>scorched earth to deny the French local resources
>retreat when necessary to prevent wasting his men's lives
>wait until winter arrives to halt the French
>attack when the moment is right
Kutuzov seems like a military genius. Is he praised by people outside of Russia?
The rest of the world thinks he won because of muh winter meme
No.
He was just making it up as he went along
>Burn down everything
>wait until winter strikes
It doesn't take a genius for that tactic
It does take a lot of self restraint to stop your army from immediately attacking invaders
While he was ultimately successful in repelling Napoleon it wasn't due to any genius on his part. Basically his plan was as simple as this user said Any military commander worth their salt will generally tell you that it's the simplest strategies which are the most effective.
you will have ppl who that land getting really mad at you
population will suffer
there are always ppl who will sell out to invaders in hopes of gaining something
he was expected to meet napoleon head on and beat him
most commanders would attempt that and fail at it, like history showed
it does take exceptional talent to pull it off
You're ignoring the other points though. Kutuzov didn't give Napoleon the battle that he wanted with the exception of Borodino which was more of a draw anyways with heavy losses on both sides.
>he was expected to meet napoleon head on and beat him
He did do that and got BTFO
>most commanders would attempt that and fail at it, like history showed
What are Fabian/guerilla tactics?
>it does take exceptional talent to pull it off
If he had exceptional talent then he would have beaten Napoleon on the field
>levy more soldiers
>move them east
Napoleon is such a hack.
...
People often don't realize that Napoleon lost at least as many men on his way to Moscow as he did on the retreat. A combination of disease (cholera especially) and Kutusov's strategy of an organized retreat coupled with harassment by light cavalry and cossack units (as well as less official partisans,) made every moment the Grand Army was in Russia utter misery.
Napoleon fed his army ("An army marches on its stomach!" ~ t. him) by paying them enough money so they can go and buy food, and this strategy didn't work out so well in the face of Kutuzov's Scorched Earth.
The "Russian Winter" meme is just an excuse for poor generalship. The Russians who harassed and killed them fought in the same exact winter, after all. The French starved to death because their logistics were shit.
Why did Napoopan wanted to conquer Russia anyway? Wasn't Ukraine enough?
Russia traded with Britain. Napoleon wanted to starve Britain and force a revolution there.
So he attacked Russia to stop them from trading with Britain.
>destroy own country to ruin it for invaders
what a genius
But ultimately the French lost. Sure, they were probably better on the battlefield, but isn't winning the war more important? Kutuzov seemed to put survival at the top of his priority list. He didn't seem to care about medals, glory, or establishing a legacy. He wanted Russia to win and he did what was necessary to achieve victory.
>focusing on one point
it's a solid plan, but literally anyone in Russia could have thought it up
>Wasn't Ukraine enough?
Napoleon could never have enough(except of course Joséphine)
Why didn't he just cut their trade routes instead of outright invading them?
Napoleon's army lost 320 000 men during summer and autumn, 90 000 men during winter.
They starved, died of cholera, died of cossack raids, deserted, got lost, were left to garrison and then killed, or otherwise had to be removed from the army.
General Frost is a meme.
No, he wanted to unify Europe, that was his endgame.
>her descendents sit on the thrones of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and Lixembourg
>Napoleon's descendents reign nowhere
Who won?
Because those are in the water, and french had very few ships. Certainly they had none that were fit to swim in the frosty russian ports.
The plan was to go to Russia, fight the Russian army, beat it, and force peace terms. Russia would embargo Britain as part of the deal.
So when he didn't get a battle, Napoleon had to stick around waiting for one, since he couldn't just leave, Alexander didn't give him peace.
There's normally a button you can press to stop them auto attacking someone who comes into range
>Horatio Nelson openly admits his standard tactic was to sail his ships up to the enemy and turn them broadside
>Becomes militaristic island's greatest ever naval strategist
>and french had very few ships
If only he wasn't an asshole to Venice. They could've helped with that problem.
No, France had at one point more ships than Britain (thanks to confiscating the spanish armada), they just lost a terrible battle in an attempt to invade through the channel (a distraction battle), but at the same time Austria attacked them, so they couldn't make use of it.
This is exactly what this francophile board seems to ignore or forget. Kutuzov wanted to engage Napoleon on his own terms, not immediately attack him at first sight. That takes insight, experience, and patience.
>>most commanders would attempt that and fail at it, like history showed
>What are Fabian/guerilla tactics?
Tactics which were specifically adopted because an enemy couldn't be defeated head on
>>it does take exceptional talent to pull it off
>If he had exceptional talent then he would have beaten Napoleon on the field
Why? His goal was to win, not glory
m8 kutuzov fought napoleon all the time, he just sent cossacks to run in, empty their pistols, saber a few fools, and run out
contrary to popular belief you can give battle without moving all your army and artillery
>The "Russian Winter" meme is just an excuse
You write this literally the sentence after you write about how Sorched Earth tactics helped to be Napoleon
>Who won?
Britain.
