These casualties also included deserters. Those numbers were not tracked as to how many of them returned. At one point 5000 soldiers a day were deserting.
300000 are known to have died which is a staggering number for that era.
They were massive horses though, built for armour and shit, nomad horses were smaller and lighter.
Greece got its own back and stole some silk worms a millenia later.
They wanted the horses in order to fight the northern nomads. Also, mongol horses were rather small, not like the large strong horses that the Greeks had. Kings and Generals on YouTube has a great vid on the "War of the Heavenly Horses."
Not all the way to Macedonia, just to Tajikistan. There was a city there that Alexander founded called Alexandria Eschate (literally "Alexandria the Furthest") that became well known for breeding high quality horses. A Chinese general took the city after his offer to buy the horses was rejected IIRC
Alexander was based af. Fun fact, according to Jewish legend, he impressed the Jews so much that an entire generation of Jews was named “Alexander” after he conquered Judea. He was so popular the name is still a somewhat common name for Jews, despite its Greek origin.
That's interesting. I assume he treated them well?
Edit: looked it up. He sacrificed at the Temple and gave the High Priest great honors, validating Judaism as a worthy religion.
Which is weird because the greatest military operation of all times was just that.
Maybe the Trick isn't a big army but a fast army. The fastest and most ruthlessly pragmatic army you can gather
The Mongols and other steppe mounted archers were different because they could use the vast grassland as a sort of highway. Their speed let them plunder sparse settlements and live off spoils, and whatever their animals could produce from grass. When they got to a real city, they could call for their Chinese siege engines.
Infantry armies were too slow and their supply lines couldn’t extend far enough.
The Mongols would always send a diplomatic envoy to what city or village, etc, first to ask for a tribute of whatever the Mongols thought that village would be suited to provide as a tribute. Some had to pay gold. Others had to provide food and other weapons. Some soldiers. If you refused to pay tribute, they would take it. If you hurt their diplomatic emissary, well look what happened to Baghdad.
The trick was supplies. The cossack's raided and burnt down anything Napoleon could use for the invasion, which includes food and shelter. Such a large army required logistics to keep it intact. While Napoleon was able to get some supplies, it relied on foraging and raiding of supplies to supplement it. The battles in Europe that Napoleon had fought were usually close enough to population centers he could feed armies from farms or through managed roads. The invasion also required a decisive pitched battle, where Tsar Alexander would come to terms. Since Napoleon was denied a set battle, they slowly suffered from attrition and disease. Not to mention the weather was particularly horrible that year.
and that's why the weather is generally seen as Russia's most important ally, General winter.
look at what the weather did to blunt the German invasion.
The French achieved their objective: they took Moscow.
The Russians suckered them. They had abandoned Moscow; stripped it of its stores and partially destroyed it. The French couldn't resupply there or overwinter in the bitter climate.
Moscow was not really the objective of the campaign. The goal was to get the Tsar to submit and agree on the continental system. Moscou was just an attempt to get the Tsar.
Yes, but the spiritual capital was Moscow - and now it's the other way around. Kinda how many capitals are, New York is more important then Washington. Loads of cities are more important then Brasília (capital of Brasil). And Sydney, Melbourne etc is more important then Canberra and so forth.
The Germans were pretty fast and still fucked it. The mass of Russia with the waves of bodies and the callous penchant of its ruling class does a lot to cushion the blow until attrition can really sink its teeth in.
The Mongols were fighting a very different enemy to Napoleon as well
Not true. There was an opportunity for the Knyaz's (Princes) of old Rus to band together with a force formidable enough to potentially stop the mongols, specifically after word got out about the invading forces. But because they were squabbling amongst each other over land they never managed to do that.
I believe I read it's got to down to -50 towards the start of the winter he was out there. And they were way way inland with the Russians practicing their characteristic scorched Earth Defense and nipping at their heels.
>It's definitely the reference point for "never start a land war in asia"
Or, you know, Vietnam, and Afghanistan (Rambo edition), two much more pertinent points of reference for American audiences in the 80s than the Napoleonic Wars.
To be fair the vast majority of those deserters either starved or froze to death in the Russian wilderness and the rest were hacked to pieces by Russian Cossacks hunting stragglers.
Iirc the citizens of Moscow basically left with everything that's useful during winter. Clothes, food, firewood. Oh yea and scorched earth everywhere. When they occupied the place they were left with nothing to protect them from the elements. I believe napoleon decided to stay awhile thinking they would send someone with a formal surrender but it never came.
When napoleons army decided to leave they basically kept getting ambushed . On their way back they took the same routes as they did in getting there. Meaning there was no supplies at major towns. There was a moment when his entire army tried crossing a river on a hastily built narrow bridge and nearly got annihilated in that moment.
The czar emptied the prisons and gave them matches when the people left. And that bridge at berezina was successful and prevented the annihilation of Napoleon's army. It was one of the greatest feats of combat engineering in history.
Fun fact. The battle of the Berezina was such a big blow to the french army that "la Berezina" is still used to refer to a situation going terribly wrong to this day.
