Nice ❤❤❤

Could you please list the songs you use from the killer soundtracks please. Especially the song you use in the short of ‘what were the Napoleonic wars’ and when Nelson found the French fleet in the last video

LOVE YOUR CONTENT GUYS 🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤❤

Guys I found it, it’s Aftermath by elison

The best place for more information about soundtracks is our Patreon page, where we also upload selected soundtracks in full!

Good lord that was sure an interesting fact to hear! Thank you for sharing

What an amazing story, thank you! What an honor you were able to experience

Very nice.

Wow thats really interesting. Crazy that you got to experience that

My pleasure ladies & gentlemen. History comes alive when you hear stories and anecdotes such as these as opposed to just dates, events and individuals.

Thank you Epic History TV!!!! We all love your amazing lessons!

Same here!!

Napoleon was sure an interesting man, but I would never call such a butcher a hero. That would be almost like calling Hitler a hero. Napoleon waged war across Europe for decades? For what exactly? We need less wars and more peace.

​@@stefang3709 No one in history is completely good or evil. While he did commit atrocities, he also waged brilliant campaigns and introduced several reforms like the Napoleonic Code. It is possible to appreciate one's achievements while also not forgetting the atrocities. It is foolish to turn a blind eye to either. Morover the emperor can't be compared to Hitler. Hitler was a politician, Napoleon was a military leader, commanding absolute loyalty of his soldiers and the last great leader to lead his armies in battle. During Hundred days, the troops sent to capture him joined his side, such was his charisma.

@@stefang3709 wars were waged on France, Napoleon was just winning them.

I also hear the heart rendering cries of one of Napoleon's dearest friends and one of France's finest general at Marengo. The friendship of Lannes, the strategic and tactical brilliant of Davout, embodied with the courage of Ney.

@@joshuagrover795 i think Desaix d1ed almost instantly. he would have only gasped for air for a few seconds. and yes, he could have been an even greater icon of history if he lived longer...

Napoleon's departure proclamation from Egypt in August 1799 in full text is so underwhelming and backstabbing it's no wonder Kléber was scathing, literally declaring: "Napoleon has fled back to Europe shitting his pants, without any regard for his desperate troops in Egypt, who have been sacrificed." "The news from Europe has determined me to proceed to France. I leave command of the army to General Kléber. The army will hear from me forthwith; at present, I can say no more. It costs me great pain to leave troops to whom I am so strongly attached. But my absence will be but temporary, and the General I leave in change has the confidence of the government as well as mine." Essentially Napoleon took his best commanders from Italy such as Lannes, Murat, Berthier, Marmont etc. back to France, effectively jumping ship never to return. In hindsight cold blooded, giving his troops false hope for two long years. "Screw this, I may come back at a better time, but do your best in a shitty situation guys, if you get back to France, I give you a parade, if not, nice knowing you." To be fair to Kléber in the ten months he was in command without clear instructions and with a near mutinous army he tried his best to control the situation with stunning victories outside Cario for example at the Battle of Heliopolis (March 1800) 10,000 French troops vs. 60,000 Ottoman troops. Also, he attempted to negotiate his army's withdrawal from Egypt via the Convention of El Arish (January 1800) that ultimately failed. But the convention's terms were later used as a template by the British to accept the French surrender at Alexandria in September 1801. Fun fact: Kléber's assassination in Cairo on June 14th, 1800, occurred on the same day his great friend General Louis Desaix was killed at the Battle of Marengo in Italy.

🤣🤣🤣😂😂

Yeah and aparently he was killed by some young radical muslim. Thats probably what CNN say. What a proejetion into history. Do people not read theis when they write script. He killed some invader. How can you judge his radicalism?

😂😂😂😂 hilarious

@@joshuagrover795​​⁠​⁠​⁠ I wish to inform that Davout was not amongst those who left with Napoleon, who was eventually captured by the British for six months and released to France. After he came back and when Napoleon remembers about him he flattery invited him to rejoin the army for the second coalition in Italy, Davout is offended and instead goes to visit his mother first before joining Napoleon. (P.s Bessieres was amongst those who left with Napoleon.)