That's not really a battle though. Those are light skirmishes to harass the enemy, conduct reconnaissance missions, and raid their supply lines.
>Russia
>Europe
>you write about how Sorched Earth tactics helped to be Napoleon
????????
Don't be an idiot. Russia is part of Europe and Asia.
Beat* Napoleon
It's a little contradictory to say scorched earth was the reason Napoleon lost, but the Winter/scorched earth meme is false
See He bled men during summer, not during winter.
This was because he didn't bring food, he brought money. The idea is you buy food there. Ooops.
The army that entered Russia was 420 000, by the time winter came it was down to 100 000 with Napoleon, and under 50 000 in garrisons.
Cholera and frost only killed because of starvation, it was starvation that ended his war, so Scorched Earth did. Not General Winter.
He wasn't a military genius by the world standards. But he was a competent General that continued to implement Barclay de Tolly's war plans even though he knew that he was appointed specifically to change the later correct but unpopular policy of retreat. Since being competent and not putting your career at the center of everything is rare for a Russian General they still admire him.
Guess when food tends to grow back? When it's warm
Scorched Earth as a tactic was tied to the Russian climate and size. It's like saying "It wasn't that Russia was big which stopped Napoleon, it was scorched earth".
No one's literally saying every single French soldier who died in Napoleon's invasion of Russia froze. They're saying the cold, the lack of food, the lack of supplies, the decreased moral because of these factors, etc. all played a part.
Thank you. This is the answer I was looking for.
>it wasn't that Napoleon was a good general, it was just that France's population and their new national republic model allowed him to field big armies regularly
You are a fucking imbecile.
>russians are shit and being only half shit is an accomplishment to them! fuck russians!
>Thank you. This is the answer I was looking for :)
Veeky Forums - Fuck Russia and Humanities
That's kind of true. Russia had very extensive resources in terms of manpower and territory and so its rare to see their Generals executing one of those against the odds ingenious military moves. It's almost always some form of ineptitude in loosing to a weaker opponent followed by bringing someone competent enough to take advantage of Russian natural advantages.
>Russia
>having any accomplishments at all
During the invasion of Russia the Grande Armee was 685000 strong. The Russian imperial army was 198250 men.
So unless you count the peasants who were forced to flee their towns, and many stayed with the army (this a burden more than a blessing), the French invasion force was over 300% of the defending Russian force.
You act as if Mихaил Бoгдaнoвич Бapклaй-дe-Toлли was not russian.
Not an argument.
This only show their inability to exercise their vastly better draft potential and doesn't take back their advantage of having huge territory to fall back into.
German Czar, Scottish General and Russian canon folder battle a Sicilian man with ragtag army of European underclasses.
>German Czar, Scottish General and Russian canon folder battle a Sicilian man with ragtag army of European underclasses.
Its almost as if you are applying 21th century logic to a 19th century battle.
>"they had more men and barely won! what morons!"
>they didn't have more men
>"they had more territory and barely won! what morons!"
user, are you applying scorched earth against me? Will you retreat all the way till winter comes? I'll have you know I have food prepared.
If he was so willing to abandon even the capital, why did Kutuzov decide to get his ass kicked at Borodino?
Moscow wasn't the capital, it was the temple church city.
The religious soldiers wanted to fight for it.
It was the same mistake the Gauls committed against Caesar, trying to salvage that city they loved, whatever it was called, instead of moving out.
Luckily Russians are better at fighting than Gauls and their descendants, so they managed to hold a costly draw, which considering the circumstances of the war was a glorious victory. Russia could replenish the dead very quickly and easily at home, Napoleon could obviously not. Trading is fine.
All that buthert. Ok, what genius military move did Kutuzov made (something that is more than being competent, something mind boggling and against the odds) that's supposed to put him in the same spot as Napoleon, Hannibal, Caesar and the like?
Name a Russian General that is universally considered not merely competent or good but a real military genius not only by Russians but by the whole world?
Did you (you) the wrong post or are you seriously arguing armies do not eat?
>who is zhukov
Scorched Earth can be applied anywhere. Food grows when its warm, yeah, but it takes months to fucking grow.
The invasion started in July. Russia was warm. They starved not because of lack of sun, they starved because the barns and orchids were set ablaze.
Ok, what genius military move did Napoleon make?
You will find its very easy to dismiss anything you say as a triviality, because looking at individual decisions like that and saying "well of course you do that, duh" is the simplest thing.
Franks aren't descendants of the Gauls, Dimitrikov.
Read Napoleon's letters, he called the French descendants of Gaul.
Suvorov
Ivan, human waves aren't a military strategy
1. It is a military strategy.
2. None of these used that strategy.
Russians get BTFO in every thread on Veeky Forums, give up already. You are literally on the wrong side of history.
>he doesn't rate the bayonet
Military success is most effectively measured in how many Russian casualties you are responsible for.
Military success is measured in how many Hitlers and Napoleons you blew the fuck out.
