Napoleon Justifies His Disastrous Invasion of Russia (1812) // From His Diaries and Letters 

Thats the strange thing with personal rule. The interests of the state supercede everything, there is no room for friendship, even if it is between two emperors.

This is actually a feeling I've found to be widespread in ancient times. The most recent one I've seen was in WW1 (read the following excerpt from Wikipedia) " 1915 Proposals to bomb Britain were first made by Paul Behncke, deputy chief of the German Naval Staff, in August 1914.[11] These were backed by Alfred von Tirpitz, who wrote that "The measure of the success will lie not only in the injury which will be caused to the enemy but also in the significant effect it will have in diminishing the enemy's determination to prosecute the war".[12] The campaign was approved by the Kaiser on 7 January 1915, who at first forbade attacks on London, fearing that his relatives in the British royal family might be injured. " So the guy was afraid that the royal family might be injured but wasn't afraid to try to conquer their country and go to war and kill millions of the royal family's subjects... I think our modern view of war is not at all comparable to how they thought about it before.

He was trying to insinuate himself between the Czar and his advisors, trying to pretend the Czar was his friend. Too bad they couldn’t have met directly to discuss their feelings.

He actually belived that. Napoleon had strange man crush on Russian tzar and actually thought about him as of friend. Whole invasion was in first place a punitive campain to force Russia to uphold naval blocade of Britain to with Russians agreed but never respected. He never planned to occupy Russia and his initial plans never intended to go to war with Russia in first place.

@@sfdsfdffsdfsdf7483 "Napoleon had strange man crush on Russian tzar". Nope, it was the complete opposite if anything. The Tzar loved Napoleon until Talleyrand started snitching and creating fusion between the two.

Yeah Napoleon reminds me a lot of Augustus in that he talks a good game but he was pretty disgusting in his actions. Basically a flat out dictator who didn't want to be called as such.

@@jaythompson5102 we call them "Enlightened despots"-Lackey of enlightened despot

@@jaythompson5102, You might be thinking about Caesar, not Augustus. Even Caesar's contemporaries were shocked by his brutality in Gaul. Augustus was a superlative statesman who reigned close to forty years and died of old age.

@@fuferito Oh no I'm not confusing the two. Augustus was a prick of the highest order. He kidnapped wealthy land owners and had them killed merely because he wanted to give their land away. He wasted so many lives on plans like the naval attacks on Sicily that were ridiculously ham fisted (he was terrible at anything related to warfare). But worse than all of that, he continued to break with social/religious conventions that Sulla and Ceasar by bringing soldiers into the Senate and forum and threaten senators in order to force them to pass laws. He was a cold, emotionless killer who even exiled his only daughter because she didn't fit with his politics and felt she embarrassed him. Oh yeah I almost forgot he caused a massive famine in Rome and when people rebelled he massacres them in the streets.

@@jaythompson5102 And he had Caesar's only biological son killed too, which was a pretty shitty move after all Caesar had done for him.

Well it's not like thats ALL they had. Napoleon used supply wagons for this invasion

@@arkhammemery4712 something he was not used to, since he preferred foraging, which scorched earth made impossible.

@@arkhammemery4712 a lot of his soldiers were convinced the meat rations were left over from the previous war because of its condition. Hell they didn't even have anything to drink for periods of time that soldiers were drinking from pools of water that laid dead horses and men

I don’t disagree that this was a terrible disaster of war time history but he said “we have 25 tons of flour” then proceeded to tell the general that instead of complaining about a lack of rations he should wake up at 4 in the morning with the millers and bakers to make 30,000 rations a day which I mean is completely different from what you said

Well at the beginning, towards the end 30,000 rations would have been enough

_This is fine_

To be fair military deaths were pretty common back then. You could expect, on paper to lose percentages of your army to various things like disease on every campaign. It was expected. Especially during winter campaigns, which is why they were usually avoided. The longer a campaign went, the more soldiers you would probably lose, outside of battle as well as in battle.

"I can make it work" Famous last words

@@MrBottlecapBill It helps if you plan on feeding your troops.

3 quarters of his army ? Really ? Russians lost EVERY battle at this moment, and their capital was in ashes. So Yes, I would call that a good situation.

He wanted all europe to bow to him and russia was having non of it.He thought he was invincible and that he will crush russians quickly somewhere in poland.Alexander even warned him that they will retreat and the climate will do the rest but only he knows what was happening in his head.

The disaster was partly down to Napoleon's own poor planning. He entered Russia with a large army of men and horses but little in the way of food for either thinking he could live off the land but the Russians had already destroyed crops and driven away animals. There were a lot of Russian skirmishers which made the lives of French foraging parties difficult. On the road to Moscow the Russians harassed and delayed the French Army and when they eventually got there the Russians set fires to deny the French food and shelter. Napoleon stayed too long in Moscow so his army had to make their retreat through a Russian winter without proper clothing while being pursued by Russian forces and still unable to feed his remaining men and horses

@@duncanmacpherson2013 not neccesarily planning, he just had a different mindset than was realistic. He thought he'd win 1 or 2 decisive battles and get peace. Instead the Russians kept delaying battle after battle and even when he wun the peace offers never came.