Who cares if it's badass. It was all useless in the end, Western Europe doing stupid things

@@MessiKingofKings what is your ethnicity?

ah, a fellow Romanian?

@@porphyry17 yes

@MessiKingofKings what you said has nothing to do with whether it was badbass At the end Murat got executed so it was pointless but what he did there was still badass so just stay hating for no reason

To bad they are racist. Calling someone who killed invader young radical is just absurd. He was killed by locals. Thats all

common French W.

Kleber was probably Frances best General after Napoleon , Hoche and Desaix , an architect who became. A soldier , he was a veteran of the war in Germany, he clearly knew the difference between a discipline Prussian army and an army of Peasants like the Ottomans .

They where Muslims... Thinking isn't their key asset

​@notyourbusiness1980 just like Hamas when they attacked Israel......now they the Palestinians getting slaughtered again.

​@@notyourbusiness1980tell that to the men of Acre

If they thought it would impress the French, who were the most famous head cutters of the decade, they were wrong.

@@elmascapo6588 without the british the city would have fallen easily

Suvorov is worth a video on himself regardless.

And Moreau or the other French revolutionary fronts

⁠@@jarogniewtheconqueror2804not Moreau but Joubert

And Suvorov in Switzerland as well.

Battle of Zürich for example

and nepoleon duly smashed him.

​@@c.augustedupin8860The loser Napoleon left Syria without even looking back.Go and learn history

@@c.augustedupin8860 well havent you watched doc. my friend, its napoleon's first major defeat

@@c.augustedupin8860 Did you not watch the video? He defeated Napoleon.

@@dale6947 lol...hiding like a dog. that's not a defeat. only men to defeat him are Charles,de tolly, Wellington,bluchard...not some debouched pasha

"So little resources"?! 😂 40,000 elite troops from the best military in the world along with the best of the French Navy is not "so little resources". Quite the opposite. What is really incredible how reckless wasteful and costly the pointless invasion of Egypt was. Napoleon lost the best of the French Navy for no good reason, ensuring that the French Navy would never catch up to the British Navy as Egypt would become the first of multiple unmitigated Napoleonic military disasters. That is what actually happened, not what would have happened as you dream of.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators 40,000 men is a fairly small expedition only slightly more than Sir John Moore's failed expedition and with his men Napoleon conquered and occupied egypt and advanced into Judea defeating armies 4 times larger than his own. Compare that to what sir John moore achieved in spain with comparable resources (nothing). This efficiency is what allowed Napoleon to stand out from his peers there's a reason Wellington said of Napoleon 'his presence on the field made the difference of forty thousand men'. That is a real quote from someone who knew what he was talking about not some insecure bluster from what I can presume to be an internet nationalist given your username.

@@timjones2822 And if I could fly and had x-ray vision, I would be Superman. What would have happened is not what actually happened. The best of the French Navy destroyed. Their best ships, admirals and seamen underwater. Depleting elite French troops, forced marches eerily similar to what would happen in Russia but with sand instead of snow. Napoleon abandoning his troops, never sending reinforcements to aide as France is forced to withdraw Egypt in defeat. A costly, pointless failed invasion for Napoleon. That is what actually happened.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators and if you could read sources ciritically and study history you could be making constructive arguments. You keep asserting elite troops were sent but these were kept in Europe to defend France not sent on a mission the Directory wanted to see fail.Then you keep asserting Napoleon sent the fleet which is fine as long you you ignore that he wasnt consul yet let alone commander in chief of all armed forces, the loss at Aboukir bay rests in the hands of the naval commander not Napoleon. To return to my example, you wouldn't blame the leader of the british fleet who evacuated moores remants for moores humiliation on the land campaign. This is just the reverse. But again given your name you seem to have an axe to fring rather than interest in recognising the drmarcation of authorities. But I've wasted enough time on someone who has no interest or capacity to see reason.

@@timjones2822 If "if"s and "but"s were candy and nuts......Let me tell you a more compelling "if", because your ifs are mundane and predictable. If The Egyptian Campaign had been a stand alone war, and had not merged into the War of Second Coalition, France would have lost SIX wars under Napoleon. 1)Egyptian Campaign 2) Haitian Invasion of 1804 3) Peninsular War 4) Russian Invasion 5) 6th Coalition 6) 7th Coalition. No one lost more wars for one country. Now that is a compelling "if".

what would you like to see, colonialism?