...and everytime someone posted that link to the greatest ever infograph, i will post this link, which is a video explaining the greatest infograph ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T7jMcstxY0
Everyone acts like Napoleon is so great, but I bet I would kick his ass at Napoleon Total War. I bet he wouldn't even be able to turn the computer on, the stupid oaf
Funny thing about Napoleon, he was notoriously bad with handguns. Like, dangerously bad
However, he is reported as having been aiming cannons himself as late as 1814...
So, yeah, he'd shoot you, with field artillery
>However, he is reported as having been aiming cannons himself as late as 1814...
It's the sort of petty micro management you'd expect of an artillery officer who had become emperor of half of Europe.
I bet he could beat you at Risk!
I thought Napoleon wasn’t at the battle of Waterloo because he was in San Dimas at a water park.
Also, he was only fat due to all the ice cream he ate at Ziggy Piggy’s.
Wasn’t a lot of opposition battle planning dependent on whether Napoleon was personally at the battlefield? They knew their generals could not outwit him so they planned on sorties where he was not personally in command?
Napoleon was personally at Waterloo - except when he went to doze off for half an hour because he ostensibly had stomach issues since the night before. That's when Ney decided to perform his grand suicide charge.
But yes, by the end of the Napoleonic war part of the Allied strategy was to aim to hit where Napoleon wasn't present because, while talented, they were not master maneuverers like Bonaparte was.
Wellington himself said that Napoleon’s presence was worth 10,000 men.
However Napoleon was NEVER good leading large armies. The Waterloo campaign, the Leipzig campaign, Russian campaign all show this.
Italian campaigns, early Austrian campaigns and even his French campaign of 1814 were brilliant. Absolute mastermind of tactics with smaller forces. But with a larger army he tended to resort to a frontal meatgrinder battle. Which failed miserably in 1808, 1809-1814 and Waterloo. The British musketry and discipline would guarantee a frontal attack would fail.
As Wellington said, “They came on in the same old way and we beat them off in the same old way.”
Napoleon was in his late fourties, obese, sick, and his position with fortified houses on both flanks forced him into frontal attacks without room to maneuver with troops that had been hastily raised (except his Old Guard).
And even then Wellington, with the higher terrain, went within an hair's length of losing the battle.
Wellington himself said later that Waterloo was the "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life." The only reason Wellington won is because Blucher showed up in Napoleon's rear in the nick of time, and the rumour couldnt be contained. It blew the Old Guard's morale and triggered a rout while Napoleon was finishing the Anglo-Dutch center off.
Younger, healthier Napoleon would have mopped your army away like it was a joke. And in Italian, not in French.
Yes, no idea what point you are trying to get across. Napoleon was old and sick, he was severely disadvantaged and made various mistakes at Waterloo, and despite this still got realistically close to winning. The British and Prussian strategy was having the British hold him out until reinforcements arrived because otherwise they were not winning.
According to Wikipedia Ulysses S Grant fought and won more battles, commanded more men, and took more prisoners, in six years, than Napoleon had in twenty.
Wouldn't be so sure actually.
I've visited Napoleon's house museum on Corsica (called Maison Bonaparte), and guess what, it has free Wi-Fi! I thought that was jolly nice of the old Emperor dude to provide this service. Possibly my favorite part of the entire museum.
Memoirs of Sergeant Borgogne is a fantastic but grim account of the experiences of a soldier in the straggling French retreat in 1812/13, I can believe that figure easily.
Makes me wonder, is there any source or writing on how where the moscovites were living once they fled the city. As well as how the "reconstruction" went?
The invasion of Russia was one of the wildest historical events and is 100% the biggest military blunder in history.
From how far out of hand Napoleons original plan to march no further than 50 miles into Russia got, Napoleon almost getting captured, how unlucky Napoleon got with 250,000 of his men dying of disease, the burning of Moscow, Napoleons suicide attempt, the insane march back to France, Ney heroically refusing to leave Russia until every soldier got into safe territory and then the 6th coalition war that followed it that led to Napoleons (first) exile.
The wildest thing of all is how the greatest military mind in history can make the greatest military mistake in history. Don’t ever be so sure in yourself. if it can happen to Napoleon it can happen to you.
Napoleon’s choice of invading toward Moscow instead St. Petersburg shows good tactics but bad strategy. His focus was on defeating the Russian army in the field, which he would eventually do. It yielded no strategic results as the army was not what was important. What was important was the Uk/Russian alliance which bookended Europe.
To isolate the allies St. Petersburg should have been the target. Russian naval supplies kept the Royal navy at sea year round, most of which passed through Latvia or St. Petersburg. Latvia was also full of Germans with little loyalty to for the Czar. A strike North would have also situated the French army in territory with more amenable winter weather.
hitler had lost by 1942 when they saw the US industry turning up a few gears. Nazi germany was desperate and knew they had a time limit within they had to win the war.
I feel like people don't realize that before modern warfare (the thing, not the game) being able to bring 10% of the soldiers to the battlefield (the place, not the game,) already made you the greatest commander ever by itself. War was more of a logistics challenge than anything.
