Did no one point out to Napoleon the major attrition his men would face as well as the scorched earth tactic the russians would use prior to the invasion?
Napoleon wasn't stupid, he should've predicted this.
Furthermore, when Napoleon's army was taking massive casualties halfway to Moscow, he should've pulled out, but was insistent on continuing. Did he go mad?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
AFAIK he thought he could win a few key battles, get the Russians to peace out then hurry back and deal with the English.
Even then, Russian manpower was so large he should've known he couldn't just win a few battles to get the Russians to back down.
>as well as the scorched earth tactic the russians would use prior to the invasion?
>Napoleon wasn't stupid, he should've predicted this.
Sure, from a 21st century viewpoint
European warfare was very different back then
Napoleon couldn't in any way guess that Alexander would rather burn his own country (dooming hundreds thousands of hjs civilians to death by starvation) just to avoid abiding to a trade agreement.
It was an absolutly irrational behavior coming from a deranged individual (Alexander was insane and firmly though that Napoleon was the antichrist) and that's what defeated Napoleon's genius
He didn't expect the Russians to scorch fucking Moscow of all places.
Imagine that during World War 2 the Germans pour all resources into invading Britain and successfully invade it only to find every south of the Hadrian Wall to be burnt. And their transport back into mainland Europe is getting blasted into pieces.
Scorched earth policy man
Napoleon wasn't taking massive casualties on his path to Moscow, he was beating back the Russians in almost every major battle. Scorched earth and burning down their capital were secondary strategies after the Russians saw they couldn't beat him on the battlefield. After Napoleon captured what remained of Moscow, only then did he find out that the tsar has no intention of surrendering. He then started his retreat in October because the Austrians were getting rowdy again. That's where he got caught up in the Russian winter.
>Furthermore, when Napoleon's army was taking massive casualties halfway to Moscow
Didn't happen
The biggest battle until Borodino was Smolensk, and the French only took 4,000 casualties (out of an army of more than 680,000)
Napoleon's army got smaller on the way to Moscow, but only because he garrisoned parts of it in various cities
The huge majority of casualties happened because of cold and starvation during the retreat
>he couldn't just win a few battles to get the Russians to back down.
Why not? That's how it worked with everyone else.
>Napoleon's army got smaller on the way to Moscow, but only because he garrisoned parts of it in various cities
So this graph is intentionally misleading then?
Countries like Britain and Prussia had a small population and could seriously take massive losses to their army in a single battle. Russia was totally different, they could afford a prolonged war due to their large population
That map doesn't refute his post
This graph shows the reducing of his army due to garrisoning on the way to Moscow (even though it's grossly exaggerated)
People who present it as a graph about casualties are the ones making it misleading
>Didn't happen
ok
People like you should be banned
The reason why it didn't happen is explained right below the part you quoted
Cretin
>attrition as a physical concept
Stop vidyagammerung
Are you unironically dense?
>Did no one point out to Napoleon the major attrition his men would face
Thats why he ansembled the Grand Armee in the first place. He learnt from previous wars with Russia that he had to deal with lots of casualties.
>as well as the scorched earth tactic the russians would use prior to the invasion?
They didnt. It only started when the French couldnt be stopped. At the beginning of the war both sides still hoped to decide the war on the border regions in Lithuania.
>Napoleon wasn't stupid, he should've predicted this
As other anons said, with hindsight maybe. BUt not at that time.
>Furthermore, when Napoleon's army was taking massive casualties halfway to Moscow, he should've pulled out, but was insistent on continuing. Did he go mad?
He wouldnt be where he was was, when he stopped anytime he suffered some casualties. Besides he still took many of the major russian cities, so it was worth it to suffer some losses (who were mostly german, italian or polish anyway)
>hurry back and deal with the English.
lel
>The biggest battle until Borodino was Smolensk, and the French only took 4,000 casualties
But then at Borodino they lost a whooping 35k and a lot of good generals and first rate troops among them.
I think it was the bloodiest battle of the whole Napoleonic Wars at that time.
Why doesn't the line thicken on the way back as the garrisons are abandoned ?
Because they retreated separatedly
The graph is about the army that was with Napoleon
But the graph still accounts for all the troops returning to the Grand Armee on their way back including the garrisons.
So I dont really see where your problem is with that? Its not like the French kept Smolenks or Vyazma occupied after the end of their invasion.
>Because they retreated separatedly
[citation needed]
>it was worth it to suffer some losses (who were mostly german, italian or polish anyway)
Pure bullshit
It wasn't some 20th century tier army with seperated nationalities used as expendable fodder
All troops looked the same (except for Austrian and Prussians who had their own uniforms and commanders) and given that French made up for the overwhelming majority of troops, there's no reason they wouldnt make up for the majority of casualties too
A lot of garrisons had been displaced even before the retreat and Napoleon didn't retreat on the exact same route anyway
But the core army, which was overwhelmingly french, was relatively intact at the time of Borodino and reaching Moscow. It was the huge tross and all the second-rate troops which suffered on the way to Moscow.
