@kiernan78 uhhh strategic withdrawal by the russians... . Napolean and hitler and the teutons and the turks and the swedes all learned the hard way: russians fight using space. 90% of napoleons army was destroyed by russians. they outnuymbered us 3:1. you butthurt cause america always loses wars?
Well..youre three reasons are very interesting..but for me...it wouldnt work. You see, Napoleon thought that if he captured Moscow, the Russians would be defeated and bow to him. (like in Vienna, Berlin, Madrid, Cairo). But it didnt work. The Russians burned Moscow to show that they didn't care if he got the capital, that they would fight anyway. And the Russian winter would be disasterous no matter how many men you got.
I READ THIS IN A BOOK Napoleon after Borodino captured Moscow BUT after that the russians killed most of his army France will never be stronger than Russia NEVER the Russian is the most powerfull army in the world
the failure 's reasons is another one .napoleon would not have started the campaign to the end of June, on the contrary in April,so he would have been able to conquer the russia and to quickly retire without running into dangerous Russian winter.Then he wouldn't have barged into moscow for 34 days ,waiting for an unapproachable ceasfire .that provoked a further delay, to that point he could not do anything else than to retire
and his whole army was wiped out , but above all, he lost his unbeatable halo and genius that won't repurchase anymore.although i'm agree with you on the point 3,using such a huge army,he lost the dowries of mobility and rapidity in the moves for which his army and him hgot famous and feared in all europe.nevertheless I don't hold him as one of the greatest military heads , because he was always helped by big generals,and by extraordinaries soldiers,very disciplined and professionals
No, but wars have been fought successfully against russia, although never on the scale of 1812, but if anyman could have triumphed it would surely have been napoleon as opposed to either hitler or charles. And so although no one thing could guarantee success, looking at a collection of smaller issues is a more realistic approach. Even then i admit the chance of success would be low, but if we cant imagine what might have happened then what is the point of looking at the same historical issues.
Russia is very large country and Napoleon be reluctant to stretch out his communications and he could not muster troops in Borodino battle because he must gurd his communications! If Russian generals be more smarter they can cut road to home!
true it was not destroyed, but it was hardly a russian victory as none of the criterium was actually met for a victory. Napoleon was not beaten, and Moscow was not defended.
58521 human bodies and then about 35478 horses were burried, but the most pro russian writers accept a loss of no less than about 38000 troops, whilst most soviet historians accept the figure 44000, and seeing as how they would be potentially biased it would seem fair to say in advance of that figure.
Whilst the french lost no less than 30000 troops according to the most unbiased historians, so it would be fair to put the figure around 30 to 35 thousand.
pompous, pretentious fucking shite, though nicely-produced pompous, pretentious fucking shite. In the midst of this banal display of your supposed erudition you somehow fail to explain why Napoleon 'was forced' to retreat from Moscow. Dear me... schoolboy error somewhat on a par with anyone attempting to invade Russia in the first place.
Field Marshall Montgomery's first rule of warfare was - 'DON'T INVADE RUSSIA'. Fortunately, the Soviets didn't have a reciprocal rule about Prussia in 1945
I considered explaining the why Napoleon was forced to retreat, but I figured that the majority of people watching this video may well have aquired at least a primative understanding of the contributing factors which effected and influenced the outcome of the campaign.
This video is not supposed to be pompous or pretentious. It is merely supposed to encourage civilised thought. Food fo thought if you like, as opposed to vulgar interlocution and crude over generalisations. I believe that part of the fun that someone can have with history is saying "what if". It is this question which encourages debate and keeps interest in periods that could otherwise die out.
I admit invading Russia is a move for failure, but basing that opinion on Montgomery's tactical insight is a "schoolboy error". Montgomery was a great commander, but often too defensive, whilst Bonaparte was probably the greatest genius of his age.
Yeh sorry about the red ink but this is my first film of this sort.
I agree Moscow was a mistake, although I doubt he originally intended to go that far, if he had intended to go as far as Moscow, he would probably have aimed for St. Petersburg, center of administration for Russia.
