"The Russians afraid of Napoleon at the Beressina?" Topic

I was not trying anything, I was sure Hof lived in Liechtenstein but if I am wrong then I do apologise for thinking Frayer was him.

"The bridge wasn't blown, the bridges were burned"
Utterly irrelevant. You claimed that the the losses, as demonstrated by the data from the états in Nafziger was incorrect – because it was "afterwards". The time delay from the battle to the count was some 44 hours. Hence your proposal that the count was inflated by being "afterwards" is shown to be, well, …. hmmmnm, you know, wrong.
The response is to blow smoke over some petty-fogging detail about blown vs. fired after being laced with powder. This is ignoratio elenchi (if I recall correctly) and smart people, like those who contribute here, are not in any way distracted by such a fallacy.

"However, your characterization of the Berezina fighting, especially the losses, is incorrect, "

I just quoted Nafziger. I thought his work was quite accurate (at least generally so), accessible to all readers here, in English, and based on archival sources. Do you disagree ?

Frayer

I own homes in the USA, France, Russia and the Crimea (which is part of the Ukraine, I am told). I am a USA citizen, natural born, as they say, and proud of it, too.

I selected Liechtenstein because Big Al lives there.

Frayer

The old story again, instead of discussing history – persons are attacked or victimized, get back on topic Shane or move on.

"… I do apologise for thinking Frayer was him."

So you WERE trying something! To get him booted off TMP.

Enough, mate!

<:^{

'The old story again, instead of discussing history – persons are attacked or victimized, get back on topic Shane or move on.'

You should heed your own advice.

Sincerely,
K

Frayer, my friend,

"…

So let's make the most of this beautiful day,
Since we're together, we might as well say,
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?
Won't you be my neighbor?

…."

<;^}

Big Al

Frayer,

George Nafziger's book on Russia is very good and I have a copy. All of his material is valuable and should be consulted. However, I've used more than one reference and your figures and conclusions are incorrect on the Berezina. Your notation on the Berezina chapter when there were four, not only one, in Paul Britten-Austin's book is an indicator of inaccuracy on your part.

Too many people concentrate on the tragedy of the noncombatants and not on the battle that raged while they clogged the approaches to the bridges and the remainder who refused to budge even when Eble delayed in burning the bridges to give them a chance to escape from the nasty fate of being captured by the Russians. Counting trees in Siberia would not be a kind fate.

Caulaincourt's comment on the crossing and the fighting that occurred is quite fitting: 'All honor to the French. Honor to the nation that bred such men! And shame on the cowards who would tarnich the glory they earned-a glory even more precious than the laurels coveted by their descendants, and that of the Europeans that were never able to beat them…'

Who is it that dare "tarnich the glory"? Are they "cowards" that wish to separate fact from fiction? How about those who try to "tarnich the glory" of the Russians present at this action? Are they "cowards"? Did not the Russians earn "a glory even more precious than the laurels coveted by their descendants"? [Whatever that means!]

Nice speech, but not up there with St. Crispen's Day. <:^{

Big Al

"One French enlisted man did remark that if the situation was reversed, not one Russian would have escaped."

'What a wonderfully arrogant comment.'

Why arrogant? It demonstrates that a soldier was proud of himself and his unit and what they could do. I would also tend to agree with it. I can't see Napoleon and the Grande Armee in a situation that was reversed, trapping a Russian army on the wrong side of the river with no bridges available allowing them to execute an assault river crossing against a defended opposite bank, and having to build two trestle bridges while doing it.

The reference for the remark, but the way, is Henry Lachouque's Anatomy of Glory, page 264. 'Had the Russians been in their shoes, the soldiers said, and they in the Russians', not a man would have escaped.'

Sincerely,
K

'Who is it that dare "tarnich the glory"? Are they "cowards" that wish to separate fact from fiction? How about those who try to "tarnich the glory" of the Russians present at this action? Are they "cowards"? Did not the Russians earn "a glory even more precious than the laurels coveted by their descendants"?'

I don't know-you'll have to ask (or read) Caulaincourt. He's the one who said it.

Sincerely,
K

Frayer,

I found this interesting quite by Berthezene, which nicely sums up the fighting at the Berezina and goes along quite nicely with Clausewitz':

'It has been said that the bridges presented a hideous spectacle due to the crowding and confusion…In reality, the crossing of the Berezina in the face of the enemy was a very large military undertaking that reflects further glory on the army and its chief.'

