Did Napoleon do anything wrong?

the leclarc expedition

Napoleon was designed to beating armies, not so good at attrition

That painting is supposed to be of Borodino.

Unimaginative brute-force tactics at Borodino and Waterloo.
Other than that, and trusting Talleyrand too much, not much.

I meant politically as well.

Yea he tried to establish a Jewish state in Palestine in 1799 and he unleashed the Jewish plague from quarantine in the ghettos.

>Can anyone explain to me why Napoleon lost against Russia?

Russia is cold.

>What was his game plan to begin with when he invaded?
Remove the tsar and establish another confederacy of the rhine thing, except this time of slavs instead of germans.

>Why did he even leave after he took Moscow, wouldn't their be enough supplies there to feed his army, or was it raided before they got there?
Because Russians were literally burning everything from Tilsit to the Urals including Moscow. Napoleon would have relied on resources plundered from the Russians to last through the winter because Russian winters suck and supply lines from europe proper become untenable. Alot of pesants died in 1912.

The main objective of the war was to beat Russia and force Alexander to reinstate the blockade of Britain. He hoped to settle the war with a few battles at the border of Russia and not have to advance further, but due to his huge force of half a million and superior tactics the Russians mostly retreated and burned or blew up what could have been used to feed or shelter the Grande Armée.
The reason he stayed so long is Russia was to wait for what he believe would be a response from Alexander.

Did he never consider the fact that the Russians could just avoid meeting him in battle and prevent him from supplying his army? It just seems weird to think a general of his caliber didn't consider just how big Russia was and how difficult it would be to hold. Sorry if I sound ignorant.

He lost.

He didn't anticipate that the Russian government would be so vehemently opposed to him that they'd destroy every square meter of salvageable material across their whole European empire. The act did, after all, fuck up rural Russia and Moscow for the entire rest of the century and ensure the Empire never had another shot at being a global power, but it's not like Napoleon had the hindsight we do now to know how utterly self-destructive Russians are when they don't like someone.

God.

Are you even Slavic

What's that got to do with it?

Are you?

No

Lol

It just occured to me that Hitler and Napoleon both lost when they tried to beat Russia. Not trying to draw a correlation between losing and attacking Russia, I'm just pointing out that it seems like a peculiar coincidence.

Even if he wouldn't have invaded russia and the blockade had succeeded, would it even have led to anything? Has it not been proven that the blockade was ineffective? Was the threat of a french land invasion of britain really realistic? Would he have been able to get past the british navy?

Russia only won because Stalin allowed the true Church to have back all her parishes from the "renovated" USSR shill Church The "Renovated" allowed things like priests to divorce and remarry, and bishops to marry, but Russians wouldn't attend because they knew it was heretical. During WWII, Stalin knew he need the Church's help, so he gave all the parishes back to the clergy which refused to accept the "Renovated" Church; the clergy that accepted it, had to do penance.

Slaughtering the innocent God fearing defenders of Jaffa after they surrendered.

And الله knows best

Have you seriously never heard of the Russian winter meme before

Napoleon had a great deal of sympathy toward Islam, even after his exile.

Are you autistic? Do you actually think the USSR beat Germany because of religion?

Why do you think Stalin suddenly legalized the true Church and gave it significant state support (going so far as to fund it)? He might have been an atheist, but he knew he needed the Church to win.

Invading Spain was pretty dumb. The same goes with Russia.

And Egypt.

Don't forget the Gambia.

That's pathetic

It was the will of God.

I'm Greek Orthodox

Why?

>trust a snake before a jew and a jew before a greek

well that explains it. also stop shilling for your religion in every thread please

That's even more pathetic

Could you explain why?

Joke church desu

His plan : Attack before being attacked
By destroying russian armies
Problem : they keep fleeing and prefer burn their whole country, plus winter during the retreat
Moscow burned and staying would condemn him

Thems fightin' words. Say what you want about me, but don't talk smack about Christ's Church.

youtube.com/watch?v=TnXEAaz2kS4

>What was his game plan to begin with when he invaded?
He just wanted to have his personal revenge against Alexander which refused to give one of his sisters for marriage a few years before. So Napoleon married Austrian princess instead and started to prepare the war. And it's not revenge if you don't crush your opponent completely until he crawls on his knees for begging.

Seriously he was hella beta with women.

Was getting himself caught part of his plane?

Attacked Russia.

Von Clausewitz described it best: Napoleon's preparations and supply lines for the invasion of Russia were flawless. The problem is that Alexander (who was already a treacherous fuck who both respected and hated Napoleon) fought "irrationally". That is to say that after Borodino, he didn't fight at all. He just kept retreating further and further East burning everything on his way there, even the Third Rome: Moscow. It was indeed an irrational way of fighting (why burn what you're supposed to protect? While starve and freeze to death those who rely on you for their protection?) but it won the war.

