Dr. Alexander S. Burns Profile picture
Nov 25 25 tweets 7 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
And now, the nit-picky history details/battle thread.

TL;DR Ridley Scott's Napoleon movie is probably, in all seriousness, worse for Napoleonic Warfare than The Patriot is for eighteenth-century warfare. I'm going to focus on military history here in this one. 1/25 Image
We'll start, as before, with the good. The majority of the military uniforms we see up close, (on Napoleon) are well-made and show signs of being hand finished. Some of them could fit better. Once again, the grenadier uniforms in the 18 Brumaire Coup look nice. 2/25 Image
I'm tired, and it's close to midnight (I can hear Ridley Scott's rejoinder "get a life" ringing in my ears.) So, more or less in chronological order from the film, the battles and details.
Sir Ridley: Mortars did not look like that. 3/25
I loved Napoleon's comment on the low-quality of conscripted troops in the French Revolution. This works nice with a thread I wrote. Also, LOVED the prevalence of striped trousers on the troops in the Toulon sequence. 4/25
The Whiff of Grapeshot/13 Vendémiaire sequence actually is a pretty great depiction showing what grapeshot does to a mass of bodies. Yikes. The cannons do recoil throughout the film. Progress from the 1970s Waterloo movie, but in almost every other way, a regression. 5/25
I promise I won't spend this whole thread whinging about the stuff I would have included, but WHERE IS THE 1796 ITALY CAMPAIGN?
WHERE IS THE BATTLE OF LEIPZIG?
WHERE IS THE 1813-1814 as a whole???
1814 is epic, and we just don't get it. 6/25 Image
Shooting the Pyramids with roundshot/360 no scoping the Mamluk commander in one salvo is indeed, a fast way of saying "Napoleon took Egypt." Well done, Sir Ridley. The director's cut is all but assured to include a Marengo sequence. 7/25
The cavalry charge that is used to represent Borodino here likely came from Marengo, based on Napoleon's physical appearance and costuming. 8/25
Austerlitz is probably the most memorable sequence of the film. It (and Waterloo) is trash from a historical perspective, but visually stunning. Command and control is completely ignored. Napoleon says something in an indoor voice, and thousands of troops execute it. 9/25
Historians agree that almost no (like 2-5) soldiers died by falling through ice at Austerlitz. That doesn't get in the way of turning this the retreat over the Satschan ponds into the main story of the Battle of Austerlitz.
"The Sun of Austerlitz" is conspicuously absent. 10/25 Image
ALSO WHAT IS GOING ON WITH ALL OF THESE FLAGS. The camps are absolutely tiny, but there seems to be a national flag flying from every tent. Or every trench line. Or in everyone's hand.

Jeepers, Obi-Wan, that's a lot of flags. 11/25 Image
Napoleon's Marshals are also quite absent from this film. There are a number of men who stand around Napoleon in feathery hats. Junot is a character. The idea of Marshals isn't referenced until Napoleon is a prisoner after Waterloo, blaming them for his defeats. 12/25 Image
Napoleon's charisma is notably absent from this film, as I noted in my other thread on the movie (not the history/battles) but I did love the short sequence of him handing out bread on the march to Moscow, referencing men at Austerlitz. 13/25
We finally march on Moscow, in a depiction of the Grande Armée that is notably less grand than the 2016 BBC War and Peace. Dismounted Cossacks with janky mortars attack the army in hit and fade attacks, nailing prisoners to trees. 14/25
The idea that a majority of the Grande Armée died on the way into Russia due to disease is not referenced. Borodino is 30 seconds long. I have rarely been more bitterly disappointed. Napoleon charges in footage likely meant to depict Marengo. 15/25
I did absolutely love the Russian military uniforms, correctly depicting the troops wearing the gaitered trousers of the 1812 campaign. Score one for the best legwear. 16/25 Image
Napoleon is very upset that Alexander is not waiting for him in Moscow. Like, so mad. Then he goes to bed. Then Moscow is on fire. What is this movie? Then they retreat from Moscow. Suddenly, everything is very cold. Napoleon's early retreat is not mentioned, bc 17/25
The next scene is LITERALLY the abdication paper in 1814. At this moment I literally yelled, 'WHAT' in the theater. I would have felt bad if the woman in the middle of my row hadn't literally got call earlier in the movie. Napoleon abdicates. 18/25
Standard Elba sequence. Return due to Alexander visiting Josephine. Hmmmm. Queue Waterloo. It rains, not just during the night before the battle, but literally until the moment Napoleon orders the attack. Hmmmm. 19/25
Both sides are entrenched in multiple lines. Infantry are descending towards the plain, artillery on the crest. A 95th Riflemen has a bead on Napoleon with his (SCOPED?) rifle. 20/25
Image
Image
Between the lack of La Haye Sainte, Hougoumont, the WW1 style confrontation emerging, and Mustachioed Mr. Sharpe above, your correspondent was containing his disapproval with great difficulty. 21/25
The French begin their bombardment. The infantry go forward. We get 5 seconds with Blücher. (No, "raise the black flags, my children".) After seeing the Prussian army on the march, your correspondent felt a little better that he had paid to watch this disaster. 22/25 Image
The French infantry are repulsed, Ney begins his cavalry attack. At that point, Wellington gives the order "Prepare to receive cavalry." The British infantry then LEAVE (!!!!!!!) their palisaded entrenchments, advance 10 meters, and form square in the open. 23/25
Fortunately, Napoleon brings up a reserve (the guard are never named in the movie) and the whole thing degenerates into mindless Hollywood hand-to-hand combat until the Prussians arrive. Yay. 24/25
Like most bad movies, bayonets are fixed inconsistently. Skirmishers are kind of used, and the British do look rather nice in battalions for about 2 seconds. For some reason, fire by rank is used.