Sincerely,
K

Do you have the volume and page number for the quote in "Souvenirs militaires de la République et de l'Empire"?

Big Al

"Why arrogant? It demonstrates that a soldier was proud of himself and his unit and what they could do. I would also tend to agree with it. I can't see Napoleon and the Grande Armee in a situation that was reversed, trapping a Russian army on the wrong side of the river with no bridges available allowing them to execute an assault river crossing against a defended opposite bank, and having to build two trestle bridges while doing it."

Arrogant because Nappy managed to use his military genius and superior army to get himself trapped on the wrong side of river a need to assault a defended river bank in order to escape.

It would be a bit like a soldier with Reno at the Little Big Horn saying "If those Indians fought as well as we do they would have wiped out the entire 7th cavalry, not just Custer and five companies"…a soldier justly proud of his unit…having held off overwhelming numbers of hostiles and survived and shoveling buffalo chips to sooth his ego.

Bob

LSD,

Are you one of those "cowards" trying to "tarnich the glory"?

Big Al

So it would seem : )

I might not just "tarnich the glory" but "fedder the glory" as well.

LSD,

LOL I like the cut of your jib! <;^}

Big Al

10th Marines,

I am trying really hard to see anything substantial in your most recent string of posts. Please note that no one was debating that the French achieved great "glory" at the Berezina, and that they did defeat the Admiral Chichagov, and that Napoléon was then able to sucessfully flee the army and make his way, in good health, to Paris.

I suppose that I should be duly impressed that it is very "inaccurate" to mention the title of one chapter of an author's book without also listing all related chapters. I have no idea why is so important, but since you have now twice cast an ad hominum, snide, patronizing and personally insulting comment about it, I should at least acknowledge how important this is to you. So, therefore, let me formally post here: I completely accept that it is deeply important to you that one lists all the related chapters of a book when alluding to one of them, and I unreservedly affirm your right to hold this opinion.

I hope I have found at glimmer of relevancy – a nugget of actual debate in amongst the dross.

I "think" that you are saying that George Nafziger does not correctly report the number of men with the French.
As posted above, he has, before the battle of Krasnyy some 30,000 stragglers, 41,500 with the main army and these to be joined by 23,300 of II Corps and IX Corps – total 94,800. The 2 December report is later given, showing total 7,000 with the ranks. Losses are thus 87,800 for the period from before Krasnyy through the "victory" at the Berezina.

You have said this is incorrect. Since you have already declared that these figures are incorrect, you must already have other ones. So, I am sure that you are already quite au fait with the états of the French army of 1812. Please provide the "correct" figures, as you understand them, for the French forces for before Krasnyy and after the Berezina, indicating your source(s). Based on your repeated declarations about Mr. Nafziger being "incorrect" it shoud require no additional research or use of your time for you to report what you take to be the correct figures, and to give your source(s).

There, I think I dragged something modestly substantial out of your smoke cloud of irrelevant comments, your legion of strawmen, and your torrent of personal abuse of other contributors.

Thanks,

Frayer

PS – "Counting trees in Siberia would not be a kind fate." is an anachronism. The most eastward intended destination for prisoners was the Strogonov concessions at Perm'. However, no French survived long enough to actually reach that far. Living prisoners made it no more east than Vyatka, and these also then died.
I am not sure, but I think that the farthest east any were sent that also lived to be returned was in the interior of Vologda. There were indeed many pine trees there. The prisoners made handicrafts and furniture to sell to the locals. Some refused repatriation, and settled in Russia – the local sub-governor writing to St-Peterburg to get permission and passports for them, and all the locals who passed for "dignitaries" appending their marks in affirmation of the good nature of the French.
The forest of Vologda region is pretty country, even today – and so profoundly quiet. I have always hoped that those French veterans that stayed lived long and found peace and happiness there.

"Henry Lachouque's Anatomy of Glory, page 264. 'Had the Russians been in their shoes, the soldiers said, and they in the Russians', not a man would have escaped.'"

OK, so we have as the "source" for this wonderfully pithy comment – it is what "the soldiers said" according to a highly pro-French writer who was born a century after the era. As the La Revue de Paris noted in 1960 – "Le commandant Henry Lachouque s'est voué de longue date au culte de l'Empereur."
You know, the soldiers were not doing audio recordings in 1812, so how he knows what they said remains a mystery to me. And "in their shoes" is not French idiom, as far as I know. But hey, it sure is pithy and pro-French.