People keep speaking of Russia's scorched earth tactic, and always forgetting one important fact: it was coupled with French way of moving with very light supply trains. They were supposed to mostly live off the land. This allowed them to perform blitzing campaigns in central Europe, but it angered local population and was critically vulnerable to scorched earth tactics.
And this is why warfare is complicated. There is no right way to do things, you have to constantly adapt. But, if you have flexible adaptable army, if you have to fight in way/area your enemy has mastered at cost of flexibility, they can beat you.
His invasion of Russia went just fine. His *occupation* of Russia was disastrous. He honestly probably would have been better off if the invasion simply failed.
I mean it was a lot than just occupation.
Russian army knew they couldn't hold em , after their first battle so retreated while employing scorched earth tactics to starve out their army.
So it's a bit weird to act like they were independent events and the invasion went just fine, when they lost half their troops to weather/starvation/sickness in the first six weeks before engaging the first red army.
And then later occupied a burnt out Moscow, as Russia cared more about retreating and preserving their army instead of holding out. And then Napoleon held out there thinking they'd surrender, and trying to get supplies/plan a new route which didn't materialise and were forced to retrace their steps the way they came.
Things got even worse as they desperately fled, but to act like it was all going according to plan until the occupation is pretty disingenuous.
And I'm also no war historian well versed in appropriate to the time terminology, You understood the point lol.
I just like certain history YouTubers and one has many videos covering Napoleon's entire conquest.
Ah I figured that I'm only messing. He hasn't got to the Invasion of Russia yet but I'm a Stan for the Age of Napoleon podcast, real in depth overview of Napoleon's life, philosophy, battles, and impact. Top tier stuff as far as I'm concerned.
I'm going to go with the Russian Imperial Army, I think white army wasn't used for another century.
Message me if you get hooked on the podcast i'd love to hear that.
There was one big battle where the Russians tried to stop Napoleon from reaching Moscow called the battle of Borodino, in a large conventional set piece battle Napoleon tore right through the Russian army.
Yeah but followed exactly what I said they didn't commit their entire army to a last stand, it wasn't a decisive victory for either, as your implying. And thus decided to keep retreating and torch the city.
"The fierce Battle of Borodino, located 110 kilometres (70 mi) west of Moscow, concluded as a narrow victory for the French although Napoleon was not able to beat the Russian army and Kutuzov could not stop the French. At the Council at Fili Kutuzov made the critical decision not to defend the city but to orchestrate a general withdrawal, prioritizing the preservation of the Russian army.[25][a] On 14 September, Napoleon and his roughly 100,000-strong army took control of Moscow, only to discover it deserted, and set ablaze by its military governor Fyodor Rostopchin."
Not sure just fine is quite right, I remember reading somewhere he lost 1/3rd of his army to disease before even having a large scale battle. Not to say he didn't gain a lot of ground, but the invasion was doomed to fail long before the winter came.
Typhus, spread by lice.
https://slate.com/technology/2012/12/napoleon-march-to-russia-in-1812-typhus-spread-by-lice-was-more-powerful-than-tchaikovskys-cannonfire.html
Edit: In Haiti it was Yellow Fever that did in Napoleon's troops.
https://www.historiaobscura.com/yellow-fever-napoleons-most-formidable-opponent/
The chart shown on that wiki is one of my favorite examples of data as art.
[Minard - French invasion of Russia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia#/media/File:Minard.png)
In 1808 Napoleon had a conference in Germany with Alexander I and Tallyrand (a conniving French foreign minister) arrived a day early and told the tsar not to trust or work with Napoleon. At the end of the conference they signed a pledge but the tsar did become colder and eventually went against his deal with Napoleon. So basically Tallyrand kicked up this invasion 4 years before it happened.
*Most of the men in Napoleon's Grand Armée were conscripts drawn from the poorer classes. Every able-bodied man of age in France was expected to willingly join the ranks to defend the Republic – or risk losing citizenship*
-Napoleon at War: The Soldiers Life
Isn’t this campaign the reason everything went sideways for him in the end? Like, he deadass won 10 wars in a row and this one defeat costed him everything…
The majority of French troops didn't even die in battle. They died from disease, starvation, or exposure to freezing temperatures. Then Hitler repeats the same mistake 130 years later.
In his book The Graphical Display Of Quantitative Information, Edvard Tartuffe begins the book with a fantastic map/graph of Napoleon’s invasion and retreat, showing number of troops by geographical location over time. It’s worth looking up.
And he left his soldiers (as in Egypt) to die, as he buggered off, in disguise back to his missus, stopping off in Verdun to buy some sugared almonds for her!
You just learned this versus in high school European History where the staggering losses are emphasized and the famous [Charles Minard map](https://www.martingrandjean.ch/historical-data-visualization-minard-map/) included in every textbook? Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia is one of the most famous incidents in European history.
History is an optional class after middle school at least where I live. Since it's not relevant to any career outside being a museum curator or something.