>le epic russians just swarmed the germans with numbers maymay
the germans significantly outnumbered the russians at the start of the war, the generals were forced to be careful and conservative with their use of numbers
Rate of germans to russians was like 1:5
Brusilov
>tactics are the same as strategy
Read his post.
Sad he got shafted afterwards
not if you're attacking the Grande Armee lead by Napoleon and his greatest marechals, with six hundred thousand men, and the most elite soldiers in europe, who had been victorious for twenty years
quite the contrary desu
There is absolutely no consensus on him being a military genius internationally and even not in Russia. Many consider him as a capable and competent (also ruthless) General, others even view him as Stalin's butcher that was a ruthless careerist.
However nobody except people that build public ethos for Russian gov think that he was a military genius.
Please give an example of his operation that would be considered as a work of a genius and not just regular competent use of his army command.
The Battle of Austerlitz as one example. Napoleon defeated numerous major European armies in battle revolutionizing the way artillery was used, introducing better command structures etc. Most of those armies outnumbered him and had the same and even better level of equipment. Caesar prevailed not only against huge hords of Barbarians but also against other Roman armies. Alexander was virtually undefeated Hannibal used Italy as his back yard and ate consular armies for breakfast.
I'm not saying that the russians are incapable of producing great military men, but the historic circumstances where such that they only needed to use what the had competently to win. And when they had to fight against the odds they lost.
ok, that one actually qualifies.
>The Battle of Austerlitz as one example
70 thousand against 80 thousand, and the glorious strategy was to intentionally weaken one flank, so the enemy would gamble attacking there, and then reinforce it with hidden soldiers.
Very easy to trivialize, and this battle especially, since everything that could go right, went right. The only battle in Napoleon's career where his plan actually worked without needing to hotfix it.
All I want to teach you is that its very simple to trivialize battle strategy. Stop doing it.
Disciple of Suvorov, much satisfaction
>Russians will actually go this far to defend the merit of a second rate general
>"best general of all time" marches against a "mediocre" general
>has three times the men of the mediocre general and a higher quality army
>has far more experience than the mediocre general
>has more artillery
>has passive or active backing from every other European state against the mediocre general except Britain and Portugal
>gets utterly fucking wrecked anyway by the mediocre general
>army is already a shattered husk of its former self even before winter hits
Something doesn't seem right here Frenchshits.
Veeky Forums BTFO
If Kutuzov outplaying Napoleon would be difficult to tell from the campaign to Moscow as many maneuvers were improvised or changed but the moment it was proved that he DID indeed outplay Napoleon was when he led his army south to Tula and Murat thought he had gone east.
At Tula Kutuzov had everything he needed (especially weapons) and blocked Napoleon from any southwards march where he could hide from the cold.
Even on the way back Kutuzov stayed under Napoleon knowing he won't go up towards the cold.
>genius
The Russian campaign is the final nail in Napoleon's coffin. Leipzig and the subsequent battles only delayed the inevitable. Not only did Napoleon lose invaluable soldiers, but it was the horses that couldn't be replaced without crippling French agriculture.
The worst thing is, the Allies actually offered reasonable peace terms to Napoleon in 1814. All he had to accept was France's pre-19th century borders, but he went full autist.
Go home macnab you're drunk
>implying the revolution was just about France
No mon frere I just bought this duchy he can't do this to me
Oh yeah, what happened to the Hanoverian and coburg estates during the war and did they personally side with Napoleon or the British people
>So he attacked Russia to stop them from trading with Britain.
Why not just move up the Baltic coast to St. Petersburg and ignore the rest? To stop trade all you need to do it deny them access to the sea.
>the Allies actually offered reasonable peace terms to Napoleon in 1814
Peace was never an option.
At Borodino, the Russians held their ground and inflicted massive casualties on the French army. Yes, they withdrew the next day, but it was still a strategic victory and contributed to his failed campaign. What other power could say they did this before Leipzig? The Russians went toe to toe with Napoleon, fucked up his army, and drove him out of Russia. This was the turning point in the fortunes of Napoleon. Russian Hussars were in Paris in 1814. The Russians contributed most to winning the Napoleonic wars in a single campaign, so anti-Russia cucks can delet their posts.
Yankee here, I love Mikhail Kutuzov he is my soul mate
Napoleon thought he would surrender quickly and not burn down half of his own country. French Russia might not have even been that bad
General Frost isn't just used to refer to the Napoleonic invasion.
>All he had to accept was France's pre-19th century borders, but he went full autist.
You have to be a man to understand.
>Burn your own land cause your such pussy ad don't dare to fight
>Burn your own capital in the same way
Russian "masculinity" died at that time
interdiction is a very important part of any battle user.
So what would of happened if Napoopan did commit the guard at Borodino and manage to route the Russian Army? Would Alexander 1 still refuse peace even after Moscow was taken or would a decisive battle in favor of the French actually force Russia to the peace table?
Nobody disputes that this is what happened. People just don't see retreating and burning your own country and historic capital as an act of military genius. It's not anti russian to point out that.
Starving half your country to restore the Burbons in France and help Britain trade is just typical russian regime using its people for canon folder.