Napoleon's big mistake was assuming the Russians are human.

are you 14 years old?
stupid frog poster, Napoleon was a dirty war monger that used wars to distract from problems at home

>Napoleon takes Poland's side over Alexander's, his ally's, literally just for sex
>invades Russia without provocation
But Alexander is the treacherous one, right?

He lost

>Napoleon takes Poland's side over Alexander's
Yeah, I wonder why Napoleon would want to protect the integrity of one of his buffer states.

>Invades Russia without provocation
Because he was supposed to roll over and allow Russia to backstab France?

The Duchy of Warsaw had been established as a French protectorate at Tilsit, two years earlier. Attempts to take back Warsaw were an open hostility towards France and a violation of the Treaty of Tilsit. An "ally" who does not honor his treaties is only an ally for as long as he can't fuck your shit up.

Wars declared by Napoleon:
>Spanish invasion
>Russian invasion (though it can be considered a pre-emptive attack)

Wars declared on Napoleon:
>War of the 3rd Coalition
>War of the 4th Coalition
>War of the 5th Coalition
>War of the 6th Coalition
>War of the 7th Coalition
Yeah... warmonger indeed. He's on par with the Bush administration if anything.

>Yeah, I wonder why Napoleon would want to protect the integrity of one of his buffer states.
Alexander didn't mind it being a buffer state, he just didn't want Napoleon to give it autonomy, he didn't care if Napoleon held on to it.

>The Duchy of Warsaw had been established as a French protectorate at Tilsit, two years earlier.
And Alexander wanted it to remain exactly that. Russia and Poland have a terrible history, which in the past involved Poland occupying Russia for quite a while. The Czar didn't want Poland to attack, but Napoleon disregarded this because a woman seduced him.

hur dur, the thread

He didn't learn that his place as a manlet was to be a cuck.

Was the french revolution a beta uprising?

Napoleon should have read a book on the Great Northern War.

I don't understand how Napoleon couldn't defeat the British navy, given enough time. It seems to me that there would probably be more shipyards in the huge amount of coastline he controlled than in Great Britain and Ireland, so it would just be a matter of outproducing the Brits until the French Navy was superior

He would have need years to that.
And a fleet has to be manned and you need officers.

>I don't understand how Napoleon couldn't defeat the British navy, given enough time.
He was kind of maybe a little distracted with LITERALLY ALL OF EUROPE whereas Britain had pretty much only the navy to focus on. As the war progressed the French navy shrunk (with more money needing to be siphoned to the land army) where the British navy grew.

You'd be right in the theoretical situation where Russia would've been subdued. That's why 1812 is considered the turning point: up until then, nothing could've gone wrong.

>That's why 1812 is considered the turning point: up until then, nothing could've gone wrong.
The Peninsular Campaign has been a bleeding French resources for a while by that point.

With only 200,000 men in the region at a stalemate near the far south of the peninsula. Imagine what the million man Grande Armée could've done if not for Russia. Until the Russian Invasion, the French had a very solid chance of winning the Peninsular war.

But you're right, that also needed to be solved before the navy could've been built up.

I guess I've got the wrong impression that he had mainland Europe (outside of Russia) sort of 'locked down'

Yeah of course, have you never had a history lesson in your life?

youtube.com/watch?v=Sj_9CiNkkn4

This, of course.

butthurt pole detected

>Because he was supposed to roll over and allow Russia to backstab France?
When Allies declare war they are aggressor, Napoleon just defends himself.
When Napoleon declares war it's just preemptive act of self-defense, his enemies would start the war anyway.

Yeah, why should the bloody poles be allowed to have their own country and autonomy!

>I don't understand how Napoleon couldn't defeat the British navy, given enough time.
because one of his general shagged a british tramp and confessed to her, and the tramp told the British army

Alexander condemned countless of his own people to die solely to protect his pride and not sign a treaty with Napoleon.

Such is the life of a Russian.

Difference is, in the first case it is usually all of Europe against Napoleon and France alone. Solely to reinstate the "Divine Right" monarchy.

In the second, it is backstabbing "Allies" that have to learn their place.

His great mistake was that he didn't take ideas of Robert Fulton seriously. New French steam fleet could make British fleet obsolete.

Yeah, Russians had to do what French did during WW2, surrender.

>Did Napoleon do anything wrong?
he lost
also the eternal anglo will pay one day for opposing the greatest european in history

he picked a shitty wife twice
never trust austrians

>also the eternal anglo will pay one day for opposing the greatest european in history
The time slot for retribution passed long ago.

