Napoleon in Russia (1 Viewer)

[Saber]

Maloyalo, you are not making this easy. I WANT MY GUY TO WIN#!. Maybe if Napoleon holds out long enough good old Tsar Alexander does his disappearing act (you know his tomb was empty) a bit sooner and problem solved. Or maybe old Boney gets rid of the despised continental system. After all it was formulated against the English so if Britain makes peace then there is no need for it.

I've read conflicting opinions on Alexanders attitude towards Napoleon and can't really form an opinion myself as to which is the most accurate representation. I'd wager my boots that there wasn't going to be any peace after Moscow burned even if it was the Russians who did it. Even if Napoleon had succeeded I'm pretty sure his polygot French Empire would not have survived the revolts that swept throughout most of Europe in 1848-49.

 

[Capitolron]

I think we all agree the Russian Campaign was a mistake. I still believe that you could hold on to major part of your Army through the winter (I mean where are you going to go in winter right?).

With Poland and other allied states - I believe that you could still support the Grand Armee through that winter - at least it would have a lot better than that long retreat from Moscow!

Napoleon also would have had time to think through his plan on how to deal with the current political situation. When Napoleon had time - we was brilliant !!

Conquer and Control would have been my call - then let old Czar Alex sweat it out on what was coming next.

On the other Allied Nations - they werent in any position to move fast against Napoleon and I believe again this time would have served Napoleon well. Remember - it still took another year for the Allies to enter Paris - after Moscow. If Napoleon had the opportunity to pick his battleground - we would be speaking French as a second language for sure.

 

[maloyalo]

It seems we will have to leave it for now with: Invading Russia was a bad idea.

Between Russia and Waterloo is a period I do not know much about. And it is remarkable that Napoleon fought the allies so long, in so many battles. Certainly there was something that remained of his skills, his troop's qualities and the political situation. It wasn't a complete collaspe, like happened after Waterloo.

The understanding of those men's characters is very difficult at this distance. But is a fascinating study to attempt. The Russian campaign itself must of had an effect on the participants. I read once that Ney, was never be the same after Russia, and suffered from a mental condition afterwards, but I do not know if it is true. If it is, it might have been the result of having expended too much in his efforts to save the Grande Armee and its honor. He did both I think. I did not know Alexander was missing from his tomb. That is interesting.

 

[fishead19690]

It seems we will have to leave it for now with: Invading Russia was a bad idea.

Between Russia and Waterloo is a period I do not know much about. And it is remarkable that Napoleon fought the allies so long, in so many battles. Certainly there was something that remained of his skills, his troop's qualities and the political situation. It wasn't a complete collaspe, like happened after Waterloo.

The understanding of those men's characters is very difficult at this distance. But is a fascinating study to attempt. The Russian campaign itself must of had an effect on the participants. I read once that Ney, was never be the same after Russia, and suffered from a mental condition afterwards, but I do not know if it is true. If it is, it might have been the result of having expended too much in his efforts to save the Grande Armee and its honor. He did both I think. I did not know Alexander was missing from his tomb. That is interesting.

Yes Maloyalo I,d say yes there was something that remained of Napoleon,s skills.
After the defeat in Russia Napoleon wasted no time in returning to paris and very quickly assembled the new army that he knew he would need.

With this army of totally green troops he was able to inflict victories over the allies that would have been defeats on the level of Austerlitz if he had had the cavalry to prusue and defeat them in detail, but he didn,t have horses for cavalry troopers and the horses he did have were not the trained battle horses of the past that were trained for battle to not be afraid of gun fire and the smell of blood and battle and the troopers who rode these horses were just as bad. They were green recruits who needed both hands to control there horses and its kind of hard to use your sword or pistol when you need both your hands to ride.
Had Napoleon had the cavalry he needed at the battles of Lutzen and Bautzen the allies would have been defeated and the total mess of russia would have been just a Black page in Napoleons book.

Napoleon should have continued prusue the russians and prussians at this point and not agreeded to the armistice wich Napoleon thought would give him time to train and enlarge his new army but it worked out better for the allies as the Austrians joined the allies durring this truce.

They also saw durring this time that Napoleon was to great a match for them as a statagist and came up with the Trachenburg Plan in wich they avoided battle with Napoleon and choose to draw him away while they would attack his marshalls instead and wear down the troops of france like this and aviod battle with Napoleon alltogether.

The allies had almost a half a million men on frances door step and Napoleon fought battles against munch larger allied forces with a small fraction of the amount of troops the allies had and was still winning battles against incredible odds with these young green troops and with no cavalry. Many of the cavalry were fighting on foot, most of the dragoons were converted to infantry.

So bottom line "NO" Napoleon did not loss his skill as a statogist by the time of the Russian campaign because he had fought some of his best battles at this point after the Russian campaign.

If he had fought like this in Russia history books would read a lot differentlly!

 

[Saber]

Marshall Ney's heroic efforts in the retreat from Moscow are legendary. Most accounts also attribute his subsequent behavior to the effects of the Russian campaign. Today it would be called battle fatigue or PTSS. It seems to have effected his ability to command afterwards with many historians arguing it was the cause of some of his questionable decisions (read the infamous Cavalry charge) in the Waterloo campaign.

The more I think on it the more I'm coming to beleive that Napoleon had simply outrun his ambition. There are several excellent points made for eventual French success but looking at the larger picture IMHO it seems Napoleon would have had to have had so many things go right in order to succeed.

I think we are all agreed on the fact Russia was his Waterloo, sorry couldn't resist. I think I'll just thank the Russians. While I'm a huge admirer of Marshall Davout I'm actually a bigger fan of Wellington and the British.

 

[maloyalo]

The 'Marie Louises' I believe those youngest conscripts were called fishead19690. Some were called up a year early, and so were 17 (possibily 16 ?).

Napoleon was capable of overseeing a large ammount of details, and so gave his army a great consistancy with his objectives. But there also was a dependency on him, which when he was sluggish, tended to result in his forces stopping and waiting for new instructions. But I wonder if the really large armies were too big for him to manage with his methods. The largest ones ended in disasters (ie. Leipzig, Russia).

I have read that too. About the allies making it their policy of not fighting the army commanded by Napoleon himself. Quite remarkable, considering they had a great advantage in numbers at that point. I think it was Wellington that made that statement: 'That Napoleon's hat on the battlefield was worth 50,000 men'.

And you are right about the cavalry being unable to recover in time. Some period illustrations point out the smallness of the horses they could find by showing the cavalrymen's feet practically scraping the ground...when mounted! They were probably critical or sarcastic, but did reflect some truth.