@@yugatrasclart4439 Yeah, it was completely different from his previous wars. It had worked every time until that point. Russia is just different. They couldn't hope to beat Napoleon's Army. So they used the Fabian strategy of denial and scorched earth, and leveraged their two big advantages: the huge space of Russia, and Old Man Winter.

Well about your point. You are totally right, let me explain a bit (in my english sorry) Napoleon didn't wanted this war, (well he actually wanted none) but in particular he believed who he had already achieved everything to made peace, and then Russia and Britain allied themselves, and the Tsar wanted to invade Poland, So Napoleon send a massive army to the border, where he was going to push, the 1st Army under Barcally towards the Dvina Camp, and then move southwards in a pincer movement towards the 2nd Army under Bagration and anhilate it, but Barcally whitdrew so quickly who the Frenchs begun a persuit of his army, and didn't foccus until too late on the more agressive Bagration. After the enemy armies where united and beyond his reach, Napoleon, (who was not his former self in any sense) continued towards the enemy, but then (he become too cautious, let the task to his less capable marshalls and generals, hessitate too much, was driven more by the political gain of capture Smolensk rather than trap the enemy) when the moment of the battle came he do a surprisingly simple battle plan who was not intended on a kind of anhilation victory, as proposed by Davout, (one if not his best marshall).

His vision was augmented.

Why did he want to join the russian army

@@loganperkins8459 The French army was not willing to promote him due to his Corsican accent.

@@loganperkins8459 and also The Russian army was willing to pay more for good officers

@@loganperkins8459 A lot of foreigners served in the Russian army and Navy. Germans, English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, French.

He had also applied to the Turkish Sultan for military commission.

With which he bumped him by his ears.

But, it did succeed, and you're absolutely correct.

@Gadjiglo Znone Germans if defeated ussr would have simply colonised the western russia(till urals)and they would have got plenty of oil and other resources to build more planes,which would have devastated uk,making dday impossible.(So hitler's invasion of ussr is a calculated one based on ideology and resources since he knew invading uk is impossible without sufficient resources.)

@@tsarnature6587 meh, Germany controlling a devastated USSR would only delay the end of the war. The US would still outproduce Germany and then...atom bombs.

@@lordbrain8867 Anything is possible in this scenario.if ussr was defeated the Germans would have accelarated their research in jets,v2 rocket,atom bombs(probably) and would have started producing them,german engineering is simething not to be underestimated.You cannot drop atom bomb without achieving air superiority on germany(Here germany has an airsuperiority over english channel).But these are my *Guesses*

Matan Guberman. Occupying Russia, would be more difficult then beating it. Frankly, both are pretty much impossible.

He talks in a flowery way, like an overly decent nice guy, in a massive discrephancy with his actions. I don’t understand who is he trying to fool with this. Is it for us, written as a future propaganda piece? Did he really think in the way he wrote? Hard to believe. Did the Russians bought into this exchange between oh so honorable gentlemen? Definately no. Then at which audience is this aimed at? Lying to himself? Well that is fascinating if true.

@@kliljkip3184 The excerpts are adressed to multiple people, at least twice letters to alexander are read, three to four times it is to his army and marshals giving orders, one or two were adressed to someone in Paris (possibly Telleyrand don't know) and possibly to his wife while the rest were notes to himself. It is fascinating the fronts he puts up to all these different people, and genuninely think with speech notes about the battle of borodino ( 5:35) are fascinating in terms of rethorical ability. However the slight glimpse of his very personal insight 6:18 "the men suffered very much." but it's hidden away underneath moutains of persona's he keeps up to the outside world and to himself, maybe because he fears what would happen when doubts begin to set in... This source must be read in full it is absolutely intergral in order to gain a better insight into the man that was Napoleon.

Napoleon wanted to be loved by every one. He sought to do what all the other great conquers through out history had failed to do. His views on Christ are also funny. He starts of very much against Christ but later views him as divine. The one thing that seems to be consistent about Napoleon is that he didn't lie to himself and he could adapt to his mistakes. The problem is when your playing the great game as he was one mistake could crush you,

@@kinggundragon3728 Napoleon wanted to be the modern day Alexander the Great.

@@matthewbadley5063 no he wanted to go further than that. He wanted to be deified. He planed to form the largest empire ever created and then disappear so people would think he was a god. If he had won we would have Napoleon cults today.

Tolstoy greatly misrepresented Napoleon

@@maxborisenko8272 How could he? It was a work of fiction. 🙄

@@Psychol-Snooper which doesn’t necessarily imply that some important characters must be misrepresented as a rule. The book itself is significant though

Tolstoy was of the opinion that Nappy wasn't really such a great genius because war by its nature was incontrollable and that his successes were mostly a case of coin flipping the right side. He also claimed that Russians didn't burn Moscow and instead it was a natural result of a wooden city being looted while being completely devoid of dedicated fire brigades.

