Why Napoleon lost Russia campaign 1812

[Swerg]

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.

Attempting to destroy the Russian army is one thing, chasing the Russian army around Russia is a rather different matter. Chasing the Russian army around destroyed at least two previous invasions of Russia that I can think of (once for the Poles, and once for Charles XII.) It's just a bad idea to engage in a war of attrition with your opponent in their home country when you can't reinforce.

Napoleon's best strategy would have been to let the Russians attack and take on their army in Germany. With our knowledge of hindsight, we know that Alexander I was due to die in about a decade and be replaced by Nicholas I who, I believe, would have had a hard time deciding if he hated Napoleon more than the British. Russia and the UK would have engaged in the Great Game, and the French, given the UK's uncompromising attitude towards France, would have been firmly on the Russian side of things.

Of course, that's all pure 'what if,' there's really no way of knowing if it would have worked out that way or not.

[JaM]

Swerg: Exactly. He should have waited for Russians to come to Prussia and Poland and then defeat them... War would have been won..

[exNowy]

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..

Oh, this is clear misunderstanding.
You take into account original army which started that war in June, while I refered to Napoleon's army which abandon Moscow in Autumn 1812.

Main French army which arrived to Moscow had c.a. 100.000-110.000 men.
When they came back to Smolensk there were c.a 40.000-50.000 men in some king of organized units.
This is clearly more than half Napoloen's army which marched from Moscow.

If you take into account original 444.000-675.000 men which Napoleon used in this campaign, and count total casualties, then this is quite different thing.

I really knew that French lost many soldiers on their way to Moscow.
I also stated several pages earlier in this thread that French lost more men in the summer, than they lost in the winter. But these are two different things.

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

I do agree that Napoleon did some political mistakes under Metternich manipulations and he did not set proper winning goals in that war.

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.

Napoleon's diplomatic goals were not acceptable. Russia refused negotiations, then war was necesary.
Napoloen's plan for victory was achieved by not destroying Russia. He planned to destroy main Russian army. He wanted to led next short and brilliant campaign.

But Russian could avoided decisive battles near borders, could retreated on far east, could reinforced their army, could led longer and bloody campaign.

Then Napoloen's plan for fast campaign was wrong.

Swerg: Exactly. He should have waited for Russians to come to Prussia and Poland and then defeat them... War would have been won..

I do not think so Napoleon could waited for Russian to come. This was unrealistic plan. He gathered much more soldiers in Prussia and Poland. He had more allies. He usually marched on enemy.

He even tried waited for Russian, therefore he crossed Russian borders so late in 24th June 1812.
This was not good chosen date. Marching in hot Russian summer was hard. Then several rainy days spoiled roads. Many soldiers were lost on the route.

Nevertheless Grande Armee marched so fast that in mid August they were far, far on east at Smolensk and in early September they were at Borodino. This was too early to sought for winter quarters. Then they still marched to Moscow instead get back to Smolensk or Belorussia and Lithuania.
In Moscow they lost some time and later it was too late for retreat in better conditions. Then winter retreat crushed Grande Armee so horrible that Napoleon can not organized effective defence in Belorussia or Lithuania.

This legendary retreat for many people took in mind that Napoleon lost this campaign because there was severe winter. They forgot that almost all Napoleon's plans for this campaign were broken down.

Timing in all this campaign for French was wrong.

[JaM]

True. Major Napoleon mistake was indecisiveness in his plans. Which was quite surprising considering he never had such problem before and was able to see the main goal before...

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Certainly the fact that the campaing was short was a major factor, but the way he did it was not badly done for a short campaign. It is essentially just that a short campaign was impossible but it was still well done (although again, Ukraine might have been necessary and Russia would not accept his diplomacy).

If Napoleon waited for the Russians to invade first then Austria and Prussia might lose faith in him, especially if they attack one of those nations. Although otherwise then I think it would have been good to lure the Russians towards him and them trap them and destroy the Russians and then mount a counter attack into Russia. But again that might be difficult if Austria and Prussia disagree.

Also it is likely that the Great Game might not happen the same since if the French are supplying the Ottomans and Persia then Russia might have a hard time in the Middle East where the French already had much influence.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Would Russia sue for peace is Napoleon takes St. Petersburg instead of Moscow ?

[JaM]

Taking St. Petersburg would be problematic, especially because it could be supported from sea by British..

[AngryTitusPullo]

Sure, but taking St Petersburg shouldn't matter right ? Afterall as far as I know taking enemy's capital during that period usually ends the war.

[JaM]

Not really. Taking Vienna in 1805 didn't ended the war, first Napoleon had to defeat Austrian at Austerlitz... and there are other examples... Actually, in Napoleonic times, capturing capital didnt had any effect unless you destroyed enemy army first.. Luckilly, this works in game too, AI wont consider accepting peace even if you give them back their province, if they still have considerable army at their disposal.. but destroy their armies, march to their capital, and they will accept almost any terms.. (ok,maybe not in vanilla, but there are mods that can guarantee this)

[exNowy]

Sure, but taking St Petersburg shouldn't matter right ? Afterall as far as I know taking enemy's capital during that period usually ends the war.

