"6 Reasons Why Napoleon Invaded Russia" Topic

"Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 is remembered as one of the great disasters of his reign. Despite tactical successes on the battlefield, he was soundly beaten strategically.

The Russians withdrew, scorching the ground behind them. The French were left without supplies or shelter as a harsh winter closed in. Pursued by the Russians, they retreated with enormous losses.

Meanwhile, the British, Portuguese and Spanish continued to push back French forces in the Iberian Peninsula, the other front on which Napoleon could have deployed his troops…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

1. Thought he had too many soldiers cluttering up his army.
2. Misread that brochure about "..the wonderful apres-ski scene".
3. I look much taller in fur.
4. If I get in my 10,000 steps a day, Josephine will fancy me again.
5. I hear you get a very warm welcome in Moscow.
6. This will get those cursed English worried.

There was only one reason – muscovites invasion army on border.

Sho – I cannot agree at all, those poor two armies of muscovites pitched against the allmighty? The Russian Army wasn't concentrated at all.

for me

megalomania
personal disorder

And where is any credible source material for your false accusation of 'megalomania' and a personality disorder'?

Or do you have a degree in psychology that we don't know about?

There was only one reason – muscovites invasion army on border.

Close.

Alexander had decided on war as early as 1810. And he massed troops on the Duchy of Warsaw's border in an attempt to 'convince' the Poles that they should be part of Russia with the Tsar as head of state.

There's a reason the French called the war 'The Second Polish War.'

From the cited article:

Rumours of Warsaw:

Meanwhile, rumors circulated that Russia had plans for another country that Napoleon considered his – the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.

The region that is now Poland had often been the subject of diplomatic disputes and invasions. Its inhabitants had been passed from one hand to another for centuries, their fate seldom their own. It appeared the same pattern was about to be repeated.

The Grand Duchy was a French ally, one of the most loyal in Eastern Europe. The idea that Russia might invade was both plausible and unsettling. As rumors grew, it became increasingly evident that Russia was no longer a friend. She was a threat to the very existence of the French Empire.

"..Russia had plans for another country that Napoleon considered his.."
Definitely all Russia's fault then….

And where is any credible source material for your false accusation of 'megalomania' and a personality disorder'?

Or do you have a degree in psychology that we don't know about?

Yeah, I know it's a rerun, but there's not much on TV. I'm caught up on all my series.

John!

Ego, ego, ego!

As someone who was trained as economist, I tend to look for the economic causes.

The "Continental System" or Napoleon's reverse blockade was having a deleterious effect on the Russian economy. If Russia withdrew from the "Continental System" It's economy would improve. With limited trade opportunities for exports Russia was facing a major crisis. Napoleon could not afford this defection.

Actually I prefer the Russian term for the conflict, Отечественная война 1812 года, (Otechestvennaya voyna 1812 goda) or the Patriotic War of 1812. This clearly distinguishes the war from the North American sideshow.

Actually Russia followed the "Continental System" only less than year and this caused no troubles to economy. But economy was ruined anyway. Because of creation the new huge armies to invade against Napoleon.

And war was named "Patriotic" long after the war, by Czar's order. Muscovites have habits to name their offensive wars as "Patriotic" when their planned victims temporarily punch back and muscovites lose part of lands they annexed earlier.

I'm with my cousin….

Amicalement
Armand

Because he couldn't invade Britain; his fleet was sunk. And once you make an army of half a million soldiers they need something to do.

Exactly. Russian Czar builded an army of full million soldiers and wanted to use them. Megalomania and personal disorder forced Alexander to break all agreements and promises.

In 1811 there were concentrated 200.000 muscovites against 56.419 French in garrisons all over Germany. Fortunately to Napoleon muscovites don't invaded this year. They don't haved commander to their armies, Wellington refuses to become russian.

In 1812 there were 393.000 muscovites with 1600 guns against rapidly mobilized Napoleon's troops: 155.400 French and 170.500 Allies with 984 guns.
And after long delay, giving muscovites possibility to confirm peace, operation to force the muscovites to peace begins. War was inevitable, Czar ruined all Russian economy and conscripted hundreds and hundreds thousands soldiers for perfidious war against friendly Napoleon. Like Stalin a century later and Putin now.

Hubris

Napoleon had pretty much been able to have his way with his continental enemies by invading them (Spain being an exception and it was that pesky Royal Navy that he could blame) – conquerors are kind of like cannonballs, they keep going until they hit a wall

The concept of "natural borders" and "defensible frontiers" can be quite flexible, once you have absorbed the previous ones.

Russia wasn't going at all to invade, this was contrary to their study of how to defeat Boney, it was agreed, that best would be to withdraw as much as possible, strike at an opportune moments and make the lines of supplies for Boney as long as possible.

Initial offensive moves against Boney all failed in the past, I cannot see that the Czar was as meagalomaniac and suffering to such an extend of personal disorder than Boney, he still was able to listen to advisers.

Napoleon always had the interests of his great friend Poland at the forefront of his mind and he was worried sick that Russia might invade so he decided to lure them into a true sense of security by invading with insufficient time to get to Moscow before winter.

I believed this too in past, von Winterfeldt. But this was muscovites myth, cultivated after war. When Czar and his Guard leaved their capital and moved to War in March 1811, there were only offensive plans. Some units haved orders to directly move through Germany to the borders of France. Like Stalin in 1941, Alexander had no defensive plans in 1811.
With 200.000 muscovites against 50.000 French, who need defensive plans? Only competent overall commander was needed.