>implying
the world will echo with the laughter of hungry gods June 23rd when Brexit fails
so long, farewell,auf wiedersehen, good night

Read War & Peace. Tolstoy has an interesting hypothesis about that and the "great man" theory

He fucked it up with Spain
>Invade a loyal ally
>Lose 250.000 soldiers

No. :( I have now.

>loyal

More like
>Be Spain
>Get "invaded" without so much as a gunshot
>All is well for a moment
>French start pushing for liberal reforms while trying to keep the aristocracy happy
>No one ends up satisfied
>rebellion and alliance with the Brits
>get rid of the French
>Don't make any reforms, stagnate, lose empire, lose prestige, fight civil wars and know unrest for decades.

Well they managed to keep their King, it was really worth it.

Do you really think it was a smart move?

>Be Napoleon
>Have a formal alliance with Spain along with good relationships between the countries
>Tell Spain to invade Portugal with them
>Spain says ok
>Lol no we invade you instead

He could have used spanish troops and resources on his campaigns but instead he thought Spain would be like the german states who would just be fine with their new master, and it exploded in his face; opening a second european front, suffering the Grande Armée`s first defeat in Europe and losing two hundred thousand men.

this war just shouldn't have happened, he should have just supported one side, not btfo the two

The move was smart and well executed, what wasn't smart was not putting all his eggs in the same basket by appealing to the liberals 100% rather than trying to find a compromise.

>The move was smart
How? If you believed that the rebellion wouldnt have exploded you are delusional. Napoleon did a dumb move in Spain and opened an unecesary front.

>The move was smart
How? If you believed that the rebellion wouldnt have exploded you are delusional. Napoleon did a dumb move. Also you are forgetting the idea of patriotism that was something that was rising all over the world. Liberals were mostly interesting about building a nation. And the bulk of Spain's population didnt like France or the French

topkek, how dumb are you?

Clauswitz says Napoleon didn't make a single mistake in the 1812 campaign.

I'd argue he made one trusting his brother-in-law to engage the souther Russian forces, which he fialed to do. This intial mistake allowed the Russians to retreat instead of be engaged in battle.

The Tsar then burned everything west of Moscow and Moscow itself.

Think of how many Russian Serf lives were ruined by this.
The casus belli for the war was Tsar Alexander's failure to comply with the Continental System. Aka Russian nobles began trading with Britian again. They were losing potential business from the CS and wanted Alexander to allow them to trade.

Alexander finally agreed despite his treaty with Napoleon.

So the end result is a bunch of serfs in Russia get shit on by their own army, a half the country is burned and starving, but the Russian Nobles get to make some $$$.

The norm for this type of war was one to two battles fought and then a peace deal. Napoleon expected to go like any other war over petty trade deals. Alexander for some reason decided to go all in and crash Russia with no survivors.

Reminder that Germany won against Russia in WWI

>The Tsar then burned everything west of Moscow and Moscow itself.
Most fires in Moscow were caused by Grand Army soldiers. They started campfires inside buildings and didn't control them properly because were drunken after plundering wine stores.
Scorched earth tactics were applied only to territories along the road to Moscow, they were not so big. Serfs didn't have hope to keep the supplies as they would be plundered by Grand Army if were not destroyed.
>Think of how many Russian Serf lives were ruined by this.
By Napoleon's invasion. This started guerilla war. Usually death of Napoleon's soldiers captured by serfs was not easy.
>Alexander finally agreed despite his treaty with Napoleon.
Continental System was implemented by Russia until The Invasion. Napoleon's claims was that British goods were delivered to Russia via neutral countries. But Russia never agreed to restrict this kind of trade.
>So the end result is a bunch of serfs in Russia get shit on by their own army, a half the country is burned and starving, but the Russian Nobles get to make some $$$.
Russia kept its independence and saved territories. Napoleon's plans before the war were to to take Belarus, Ukraine, and Baltic region from Russia.

>The norm for this type of war was one to two battles fought and then a peace deal. Napoleon expected to go like any other war over petty trade deals. Alexander for some reason decided to go all in and crash Russia with no survivors.
Russian takes wars very seriously, not like some kind of a game. Thanks to Napoleon's personal ambitions France lost its chance to become the most powerful nation in the world. Eternal Anglos are grateful.

>Remove the tsar and establish another confederacy of the rhine thing, except this time of slavs instead of germans.
this is false

>Most fires in Moscow were caused by Grand Army soldiers. They started campfires inside buildings and didn't control them properly because were drunken after plundering wine stores.