Why Napoleon lost Russia campaign 1812

[exNowy]

Actually loss of men wasnt that huge for French as it was for their allies.. Biggest problem was a loss of trained horses that was not possible to replace.. Guns could be cast new, but you cant train warhorses in few months... it takes years... and without his cavalry, Napoleon couldn't break enemy positions the way he did before..

Yes, trained horses were very important in his battle tactics. He even won at Dreseden in 1813 thanks to Murat's large cavalry charge on left allies wing, while Imperial Guard pushed allies on their right wing.

He also tried delivered large cavalry charge at Leipsig, but alleis had more horses in their disposition.

In Russia 1812 French lost many, many horses and many experienced soldiers, officers and generals.

These were also big problems. Therefore Napoleon must used these young and inexperienced MarieLouises soldiers. They can not fought in 1813 as old veterans from Austerlitz 1805 or Jena 1806.

And regarding 1815 - i think he should have played one card game and only rely on his army - if he won, it would certainly shattered opposition a lot, while any loss would not help his situation anyhow no matter who would be defending Paris... war was lost

Napoleon played one card game in 1815. He tried attack in Belgium, however his army was not fully prepared yet.

Davout here could not help him too much, but he could help him in Paris. Napoleon needed Paris as his main base which can gave some reinforcements. Napoleon did not know, would British and Prussian fought in Belgium or would they withdrew or would they waited there for allies. Russian and Austrian armies were on the route.

Napoleon would like to quickly defeat British or Prussian, but he knew that even his victories there would not gave him a peace or brought the war to the end. Therefore he needed trusted man which can help him create new Grande Armee and reinforcements. Davout was good in this position.

[JaM]

Somebody like Berthier would be better suited if he was still alive..

[exNowy]

Somebody like Berthier would be better suited if he was still alive..

Oh, Berhtier betrayed Napoleon in 1814, then was loyal to Louis XVIII, he abandoned France and died in window incident in 1st June 1815. Many former Napoloen's Marshals did not take his service at that time.

He lacked in trusted great commanders in Russia 1812 and this was much worse case in France 1815.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Napoleon could have played Austria and Britain against Russia and Prussia. But when he tried to make peace treaties the Coalition rejected them.

[JaM]

True. I think it was a mistake to return from Elba that soon... he should have wait a year or two more so there would be more tension between former allies, while French would be more dissatisfied with king... also maybe Bourbons would have enough of time to buy warhorses in large quantity which could be used... who knows...

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Well the British even considered releasing him from St.Helena to become their French ally alongside Spain and Austria so that they could prevent Prussia's domination of Germany and Russia's incursions into the Balkans and Middle east. But then Napoleon died.

The main reason he escaped when he did was because he heard that Britain wanted to take him to St. Helena.

[exNowy]

I do not believe that Napoleon could made alliance with Austria or Britain at that time.
These aristocratic states did not accept French revolutionary ideas, which somehow represented Napoleon.

British were interested in industrial revolution an colonial expansion at that time.
They took care about their economical interests and led balanced policy in Europe.
British and Austrian did not want to recreate France as strong power.

Prussia was not so strong at that moment. Russia was exhausted and she was far, far away.

All these meant that all these aristocratic states would joined coalition against Napoleon.

However there were cast some interesting things.
We went to far from Russian campaign which is main subject there.

Question why Napoleon lost Russia campaign 1812 still is open.

[JaM]

Answer is simple - Campaign was lost on logistical level first. Once that fall apart, actual defeat was just a question of time, no matter what Napoleon or his Marshals did on battlefield.. Major Napoleon's mistake was that he let himself to be maneuvered into war with Russia by Metternich, while Austrians were first to stab him in the back later...

[exNowy]

That was not so simple.
Russian also had many logistical problems.
They also lost many soldiers in the summer and winter on the roads.

De Tolly's and Bagration's armies lost so many soldiers that they constantly required reinforcements.
They retreated, because they still had less men, than French and their allies, and Russian lost their nearest depots on Belorussia in the summer.

Kutuzow main army lost so many soldiers on the way from Malojaroslavets to Kovno that he was afraid, could he continue that war.

And meanwile he avoided pitched battles, therefore Napoleon managed escape, crossing Dnieper, Berezina and Niemen.

There are also many what if questions.

If Napoleon could won some decisive battles near borders or at Smolensk, Borodino etc.
Then logistic level could not be a problem. This was a problem, because Russian quickly retreated far, far on east and Napoleon useless pursued them.

Could he stayed on Lithuania, Belorussia or marched on Ukraine where he could find better supply and living conditions?

What if he would changed his strategy or made alliances with Ottomans, Persia and some local nations.