@@wilsondavid7589absolutely, I call it winning

​@@wilsondavid7589It had nothing to do with " colonialism "...

You wouldn’t wanted to be alive then and suffered due to this war only to remember it in this life it was barbaric

Do you know who lived in Egypt before muslims ?@@wilsondavid7589

Thank you!

Thank you! Trafalgar is in the pipeline!

The only thing the British fleet managed to do was to save the UK from a French invasion really. It, obviously, played no role during the major campaigns on the continent.

As a Frenchman I often dream about the British fleet harrassing me and my troops

​@@solwen it was a direct cause on how the entire continental system worked, the French had to rely on diplomatic means to isolate British trade because they could not enforce a naval blockade. This in turn led to trade being major motives for both heavy french involvement in spain (peninsula war) and the invasion of russia. To say the Royal Navy's control of the seas did not impact the matters on the continent is absurd and flatout wrong.

​@@solwenBritish navy implemented a blockade against Napolean. The Brits played an important role in the Peninsula war and at Waterloo. The Brits were the main financiers of the coalition wars against Napolean. Britain played a pivotal role in the Napoleanic Wars. Read a history book.

Were*

Even if the Ottoman Empire was weakened, Napoleon had no chance.He tasted his first major defeat when he met the real Turkish army in Acre.

@@AnatolianHittite maybe so, due to Acre's defensive position with the sea for the British and the determination by Al-Jazzar's men who were well disciplined to drive out the French, but let's not forget Napoleon's main objective was to defeat the biggest Ottoman army developing in Syria whilst also trying to defeat the Army of Rhodes in Aboukir so in Contrast although Acre may have been a defeat it was also a success because Napoleon defeated the Army of Syria and went back to Egypt because of his victory, not to just paint his defeat but to paint his success in Egypt, because let's not forget Napoleon always saw a war or battle as an art to his successes so Napoleon did gain some significance in Egypt even if things did go sour for him, matter of fact "The Institute of Egypt" still exists to this day so at least Napoleon did gain something out of the rubble.

@@theraginggager7303 Napoleon's main goal was to advance and he couldn't even get past the Turkish troops in Syria. Istanbul and Anatolia were too ambitious even for Napoleon and he couldn't do it.

@@AnatolianHittite Ok, but you're missing the point, Napoleon knew he wouldn't be able to get peace for the Egyptian province from the Ottoman Empire due to Salim III canceling all negotiation and compromise so that he could crush the Ottomans, he didn't expect to win the campaign because of the loss of the French fleet he only needed to drive out the Ottomans so that they couldn't bring a coup in Egypt to bring the Mamluk back to power but Napoleon drove them all out at the Battles Mount Tabor and Aboukir, so unless you want to continue to think I'm wrong I suggest you look at the video and hear what Charles (the narrator) said in the video to be correctly confirmed

@@theraginggager7303 My friend, I mean that Napoleon was defeated when he faced real Turkish troops like at Acre instead of vassal troops in Egypt. So Napoleon could not do against the Ottomans what he did against Spain, Prussia, Austria and Russia.Not because he did not want to do it, but because he could not defeat the Ottomans to do it.

Egypt's legal system is based on Napoleon's French legal system? Really, when did Egypt reinstate slavery and the slave trade in conformity to Napoleon's French legal system? Also I thought Napoleon was supposed to be acting for the benefit and interest of France. What did France gain from such a failed invasion where they lost the best of their Navy and thousands of elite soldiers in defeat?

what about the occupation from Arabia and worshiping a 7th century p3d0 warlord?

