not to sound all pedant and shit but im a classics major
and Guns/cannons vs Swords?
is as simple as this: Alexander would never do what Napoleon did. Fight two wars at once. Napoleon lost 2 major battles..Alexander none. Napoleon would dress in front of a painting of Alexander.
How can anyone judge a man who lived over 2300 years ago..? in a whole different age than ours
in a different one than the pussy frnech
NAPOLEON-500,000 MEN INTO RUSSIA...IN WINTER...SMART LOL
Napoleon is also the man that conquered europe with a bankrupted , demoralized country totally weakened by the revolution on 1789 , Napoleon has also won more battles than Alexander, Hannibal and julius ceaser put together. Napoleon was the most powerful man on earth during 24 years, 12 years for Alexander , Napoleon had to fight against the most powerfull and most trained army of the time, Alexander agaiinst a bunch of peasants sent to death by their lord.
Alexander was a war hungry, angst ridden sore excuse for a man who used the excellent, reformed army left to him by his father to sate his own desires of being a hero. after over expanding he was eventually poisoned by his generals, who then divided up the land by themselves resulting in a fragile and depleted macedon whose hold on the rest of the greek states was laughable
@funnyguyagency You don't know a little about the true story?his father's dream,was to conquer Persia,he was murdered so alexander completed it,he stopped his campaign because of his soldiers and his army wasn't just macedonians reformed by his father as you claim,they were from different territories of greece,except sparta! and i suppose that your source is the only one which tells the truth about how Alexander died,may & where? He was undefeated!!and he started with less than 100.000 soldiers
@kormista13 He was undefeated cos he rushed hard and died young
I didnt say his army was soley macedonians ull find he conscripted a lot of mercs in his campaign
and he started with more than "100.000" soldiers, unless you meant "," instead of "."
he was a fool who didnt have half the brain to realise that his men didnt fancy fighting for their lives all the way from greece->india, nor did he know wat to do with the land he snatched away from a crumbling empire
@funnyguyagency Alexander's army crossed the Hellespont in 334 BC with approximately 48,100 soldiers, 6,100 cavalry and a fleet of 120 ships with crews numbering 38,000,[68] drawn from Macedon and various Greek city-states(wikipedia) they were less than 100.000,you said reformed army by his father,his father didn't have the support of the other greek cities..alexander did...and he destroyed the greatest empire of these times..Persia.if he was a fool.he could never reach india and defeat Poros!
@kormista13 100.000 = hundred, ffs, r u trying to be funny
and by 'reformed' surely you know i mean the phalangites armed with sarissa, they provided a strong 'anvil' that could hold off double, even triple their number of opposing infantry
Persia actually relied on greek mercernaries to fight alexander, not wat id call 'great'
Alexander! Never lost a batle! Only 3 man in history can say that and Alexander was one of them :) And he did all those thinks at age of 32 and even Napoleon admired Alexander :)
well there are more than there: Khan, zizka, ibn al Walid, zhukov, Sururov etc. Khalid ibn al Walid is especially noteworthy having defeated both the Persian and Byzantine Empires with a much smaller and less will equipped force. Doubt Islam would be widespread without him.
Napoleon Bonaparte was greater than Alexander beacause Napoleon fought more battles than Alexander!Napoleon goes to Russia but Alexander to India! India wasn't a great power but Russia was great!I am greek many of you will say "Is greek and he admire Napoleon and not Alexander "Yes yes yes!!!
Listen: Alexander was great, but he fought an decaying empire. Had he fought the Persian empire in 540 B.C and not 330s B.C then he would have had many many more problems.
Persia at Alexanders time was just as Rome in year 450... Weak and unorganized.
Napoleon on the other hand fought many different nations and did somethign Alexander never did.... Managing the Empire.
Alexander never managed a city he conquered. He always gave the responsibility to his other subjects. Napoleon did.
@StraightJohn19 And Napoleon did not effect Europe? He found the Rosetta Stone, created the Napoleonic law code, encouraged German and Italian unification later that century.
Napoleon had coalitions against him, it wasn't Napoleon that declared war on Prussia and Austria. They wanted to restore the French monarchy because they were scared of what effect the Revolution would have on Europe. He turned a rag tag army in Italy to victory, defeating the Austrians. Austria was a world power
Napoleon is greater then Alexander. Warefare was much more complex in Napoleon's day. Just because Napoleon lost a battle does not mean that it makes Alexander automatically better.
And Napoleon was never in Spain in person, he left that to some of his other generals, such as Nicholas Soult, and Napoleon's brother Joseph.
My personal opinion of Napoleon was that his army was only effective when he was in command, why I think he was a great general. He never believed a situation was hopeless
Alexander was only a commander. he never realy controlled his empire cuase he was out on his conquest, but Napoleon was both a full time emperor and a feld commander, he controlled his empire at the same time he was preparing for battle.
And this great leaders was separated with 2000 years and the type of soliders and tactics was way diffrent. Alexander was undeafeted in battle. but he lost the indian war after all, Napoleon enemeys (just like alexander) was many times bigger the hes own force
Alexander wins, he was never defeated, and napoleon was defeated by us portuguese (they never talk about this i dont know why, we are a really underrated country) with the english and years later the russians.
@Freez57fr Its cleary you dont know shit, did you ever see what is the The Peninsular Wars? Portugal with england kicked out napoleon out of portugal and the spanish too, go wikipedia bla bla etc it was the begining of the end for him, so he lost a few batles not just in russia, and yes portugal were figurants but in the end of the day they were the few countrys that were not conquered. So alexander wins, he did think much younguer and dont change the subject by talking about the portuguese.
WHAT IS TURKEY? ITS A COUNTRY THAT HAS NO HOMELAND.........IF YOU ARE TURK THEN YOU HAVE TO BE ASHAMED BECAUSE TURKISH DIDINT HAVE THEIR OWN 1CM LAND.....TURKSIH ARE NOMADS...THEY OCCUPIED EVERYTHING BY GENOSIDES FROM ARMENIA, GREECE, BULGARIA, BYUZANDE, CILCIAN ARMENIA, PONTUS...........AND MORE AND MORE. SHAME.....NOMADIC PEOPLE.
@BehelitOutlaw The Albanians and their language, are the descendants of the White race and europian languages, forever were be the best warriors in the world and 100% pure Pellasgian-Illyrian-albanian blood from 10.000 years in the Illyrian[Balcanic] Peninsula, the First inhabitants in their lands [ ILLYRIA ].
@BehelitOutlaw Sorry for my english, the White race & european languages, are the descendants of the Albanians and their language, beyond 10.000 years c.b. Happy relax!
Persia had lost its glamour since the failed attempt to take Greece.
Had Alexander foguth against the Persia under Cyrus The Great (The guy who conquered 3 empires and created the persian empire) Alexander would have failed.
Persia had bad leaders after Cyrus death. A nation is nothing without a good leader.
Napoleon on the other hand began as a officer of one canon, and ended up with an army who fought 4 great nations at one time!
@VictumRoManius napoleon is my fav general and leader of all times for his military genius and character but alexander took an empire with over half a million soldiers with just 40'000 even if he didn't face them all at once...yes their soldiers were mostly ralied farmers but still...
Alexander had no real advance against the Persians, if you read the ancient text you will see that the only think gave Alexander victory was his "madness"(with the cleaver way) and his luck. Plus the fact that Alexander was fighting an army 4 times bigger than his ( and the only reason that he won was the death of Memnon,who tried to outmaneuver Alexander with the Persian navy). Technology didn't really helped him and that is also proved from the facts in India
IN my opinion Napoleon, though Alexander was a great conquerer, he had a technilogically advanced army and was fighting against opponents who did not have the military doctrine he had. In Napoleon's time most nations had large armies, and no new technology could be long hidden or kept away. There was also more to worry about, more accurate weapons, more accurate artillery, and so on. Napoleon took the not so powerful forces of France and took most of Europe without the advantage Alexander had.
Alright i allways hated warfare after 1600 since back then it was shoot, recharge, shoot again and artillery (sorry for my bad spelling). Napoleon was a good conqueror I admit it yet you can't say that someone truly surpassed Alexander he was and still is the greatest influence of all times for every general and even more he fough with swords and cavalry against tousands (even war Elephants by the way) and he never lost a battle and even tamed a thracian horse at the AGE OF 13!
@Illibest1 just charge shoot? i dont understand what youi mean my that. I mean if you put it that way, warfare up to that point was just a bunch of men charging at each other, but we all know better.
@zenoist2 "I like watching the old guard fleeing in the face of british rifles." yeah well you can make that happen in the game, but in reality, the Old Guard was never committed. It was the Middle Guard that was sent against the Anglo-Dutch lines. The Old Guard withdrew from the battlefield the first time, but they were never defeated.
In the game, the Old Guard is superior to any elite unit of the Allies could field, and this game was made by a British vdeo game company. The irony.
@zenoist2, The Creative Assembly is a British video game developer established in 1987. This company is responsible for creating all of the Total War games.
On the other hand one has to admit that the Diadochi lasted much, much longer than any napoleonic france. Alexander did not commit any mistake other than being perhaps, in a way, too successful fact that gave rise to his generals' envy and ultimately, but not certainly, his death.. He was a military genius and the achaemenids commanded the reignant superpower of his time, he was also very brave to go against them. Napoleon, just for starters, marched on Moscow's winter, perhaps not wisely...