Could he demanded more soldiers and supply from Prussia nad Austria?

Could he better prepared his logistic, depots, supply, communication lines?

How many French and their allies soldiers would be optimal for different plans?

Major Napoleon's mistake was that he let himself to be maneuvered into war with Russia by Metternich, while Austrians were first to stab him in the back later...

Austrians were not first which stab him in the back, they waited several month, even in 1813.

First stab him Prussians which surrendered to Russian their auxilliary Corps under pretext that they were cut off. Soon they joined coallition against Napoleon.

Earlier many French allies or foreign soldiers as like many Dutch or Germans units also surrendered.

Saxons, Bavarians, Swiss, Croats etc. unwillingly marched into the battles. However they fought some battles, many were lost or their actions were indecisive.

Neapolitans were almost useless, they did not help too much.
Portuguese, Spanish and other southerners were not well predestined to Russian climate.

These undermined morale and heavily weakened Grende Armee too.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Russia was really anyone's game, the Russians were extremely disorganized and had bad logistics and communications. In fact the Tsar and Kutuzov did not plan on burning Moscow. Had Moscow not burnt it is extremely likely that Napoleon would win. Napoleon did however plan on retreating anyway before Moscow burnt, but nothing the Russian military would have done could have saved Russia.

[Swerg]

Russia was really anyone's game, the Russians were extremely disorganized and had bad logistics and communications. In fact the Tsar and Kutuzov did not plan on burning Moscow. Had Moscow not burnt it is extremely likely that Napoleon would win. Napoleon did however plan on retreating anyway before Moscow burnt, but nothing the Russian military would have done could have saved Russia.

Napoleon would have retreated even if Moscow hadn't been burnt. There simply wasn't enough food for his 200,000 man army, not to mention the other 200,000 men stretched out behind him occupying very unfriendly territory.

'Nothing the Russian military would have done could have saved Russia.' Errm, see, the thing is, Russia was capable of reinforcing its army almost infinitely thanks to the public perception in the empire that Napoleon was the anti-christ leading an army of devils to defile the Holy City of Moscow. Once he was on the retreat, it was no contest.

I would say, rather, that there was nothing the French military could have done to save itself after they passed Smolensk. Napoleon failed to learn the lesson of Charles XII. You don't chase the Russian army around trying to force an engagement, because if there was anything the Russians were undeniably good at, it was marching.

The constant guerrilla campaign also had its effect, of course. Spending all day with the threat of being skewered by Cossacks or flayed alive and crucified by angry Russian peasants is not a pleasant thing.

[JaM]

because if there was anything the Russians were undeniably good at, it was marching.

not true... Russians suffered on march even worse losses than French did.. only difference was, nobody cared.. Russian soldiers had no choice, they were practically slaves...

[Swerg]

not true... Russians suffered on march even worse losses than French did.. only difference was, nobody cared.. Russian soldiers had no choice, they were practically slaves...

Soldiers in every army but the French one were practically slaves. And even the French soldiers weren't exactly living in a world of muffins and rainbows.

My point was not that the Russians did not suffer casualties on the march, but that they were proficient in the act of marching.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Napoleon planned on retreating to Poland and holding the Lithuania area and Belarus before Moscow burnt due to lack of logistics. Possibly in the mean time he would negotiate with Russia or resupply. The second time might have actually included an invasion of the Ukraine since he may have been pressured by Poland. Napoleon actually planned other campaigns for the same time such as an invasion of Sicily, Sardinia and Algiers all of which he hoped to use as naval bases and to keep the British away but Sardinia decided to follow some of Napoleon's laws and Algiers was always a target since the Dey was not exactly loyal to the Ottomans but had also refused to pay off his debt to France and began to hold French ships hostage.

[Swerg]

Napoleon planned on retreating to Poland and holding the Lithuania area and Belarus before Moscow burnt due to lack of logistics. Possibly in the mean time he would negotiate with Russia or resupply. The second time might have actually included an invasion of the Ukraine since he may have been pressured by Poland. Napoleon actually planned other campaigns for the same time such as an invasion of Sicily, Sardinia and Algiers all of which he hoped to use as naval bases and to keep the British away but Sardinia decided to follow some of Napoleon's laws and Algiers was always a target since the Dey was not exactly loyal to the Ottomans but had also refused to pay off his debt to France and began to hold French ships hostage.

The problem was, Napoleon had already lost too many men by the time he started retreating. France's supply of manpower was already stretched, so every soldier he lost was irreplaceable, and every veteran doubly so. By the time he got to Poland, the Prussians would have changed sides, along with the Austrians, and cut off his retreat. It would have gone just like it did historically, with the apocalyptic battle at Leipzig ending in the destruction of whatever reinforcements Napoleon scrounged up.