But he took exactly the same route. And most of the major garrisons were infused back into the Grand Armee when it passed through.
The logistics expert was probably the first casualty. Dying from second hand smoke from the scorched earth tactic.
Imagine losing a war to weather
I don't think Napoleon had entirely counted on the behavior of the Cossacks. In his day there was a degree of romanticism to them that didn't quite fit the reality, and ultimately, when they got all burn crazy.
I'm under the impression that he believed he could force a decisive battle out of the Russians sooner than the winter.
Russian strategy during that war was centred entirely around NOT giving Napoleon his decisive battle.
When the war started Russian army was split into three parts, since they didn't know where exactly Napoleon would choose to attack, so when he finally made his move these three armies started retreating with the intention of linking up, while eluding the french the best they could.
The Russian scorched earth tactics, in respect to literally burning down Moscow to keep it from Napoleon's possession, was at that point in the history of warfare unprecedented. How could he predict something so beyond the norm?
>I'm under the impression that he believed he could force a decisive battle out of the Russians sooner than the winter.
Napoleon planned to winter in Moscow if he couldn't finish the Russians early. Hence why the Russians opted to burn it to the ground.
Napoleon was an insane megalomaniac who didnt give a damn about his soldiers.
Yeah nah:
"Soldiers of my old guard, I bid you farewell. For twenty years I have constantly accompanied you on the road to honor and glory. In these latter times, as in the days of our prosperity, you have invariably been models of courage and fidelity. With men such as you our cause could not be lost; but the war would have been interminable; it would have been civil war, and that would have entailed deeper misfortunes on France. I have sacrificed all my interests to those of the country. I go, but you, my friends, will continue to serve France. Her happiness was my only thought. It will still be the object of my wishes. Do not regret my fate; if I have consented to survive, it is to serve your glory. I intend to write the history of the great achievements we have performed together. Adieu, my friends. Would I could press you all to my heart." Napoleon then ordered the eagles to be brought, and, having embraced them, he added: "I embrace you all in the person of your general. Adieu, soldiers! Be always gallant and good."
>Napoleon will never press you close to his heart
>Honeyed words
Your right, he wasnt just a megalomaniac,
he was a sociopath as well.
he couldn't have predicted moscow would burn
also at some point beforehand the russians should have sued for peace
Question: under what circumstances would an "insane megalomaniac who didn't give a damn about his soldiers" be able to convince an army sent to arrest him after his exile (zero power, zero authority, zero respect) to not only not arrest or kill him (the thing they are being paid to do), but to follow him back to Paris and chase out the king?
Napoleon loved his soldiers and his soldiers loved him.
>B-But people die during wars!
Would you prefer to judge Napoleon by his deeds then?
en.wikipedia.org
>Napoleon, himself, once noted "It requires more courage to suffer than to die", so he made sure those who did survive were given the best treatment available at the best hospitals in France while they recuperated. In addition, the wounded survivors were often treated as heroes, awarded medals, pensions and provided with prosthetic limbs if needed. Knowing that they would be promptly attended to, then honored and well looked after once back home, helped boost morale in the Grande Armée, and thus further contributed to its fighting abilities.
Does offering the best possible treatment to wounded soldiers, even those soldiers so gravely wounded that they'd never fight again (ie. be of no use to Napoleon) sound like the deed of a "megalomaniac sociopath"? Of course it does, if you've a priori decided Napoleon is a sociopath nothing he can do is right. It's all a priori a trick to hide his endless thirst for blood. Let me guess, I bet you also think Arthur "scum of the earth" Wellesley is a hero?
you do know Austria had vast manpower reserves as well. They capitulated, so who was to say otherwise against Russia.
Not to mention Nappy had already defeated Russia in three wars before 1812 (2nd, 3rd and 4th coalitions)
>Russia was totally different, they could afford a prolonged war due to their large population
Until 1800 France had a larger population than Russia. In 1812 Russia's population was only barely larger. They were just thinly spread out over a big wasteland of nothingness.
Same today, to a lesser extent: Bangladesh has more people living in it than Russia. Doublecheck it if you don't believe me.
>Would you prefer to judge Napoleon by his deeds then?
Yes, he believed he could win through aggressive wars, and ended up losing everything, and causing the deaths of millions
I think his bad deeds outweigh any good ones.
>aggressive wars
wew
In 1800, France had 26 millions and Russia 35 millions
But then France annexed the Low Countries, Switzerland and a bunch of Italian states which put them back ahead
>>Napoleon loved his soldiers and his soldiers loved him.
A man can love his pets, his tools, his slaves, his property, then sacrifice them for the goal that is more important to him. He didn't love his soldiers as individuals.
And soldiers loved him, it's true. Napoleon was one of the greatest politicians in history, he could manipulate simple minds easily. Independent people like Talleyrand betrayed him in the end.