And you think that if Napoleon died then the French empire would just disappear in the "political vacuum" that Alexander faced after defeating the Persian empire? There was no one to contest him.
Napoleon fought against whole of Europe and won again and again, and all of its power wanted to destroy him. The attack on Russia was a sound idea, he wanted to fight decisive battle, he could not and went in to deep. He thought Russians would sue for peace after taking Moscow.
@muf321 Yeah at the time of Alexander Persian soldiers had become less profetional. The rimes of the great Persian empire was over.
Napoleon on the other hand was fighting against the British, Prussians, Russians, Austrians, Spanijols and many other smaller italian and german states.
They declared Napoleon war 5 times, and lost 5 times.
@muf321 But wen he was alive he was in 50 batles and he was undefeated, and he was in those batles before having 30, so Alexander was the best general ever
Alexander undefeated? He only beat the Persians (the worst army of the time, they fought with peasants while the Greek were a professional army, the conquest of the Persian Empire was like the conquest of the 3rd world by European nations at the time of the colonial Empires). Except the Persians he only fought week tribes.
Napoleon fought all Europe coalised against France. The armies of the coalition were similar to the French army. He conquered Europe not 3rd world countries.
The Persian army was an army of peasants. Greek professional armies always crushed the Persians, they didn't wait Alexander, just look the Greco-Persian wars (for example the Thermopyles are the perfect exemple of the large superiority of the Greek professional armies over the Persian army). You can't compare Napoleon fighting professional european armies coalised against him with Alexander fighting with primitive armies.
And Napoleon never lost a battle without being heavily outnumbered.
@Freez57fr I'm not taking sides but Alexander did fight against Greeks. What did you think Macedonia and the Greece city states all saw eye to eye? Alexander even had to burn the city of Thebes down before he set out. If you studied the tactic applied by alexander in his three major battles, although I do not expect you too, you would see how he would trick and trap the enemy. He was once outnumber > 2:1. Back in the day leading 50,000 men from Greece to Egypt to India was something incredible.
@Freez57fr Napoleon got his ass kicked out of our country portugal, with the english, at age of 32 Alexander already died undefeated with the bigest empire ate that time, and wen alexander beat the percians, percia was the bigest empire of the world, and he dont only beat the persons go learn your history, even napoleon tried to be alexander but he failed, julius ceaser too etc
@StraightJohn19 well i think you have to learn your history to then.... Alexander was undeafeted in battle, but he lost the indian war, the greek soliders was way better then the percian army (and without firearms it was way easier for a small force to win). But Napoleon managed to build a powerfull army, but not so diffrent compared to the rest of Europe´s. Alexander was smart but his army was the unbeatable force not him, Napoleon on the other hand won beacuase he was a genius of stratigics.
@TheSporeHalo Alexander even beat greeks to achieve is destany, and the perchian empire was very advanced not a "army of peasants" as you say and they were always in the advantage 2 to 1. And he didnt lost, he is the only with 3 other guys alexander from russia, and ghenkis khan that never lost and alexander wasa genius himself, and he didnt made mistakes like napoleon even this video says that napoleon studied alexanders tactics so axelander ftw
2: you can´t deny the alexanders army was way better the the persian (all historians say that)
3: no mistakes? how about the invasion of india? that invasion that hes own men turned back from, becuase they where tired of hes what seemed endless campain?
4: He may have studied historical commander in his youth, but he turned out to become a way better then some of them.
@TheSporeHalo Yes it was, and the greeks armys? and alexander was almost all the time in 2 to 1 situtations, and in very hard lands to conquer, and yes they wanted to go back, but that was not a mistake that maked him beeing defeated like napoleon, and alexander did all this thinks much younguer then napoleon so in the end of the day alexander wins
@StraightJohn19 younger? they started both very young. Napoleon was only 24 when he won the battle of toulon and gane the control of the italian army 28 years old and later he became the emperor of France... and Alexander yeah he died of Malaria at 34 years and napoleon would countinue untill 1815... so during his miltary campain he operated for aprox. 20 years and he won allot more then Alexander, and at the same time he controlled his empire wich alexander never did prop.
@TheSporeHalo Alexander was already emperor at age of 24 alexander never did enjoyed is empire he died to young. Alexander did all this thinks with 32 Napoleon died with 52 it can not even be compared, im done with this discution, even napoelon himself tried to be alexander and visited his body and used his tactis, and napoleon lost batles and alexander didnt, alexander was adored like a living god, napoleon never had this status go see the top 10 world conqueres see who is in front of napoleon.
BTW Napoleon didn´t get his ass kicked in Portugal.. one of his armies was but not him. If one of alexanders general was deafeted in battle would you then say that alexander got his ass kicked, no i don´t think so. At the time of napoleon the army needed a great general that was a master of stratigics,
@StraightJohn19 it´s quit obvious that you are out of arguments.... You can´t say that he was adored by napoleon all the time!!!! do you think he did care about Alexander when he was marching trough prussia.. no! he studied alexander as young, used his tactiks? where have you heard that? why should he use a so useless tactik for that time, you can´t compare a master of firearms with a master of spears. And this is not just about them as commander, A great king is he who are close to his people.
@TheSporeHalo Historyans and even in this videos, and im not out of arguments i can do this all day long, and im not seeing he used, im seeing he studied is tactics, and now you are chaging subjects, and alexander was close with his ppl, macedonians were very close, most of them were a band of pastors, alexander at 14 was already a macedonian warrior, he achieved more thinks in less that napoleon and thats a facct, even in any list of any top commanders alexander is in front of napoleon
even n the end of this the historyan says napoleon record compared to alexander was patetic, and alexander legacy changed the world,they made legends out of him and even the great. Romans saw him as their inspirational role model ulius Caesar reportedly wept in Spain at the sight of Alexander's statue because he thought he had achieved so little by the same age that Alexander had conquered the world napoleon was great but alexander was greater
i´m not changing subject! the video sais "Alexander the Great VS. Napoleon Bonaparte" not "Alexander the Great VS. Napoleon Bonaparte as commanders" you obvioully don´t know anything about Napoleon, i say this because i like alexander too.... and is able to compare them, but you can´t say that alexander is better then Napoleon all the time, they was living in 2 diffrent eras, many generals studied Alexander yes, You are talking about Napoleon as a man of mistakes but you are totaly wrong,,,,
@TheSporeHalo Trust me, i know about napoleon, and im not saying napoleon is a man of mistakes, but yes he did some really bad mistakes that made him loose batles, but alexander made mistakes too but not like napoleon, and sure they lived in different eras and all thats why alexander had achieved things that napoleon dreamed to achieve, and he did but not like alexander
the big mistakes was quit small you now! The thing is that the battle was much more pendent on the general at his time then alexanders, these mistakes are not big you know.... The battle of waterloo went as planned but his generals was stupid and didn´t follow orders, Borodino (still victory) he want sick and would just command for half the battle, Alexander conquerd the known world cuase there was nothing to stop him, but on Napoleons time the people of nation was as feard as its army.
PErsians from the time of Cyrus the Great where unstopable. They where the best soldiers and warriors from that time...
But in Darius III time they sucked. They had lost their quality. Alexander was fighting against an army who had to much quantity but very little quality.
Alexander is my great hero, but he will never beat Napoleon.
Napoleon was fighting against 5 mighty nations at one time... In addition Alexander sucked as a regent. In his time Macedonia was poor as hell. NApoleon was good
@VictumRoManius No Macedonia was rich because of gold and silver mines so they could busy anything they needed. Alexander was given everything he needed to conquer the world. Plus only an idiot would fight 5 nations at one time on multiple fronts. That's why Napoleon lost battles. Alexander won every battle he was involved in. He lead all of his cavalry charges and received multiple wounds from head to toe. Napoleon was good, but Alexander is better in almost every way.
1. Napoleon almost never declared wars. Those Brits where paying the Austrians, Russians, smaller german states and later on Prussians to fight Napoleon.
So it was not Napoleon who was the agressor but the British.
2. When Alexander conquered a city, he often gave one or two regents the power and left to conquer another city. Does that sound as a good regent? No. He was a genius in the battle field, but as a regent he was only good from a morale perspective not a political one.
@VictumRoManius Ok Napoleon was a better political figure i'll admit that but the only reason Alexander the Great didn't become a political figure is because he had such a rush on the battlefield that he hated being in a city debating the rights of captured cities. Why stay to debate that when you can do it later after you have conquered the world? It was a waste of time because he'll just have to do it again for other parts of his empire.
@EnlightenedShqiptar How do you think that the Persians under Koorush the Great managed to conquer the huge Medea empire? How do you think that they managed to defeat the Greeks in Asia minor? how do you think that they defeated the Egyptians?
They did it because Koorush was an exellent military general BUT they also did it because their soldiers where awesome fighters. After Cyrus death and the long lasting internal war in Persia the quality of soldiers from persia decreased so they WHERE good.
As I said: Koorush the great is a great leader and on his time Persia was one of the mightiest empires the world had ever seen. Had Koorush lived longer would they manage to conquer all of Greece. At Koorush's time Persian soldiers where awesome infantriest and awesome cavalerists.
But when Koorush died and civil war errupted, first THEN the Persians began to recruit greeks + that their own infantry began to become less profetional.