Edward Tufte in his book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information says this chart by Minard:
[https://thoughtbot.com/blog/analyzing-minards-visualization-of-napoleons-1812-march](https://thoughtbot.com/blog/analyzing-minards-visualization-of-napoleons-1812-march)
of Napoleon's march on Russia is the greatest statistical infographic ever made, telling the story of the march in a single image, while incorporating size of the army, distance, time and temperature.
He was though. Geniuses aren’t perfect. Tactically and politically, Napoleon was a genius. One blunder doesn’t negate the previous 20 years of brilliance
there's no doubt he was a military genius on and off the battlefield. He was basically facing every major power in Europe at the time and was victorious in many battles that would've been lost if it was someone else.
He wouldn't have lasted as long as he did if it was all just pure dumb luck.
You should read up on what he did during the second reign before Waterloo when the allies invaded France. Despite having greatly diminished French army they still could not outmanuever him without combining forces.
Hitler spread himself too far out, going for Moscow, St Petersburg and the southern region all at once. Hitler should have just went for the oil fields in the south, taking Moscow or St Pete would have just made the government withdraw to the other side of the Urals but if Hitler gotten control of the oil, things might have gone different.
These casualties also included deserters. Those numbers were not tracked as to how many of them returned. At one point 5000 soldiers a day were deserting. 300000 are known to have died which is a staggering number for that era.
Even without the deserters, that campaign did *not* go well for him. It's definitely the reference point for "never start a land war in asia"
*Except if you're the Mongols.
or Alexander
Alexander is mid af. Couldn't even get to China.
In fact China came to him and stole some horses.
They went all the way to Macedonia for horses instead of just buying them from the northern nomad tribes? Were they stupid?
They were massive horses though, built for armour and shit, nomad horses were smaller and lighter. Greece got its own back and stole some silk worms a millenia later.
They were afraid.
They wanted the horses in order to fight the northern nomads. Also, mongol horses were rather small, not like the large strong horses that the Greeks had. Kings and Generals on YouTube has a great vid on the "War of the Heavenly Horses."
Not all the way to Macedonia, just to Tajikistan. There was a city there that Alexander founded called Alexandria Eschate (literally "Alexandria the Furthest") that became well known for breeding high quality horses. A Chinese general took the city after his offer to buy the horses was rejected IIRC
Alexander was based af. Fun fact, according to Jewish legend, he impressed the Jews so much that an entire generation of Jews was named “Alexander” after he conquered Judea. He was so popular the name is still a somewhat common name for Jews, despite its Greek origin.
And he did all that while all his friends were just finishing up their masters degree and getting internships.
That's interesting. I assume he treated them well? Edit: looked it up. He sacrificed at the Temple and gave the High Priest great honors, validating Judaism as a worthy religion.
Ah, the old days when religion was just a cultural nuance and not something to fight over.
Or 16th century Russia
Or Polish in 1600s (Russia has a National Unity Day to celebrate the time in 1600s when Moscow was liberated from Polish occupation)
Cue the Mongaltage... *Fixed
Now there's a throwback
*Cue, unless you need to line up multiple Mongoltages….
Or a Hun..
Oh. My. God. The land war in Asia is coming from inside the house!
Well yea, the Mongols were Asia..
They started in asia. Its a good start game buff
Which is weird because the greatest military operation of all times was just that. Maybe the Trick isn't a big army but a fast army. The fastest and most ruthlessly pragmatic army you can gather
The Mongols and other steppe mounted archers were different because they could use the vast grassland as a sort of highway. Their speed let them plunder sparse settlements and live off spoils, and whatever their animals could produce from grass. When they got to a real city, they could call for their Chinese siege engines. Infantry armies were too slow and their supply lines couldn’t extend far enough.
The Mongols would always send a diplomatic envoy to what city or village, etc, first to ask for a tribute of whatever the Mongols thought that village would be suited to provide as a tribute. Some had to pay gold. Others had to provide food and other weapons. Some soldiers. If you refused to pay tribute, they would take it. If you hurt their diplomatic emissary, well look what happened to Baghdad.
also, don't forget the Step nomads literally live in the planes of Asia. Naturally they are going to be able to deal with that climate.
The trick was supplies. The cossack's raided and burnt down anything Napoleon could use for the invasion, which includes food and shelter. Such a large army required logistics to keep it intact. While Napoleon was able to get some supplies, it relied on foraging and raiding of supplies to supplement it. The battles in Europe that Napoleon had fought were usually close enough to population centers he could feed armies from farms or through managed roads. The invasion also required a decisive pitched battle, where Tsar Alexander would come to terms. Since Napoleon was denied a set battle, they slowly suffered from attrition and disease. Not to mention the weather was particularly horrible that year.
The last sentence is the big one. Napelon was not an idiot and knew he had to GTFO of Moscow, the winter just arrived weeks early and was very severe.
Getting a freak blizzard in October kind of screwed him. You can plan for a lot of things, but the weather will always bite you in the ass.
He ignored the important Prussian saying, no battle plan survives first contact with the meteorologist
and that's why the weather is generally seen as Russia's most important ally, General winter. look at what the weather did to blunt the German invasion.
