"Any surprise." Topic

'That's something Kiley came up with…'

Actually, no. I was answering the question by Armand, and this is what he mentioned in the first posting:

'…with this new evidence, we could think that Napoleon was moved as a puppet by the Russian Tzar in his big plan to invade the Russian territory.'

In answering the question, I used the term 'manipulated' as that is what is done to animate a puppet.

It would be much better if you would accurately portray what was being said and being meant by posters. What you have stated is inaccurate.

Sincerely,
K

K,
You are correct. You were referring to Armand's odd presentation of events and not Lieven's. Unfortunately Shane latched onto the phrase and construed it as something Lieven said. Sigh. I will try to be more careful.

Don't you dare use me as a scapegoat for your own deficiencies and poor scholarship on this thread.

Look nvrsaynvr, I did not "latch" on to anything. I merely refuted the "manipulation" statement by concurring with Kevin. Lieven does imply that Napoleon was manipulated by Alexander's geo-politicking or at least individuals within his court's geo-politicking without actually saying it. Armand was the one who came out with it and I refuted it knowing that Armand probably read this into his statement from his conclusions of Lieven's book or his lecture.

It stands to reason, if you have not read a book but someone is making conclusions about it you would think that that persons conclusions were originally from within the book. This is where I was coming from, I thought it would have been obvious all along…And I tried to move away from discussing Lieven's book by repeatedly asking to move away from it and discuss Krasny but you and others kept trying to force me to discuss Lieven's book because you could not successfully win a debate on Krasny, but you could save face by aiming broadsides at me about Lieven simply because I had not read it. That shows a schoolyard mentality of bullying.

How bout you let us all know your real identity instead of hiding behind you account name? You seem to infer a superiority of knowledge and understanding of the period so let us know where that comes from.

Shane

Odd presentation?

Strong words Mr. nvrsaynvr!.

Waiting anxiously your threads presentation to lern more!.

Amicalement
Armand

Kevin it's all conjecture, but since we both recommend Lieven, others can read it and judge the quality of the evidence for themselves. As usual, you are long on declaration and sentiment and a bit short on anything concrete.

The Krasnyi sources cited so far are all in the same ballpark. Most of the French losses are captures, and artillery and lancers versus foot aren't going to take that many casualties. Ozharovski's command scattered like good Cossacks do. Talking about "effectives" is just a dodge.

"… at Krasny in 1812 an old sergeant from Novgorod, declaring that "some day one must finish," rushed alone on to the French bayonets, and opened a way over his body into the enemy's square.(1) ….

(1) Report of Prince Golitsyn, November 24,1812."

This Wiki article gives a fair, straight forward, overview of the multi-day battle:

"The Battle of Krasnoi (Krasny) (November 15 to 18, 1812)":

link

Oh boy, fun with numbers. I haven't played that in a while.

Further, it fails the logic test that if the French lost in excess of 30,000 men at 2d Krasny then the Russians lost only 2,000.

Une contre quinze? Sounds fishy to me too. I'll crack a book and contribute. it's past my bedtime and my brain can't focus on the project I'm working on, so maybe crunching numbers will help put me to sleep.

Aside from those already mentioned, I can add Foord: "the Russians claimed 26,170 prisoners, but at least half of these were the disbanded fugitives." Maybe more significantly, "over 100 guns were taken on the field, and 112 had been abandoned." "Baggage had been taken in heaps." "The Russians only admitted a loss of 2000 men; and it is possible that this is not a gross misstatement." in the preceding pages, Foord notes the levels of exhaustion and starvation in the French ranks. How many effectives did the French have? of the effectives, how many were not very effective anymore due to exhaustion or starvation? of the armed part of the force, we would have to consider only a fraction as truly effectives. But what would Kutuzov have known about that?

So if N had 20-25k effectives (such as they were at that point in the campaign) and lost something like 12k – or if this is exaggerated, say 10k (for easy math) – something like 40% of effectives were lost plus 50% of stragglers, some portion of which could (theoretically) have returned to the ranks in future. Russian losses at Austerlitz were something like 35-40% k/w/c. Adding in over 200 guns, that would seem like a drubbing.Given the nature of the forces engaged, I agree with nvrsaynvr. Lots of horse engaged on the Russian side, I would not expect heavy casualties. 2k may be understated, buit it remains a drubbing for the French even if Russian losses were also 10k or so.