Napoleon was better then alexander alexander had falanx that gives him huge advantige over his enemys and he fouth 1 vs 1 persians only had more soldiers then alexander that was all while napoleon had better army then his enemys but he made that army for him self alexander s army was given to him by his father napoleon fhout on many fronts and almoust always won look at 1814 campaign he with his 30 000 soldiers won 5 battles against prussians and russians that hade more than 120 000 soldiers !
@TheVikiLaki, Alexander and Napoleon came from very different times, and their technology in weaponry was totally different. these two commanders were the greatest in their own times.
Alexander was the greatest, hands down. He also led his men from the front, Napoleon stayed behind them at times, if not all the time. Alexander also fought a force the size of the allies that were against Napoleon, except Alexander won, Napoleon lost. Alexander never lost a battle, Napoleon was defeated and exiled twice. Alexander's Empire was also bigger. He conquered the known world. I highly doubt Napoleon conquered the known world at his time.
@PriestChristopher, Napoleon won more battles than any other military leader in history. He led a poorly equiped, ill disciplined army and conquered his enemies. Alexander inherited his father's army. Napoleon fought against the most powerful empires of the world in that time, including Great Britain, Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, Spanish Empire 1808-1814, and Prussia. Alexander only fought one empire. Napoleon won more wars than Alexander ever fought and won.
@expertstrategy. Winning more battles means nothing. Alexander defeated the most powerful empire in the world, FAR larger than Europe or any of the places that Napoleon conquered. Alexander took the whole known world. Alexander was also never beaten. Napoleon was defeated and exiled twice as I said. Napoleon never led from the front. Alexander did what he commanded of his men to do. The Empire Alexander took was much stronger and larger than anything Napoleon took. Understand?
@PriestChristopher, Napoleon is the most widely written historical figure with over 50,000 books published about him. Alexander, not so much. Napoleon's tactics have revolutionized warfare forever, and his strategies and campaigns are being studied in nearly every military academy in the world.
Napoleon and Alexander are better than one another in numerous ways.
@expertstrategy. That's where you're wrong. Generals still study Alexander's tactics to this very day. Which commander would you follow, the one who was never beaten or the one who got owned more than once? Alexander would have crushed Napoleon.
The Russians had an advantage over Napoleon in several ways, one being that Russians utilized the winter so as to weaken and demoralize Napoleon's troops. Second they knew the lay of the land, so in Napoleon's retreat from Mosocw, they constantly harrassd his retreating troops. Third, the Russians used a scorched earth policy, which prevented Napoleo's huge Grand Armee from gathering resources. And 4th, the Russians were skilled at a War of Attrition. The Russians were always losing but endured.
it was winter that killed Napoleon's army and russians had more then 400 000 soldiers if you count cossaks in russia temperatures that winter where -40 or more survive that and then tell me that winter didn't kill Napoleon's army
If because that Alexander the great never lost a battle does make him better so Scipio africanus was better too lol , he didn't lose a battle too and he has beaten the most powerfull man during his time Hannibal himself who was undefeated before he fight against Scipio Africanus .
Napoléon may have lost , but now you have to take a look at his defeats , Russia the weather destroyed his army , Leipzig , 190 000 against 330 000 at a begining napoleon counted on his reinforcement but only 14 000 come and 130 000 soldiers come for the coalition . Waterloo he was winning before the join of the prussians , those same prussians that he has beaten 3 day earlier .
Napoleon asskicked the russians and he even took moscow , the russians attacked them during their retreat due to the fatal russian winter who killed more than 50% of his army even napoleon almost died due of that same as the germansin 1941 this is fact !
@NasriTheNewKing +++Napoleon asskicked the russians+++ It's not true. Napoleon was beated by Russians. +++he even took moscow+++ So what? The main target of his compagn was "to take Moscow"? +++the russians attacked them during their retreat+++ Why did he retreate if he "asskicked the russians" ? +++fatal russian winter who killed+++ Russians was at the same conditions, don't you think? ++that same as the germansin 1941 this is fact++ Do you really belive that russian winter kills?
Well i don't think napoleon lost EVERYTHING since most of the european country use his civil code , his military rank . Oh what happened before your winter ? You were loosing , same with the germans remeber the operation barbossa they asskicked your ass and what hapenned after ? The winter lol . But atleast be happy you have been saved unlike us french . we had not a fatal winter or a channel like the english to preotect us .
Corsica is greek since whene ? it was greek 2500 years ago LOL. And since it has been Carthagian , roman , franks , moorish , italians and then french ...
+++same with the germans remeber the operation barbossa they asskicked your ass and what hapenned after ? The winter lol .+++
The war against Hitler was 4 year. 1941-1945. After first "dead winter" came summer. Hitler was beated in winter, summer, autamn and spring. In day and night, in rainy weather and so on.
+++the most victories on the russians soil by the russians most of them are during the winter ....+++
It is not true :-)))
For example in 19 centure were about 12 wars with turks - all in summer. 11 of them were succesfull. Most Russian compaines in Europe were during summer - most of them were very succesful. ;-))) I would be say that most saccessfull Russian wars were in summer ;-)))
I know Russian history - sorry but you are not right.
I was talking about WW2 against the germans not against the turkish and i have no idea of what happenned against the turkish so i won't debate about it ,
OK. Germans planned to finish barbarosa BEFORE winter. But unfortunatly for them they faced with harden resistence. The plan was failed. So they lost war. The waether isn't real reason.
@Riltex No, 135,000 Grand Armée fought the 175.000 Kutuzov's army and won (Borodino) , the Grand Armée entered Moscow but everything had been burned by the russian from the 14th to the 20th september 1812. Napoleon withdrew the 18th october because of the winter, trying to reach the french supply depot at Smolensk, and after, the Minsk, while the russian chase them. The French won most of the battles but lose many soldiers, this is a strategical defeat.
@Riltex Yes, but before the battle of Borodino (or Moskova) the originally 600.000 French Army ( which was only half french: 300.000 French, 90.000 Poles, ..) had already suffered loses from cold and the battle of Chevardino, and the Russian forces were constanly moving back to Moscow. The French were 124.000 as the battle of Borodino began.
Kutuzov wasn't talented; even if he had done nothing, the Grande Armée would have been defeated anyway, by the cold (up to -30°) and the cossack assaults.
+++Kutuzov wasn't talented; even if he had done nothing, the Grande Armée would have been defeated anyway, by the cold (up to -30°) and the cossack assaults.+++
The Napoleon plan of invasion was to win in 20(!) days. It failed. If you really believe that Russian resistance isn't reason of Napoleon Tragedy - it's your right. But it isn't reality.
+++Kutuzov wasn't talented; even if he had done nothing, the Grande Armée would have been defeated anyway, by the cold (up to -30°) and the cossack assaults.+++
It's very interesting. I always ask myself: "We Russians must be "superheros" coz we don't care about frost " ;-)))
But it is just fairytales.
Reality is symple. Russians in 1812 was much more obstinate and brave solders than Grand Armee. And Kutuzov was more talanted commander than Napoleon
@Riltex The Grande Armee had no suitable clothings like the russians, they add no supply, and the russians had burnt down Moscow. Kutuzov was useless.
+++The Grande Armee had no suitable clothings like the russians+++
The French and Russian military uniform of that time WAS THE SAME(!)
But French soldiers had no brave and good commander. That's why just only 170.000 of Russians kill 690.000 of Friench. Thanks Kutuzov. "There was to cold, they have no cloths, they were hungry, the roads was dirty, russsian cossacs were malicious.." bla bla bla.
Was that people soldiers or they were just a croud of whimsical young virgin girls?
@Riltex "Was that people soldiers or they were just a croud of whimsical young virgin girls?"
Keep your misogynists comments for yourself. Would you call the Wehrmacht a "croud of whimsical young virgin girls" too? Because what have defeated us is exactly the same thing, the weather. Stalin was helpless, he knew nothing about war but won anyway. By the way, the russian commanders have been taught by the prussians. That's why they do the goose-step nowadays.
+Dying from a -20°c temperature is not a shame. Walking on the dirty russian roads, being hungry and having no suitable clothings don't make they worth being called "virgins"+
Why they didn't win Russians in 20 summer days, as Napoleon planned?
All excuses is bullshit. They had to give RESULT. But they couldn't.
They were good soldiers who died for Napoleon. You shouldn't shame Grand Armee by using girl's foolish excuses. But Russians could give RESULT in that conditions.
@Riltex Of course, they live there. Napoleon ruled Europe. The Russian were only able to the invade the eastern areas, where nobody lived. What a great nation. Napoleon invaded Moscow, and unlike the others great cities, the civil authorities did not come to the Grande Armee with the keys to the city. Instead Moscow had been burnt down.
@Riltex Easy, France had no army. And you weren't alone, the Sixth Coalition included Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden, United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Sardinia, Saxony, Bavaria and Württemberg. Proud Russian soldiers for sure.
We do not care about your love, we know the russian painters painted a lot Napoleon ages after his downfall, we also know that every year we are the most visited country in the world. I guess not many people wants to visit snow and ice :?
@Riltex Sado-maso love? Talking about sex while a discuss about the napoleonic wars.. you little unsatisfied geek needs a gf or a link to a pornsite. Choose a russian one, most of the time, it's free or cheap because the models pose for a cup of soup. Tolstoy was indeed a great painter, everybody knows that.
