Is there a good series/movie showing how Napoleon kept the enemies of France at bay while the Republic was spreading...

Is there a good series/movie showing how Napoleon kept the enemies of France at bay while the Republic was spreading The Terror in France, then he brought peace and stability to France, and fighting DEFENSIVE wars he spread the Revolution through Europe ending Feudalism and sharing the Napoleonic code?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=97dBfdNrf9A
youtube.com/watch?v=puZh2LARvHU
youtube.com/watch?v=LiK2fhOY0nE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

anglos hate him

No, we don't.

t. anglo

he got his shit kicked in by Wellington, so its OK.

you mean (((someone))) whithold the payments that were supposed to buy Napoleon the artillery he needed

Imagine a time when it was terrorism and radical to say that all men should be free and they are not inferior to nobles.

lol manlet

you live by the jews you die by the jews

*by prussia but w/e, the only ones who won there were the jewish bankers. As in WW1 and WW2.

>*by prussia

prussians actually believe this
Napoleon was defeated by the spanish guerrillas and the invasion of Russia

Prussia being dead was one of the greatest moments in history
Saupreußen BTFO

no but there's not so good films with him getting btfo
>charging squares with cavalry kek
youtube.com/watch?v=97dBfdNrf9A

>Napoleon kept the enemies of France at bay while the Republic was spreading The Terror in France, then he brought peace and stability to France, and fighting DEFENSIVE wars he spread the Revolution through Europe ending Feudalism
Jesus fucking Christ american education everyone. They literally only can think in headlines.

You fat mall sharters should not be allowed to discuss anything.

>cockroach detected

God damn, that's a lot of fucking extras... but really, what the fuck is with those square formations in random spots on the field? That makes no sense. Why the fuck are you going to do a cavalry charge against squares and NOT attack the squares? Who the fuck made this shit movie?

>tfw Kubrick was gonna make a giant Napoleon biopic and spent years researching

it's not fair

Apparently Spielberg was rumored to pick it up but we all know how that's gonna turn out

The lines formed square as the cavalry began it's charge. The webm lacks context.

Still doesn't explain why they're in such a retarded formation, though. If they were in a column, the distance between squares make no sense. If they were lined up, the randomness of the squares makes no sense.

>hire a fuckton of extras
>extras are too retarded to make the formation
>can't afford extras another day
>keep retarded shot
Not that difficult tbqhwy

They're not random, they're three lines deep and separated by the general space between regiments / brigades.

...

Seems like a director issue, tbqhwy.
That's not how you march an army, or line up an army, where your greatest strength is your line and your firepower. 3 ranks deep (actually, could be as many as 4 in that video) makes no god damn sense.

Stop trying to save that retarded shot. It only makes you look retarded
The cavallry literally passes every square to ensure maximum loses without achieving anything.
The director wanted the shot from above with them riding so they rode. Simple as that

>ranks deep
>meant regiments
There's not even a word for lining up your army in 4 lines, # ranks deep like this.

You fucking what? Napoleon had nearly 200 more guns than Wellington. He also had 100 thousand more men. Napoleon got out fought and out tactic'd by Wellington. Wellington specifically chose the ground because it was flat open land bar two farmhouses (fortified ones) which he occupied with good troops. The main force of his army was behind a ridge, negating most of the artillery power of Napoleon. Furthermore, Wellington knew the rain was coming, Napoleon didn't. Wellington knew the wet ground would delay the advance of the artillery to support infantry attacks and since Wellington literally was playing for time for Blucher to arrive, was in the advantage. The battle was won before Blucher arrived because Marshal Ney charged unsupported against British infantry squares. Wellingtons army was literally made up of only 50% British and 50% Irish, Dutch and Waffles. The amount of order problems was massive. Napoleon had no fucking excuse to lose.

Lines are not the same as ranks. And it absolutely makes sense when the terrain does not allow for the full width of your army to be deployed.

Two lines plus a reserve was standard procedure for the era.

In short, everyone went full retard that day.

>hurr durr why dont horses just run into them
would you run into a wall at full speed?
no?
neither would a fucking horse

You are literally arguing for me.
>2 lines
>4+ in video
And this

>had no excuse

well like you said, the rain did fuck him. And Ney forgot to spike the brit cannons and continued the charge which was dumb. Napoleon was also missing a couple of his more competent marshals but yeah, he done fucked up.