Sorry but the concept of "diwan" was established in Ottoman Empire and their provinces like Mamluk ruled Egypt long before invasion of Napoleon

@@porphyry17 In order for the Egyptian legal system to be based in conformity to Napoleon's French legal system, Egypt has to reinstate slavery and the slave trade. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_20_May_1802

Just like in Malta ( a few weeks before arriving in Egypt) Napoleon abolished Slavery. According to British Historian Andrew Roberts ' By direct Decree, Napoleon established a postal system , street lighting and cleaning, a coahcc service between Cairo and Alexandriaa mint and a rational tax system with lower imposition on the egyptian fallaheen than the mamluks' extortionary demands. he also abolished feudalism replacing it with rule by the Diwan, set up a new Frenh trading company, built modern plague hospitals and produced Egypt's first printed books. None of these reforms were undertaken on orders fro mthe directory who were unable to get messages through; they were entirely on Napoleon's initiative.' ''The Revolution's principle of Equality offended much of the Koran, yet al;Jabarti appreciated how well the French treated local workers in their building projkects and followed their chemical and electrical experiments with interest...was disgusted by the way the FrenchDhimmis (infidels) allowed ' the lowliest copts, Syrian and Orthodox Christians and Jews' to ride horses and carry swords' '

That was logistically impossible and would never had happened.

Bro thought he Alexander

Very interesting post ! I did some research into the French archives and the relationship of Napoleon with Persia is incredible to study. To be precise, he planned to ally Persia because first he wanted to reach independent Afghanistan (Durrani Empire) in order to muster an army to lead across India and join indians rebels. Why Afghanistan ? Because of the Pashtun people living across this country and parts of Western India which could have been useful for an invasion with the support of French troops. Despite Napoleon fail in Egypt, this plan will stay active by negociating an official treaty (Finckenstein) and sending an ambassador into Persia for trying to convince the Shah to ally with France. But spies and banditry indirectly paid by Britain will put an end to this plan by intercepting communications and by weighing support for the Shah against the Russian threat, especially after the war in the Caucasus and the famous French retreat from Russia.

Knowing Napoleons stubbornness and and ambition, im sure in India, with a strong army he would march and try to conquer China itself, or st least part of it

@dale6947 I wouldn’t say it’s impossible. I’d rate it quite possible. Hard, but possible. Hard but possible in the same way as Hannibal marching over the Alps.

To be fair it's French against Turkish, you would expect one shark to defeat 10 catfish.

​@@Commonsensical513Would love to see those "sharks" face the Turkish "catfishes" in the present day 😂

​@@kasadam85 haha damn I guess you really don't like Turks if you would love to see them get their cheeks clapped time and again. I mean military-wise a rematch today wouldn't be fair; France has blue water navy,domestically produced cruise missiles nukes and an aircraft carrier. Unlike Turkey France builds most of its own kit no begging the Russians for air defence systems and the US for planes. On an individual level there's a reason nobody exactly thinks 'healthy' when they think of turks. Turkiye's obesity rate is 10% higher than France's, 30% of Turks smoke when 20% of French do. As a general rule turks live 6 years less than the French. Just like in Napoleon's time the turks truly are the sick men of Europe. But to be fair I don't blame them given Turkiye's economic state I'd probably have to eat cheaply and unhealthily too!

Thank you

You can sit all day and watch them sure kk

Napoleon: A nice lie 😂😂😂😂😂

If he had a steady supply line he could have ended the Ottomans the same way Alexander did Persia

​@@jarogniewtheconqueror2804I think so .

But he didnt. He ran away and left his men to die like an opportunistic coward.

He had barely 10 thousand men to campaign with he couldn't sustain any supply line over or garrison even a portion of that territory. The campaign was lost when the British sank his fleet at Aboukir. It was always doomed to fail and the idea to invade Egypt was bad from the beggining.

That’s quite a stretch, he couldn’t take a city in Syria, but if he took that city he’d reach India? I’m not saying it was beyond his capabilities but he’d need much more resources.

Sir Sidney was a legend!

sadly but they still have material left like marengo, trafalgar, dresden

@@Fuzznator Marengo is in this 5 years gap that they will close. But yeah some spinoffs would be cool though not featuring napoleon (trafalgar, any naval encounter, ...)

@@burnstick1380 the nile also and even less decisive battles like lutzen and bautzen would be interesting but i dont think they are gonna do those two, dresden i hope. ulm would be interesting also

indeed ❤❤❤

The French are still as smart as their newest Berbers. This is very amazing

RESPECT

the syrian campaign, indeed. For the egyptian campaign, it's to nuance a bit, but at the end, it was a failure yeah.