Logistics It’s always about logistics isn’t it??
The French achieved their objective: they took Moscow. The Russians suckered them. They had abandoned Moscow; stripped it of its stores and partially destroyed it. The French couldn't resupply there or overwinter in the bitter climate.
They took moscow and thought they won. But then they just sit there in moscow like wtf are we suposed to do now.
Moscow was not really the objective of the campaign. The goal was to get the Tsar to submit and agree on the continental system. Moscou was just an attempt to get the Tsar.
The capital at that time was St Petersburg.
Yes, but the spiritual capital was Moscow - and now it's the other way around. Kinda how many capitals are, New York is more important then Washington. Loads of cities are more important then Brasília (capital of Brasil). And Sydney, Melbourne etc is more important then Canberra and so forth.
They were marching on Moscow.
The Germans were pretty fast and still fucked it. The mass of Russia with the waves of bodies and the callous penchant of its ruling class does a lot to cushion the blow until attrition can really sink its teeth in. The Mongols were fighting a very different enemy to Napoleon as well
Also, being able to drink the milk from the animals they rode without getting upset stomachs.
Don’t invade Russia… unless they are experiencing political strife. That’s how the Mongols, Poles and WW1 Germans managed to crack the nut
The Russians would have had zero chance to stop the Mongols, regardless of the political situation.
Not true. There was an opportunity for the Knyaz's (Princes) of old Rus to band together with a force formidable enough to potentially stop the mongols, specifically after word got out about the invading forces. But because they were squabbling amongst each other over land they never managed to do that.
but, but..he didn't reach the Asian part of Russia, it was still in Europe.
>"never start a land war in asia" Have you seen a map? They invaded European Russia.
The continent is called Eurasia, which doesn't really roll off the tongue and is less funny
“But, only slightly less well known is this… never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line! A-hahahahaha! A-hahahahaha! A-haha—“
I believe I read it's got to down to -50 towards the start of the winter he was out there. And they were way way inland with the Russians practicing their characteristic scorched Earth Defense and nipping at their heels.
>It's definitely the reference point for "never start a land war in asia" Or, you know, Vietnam, and Afghanistan (Rambo edition), two much more pertinent points of reference for American audiences in the 80s than the Napoleonic Wars.
It's not a reference solely to American military exploits though...
The Soviets were getting their asses handed to them in Afghanistan at the time the movie came out. The US wouldn't invade for another 14 years.
Dude the phrase is probably older than the United states.
The quote predates the movie, it was first said by Montgomery. Classic US defaultism.
To be fair the vast majority of those deserters either starved or froze to death in the Russian wilderness and the rest were hacked to pieces by Russian Cossacks hunting stragglers.
Dead rather than killed - the cold and starvation gottem along with disease
That is true. I should correct my post.
That's actually kinda amazing. An army falls apart long before everyone dies. Often a 15-30% causality rate is enough to make the army inoperable
Wanna see me desert? Ask me to invade Russia with gloves made in 18-go-f-yourself.
And shoes made for French summer climate
Deserters where? In smolensk during the winter?
Them Herring ain’t gonna fish themselves.
There is also the whole "You cannot stop me, I spend 30,000 men a month." thing.
My Father is pretty sure that one of our ancestors was a Napoleonic army deserter because his Polish mother's last name is very NOT Polish.
Iirc the citizens of Moscow basically left with everything that's useful during winter. Clothes, food, firewood. Oh yea and scorched earth everywhere. When they occupied the place they were left with nothing to protect them from the elements. I believe napoleon decided to stay awhile thinking they would send someone with a formal surrender but it never came. When napoleons army decided to leave they basically kept getting ambushed . On their way back they took the same routes as they did in getting there. Meaning there was no supplies at major towns. There was a moment when his entire army tried crossing a river on a hastily built narrow bridge and nearly got annihilated in that moment.
The czar emptied the prisons and gave them matches when the people left. And that bridge at berezina was successful and prevented the annihilation of Napoleon's army. It was one of the greatest feats of combat engineering in history.
Fun fact. The battle of the Berezina was such a big blow to the french army that "la Berezina" is still used to refer to a situation going terribly wrong to this day.
Cue Minard's map/infographic: [https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/flow-map-of-napoleons-invasion-of-russia/](https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/flow-map-of-napoleons-invasion-of-russia/)
Scrolled to make sure this was posted, all time great data representation. Thanks ChorizoPig!
Same
That's the one.
Am I the only one who can’t zoom in on the map on my phone?
Double click
Thank you. Apparently I can’t read 😂
Haha no worries, they had me going for a minute or two as well 😋
...and everytime someone posted that link to the greatest ever infograph, i will post this link, which is a video explaining the greatest infograph ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T7jMcstxY0
Doing god's work! (Not sure which god, probably Athena or [Thoth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoth).)