@Riltex He never drove his country to catastrophe because he was never leader of his country. You really think Napoleon had a choice in invading Russia? Nope. It was either invade, or wait in Poland for the tsar to mobilize his 800,000 strong army to bear. Napoleon was far better than Kutuzov in every way imaginable. This is not said out of national pride; this is said out of logic.
@Riltex Recruit? They were already recruited. Tell me, does your "historical encyclopedia" specialize, or at least focus on, the Napoleonic Era? No? Then it's incorrect. Look at sources that are written by actual Napoleonic experts, not a drawling historian who tries to bite off more than he can chew. Russia had 800,000 it could mobilize, but that doesn't mean they were ready for war.
It's not true. The size of Russian army during Napoleon invasion was 175.000
+++Tell me, does your "historical encyclopedia" specialize, or at least focus on, the Napoleonic Era?+++
My historical encyclopedia gives me authentic data about Russian population in 1800 year. That's all I need. Obviously Russians couldn't mobilize 800.000.
Grand Armee was the hugest army that Europe ever seen.
-"Napoleon lost his army and he couldn't win 175.000 Russians. He was the greatest loser in history."
Are you kidding? Kutusov wasn't a very good general, and the main thing which destroyed the Grande Armee was the Russian winter. Even against a destroyed Grande Armee, Kutusov still lost battles to them.
Napoleon defeated the Russians over and over again before invading Russia, and he still kicked arse even
alexander would be the best marshals of the only Empoeror who didn't need the blood of this father to rise !!!
feanor93834 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT MACEDONIA AND ALEXANDER THE GREAT IS GREEK THEN PLEASE THUMB UP!!
POTIS1 2 months ago
guns are more difficult than swords my friend and bayonets too
EpaminondastheGreat 2 months ago
alexandre was better, if the historical accounts are real, they were known to exagerate, but i prefer napoleon myself...
boss180888 2 months ago
@funnyguyagency I think someone's jealous... Just because your a loser doesn't mean Alexander the great wasn't great.
streetpartying 2 months ago
@streetpartying LMFAO
not to sound all pedant and shit but im a classics major
and Guns/cannons vs Swords?
is as simple as this: Alexander would never do what Napoleon did. Fight two wars at once. Napoleon lost 2 major battles..Alexander none. Napoleon would dress in front of a painting of Alexander.
How can anyone judge a man who lived over 2300 years ago..? in a whole different age than ours
in a different one than the pussy frnech
NAPOLEON-500,000 MEN INTO RUSSIA...IN WINTER...SMART LOL
theprodigy1600 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@theprodigy1600 im not sure what point you're trying to make...
streetpartying 3 weeks ago
@theprodigy1600
Napoleon is also the man that conquered europe with a bankrupted , demoralized country totally weakened by the revolution on 1789 , Napoleon has also won more battles than Alexander, Hannibal and julius ceaser put together. Napoleon was the most powerful man on earth during 24 years, 12 years for Alexander , Napoleon had to fight against the most powerfull and most trained army of the time, Alexander agaiinst a bunch of peasants sent to death by their lord.
NasriTheNewKing 2 weeks ago
Alexander was a war hungry, angst ridden sore excuse for a man who used the excellent, reformed army left to him by his father to sate his own desires of being a hero. after over expanding he was eventually poisoned by his generals, who then divided up the land by themselves resulting in a fragile and depleted macedon whose hold on the rest of the greek states was laughable
and napoleon...declaring himself emperor lolwut
funnyguyagency 3 months ago
@funnyguyagency You don't know a little about the true story?his father's dream,was to conquer Persia,he was murdered so alexander completed it,he stopped his campaign because of his soldiers and his army wasn't just macedonians reformed by his father as you claim,they were from different territories of greece,except sparta! and i suppose that your source is the only one which tells the truth about how Alexander died,may & where? He was undefeated!!and he started with less than 100.000 soldiers
kormista13 2 months ago
@kormista13 He was undefeated cos he rushed hard and died young
I didnt say his army was soley macedonians ull find he conscripted a lot of mercs in his campaign
and he started with more than "100.000" soldiers, unless you meant "," instead of "."
he was a fool who didnt have half the brain to realise that his men didnt fancy fighting for their lives all the way from greece->india, nor did he know wat to do with the land he snatched away from a crumbling empire
at least he spread hellenism
funnyguyagency 2 months ago
@funnyguyagency Alexander's army crossed the Hellespont in 334 BC with approximately 48,100 soldiers, 6,100 cavalry and a fleet of 120 ships with crews numbering 38,000,[68] drawn from Macedon and various Greek city-states(wikipedia) they were less than 100.000,you said reformed army by his father,his father didn't have the support of the other greek cities..alexander did...and he destroyed the greatest empire of these times..Persia.if he was a fool.he could never reach india and defeat Poros!
kormista13 1 month ago
@kormista13 100.000 = hundred, ffs, r u trying to be funny
and by 'reformed' surely you know i mean the phalangites armed with sarissa, they provided a strong 'anvil' that could hold off double, even triple their number of opposing infantry
Persia actually relied on greek mercernaries to fight alexander, not wat id call 'great'
funnyguyagency 1 month ago
Alexander! Never lost a batle! Only 3 man in history can say that and Alexander was one of them :) And he did all those thinks at age of 32 and even Napoleon admired Alexander :)
StraightJohn19 3 months ago
@StraightJohn19
well there are more than there: Khan, zizka, ibn al Walid, zhukov, Sururov etc. Khalid ibn al Walid is especially noteworthy having defeated both the Persian and Byzantine Empires with a much smaller and less will equipped force. Doubt Islam would be widespread without him.
1ngjoxsh 2 months ago
Napoleon Bonaparte was greater than Alexander beacause Napoleon fought more battles than Alexander!Napoleon goes to Russia but Alexander to India! India wasn't a great power but Russia was great!I am greek many of you will say "Is greek and he admire Napoleon and not Alexander "Yes yes yes!!!
EpaminondastheGreat 3 months ago
@EpaminondastheGreat but man Napoleon had guns and Alexander had swords and bows...
SpyrosMaragosLP 3 months ago
Listen: Alexander was great, but he fought an decaying empire. Had he fought the Persian empire in 540 B.C and not 330s B.C then he would have had many many more problems.
Persia at Alexanders time was just as Rome in year 450... Weak and unorganized.
Napoleon on the other hand fought many different nations and did somethign Alexander never did.... Managing the Empire.
Alexander never managed a city he conquered. He always gave the responsibility to his other subjects. Napoleon did.
VictumRoManius 4 months ago
@StraightJohn19 And Napoleon did not effect Europe? He found the Rosetta Stone, created the Napoleonic law code, encouraged German and Italian unification later that century.
Napoleon had coalitions against him, it wasn't Napoleon that declared war on Prussia and Austria. They wanted to restore the French monarchy because they were scared of what effect the Revolution would have on Europe. He turned a rag tag army in Italy to victory, defeating the Austrians. Austria was a world power
BurritosXD 4 months ago
Napoleon is greater then Alexander. Warefare was much more complex in Napoleon's day. Just because Napoleon lost a battle does not mean that it makes Alexander automatically better.
And Napoleon was never in Spain in person, he left that to some of his other generals, such as Nicholas Soult, and Napoleon's brother Joseph.
My personal opinion of Napoleon was that his army was only effective when he was in command, why I think he was a great general. He never believed a situation was hopeless
BurritosXD 4 months ago
This is crap.
HLBENT 4 months ago
Alexander was only a commander. he never realy controlled his empire cuase he was out on his conquest, but Napoleon was both a full time emperor and a feld commander, he controlled his empire at the same time he was preparing for battle.
And this great leaders was separated with 2000 years and the type of soliders and tactics was way diffrent. Alexander was undeafeted in battle. but he lost the indian war after all, Napoleon enemeys (just like alexander) was many times bigger the hes own force
TheSporeHalo 4 months ago
Alexander wins, he was never defeated, and napoleon was defeated by us portuguese (they never talk about this i dont know why, we are a really underrated country) with the english and years later the russians.
StraightJohn19 5 months ago
@StraightJohn19
"Alexander wins, he was never defeated, and napoleon was defeated by us portuguese"
---> Hahahahaha Napoleon defeated by portuguese what a joke !!!
Portuguese didn't fight a single battle alone during the Napoleonic wars you were only figurants hidden behind the Spanish and the Brits.
Freez57fr 4 months ago
@Freez57fr Its cleary you dont know shit, did you ever see what is the The Peninsular Wars? Portugal with england kicked out napoleon out of portugal and the spanish too, go wikipedia bla bla etc it was the begining of the end for him, so he lost a few batles not just in russia, and yes portugal were figurants but in the end of the day they were the few countrys that were not conquered. So alexander wins, he did think much younguer and dont change the subject by talking about the portuguese.
DarthDestroiarXXX 4 months ago
@Freez57fr I see why you are so blind, you are a french xD
StraightJohn19 4 months ago
Comment removed
StraightJohn19 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WE ARE COMPARING TWO GENERALS FROM DIFFERENT TIMES
MAKES NO SENSE
FOR FUN...SURE.....BUT FOR SOME REAL SHIT?????