The général baron Pierre Berthezène commanded the jeune Garde at the Berezina. Just at a guess, I think that Russians commanders made pithy comments about destroying the Grand Armée in 1812. Would it be good to list these and propose them as unbiased analytical judgments with which all should concur ? As "evidence" in historical analysis?

10th Marines, these pithy little quotes, or paraphrases or more-or-less translations are all non-analytical. They are emotive, but not analytical. We are discussing history here, not writing the libretto for an opera, right?

Frayer

'It would be a bit like a soldier with Reno at the Little Big Horn saying "If those Indians fought as well as we do they would have wiped out the entire 7th cavalry, not just Custer and five companies"…a soldier justly proud of his unit…having held off overwhelming numbers of hostiles and survived and shoveling buffalo chips to sooth his ego.'

The difference being that the French escaped and won the battle to boot-Custer's command did not.

It's somewhat akin to what the SgtMaj said to his battalion commander in the movie 'We Were Soldiers' when the end product was hitting the air conditioner: 'Sir, Custer was a [wuss], you're not.' Napoleon wasn't a 'wuss.'

Sincerely,
K

Frayer,

Are YOU one of those "cowards" trying to "tarnich the glory"?

Big Al

Hello, my name is Frayer and I'm a cowardly glory-tarnicher.

I had a difficult childhood, and started glory-tarniching at a young age …

-------------------------------

Kidding aside, I am not insensitive to this "glory" angle, either personally or as a concept likely to be in the minds of the participants, at least some of the officers.

The problem I have is the poor argumentation, specious sources, wild and bombastic conclusions, insulting and patronizing tone, etc., etc., etc.

If anything, I think that all this blustering and profuse deployment of a veritable child's copybook of fallacies undermines the "glory" that is sought to be protected. To me, the memory of the First Empire is best protected and best understood and communicated to others by a fair, balanced and non-adversarial inquiry – and not by jejune cheerleading.

Also, I worry about the many, many examples of asymmetrical warfare – including some current ones. If we can't see asymmetrical or unconventional warfare in the historical record for what it is, and instead resort to loud blathering about of "afraid of", "cowards", "incompetent", "bandits", "terrorists", etc. – how in the world can we cope with unfolding events, when we don't have 200 years to think about it ?

This line is a classic example –
"Too many people concentrate on the tragedy of the noncombatants and not on the battle". Not only is such an approach morally and even religiously repugnant to me, it is a perfect example of the blindness to the fate of the less-than-glorious common people, in and out of uniform, that so undermines our current geopolitics and national security.

OK, climbing off the soapbox,
Frayer

"It's somewhat akin to what the SgtMaj said to his battalion commander in the movie 'We Were Soldiers' when the end product was hitting the air conditioner: 'Sir, Custer was a [wuss], you're not.' Napoleon wasn't a 'wuss.'"

I really hate that bit in We Were Soldiers. It simply doesn't ring true to me. This was a period when Custer was still mainly venerated as a hero, and I don't see a WW2 veteran paratrooper who has joined the 7th Cavalry badmouthing its former commander. And more to the point, Custer certainly wasn't a pussy, regardless of his other llikely flaws.

There, I've always wanted to get that off my chest, so apologies for straying badly off topic.

BTW, Frayer, you don't really get war, old son, no matter what you might think.

The problem I have is the poor argumentation, specious sources, wild and bombastic conclusions, insulting and patronizing tone, etc., etc., etc.

I agree absolutly.

"BTW, Frayer, you don't really get war, old son, no matter what you might think."

Why did you feel so compelled to make a hostile remark ?

How do you know what I think ? Where I have written that I "get" or "understand" war ? What difference would it make anyway – I sure didn't serve at the Berezina ? What do you know of my life and background that allows you to pass such a judgment ? Who the heck are you to go around making judgments about other people at all ?

Are you a specialist in military tactics or policy ? What makes you think that you "get war" and hence can tell when someone else doesn't?

What have I ever done to you that makes you think it would be fair or reasonable to throw an insult my way ?

Or are you a child, mentally or in fact ?

I like a lightly moderated forum, so I suppose this kind of childish personal attack is the price of entry.

Frayer

The difference being that the French escaped and won the battle to boot-Custer's command did not.

Not all the French escaped and not all of Custers force was wiped out. At what proportion of escapees does it become a victory? Does the C in C "buying the farm" make it a defeat?