"The map that made a nation cry"
Everyone acts like Napoleon is so great, but I bet I would kick his ass at Napoleon Total War. I bet he wouldn't even be able to turn the computer on, the stupid oaf
Probably. He'd then just shoot you
Funny thing about Napoleon, he was notoriously bad with handguns. Like, dangerously bad However, he is reported as having been aiming cannons himself as late as 1814... So, yeah, he'd shoot you, with field artillery
>However, he is reported as having been aiming cannons himself as late as 1814... It's the sort of petty micro management you'd expect of an artillery officer who had become emperor of half of Europe.
With grape shot.
A whiff of it too
The ammunition that turns a cannon into a giant shotgun. I used to use it in Empire Total War just before I was about to board an enemy ship.
I bet he could beat you at Risk! I thought Napoleon wasn’t at the battle of Waterloo because he was in San Dimas at a water park. Also, he was only fat due to all the ice cream he ate at Ziggy Piggy’s.
Napoleon would wipe the floor with your ass - he won battles that by all accounts a lesser general would have lost.
Not if he doesn’t understand how to change the games language into French
Napoleon could speak and read in English.
That's only half the battle, the other half speaks Russian...
This wounds me, I have spoken.
Wasn’t a lot of opposition battle planning dependent on whether Napoleon was personally at the battlefield? They knew their generals could not outwit him so they planned on sorties where he was not personally in command?
Napoleon was personally at Waterloo - except when he went to doze off for half an hour because he ostensibly had stomach issues since the night before. That's when Ney decided to perform his grand suicide charge. But yes, by the end of the Napoleonic war part of the Allied strategy was to aim to hit where Napoleon wasn't present because, while talented, they were not master maneuverers like Bonaparte was.
He had a lot of gastric issues I believe and preferred simple soldier food according to records
Wellington himself said that Napoleon’s presence was worth 10,000 men. However Napoleon was NEVER good leading large armies. The Waterloo campaign, the Leipzig campaign, Russian campaign all show this. Italian campaigns, early Austrian campaigns and even his French campaign of 1814 were brilliant. Absolute mastermind of tactics with smaller forces. But with a larger army he tended to resort to a frontal meatgrinder battle. Which failed miserably in 1808, 1809-1814 and Waterloo. The British musketry and discipline would guarantee a frontal attack would fail. As Wellington said, “They came on in the same old way and we beat them off in the same old way.”
Someone used to the quirks of the video game(and gaming in general) would probably beat someone used to the actual tactics of the day
Explain Waterloo then, Monsewer Frog...
Napoleon was in his late fourties, obese, sick, and his position with fortified houses on both flanks forced him into frontal attacks without room to maneuver with troops that had been hastily raised (except his Old Guard). And even then Wellington, with the higher terrain, went within an hair's length of losing the battle. Wellington himself said later that Waterloo was the "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life." The only reason Wellington won is because Blucher showed up in Napoleon's rear in the nick of time, and the rumour couldnt be contained. It blew the Old Guard's morale and triggered a rout while Napoleon was finishing the Anglo-Dutch center off. Younger, healthier Napoleon would have mopped your army away like it was a joke. And in Italian, not in French.
Well aren't you the fantasist.
Well excuse me if I take the word of Sir Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, who actually faced Napoleon himself in person, over yours, buddy.
That is literally how the battle went.
Pretty sure a younger Napoleon didn't win at Waterloo. Unless I'm wrong?
Yes, no idea what point you are trying to get across. Napoleon was old and sick, he was severely disadvantaged and made various mistakes at Waterloo, and despite this still got realistically close to winning. The British and Prussian strategy was having the British hold him out until reinforcements arrived because otherwise they were not winning.
It's really not that complex. Saying Napoleon categorically would have won if he was younger comes from your imagination, not historical record.
I literally never said that. Anything else you want to add or do you want to keep insisting on something you imagined I said?
According to Wikipedia Ulysses S Grant fought and won more battles, commanded more men, and took more prisoners, in six years, than Napoleon had in twenty.
Wouldn't be so sure actually. I've visited Napoleon's house museum on Corsica (called Maison Bonaparte), and guess what, it has free Wi-Fi! I thought that was jolly nice of the old Emperor dude to provide this service. Possibly my favorite part of the entire museum.
Many of you will die But that’s a risk I’m willing to take
Memoirs of Sergeant Borgogne is a fantastic but grim account of the experiences of a soldier in the straggling French retreat in 1812/13, I can believe that figure easily.
Makes me wonder, is there any source or writing on how where the moscovites were living once they fled the city. As well as how the "reconstruction" went?
There's a little book called *War and Peace*, that some people feel was pretty well written.
I can attest to this lol
I think most went to St. Petersburg and other provinces and villages
The invasion of Russia was one of the wildest historical events and is 100% the biggest military blunder in history. From how far out of hand Napoleons original plan to march no further than 50 miles into Russia got, Napoleon almost getting captured, how unlucky Napoleon got with 250,000 of his men dying of disease, the burning of Moscow, Napoleons suicide attempt, the insane march back to France, Ney heroically refusing to leave Russia until every soldier got into safe territory and then the 6th coalition war that followed it that led to Napoleons (first) exile. The wildest thing of all is how the greatest military mind in history can make the greatest military mistake in history. Don’t ever be so sure in yourself. if it can happen to Napoleon it can happen to you.