>2 + 1 = 4

user...

Ney was an idiot. Had Ney waited for the Old Guard (well, the Middle Guard) to advance and went with them, then the British squares would have fallen and Napoleon could have probably consolidated and fought off Blucher. Ultimately Napoleon couldn't have won. Austria and Russia were mobilising major armies to France. Napoleon had no excuse to lose, but lose he did. Still, awesome French dude, a fucking giant, armed with a 2H woodsman axe smashed into one of the farmhouses. Shit was cash.

French wise, yeah. In terms of British the only major bad event was the Scots Greys not hearing the retreat call after taking out some of Napoleons guns, so they got Lancer'd.

Brilliant. Makes you wonder why they even did it in the first place, huh?
>melee cavalry
>let's attack
>but let's not really attack and get btfo instead of doing something useful in the most retarded situation imaginable.
I'm not even arguing that the cavalry charge should have worked. It was fucking dumb to begin with. Dismount and attack on foot, for fucks sake. That would have worked just as poorly, but infinitely better.

nope, napoleon was defeated by Finnish gladiators

Nigger, there are easily 4 lines in that video, and one so out of place between the last rows that it could have been a 5th.

Horses have minds user, they simple refuse to charge the square for some reason

Square formation is perfect defence against horse charges

While they trying to circle one square the square on the left is shooting at then

I love that ridiculous conversation in the film. "my dad got stuck in the mud and stabbed to death by polacks, sure do hope that doesn't happen to me today!"

Read the chain, user.

Learn history faggot, Waterloo is an excellent film because the story, as unbelievable as it is, literally happened that way.

The French thought the English were generally pulling back to make a better formation, but Wellington had everyone trained to form squares quickly in case of a charge. This is what happened, and since horses just flat-out won’t charge a line of pointy bayonets, the squares broke the Cavalry advance and killed a fuckton of the French.

Plus Waterloo is great, a bunch of autistic ruskies took thousands of soviet soldiers and trained them to act as Napoleonic troops, literally all of the shots and people in it are real. The amount of manpower is nutso. Only downside is the stony “French” actors

>The French thought the English
>English
British.

>literally happened this way
For the most part, maybe. I'm not even arguing about Waterloo. I'm arguing how stupid this movie and this scene looks.

Horse chage normaly goes through enemy lines like a hot knife goes throught butter

Its ONLY the square formation that scares the horses For some reason. . And there was a fucking hill, The red were retreating, THey send the horses to inflict heavy casualities onto britain army but they were waiting for then They DIDNT KNOW they would be on square formations wairing for then on the hill side.

stfu, faggot.

There's like a made for TV movie about his life from the reign of terror to his death on St. Helena. Its OK, not great. And the production values are pretty much for TV so epic battles are like 20 people on each side.

youtube.com/watch?v=puZh2LARvHU

Cast him

>The red were retreating
No they weren't. It was feigned. They retreated over a ridge so the cavalry overextended and got btfo.

That’s just silly, the scene did a great job of putting real history on screen, modifying it in any way after that undermines the whole point of the film. It’s like saying master and commander is dumb because the outfits look silly or something.

Well Cavalry doesn’t just “go like a hot knife through butter”, it’s more for pushing lines out of rank and killing advances, by the ‘lol just line everyone up by the hundreds’ strategy of the time going straight into a line of infantry was suicide, though you’d kill quite a few before you went down. When guns come to play, Cavalry started to take the way out.

Also squares are effective b/c horses are smart enough to see a line of bayonets and think “hey, I’ll not charge that instakill right there”. What’s crazy is that it is both good at deterring Cavalry AND spreads out troops so artillery does fuckall. The only downside is the traditional infantry line tears a square to bits, for obvious reasons.

Also the Cavalry wasn’t overextended per se, ney was just a mong and decided that charging into unknown terrain in abhorrent weather conditions against an army designed to hard-counter his ass was a good idea. Though whoever said ‘why didn’t they just dismount’ earlier in the thread is retarded, doing that midfight is A) impossible and B) a fantastic way to scramble your advance and paint giant targets on your army and make them slower, less deadly, and out of order

The guy in Count of Monte Cristo was a pretty good Napoleon, even though he didn't have a big part.