"Why did you feel so compelled to make a hostile remark ?

How do you know what I think ? Where I have written that I "get" or "understand" war ? What difference would it make anyway – I sure didn't serve at the Berezina ? What do you know of my life and background that allows you to pass such a judgment ? Who the heck are you to go around making judgments about other people at all ?

Are you a specialist in military tactics or policy ? What makes you think that you "get war" and hence can tell when someone else doesn't?

What have I ever done to you that makes you think it would be fair or reasonable to throw an insult my way ?

Or are you a child, mentally or in fact ?

I like a lightly moderated forum, so I suppose this kind of childish personal attack is the price of entry."

Frayer, I've intentionally copied your whole post because it seems to be contextual. My remark wasn't offensive. I suggested you don't get what war is all about, and that's an opinion to which I have a right. You have called me mentally retarded and followed it up by suggesting my remark to you is 'childish'. Do you feel quite so superior in retrospect? Lucky you're not in the Dawghouse, feller.

The Berezina and the Little Big Horn:

Fred Cartwright has nicely stated the relevance.

In both cases one side was trapped and yet not eliminated by their enemy. So why would the French be the victors while the US the losers?

I never hear anyone declare that LBH was a US victory, or even a good showing, because the 7th only lost 5 out of 12 companies and were not wiped out to a man.

Yet that seems to be the logic applied to get a good result for the French at Berezina.

I stand by the claim of arrogance for what now appears to have been the apocryphal statement that in essence had the tables been turned no Russians would have escaped.

Bob

Old Bear,

Yep, your are so right.
Thanks for setting me straight.

Frayer

I suppose the Little Big Horn would have been more like the Berezina if Custer had suddenly found he was needed back in Washington ASAP and cut his way out leaving his men behind to enjoy the Glory!

Bob

Bob,

That's a bit unfair. Custer wasn't head of state, as I recall! If Grant had been there (he was President at the time, wasn't he?) I think it would have been quite legitimate, but of course like in the UK, such worthy leaders always stay well behind the front lines…

the funny thing is – Napoleon precisely was unable to trap the Russian army at all in 1812, they always escaped despite the so called genius of war – which was worn off in 1812.

so why should not the Russians again be unable to steal a march at the Berezina?

The comparision with Little Big Horn is quite a good one, yes Custer gets a note that he will be elected President and he just leaves the battle before his troops would be surrounded – but Custer was different to Napleon, I bet he would have tried continue with his unit to attack the Indians.

Old Bear: True enough. I could not resist.

von Winterfeldt. Yes. Custer was a soldier first and poli second. He understood Glory.

My remark wasn't offensive. I suggested you don't get what war is all about, and that's an opinion to which I have a right.

Quite so, but that doesn't necessarily mean your opinion is of any value to anyone else! :-) Also Frayer is entitled to ask if your opinion is based on fact or are you just blowing hot air?!

I've always found Kiley's boosterism both silly and repugnant. Napoleon's folly cost at least a million lives. Who cares if Berezina demonstrated superior generalship or not?
I've always thought the appropriate response to the "in their shoes" remark, was, "Well, why wasn't he?".

But, in fact, Napoleon did catch the Allies between 3 armies on either side of a divide a few months later. At Bautzen, Napoleon and Ney had the Allies up against the Austrian border, defended by the Austrian Army. So we do know what would happen with the shoes and the feet…

BTW, Old Bear, I suggest you go back and read exactly what you wrote. It is clearly addressed directly at Frayer. And it is, above all, cryptic. I can't tell if you are simply mourning the reality of war or questioning Frayer's understanding. The latter is certainly noxious.

NSN,

There is no question in my mind that the comments of Old Bear were exactly personally directed at me, and that they were – so aptly put – certainly noxious. The amazing thing is, he has no idea who I am or what my career or life experience has been.

But anyway, thanks for your posts, and even more – thanks for your excellent research and your generosity in sharing your work.

-----------------------------------------------

Old Bear, good "feller",

I did certainly NOT accuse you of being, as you so rudely put it "mentally retarded". I would never even think to use such a phrase, ever. Along with "redskin", "kike" and its ilk, the "n"-word and the various hostile epithets for homosexuals – "mentally retarded" should have essentially no place in the modern English lexicon.

I asked if you were in truth a child (a teenager, for example) or an adult acting like a child.