On the other hand, before condemning Kutuzov as "stupid" armed with our pretty good (though conflicting) info on the exact state of the French army and later events, I think we would need to consider what Kutuzov actually knew about the condition of the French. With the stragglers, there are 50,000 +/-, so did Kutuzov know there were 30,000 unarmed or utterly ineffective stragglers? or was he considering a potential French force amounting to anything up to 50,000+ and considered it wasn't worth a roll of the dice? Not to mention what the condition of Kutuzov's forces was. A claimed 80,000, and i suspect Kevin's suggestion that this was exaggerated could well be true, but I'm not sure where the 80k figure came from originally. Foord suggests 70,000, and given conditions we could expect some portion of that, maybe a large portion, to be at well under 100% effectiveness. What was the ammo situation like? were there other factors entering into Kutuzov's decision? none of us knows.

Was it "wrong" or "stupid" to be cautious under the circumstances? Against a Napoleon backed into a corner, with numbers that could not have been known with certainty? Cautious doesn't seem that stupid to me. But then I'm not a gambler and I'm not particularly impulsive, so that would follow.

As for who won, French losses were severe, masses of artillery and baggage (real military baggage or the loot from Moscow?) were taken … not sure how you avoid viewing this as a big victory for the Russians, but obviously not crushing or decisive. A lost opportunity in hindsight. on the French side, it was a successful operation extracting some fragment of the army from a very difficult situation. An excellent job of survival against the odds. Closest comparison I can think of would be Suvorov extracting his force from Switzerland with heavy losses. An amazing operation. But a victory? Lets try defining what constitutes a victory first. When we get 4 different answers, we'll all see why no one agrees on who won.

Common ways of determining victory:

1. you base victory on who inflicts the most damage (percentage wise seems the fairest measure)- this produces a nice quantitative comparison, win/lose/tie, but doesn't consider situation

2. you base victory on who holds the ground in the end – this is often used, but it's problematic in rearguard actions since there is no intention by the defender to retain the ground in the end

3. you base the victory on who achieves mission objectives (the mission objectives of the commanding officer would be the ones that mattered, since he's the one giving the orders) – this one can produce two winners. i tend to like this one.

Any others?

I'd say a combination of #3 and #1 produces the most reasonable justification for claiming victory in most every situation. #1 needs to be considered since a rearguard mission with a mission objective of delaying the enemy and withdrawing is probably a failure if the enemy is delayed but you manage to withdraw with 95% losses or something.

So for Krasnyi, we have the subjective assessment of what level of losses makes the rearguard action/extraction of forces successful, and the subjective assessment of what Kutuzov's actual mission objectives were since I've never seen any indication that these were explicitly recorded by Kutuzov.

40% losses and 200+ guns constitutes a devastating loss of men and materiel. The French deserve credit for a remarkable feat of arms, managing to extract as much of their force as they could. I'll give the French a victory of spirit, of courage and endurance. But losing 40% of effectives and hundreds of guns, what's left of the baggage, etc. …not sure I can find a way to call that a French victory, any more than we can say that Suvorov emerged victorious from Switzerland, remarkable as that accomplishment was.

I vote for Russian victory of the underachieving sort.

discuss amongst yourselves, enjoy. It's past my bedtime. tomorrow night it's miller time, then the honey-dos … i'll check back in sunday or monday.

Alexander I had nothing to fear from his children, as one can see:

Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna, 1799-1800; and

Grand Duchess Elisabeth Alexandrovna, 1806-1808.

Yes, true, if the battle was fought as a contest of arms between two willing opponents then the Russians did win. However, Napoleon was not looking for a fight, his whole objective was to extract his army and continue the retreat. In order to do that he had to break through the Russians who were trying to cut him off.

In the end the French lost more (much more) but the Russians failed to achieve their objectives and the French did achieve theirs. Even Alexander reproached Kutuzov for failing to cut Napoleon off. To me that is a Russian defeat regardless of casualties and losses. Kutuzov had the chance to crush Napoleon and did not, he failed to take advantage of his position and there is no excuse. He failed to gain what was expected of him by his Tsar and got a kick in the pants for it, simple as that.