@@nebeskisrb7765 which is a nonsense. tolstoy was a fool of a man when it came to history and art of war, where his patriotism blinded him and made him call cowardice and weakness of his compatriots the biggest glory in the history of the nation

What a coincidence, its been said by a guy with a communist pfp... _He said so..._

​@@paranoidandroid6095nato bot

It wasn't though. He left his troops under command of other generals he trusted as he thought he had more important things to do.

And he tried to abandon France completely after Waterloo, but he was caught by the Royal Navy. Not to mention he ignored the latter part of the Peninsular War as things got worse for the French.

@@yugatrasclart4439 So how do you explain when Napoleon tried to abandon France completely after Waterloo? What was so important to him other than saving his own behind?!

@@lsatep He was forced to abdicate, sorry but he really wasn't capable of doing anything. He wanted to go into exile in the US. Nothing's wrong with that considering he spent the last 20 years fighting for france

@@lsatep Because France was taken over by the Borbons, the French senate forced him to abdicate, he initially wanted to stay and fight but he was convinced to flee to america

It was the first age of largely literate soldiers, definitely gonna be a gold mine for this channel

@@georgeptolemy7260 what percent were literate do u think, roughly?

@@georgeptolemy7260 quite interesting. I had assumed until now it was only officers with very few exceptions that were literate.

I get why he is one of your favorite historical people...if you are a fan of warmongering, reckless military dictators that end in defeat and disgrace. Maybe you should go back in time and talk to the teenage French conscripts who he forced into military service, sacrificing them to be cut down way before their time. Or the Russian peasants who lost everything they owned in the invasion. Or the Prussian soldiers who got their heads blown off in battle. Or the Spanish ally Napoleon cowardly stabbed in the back. Or the French civilians who were forced to give up their possessions to help the army. Or the Haitian people who had to fight to prevent re-enslavement after they had already broken their shackles. Or the Polish soldiers who died for Napoleon's empty and false promises. Don't forget to talk to all the monasteries that were pillaged, all the stores that were looted, all the farms that were ravaged, all the women that were raped, and all the civilian's that were murdered under Napoleon's the lives that Napoleon destroyed would love to hear about you being a Napoleon fan. Get real people, Napoleon was an opportunist out for himself above all else. If he was a true reformed noble leader, why did he usurp power and crown himself Emperor? Why did he establish a secret police to rule with an iron fist? Why did he wage war until the very end for a hopeless cause causing tens of thousands of more deaths? Why did he reject the generous peace terms over and over? Why was he insistent upon his son's succession against the will of the people? Why did he return to wage even more battles? Why did he backstab Spain in the back if it wasn't for the fact he wanted her vast Empire? It is so obvious how everything points to his ego and hunger for power you have to blind not to see it. Whenever justice and liberty and Napoleon's interests were in conflict his, selfish interests always won out. A biased historian who wish to hide the truth may have fooled you, but Napoleon was out for Napoleon. Napoleon killed millions of innocent people, and put millions more through unimaginable suffering out of pure megalomania.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators the long paragraph was unnecessary however anybody who looks at Napoleon and thinks he was a great man or some kind of genius is the exact same kind of idiot that he would’ve looked down upon as a pawn for him to use.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators it was literally the longest, saddest waste of time for you to write that! I pity the cats you live with. “Favorite” doesn’t mean that I think he was a good person, nor fully endorse every action and decision he took in his life. This is such a stupid and childish way to interpret what I wrote that it’s hilarious. Of course Napoleon was out for Napoleon! Eric Cartman is always out for himself too. It doesn’t make him good, but he’s still the most interesting or entertaining character on South Park. It works similarly in real life. For better or worse, Napoleon completely shaped his era of history, effecting everything that happened afterwards, including possibly your very fucking existence. I’m sorry he makes you want to cry in your pillow. Cowboy the fuck up sweetums.

You do have to admit he had a destiny about him. Born to a man who was so bankrupt (thanks to the rootlet wheel) that he nearly had to ask a friend to loan him money to send Napoleon to military school. Treated badly at the military school. Became one of the best of the Revolution's commanders - where others were defeated, Napoleon seemed to triumph. Crossed the Alps using the same route Hannibal used centuries before. Saw the pharaoh's tomb of the pyramids - starting the modern science of Egyptology in the process. Staged a miracle coup. Conquered more land than the Nazis ever did. Defeated, exiled to an island, then he returned. He marched on Paris without a shot fired. Armies were sent to kill him on route there - one speech later, said army was marching with him! He did not do that once but multiple times of turning the army on heel to "take the French crown from a gutter" . Fought Waterloo. Then another island - this time with a British gunboat permanently anchored in the harbor - at least until his death. On his death, his body was taken back to Paris, buried as emperor.