A person who is developmentally challenged is not called "mentally retarded" except by grossly insensitive clods. Such people are not mentally childlike, and often have adult personal lives, including "mature" relationships of all kinds.

It appears that your people skills need some work, "feller". Or at least that is my opinion.

It is just this kind of low-brow trash-talking that makes my tolerance for anglophone internet fora so low.

Adieu.
Frayer

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?…It's just not right. It's not right. It's not, it's not going to change anything. We'll, we'll get our justice….Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we're all stuck here for a while. Let's try to work it out. Let's try to beat it. Let's try to beat it. Let's try to work it out."

If you mean "beat it" as in "to beat a dead horse" then I think you won't have anything to worry about old Steven old boy : )

Frayer,

It is possible that you were simply oblivious to the suggested meaning of "Or are you a child, mentally or in fact ?" but I was crediting you with the wit and sharpness to get your point over with getting Dawghoused.

However it's a bit rich you for you to then try and squirm behind "I asked if you were in truth a child (a teenager, for example) or an adult acting like a child" when you quite clearly imply I may have the mental age of a child, which for an adult would most definitely count as retarded.

"It is just this kind of low-brow trash-talking that makes my tolerance for anglophone internet fora so low."…now that's industrial strength pretension!!!

And of course my suggestion that you didn't get war was directed at you. I'm mightily surprised you or nvrsynvr could possibly think otherwise. Sorry that having a low opinion of you on a particular subject is considered 'noxious', particularly based on the attempted abuse you have returned since. On the plus side you'll be delighted that I don't wound remotely as easily as you do.

Oh, and my 'people skills' are just fine, Frayer. You are making the assumption that I didn't want to be confrontational from the onset. I would suggest if you don't like people with attitudes different to your own that you don't post on a discussion forum. People will have the habit of not necessarily agreeing with you, regardless of their mental capabilities.

@Frayer

Hint – ther exist this possibility to s – t – i – f – l – e.

I use it here with good reason there I – like Napoleon cannot waste my time.

Like on this page 3 persons are d – what a bliss.

Old Bear, I'm baffled. Whether you are right or wrong about Frayer, whether you argue it's a fact or just your opinion, it is a personal shot without apparent provocation. You said it was "not offensive" so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and suggested you may have intended a general truism. Oh well…

Frayer,

‘The bridge wasn't blown, the bridges were burned'
'Utterly irrelevant.'

In the overall scheme of things, quite possibly. As a demonstration of your lack of care in researching the facts and data, it is quite relevant as it paints part of the picture of your historical carelessness.

‘You claimed that the the losses, as demonstrated by the data from the états in Nafziger was incorrect – because it was "afterwards". The time delay from the battle to the count was some 44 hours. Hence your proposal that the count was inflated by being "afterwards" is shown to be, well, …. hmmmnm, you know, wrong.'

No, it's your use of the data which I have a problem with as you overlook material that is relevant and all you're doing is painting an incomplete picture.

'The response is to blow smoke over some petty-fogging detail about blown vs. fired after being laced with powder. This is ignoratio elenchi (if I recall correctly) and smart people, like those who contribute here, are not in any way distracted by such a fallacy.'

No, it is merely to correct errors in fact that you post on the board. You should be more careful.
I just quoted Nafziger. I thought his work was quite accurate (at least generally so), accessible to all readers here, in English, and based on archival sources. Do you disagree ?

I don't disagree that George Nafziger's material is good and reliable. It's your unintentional misuse of the data that is incorrect and what I object to, historically.
‘I am trying really hard to see anything substantial in your most recent string of posts. Please note that no one was debating that the French achieved great "glory" at the Berezina, and that they did defeat the Admiral Chichagov, and that Napoléon was then able to sucessfully flee the army and make his way, in good health, to Paris.'

First, I said nothing about ‘glory' in my postings unless it was a quote from a primary source. Second, Napoleon didn't ‘flee the army' but went back to Paris at the urging of his key subordinates in order to raise an army for 1813. If Napoleon actually wanted to ‘flee' he'd have left the army before the Berezina as it was a desperate battle in which he was again under fire. You might want to reread Britten-Austin.

‘I suppose that I should be duly impressed that it is very "inaccurate" to mention the title of one chapter of an author's book without also listing all related chapters. I have no idea why is so important, but since you have now twice cast an ad hominum, snide, patronizing and personally insulting comment about it, I should at least acknowledge how important this is to you. So, therefore, let me formally post here: I completely accept that it is deeply important to you that one lists all the related chapters of a book when alluding to one of them, and I unreservedly affirm your right to hold this opinion.'