I think he had already made an enemy of Prussia in 1806 at Jena and Austadt, and in 1807 at Tilsit by leaving Wilhem out of the treaty negotiations.
Well no, he had Prussia's blessing to pass through their territory for the Russian campaign but abused it on the way back. They weren't bestest of friends, but the Prussians were busy elsewhere (Austria, Bavaria) to bother much with the French - that was also the reason why the main force of the Prussian Army was away on Napoleons return...
my family on my mothers side is Prussian and we can trace our roots back to 1340. Since I was a nipper they told me all about my family tree and my glorious male forefathers who gave their blood for the Glory of Prussia... In the battle of Waterloo we lost a third of our bloodline rescuing the Brits, so my dislike of the French of that period is twice as bad as it normally should be ;)
trust me, if you know your family history better at the age of three than any common fairy tale and the other kids look at you like you fell off a tree and the grown-ups hate you because they think you are German - you pretty soon learn to dislike knowledge of that kind... ;)
yes indeed as natural as a dislike of the Brits or the Krauts... It's 2008 ladies, we are trying to build Europe ;-) and by the way Napoleon was Corsican, yes... Corsica is French and Napoleon was raised in metropolitan France in a French military school reading about Descarte, Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire and all the influencial 18th century French authors... I guess this is more than enough to make him French. Nice video by the way...
we are all friends now! But it is interesting, that is all. I am in a difficult position because I should dislike the french, but I like her history too much, and i LIKE SPENDING CHRISTMAS IN fRANCE TOO MUCH. However we should not forget Napoleon was a Corsican born and bred, he disliked France until the 1790's, he wanted them out of his country. In all fairness, he had no nation, just opportunism, and I mean that as a complement. He picked wht he wanted to be when and where it suited him.
True, Napoleon disliked France till the 90's until he was denied by his own (the failure of the Corsican campaign and Paoli turning him down), an event that brought him closer to France. But he was raised with the ideals of the "lumiéres" and was quiet thrilled by the wind of change blowing on France... Only when the French revolution turned nasty - with chaotic mess in Paris and the bloody Robespierre at the helm was Napoleon to change his mind on people and turn opportunist...
Lol, I know it sounds daft, but being an Englishman, who is interested in the Napoleonic war; theoretically I should dislike the French, but it is difficult. The cheap champagne, the fine fois gras, the history, Paris, Napoleon........
If all those were English, then I would be able to dislike the French!!!!!!!!!
@kiernan78 uhhh strategic withdrawal by the russians... . Napolean and hitler and the teutons and the turks and the swedes all learned the hard way: russians fight using space. 90% of napoleons army was destroyed by russians. they outnuymbered us 3:1. you butthurt cause america always loses wars?
de1337ing 1 year ago
Well..youre three reasons are very interesting..but for me...it wouldnt work. You see, Napoleon thought that if he captured Moscow, the Russians would be defeated and bow to him. (like in Vienna, Berlin, Madrid, Cairo). But it didnt work. The Russians burned Moscow to show that they didn't care if he got the capital, that they would fight anyway. And the Russian winter would be disasterous no matter how many men you got.
Strategos300 1 year ago
I READ THIS IN A BOOK Napoleon after Borodino captured Moscow BUT after that the russians killed most of his army France will never be stronger than Russia NEVER the Russian is the most powerfull army in the world
giorev33661 1 year ago
Russia 3 best generals: December, January, February
gipcambero 2 years ago 2
not just what was happening in france though, i think he was worried about becoming totally stranded in the city.
napoleonbonarparte 2 years ago
the failure 's reasons is another one .napoleon would not have started the campaign to the end of June, on the contrary in April,so he would have been able to conquer the russia and to quickly retire without running into dangerous Russian winter.Then he wouldn't have barged into moscow for 34 days ,waiting for an unapproachable ceasfire .that provoked a further delay, to that point he could not do anything else than to retire
wererjydjkljbhgoljl 2 years ago
and his whole army was wiped out , but above all, he lost his unbeatable halo and genius that won't repurchase anymore.although i'm agree with you on the point 3,using such a huge army,he lost the dowries of mobility and rapidity in the moves for which his army and him hgot famous and feared in all europe.nevertheless I don't hold him as one of the greatest military heads , because he was always helped by big generals,and by extraordinaries soldiers,very disciplined and professionals
wererjydjkljbhgoljl 2 years ago
nobody would ever or will invade Russia or make it France or Germany.