Shane

'As usual, you are long on declaration and sentiment and a bit short on anything concrete.'

You always have to get in a personal comment, don't you. It's also inaccurate and I do wish you'd knock it off. I've supplied enough material to make conclusions and I've used more references that you've had to supply.

You're use of the pejorative with people you don't agree with is becoming tiresome. I would recommend that you stick to the subject.

Shane is again correct-you cannot refrain from making personal pejorative comments if you aren't 'winning' an argument/discussion.

Sincerely,
K

smith, are you adding anything to the discussion or are you simply trying to provoke another negative response? There is a word for that kind of behavior on a discussion forum.

enquiring minds just want to know…

you obviously do not know how to learn your lesson on this forum and play nice do you smith?

another thread derailed by the one and only smith.

no matter, not too many people wish to read your "input" anymore we have noticed anyway.

are you telling me to leave the discussion? that is a doghousable offense smith…

You are starting to harass now and I do not care for it.

Perhaps you should not have been let out early…

If you have nothing to contribute, why are you posting? Are you merely trying to provoke a fight?

Why don't you just knock if off?

Sincerely,
K

Another Napoleonics "history" thread turned sour, believe it or not. I decided to do a search to see how far back the roots of contentiousness stretch. These two threads enlightened me. One dates back to 2004. The other, is more recent, but some of the posts sum up the issue at play in this and similar threads well.

TMP link

TMP link

I must also note that I miss un Ami's posts and that his reason for leaving TMP and the reason for much of the contentiousness have the same origin.

Perhaps you should try and actually figure out who is throwing the first rock in threads on this forum.

Sincerely,
K

"Mea Culpa" just isn't part of your vocabulary is it . . . But thereby hangs a tale.

all I see is Kevin often quoting fact from his own thorough research and getting personally attacked for it because he replies bluntly. His detractors become sensitive and see it as some kind of attack and then he has to defend himself constantly for daring to point out someone else's mistakes or inaccuracies.

It makes me laugh that he has to constantly endure this kind of treatment. If you go back through all of his posts you see a consistency of historical value added to this forum that people just do not like.

Form where I am sitting it's as though his detractors stomp the floor and beat their fists when Kev produces accurate historical fact to refute opinions of others. Their only way to retort is to attack him personally. I notice Kev, never stoops to their level and tries to keep the discussion at a level above the dirt and grime of others no matter how hard they try to bring him down.

For me, I wallow in the mud just as much as many the rest of you but at least I admit it which is more than I can say for most of Kev's detractors. It is frustrating how it is the same people who reduce the threads to this level without actually contributing to the discussion. They instead only enter the thread to try to put the blame for the deterioration of the thread on those genuinely interested in debate and discussing the topic. lol what foolish behavior.

obviously the DH did you no good smith, let out way too early I suspect indeed. Since you chimed in the thread went noticeably south.

Shane have you ever considered that posting twenty times on a thread about a book you have not read yet, might be part of the problem?

"I would have to agree that much of the material I found in Lieven's new book has already been published in other accounts." 4th post of the thread, posted by Kev. :O

<;^}

nvrsaynvr

Have you also not noticed I constantly tried to avoid discussing a book I freely admitted I have not read but you and a couple of others constantly insisted I discuss the book??

re-read mate, if you go back to the originator of this thread, Armand, he only speaks about "new evidence" he does not specifically mention Lieven. I made comments about your idea of who won Krasny but you and others suggested that maybe I read Lieven after I had already responded to the Krasny saga. This had nothing to do with Lieven but because I made a single mistaken comment about it you and others began to act like vultures and kept drawing me on Lieven which I constantly made perfectly clear I wished not to discuss. I even made it clear I admitted my mistake but that was not good enough. Have you wondered wether that was part of the problem also ???

This thread was not about Lieven at all, it was about new evidence about the Russian campaign. Your post about who won each battle had nothing to do with Lieven's book either but did that stop you posting it on this thread??? no it did not.

p.s. smith you are getting obnoxious now and irritating, I suggest you knock it off, your behavior is bordering on harassment and going completely beyond the pale. It is similar to that of a child.

what new research, all this was published already 100 years ago, like in the French work by Fabry.