>It’s like saying master and commander is dumb because the outfits look silly or something.
It really isn't though, but whatever.

Also, the guy playing Nappy is a comedic actor, it's hard to take him seriously in a historical drama.

>fat neckbeards pretending to be military geniuses

>Napoleon had no fucking excuse to lose.
He was ailing for something like three fourths of the battle you fucking Anglo. Reallt though, the man to have blundered most that day was Grouchy. And Davout for insisting on being minister of war rather than leading on the field.

wow,..........he called people fat neckbeards.........so..........................................................intellligent

Well kinda. Your complaint is that the actual history of what happened is stupid, yes? That’s what it seems like to me, or am I misinterpreting?

Brilliant comeback, General.

shut your hole cunt

>autistic nerds autistically needing out over something
Wow, glad to know how cool you are, he came all the way to an obscure television thread discussing historical war films on a Polynesian coconut-farming forum just to say it’s stupid what people know

>there will never be a film like Waterloo again
Why even watch movies?

Don't flatter yourself fatty. I didn't call commenting on the battle autistic.
I mocked you fatty pretending to be a military genius because you read a wiki article

You're acting way more autistic than anyone else in this thread

>Horse chage normaly goes through enemy lines like a hot knife goes throught butter
Yeah no. A cavalry is at its most efficient when running down a routed enemy, but think to tell a cavalry to charge at well-organized enemy infantry unit head-on and they'd call you mad. In the midst of battle, cavalry is very versatile in what it can do, so here's the rundown: (1), scattering a unit at the brink of breaking (but usually only in such a way where you attack quickly and dash away even quicker), (2), searching for enemy cavalry to fight, (3) negating enemy assets that are left stranded (like enemy artillery mounds or an infantry unit moving from one side of the battlefield to the next), and (4), maneuvering into the enemy's back so that it can charge them in the rear and act as the anvil while your infantry are making the true push from the front.

Now, I'm dumbing it down a lot and lots of people will call me out on it, but it's also very difficult what a cavalry does as there's tasks assorted to each different unit. In the Napoleonic wars there were chasseurs (french for hunter), dragoons, and cuirassiers (french for armored). Cuirassiers are heavies, chasseurs scouts in your skirmishes, and dragoons the middle-ground that has guns. Maybe sometimes you'll send your cuirassiers in a Medieval-style charge (ie. Eylau 1809) but it's still very dangerous and time it wrong, and there half your cavalry is rotting in the ground.

No, every horse was not properly trained for combat, try riding a horse into a line of pointy sticks pointed at them and enjoy the result, it will be quite fun.
This was why Ney's charge intobritish squares failed, because most horses had not been trained to charge and simply would not run into the squares (they mostly came from random requisition in farms after the loss of most of the french cavalry in the russian campaign, and even and their peak, no european army ever had a full stock of warhorses)

By the way, square formation doesn't scare horses off.
As I said just above, it simply counts on the fact that most horses in a cavalry charge will refuse to charge at a line of bayonnets pointed at them. They will instead try to avoid them by going around. The squares are useful compared to a line formation because when this happens, the cavalry going around one square is exposed from fire on two sides (because it ends up between two squares) and not only one as it would be with a simple line formation.

Cavalry charge died the moment guns became prevalent on the field, and by extension pikemen (or heavy infantry), so somewhere in the 1500's. Cavalry were almost exclusively for skirmishing, flanking, and support in this time frame, or in the case of Dragoons, carrying their troop into the field and dismounting to fight on foot. Shooting from horseback was not a thing until much later, and actually was never that prevalent in war - it required too much work to reload.

And also you can try to blast the cavalry with artillery beyond the squares while the horses are running around in between squares, while you would always bomb your own troops in a line formation attacked by cavalry

>Cavalry charge died the moment guns became prevalent on the field
Imagine being this retarded

No one would do this. That would be absolutely retarded. It's like sending your troops in and then shooting a volley of arrows at the same time. Heavily frowned upon, not to mention no one would fight for you if they were at risk of getting shoot in the back.
It's a fucking fact, kid. With guns came Pikemen and a near resurgence of the phalanx.

