That's because Russia owes AT LEAST half its success with war to the weather. Russia was so backwards, yet so many idiots like Nappy and Hitler were set on attacking in winter. Surprise, surprise, Russia's cold in winter.
Napoleon conquers the world
- Thread starter Leistungsfähiger Amerikan
- Start date
That's because Russia owes AT LEAST half its success with war to the weather. Russia was so backwards, yet so many idiots like Nappy and Hitler were set on attacking in winter. Surprise, surprise, Russia's cold in winter.
There's one area that Russia wasn't backwards since certainly the time of Peter the Great (I hate that term BTW)
That was in their military.
Russia outmaneuvered Napoleon during his invasion of the country. They avoided fights they couldn't win and used attrition to his advantage.
They then followed him across Europe. This isn't a pathetic army of a pathetic nation.
There's one area that Russia wasn't backwards since certainly the time of Peter the Great (I hate that term BTW)
That was in their military.
Russia outmaneuvered Napoleon during his invasion of the country. They avoided fights they couldn't win and used attrition to his advantage.
They then followed him across Europe. This isn't a pathetic army of a pathetic nation.
Their military was one of quantity, not quality. They threw more people who could deal with the cold at enemies than they could take. They certainly weren't producing top of the line war materiel.
Even if so, so what? In war you tend to win if you can put more men in the field than your enemy.
Besides, what do you mean? It didn't take much training for a French conscript to be able to fire a musket in formation. What makes a Russian soldier any less capable?
Susano
Banned
Its the very early 19th century. Even if you have a large population, organising large armies already IS quite a feat of quality in that day. Now, it does seem that apart from their truely excellent artillery the Russian army was comparatively below average, but not by much - it still were orderly, disciplined formations with strategically and tactically thinking officers.
It's not like I hate Russia, I just think it's important to acknowledge that the Russians weren't wearing gold armor in a glorious chase of Napoleon. They deserve plenty of credit in war. WWII wasn't Britain and the US saving the world, it was Russia taking the pain and then turning around and crushing the Germans anyway.
Maur
Banned
So this was just drive-by posting aimed at fighting some weird strawmen about WW II? Could you drive away, then, please?
Wrong. Perhaps about than 20% of all losses occurred in the winter months, including in battles.
...wrong. Napoleon's campaign started in June.
In some senses yes. In terms of military, it was easily the second-finest army in Europe, though you are correct about them importing a lot of their war materiel.
Untrue. Russian regular forces were outnumbered 2:1 by the Grande Armee up until almost the end of the campaign. Even with the Cossacks and other irregulars they were outnumbered about 1.5:1. The remainder of the huge army conscripted by the end of that war was mostly militia which, as you might guess, rarely saw combat and went home by 1813.
The Russians were very good at concentrating forces. If that is not skill, I don't know what is.
Susano said:
You know, that is somewhat unkind to the only army that had any regular successes at all against Napoleon or his marshals. And they weren't one-offs like Bailen. It may not have always been the most agile army but it surely beat all the other (non-French ones) of the period in efficiency.
But it was. They took on the best army of the period with inferior numbers, which was allied with ALL their neighbours against them, and was led by the greatest tactician of his age. They exploited his strategic blunders, even against their own natural instincts (the retreat wasn't something the army or the staff enthused about...maintaining it orderly was a masterly exercise in discipline), and lured him into a situation where he would certainly collapse logistically. They beat his marshals every time they were sent to widen the front. They kept him from destroying their army and kept him shadowed and boxed right through the campaign, bleeding him successfully in battles and petite guerre. And then, when the winter loomed and Moscow offered no shelter, they FORCED HIM BACK along the same path he came, so that there was no foraging.
It was a fantastically executed campaign, and one that was translated into a total victory in the following years. This is the campaign that beat Napoleon. It was carried out by a very patriotic people, a strong army, and a great higher command. It also resulted in preserved Autocracy and Holy Russia and all that other nonsense, but you can't take away its decisiveness and its execution.
I suppose I was being more general about Russia than simply during the Napoleonic Wars. I meant fighting Russia in general. However, you're romanticizing a bit. If Russia was as stellar as you're putting it all the Slavic regions in Europe would have been under it by now. Did you notice how Russia's pan-Slavic empire didn't form? Or how FINLAND and Poland-Lithuania managed to beat it? There's a reason for that. True, don't underestimate Russia. But this nation was BACKWARDS. It still had serfs when elsewhere that practice was ended HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO. Russia wasn't a pretty power, it was a lot of dirty but remarkably resilient peasants. Britain had its navy. Spain had its Armada. Germany had its Blitzkriegs. The Mongols had their raiding tactics. Russia had a cold environment and lots of people. Russia may have had a tough army, but it also lacked any real warmaking capacity, it simply didn't modernize along with the rest of Europe. Then there's imperialism. Britain and France were around the world. Russia sent some fur traders to Alaska. Lands claimed: Sakhalin. Japan beat it in 1905. That's pretty darn early for even Meiji Japan. I'm not trying to damn Russia, but Russia's not this mighty giant that can do whatever it wants. It had constraints and lots of them.