3rd post down, posted by VW…

'It is frustrating how it is the same people who reduce the threads to this level without actually contributing to the discussion. They instead only enter the thread to try to put the blame for the deterioration of the thread on those genuinely interested in debate and discussing the topic. lol what foolish behavior.'

Shane,

Again, you're correct. And those same people blame others for 'ruining' threads when it is they themselves who start the ad hominem attacks that take the threads off course. Then they like to blame others when someone 'leaves' the forum. People that I have seen leave usually do so because their statements are questioned. Then they get in a huff because all of their material isn't accepted and blame others for their departure. It's nonsense.

Have you noticed that those who usually want to apportion blame are the ones who contribute the least?

Don't let the baiters and blamers get you down. Armand sets up great questions and I suggest that the marplots be ignored and we continue to discuss. There are more than enough of the members who want to talk about the period.

Sincerely,
K

Gentle readers, all I can say is oh dear.

I leave this thread overnight and what do I find, what 'Lest we Forget' shows, how easily threads degenerate. Not just here but going back over years. What do we find it's the same few names that keep cropping up again.

All we need to make things complete is Peter Hofschroer allowed back on the forum.

The 'Merkins have a expression 'failed sandbox 101' basically mean that people have not learned to play nicely together.

To be frank I'm considering getting my account suspended and leaving TMP for good because of this kind of thing.

Armand/Tango does usually post some very interesting questions.

Cousin Armand does post interesting questions.

It is a shame some of us can't be trusted to answer them like gentlemen.

Elliott,

Exactly. I thought we had an excellent discussion underway and then the 'blame and accusatory' game ensues which kills the discussion. Perhaps that was the object of the interventions and exercise.

Sincerely,
K

When you are new in the forum and read…

""Napoleon History – For academic-level discussion of Napoleonic history""

Well, you get later a bad surprice.

HOPE, really Hope that my cousin James never quit the forum as Kevin, Shane and all who loves history in general and Napoleon Era in particular.
I had to understand that Mr. Smith is jocking.
kidding with the thread and maybe the answer is not continue the kidding-line.
I respect A LOT Mr. Smith but I had to admit that sometimes he surprice me acting as a "mocking spirit".

Amicalement
Armand

Kevin,

Exactly. Krasny can be viewed as a French victory because the Russians failed they failed to destroy the army. We can differentiate between formed French units and the disorganised mob that followed the army the difference in losses can also be explained. If the Russians took any of these prisoners then that would explain the losses quoted by Digby Smith. That said, in the long term Krasny was a victory that Napoleon could ill afford.

It is not entirely surprising the Lieven does not devote that much time to 1812 it is because that is not the thrust of his work.

Where Lieven, together with authors like Adam Zamoyski and Alexander Mikaberidze, make an incredibly useful contribution to the studies is that they have drawn on original Russian source material that has not been avliable to western historians during the Soviet period.

Now I did go back the original question and with due apologies to cousin Armand, I have rephrased his questions in the hope that we can get back to the basis of this tread;

(1) The Russians had an intelligence advantage over the French. (Lieven details this in both his book and lecture.)
The Russians therefore knew of the overall French plan and were able to counter it. The French, laking similar intelligence on the Russians were thus placed at a disadvantage?

OPINIONS ON THIS QUESTION WOULD BE WELCOMED.

I would make the additional comment: The Russians were aware of that Napoleon was not satisfied with their adherance to the Treaty of Tilset terms that they follow the continental system. Was it reasonable for Napoleon to insist on terms that he should reasonably have know the Russians could not keep? This is, of course, a question that has been answered by Charles Esdaile 'Napoleon's Wars: An International History, 1803-1815'.

(2) The Russians, knowing that Napoleon was planning a short sharp war lasting only a couple of months were able to counter this with a Fabian strategy. In this respect Alexander and Kutuzov could be said to have played Napoleon by forcing him to follow deeper and deeper into Russia and thus abandon his original plan and fight a campaign he was ill-equiped to win.

OPINIONS ON THIS QUESTION WOULD BE WELCOMED.