ALEXANDER LEAD FROM THE FRONT NAPOLEON FROM THE BACK THATS A FACT
IM AN ALEXANDRIAN SO CHEW ME UP ALL U NAPOLEONIC PPL.....LOL
theprodigy1600 5 months ago
Comment removed
theprodigy1600 5 months ago
WHAT IS TURKEY? ITS A COUNTRY THAT HAS NO HOMELAND.........IF YOU ARE TURK THEN YOU HAVE TO BE ASHAMED BECAUSE TURKISH DIDINT HAVE THEIR OWN 1CM LAND.....TURKSIH ARE NOMADS...THEY OCCUPIED EVERYTHING BY GENOSIDES FROM ARMENIA, GREECE, BULGARIA, BYUZANDE, CILCIAN ARMENIA, PONTUS...........AND MORE AND MORE. SHAME.....NOMADIC PEOPLE.
ERZERUM1 5 months ago
empire earth soundeffects make me nervous :S its so bad
CRUSHader726 5 months ago
Both of them have come ALBANIAN people :
Alesander from the ILLYRIAN [albanian] province of the Macedonia [AMALDHIA]
Napoleone is born to Nice[ actually France], but his origine is ALBANIAN, from the ALBANIAN people to Morea [ Peleponesio, actually south of Grece].
GOLDMINE8 6 months ago
@GOLDMINE8 yeah who know every one is albanian ceasar alexander napoleon and even jesus ... retards
BehelitOutlaw 6 months ago
@BehelitOutlaw The Albanians and their language, are the descendants of the White race and europian languages, forever were be the best warriors in the world and 100% pure Pellasgian-Illyrian-albanian blood from 10.000 years in the Illyrian[Balcanic] Peninsula, the First inhabitants in their lands [ ILLYRIA ].
GOLDMINE8 6 months ago
@BehelitOutlaw Sorry for my english, the White race & european languages, are the descendants of the Albanians and their language, beyond 10.000 years c.b. Happy relax!
GOLDMINE8 6 months ago
@GOLDMINE8 lol that was funny, thank you ;)
BehelitOutlaw 6 months ago
Napoleon for me.
Napoleon has always won against Alexander the Great.
Napoleon lead and win more wars than Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, Hannibal and Julius Caesar reunited.
R4pt0reX 6 months ago
lol, the empire earth intro movie XD, I never thought I would see that again :)
TheBlackPawn24 6 months ago
Listen:
Alexander fought against a dying nation. (Persia)
Persia had lost its glamour since the failed attempt to take Greece.
Had Alexander foguth against the Persia under Cyrus The Great (The guy who conquered 3 empires and created the persian empire) Alexander would have failed.
Persia had bad leaders after Cyrus death. A nation is nothing without a good leader.
Napoleon on the other hand began as a officer of one canon, and ended up with an army who fought 4 great nations at one time!
VictumRoManius 7 months ago
@VictumRoManius napoleon is my fav general and leader of all times for his military genius and character but alexander took an empire with over half a million soldiers with just 40'000 even if he didn't face them all at once...yes their soldiers were mostly ralied farmers but still...
boss180888 7 months ago
@VictumRoManius Alexander also mercilessly conquered Sparta, Athens, Thebes, the list goes on.
MrShadeviperx 5 months ago
@MrShadeviperx No he did not. It was his father Philip II.
After Alexander (Or his mother) had Philip killed the Thebenians started a rebelion. He slayed the rebels and burned Theben to the ground.
Greece was conquered by Philip, not Alexander.
VictumRoManius 5 months ago
Alexander had no real advance against the Persians, if you read the ancient text you will see that the only think gave Alexander victory was his "madness"(with the cleaver way) and his luck. Plus the fact that Alexander was fighting an army 4 times bigger than his ( and the only reason that he won was the death of Memnon,who tried to outmaneuver Alexander with the Persian navy). Technology didn't really helped him and that is also proved from the facts in India
mrspartan32 7 months ago
(C) Plus, look at another aspect...Napoleon had to do more to earn his power. Alexander inherited it and a strong army from his father.
vonLaudenberg 7 months ago
IN my opinion Napoleon, though Alexander was a great conquerer, he had a technilogically advanced army and was fighting against opponents who did not have the military doctrine he had. In Napoleon's time most nations had large armies, and no new technology could be long hidden or kept away. There was also more to worry about, more accurate weapons, more accurate artillery, and so on. Napoleon took the not so powerful forces of France and took most of Europe without the advantage Alexander had.
vonLaudenberg 7 months ago
MACEDONIA vs FRANCE :00
CAKIMacedonian 8 months ago
Now its so advanced somebody pushes a nuclear missile button and BOOM!
MILLIONS of casualties.
The whole country is practically wiped out.
If youre a poor country with no nuclear missiles it doesnt matter how brave you are or how good you are as soldiers if you dont have the technology.
zenoist2 9 months ago
You could make a bow and arrow in your back garden then and fight against the enemy.
Now you have no chance unless you have laser guided missiles etc and all these individual warroiors are just grouped together as numbers.
zenoist2 9 months ago
Totally off the point but an observation anyway is that the more modern war becomes, the less and less it removes the human element away from it.
Now its all about industry to produce super weapons.
Prehistoric had cavemen with clubs slugging it out.
Next was full armies , a kind of mass of men with specific roles like the English archers at Agincourt, the weapons were still affordable to everyone.
Napoleonic era people could still get a rifle
ww1 and weapons are expensive tanks planes
zenoist2 9 months ago
zzz]\
nick60100 9 months ago
Alright i allways hated warfare after 1600 since back then it was shoot, recharge, shoot again and artillery (sorry for my bad spelling). Napoleon was a good conqueror I admit it yet you can't say that someone truly surpassed Alexander he was and still is the greatest influence of all times for every general and even more he fough with swords and cavalry against tousands (even war Elephants by the way) and he never lost a battle and even tamed a thracian horse at the AGE OF 13!
Illibest1 9 months ago
@Illibest1 just charge shoot? i dont understand what youi mean my that. I mean if you put it that way, warfare up to that point was just a bunch of men charging at each other, but we all know better.
TheFifanacho 9 months ago
Alexander.
mwillis1000 10 months ago
uummm, even Napoleon pays homage to Alexandros. this video is bullshit.
TamilNation2010 10 months ago
Napoleons technology was so advanced his army in Russia never even had tents or shelters and a lot of them froze to death.
To explain: trhe armies of Europe at that time tried not to fight in winter and took up winter quarters.
Troops slept in billets in villages or out in the open beneath greatcoats.
Villages in Russia were very few so troops had no shelter and minus 30 c later on meant horses and men died at an incredible rate.
His army was destroyed .
Cavalry too never to be replaced.
zenoist2 10 months ago
Alexander 10000000, Napoleon 0.
No contest.
This looks like Rome total war BTW cool game but the graphics are now outdated.
Napoleon Total war is much better.
cool graphics replays etc
I like watching the old guard fleeing in the face of british rifles.
zenoist2 10 months ago
@zenoist2 "I like watching the old guard fleeing in the face of british rifles." yeah well you can make that happen in the game, but in reality, the Old Guard was never committed. It was the Middle Guard that was sent against the Anglo-Dutch lines. The Old Guard withdrew from the battlefield the first time, but they were never defeated.
In the game, the Old Guard is superior to any elite unit of the Allies could field, and this game was made by a British vdeo game company. The irony.
expertstrategy 10 months ago
@expertstrategy the game was made by Australians actually.
Your irony is as as false as your beleif Naoploen could even remotely compare to Alexander.
zenoist2 10 months ago
@zenoist2, The Creative Assembly is a British video game developer established in 1987. This company is responsible for creating all of the Total War games.
expertstrategy 10 months ago
alexander the great didn,t lose any battle and was an influence to napoleon.
ANTIHYTLERS 10 months ago
The greatest generals in the history are from africa. One is call Thutmosis and the other is call Hannibal.
Thutmosis7 10 months ago
The Mongolians had the largest land empire ever!
reddracoqueen 10 months ago
the first trailer was of empire earth, that game is old, but still good! =p
wilhelmusreaper 11 months ago
On the other hand one has to admit that the Diadochi lasted much, much longer than any napoleonic france. Alexander did not commit any mistake other than being perhaps, in a way, too successful fact that gave rise to his generals' envy and ultimately, but not certainly, his death.. He was a military genius and the achaemenids commanded the reignant superpower of his time, he was also very brave to go against them. Napoleon, just for starters, marched on Moscow's winter, perhaps not wisely...
pedroissler 11 months ago
@pedroissler
And you think that if Napoleon died then the French empire would just disappear in the "political vacuum" that Alexander faced after defeating the Persian empire? There was no one to contest him.
Napoleon fought against whole of Europe and won again and again, and all of its power wanted to destroy him. The attack on Russia was a sound idea, he wanted to fight decisive battle, he could not and went in to deep. He thought Russians would sue for peace after taking Moscow.
serialkiller1990 10 months ago
Napoleon 1 : 0 Alexander the Great
DeGeantPapier 11 months ago
skoplje is gay
SkopjeGAYdonski 11 months ago 2
but alexander was undefeated in battle =P
faleru 1 year ago
@faleru he also died at age 33, its not too much of a stretch to imagine that he would have lost battles had he lived longer
muf321 11 months ago
@muf321 Yeah at the time of Alexander Persian soldiers had become less profetional. The rimes of the great Persian empire was over.
Napoleon on the other hand was fighting against the British, Prussians, Russians, Austrians, Spanijols and many other smaller italian and german states.
They declared Napoleon war 5 times, and lost 5 times.
