History Student Reacts to Napoleon in Egypt #1: Cosplaying Caesar by Extra History

Today we watch Cosplaying Caesar - Napoleon in Egypt #1 by Extra History.

Patreon Supporters: Buxton, Abdurahman, Alex Martinez, Strobex, Luka, the Goat, lightxheaven, King Henry Beauclerc, Ayman Morrar, J_Blight, Lisa Eriksson, fdEA, Throw Away, Nick Lotter, Lofi Lazy, Teregion, GunmetalJ, Jean Dumas, Theo, EVKK15, Dan SCott, Dakota Quinn, James Lester

[samrevlej]

5:29 On its role as the first modern colonialist project, that's very true. Other commenters below have called out this series for being factually incorrect and anti-Napoleon, which I'm not qualified to tell you more about, but the Egyptian campaign absolutely inspired French projects during the early 1800s to expand into North Africa and the Levant, to turn the Mediterranean into a "French lake". All the Orientalist fascination that characterized the colonization of Algeria had a good deal of their origins in this campaign.

[apostolispouliakis]

Oh no this is a really terrible series, good luck trudging through it

[AdolpheMuret]

Ew, although the first video is okay, most of this series is...for the lack of a better word...trash, they kept making mistake after mistake and i kind of feel like it was intentional, because they only make the mistakes that make Napoleon look bad, it was quite disappointing to see this done by extra history.

[ademkaciouali]

Oh no, Ethan, this series is just bad, it's like if it was made by the British press in the 1800s, full of mistakes that make Napoleon look bad.
React to it but you must know that it's a very inaccurate series!

[angelumlucis]

I find it interesting that people in these comments are defending ole boney. Napoleon would lie to everyone in the middle east, and very poorly. The British had a very easy time of brushing aside the falsified claims of nappy.

Also, it's interesting that it is known that Napoleon was there for a ego trip. Comparing himself to the Ceasars of old. Napoleon isn't a good guy, no one is. So stop defending him, and portraying him as anything other than a lying, egotistical, monster.

[kipplayingstation]

I really hoped that you IGNORE this series, but i guess that this day was never avoidable.
I will be your guide my friend, your guide towards the truth through a series full of lies and historical inaccuracies, which i believe...are made willingly.
They made Napoléon in this series look like a bloody monster even though he wasn't and most of their critics are completely wrong historically! (you will see when we arrive to those parts in future videos)
I will leave a comment with all the corrections necessary (with as much details as possible) on each video you will make regarding this series and i hope that you will read all of them since you don't know much about this particular campaign and you can be mislead easily.
This first episode of this series is the video with the least mistakes and historical inaccuracies (it will get FAR FAR worse in the next couple of episodes with outright wrong informations).
First of all, the Egyptian campaign of 1798-1802 was part of the 'French revolutionary wars', not the 'Napoleonic Wars'.
In addition, (i know that the oversimplification is a consequence of the lack of time and the fact that it wasn't the main focus of the series, BUT) WHAT THE HELL was that description of the Italian campaign 1796-1797? even if it was an oversimplified explanation, it was completely misleading, instead of focusing on his actions against the Austrians which was WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE FOR MOST OF THE CAMPAIGN AND THE MAIN FOCUS OF BONAPARTE SINCE THE BEGINNING, they focused instead on his expeditions to the Papal States, which were so irrelevant strategically, that folks who study this campaign in particular, forget to talk about them in the first place.
The Papal States berely put up a fight. (the Battle of Castel Bolognese 1797).
Then, there is the part where they looked down on the campaign as a whole, even if the campaign itself didn't achieve it's objective, it was nevertheless impressive and was one of Napoléon Bonaparte's better performances (most of his most impressive victories in his career happened in this expedition, battles like: Shubra Khit 1798, The Pyramids 1798, sieges of El Arish 1799 and Jaffa 1799 and especially the battles of Mount Tabor 1799 and Aboukir 1799 were crazy, like at Mount Tabor, Napoleon routed an army of ≈ 35, 000 men with just ≈ 4, 500 of his own loosing just 2 men dead and a couple wounded while inflicting thousands of casualties on the ottoman side. (this is probably his most lopsided victory ever in his career), And before any of the "history geniuses" out there point out to me that tactical victory on the battlefield doesn't matter if the operational objectives were not achieved, I KNOW, but his operational objectives were achieved, his offensive into the levant crippled the Ottoman's ability to lunch an offensive from that direction and then he crushed the amphibious force that landed in Egypt, when Napoleon left Egypt in 1799, it was secure unlike what people like to claim "Napoléon escaped and abandoned his troops", he returned to France but only after securing the French position in Egypt.
i just don't like describing Napoleon's Egyptian campaign and even the later brilliant actions by Kléber (yes the campaign continued after Napoléon, hello!!!) as if they were describing the Austro-Hungarian offensives in the Carpathian mountains during 1915

[E-fg]

Well from what i know Napoleon and his soldiers did terrible things in Egypt, they destroyed mosques and made them stables, r*ped women, killed many innocent people, and in the end their asses were kicked by the Egyptians, and after that Egypt became a force to be reckoned with and declared its independence from the Ottoman state for a certain period.
Also, one of the reasons for the deterioration of living in the Ottoman state is the prohibition of the use of the printing press in Arabic in order not to distort the Quran for centuries or limited use of it, as well as the concentration of all wealth in the central regions and the capital, and neglect The rest of the states of the empire and also the most important thing for their military retreat and weakness at this time is the struggle of successive wars and the dismissal of the famous Janissary battalion.

Nevertheless, North Africa was strong (Illiteracy in Algeria was almost non-existent among men, while in France, for example, there was a high percentage of it ) and Algeria and what the Europeans called the Barbary pirates were at the height of their power at this time and always in a match-to-peer fight with Britain and the rest of The European navy that used to pay tribute to them for passage in the Mediterranean Sea even the US Navy paid them tribute (u can read about it ), This is what I find very neglected and taken from purely based Christian Western sources in such videos that show the illogical weakness of the Ottoman and Islamic states, which was still steadfast and somewhat strong until a certain time....
One of the reasons for France's occupation of ottoman Algeria is that they lends grain to Napoleon’s army in their wars in Europe, after the end of the war, they demanded their right. France imposed and began thinking about the occupation of Algeria and North Africa, especially in the Battle of Navarino, when the Algerian and Ottoman fleets were destroyed.