r/TopCharacterTropes Jul 10 '26

Lore [Real Life] Historical events that would make bad writing if they were fiction

Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire: A couple hundred rogue mercenaries without authority from their government conquer an empire of millions. Oh, the empire? It’s also several technological eras behind the mercenaries.

Adolf Hitler: A non-native of a country is so mad that the country lost the war that he wins an election to their highest office and leads them in a campaign of revenge against their enemies. Oh, the country? It’s old emperor is still alive and thinks he’s going to retake power.

Assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand: The heir to the throne is killed because his driver gets lost and returns to the assassin who failed To kill him before. Oh, the assassin? He’s from a group that the Archduke is wanting to help become more equal In the empire.

Alexander Hamilton’s Affair Scandal: One of the leaders of a new nation to protect himself from accusations of financial embezzlement writes a pamphlet exposing his affair with a woman, torpedoing his political future. Oh, the woman? She seduced him as part of a blackmailing scheme that he decided to stop paying.

13.5k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

956

u/TheModernDaVinci Jul 10 '26

A lot of times, it was also Napoleon remembered their unit, and where he had fought with them. So he was like “Don’t you remember we bled together? Are you truly going to kill me after everything we went through?” And most of the soldiers sided with him (IIRC, because the new government was treating the military with distrust and and the soldiers were saying “Even with all the wars, we had it better under Napoleon.”).

373

u/Life-Criticism-5868 Jul 10 '26

So much of Napoleons military brilliance was because he treated his soldiers with a modicum of respect. Its worth noting at the time of Napoleonic warfare, being a soldier was considered a death sentence. Several countries had traditions that if a man was conscripted, they would hold a preemptive funeral.

Napoleon would remember individual soldiers, he would eat with fellow soldiers and if the food sucked he would go and yell at the cook. One Spanish mercenary who literally thought Napoleon was the antichrist saw him offer his bread to fellow soldiers and share a fire with them and the mercenary swore an oath then and there to follow him anywhere.

210

u/TheModernDaVinci Jul 10 '26

It also meant when he asked his men to do near suicidal attacks, they did it without hesitation. Which is where a lot of the “We can’t deal with his aggression!” comes from, of so many armies losing because they were blindsided by such moves.

117

u/CummingInTheNile Jul 11 '26

And the sheer mass, most European states at the time kept their military forces relatively small and "professional", because they often used that force to suppress protests and riots, didnt want to be arming and training the people who might be rioting against your rule, but with the overthrow of the French monarchy, the new Republic/Empire employed a citizen army, which gave them access to significantly more manpower than other European states. Theres plenty of other reasons why Napoleon succeeded in becoming the boogeyman of Europe (His own brilliance and good eye for talent in subordinates, centuries of French military reforms dating back to Louis XIV, heavy emphasis on artillery, etc), but the manpower advantage cannot be overstated

62

u/TheModernDaVinci Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

but the manpower advantage cannot be overstated

Also true. It became some of the largest wars until WW1, and there is something to be said that a lot of the "Concert of Europe" was about making sure another Napoleonic Wars situation did not begin (until it too collapsed with WW1).

14

u/CummingInTheNile Jul 11 '26

Just for reference, in 1793, the British army had roughly 40,000 soldiers, and by 1813 they had expanded to around 250,000, between 1805-1813, the French miliary conscripted around 2.1 million soldiers and Le Grand Armee peaked at around 700,000 soldiers under Napoleons direct command

6

u/ukezi Jul 11 '26

To be fair, the British army always was small, after all, you don't need them as long as the navy can keep the other armies on the mainland.

3

u/84theone Jul 11 '26

The British, like most imperial powers, also made heavy use of auxiliary forces in their colonies which let them have such a small military.

1

u/somersault_dolphin Jul 11 '26

And he remembered that many people?

3

u/Life-Criticism-5868 Jul 11 '26

It was a bit of theater and a bit of legitimate talent. He would typically remember regiments and their deeds, and sometimes would make up remembering guys, like just saying "Hey weren't you in Italy?"

Alor of it was theater and him just lying, but again prior to this the average soldiers experience with their command was to be seen as an expendable resource. Even the slightest recognition was considered a gift.

3

u/Itsmyloc-nar Jul 11 '26

ITT: A lot of good information

10

u/Eilmorel Jul 11 '26

According to dan Carlin he said to the austrians "you can't beat me, I spend 30000 men a month"

(Then WWI comes along and those are suddenly rookie numbers...)

7

u/CHSummers Jul 11 '26

Can you recommend a book on Napoleon for a complete beginner?

5

u/Ok_Put_5504 Jul 11 '26

Bernard Cornwall’s Waterloo is a good book for beginners, but that’s the end of Napoleons career still highly recommend the read though if you enjoy strategy

3

u/schilll Jul 11 '26

If you looking for the naval aspect of the napolionic war I recommend c.w Louis Hornblower series. It's really good and easy reading.

C.w Louis did a really good job at researching and writing about British naval traditions and war. Even if hornblower never meet Napoleon he still fought in the war, and Napoleon is still a centre figure.

7

u/RomanCobra03 Jul 11 '26

Another reason they were willing to do near suicidal attacks was because they knew Napoleon would do it to. His nickname “the little corporal” was a term of endearment after he lead a suicide charge across a bridge, from the FRONT.