VictumRoManius 11 months ago
@VictumRoManius Yeah,but if he havent gone in russia in 1812 we would probably use the revolutionary calendar :o
milanTHErocker 11 months ago
@milanTHErocker What? Napoleon did away with it because it was to confusing. No one was really using it anyways. It was stupid to being with.
reddracoqueen 10 months ago
@muf321 But wen he was alive he was in 50 batles and he was undefeated, and he was in those batles before having 30, so Alexander was the best general ever
StraightJohn19 5 months ago
@StraightJohn19
Alexander undefeated? He only beat the Persians (the worst army of the time, they fought with peasants while the Greek were a professional army, the conquest of the Persian Empire was like the conquest of the 3rd world by European nations at the time of the colonial Empires). Except the Persians he only fought week tribes.
Napoleon fought all Europe coalised against France. The armies of the coalition were similar to the French army. He conquered Europe not 3rd world countries.
Freez57fr 4 months ago
The Persian army was an army of peasants. Greek professional armies always crushed the Persians, they didn't wait Alexander, just look the Greco-Persian wars (for example the Thermopyles are the perfect exemple of the large superiority of the Greek professional armies over the Persian army). You can't compare Napoleon fighting professional european armies coalised against him with Alexander fighting with primitive armies.
And Napoleon never lost a battle without being heavily outnumbered.
Freez57fr 4 months ago
@Freez57fr I'm not taking sides but Alexander did fight against Greeks. What did you think Macedonia and the Greece city states all saw eye to eye? Alexander even had to burn the city of Thebes down before he set out. If you studied the tactic applied by alexander in his three major battles, although I do not expect you too, you would see how he would trick and trap the enemy. He was once outnumber > 2:1. Back in the day leading 50,000 men from Greece to Egypt to India was something incredible.
redarrowhead2 3 months ago
@Freez57fr Napoleon got his ass kicked out of our country portugal, with the english, at age of 32 Alexander already died undefeated with the bigest empire ate that time, and wen alexander beat the percians, percia was the bigest empire of the world, and he dont only beat the persons go learn your history, even napoleon tried to be alexander but he failed, julius ceaser too etc
StraightJohn19 4 months ago
@StraightJohn19 well i think you have to learn your history to then.... Alexander was undeafeted in battle, but he lost the indian war, the greek soliders was way better then the percian army (and without firearms it was way easier for a small force to win). But Napoleon managed to build a powerfull army, but not so diffrent compared to the rest of Europe´s. Alexander was smart but his army was the unbeatable force not him, Napoleon on the other hand won beacuase he was a genius of stratigics.
TheSporeHalo 4 months ago
@TheSporeHalo Alexander even beat greeks to achieve is destany, and the perchian empire was very advanced not a "army of peasants" as you say and they were always in the advantage 2 to 1. And he didnt lost, he is the only with 3 other guys alexander from russia, and ghenkis khan that never lost and alexander wasa genius himself, and he didnt made mistakes like napoleon even this video says that napoleon studied alexanders tactics so axelander ftw
StraightJohn19 4 months ago
@StraightJohn19
1; i´ve never called the persian army "peasents"
2: you can´t deny the alexanders army was way better the the persian (all historians say that)
3: no mistakes? how about the invasion of india? that invasion that hes own men turned back from, becuase they where tired of hes what seemed endless campain?
4: He may have studied historical commander in his youth, but he turned out to become a way better then some of them.
5: All Napoleons battles was won thanks to him
TheSporeHalo 4 months ago
@TheSporeHalo Yes it was, and the greeks armys? and alexander was almost all the time in 2 to 1 situtations, and in very hard lands to conquer, and yes they wanted to go back, but that was not a mistake that maked him beeing defeated like napoleon, and alexander did all this thinks much younguer then napoleon so in the end of the day alexander wins
StraightJohn19 4 months ago
@StraightJohn19 younger? they started both very young. Napoleon was only 24 when he won the battle of toulon and gane the control of the italian army 28 years old and later he became the emperor of France... and Alexander yeah he died of Malaria at 34 years and napoleon would countinue untill 1815... so during his miltary campain he operated for aprox. 20 years and he won allot more then Alexander, and at the same time he controlled his empire wich alexander never did prop.
TheSporeHalo 4 months ago
@TheSporeHalo Alexander was already emperor at age of 24 alexander never did enjoyed is empire he died to young. Alexander did all this thinks with 32 Napoleon died with 52 it can not even be compared, im done with this discution, even napoelon himself tried to be alexander and visited his body and used his tactis, and napoleon lost batles and alexander didnt, alexander was adored like a living god, napoleon never had this status go see the top 10 world conqueres see who is in front of napoleon.
StraightJohn19 4 months ago
@StraightJohn19
BTW Napoleon didn´t get his ass kicked in Portugal.. one of his armies was but not him. If one of alexanders general was deafeted in battle would you then say that alexander got his ass kicked, no i don´t think so. At the time of napoleon the army needed a great general that was a master of stratigics,
TheSporeHalo 4 months ago
@TheSporeHalo In the end of the day it was napoleons lost and portugal with england didnt get conquered
StraightJohn19 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheSporeHalo 4 months ago
@StraightJohn19 it´s quit obvious that you are out of arguments.... You can´t say that he was adored by napoleon all the time!!!! do you think he did care about Alexander when he was marching trough prussia.. no! he studied alexander as young, used his tactiks? where have you heard that? why should he use a so useless tactik for that time, you can´t compare a master of firearms with a master of spears. And this is not just about them as commander, A great king is he who are close to his people.
TheSporeHalo 4 months ago
@TheSporeHalo Historyans and even in this videos, and im not out of arguments i can do this all day long, and im not seeing he used, im seeing he studied is tactics, and now you are chaging subjects, and alexander was close with his ppl, macedonians were very close, most of them were a band of pastors, alexander at 14 was already a macedonian warrior, he achieved more thinks in less that napoleon and thats a facct, even in any list of any top commanders alexander is in front of napoleon
StraightJohn19 4 months ago
@StraightJohn19 watch?v=G0Ezo6iHvg4&feature=related
even n the end of this the historyan says napoleon record compared to alexander was patetic, and alexander legacy changed the world,they made legends out of him and even the great. Romans saw him as their inspirational role model ulius Caesar reportedly wept in Spain at the sight of Alexander's statue because he thought he had achieved so little by the same age that Alexander had conquered the world napoleon was great but alexander was greater
StraightJohn19 4 months ago
i´m not changing subject! the video sais "Alexander the Great VS. Napoleon Bonaparte" not "Alexander the Great VS. Napoleon Bonaparte as commanders" you obvioully don´t know anything about Napoleon, i say this because i like alexander too.... and is able to compare them, but you can´t say that alexander is better then Napoleon all the time, they was living in 2 diffrent eras, many generals studied Alexander yes, You are talking about Napoleon as a man of mistakes but you are totaly wrong,,,,
TheSporeHalo 4 months ago
@TheSporeHalo Trust me, i know about napoleon, and im not saying napoleon is a man of mistakes, but yes he did some really bad mistakes that made him loose batles, but alexander made mistakes too but not like napoleon, and sure they lived in different eras and all thats why alexander had achieved things that napoleon dreamed to achieve, and he did but not like alexander
StraightJohn19 4 months ago
the big mistakes was quit small you now! The thing is that the battle was much more pendent on the general at his time then alexanders, these mistakes are not big you know.... The battle of waterloo went as planned but his generals was stupid and didn´t follow orders, Borodino (still victory) he want sick and would just command for half the battle, Alexander conquerd the known world cuase there was nothing to stop him, but on Napoleons time the people of nation was as feard as its army.
TheSporeHalo 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheSporeHalo 4 months ago
PErsians from the time of Cyrus the Great where unstopable. They where the best soldiers and warriors from that time...
But in Darius III time they sucked. They had lost their quality. Alexander was fighting against an army who had to much quantity but very little quality.
Alexander is my great hero, but he will never beat Napoleon.
Napoleon was fighting against 5 mighty nations at one time... In addition Alexander sucked as a regent. In his time Macedonia was poor as hell. NApoleon was good
VictumRoManius 1 year ago
@VictumRoManius No Macedonia was rich because of gold and silver mines so they could busy anything they needed. Alexander was given everything he needed to conquer the world. Plus only an idiot would fight 5 nations at one time on multiple fronts. That's why Napoleon lost battles. Alexander won every battle he was involved in. He lead all of his cavalry charges and received multiple wounds from head to toe. Napoleon was good, but Alexander is better in almost every way.
drnogood59 1 year ago
@drnogood59
1. Napoleon almost never declared wars. Those Brits where paying the Austrians, Russians, smaller german states and later on Prussians to fight Napoleon.
So it was not Napoleon who was the agressor but the British.
2. When Alexander conquered a city, he often gave one or two regents the power and left to conquer another city. Does that sound as a good regent? No. He was a genius in the battle field, but as a regent he was only good from a morale perspective not a political one.
VictumRoManius 1 year ago
@VictumRoManius Ok Napoleon was a better political figure i'll admit that but the only reason Alexander the Great didn't become a political figure is because he had such a rush on the battlefield that he hated being in a city debating the rights of captured cities. Why stay to debate that when you can do it later after you have conquered the world? It was a waste of time because he'll just have to do it again for other parts of his empire.
drnogood59 1 year ago
Comment removed
EnlightenedShqiptar 1 year ago
@EnlightenedShqiptar How do you think that the Persians under Koorush the Great managed to conquer the huge Medea empire? How do you think that they managed to defeat the Greeks in Asia minor? how do you think that they defeated the Egyptians?