No. Such plan was unrealistic at all.

Vienna was taken in 1805 and 1809, these wars were not over until Austerlitz 1805 and Wagram 1809
Berlin was taken in 1806, war was not over until Friedland 1807.
Lisbon was captured in 1807 and recaptuerd in 1808, these cases did not ends the war.
Madrid was captured even few times e.g. in 1808, 1812, but war was waged until 1814.
Warsaw was captured in 1809 by Austrians, but war was continued and Polish won that campaign.

Taking St. Petersburg in 1812 could not change situation.
This capital was located far north and there French could met many troubles in military campaign.

[Aide-de-camp]

Well my opinion and knowledge is this.

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 - he completely disregarded possibility of his temporary allies backstabbing him. After all he humiliated Prussia, he should have expected it to return to war after his defeat.

He underestimated Russia's designation to defend it's position under any circumstances. For the entire course of the war, Napoleon's strategy was to swiftly knock out members of coalition by decisively defeating them, and threatening their territories, capitals etc. He once thoroughly destroyed Russian army at Friedland, but this time, Russia was prepared for total war, and Napoleon was far far away from his home, with overstretched lines of communications, supplies, with a dangerous retreat route. He fought much of the campaign with starving troops, and then, when you add disease, bitter cold etc, you get the result.

Russian campaign in my opinion was a too big adventure for the time. First because it was completely continental operation, and second, because base of operations for French was still France, even if many allies sided with it as well.

Napoleon needed to at least expand his own coalition significantly before waging any further wars, as well as finally challenge Britain at sea.

[JaM]

Aide-de-camp - Napoleon was everything but warmonger... he actually never started a war by himself, but always marched into war after it was declared on France or on their allies by others... Napoleon initiated peace talks several times, he tried to make British to accept peace several times, but after Trafalgar, British just didn't listened anymore, as they saw themselves secure..


Napoleon's tactics was never about threatening major cities, but to engage and destroy standing armies - once those are dealt with he always made peace with defeated nation. With Russia in 1812, he didnt wanted to defeat Russian badly, as he wanted to make them his Allies.. that was the major misconception on his side,because at that point, Russian Csar was no longer impressed by Napoleon,but due to some dream, he saw himself as a protector of the Europe against Napoleon...

While Napoleon being an Emperor, he wasn't like other European rulers, he was much more "liberal" - French could occupy any post no matter what their origin was, there was saying - each French soldier carries Marshal stick in his bag.. French even today still use some parts of his Laws in their Law system.. Practically, Europe by defeating Napoleon in 1815, just postponed inevitable, and was to face the same thing again in 1848... one could even say, that by defeating Napoleon Europe lost 30 years of social and national development, but its probably far fetched, and even his defeat played crucial role in further development in some states - simple soldiers from Austria and Russia were stationed in France for some time, and witnessed the new political system. Once they got back they demanded some changes home, which started movements that in the end made Absolutist monarchies to fall down later..

good reading about his legacy can be found here:

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Em...tm#_his_legacy

Napoleon can be accused of failing to create a long lasting peace, but the study of his enemies and their policies prove there were other guilty parties: Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia. All of the European powers sought expansion as an end in itself. History proves that although Britain declaimed so loudly against Napoleon's grasping spirit, she has since acquired more territory than she ever charged him with conquering.

even though i would not blame just him for all those dead during those times - European Absolutist FEUDAL monarchs tended to wage wars before, and would wage it against somebody else if Napoleon was not there... To me it looks strange, that modern people find Napoleon as some kind of a monster, while they completely ignore his opposition placed on European thrones, that suppressed their populace and denied them their base rights..

" All men are equal before God :
wisdom, talents, and virtue are
the only difference between them."
- Napoleon

[Aide-de-camp]

Aide-de-camp - Napoleon was everything but warmonger... he actually never started a war by himself, but always marched into war after it was declared on France or on their allies by others... Napoleon initiated peace talks several times, he tried to make British to accept peace several times, but after Trafalgar, British just didn't listened anymore, as they saw themselves secure..


Napoleon's tactics was never about threatening major cities, but to engage and destroy standing armies - once those are dealt with he always made peace with defeated nation. With Russia in 1812, he didnt wanted to defeat Russian badly, as he wanted to make them his Allies.. that was the major misconception on his side,because at that point, Russian Csar was no longer impressed by Napoleon,but due to some dream, he saw himself as a protector of the Europe against Napoleon...