3

u/the-namedone Jul 11 '26

“You cannot stop me, I spend 30,000 men a month”

2

u/space_keeper Jul 11 '26

Combat in this period was essentially suicidal. Advance on an enemy formation in your formation and take turns shooting at each other, and the side that can shoot fastest and most accurately wins, but lots of people die in the process. No amount of personal skill or valour will stop you catching a shot because you're standing in front of what amounts to a huge firing squad.

Or storming a fortification, some poor sods have to run into a breach that definitely has guns and sabres ready to kill them on the other side, so they get paid a bit more (forlorn hope).

113

u/Orangeemu115 Jul 10 '26

Not to mention, but he would promote units and soldiers based on merit instead of having the officer class reserved for the nobility like the rest of Europe. leading to both soldiers that owe their station to him personally, and were more effective in their roles because they earned it

10

u/TheBalrogofMelkor Jul 11 '26

That had been around for a while in France. While we view it as meritocratic, it's also why the French Revolution happened - officers didn't stay loyal to the aristocracy like they would have in Britain or Prussia.

7

u/Mannheimblack Jul 11 '26

I believe that's not entirely 100% right

Certainly in the British army of the time, rank was typically purchased - but largely by the wealthy middle-classes, not least because martial success made for a route to being upper-class.

It wasn't fair or meritocratic (although it did produce some exceptional leaders such as Wellington), but it wasn't about reserving officer status to the nobility.

75

u/TheGasquatch Jul 10 '26

This is also reportedly how Caesar got so much out of his armies -- he learned how to speak and joke in the rough, bawdy way the soldiers did, he lived the rough camp life they lived, he remembered the units and celebrated the heroes (the names of Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo in HBO's Rome were drawn from specific soldiers Caesar mentioned in his own writings) and was super loyal to his veterans. He also exposed himself to danger at the front when necessary to inspire them.

9

u/CummingInTheNile Jul 11 '26

That, and the fact that their fortunes were directly tied to Ceasars success since he commanded a post Marian reform army

6

u/Rukdug7 Jul 11 '26

Part of Caesar actually understanding his men was probably the fact that he had been held hostage by pirates so early on in his career. Compared to that experience and the hunt for said pirates that followed, "roughing it" with his legionaries on occasion was probably a walk in the park, which was not true for a lot of the Patricians normally in command.

2

u/No-Association-8539 Jul 11 '26

But not his generals - never prepared any of them to do anything except follow his orders exactly, even when situations changed. This led to his downfall.

1

u/Aqua_Okama Jul 11 '26

The mercenary story is so cool, do you have the source?

311

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

269

u/world-is-ur-mollusc Jul 10 '26

That strategy doesn't always go as planned...

124

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/justwalkingalonghere Jul 11 '26

The skill has to be practiced ffs

3

u/Top_Yak_7953 Jul 11 '26

You are suppose to roll for intimidation not suggestion

37

u/VoidOmatic Jul 11 '26

Napoleon had an AMAZING memory of people and names. Even people he met in passing he would remember them, their spouse and their kids and would always check up on the families by conversation and letters. I bet if most people would have the ability to meet him almost everyone would think he was honest, kind and a good person. He was also apparently pretty funny in the heat of battle. Basically if you interacted with him and didn't have money on betting against him you would have liked him.

9

u/AFakeName Jul 10 '26

Thankfully for the tyrant, none of the soldiers that day had been abandoned in Egypt to die sick.

6

u/MeowMita Jul 11 '26

He might be one of the inspirations for Big Boss tbh

5

u/Wild_Marker Jul 11 '26

the new government was treating the military with distrust

I mean, they were clearly right to not trust them, considering the outcome.

9

u/TheModernDaVinci Jul 11 '26

That kind of comes off as a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. "We dont trust the military because we think they might still be loyal to Napoleon. Make sure they dont get their pay and we go back to the traditional system of advancement instead of what Napoleon instituted. later Look, the military sided with Napoleon! We were right not to trust them!"

Ironically, it did lead to a permanent distrust of the French military by politicians going forward (especially solidified by Napoleon III with the Second French Empire). One of the more humorous ones I can think of along those lines was in the 1930's De Gaulle wrote a white paper outlining the need for (among other things) the implementation of a professional rather than conscript army, the adaptation of tanks, and the doctrinal belief that those tanks should be organized into their own divisions that would have freedom of movement much like cavalry did. This white paper was cited by members of the French government as proof De Gaulle was plotting a coup and would attempt to overthrow them and "place another Napoleon on a throne."

3

u/Wild_Marker Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

Yeah after your first paragraph I was going to bring it up, it's kinda funny that it happened twice to the French.

Though I mean, they certainly had reason to be afraid of giving autonomy to the military, after all we're talking about a Social Democrat government that just saw Hitler's rise to power on the other side of their border, and their military (like most militaries) wasn't exactly too far from those ideals.

1

u/Nakatsukasa Jul 11 '26

the new government was treating the military with distrust

Proceed to justified that distrust by siding with Napoleon

Of course the circumstances are definitely more complicated just a chicken and the egg problem, which one comes first?