@@peterwindhorst5775 not destiny, but luck and charisma, but eventually his luck ran out. If he wasn’t born in the era he was in, he likely would have never ruled France

@King of the Lilin maybe. I’m not the first to call Shaka that. His military reforms in tactics and weapons were vital to Zulu expansion. Both Napoleon and Shaka were gifted with military minds, so I wouldn’t say it out of the question to compare their military genius’s.just takes a proper perspective and respect for the differences.

@King of the Lilin Shaka managed to do quite a few extraordinary things, for being a “basic tribal chief”

I think Napoleon is trying to give the Tsar a way out without having to admit making a mistake or any wrongdoing by suggesting blaming the whole war on advisors and the army. Napoleon still wants a peace deal on relatively friendly terms because he doesn't want to have to fight much deeper into Russia. Turns out the Tsar had other plans.

That was such sophisticated late 2000s/early 2010s gaming moment.

Napoleon thought that Alexander I was weak and could easily be manipulated, cowed and won over to Napoleon’s designs. He was catastrophically wrong in this regard. By the end of March 1814, Tsar Alexander I entered Paris at the head of the Sixth Coalition’s army

Wtf didn't know that, are there many other borrowed words? I was told Cauchemar and trottoir were called the same in Russian lol

@@tictac2therevenge291 Another 2 swear words coined in Russian from grand retreat of the grand armée - "shval" (cheval) - "riffraff" - as ragtag soldiery ate their horses. Many captured frenchmen went to serve as teachers at Russian gentry households (language, fencing, dancing, singing). The latter produced word “shantrapa” (Сhantra pas) - "good-for-nothing".

@@jaqenhgar2264 chantera pas means i will not sing haha

Even more so is fear which is a far greater drive than mere ego. In Napoleon's case, it was fear that Russia's deceit wouldn't end with Russia that drove him to his empire's undoing.

It was Alexanders fault

but its also ego which drives us forward and be successful

but before all that it brought him eternal fame and a place among the greatest individuals in history

Yeah and he gave him all his reserve of wine to them during the construction

It would be wrong to call Napoleon a sociopath. He was "just" delusional.

@@revanofkorriban1505 You have a point. I'm no psychologist. He simply didn't seem to have the sort of regard for human life that we would prefer leaders have.

@@BlueBaron3339 He was pretty typical amongst his peers, when you look at him. The job of a soldier for most of history was to kill and be killed. A lot of men, after reaching their height, get out of touch with the men who helped bring him there. For example, Alexander the Great led his men through a desert, incurring high casualties and suffering, for no better reason than to put another achievement on his resume.

@@revanofkorriban1505 Good points. Never was a fan of Alexander either, largely because of what you say. Separated by so much time, it's easy to forget the sorts of people "conquerers" truly were.

@@BlueBaron3339 I don't think it's special tbh, if you were in their position I feel like you would have the same experience as theirs.

Not because of him, but because the enemies of the people, who where his enemies, the reactionary and opressive gobernments of Europe didn't tolerate a revolution

Actually you should read who attacked who in those wars.

Only through your country’s military prowess do you even have the opportunity to ponder such trivialities.

This was in a letter to Alexander, right? If so, it was probably a bluff. "Your strategy of burning down Moscow totally didn't work, we still got all the supplies, so you'd better surrender right now before we all starve and freeze to death!"

This is what Poles did in 1612 instead of retreating they occupied Moscow read on resoults. You cant just occupy city in hostile land with out controling the country side if Napoleon stayed in Moscow city supply would run out city it self would be surrounded by Russian army and finally starved to submission. If anything he spent too much time in Moscow.

Yaaaaas!

That was the plan but he was convinced by his Marshals and Generals led by Bessieres to push ahead. Other generals like Poniatowski tried to convince him to campaign in the resource rich south. If Napoleon fortified at Smolensk the campaign may have turned out different. It makes sense though that he chose to pursue the army and not retreat. Napoleon’s rule was very shaky and the smallest defeat or sign of weakness would be taken advantage of by his Austrian and Prussian allies or the Republican conspiracists in Paris. Hell, when Napoleon was retreating an attempted Republican coup in Paris by General Malet almost succeeded due to the false rumors that Napoleon died.

it would just prolong the agony, outcome would be the same.

d) all of the above!

Gauls, just watch asterix and obelix

I would argue nowadays French identify more with Prophet Mohammed

@Nogent the French totally identified with the Franks, until republicanism motivated celtism tactically against germanism, which wasnt the case in Ancient régime.

All of them. But French people are more likely to say that they are Latin/Gaulish (basically Gallo-Romans) but they also accept their germanic heritage thanks to the Franks.

He did not.

​@@freewalyes he was

@@CarlosalbertoMoncayo it was russian criminals drunked who blow up the city

Is that a real quote? I heard another rendition of that quote. It seems fake.