Last edited:
Maur
Banned
I don't how reporting works, but can someone ban this one for racism, trolling and threadjacking?
What did I do? You came out of nowhere and attacked me! If I offended anyone, it was accidental! How was I racist? Reality is ugly, I wasn't being cruel, I was warning against romanticism.
Russia is a strong nation that could and did take Napoleon. They often get less respect than they deserve. However, they are not an impressive superpower at this point either. They need time. Logical discussion. Not hate. Why are you attacking and now trying to ban me? I haven't done anything!
Maur
Banned
Hm.
The threadjacking is about wandering off to discuss WWII Red Army.
The trolling is about making obviously inaccurate statements and/or replying to strawmen. Now, it's true that it's possible for you to honestly believe them, but trolling is often matter of context.
As for the last one, your post. The bolded part is where it turns ugly, but the whole thing is about Russia (and, which is important, because of Russians) being backwards and useless.
It's also quite inaccurate, but that's beside the point.
A casual remark about a comparable example is not a strawman, threadjacking is having an alternative discussion on a thread about something else-which your attacks are now making me do, and EVERYONE was dirty back then. Showers weren't common. I'm not comparing them to "clean" people, I'm pointing out that soldiers back then were poorly cared for. A nation being backwards is not offensive. Some nations were ahead of others. How many times have people called the C.S.A. backwards? I also see that you've stated "Damn Basque" as a post. Sounds pretty racist and irrelevant to me. Yet I didn't try to get you removed.
Maur
Banned
I am personally in favour of drifting thread topics, but jumping straight into WWII from Napoleonic times is a bit much, especially that it's not connected to the topic. In pre-1900 forums, btw.
The strawmen were about Russia's army with golden armour or however it was phrased and generally things like that:
which no one claimed.
And if everyone was dirty, then what purpose exactly was including that in your sentence? What were you trying to say by that?
I personally am not offended by people calling countries/nations (including my own) backwards. But what you wrote fits in in the context of a rather large narrative that dismisses Russians. You might not be aware of it, but it's not a permanent excuse. Not more than growing up in Russia and then performing ridiculous blackface is not problematic. Suffice to say, it fits quite well into the Nazi rhetoric of Slavic subhumans that are unable to create any culture on their own.
(btw, the Basque remark was about twisting Ringo jab at Napoleon into Henry of Navarre one, who actually might not have been Basque. Pretty relevant joke, if you ask me, too bad no one noticed it)
I'm not the first to cross between pre-1900 and post-1900 here, but if that's so awful, I won't do it again. When did I dismiss Russia? I warned against romanticizing it and overpowering it. That doesn't mean they're trash. Read what I actually wrote rather than accuse me of sentiments that don't appear anywhere in my comments. Also note that now you are the one referencing WWII irrelevantly. The dirty was in direct reference to lack of golden armor. Literary contrast. Just as no one claimed Russia was flawless, I didn't say they were trash either. I spoke of a middle path because people shouldn't overstrengthen any country. There are many large narratives against races and countries and one can essentially claim that any slight statement that says a nation was less powerful than it actually was on this Board in general could be construed to be racist, which is exactly what you are doing. I note you didn't respond to my pointing out your racist Basque comment and that it could be seen as very offensive. Why did you say that? Are you calling Basque people trash? That would fit quite well into Nazi rhetoric.
Was writing while you posted that. That's fine. I'm done and hopefully won't ever do that again. My apologies for derailing the thread.
Then I must remark that Russia "in general" has nothing to do with Russia under Alexander I.
Imperial Russia exercised a very cautious foreign policy, believe it or not, and often forewent imperialism even when they could have pressed for more. Shaky economic base and the corruptibility of the noble and officer class could be blamed, if one needs something to blame.
So...basically...Russia suffered some defeats against PLC (not the least of Europe's powers at the time) in the 17th c. and then won a far-too-Pyrrhic victory in 1939. This is proof that Russia in General only beat Napoleon because of General Winter and Oodles of Dirty Peasants?
Do you realise how incoherent that sounds?
Quite untrue. Russian serfdom began around the same time all other Eastern European serfdom began, and ended within the same time frame. Look up Austria, Hungary, Poland, Prussia, Saxony, Romania and yes, the Ottomans.
So what I'm hearing is that Russia's abridged mythology is unflattering in the Anglophone world. What else is new?
Only if Europe is Britain, France and the Low Countries. And it had plenty of warmaking capacity; what do you think the 18th and 19th c. was all about?
I believe I addressed Russia's sluggish Imperialist urges already, yes. And of course it had constraints. And no, it did not take over the world; all of that however has nothing to do with the 1812 campaign. Nothing at all.
EDIT: Saw maverick's post as I posted this. The matter is closed, I think.