Why did Napoleon invade Russia on the eve of winter when he knew he couldn't keep his troops warm?

Winter starts in September in Russia

>He had no choice but to retreat west because time was against him and the logistical situation was a nightmare.

Btw, he only started to retreat at the end of autumn, two months after taking Moscow.
Had he retreated immediatly instead of sitting two months in the city, the retreat could have been much less disastrous as starvation would be less critical and winter wouldnt be there yet

Awaiting the plebians who think scorched earth tactics have nothing to do with the impending Winter

also there was basically nothing the army could live off as she used to do in Europe where there was always a town or a city in near sight.
As for example one can see in the pics from WW2 from the Wehrmacht's invasion of Russia there are just vast wastelands with only some trees standing around.
Didnt Napoleon even loose around 50.000 men because they deserted when searching for food in town far off the main army?

I think he meant in the wars between Napoleon and Russia before 1812
Napoleon had already defeated Russia in three wars by that point (2nd, 3rd and 4th coalitions)

you realise his invasion started in modern day poland/belarus/ukraine, not siberia?

>why
continental blocade against britain still got good smuggled through spain and russia. Hence both got btfo. However in the case of russia they btfo'd themselves to btfo the french who would expect loot and shiet when getting to moscow

>Those places don't get cold

My mistake, how could I forget those warm Ukrainian fall nights.

Why didn't Napoleon blockade both Russia and Britain? He had a bretty gud empire just sitting there. Spend 5-10 years fucking his Hapsburg side bitch and making more heirs, and then set where Europe sits.

Oh fuck off, eastern europe is still warm in september

Yeah, if you're sitting in an insulated house next to a fire/heater with appropriate clothing.

The retreat (the moment the French army got wiped out) started in late autumn and from Moscow
Whether Poland is cold or not in September is irrelevant

not at all
he lost the vast majority of his men in the summer to disease

>this meme

Germany had beaten Russia in a war just 2 decades earlier and he invaded in June

You are joking right?

That's absolutly wrong, Napoleon still had over 70% of his forces intact when he seized Moscow
Read any source on the topic, it's a well documented fact

>inb4 you dumbly post THAT graph that you don't understand

I'll explain it clearly for every faggot who use this graph to justify every bullshit they believe:
This graph is about the main body of the army, not the entirety of it.
Most of the size reduction is due to garrisoning of captured cities and large chunks leaving the maon body to take a different route toward Moscow (which was very common in Napoleonic campaign, the whole army never marched togerher as a block), not casulties.
Fact is that the Grande Armee had lost less than 150,000 men by the time it reached Moscow

Kiev has an average temperature of 14 degrees celsius in september. That's warmer than many places in northern europe in the middle of summer.

Not true at all. You can clearly see in the graph he only had a fraction of people in Moscow.

>80 000 deaths in the first months to disease
>nothing to do with it
nice one

But that's wrong, faggot
The graph never shows how many men he had during the occupation of Moscow.
The two "100,000" written near "Moscow" show the size of the main body at the moment he entered Moscow, and at then at the moment he started the retreat from there.
It isnt about the occupation itself (that gathered much more than 100,000 men as many other bodies that had taken different routes arrived there during the occupation), the graph is EXCLUSIVELY about MOVEMENTS of the MAIN body

Napoleon actually lost most his troops before even arriving in Moscow. The winter barely did anything.

General frost is a meme

See Huge faggot

Thats not what I'm seeing happening on the graph.

What he's saying is literally wrong
It's written on the fucking picture.
>total for the entire grand army, including Prince Jerome's forces and Davoust's forces, for better appreciation of the army's manpower loss
Nothing in it ever mentions garrisons.

Everyone in the Empire told him to, but he didn't like Russia trading with the enteral Anglo.

Didnt you read the second paragraph or are you just dense?
The graph isnt about the whole army

1. tru
2tru

It's literally what's written on it.

This. The "garrison" meme needs to end.

Whats with all the revisionism surrounding the invasion? Every thread is a new story with you guys.

Fucking retard
120,000 French troops survived Russia, yet the graph only describe a body of 10,000 men at the end of the reteat
That's because that graph isnt about the whole army
What's so hard to understand?

Mostly Russians wanting to make people believe they won that war by fighting rather than because of winter

It clearly says only 35,000 french troops survived.

>Wikipedia sources
Look at the casualties and losses in different languages. It changes every time. They're not even good for a rough idea of the conflict/war they talk about, most of the time.

It takes into consideration the 422,000 troops and by the end they number only 10,000. The other numbers of Austrians and Prussians there who aren't in the graph are irrelevant.

Top kek
You know what he meant, 120,000 Grande Armee troops.

Not wanting to interrupt you guys, but I know a little French and from the text above it, it seems the graph you're discussing was made by a retired bridge builder in 1869.
How is that of any relevance?
It's basically as reliable as the bullshits random people spout on this board about WW2.....

Looked at it in Russian, Spanish and French, and the 120,000 survivors seem to be an accepted fact

Its true though. The Cossacks ripped through the french troops.

He didn't make up the numbers himself and its not like they are heavily disputed.

The cossack were a small hinderance to a starving and freezing army
They probably inflicted less than 10% of the casualties

his sources were directly from the grande armée's books. They are relevant because they are the most verifiable and sound sources we have.

Why didn't Nappy just turn to Saint Petersburg after he saw that Moscow was on fire?

because winter was coming and supply lines were strained you stupid nigger

march quickly to saint petersburg and stay winter there?

They inflicted at least 50% of the casualties and that is a fact.

as if the army wouldn't riot given how they were dropping dead from frostbite, and every advance seemed like a loss, cause they never managed to not incur in scorched-tactic'd land
it was just too late, stupid ass idea

>as if the army wouldn't riot given how they were dropping dead from frostbite

That was during the retreat though
The other guy is right, had Napoleon marched straight to Petersburg after capturing Moscow instead of sitting for two months there, he might have decisively defeated Russia and prevented the destruction of his army
But he made the bet that the Tsar would surrender just with the captured of Mocow, and he lost that bet

Or better yet march south where its warm

I thought the scenario was after Napoleon realised capturing Moscow wasn't enough to win. At that point I'd argue it's just too late

It's complicated, but basically he couldn't because of Kutuzov.