Napoleon's arrogance and short-sighted desire to engage the Russian army killed him. He was deep, DEEP in Russia, winter was setting in, his supplies were cut off, the whole country was out to kill him, and the Russians forced him to retreat the same way he came in. The result is, as we all know, history.

Ultimately, the Russians probably would have come after him anyway. Kutusov's reforms, simplifying and stripping out the impractical portions of training in the army, made all the difference, since it allowed the Russians to raise troops quickly, and the successful implementation of the opolchenie freed up many regular and reserve soldiers from logistical roles. The Prussians were undergoing similar changes, and I believe the Austrians were doing some more limited reforms of their system.

Napoleon's day had come. Simple as that.

[exNowy]

It was obvious that Napoleon marched too far to Moscow. He arrived there with only c.a. 100.000 men.

This was not enough soldiers for next bigger operations deeper in Russia.
Few corps which defended French flanks stationed far away on Belorussia, Lithuania and today Latvia.

Burnt Moscow did not allow stay here. Soon came cold autumn and early winter.
Kutusov army was more agresive now. However they still avoided decisive battles until Berezina.
Here Russian organized strategical trap, but they spoiled this action and Napoleon and French remnants managed to escape.

They of course fought several battles and skimishes on the road from Moscow, but these did not engage all enemies armies. There were only simple rearguard and cutt off actions. Harsh climate and lack of supply and dwellings killed or astray more men.

In meantime Grande Armee lost many, many soldiers, mainly on the route and even without decisive combats. Every things went worse and worse and this was quite fast campaign. Few month and Napoleon lost his Grande Armee.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Better to retreat from Moscow with whatever you have and take your chances against the coalition than to get most of your army killed in a Russian winter.

I don't see Napoleon's error in attemoting to destroy the Russian army, it was after all the only win to win. That or he could march on St.Petersburg, which we just decided in a previous post that it was not possible.
Unless you have enough troops to occupy positions in Russia then Napoleon's strategy is not wrong. I've essentially narrowed it down to should Napoleon occupy Ukraine or not? On the one hand he takes Russia's most vital territory and has somewhere to threaten Russia as well as a good area to retreat through. On the other there were no cities in Ukraine large enough to station all of his troops and this would have made Napoleon place more troops in garrisons. So basically the most vital decision was whether Napoleon should have captured Ukraine as well.

[exNowy]

Napoleon lost more than half his main army on the rout from Moscow to Smolensk. This was crucial point in this campaign.
Then he could not organized any effective defence on Belorussia, Lithuania, Poland and Prussia. He only can lost next soldiers there.
French and their allies suffered horrible casualties. This was catastrophe which heavily influenced on his future wars against coalitions.

These horrible casualties and lost campaign undermined his fame as invincible commander.
French and their allies lost many experienced soldiers, horses, armament and equipment.
Many people lost their hearts and they were not certain could Napoloen won again.

Prussia soon switched sides, Austria and several German states waited only several month and they also joined coalition against Napoleon in 1813.

Then better was not marching on Moscow after or even before Borodino.

Napoloen could predicted that Russian could avoided decisive battles near west borders and later at Moscow. They still could retreated far on east.

Short, victorious campaign could not be possible in such conditions. This meant he should found better conditions for longer campaign.

On Ukraine his army could found more dwellings, more food, forage, drinkable water, this meant better supply and shorter distant to depots in Poland.

Kiev was quite big town and there were many smaller towns too. Austrian Galicia also was close to military operations on Ukraine and this could allow engage more Austrian forces and supply. There still stationed some Austrian units.

Maybe Napoloen distrusted Austrian and he did not want more Austrians behind his back.

[JaM]

exNowy: Half of the French original army was lost on march TO MOSCOW.. Casualties on Russian side were on pair what French had or even worse.. Major Napoleon mistake was done in the beginning when he let Metternich to manipulate him into war with Russia, or because he didn't set proper war winning goals. He didnt wanted to destroy Russians as he wanted them to be allies - THAT was the main mistake on his end

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

He pretty much had to fight Russia to keep his dominance so war was necessary. His plan for victory was achieved by not destroying Russia, so his plans were not wrong but just what his overall goal was. Napoleon should have tried to destroy Russia, that way he could merely occupy Ukraine, perhaps permanently and absolutely cripple Russia so as to eliminate them as a threat. Had the Ottomans participated then perhaps the destruction of Russia could have been possible in a political sense. If you have the full backing of the Ottomans then the Russians can be expendable, afterall it is better to destroy a threat than to have a powerful and unwilling Russian ally. So for Napoleon's diplomatic goals his means were perfect but it is just that Russia refused to negotiate.