Alexander was moved by colossal envy. He wanted to be the hero of the era, but there was Napoleon. Czar says, there are no place for both of us but only for one of us. And he ruined his empire with only one goal – to destroy Napoleon.

Sorry Sho I cannot agree at all with your reasoning though I have the deficiency that I cannot read Russian unlike you.

First, why are there 50.000 occupation soldiers in Germany anyway of the French. Then of course in contrast to Russia, Boney is not standing alone in troops on the spot, he has the whole confederation of the Rhine as well as Italy, Naples, Prussia and Austrians as Allies, he could bring easily those forces quickly to 200,000 and above.

There he starts contemplating the invasion already in 1810 /11 and starting with preparation – the arguments that it would be a pre emptive strike is collapsing.

Russia was in no ways strong enough to take on whole central Europe.

Due to being clever at gathering intelligence, they well knew about the invasion plans and build up of troops – consequently they are also deploying units at their border.

There I can base my assumptions only on German, French and English works, you might have more recent Russian sources, but reading authors like Lieven, Fabrey and even Sokolov – I try to find a balanced view.

If Napoleon cared so much for the Polish people, then why wasn't that entity created as an independent state of Poland? Why was it created as the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, subordinated to Saxony?

Actually, just Duchy of Warsaw…

Ah. So it wasn't even Grand…

John the OFM, I can't think of many in Europe who've been screwed over by other nations so badly and often as the Poles.

Regardless, putting client states on Russian borders rarely works well in the long run, as highlighted recently. I'm sure Alexander would have loved to drive on Paris but I don't think he was a complete idiot. The last two exursions had ended badly and Napoleon wasn't in Spain, with far more than 50,000 troops available, something that will have become increasingly obvious.

All these thoughts and figures are drawn from the recent book of the Russian publicist Panasenkov (he is also a television actor, television presenter), tenor singer, amateur historian). He builds his career on shocking and creating new "historical sensations". All of his books have a clear anti-Russian overtones, counting on the demand in the West. Although he occasionally publishes links to fairly interesting documents, I would not seriously discuss his "research".

Did the Duchy of Warsaw ever have a Duke?
I'm confused.

"All of his books have a clear anti-Russian overtones, counting on the demand in the West."

And none of these historical works from Ponasenkov are published in western languages.

Of cource Russian imperialists-communists try to insignificance and label as anti-Russian all the research that tells the truth about muscovites history. Like shooting down passenger airlines, annexing the Crimea or similar unstoppable agression in the Napoleonic era.

@VW

"First, why are there 50.000 occupation soldiers in Germany anyway of the French."

Because most of Germany was occupied. To prevent revolts and Prussian attempts to betrayal.
The last cause works well.

"he could bring easily those forces quickly to 200,000 and above."

And he did. After knowing, that Alexander builded up huge armies and marched to war in beginning of 1811, Napoleon in 1812 concentrated against almost 400.000 Russians more than 300.000 French (155.400) and Allied (170.500) troops.

"Russia was in no ways strong enough to take on whole central Europe."

True. This is one of the reasons, why muscovites offensive did not started in 1811, despite all preparations.
It was planned to do as earlier years, together with Austria and Prussia. But both expected Allies failed to switch sides.

Wait- what? "Revolts." Revolts against whom?

You prefer "uprising"?

so friendly Boney needs occupation force to curb allies into submission? In 1809 we have Schill, Prussian Kings stayed subdued – the Duke of Brunswick – both dealt quite well with depleted Confederation of the Rhine states and Kingdom of Holland (still existing to the devine good will of Boney) most of them were fighting in Spain and against Austria – in 1810 – nothing, in 1811 nothing.

Russia had to fear all the time that by Boney the almighty the Kingdom of Poland may be restored in old splendor.

"Russia had to fear all the time that by Boney the almighty the Kingdom of Poland may be restored in old splendor."

And? This was his big mistake, that he did not do it.
And he did not do it exactly because do not to irritate muscovites. (and Austrians)

@Brechtel198

"Or do you have a degree in psychology that we don't know about?"

What's the point? When a whole group of eminently qualified practitioners do a forensic survey of correspondence and eyewitness testimony you reject the scientifically peer reviewed results as "psychobabble".

I'm sure all of the forensic psychologists out there are off to the labour exchange to look for new jobs off the back of that one!

And? This was his big mistake, that he did not do it.

Indeed quite typical of Boney to treat firm allies like rubbish.

Indeed quite typical of Boney to treat firm allies like rubbish.

Which ones?

You prefer "uprising"?

I prefer a clearer understanding as to who was rising up against whom, and why?

Looking for Waldo? ;^)

Crimean War

NOT very long after this the memorable Crimean War broke out against the Russians. This war was exceptionally inevitable and was caused by a number of causes.

Causes of the Crimean War

(a) The English had not yet fought against the Russians,

(b) The Sick Man of Europe (cured later by Florence Nightingown).

(c) Russia was too big and was pointing in the direction of India.

(d) The Holy Places. The French thought that the Holy Places ought to be guarded (probably against the Americans) by Latin Monks, while the Turks, who owned the Places, thought that they ought to be guarded by Greek Monks. England therefore quite rightly declared war on Russia, who immediately occupied Roumania.

Impressive scholarship there, 4th. Can I call you 4th?
It's what we've come to expect in Napoleonic Discussion.

I have read stupider on here!