So lets tyre and overcome the ADHD and answer the questions gentle reader.

Best,

Elliott

Elliott,

My point is that there is no proof that the Russians were deliberately using a Fabian strategy. At the last point before the invasion, there were still Russian generals who wanted to attack into Poland.

The Drissa strategy, which was not a Fabian strategy, but an attempt to lure Napoleon into a strategic trap, failed.

After that, the Russians had great problems and sometimes got lost in their own country.

Napoleon also found out about the Russian spy network and broke it up. Unfortunately, the Russian officer who ran it escaped.

After the battle of Smolensk there is also no evidence of a deliberate plan to lure Napoleon deeper into Russia. Barclay de Tolly was relieved and replaced by Kutusov precisely because he didn't stand and fight a decisive battle.

Well done, by the way, on getting us back on track.

Sincerely,
K

EXCELENT questions my cousin!.

I had to dig on my books and tried to comment about them.

Amicalement
Armand

Wow- what a threat! First there is an idiotic assumption with a question- followed by 2 pages of bellybutton lintdigging.
Academic discussion-? Sounds like same "science" as Aryan racial supremacy- lets compare some toe nails! Jeebis- help us all.

And no sooner than we are back on track, than we discover Casey Jones is driving…

Look, Professor Lieven has written 600 pages on how Alexander and the Russian spent two years planning for a long war, a national war, a war of flank attacks and supply raids and avoidance of battle; of diplomatic preparations to secure the flanks and to prepare to follow up by liberating central Europe.

Fortunately none of this is "proof" (huh??) so Kiley doesn't have to explain why he disagrees. He just does.

The Russians were totally befuddled and accidently stumbled upon the one thing that might trip Napoleon up, luring him out of Smolensk. If he had stayed, he would have obviously won the war, his political and military vunerabilities to a long war would (swish I'm a fairy Godmother) all have disappeared, and the Russians would have lost all heart (swish) and sued for peace. Napoleon was not only the most interesting man in the world, he was also the most competent. Only Napoleon could have defeated Napoleon. Thus Maloyaroslavets is not (despite obvious appearances) the success of the Russians anticipating his move towards Kaluga and establishing themselves in a blocking position, but the failure of Napoleon to chose to blow right through them with his ever victorious Grand Armee…

The Russian couldn't outwit anyone. They could never best the Grand Armee. And sure, Napoleon lost, but that was only because his noble ambitions for a United Europe caused him to aspire too far and get unlucky…

How am I doing?

Padam- tchhhh!

[Fortunately none of this is "proof" (huh??) so Kiley doesn't have to explain why he disagrees. He just does.]

You're just discovering this now? I've been watching this show for a decade.

The sanctimony has been amped-up a few notches, but otherwise plus ça change…

I was doing some rearranging of my bookcases/sources and ran across my MWAN collection. I opened a few up and #51 (May/June 1991) has an article from Sam Mustafa "An Open Letter to Game Designers Everywhere." The survey that you referred to likely still applies (about preferences of new gamers vs. veteran gamers).

Anyway, I fondly remember the wargame and military history magazines of the past (I miss EE&L also and much prefer its discussion via print). I didn't realize the "show" has been going on for a decade. I'm glad I've missed most of the episodes. I'm waxing nostalgic, but other than the wonderful real time TMP painting and product advice and ability to get information about units, etc., I just have a feeling that the "historical" discussions are not of the same par.

"… and sometimes got lost in their own country."

Clear proof of Russian incompetence, eh? <;^}

I am astounded just how vitriolic some people can get here. How the same old tired faces just keep on laying on the personal attacks and get away with it time after time. You guys make me sick, you act like children in a school yard bullying an goading each other on with the insults.

It reminds me of a pack of sharks circling their prey and then with the smell of blood in the water charging in for a feeding frenzy.

You all should be ashamed, disgusted and embarrassed with yourselves. You should all take a step or two back and see what you are doing. You are guilty of Pathetic, foolish, dishonorable behavior which you seem to be getting away with. I have seen 6 year old birthday parties with less drama, discord, temper tantrums, fingers in the eyes and stomping of feet and beating of the chest over ownership of toys than you lot.