So is one of Napoleon's fault is into think that the Tsar will act as honourably as him ?
So is one of Napoleon's fault is into think that the Tsar will act as honourably as him ?
CIVITATVS CVM AVGVSTVS XVI, MMVIIN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites SVB MareNostrum SVB Quintus Maximus
Want to know more about Rome II Total Realism ? Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
He won a battle and had good perspective to end a war. His goal was not complete annihilation of enemy forces, but winning war, forming alliances with his former enemies like Russia, forcing them to participate in his plans, like f.ex his Continental System. He also wanted to be recognized as an equal by his regal counterparts (something that eluded him all this time). All this would have been difficult to negotiate and achieve after that kind of barbaric massacre. (anyway, as history shows, it's hard to destroy Russian manpower). Russians harrased retreating french army, because this was a "counterattack" that eventually ended in Paris. They aimed to end this war too, but their goal was to remove Napoleon from power.
Napoleon was often first to propose peace after winning a dacisive battle, when this gesture had more impact and could've been percieved as generous. Austrians were first to experience that.
quote:
"First of all, Napoleon was a warmonger. He didn't start thinking about his throne and future of his crown until 100 days - when it was too late. He was obviously very keen on war and military, without counting the risks."
I think your view on Napoleon is very superficial. He thought about his crown and dynasty from the very beggining. For example he was in serious conflict with one of his brothers - Lucien, because he married a simple woman (sister of an innkeeper) and refused to divorce her, while Napoleon had other plans for him - he needed his family to form dynastic marriages that would strenghten his ties with other European courts. He was very worried that his wife Josephine could not bear him a son (for some time he thought it was his fault, since she had two children from previous marriage, but later he bragged that he made couple of bastards with other women, including polish girl Marie Walewska) . This was main reason why he divorced Josephine and began looking for another wife. He was hoping to marry Alexander's sister, but her mother heavily objected (not to mention a whole lot of russian nobles) and Alexander asked for two years for an answer, arguing that she was still too young. Then Napoleon turned his attention to doughter of Austian Emperor and married her. This way he managed to offend both Russians (because he didn't wait) and Austrians (because he asked for Russian girl first). On top of that Russia left Napoleon's Continental system, resuming trade with GB and this was enough for Napoleon to start a war (it pissed him a lot) not to mention ongoing preparations for war on Russian side. And I don't think he could've just waited for Russians to make a move - for example war in Spain wasn't going very well and it needed his attention too. If he would leave, Russia would've easily overrun Poland, nullifying all his efforts and support there. He thought that he will enter Russia, have one big battle and that's it, Alexander will make peace with him - and he needed Russia to counter Austria on that side of Europe.
So my NTW tactics are wrong when I liberate countries, even Austra and England when I should ahve painted the map blue ?
CIVITATVS CVM AVGVSTVS XVI, MMVIIN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites SVB MareNostrum SVB Quintus Maximus
Want to know more about Rome II Total Realism ? Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
In majority you pointed right things there. However we should remember that Napoleon did not need Moscow for winter quarters. He can found such quarters in towns on Lithuania, Belorissia or Ukraina.
French kept Kovno, Vilno, Grodno, Minsk, Mohilev, Polotsk, Vitebsk and Smolensk. Additionally they could captured Riga and Brest. These towns and some villages around could be enough for winter quarters.
Problem was that Napoleon planned short campaign and sought decisive battles, therefore he so fast pursued Russian army so far, far on east, even to Moscow.
This plan did not work. Russian quickly retreaded, avoided decisive battles and burnt Moscow.
French lost many, many soldiers on their route on east. They must left some garrisons guarding their stretched supply and communication lines.
Some corps defended their northern and southern flanks.
Multinational Grande Armee was divided on several independent forces spread out very long distances.
In late Autumn 1812 there were not enough sodiers in French main army, which arrived to Moscow, for bigger operations far on east, north or south.
French depots and reinforcements were far, far away on west. Vicor's IX Corps, which crossed border at Niemen in late summer, came only to north east Belorussia and later was poorly engaged in defence on lost Dvina line. Augereau XI Corps even did not come as entire force, only several units were sent as reinforcements. Allied Austrian, Bavarian, Saxon and Prussian Corps were not so interested in that war.
They fought only occasionally and did not help too much for Napoleon.
Polish, Rhine Germans, Italians, Belgians, Croats, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish were spread over several, various corps and later there was hard consolidate and reinforce these weakened units.
Meanwhile French and their allies must retreated in severe winter conditions. This was the disaster.
Last edited by exNowy; February 19, 2013 at 02:40 AM.
But that is why Napoleon marched on Moscow since it was harder to march straight to St. Petersburg. If he captured Moscow first then he walk inland to St. Petersburg and he could wait in Moscow in order to attack St. Petersburg. Problem was that he Moscow was burnt and he didn't have enough troops in Moscow anyway or good logistics so he planned on retreating at that point. But I think we could assume that if Napoleon captured Moscow and St. Petersburg at the same time then Russia would probably choose to make peace.
So yeah, you are right but I was just clearing up what I meant.
The Russians also hadn't just burned Paris down.
(I know that we now know that the burning of Moscow was probably accidental, but hey, if you're going to claim an invader's the anti-christ, you're not going to stop rumors that he just torched your holy city.)
Further, while Napoleon was trying to act like a European monarch, none of the major powers considered him a legitimate ruler. It was very clear, from the start, that their war was with Napoleon, not France. Hence why the UK returned all the colonies it occupied after 1815.
As to considering Alexander dishonorable, I'll simply say:
If your opponent is in a head over heels retreat in the dead of winter and you don't take the chance to harass the hell out of him, you're doing war wrong.
