Would he win if he never invaded Russia?

>Napoleon said of the conflict, "It was [the Spanish war] that overthrew me. All my disasters can be traced back to this fatal knot".[204]

As I said, google "serfdom in Russia" and when and how it was abolished.

>All my disasters
The greates of which was losing HIS ENTIRE FUCKING ARMY in Russia and being chased by Russians from Moscow all the way to Paris.

The why did he invade Spain?

Yeah, no, that's damage control, he lost because of Russia. Before 1812, he had the largest army in the world, with the best generals. He was having problems in Spain, but it was sustainable as long as the core of his empire was intact.

Or if he'd simply invaded about three months earlier, to be honest.

Or if he'd just brought enough winter gear and supplies, and lots and lots and lots of extra horses, and then yaks once he got further East.

Would Napoleon army win if they had ak-47s and canada goose jackets?

You can't eat AK-47s
The French won every battles so it wasn't a weaponery issue
It's just that they starved to death

>France had best army in the world
>Russia beat France

Are you retarded, user?

For smuggling British goods into the Continent like MOTHERFUCKERS.

Typhus did more than Russians.
Though admittedly the Grande armee was failing logistically.

>only the quality of armies influences the results of a war

Brainlet
There are ways to negate the superiority of an enemy army, like scorched earth or guerrilla warfare

Didn't he win, user?

>What is the emancipation of the serfs?

This. The best the war in Spain did was annoy the h*ck out of him.

That's assuming he was aiming for a long war. He wanted the Russians to act quickly and muster an army to fight Napoleon asap so he could win and simply march into Moscow as a victor but Kutuzov knew what Napoleon's strategy was.

Russians didn't win because of their military prowess. They won because of Nappy's own retarded mistakes. These include some fatal strategic miscalculations as well as his disregard for natural conditions and climate, which had already bitten him in the ass more than once in his previous campaigns.

The question is irrelevant. His personality and ego were too much to restrain and in the end he was bound to destroy himself whether he attacked Russia or not.

This isn't entirely true, although the Russian regulars weren't as well trained or innovative as the other armies of Europe much of Russia's officer staff was able to challenge their opponents. Kutuzov learned a lot about Napoleon and he himself had the innitiative to decide what happened in the war. Even in the early battles of the war the French took such high casualties that when presenting them to the officers they stripped the bodies to make it look like more Russians died. When Napoleon took Moscow, Kutuzov outmaneuvered his pursuing enemies and placed himself in Tula where the final link on Napoleon's chain was placed and he had only 2 choices: Stay and wait while Russians reform, reorganize, rearm and surround Moscow or flee.

>You know better than Napoleon.

No, which is why he left Spain...?

Yes, he made the same mistake Conor McGregor did against Nate Diaz. Totally underestimating the size and toughness of Russia just because he was used to sparking fools his size easy peasy no problem.

Even very affectionate biographies of Napoleon acknowledge that he whitewashed and downplayed his mistakes, going as far as to forge documents to make it seem like those mistakes were made by others.

He's undeniably one of the greatest generals of all time, but that doesn't mean you should believe something he says even when it's obviously wrong. The Peninsular Wars were a secondary theater in the Napoleonic Wars, whereas the largest and most costly battles for the French were fought against the Russians at Borodino, Berezina, and on the retreating campaign through the German states.

Spain was an ulcer that drained France of resources, but the Russian and German theaters of war drained way more resources. Napoleon literally lost 400,000+ troops in his invasion of Russia in less than a year, whereas he lost only 200,000 or so in 6 years in Spain.

Even very affectionate biographies of Napoleon acknowledge that he whitewashed and downplayed his mistakes,
Cool thing, but he is not downplaying or whitewashing his mistakes. But telling us about them.

Either you invade Russia, or it invades you.

He very famously downplayed the mistake of his invasion of Russia. He was also shifting blame in that quote to someone else, because Napoleon had plausible deniability that he was responsible for the events that resulted in the Spanish insurgency, whereas he had no one else to blame for his loss in Russia.

Russia at this point was an uneasy ally of Napoleon, and Napoleon had proven several times that he was capable of defeating a Russian army on his terms. The Russians trying an invasion in 1811 would have been near-suicidal. Russia had neither the men nor the allies to carry out such an invasion.

No, the Anglo’s wouldn’t have stopped until he was removed. He would’ve fucked up like he did in Spain again somehow because of “imperial ambitions”.

>Not knowing Peter the Great established Russian serfdom and that it wasn’t eliminated until after the Crimean War
“A high level of discourse is encouraged”

The Continental system would have eventually crippled the Anglo if it had been maintained long enough.

>Anglo’s
*Anglos

It was doing a great job of crippling everyone else too.

Including France itself.

If everyone is crippled, no one is.