Tom Hardy

No, that's not true, cavalry had still a major role throughout the 19th century. Cavalry became useless with metal cartrdige rifles, machine guns, and high explosive howitzers, not with muskets.
Musket precision is usually overrated today, but in 1810, you could have two companies 300 meters from each other firing at each other for 2 hours and inflicting maybe 40 casualties. Muskets were only precise at really close range (straight barrel and all that), an ill timed volley and the heavy cavalry could smash a line of infantry with almost no losses.
Artillery was a much bigger threat to cavalry than muskets, but it was possible to amneuver the cavalry without exposing it too much to artiellery (bacause canons were still the major artiellery piece, and it requires a line of fire contrary to modern artiellery).
It was still the best way to pierce deep holes into a battle line, until the fast realoading metal cartridge rifles and the early machine guns appeared.
And even then, during the American Civil War cavalry was still critical to many engagements even in the late stages of the war, where rifles and machine gun started becoming commonplace.
So it was really not until the first world war that the cavalry became completely obsolete, as machine gun and rifles were mass produced and issued to every single platoon, and indirect artillery fire could annihilate an entire division in the open without direct line of fire.

I enjoyed it. Silly Napoleon is fun.

Every scene is just
>Ze plan is simple. It is a brilliant plan. I have been working on it for weeks. Zere is no other possible course of action. We will have to do X.
>But Napoleon, we can't do X because of Y!
>Ha ha, no matter. In zat case we'll just do Z instead ha ha.

Napoleon split his army before the battle. Then when he tried to call them back to meet them the other commander who I forget misinterpreted his order and never came to his aid. It was something like 20K extra men.
Also Ney was full shell shocked mode and forgot to spike cannons. Napoleon had no luck that day.

i think hbo is doing a napoleon series but it won't be out for a while

>No, that's not true
Yes, it is, user, even more in the 18-19th century.

Ney wasn't killed by cannons, but by squares. The cannon spiking was only a problem for the Middle Guard advance, which was doomed even had the cannons been spiked since it was the British lines which broke them and Blucher arriving made them flee for the first time ever in history. Napoleon split the army, he sent Ney to chase Blucher but Blucher lost him so Ney returned and thought he was ordered to attack or some shit. I wrote a paper on this titled 'Did the British win Waterloo or did the French lose it?' or something like that. Basically did France mistakes cost them the battle or did British tactics win it for them. I came to the conclusion it was the latter, mixed with luck.

Imagine being like cattle to a bunch of boy diddling Jews at a tennis club court and dancing to their flute and calling it a revolution for the people

>imagine being so illiterate in the history of weapons technology, strategem, tactics and warfare that you make stupid blanket pronouncements like this like a nigger from reddit

> No one would do this
Except they did.
> No one would fight for you if they were at risk of getting shoot in the back
I could make a 100 lines long post with every single recorded battle where soldiers were forced to fight at the threat of death by their own side, but there are just so many examples of exactly that... Russians, Austrians, Germans, even English and French did exactly that during the Napoleonic wars (froced conscritpion, regiments of prisoners, etc..).
And of course the fact that absolutely every single fucking army up until WW2 shot mercilessly any deserter.
> it's a fucking fact pikemen rulez
No, Swiss pikemen and guns made heavy armored cavalry useless but with it came a resurgence of ligth cavalry (what is a hussar for fuck's sake)

>retards

Saying "yes it is" is not enough user.
If cavalry was so useless, why did it still won so many fucking battles throughout the 19th century ?
Why did it won so many wars by allowing an army to be on the field two weeks before the enemy had even finished gathering ?

>you'll never be as brave as Ney

The french sure knew how to make real men back then

I didn't say they were useless, fuckstick. Read the initial post you fucking moron.

I'm talking about Grouchy. He had 33K under his command. Napoleons orders to him were considered unusually confusing so he never actually came Waterloo even though he heard cannon fire in the distance.

You said "Cavalry charge died the moment guns became prevalent on the field somewhere around the 1500's"
Which is a fucking retarded point to make and I already spent a post treating it like shit.
Stop playing on words to calm your butthurt like a fucking tard.

READ THE REST OF THE FUCKING POST YOU AUTIST FAGGOT. HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

>Apparently Spielberg was rumored to pick it up but we all know how that's gonna turn out
Kino? Hating spielberg is a sure-fire sign of a tryhard pleb

Then go suck off some baby dicks.