Napoleon's decision not to pursue the Russians after Austerlitz was just as practical. The retreating armies were not totally disordered, and he couldn't chase all of them down. Besides that, he had accomplished his goal of breaking the allied armies on the field.
Last edited by Swerg; February 19, 2013 at 03:30 PM.
Problem was that before this campaign Napoloen did not plan marching so far on east to Moscow.
He planed short, limited campaign therefore his Grande Armee was not prepared to severe winter.
However they had many supply train wagons, these wagons carried only 40 days provisions.
Napoloen wanted to destroy Russian main army near borders on Lithuania or Belorussia. Russian rapidly retreated and French pursued them.
Soon they lacked in supply. They must marching and found better conditions. But things went worse and worse.
Few years later Napoloen said that after Borodino he feels drew his army to Moscow. That was mistake.
I doubt that Napoleon could wait in Moscow winter quartes. Even this city was not burnt, 100,000 French there were too far on east from their depots. Supply lines were so stretched over long distance that it could be hard maintain so many French in Moscow through all long Russian winter.
There were too many soldiers to maintain and in other hand there were not enough soldiers for bigger military operations led far on east, north or south. Attempts to negotiations gave nothing. All options were bad at that time. Russian reinforced their beaten army and were more aggressive. Napoleon decided retreat and French start retreated in 19th October 1812. Maybe he thought that he could arrived to Smolensk before winter season. But early winter came when they marched from Moscow.
This was next nail to French coffin.
Last edited by exNowy; February 19, 2013 at 06:06 PM.
Napoleon lost the russian campaign almost exclusively because of political mistakes on his part. Maybe no major military action would have been necessary if he would not have been so stubborn and insensitive tpwards other countries. Despite his goals he should have:
- Granted an honorable alliance with the weak and depressed king of Prussia Frederich Willhelm to enhance german support instead of treating the germans like dogs;
- Treated Sweden well. He invaded swedish territory prior to the campaign and THEN he asked for support. Of course Bernadotte was legitimately pissed off, considering the two were not exactly good friends to begin with;
- Take ottomans into the equation. After 1808 he practically let the whole thing deteriorate on its own;
- Spain: if he REALLY had to invade, at the very least, once he had aknowledged the situation he should have consolidated support in Catalonia and stay there, with as less damage as possible and cement his supply routes with local help.
- EVen on his russian campaign in full start he could have won a great deal of support with russian poor servants. Once he conquered Vilna he had the option to spread word of liberation and promises of equality among russian lowest classes in order to start a giant uprising which would have no doubt helped him A LOT. But instead he refused to do so because he wanted Alexander's trust once again (which would never happen at this point in time).
- Moreover he did not listen to Poniatowski's advices when they had to make their decisive moves to get a better climate.
So in the end it is all Napoleon's poor communication skills. Had he done a better job with political matters maybe he didnt even had to march in Russia in the first place.
Russian servant population would not listen to him. He was foreigner, and their church called him Antichrist. No matter what he would promise them, they would be against him.
1. I doubt Prussia wanted an honourable alliance now that they already lost Poland. I mean they declared war on France in 1806 even after Napoleon offered them an alliance.
2. Regardless Bernadotte's counter offers for an alliance was to allow Napoleon to let him annex Finland and Norway and possibly even Denmark. The offer war unacceptable, especially since Denmark was already a French ally.
3. He did attempt to bring the Ottomans into the war by telling them to support Poland in the south of Russian territories and to give Crimea to the Ottomans. Had the Ottomans accepted he likely would not have tried to bring the Russians back onto his side but would likely finish Russia once and for all. Mahmud II rejected the proposal probably because he did not have the means to join this operation as his empire had just been beaten by Russia and he had just usurped his brother no doubt with some internal trouble (so the First Saudi state encroaching onto the Hejaz, the Serbs revolting against local governors and the Pasha of Albania being a little arrogant and rebellious. Not to mention that a large portion of the Balkan nobility was Orthodox Christian and would not allow a war with Russia.
4. Yes I agree on this point about Spain.
5. That's just it though most of his support were in the ethnically diverse border areas like Vilnius. Most of the serfs didn't support Napoleon either way and as was said the serfs were religiously inclined against Napoleon and the highly repressive and media controlling Russian state wouldn't have let these movements start in the first place.
6. Poniatowski's proposals are a difficult point. No doubt if the Russians lost their bread baskets of Ukraine and the Black Sea they would have been ruined long term (as we saw in the Crimean War). That really is the issue as Napoleon did not want to replace Russia with Poland. The other issue is a logistical and operational issue, it honestly might have been very hard to carry out that operation as they would likely require some support from Austria and I don't think Austria was willing to concede to that. Even if the Poles revolted in those areas west of Kiev it might still have been exceedingly hard to supply that contingent to continue there. Honestly those were troops and supplies that Napoleon might have needed on his invasion path.
Spain was a huge mistake on its own.. Massena was not a good choice as a main commander, he made a lot of big mistakes. He should sent Davout instead, Wellington would most likely never left the Portugal..
From what I have read (might be entirely wrong though) the king of Prussia wasnt a smart man, basically controlled by his queen, not imposing enough on any term, and unable to maintain his promises (see the constitution issue). in essence, a small man indeed, especially compared to Napoleon. Therefore I would imagine that in that particular situation, his best bet was an alliance of convenience with Napoleon rather than risk annihilation. Raising his kingodm to the state of former ally would have helped french support in the country too.
I didnt know about the ottoman situation in detal, nor that Bernadotte wanted Denmark as a whole. One more to learn I guess XD the situation was indeed bleak for them.