It is the crusade of the French revolution.

Yes, while running a juggernaut French military into the ground. Napoleon was nothing more than a delusional thug with deranged delusions of grandeur hijacking a powerful military/arsenal from a lost and confused nation. Napoleon was not the next Alexander or Caesar, great military commanders who end in total military victory, he was the first Hitler, goons who run the powerful militaries they seized to total destruction.

>Babylonian >asks for Arabic translations don't you have a bit of pride left?

I'm not an expert, but Ottoman forces seem to have been defeated by most regular European armies it faced at this time, despite heavily outnumbering them. Here are a few examples against the Russians: Kagul (1770); Kozludzha (1774); Rymnik (1789); Măcin (1791); Arpachai (1807); Batin (1810); Slobozia (1811). And I doubt the result would've been much different if they fought other European nations, such as Prussia or the United Kingdom.

To be honest the Ottoman Empire was already the sick man of Europe. Far from its past glory. Blocked by a Janissaries dictatorship that was extremely difficult to move for Sultans and their Vizirs. The janissaries even with multiple severe military defeats were still organising the political life of the Empire. They did not adapt their army to the modern ones in Europe.

Very true, but you also forget the factor of weather. As also video says, that kind of weather for the French army wasn't suitable. Heavy sun and hot weather especially marching through the desert, really made them suffer.@@Leaffordes

​@@Giorgos-ee5knI completely agree napoleon made wonders with what he had and even when he left kleber did wwll until getting assassinated

Kind of true. But we can’t deny the fact that the ottoman army was nowhere near as equipped or organized. Still mostly composed of cavalry, peasant militia, which completely ran off the battle after the first failed charge. Therefore its still highly impressive but also wasn’t too hard to accomplish while he also never actually faced the full might of the ottomans with janissaries etc. but mostly levies,militias of local warlords which nearly only composed out of people from all corners of the empire but Turks. The soldiers at Jaffa for example were majorily Albanians and circassians. It’s just that anyone from the Ottoman Empire was called a Turk at that time.

I suppose they could not find a painting of the actual event?

not all events were afforded a painting back then. certainly not the less significant@@FireEagle1796

Napoleon did not do anything that you mentioned in Egypt, other than LOSE. Napoleon did not build any new roads, postal services, you are fabricating all of that. I understand, too cowardly for an ugly truth, so you have to fabricate a pretty lie of what Napoleon was not, lack of courage much.....Seizing total power from a lost and confused nation in a chaotic revolution, hijacking a powerful military in the process, establishing a dictatorship under the term "emperor", imprisoning and executing political rivals reinstating slavery and the slave trade, denying women basic rights, invading multiple countries for personal ambition, running the French military into the ground in total defeat at the cost of millions of lives, executing prisoners, abusing his army, abusing the French youth with conscription, and the most important part ending in total defeat, don't forget to mention that part, the truth.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators In my culture it is considered rude arrogant to speak of something you know nothing about like you are some form of authority. Rather you should embrace the wisdom of those who DO know better than you and stay humble.

@@Commonsensical513 You have to falsely attribute positive things to Napoleon, positive things that he did not do, because you are too cowardly for the ugly truth. Too cowardly to accept that a deranged delusional thug could never rise to the top and seize a powerful military/arsenal from a lost and confused nation, abusing his own citizens. You can't stand that all warmongering, death, destruction and suffering through abuse of power was simply for the self-interested delusions of grandeur of a deranged man, a deranged man who seized total power from a lost and confused nation in a rotten revolution. A rotten failed degraded revolution that produced a rotten failed degraded product. Nothing more than a power-hungry thug who ran the juggernaut military that he seized into the ground in total defeat, at the cost of millions of lives. But of course that can't happen you say in your cowardice, only the best of the best rise to the top in Europe.

Don't forget Alexander the Great or Gaius Julius Caesar. Talk about leadership, tactical and strategic skill, and incredibly good fortune.

Sure, and Hitler built autobahnen and railroads.. when he didn’t focus on deathcamps and reprisal executions… Good deeds trump bad ones, hey ?!

Yes - but by the time of Napoleon’s arrival they had merged into one