They did it because Koorush was an exellent military general BUT they also did it because their soldiers where awesome fighters. After Cyrus death and the long lasting internal war in Persia the quality of soldiers from persia decreased so they WHERE good.
VictumRoManius 1 year ago
Comment removed
EnlightenedShqiptar 1 year ago
@EnlightenedShqiptar
As I said: Koorush the great is a great leader and on his time Persia was one of the mightiest empires the world had ever seen. Had Koorush lived longer would they manage to conquer all of Greece. At Koorush's time Persian soldiers where awesome infantriest and awesome cavalerists.
But when Koorush died and civil war errupted, first THEN the Persians began to recruit greeks + that their own infantry began to become less profetional.
(Sorry for my english.)
VictumRoManius 11 months ago
suvorov>Napoleon
muf321 1 year ago
sorry for bad english :(
TheVikiLaki 1 year ago
Napoleon was better then alexander alexander had falanx that gives him huge advantige over his enemys and he fouth 1 vs 1 persians only had more soldiers then alexander that was all while napoleon had better army then his enemys but he made that army for him self alexander s army was given to him by his father napoleon fhout on many fronts and almoust always won look at 1814 campaign he with his 30 000 soldiers won 5 battles against prussians and russians that hade more than 120 000 soldiers !
TheVikiLaki 1 year ago
@TheVikiLaki, Alexander and Napoleon came from very different times, and their technology in weaponry was totally different. these two commanders were the greatest in their own times.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
Alexander was the greatest, hands down. He also led his men from the front, Napoleon stayed behind them at times, if not all the time. Alexander also fought a force the size of the allies that were against Napoleon, except Alexander won, Napoleon lost. Alexander never lost a battle, Napoleon was defeated and exiled twice. Alexander's Empire was also bigger. He conquered the known world. I highly doubt Napoleon conquered the known world at his time.
PriestChristopher 1 year ago
@PriestChristopher, Napoleon won more battles than any other military leader in history. He led a poorly equiped, ill disciplined army and conquered his enemies. Alexander inherited his father's army. Napoleon fought against the most powerful empires of the world in that time, including Great Britain, Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, Spanish Empire 1808-1814, and Prussia. Alexander only fought one empire. Napoleon won more wars than Alexander ever fought and won.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@expertstrategy. Winning more battles means nothing. Alexander defeated the most powerful empire in the world, FAR larger than Europe or any of the places that Napoleon conquered. Alexander took the whole known world. Alexander was also never beaten. Napoleon was defeated and exiled twice as I said. Napoleon never led from the front. Alexander did what he commanded of his men to do. The Empire Alexander took was much stronger and larger than anything Napoleon took. Understand?
PriestChristopher 1 year ago
@expertstrategy. Napoleon was just a picked on school boy with too much to prove.
PriestChristopher 1 year ago
@PriestChristopher, Napoleon is the most widely written historical figure with over 50,000 books published about him. Alexander, not so much. Napoleon's tactics have revolutionized warfare forever, and his strategies and campaigns are being studied in nearly every military academy in the world.
Napoleon and Alexander are better than one another in numerous ways.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@expertstrategy. That's where you're wrong. Generals still study Alexander's tactics to this very day. Which commander would you follow, the one who was never beaten or the one who got owned more than once? Alexander would have crushed Napoleon.
PriestChristopher 1 year ago
@PriestChristopher, Napoleon and Alexander were both the greatest generals of their different times. Napoleon was the greatest in the Modern Era.
Alexander was the greatest in the Ancient world.
expertstrategy 1 year ago
@expertstrategy
not 50 000 books but 100 000 ! more than days since the day he died
lightnessss 9 months ago
empire earth intro please use something half good
spainishavenger 1 year ago
The Russians had an advantage over Napoleon in several ways, one being that Russians utilized the winter so as to weaken and demoralize Napoleon's troops. Second they knew the lay of the land, so in Napoleon's retreat from Mosocw, they constantly harrassd his retreating troops. Third, the Russians used a scorched earth policy, which prevented Napoleo's huge Grand Armee from gathering resources. And 4th, the Russians were skilled at a War of Attrition. The Russians were always losing but endured.
SUPERBAD119 1 year ago
i thing this debate is about Alexander and Napoleon NOT Kutuzov and Napoleon
TheVikiLaki 1 year ago
And yea russians had bether clothing then french that winter
TheVikiLaki 1 year ago
it was winter that killed Napoleon's army and russians had more then 400 000 soldiers if you count cossaks in russia temperatures that winter where -40 or more survive that and then tell me that winter didn't kill Napoleon's army
TheVikiLaki 1 year ago
Alexander the Great was never forced to fight an economic war like Napoleon. With the english blockades, the Rothschild network, smuggling, ...
Treyppa 1 year ago
If because that Alexander the great never lost a battle does make him better so Scipio africanus was better too lol , he didn't lose a battle too and he has beaten the most powerfull man during his time Hannibal himself who was undefeated before he fight against Scipio Africanus .
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
Napoléon may have lost , but now you have to take a look at his defeats , Russia the weather destroyed his army , Leipzig , 190 000 against 330 000 at a begining napoleon counted on his reinforcement but only 14 000 come and 130 000 soldiers come for the coalition . Waterloo he was winning before the join of the prussians , those same prussians that he has beaten 3 day earlier .
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
@NasriTheNewKing
+++Russia the weather destroyed his army+++
It's not true. Napoleon army was destroed by Mikhail Kutuzov and his good war strategy
600.000 Grand Armee was destroyed by 175.000 Kutuzov's army. Kutuzov was REALY good stateg.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex
Napoleon asskicked the russians and he even took moscow , the russians attacked them during their retreat due to the fatal russian winter who killed more than 50% of his army even napoleon almost died due of that same as the germansin 1941 this is fact !
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex
Well i don't think napoleon lost EVERYTHING since most of the european country use his civil code , his military rank . Oh what happened before your winter ? You were loosing , same with the germans remeber the operation barbossa they asskicked your ass and what hapenned after ? The winter lol . But atleast be happy you have been saved unlike us french . we had not a fatal winter or a channel like the english to preotect us .
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
@NasriTheNewKing DEATH TO TURKALBANIANS DEATH TOI FRANCE DEATH TO ALGERIA HOW ARE U FEEL AND ASSHOLE LEARN SOMETHING.
CORSICA IS NOT french WORD
unfukkkmee 1 year ago
@unfukkkmee
Lol isn't the greek that invented homosexuality ? BAH fucking gays .
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
@NasriTheNewKing
I understand now why you let the turkish fucking you lol you seem to looooove it
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
@NasriTheNewKing CORSICA IS GREEK
unfukkkmee 1 year ago
@unfukkkmee
Corsica is greek since whene ? it was greek 2500 years ago LOL. And since it has been Carthagian , roman , franks , moorish , italians and then french ...
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
@unfukkkmee
Anyway the turkish still own a part of your territories after centuries lol . Constantinople hahah
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
@NasriTheNewKing BONAPARTE ATATURK AND ALI PASHA BURN IN HELL
unfukkkmee 1 year ago
@NasriTheNewKing
But don't think i hate russians because i don't , i totally respect the russians and their sacrifice during both WW .
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NasriTheNewKing
+++same with the germans remeber the operation barbossa they asskicked your ass and what hapenned after ? The winter lol .+++
The war against Hitler was 4 year. 1941-1945. After first "dead winter" came summer. Hitler was beated in winter, summer, autamn and spring. In day and night, in rainy weather and so on.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex
Just check whene happened the most victories on the russians soil by the russians most of them are during the winter ....
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NasriTheNewKing
+++the most victories on the russians soil by the russians most of them are during the winter ....+++
It is not true :-)))
For example in 19 centure were about 12 wars with turks - all in summer. 11 of them were succesfull. Most Russian compaines in Europe were during summer - most of them were very succesful. ;-))) I would be say that most saccessfull Russian wars were in summer ;-)))
I know Russian history - sorry but you are not right.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex
I was talking about WW2 against the germans not against the turkish and i have no idea of what happenned against the turkish so i won't debate about it ,
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
@NasriTheNewKing
+++talking about WW2 against the germans+++
OK. Germans planned to finish barbarosa BEFORE winter. But unfortunatly for them they faced with harden resistence. The plan was failed. So they lost war. The waether isn't real reason.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex
But it helped a lot don't denie that .
NasriTheNewKing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NasriTheNewKing
+++But it helped a lot don't denie that+++
I don't think so. Russians were at the same weather conditions. And we are not "super people" who don't care about frost.
Riltex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NasriTheNewKing
"fatal russian winter who killed more than 50% of his army"
And again - It is not true. Napoleon lost half his army during Summer.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex No, 135,000 Grand Armée fought the 175.000 Kutuzov's army and won (Borodino) , the Grand Armée entered Moscow but everything had been burned by the russian from the 14th to the 20th september 1812. Napoleon withdrew the 18th october because of the winter, trying to reach the french supply depot at Smolensk, and after, the Minsk, while the russian chase them. The French won most of the battles but lose many soldiers, this is a strategical defeat.
Treyppa 1 year ago
@Treyppa
+++No, 135,000 Grand Armée fought the 175.000 Kutuzov's army and won (Borodino)+++
Grand Armee invaded Russia was about 690.000(!). In that time Grand Armee was the largest army that Europe ever seen before.