While Napoleon being an Emperor, he wasn't like other European rulers, he was much more "liberal" - French could occupy any post no matter what their origin was, there was saying - each French soldier carries Marshal stick in his bag.. French even today still use some parts of his Laws in their Law system.. Practically, Europe by defeating Napoleon in 1815, just postponed inevitable, and was to face the same thing again in 1848... one could even say, that by defeating Napoleon Europe lost 30 years of social and national development, but its probably far fetched, and even his defeat played crucial role in further development in some states - simple soldiers from Austria and Russia were stationed in France for some time, and witnessed the new political system. Once they got back they demanded some changes home, which started movements that in the end made Absolutist monarchies to fall down later..

good reading about his legacy can be found here:

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Em...tm#_his_legacy

even though i would not blame just him for all those dead during those times - European Absolutist FEUDAL monarchs tended to wage wars before, and would wage it against somebody else if Napoleon was not there... To me it looks strange, that modern people find Napoleon as some kind of a monster, while they completely ignore his opposition placed on European thrones, that suppressed their populace and denied them their base rights..

There were many aspects about Napoleon that bothered coalition, one of which was that he was not legal ruler of France. One may say that Napoleon only defended, but that's just a technical description. True was, many of his policies in Europe were forced - from Spain to Austria, and many territories were simply conquered. After his defeat of coalition, he could have traded his conquest for the crown and be recognized as legitimate ruler some day. But then, he cut Germany from Prussia, Dalmatia and Italy from Austria, Poland from Russia, how could he expect long lasting peace after that ?

If Nappy was a pragmatic ruler, he wouldn't have been that much bothered by Britain, just as many were not before. But he was not, he did not enjoy long lasting fruits of his success.

I do not find Napoleon monster at all, but Napoleon was not a politician. Many people disagree with me. He had ideas that were ahead of time, such as equality before law, tolerance, nationalism, etc, but i simply don't think he cared about pragmatic part of politics that much, ruling a state, creating politics, international affairs etc. I think he was in pursue of domination, military successes, fame etc, just for the sake of it.

[JaM]

Yes, he forced several things on occupied or allied territories.. Like for example he forbade the Serfdom, forced the metrics system, or smallpox vaccination, forced freedom and ordered to close all Jewish Ghettos, while forbidding any attempts to mark such population (this was restored after Napoleon was defeated in 1815)..

And as mentioned in that article, Napoleonic France conquered much less territory, than British did in the same time period..

SO, Napoleon can be acussed of many things, both good and bad, but he advanced Europe from absolutist feudalism closer to modern society...

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

1. Napoleon could not march on St. Petersburg since he needed to capture Moscow intead in order to wait in the winter.
2. St. Petersburg was heavily defended and Napoleon could not move enough troops towards there since he needed them at Borodino.
3. St. Petersburg was hard to siege and could be supplied and helped by Sweden and Britain as well as the roads towards that city could be attacked by Sweden and Britain from the sea.
4. Conquering St. Peterburg would not end the war since the Russians could fall back on Moscow and Moscow was more vital for Russia anyway.
5. In this case (in a short campaign that is), I can only see Napoleon winning the war by capturing Moscow and Russia as the conquest of the Ukraine can only convince Russia that they cannot fight and need to make peace but the conquest of both St. Petersburg and Moscow at the same time was too problematic to achieve and almost impossible (St. Peterburg as well would not provide the French with a strategic advantage, only a diplomatic asset or the loss of a vital city which would only be truly useful if the French captured Moscow as well as the French cannot actually do anything with St. Petersburg other than in diplomacy or depriving the Russians of it. It would probably be a logistical nightmare to capture Moscow and St. Petersburg simultaneously but also to hold and supply the city from the enemy).

[Aide-de-camp]

Yes, he forced several things on occupied or allied territories.. Like for example he forbade the Serfdom, forced the metrics system, or smallpox vaccination, forced freedom and ordered to close all Jewish Ghettos, while forbidding any attempts to mark such population (this was restored after Napoleon was defeated in 1815)..

And as mentioned in that article, Napoleonic France conquered much less territory, than British did in the same time period..

SO, Napoleon can be acussed of many things, both good and bad, but he advanced Europe from absolutist feudalism closer to modern society...

Now that's whole another topic. I generally do not appreciate idealistic views of historical personalities, particular if they are rulers. Napoleon will always be god to me, but in sense of warfare which i'm more keen on, then as a person of virtue.

[Swerg]

Napoleon did actually start one war himself. The invasion of Russia. He didn't actually declare war, of course, but he was the aggressor in that particular case. (even if it was blatantly obvious that both sides were planning to attack each other almost from the conclusion of the 1807 peace treaty.)

[JaM]

Aide-de-camp: Its not idealizing, just some de-demonizing... Lots of people have incorrect views on Napoleon just because they think he was same evil like Hitler, but that is just not true.

Swerg: technically you are correct, thing is France was manipulated into war by its Allies - Austria and Prussia.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Okay another question that may be related. After the retreat from Moscow the French army was basically harrased all the way by cossacks and Russian army all the way home. Yet when Napoleon defeated Russia for example after Austerlitz he let the defeated army back with their equipment etc. Was that a mistake ? Should the Russian army at that time be totally annahiliated or Napoleon do not have military means to do that ?

[JaM]

i think thats completely different situation. In 1805 Napoleon just wanted force Austrians and Russians to sign peace treaty, so he has no intention to hunt the Russians down.. In 1812, Russians didn't sent anybody to negotiate...