopped watching this right after he clearly implies Trump supporters are the same as republications of the French Revolution. Let people make up there own opinions my god.

[@emilyjones9676]

and you guys say the left is easily offended

[@Brian_Friesen]

I like how he portrays Joe Biden as a centrist. At the time of the election I guess there were a lot of people that thought he was. Now it’s very clear how the left is in charge of the president. They write the messages on the tele-prompter that he struggles to read.