Russia - is Motherland for mankind - check Kostenki on Google
mhitarjana 2 years ago
Napoleon might have actuaaly succeded in invading Russia and make Russia French too if he had not been so greedy , careless and a fool
esamhk 2 years ago
he had a better chance than most who have invaded it
napoleonbonarparte 2 years ago
Napoleon's main strength lay in the fact that
the aristocracy had been disposed so most
money could go to the military to fight wars.
An example most of Europe followed after his
defeat. Russia has always been a military
strategists nightmare. No one thing could guarantee success.
Spamhero 3 years ago
No, but wars have been fought successfully against russia, although never on the scale of 1812, but if anyman could have triumphed it would surely have been napoleon as opposed to either hitler or charles. And so although no one thing could guarantee success, looking at a collection of smaller issues is a more realistic approach. Even then i admit the chance of success would be low, but if we cant imagine what might have happened then what is the point of looking at the same historical issues.
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago
Russia is very large country and Napoleon be reluctant to stretch out his communications and he could not muster troops in Borodino battle because he must gurd his communications! If Russian generals be more smarter they can cut road to home!
Jacquinot1982 3 years ago
So why did they not do that?
Napoleon still actually amassed an impressive amount of troops for the battle.
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago
Becose this two generals whom command the flank armys be not smart.
Jacquinot1982 3 years ago
Holy shit! We not be beaten in Borodino battle Russian army not be destroyed!!!!!!!
Jacquinot1982 3 years ago 2
true it was not destroyed, but it was hardly a russian victory as none of the criterium was actually met for a victory. Napoleon was not beaten, and Moscow was not defended.
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago
We kill 40000 Napoleon best troops in Borodino battle, it be enough.
Jacquinot1982 3 years ago
i believe that the actual figure was more like 33000 dead frenchmen to 44000 dead russians
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago
In Russian statistic after Borodino battle in winter 1812 on Borodino field be burned 99990 mans and horses dead bodys.
Jacquinot1982 3 years ago
58521 human bodies and then about 35478 horses were burried, but the most pro russian writers accept a loss of no less than about 38000 troops, whilst most soviet historians accept the figure 44000, and seeing as how they would be potentially biased it would seem fair to say in advance of that figure.
Whilst the french lost no less than 30000 troops according to the most unbiased historians, so it would be fair to put the figure around 30 to 35 thousand.
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago
some russians estimate 58000 dead french, but even you must accept this is a fantasy
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago
pompous, pretentious fucking shite, though nicely-produced pompous, pretentious fucking shite. In the midst of this banal display of your supposed erudition you somehow fail to explain why Napoleon 'was forced' to retreat from Moscow. Dear me... schoolboy error somewhat on a par with anyone attempting to invade Russia in the first place.
Field Marshall Montgomery's first rule of warfare was - 'DON'T INVADE RUSSIA'. Fortunately, the Soviets didn't have a reciprocal rule about Prussia in 1945
TboneHarlers 3 years ago
I considered explaining the why Napoleon was forced to retreat, but I figured that the majority of people watching this video may well have aquired at least a primative understanding of the contributing factors which effected and influenced the outcome of the campaign.
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago
This video is not supposed to be pompous or pretentious. It is merely supposed to encourage civilised thought. Food fo thought if you like, as opposed to vulgar interlocution and crude over generalisations. I believe that part of the fun that someone can have with history is saying "what if". It is this question which encourages debate and keeps interest in periods that could otherwise die out.
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago
I admit invading Russia is a move for failure, but basing that opinion on Montgomery's tactical insight is a "schoolboy error". Montgomery was a great commander, but often too defensive, whilst Bonaparte was probably the greatest genius of his age.