He never declared the second sentence. Where is the source ?

There was a Russian officer who said that if Napoleon had the Russian Cossacks in his army, he would be an Emperor of China long ago.

That is the worst misattributation I've ever encountered. It was a russian cavalryman who claimed Napoleon would've been emperor of France if he had them

Source of second quote?

They didn’t just shoot Rasputin, but tossed him into a River

That was actually a quote from Friedrich the Great.

@Ярослав Л Napoleon has nothing to do with genocide

@Ярослав Л bollocks

@Ярослав Л Well to be fair, Napoleon never had such intentions. Napoleon was only after glory and wanted all of Europe to be under the French Empire. Napoleon actually abolished serfdom in Prussia and Austria while Russia was still bogged down by serfdom for another 50 years or so. Hitler is a different story, he actually had genocidal intentions and WW1 Germany also wanted to do a low level clearing of Eastern Europe to make way for German settlers

Well, why is it better than not fighting the battle at all for the russians?

@@Kamfrenchie the Russians still needed to hurt Napoleon's forces. His losses were not easily made good but Russia's were.

@@kesfitzgerald1084 I'm not sure, since russian losses were much higher in the battle. The climate, disease and hunger however, took a heavy toll

@@Kamfrenchie thank you for the response. I am not sure if you have come across the saying, "win a battle but lose a war". This applies in this case.

@@kesfitzgerald1084 Oh for sure, nobody would say the campaign in Russia went well. I just feel Borodino isn't a turning point or a big victory for the russians given the result. Had Napoleon failed to pass through, it might ironicly have been better for him since he'd have retreated earlier and avoided the winter.

This is seriously funny :^p

Oh. Well that's okay then.

@@davebroad642 I didn't get it... Was it Napoleon talking about himself? Can someone, please, explain me who the emperor is, please?

After a disaster like Russia, to add to his growing collection of military disasters (Egypt, Spain), Napoleon had no right to criticize anyone's campaign. Especially an actual conqueror like Julius Caesar, who never had such massive military disasters in his life.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Will Napoleon is literally the best general to have ever lived so ya he can criticize pretty much anyone

@@nebsam7137 Alexander the Great and Hannibal were both better Generals.

@@Wallyworld30 But Hannibal did not take Rome - Napoleon in his Italian campaign used the same route trod by Hannibal. But unlike the Carthaginian, Napoleon took Rome.

Napoleon literally lost every war he fought. He won a couple of battles against minor powers (Austria, some German and Italian city states). Every time he came up against an opponent of equal of force he lost.

Nothing personal kid *teleports behind you and annexes your country*

He was attributed as saying "I spend 30,000 men a month, no one can compete with me."

@@jauntyangle5667 oui oui

To be fair he was also saying that some of the 5000 would recover and be able to march again.

' is a thin layer of ice on a solid surface, which forms from water vapor in an above-freezing atmosphere coming in contact with a solid surface whose temperature is below freezing ...' 'Near zero' is quite literally the point where frost forms :D

Try marching for 45 days straight, sleeping outside, with no fire, little food, almost no water, carrying all your equipment. It's easy to say that "near-zero is fine" because we're used to be outside for 10 minutes. That was not their situation

Near zero i am also freezing. 🥶 I would last 5min in Russian winter.

Napoleon obviously knew about the severe russian winter and had planned for it, but what he didnt know is that it would be the earliest and coldest winter in 100 years..

@@aappana4807 Actually, the winter of 1812 was considered to be fairly mild by Russian standards - major rivers were still not frozen by the time Napoleon retreated. Also, Napoleon's army suffered most of its casualties on the way to Moscow, during the summer and fall. The cause of these casualties was lack of supplies due to long distances, bad roads, and attacks on supply trains by local peasant bands, not the cold. The fact is, even though Napoleon foresaw the supply difficulties, he still failed to adequately plan for them. His army's logistics were already breaking down in the first couple weeks of the war, when he was still in Lithuania, and things only got worse from there. In fact, the last French soldiers left Russia by December 14, when winter was just beginning to set in. December is relatively mild, February is when it gets really cold.

@@alexeyvlasenko6622 weren't there stilltemperatures in the minus20 celsius, and blizzards?

Even here in the 21st century modern Russia was unprepared for winter fighting while invading Ukraine after they made it their whole shtick that they beat Napoleon and Hitler by using the winter for tactical advantage.

Thanks! Unfortunately no. He has this channel and History of the Earth though.

Also to clarify he is me

Lol. Never say never.