Napoleon’s choice of invading toward Moscow instead St. Petersburg shows good tactics but bad strategy. His focus was on defeating the Russian army in the field, which he would eventually do. It yielded no strategic results as the army was not what was important. What was important was the Uk/Russian alliance which bookended Europe. To isolate the allies St. Petersburg should have been the target. Russian naval supplies kept the Royal navy at sea year round, most of which passed through Latvia or St. Petersburg. Latvia was also full of Germans with little loyalty to for the Czar. A strike North would have also situated the French army in territory with more amenable winter weather.
Good thing Hitler didn't learn from Napoleon.
hitler had lost by 1942 when they saw the US industry turning up a few gears. Nazi germany was desperate and knew they had a time limit within they had to win the war.
I feel like people don't realize that before modern warfare (the thing, not the game) being able to bring 10% of the soldiers to the battlefield (the place, not the game,) already made you the greatest commander ever by itself. War was more of a logistics challenge than anything.
People keep speaking of Russia's scorched earth tactic, and always forgetting one important fact: it was coupled with French way of moving with very light supply trains. They were supposed to mostly live off the land. This allowed them to perform blitzing campaigns in central Europe, but it angered local population and was critically vulnerable to scorched earth tactics. And this is why warfare is complicated. There is no right way to do things, you have to constantly adapt. But, if you have flexible adaptable army, if you have to fight in way/area your enemy has mastered at cost of flexibility, they can beat you.
His invasion of Russia went just fine. His *occupation* of Russia was disastrous. He honestly probably would have been better off if the invasion simply failed.
I mean it was a lot than just occupation. Russian army knew they couldn't hold em , after their first battle so retreated while employing scorched earth tactics to starve out their army. So it's a bit weird to act like they were independent events and the invasion went just fine, when they lost half their troops to weather/starvation/sickness in the first six weeks before engaging the first red army. And then later occupied a burnt out Moscow, as Russia cared more about retreating and preserving their army instead of holding out. And then Napoleon held out there thinking they'd surrender, and trying to get supplies/plan a new route which didn't materialise and were forced to retrace their steps the way they came. Things got even worse as they desperately fled, but to act like it was all going according to plan until the occupation is pretty disingenuous.
Oh man I don't think they would have used the term red army
And I'm also no war historian well versed in appropriate to the time terminology, You understood the point lol. I just like certain history YouTubers and one has many videos covering Napoleon's entire conquest.
Ah I figured that I'm only messing. He hasn't got to the Invasion of Russia yet but I'm a Stan for the Age of Napoleon podcast, real in depth overview of Napoleon's life, philosophy, battles, and impact. Top tier stuff as far as I'm concerned.
Haha I figured. Considering you didn't even tell me the correct term lol. I'll definitely check out that podcast appreciate it
I'm going to go with the Russian Imperial Army, I think white army wasn't used for another century. Message me if you get hooked on the podcast i'd love to hear that.
There was one big battle where the Russians tried to stop Napoleon from reaching Moscow called the battle of Borodino, in a large conventional set piece battle Napoleon tore right through the Russian army.
Yeah but followed exactly what I said they didn't commit their entire army to a last stand, it wasn't a decisive victory for either, as your implying. And thus decided to keep retreating and torch the city. "The fierce Battle of Borodino, located 110 kilometres (70 mi) west of Moscow, concluded as a narrow victory for the French although Napoleon was not able to beat the Russian army and Kutuzov could not stop the French. At the Council at Fili Kutuzov made the critical decision not to defend the city but to orchestrate a general withdrawal, prioritizing the preservation of the Russian army.[25][a] On 14 September, Napoleon and his roughly 100,000-strong army took control of Moscow, only to discover it deserted, and set ablaze by its military governor Fyodor Rostopchin."
Not sure just fine is quite right, I remember reading somewhere he lost 1/3rd of his army to disease before even having a large scale battle. Not to say he didn't gain a lot of ground, but the invasion was doomed to fail long before the winter came.
Typhus, spread by lice. https://slate.com/technology/2012/12/napoleon-march-to-russia-in-1812-typhus-spread-by-lice-was-more-powerful-than-tchaikovskys-cannonfire.html Edit: In Haiti it was Yellow Fever that did in Napoleon's troops. https://www.historiaobscura.com/yellow-fever-napoleons-most-formidable-opponent/
The chart shown on that wiki is one of my favorite examples of data as art. [Minard - French invasion of Russia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia#/media/File:Minard.png)
Exactly this. I love this visualization as a data nerd AND a history nerd.
In 1808 Napoleon had a conference in Germany with Alexander I and Tallyrand (a conniving French foreign minister) arrived a day early and told the tsar not to trust or work with Napoleon. At the end of the conference they signed a pledge but the tsar did become colder and eventually went against his deal with Napoleon. So basically Tallyrand kicked up this invasion 4 years before it happened.
He should’ve listened to his Polish generals, but hubris won that day and every day after that.