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago
stop watching this yabsley
gerhardblucher 3 years ago
Inteleresting tv show, but what abot the mistake of giving commander of his armys to his brother and stepson at the begining of the campayne?
gerhardblucher 4 years ago
Nice video!
chrisyabsleytri 4 years ago
Can't you think of a differnet word to nice mr yabsley? Or could that be Mrs. Gillin in a few years?
napoleonbonarparte 4 years ago
Nice Video for your first time, seems you have a keen interest in this subject , hope to see more videos soon.
chrisyabsleytri 4 years ago
shouldn't have used red writing...
he made a few mistakes:
1. There is no guarantee that Russia would have capitulated with the fall of Moscow
2. He shouldn't have plundered Prussia on his way home and so made enemies he didn't need (and in the end brought about his downfall)
3. He should have pressed on straight onto his main objective instead of going for glory prizes first
Spytrx 4 years ago
Yeh sorry about the red ink but this is my first film of this sort.
I agree Moscow was a mistake, although I doubt he originally intended to go that far, if he had intended to go as far as Moscow, he would probably have aimed for St. Petersburg, center of administration for Russia.
I think he had already made an enemy of Prussia in 1806 at Jena and Austadt, and in 1807 at Tilsit by leaving Wilhem out of the treaty negotiations.
Thanks for commenting and expressing your views.
napoleonbonarparte 4 years ago
Well no, he had Prussia's blessing to pass through their territory for the Russian campaign but abused it on the way back. They weren't bestest of friends, but the Prussians were busy elsewhere (Austria, Bavaria) to bother much with the French - that was also the reason why the main force of the Prussian Army was away on Napoleons return...
My family history, see ;)
Spytrx 4 years ago
really? how are you connected to all this?
napoleonbonarparte 4 years ago
my family on my mothers side is Prussian and we can trace our roots back to 1340. Since I was a nipper they told me all about my family tree and my glorious male forefathers who gave their blood for the Glory of Prussia... In the battle of Waterloo we lost a third of our bloodline rescuing the Brits, so my dislike of the French of that period is twice as bad as it normally should be ;)
Spytrx 4 years ago
Wow, wish I could trace my family back that far, thanks for sharing that.
I think a dislike of the french is natural to most people and I take great comfort in remembering that Napoleon was Corsican
napoleonbonarparte 4 years ago
trust me, if you know your family history better at the age of three than any common fairy tale and the other kids look at you like you fell off a tree and the grown-ups hate you because they think you are German - you pretty soon learn to dislike knowledge of that kind... ;)
Spytrx 4 years ago
yes indeed as natural as a dislike of the Brits or the Krauts... It's 2008 ladies, we are trying to build Europe ;-) and by the way Napoleon was Corsican, yes... Corsica is French and Napoleon was raised in metropolitan France in a French military school reading about Descarte, Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire and all the influencial 18th century French authors... I guess this is more than enough to make him French. Nice video by the way...
scorpio75000 3 years ago
we are all friends now! But it is interesting, that is all. I am in a difficult position because I should dislike the french, but I like her history too much, and i LIKE SPENDING CHRISTMAS IN fRANCE TOO MUCH. However we should not forget Napoleon was a Corsican born and bred, he disliked France until the 1790's, he wanted them out of his country. In all fairness, he had no nation, just opportunism, and I mean that as a complement. He picked wht he wanted to be when and where it suited him.
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago
True, Napoleon disliked France till the 90's until he was denied by his own (the failure of the Corsican campaign and Paoli turning him down), an event that brought him closer to France. But he was raised with the ideals of the "lumiéres" and was quiet thrilled by the wind of change blowing on France... Only when the French revolution turned nasty - with chaotic mess in Paris and the bloody Robespierre at the helm was Napoleon to change his mind on people and turn opportunist...
scorpio75000 3 years ago
Hahaha at "I should dislike the french"... And yea, we are all friends now :-)
scorpio75000 3 years ago
Lol, I know it sounds daft, but being an Englishman, who is interested in the Napoleonic war; theoretically I should dislike the French, but it is difficult. The cheap champagne, the fine fois gras, the history, Paris, Napoleon........
If all those were English, then I would be able to dislike the French!!!!!!!!!
napoleonbonarparte 3 years ago