Never is a VERY looooong time.

and then a little more than a hundred years later the Anti-Hitler Coalition is formed (at least in Russian-language historiography it is called that)

First of all, Napoleon had MULTIPLE logistical nightmares that ended in complete disasters (Egypt, Spain, Russia). Furthermore, Napoleon was NOT a great general. Napoleon was not a resourceful genius who ended in victory, he was a madman with a powerful army that ended in defeat. It is not me who claims this, but the facts of the story. First, you need realize what Napoleon had to work with, and how terrible it ended. Early 19th Century France had one of the most powerful, overwhelming forces in military history. In context, way more powerful than any army it was facing. The French army, reinforced and armed due to Revolution, and swelled through mass conscription, was the most powerful army in the world....by far. The best trained, the best cannons, the most guns, the most horses, the best funded, polished officers and the most men of any army in Europe. This is the powerful army that Napoleon inherited through usurpation of power. This is the army that won Napoleon so many victories early on. Many times, this overwhelming army hid Napoleon's flaws and miscalculations. For example, at Marengo Napoleon had lost the battle because of his reckless miscalculations but French reinforcements literally came out of nowhere to his rescue and won the battle for him (Of course Napoleon was quick to take the credit, as the manipulator he was). Some of Napoleon's most famous victories Ulm, Eylau, Friedland, Wagram, Borodino were just uncreative, non-tactical slugfest bloodbaths where he won the battle just with such an overwhelming force. Heck at Borodino, Napoleon said "just get on with it" and then watched the bloodbath literally with his feet up like someone inactively watching tv in their living room....it was the bloodiest battle in European history until that time, and Le Grand Amree won without him that day. When 10,000 calvary horsemen charged at Eylau, that is not a testament to Napoleon, but a testament to the PROWESS of the French military at the time. So many time Napoleon would send troops on sacrificial frontal assaults or sacrificial calvary charges, knowing they would be obliterated, but it would give him a tactical advantage in battle by doing so. Why could he sacrifice his own troops so callously?...because of his numerical advantage, a luxury his opponents did not have, even when they united against Napoleon. If you look at the French casualty rates in battle, they were EXTREMELY high (Eylau, Wagram, Borodino), even when they won the battle. But Napoleon would then just call up more and more young conscripts to replace the dead because he could with France's vast population, that's why he sacrificed so many of his own troops. Austerlitz was probably the one exception where Napoleon took a gamble and it worked decisively in a victorious campaign. But by the end of bloodbaths like Eylau, most of the victors of Austerlitz were dead. Every year the French army got worse under Napoleon, not better. By the time Napoleon was done, the once powerful French army was in shambles. Plus Napoleon really showed a poor performance when his army was not as strong, as in the Leipzig campaign and 1814 France campaign. Campaigns in which Napoleon decisively and swiftly lost, despite how biased historians attempt to portray it, (like falsely claiming that the Six Day Campaign was brilliant, when in fact Napoleon gained nothing in said campaign, but lost time and recourses as he left Paris exposed to capture). Napoleon was easily beaten in less time than expected and Paris was easily captured, it was as clear of checkmate in war as ever. The People of France could not even put up any resistance to the invaders as Napoleon's 15-year overuse of conscription had left the country without fighting men. And of course we can't ignore Napoleon being responsible for some of the worst military blunders of all time (Egypt, Spain, Russia). Furthermore, Napoleon did not even have the most revolutionary, important or effective military tactics of the Napoleonic Wars. That would go to the Spanish Guerrillas, whose methods changed warfare forever. Today, nobody fights like Napoleon, it is an outdated, costly and ridiculous strategy fighting in lines. In fact, it was outdated strategy by the U.S. Civil War, over 150 years ago. But today, all across the world and in the 20th and 21st century, people still use Spanish guerrilla tactics in wars and conflicts. Napoleon had no idea how to fight a guerrilla army, a huge reason why he lost in the end, he could not adapt. Today Napoleon's tactics are obsolete, but Guerrilla tactics endure. Napoleon was a reckless, wasteful, incompetent, inflexible general, with terrible ideas that withered away his numerical advantage in infantry, calvary and artillery. Only a terrible general can waste it all away in defeat and disgrace.

@@lsatep wow you spent a long time writing really long and misinformed bunch of bull crap, i'm sorry. Napoleon is objectively perhaps the greatest military mind in all of history, whether you want to agree or not matters nada.

@@tryfryingmikejones Napoleon had the most powerful military force until that time, France which was completely rearmed by Revolution and filled with conscription. Napoleon took the most powerful army in the world, the second most powerful Navy in the world, and destroyed them both through recklessness by the time he was done. In the 19th Century, France went from the unquestionable supreme military power at the start, to losing a war to lowly Mexico 50 years later. (Lowly Mexico at the time, today Mexican military is a different story). And of course France got completely dominated in the Franco Prussian War of 1870, something unheard off in 1810. Heck the capture of Paris in 1814 was completely unheard of in 1812. Just goes to show you how incompetent Napoleon was. It was La Grande Armee that won Napoleon his early battles, not the other way around. And when his army was not as strong, we saw how badly he lost.

