Post Veeky Forums related graphs

Post Veeky Forums related graphs.

...

Is this graph especially famous in a certain circle or something? I had a high school physics teacher who had that hanging up on the wall despite it being a science lab with no history teaching ever taking place there. When asked about it, I'm pretty sure he said something about it being a very well made graph

Its the size of napoleons grand armee over the course when they invaded russia. the Tan/orange represents the # of soldiers on the march to moscow while the black represents # of soldiers on the retreat from russia. Its pretty famous because of how it puts in to perspective how much and how fast the grand armee got shat on.

He had explained to us what it represented, I was just wondering if this graph in particular is famous or if it is just a coincidence that I've seen it again

It is actually. It's thought of as one of the most revolutionary graphs detailing history since it relates multiple aspects to each other including the temperature, the geography, the size of the army, and the timeline of the journey. There's a specefic video going more in depth but I'n too lazy to get the link.

>shat on

A lot of it is not battle causalities but Napoleon leaving behind garrisons and losing men to famine and disease walking through accursed winter lands.

He still won Borodino and captured Moscow.

>He still won Borodino and captured Moscow.

And lost the war.

Napoleon's armies always had non-battle causalities vastly outnumbering those of his enemies despite having the best logistics and medical corps. That was because of deadly force marches.

The Russian campaign was without doubts notable to the outcome of Napoleonic wars, but the 1813 campaign was far more decisive and even more disastrous to the French. In early months of 1813 Napoleon managed to largely restore his Grande Armee up to half of million of troops. The way in which he did that (brutally stripping lands under his control of men, money and anything having value) was one of the reasons why so many allies left him. During the campaign, Napoleon again squandered his army in force marches and by 1814 he had an army of less than 100k of raw recruits.

To be fair, for 1813 it was the only sensible thing to do to raise as many man as fast as possible to somehow keep a front standing, before the russian tide washes over germany.

Even under the viewpoint that he should have sacrificed his empire and fought a completely defensive war for france proper, it was the logical thing to do to keep the fighting on foreign, non-french ground.

...

how come the population actually went up during the balkan wars?

In 1813 the most sensible thing would be accepting the peace proposal which gave France everything west of Rhine and allowed Napoleon to keep the imperial title.

But at that point Nappy's ego was just too grand to accept anything short of complete surrender of his enemies.

...

Not that user, but I guess its from the population of ottoman greece fleeing the fighting.

But that was during the sommer break if I remember right. Or even later.
That was only after he got his armies up to strenght by his brutal recruitment methods and showed that he still had strenght enough to continue the war after the russian desaster.

Also, while I agree with you, that he made some terrible decisions and should have opened serious negotiations; his main argument against was, that he had conquered his empire by strenght and the first moment he showed weakness he would lose it again.
So, even if he agreed to give away Germany and Italy (and Spain), the Allies would just continue the war under some bogus casus belli soon afterwards or he would fall from a coup within.
(Especially looking at the 100 Days, where he did agree to consent with all allied terretorial demands and only keep France and still him being ruler was reason enough to declare war on him, his argument from the year before made a lot of sense)

You're full of shit

>In early months of 1813 Napoleon managed to largely restore his Grande Armee up to half of million of troops.
He still had lost most of his experienced soldiers, some of which had been fighting since 1792
Rebuilding an army with unexperienced recruits isnt the same

>The way in which he did that (brutally stripping lands under his control of men, money and anything having value).
Lono
Foreign conscription made up for a very tiny part of his new army
The biggest part was volunteers from France followed by concripts from France

>was one of the reasons why so many allies left him
Absotultly not
His formers ""allies"" (really subdued enemies) turned on him as soon as he lost his feared Grande Armee in the Russian Retreat because they knew it was an opportunity to seize
One of Napoleon's biggest mistake was that he never deposed the rulers of Prussia and Austria when he conquered those countries

...

...

The consistency of the text doesn't account for its accuracy.
The precision/accuracy dichotomy isn't a meme
Also none of those are reputable. Their only useful to understand the values of the writers through their statements and through offhand observations. This graph is meaningless

>*tip*

well played

Does that take into account the dozens of gospels not included in the New Testament?

this map is inaccurate as hell. the way IQ is determined is on a bell curve where 100 is the absolute center. this map has an average probably in the lower 90s at best, and funnily enough, this seems to be a commonly used statistic in lots of IQ maps I've seen. I'm not even some buttmad brown guy, these charts should stroke my dick as an aryan. which is what they are supposed to do, because mensa is just a business that gets money from arrogant whites and asians by telling them they're smart and giving them certificates.

the religiosity chart as well as the mcdaniel chart of US IQ seem to be accurate, though, so don't think the entire image is useless. the world average IQ of 90 meme needs to die, though, it's self-contradictory. it's already such a subjective system anyway.

I literally just saw it for the first time last Friday during an architecture lecture on diagrams and good diagramming practices.
It is a good one, to be sure.

>have thousands of copies of some ancient text

>OHH BUT IT NOT REPUTABLE

What more would you want?

This graph's biggest venerator is Edward Tufte, professor emeritus at Yale. He loves it, talks about it in all his books, and sells poster replicas of it on his website.

...