I made no insult to you and I am sorry you believe that I did. However, leaving out relevant material that is germane to the discussion is not a good historical practice.

‘I "think" that you are saying that George Nafziger does not correctly report the number of men with the French.
As posted above, he has, before the battle of Krasnyy some 30,000 stragglers, 41,500 with the main army and these to be joined by 23,300 of II Corps and IX Corps – total 94,800. The 2 December report is later given, showing total 7,000 with the ranks. Losses are thus 87,800 for the period from before Krasnyy through the "victory" at the Berezina.'

What you're doing is ‘interpreting' data incorrectly. You stated earlier that Wittgenstein ‘bagged' 60,000 at the Berezina. If you meant prisoners, and that is usually what the term ‘bagged' means, then you're wrong and Nafziger does not say that.

‘You have said this is incorrect. Since you have already declared that these figures are incorrect, you must already have other ones. So, I am sure that you are already quite au fait with the états of the French army of 1812. Please provide the "correct" figures, as you understand them, for the French forces for before Krasnyy and after the Berezina, indicating your source(s). Based on your repeated declarations about Mr. Nafziger being "incorrect" it shoud require no additional research or use of your time for you to report what you take to be the correct figures, and to give your source(s).'

I've given my sources and if you'd like them again, I'll post them. You're only using one, and while George Nafziger is a good and honest historian, I believe you're in error with his figures, not Nafziger himself.
‘There, I think I dragged something modestly substantial out of your smoke cloud of irrelevant comments, your legion of strawmen, and your torrent of personal abuse of other contributors.'

Could you please list which ‘strawmen' I have used?
Could you please list my ‘torrent of personal abuse?
And I am sorry that you believe my comments ‘irrelevant' but at least they're accurate and from more than one source/

‘PS – "Counting trees in Siberia would not be a kind fate." is an anachronism. The most eastward intended destination for prisoners was the Strogonov concessions at Perm'. However, no French survived long enough to actually reach that far. Living prisoners made it no more east than Vyatka, and these also then died.
I am not sure, but I think that the farthest east any were sent that also lived to be returned was in the interior of Vologda. There were indeed many pine trees there. The prisoners made handicrafts and furniture to sell to the locals. Some refused repatriation, and settled in Russia – the local sub-governor writing to St-Peterburg to get permission and passports for them, and all the locals who passed for "dignitaries" appending their marks in affirmation of the good nature of the French.
The forest of Vologda region is pretty country, even today – and so profoundly quiet. I have always hoped that those French veterans that stayed lived long and found peace and happiness there.'

Check Nafziger for the prisoner survival rate-it was about fifty percent and that's not very good. Some Frenchmen did stay, but not anything close to that many. Funny you didn't mention that number from Nafziger…

‘OK, so we have as the "source" for this wonderfully pithy comment – it is what "the soldiers said" according to a highly pro-French writer who was born a century after the era. As the La Revue de Paris noted in 1960 – "Le commandant Henry Lachouque s'est voué de longue date au culte de l'Empereur."

You know, the soldiers were not doing audio recordings in 1812, so how he knows what they said remains a mystery to me. And "in their shoes" is not French idiom, as far as I know. But hey, it sure is pithy and pro-French.'
And quite possibly an accurate assessment of the situation. And your point for this paragraph is…?
‘The général baron Pierre Berthezène commanded the jeune Garde at the Berezina. Just at a guess, I think that Russians commanders made pithy comments about destroying the Grand Armée in 1812. Would it be good to list these and propose them as unbiased analytical judgments with which all should concur ? As "evidence" in historical analysis?'

Berthezene's comment is very relevant regarding the type of military operation the French undertook at the Berezina. I don't see your problem with it.

‘Kidding aside, I am not insensitive to this "glory" angle, either personally or as a concept likely to be in the minds of the participants, at least some of the officers.The problem I have is the poor argumentation, specious sources, wild and bombastic conclusions, insulting and patronizing tone, etc., etc., etc.If anything, I think that all this blustering and profuse deployment of a veritable child's copybook of fallacies undermines the "glory" that is sought to be protected. To me, the memory of the First Empire is best protected and best understood and communicated to others by a fair, balanced and non-adversarial inquiry – and not by jejune cheerleading.'