>Hating spielberg is a sure-fire sign of a tryhard pleb
No, you're thinking of liking Spielberg. His only good films were Raiders, Jaws, and Jurassic Park.

>not recognizing the greatness of duel, close encounters, AI, Munich and Tintin
kill yourself pleb. Spielberg unironically is 10x the director Kubrick ever was

We get told to hate him at school and on TV. The best you can hope for with regards to Napoleon in the UK is that he is not mentioned. At all.

>Gave the order to fire at his own execution
>ywn be this brave

You could not be more wrong. There truly is not a more uninspired director than Spielberg, whose only redeeming aspect as a filmmaker is the nostalgia that children have for the movies I had already listed. I can only feel pity for someone who sat through any other of his flicks.

>Ney was seen[11] during one of the charges beating his sword against the side of a British cannon in furious frustration. During the battle, he had five horses killed under him;[12] and at the end of the day, Ney led one of the last infantry charges, shouting to his men: "Come and see how a marshal of France meets his death![13] It was as though Ney was seeking death, but death did not want him, as many observers reported.[14]
I'm not even that brave when playing videogames from the comfort of my home to be honest

Yes, nostalgia is why spielberg's films were revolutionary for their time and why AI and Munich were some of the greatest humanist films of the 21st century. Who are your example of good directors? Most Kubrick fans are complete plebs.

I don't like Spielberg that much, but get him to repeat the quality 'Empire of the Sun' had and a Napoleon trilogy by him would be great.

He killed millions...

;_;
Every """"""""""""""""""""""""""battle"""""""""""""""""""""""""" is shitty cgi now.

>revolutionary for their times
Surely you are only referring to Jurassic Park, which was revolutionary only in the ways that Spielberg was largely uninvolved? Furthermore, Spielberg wasted AI, a project that Kubrick truly had much more to do with anyways.
>greatest humanist films in the 21st century
What a meaningless term, would you throw Transformers and the GI Joe movies in there as well because of their exploitation of nostalgia?
Kubrick is of course a superior director and filmmaker, but Scorsese, Lynch, and Anderson are also cinematographic geniuses in their own rights. Spielberg is as rehashed as he is dull, he does nothing truly interesting and his films exist to make the exciting seem unexciting. I would assume you haven't seen any Kurosawa either, like any other typical American manchild who "just LOVES movies!"

So Jaws wasn't revolutionary?
>Kubrick, Scorsese, Lynch, Anderson
Holy shit you're a pleb. Try watching some Benning
>Kurosawa
Literally worst Japanese director, much below Koreeda, Ozu, Mizoguchi, Imamura, Oshima, Naruse and Suzuki. Even Kiyoshi Kurosawa is better than Akira, who is simply pleb's first foreign director.
It's hilarious how the spielberg-haters are always plebs just getting into film. Explain how munich or AI exploits nostalgia please.

Why don't you faggots admit to yourselves that there'll never be enough courage in all Hollywood for a Napoleon biopic and just read the Napoleonic /lit/core instead.

>Anna Keranina, Tolstoi
>War and peace, Tolstoi
>La chartreuse de Parme, Stendhal
>The memorial of Saint Helena, de la Cases
>The legend of the centuries, Hugo
>Colonel Chabert, Balzac

French and Russian literature would do you plebs some good.

>b-but Jaws!
Your only examples are Jurassic Park and Jaws? Spielberg has directed over 50 films. And I must say his fame and fortune truly maintains itself because of his status as a PRODUCER, since he's paid for the creative talents of over 150 other films directed almost exclusively by other directors. He's an uninspired bag of money. He's a safe choice, and that's where he gets his cash flow, but he's not this amazing filmmaker you put him on a pedestal over.

>i googled a bunch of japanese names like I know them
Kurosawa is entry-level for Americans, but at least you can look up a bunch of other directors as well.
>Liking Spielberg is patrician but Kubrick, Lynch, and Scorsese is pleb-tier
Let me guess, you'd also love to watch some Nolan films but your mother says they're too violent? You gotta be a troll at this point, here's a trailer for a film you're probably jizzing yourself over: youtube.com/watch?v=LiK2fhOY0nE

It is, perhaps, the most SPIELBERG film ever to be made.

>Anglos BTFO him
Fixed.