@@lsatep lmfao you must be kidding. The revolutionary army wun as many battles as it lost. It had trouble in Italy until Napoleon arrived to save the day. Sure it wasn't weak but to discredit Napoleon for his army is stupid. He introduced entire new systems of warfare by which his army was way faster than his enemies ever expected him to be.

@@lsatep The second one you stepped too far. The reason why the french lost in 1871 is because Napoleon was a sunset of the era: technological progress advanced rapidly The prussians now were winning wars against austrians not because they flogged every conscript, but because they had new guns and artillery, railroads And navy's end couldn't be his fault, I suppose

The brits are opportunists. They never take any risk. No wonders why they never had any empire in Europe.

You mean the meaningless victories of a disastrous campaign?! Who cares. See you can pass all your classes, but if you don't pass the Final Board Exams, you are not a doctor, and all those classes you passed were all for nothing.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators I just wanted to point out the fact Russians did not won any battles during this campaign. Meaningless ? Moscow battle is meaningless for you ? Only incredible luck save Russians from complete disaster, with a very hard winter which came 3 weeks earlier than usual.

@@Kelt. Meaningless victories to Napoleon because he gained nothing in those battle victories. Every single battle Napoleon fought in Russia was a really a loss. A loss of men, a loss of weapons, a loss of horses, a loss of time, a loss of resources, and a loss of prestige. Here is a tip, you don't win wars by just winning battles, you have to win the people you are fighting, through submission or through benevolence. It is something Napoleon never understood. It is the reason why even though Napoleon had a winning record on a battlefield (largely due to the strength of his army), he ended defeated. Hollow victories bring profound losses.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Many words to say almost nothing or vague pseudo philosophic stuff, from a person clearly ignoring history. The fact is Russian army failed at every single points in this conflict, even at Bérézina battle where they manage to let Napoleon to cross the river. Only climate and russia geography saved Russians.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators "largely due to the strength of his army", ever heard of italy, austerlitz, Dresden or the 6 days campaign

Which is interesting, as the Russians had done exactly the same thing to the Swedes (when Their empire was at it's peak) ... Not sure exactly when, other than "less than 200 years before"... It broke them, too.

Napoleon did infact recognize the tactics since he brought with him multiple volumes on Carolus Rex’s failed invasion of Russia and the scorched-earth tactics. There are many speculated reasons why he was so unready and still pursued, but really his whole campaign was built on a quick victory without worrying about the scorched-earth tactics. But he was so convinced in a quick victory he pursued and by the time he reached Smolensk he really could not go back.

Because he wasn’t arrogant and didn’t have all that blood on his hands.

To survive lol.

Because he had the loyalty of his men and I would also oof you if he gave me the order.

​@@basedkaiser5352🤡

Oh yeah I suppose you know what you’re talking about -_- Soviet Russia had 10 times as many men as the German army. 25000 tanks compared to 3000 German. No way could Germany hold a defensive line against the Russian military. Their only chance of victory was attack. It made no sense for them to retreat in ww2. Why needlessly give up positions? They still had supplies and a fighting chance. Napoleon knew he was beat and had no choice.

A very silly and untrue way of putting things

@@rhysnichols8608 Because they went to horse heaven?

The entire premise that fighting for a worthy cause is ‘stupid’ portrays I very childish and uninformed understanding of the geo-politics, schemes and motives of the day. Yes it’s sad animals has to suffer but they were a necessary tool of war. Personally what I think is more tragic, is the constant warmongering against Napoleon by the British and international finance who kept funding coalitions against him and constantly provoking war, never allowing peace and development. Fighting against these war mongers and scumbags who make their fortunes off wars is far from ‘stupid’ like your silly liberal comment suggests.

And then he lost because he forewent everything he had learned in his entire military career because his ego got the better of him.

Your "military genius" comment had me laughing for like five minutes straight....yeah...a real "military genius" indeed, in destroying his own army, the most powerful army ever assembled.

@@lsatep Napoleon had more victories to his name than almost any other man in human history. He fought 60 battles, and won 53 of them. He barely lost at Waterloo, and he only lost the Russia campaign because he took too many men, which overstretched his supply lines and scared the Russians away from pitched battles. If he’d taken an army half the size he did, he would’ve won. You can laugh and scoff all you like at the Russian campaign, but you are not capable of doing a tenth of what Napoleon did with his life. Have some perspective on history beyond that of an edgy teenager.

Tomer is right. He was a genius again and again. It’s just that he somehow lost it in 1812. Perhaps revenge or insult got the best of him.

@@lsatep wonder who could assemble the most powerful army if not a military genius...