You've used only one source and have not ‘analyzed' anything of the military operations at the Berezina. It is an interesting operation and one fight that Napoleon should have lost but didn't. That doesn't intrigue you?
The only person here that is being insulting, etc., is you and nvr. Did you deliberately come here to pick a fight or merely to grandstand? Why can't you conduct a conversation on the subject without throwing insults and then accusing others of doing it?

‘Also, I worry about the many, many examples of asymmetrical warfare – including some current ones. If we can't see asymmetrical or unconventional warfare in the historical record for what it is, and instead resort to loud blathering about of "afraid of", "cowards", "incompetent", "bandits", "terrorists", etc. – how in the world can we cope with unfolding events, when we don't have 200 years to think about it ?'

Oh, please. That has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

‘This line is a classic example –
"Too many people concentrate on the tragedy of the noncombatants and not on the battle". Not only is such an approach morally and even religiously repugnant to me, it is a perfect example of the blindness to the fate of the less-than-glorious common people, in and out of uniform, that so undermines our current geopolitics and national security.'

You're viewing the action, and warfare, from a 21st century dilettante viewpoint that has nothing whatsoever to do with historical analysis. And if you are so offended, what are you doing discussing warfare in the first place. I'll have to agree with the other poster that you don't understand warfare, it's cost, and why it occurs.

‘I did certainly NOT accuse you of being, as you so rudely put it "mentally retarded". I would never even think to use such a phrase, ever. Along with "redskin", "kike" and its ilk, the "n"-word and the various hostile epithets for homosexuals – "mentally retarded" should have essentially no place in the modern English lexicon.'

Why is the term ‘mentally retarded' rude? Do you consider the use of ‘blind' and ‘deaf' in the same context? Why should they not have a place in the ‘modern English lexicon? There are some very rude terms that should not be used, but you've lost me here. Do you think we should have a ‘language police' to ensure those terms that apparently offend you not be used? You've got to be kidding. One of the problems in US society today is the idea of political correctness and that no one should be offended. That's patently ridiculous. There's an excellent line in the film ‘1776' by John Adams along those lines and it is very apt. You ought to read the book The Language Police by Debra Ravitch.

Sincerely,
K

Kev,

I think you are one of the very persons Debs is talking about. Those that

"… have wrested control of the language … often at the expense of the truth (in the case of history) …."

You define a word by excluding views you do not hold to be true in a definition. By example 'best' often = French. If something is NOT done the French way, such a process is by definition NOT the best. A division; a corps; a staff; a bricole; ad nauseam. Note: ad nauseam is NOT PC.

Of course, as always, just one man's opinion,

Ta,

Big Al

Actually, no.

However, this might be of interest to the forum on the subject of the French:

'The French, in the three and a half centuries between about 1500 and 1850, developed all, or nearly all, the basic forms of modern technical education. And in the course of time, form Russia across western Europe and the United States to Japan, all countries modeled their technical schools on those of France. So, in the gradual transfer of technical training from an apprenticeship system where one learned a calling on the job to one where one learned much of his technical profession in a school, France played the dominant role.'

-The Development of Technical Education in France 1500-1850 by Frederick Artz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1966, page vii.

Sincerely,
K

nvrsynvr,

Below is the quote which caused me to state that in my opinion Frayer no idea what war is about. In my opinion it's naive and unrealistic although I chose not to use words like that because I genuinely did not want to be personally offensive. However in my opinion such a quote as that below is idealogical nonsense and teklls me the writer of it simply does not get what war is about.

"Too many people concentrate on the tragedy of the noncombatants and not on the battle. Not only is such an approach morally and even religiously repugnant to me, it is a perfect example of the blindness to the fate of the less-than-glorious common people, in and out of uniform, that so undermines our current geopolitics and national security."

Of equal interest, I am sure, 'kindergarten' is a German word, the first kindergarten was opened on June 28, 1840.

Kev, are you the capitain of the red herring bus "Tarnich the Glory" out of Norwich?

Big Al

I keep thinking that comparing Berezina to Friedland may be more useful than comparing it to LBH.

That is an excellent idea and I would not have thought of that. Well done.

Sincerely,
K

Speaking of the "Tarnich the Glory", what has become of her First-Mate – Mini-Me-2? Lost at sea?

What ever happened to Mini-Me-1? He has not been around for a great while.

Big Al