+++The French won most of the battles but lose many soldiers+++
You know, Kutuzov believed only in RESULT. The main target of war is VICTORY.
Kutuzov in the conditions of that war had to save his little army and to weaken huge Grand Armee. And he did it PERFECTLY.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex Yes, but before the battle of Borodino (or Moskova) the originally 600.000 French Army ( which was only half french: 300.000 French, 90.000 Poles, ..) had already suffered loses from cold and the battle of Chevardino, and the Russian forces were constanly moving back to Moscow. The French were 124.000 as the battle of Borodino began.
Kutuzov wasn't talented; even if he had done nothing, the Grande Armée would have been defeated anyway, by the cold (up to -30°) and the cossack assaults.
Treyppa 1 year ago
@Treyppa
+++the originally 600.000 French Army+++
The true amount is 690.000. And no matter who were in this army (Poles, Germans, French) - it was enemy army for Russians.
+++even if he had done nothing, the Grande Armée would have been defeated anyway, by the cold (up to -30°) and the cossack assaults.+++
Have you ever think that Russians were at the same weather conditions???
And I repeat again. Half of the Grand Armee was lost IN SUMMER
+++Kutuzov wasn't talented+++
He was the best!
Riltex 1 year ago
@Treyppa
+++Kutuzov wasn't talented; even if he had done nothing, the Grande Armée would have been defeated anyway, by the cold (up to -30°) and the cossack assaults.+++
The Napoleon plan of invasion was to win in 20(!) days. It failed. If you really believe that Russian resistance isn't reason of Napoleon Tragedy - it's your right. But it isn't reality.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Treyppa
+++Kutuzov wasn't talented; even if he had done nothing, the Grande Armée would have been defeated anyway, by the cold (up to -30°) and the cossack assaults.+++
It's very interesting. I always ask myself: "We Russians must be "superheros" coz we don't care about frost " ;-)))
But it is just fairytales.
Reality is symple. Russians in 1812 was much more obstinate and brave solders than Grand Armee. And Kutuzov was more talanted commander than Napoleon
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex The Grande Armee had no suitable clothings like the russians, they add no supply, and the russians had burnt down Moscow. Kutuzov was useless.
Treyppa 1 year ago
@Treyppa
+++The Grande Armee had no suitable clothings like the russians+++
The French and Russian military uniform of that time WAS THE SAME(!)
But French soldiers had no brave and good commander. That's why just only 170.000 of Russians kill 690.000 of Friench. Thanks Kutuzov. "There was to cold, they have no cloths, they were hungry, the roads was dirty, russsian cossacs were malicious.." bla bla bla.
Was that people soldiers or they were just a croud of whimsical young virgin girls?
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex "Was that people soldiers or they were just a croud of whimsical young virgin girls?"
Keep your misogynists comments for yourself. Would you call the Wehrmacht a "croud of whimsical young virgin girls" too? Because what have defeated us is exactly the same thing, the weather. Stalin was helpless, he knew nothing about war but won anyway. By the way, the russian commanders have been taught by the prussians. That's why they do the goose-step nowadays.
Treyppa 1 year ago
@Treyppa
+Dying from a -20°c temperature is not a shame. Walking on the dirty russian roads, being hungry and having no suitable clothings don't make they worth being called "virgins"+
Why they didn't win Russians in 20 summer days, as Napoleon planned?
All excuses is bullshit. They had to give RESULT. But they couldn't.
They were good soldiers who died for Napoleon. You shouldn't shame Grand Armee by using girl's foolish excuses. But Russians could give RESULT in that conditions.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex Of course, they live there. Napoleon ruled Europe. The Russian were only able to the invade the eastern areas, where nobody lived. What a great nation. Napoleon invaded Moscow, and unlike the others great cities, the civil authorities did not come to the Grande Armee with the keys to the city. Instead Moscow had been burnt down.
The then Russians were as hateful as you are :)
Treyppa 1 year ago
@Treyppa
+++Napoleon ruled Europe. The Russian were only able to the invade the eastern areas, where nobody lived+++
What are you talking about? Russian occupied France and Paris after Napoleon invasion. Napoleon lose everything.
+++then Russians were as hateful as you are :)+++
"Russians love Frenches, Germans love Frenches, British love Frenches - but Frenches hate this "love without condom"(c)" ;-)
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex Easy, France had no army. And you weren't alone, the Sixth Coalition included Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden, United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Sardinia, Saxony, Bavaria and Württemberg. Proud Russian soldiers for sure.
We do not care about your love, we know the russian painters painted a lot Napoleon ages after his downfall, we also know that every year we are the most visited country in the world. I guess not many people wants to visit snow and ice :?
Treyppa 1 year ago
Comment removed
Riltex 1 year ago
@Treyppa
+Easy, France had no army.+
Yeah, Russians annihilated all France army in Russia ;-)
+And you weren't alone, the Sixth Coalition+
Yeah, But French army with 12 allies couldn't win Russia ;-))) +We do not care about your love+
May be your like such sado-maso love? ;-))) +we know the russian painters painted a lot Napoleon+
You forget about Leo Tolstoy ;-)
+every year we are the most visited country in the world+
Everyone wanna see such losers? ;-)))
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex Sado-maso love? Talking about sex while a discuss about the napoleonic wars.. you little unsatisfied geek needs a gf or a link to a pornsite. Choose a russian one, most of the time, it's free or cheap because the models pose for a cup of soup. Tolstoy was indeed a great painter, everybody knows that.
Treyppa 1 year ago
@Treyppa
+Sado-maso love? Talking about sex while a discuss about the napoleonic wars+
Hmm. Wasn't you discussing "hate" in this case? :-0
+it's free or cheap because the models pose for a cup of soup.+
I prefer French girls. They absolutely free.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex What's the main difference between Napoleon and Kutuzov?
Napoleon built large bridges over the Seine, magnificient building like the "Arc de Triomphe", the "Colonne Vendôme", la "Rue de la Paix" ...
Kutuzov burnt down Moscow.
That's all :)
Treyppa 1 year ago
@Treyppa
+What's the main difference between Napoleon and Kutuzov?+
Kutuzov wes clever strateg and soldier. Proffessional. He did his own buissnes well.
And HE NEVER IMITATE "the greatest imperior in the world".
He never drive his country to Catastrophy.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex He never drove it anywhere to tell the truth.
Treyppa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Treyppa
+He never drove it anywhere to tell the truth+
The truth was that 175.000 Russians won huge 690.000 Grand Armee.
This is result that whole country was waiting from him.
He never lied. And he never used whimsical girl's excuses like Napoleon.
Real man, Real soldier, Real strateg.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex He never drove his country to catastrophe because he was never leader of his country. You really think Napoleon had a choice in invading Russia? Nope. It was either invade, or wait in Poland for the tsar to mobilize his 800,000 strong army to bear. Napoleon was far better than Kutuzov in every way imaginable. This is not said out of national pride; this is said out of logic.
Scrinoverlord 1 year ago
@Scrinoverlord
+tsar to mobilize his 800,000 strong army+
I don't think that Russia had possibility to recruite 800.000
We know that Napoleon had much trouble when he increased Grand Armee to 690.000.
France HADN'T GOT such human resources for army.
and we know that France population was about 30.000.000 in that time.
As my hystorical encicklopedy reported - Russian population in 1800 was 35.500.000. So Russia couldn't mobilize 800.000
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex Recruit? They were already recruited. Tell me, does your "historical encyclopedia" specialize, or at least focus on, the Napoleonic Era? No? Then it's incorrect. Look at sources that are written by actual Napoleonic experts, not a drawling historian who tries to bite off more than he can chew. Russia had 800,000 it could mobilize, but that doesn't mean they were ready for war.
Scrinoverlord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Scrinoverlord
+++Recruit? They were already recruited.+++
It's not true. The size of Russian army during Napoleon invasion was 175.000
+++Tell me, does your "historical encyclopedia" specialize, or at least focus on, the Napoleonic Era?+++
My historical encyclopedia gives me authentic data about Russian population in 1800 year. That's all I need. Obviously Russians couldn't mobilize 800.000.
Grand Armee was the hugest army that Europe ever seen.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Scrinoverlord
Theoretically, Russia and France (35,5 and 30 mln) could mobilize all male population from 18 to 60 year old. It would be about 10.000.000 each.
But:
1) Labor productivity in agriculture wasn't high. People hadn't got mashines ;-)
Alexander I and Napoleon couldn't stop food production in their countries.
2) The peasants were useless against professional recruits who were served all their lives
Riltex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Scrinoverlord
+Napoleon was far better than Kutuzov in every way imaginable.+
bla bla bla.
Napoleon lost his army and he couldn't win 175.000 Russians. He was the greatest loser in history.
Kutuzov win huge France army. He was very respectfull winner.
That's all. You know about it and I know about it - every one knows about.
Riltex 1 year ago
@Riltex,
-"Napoleon lost his army and he couldn't win 175.000 Russians. He was the greatest loser in history."
Are you kidding? Kutusov wasn't a very good general, and the main thing which destroyed the Grande Armee was the Russian winter. Even against a destroyed Grande Armee, Kutusov still lost battles to them.
Napoleon defeated the Russians over and over again before invading Russia, and he still kicked arse even