Nary a column on the battlefield, but plenty of absurdities. 25/25

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Alexander S. Burns

Dr. Alexander S. Burns Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KKriegeBlog

Nov 25
I'm going to write two threads about the Napoleon movie. The first one (this one) will evaluate it as a movie. The second will be a nit-picky history thread about the details and battles.

TL;DR it was not great. Golda was a masterpiece by comparison. 2 stars. 1/17 Image
Let's start with the good. It's cinematically beautiful. I loved the Coup of 18 Brumaire scene. I'll probably even show that in class. Great score.

Now, on to the rest:
The movie follows the long span of Napoleon's career, 1793-1815. You get uneven coverage, though. 2/17 Image
You get Toulon, Whiff of Grapeshot (13 Vendémiaire) Josephine Marriage, Egypt, the Coup of 18 Brumaire, Coronation, Austerlitz, Tilsit, Divorce and Remarriage, Russia, Elba, Waterloo, and St. Helena. 3/17
Read 18 tweets
Nov 17
War is cruelty, but can we refine it?
Lately, I've seen people claiming both that civilian casualties are never acceptable, or opposingly that brutality is acceptable as a means of ending violence sooner.
A 🧵 on limited war, total war, and William T. Sherman. 1/25 Image
I'm a historian who researches the 18th century. This was a period of relative military restraint among European militaries (when they fought each other) compared to the mid-seventeenth century (Thirty Years War and Deluge in Poland) and the Fr. Rev. and Napoleonic Wars. 2/25 Image
We're going to discuss Sherman and his views later, but let's start with an oft-quoted comment of his, to the mayor of Atlanta: "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it."
This quote is often brought out those who knowingly say: "See? Any attempt to limit war is a waste." 3/25
Read 25 tweets
Nov 10
Some of the pushback I got on my recent Napoleon thread was that it was a movie, lighten up. Fair.

Historians don't just love raining on Sir Ridley Scott's parade. We actually do like history movies.
A short🧵on a historical(ish) movie I LOVED.

I loved the Northman. Why? 1/11 Image
As a historian, I generally enjoy movies that lavish detail on the historical setting but tell a fictional or partly fictional story. Master and Commander, the Duellists (to a lesser extent), and The Northman all do this well. 2/11 Image
Most historians I know aren't sitting there with a textbook saying, "I can't believe they got this fact wrong in this movie." What we (or at least I) do find annoying is a failure to build a comprehensive historical world. 3/11 Image
Read 11 tweets
Nov 3
Recently, Ridley Scott, when asked about historical inaccuracies in his films said:
"How do you know, where you there? Napoleon had 400 books written about him. Maybe the first was the most accurate... there is a lot of speculation."
A 🧵on how historians know what we know. 1/25 Image
First of all: this isn't going to be a thread hating on Sir Ridley Scott. The guy is an incredible film maker, and his new Napoleon movie is sure to be entertaining. Historical inaccuracies and all, I am sure it will make a lot of money. But... 2/25 Image
..more importantly, what of his question and implied criticism? How can historians know what we know? After all, we weren't there.
Historians use a process called the historical method (we are bad at naming things) to contextualize the past, and separate fact from fiction. 3/25 Image
Read 25 tweets
Oct 20
18th cent. Grenadiers:
Were they the 2% killers of Grossman's "On Killing", 'a parasitic growth' that weakened the regiments, or just tall bois with pointy hats? Did they have grenades?
This🧵explores the reality of grenadiers.
TL;DR, they were experienced, not taller. 1/25 Image
At the outset, like my last thread this is going to make an impassioned plea for us to understand the eighteenth-century broadly, drawing on secondary sources too. We do history best by understanding the wide context beyond just "our thing". 2/25
Lets dispense with the easy stuff first. Yes, they had grenades (or at least had access to them) but usually only used them in the context of siege warfare, unless they were Russian. The Russian army was built different in the 1700s. 3/25
Read 25 tweets
Oct 19
My book on infantry combat (1733-1783) got some peer-review feedback, including the comment it is too broad. I'm happy to say it's moving forward, but I wanted to dwell on this.
A 🧵picking on people who focus on the American War of Independence/Revolution. (Love you folks.) 1/23 Image
First of all, I want to start by saying the American War of Independence is an incredible topic. Its a topic near and dear to my heart. My second book (~50% complete) focuses solely on George Washington's Continental army. It is a challenging topic, though. 2/23 Image
Historians write way more on the American War of Independence than any other topic in eighteenth-century military history. Ciro Paoletti pointed this out in 2008, and it is as true today as it was then. This is a blessing and a curse. 3/23 Image
Read 22 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(