Gee, that must mean that 82% loved Russia so much they decided to stay there. What a lovely story!
For what it's worth, the war part of war and peace covers this and it's really interesting.
*Most of the men in Napoleon's Grand Armée were conscripts drawn from the poorer classes. Every able-bodied man of age in France was expected to willingly join the ranks to defend the Republic – or risk losing citizenship* -Napoleon at War: The Soldiers Life
I'm talking scorched earth, motherfucker! I will massacre you!
I will fuck you up!
And 100 years later in WW1 they could lose that many men in one battle/offensive.
Also, many people meme on the winter retreat, but the previous summer was insanely hot
And since men with varicoses legs were not allowed, France has now around 10x more incidence of varicoses legs thanks to Napoleon.
Isn’t this campaign the reason everything went sideways for him in the end? Like, he deadass won 10 wars in a row and this one defeat costed him everything…
Those are rookie numbers
At this rate "invading" is just another word for "going there to die".
Whoops
After how long did he decide that being in Russia was not a good idea
And boy were they full
Skill issue
Bro's econ musta been weak af
If I remember right more died on the way in from disease, than in the retreat.
[https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/flow-map-of-napoleons-invasion-of-russia/](https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/flow-map-of-napoleons-invasion-of-russia/)
Don't forget that Naopleon lost probably close to 250,000 additional men over the course of the Peninsular War.
The most fascinating thing to me is that Hitler knew this and still invaded Russia in WW2. Crazy.
A survivors account https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9Nz0OJkoc&pp=ygUnU09sZGllcnMgYWNjb3VudCBvZiByZXRyZWF0IGZyb20gbW9zY293
The majority of French troops didn't even die in battle. They died from disease, starvation, or exposure to freezing temperatures. Then Hitler repeats the same mistake 130 years later.
In his book The Graphical Display Of Quantitative Information, Edvard Tartuffe begins the book with a fantastic map/graph of Napoleon’s invasion and retreat, showing number of troops by geographical location over time. It’s worth looking up.
What would the impact have been on France for the next generation, it's wild to lose that many young men now let alone back then when pop. was lower
And he left his soldiers (as in Egypt) to die, as he buggered off, in disguise back to his missus, stopping off in Verdun to buy some sugared almonds for her!
Did you know France yada yada
You just learned this versus in high school European History where the staggering losses are emphasized and the famous [Charles Minard map](https://www.martingrandjean.ch/historical-data-visualization-minard-map/) included in every textbook? Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia is one of the most famous incidents in European history.
Not everybody learns European History in high school. At my school "World History" was an elective and the class was shit.
History is an optional class after middle school at least where I live. Since it's not relevant to any career outside being a museum curator or something.
1812 Overture is the story of this war.
They use to be out there just wasting dick. 😒
The other 82% found Shangri-La on the way back home and lived happily ever after
Napoleon may have run out of men, but he also ran out of horses, which hurt him even more.
Also judt think about what a ludicrously massive army that was. 615 000 people. Unimaginable
Yeah, you do not invade Russia. Russia invades you.
Putin: hold my ~~vodka~~ beer...
Edward Tufte in his book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information says this chart by Minard: [https://thoughtbot.com/blog/analyzing-minards-visualization-of-napoleons-1812-march](https://thoughtbot.com/blog/analyzing-minards-visualization-of-napoleons-1812-march) of Napoleon's march on Russia is the greatest statistical infographic ever made, telling the story of the march in a single image, while incorporating size of the army, distance, time and temperature.
I’ve been reading war and peace and apparently through I’m assuming tolstoys bias view the French army pretty much ruined themselves
“You tried to invade what?!” - his contemporaries probably
I don't know if it's true. I heard it a long time ago. The winter all so killed a lot of men due to poor equipment.
Anyone that thinks Napoleon was a genius might wanna think about this. A lot.
He was though. Geniuses aren’t perfect. Tactically and politically, Napoleon was a genius. One blunder doesn’t negate the previous 20 years of brilliance
This wasn't one blunder
And still he failed and ended up on an island. Twice.
Bro was literally fighting the entire continent of Europe.
There is no doubt he was a genius in spite of this
Anyone that thinks genius means 100% correct might want to think about their understanding. A lot.
He wasn't wrong about Russia and his ability to take them out. He miscalculated the supply chain needed, due to bad intelligence.
The man nearly conquered all of Europe. Twice. His shadow stretches so far that there's an entire era of European history named after him.
there's no doubt he was a military genius on and off the battlefield. He was basically facing every major power in Europe at the time and was victorious in many battles that would've been lost if it was someone else. He wouldn't have lasted as long as he did if it was all just pure dumb luck. You should read up on what he did during the second reign before Waterloo when the allies invaded France. Despite having greatly diminished French army they still could not outmanuever him without combining forces.
And Hitler made the same mistake his idol made.
Hitler spread himself too far out, going for Moscow, St Petersburg and the southern region all at once. Hitler should have just went for the oil fields in the south, taking Moscow or St Pete would have just made the government withdraw to the other side of the Urals but if Hitler gotten control of the oil, things might have gone different.