Right on the money with the "Bohemian Lance Corporal" reference. People who don't know their own history are bound to repeat it. That's what happened to Europe with the second coming of Napoleon, which was the Bohemian Lance Corporal. The fact that Napoleon's history got a huge positive twist and that Europe glorified him through revisionist history is why they did not see him coming a second time, this time in Hitler. A military dictator, who rose through the ranks, takes over a lost but powerful country that was looking for a savior, promises reforms and order, initial military success using the country's powerful military and vast resources, but ends up defeated due to reckless invasions and military incompetence. All of this while destroying the European continent and leaving millions dead in the aftermath. Like Hitler, Napoleon's egotistical nature consumed almost every decision he made is nothing short of criminal. His poor strategic and diplomatic abilities ended up costing the lives of countless young French men who he threw to the meat grinder with false notions of a progressive France or the cultivation of national movements in places like Poland, Germany, or Italy. His goal of subjugation gives him no reconciliation for the awful decisions he made as a despotic ruler. Even after exhausting the French people and his allies in terms of manpower and resources he still dragged them along, regardless of their willingness. Blaming others for his mistakes and calling them traitors when they are trying to save their own country is a page Hitler took from Napoleon's book. Even with such clear notions of defeat, Napoleon still found it necessary to personally save face by continuing the war to a bitter and devastating end. His notions of conditions of victory were simply delusional. Napoleon’s grandiose and unrealistic plans for making France the dominant force in Europe simply lead the nation to ruin like how Hitler did to Germany. Napoleon was also on the extreme right. Napoleon fostered a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism through war and often racism (like the Napoleonic Code that reinstalled slavery of blacks in French Colonies). In other words, Napoleon was a fascist before the word existed. And if you don't think that Napoleon was a racist, look up his invasion attempt of Haiti in order to re-enslave the black Haitian population. Europe paid the price for revising and changing Napoleon's story. Monuments never should have been erected, historians never should have mislabeled him a genius, and the British should have never returned his body to the French so that he could have been glorified. It was all bad precedent. Europe paid the price with a second Napoleon. It was dangerous precedent for Europe to glorify a warmongering military dictator like Napoleon who brought so much death and destruction, including and especially to a defeated and occupied France. It was dangerous precedent to label him a genius when the fact was that he had the most powerful army on the Continent that many time hid his mistakes and lack of creativity. It was dangerous precedent to label him an enlightened and just leader when he was self-serving, would sacrifice and conscript the French youth, to have them live off the land, which means take whatever you want by any means you wish. And if you disagreed with Napoleon, you were a traitor. Dangerous precedent indeed that led Europe to destruction by a second Napoleon, and this time with more deadly technology and a more terrible outcome.

You got it man, the (statistically) most sucesfull general in the history of europe was a amateur

@@lsatep The argument "but napoleon was a dictator" always makes me laughs, because he was fighting against even more oppressive Absolutist monarchs, who routinely denied religious freedom and persecuted jews for example. Napoleon wasn't really far right, he'd have been more towards te center, if anything

Same thing in 1941-44. I think Stalin would’ve suffered far fewer losses if he just kept pulling east.

GabKoost. General winter was the victor.

Ogedei Khan and Batu Khan overcame it. Those Mongol ponies were not only hardy, they were able to forage beneath the snow, the mare's milk was food, and even their blood sustained their riders when needed. Ryazan was sacked in December 1237, Kolomna and Moscow in January 1238. Suzdal in February 1238. The Battle of the Sit River, in which the army of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir was annihilated by the Mongols, occured on 4 March 1238. The Mongols sacked Kiev on 6 December 1240. Next they went and defeated the Poles and Germans. About the only things the Mongols couldn't overcome where typhoons, Alauddin Khilji of the Delhi Sultanate, and their own internal rivalries.

@Marcus Aurelius Yeah they fought but also retreated more than any other country because it was in their interest to do so : they have the most land out of any country so by moving their factories further east and taking the time to outproduce Germany and ressuply their losses while the Germans couldn't The war was won due to attrition and inferior German resources and supply lines

@Graf von Losinj . Forty years ago, I went into hospital for an operation. The man across from me was around 60 years old. When we had a conversation, he told me that he was a merchant seaman during the war. It turned out, that he had been on the arctic convoys to Murmansk & Archangel in Russia. He described the terrible cold and conditions, as their journey took them across the Barents sea. So yes, Russia did receive huge amounts of materials from the western allies. If they had not received them, they may well have lost the war, such was the importance of the supplies.

You can probably find it in his own diary he wrote while banned from Europe. Although beware, Napoleon knew his book would be read by thousands in the future, so he might've lied here and there. Logically though, his reasons were pretty clear. Russia wasn't going to stay a French ally for long, he just wanted to make the first move before the Russians got to him.

@@yugatrasclart4439 I really like to know his thoughts, not anyone's interpretation.

@@PUMPADOUR Because Russia broke the treaty of tilsit and alexander intentionally tried to provoke him because he was convinced by Talleyrand in 1808 that napoleon had to be defeated

Russia also planned to attack the Dutch of Warsaw

Simply because Russia was preparing war since 1810.

mosst of them were stragglers

Nah he also fought for France and defended liberalism. There is a reason why we quit monarchy and still have favorable views of Napoleon today.

@@Winston.S.Churchill ever heard of the napoleonic code?