Brusilov is just a fascinating character. Perhaps the only competent Russian general of WW1 and one that actually cared about his men. He hoped victory in the war would stave off revolution, but Tsarist military idiocy convinced him that Revolution was needed to win the war. He then joined the Reds in the Russian Civil War and agonised about it for the rest of his life. Well worth a biographics video Simon
Yeah when I heard that I was like wow....a Russian officer joined the Red Army but honestly, can't blame the guy. Sounds like he decided the REAL enemy was the Tsarist regime, and yeah seems fair lol
@@Louis_Davout Russia is a European country. Austria fought worse than Russia, Italy also fought worse than Russia in two world wars and lost more people than the enemy. But it's not customary to talk about it...
Those lines at the end really makes you think how little it takes for history to go a completely different way. To consider that one man's stubborness possibly changed the world.
@@theawesomeman9821 You would think so, but looking at CURRENT russian tactics. It seems like some people still misunderstand that an advantage in manpower and quantity of equipment does not a victory make.
@@samwill7259 honestly Russia equipment is better but the reason why it not playing such a major effect is because of poor maintenance and logistics. In modern warfare logistics are a massive problem even for the US. Just look how much money and time it takes for just one hour of flight for the F-16.
It's a good day when Simon posts a video on warographics, geographics or biographics. Still hoping you'll do the Regulator-Moderator War of East Texas but hey. I like this!
I really enjoyed this video. Every time I watch documentaries on WWI it's about the western front. It's really interesting to hear about what happened on the other side of the war.
Brusilov got so pissed at the other general he eventually decided to join and help found the Red Army. A Czarist general. The incompetence of imperial Russia is just staggering. Sounds familiar.
@@seansimms8503 czarist Russia= corruption, nepotism and violent suppression. Soviet Union= corruption, nepotism, violent suppression. Putin’s Russia= corruption, nepotism and probably violent suppression. Say what you want about Russians but they just continuously endure trash leadership.
The problem is just russia in general the imperial tsarists sucked the communists sucked more and even in the modern day russia barely trains their soldiers and keep losing and stalemating with Ukraine. The problem is russia in general doesn't matter what Russian flag they wave lmao
It’s absolutely wild to me that 3 of the most deadly battles in history the Somme, verdun, brusilov offensive. All were happening simultaneously in 1916, and then you have to remember all the rest of the front lines around the world that were claiming lives continuously. As the great Indiana Neidell said by 1916 they got to a point where Russia could lose over 200,000 in 1 month and they’re winning, winning big!!! That’s a terrifying fact.
@@theoutlook55 yeah I love it. I’ve replaced radio with the Great War channel and the world war 2 channel. I find it a lot more interesting than what garbage is on radio and Indy and Spartacus and Astrid all do a fantastic job covering entertaining yet distressing to out right depressing material, and I think they picked the right people to host the right series. Spartacus is perfect in his tone and delivery of the WAH series where Indy is very captivating and probably a little to showy for that series but perfect for ww2 week by week.
@@troystaunton254 agreed 😎. The Indy days of the TGW channel when the maps were more basic and things like that is my absolute favourite. WWI is the most fascinating time in all of history imho. WAH on WW2 is brilliant too, and of course Astrid if the queen of f&ing everything 😎
I've been down The Great War rabbit hole for years now. It's insane to think of how many different potential timelines there are. The world could be a totally different place in so many different ways.
food for thought, Britain and France originally supported Austro-Hungary against Serbia but only went to war against the Austrians because Germany got involved.
@@theawesomeman9821 if we're being completely factual, the main reason why Britain got involved was the fact that they were defending Belgium's neutrality. Their ultimatum to Germany was not to cross into Belgium or else.
It’s amazing the amount of Copium that military minds in WWI had to have had to think that repeated assaults with no change in tactics would work. I honestly think the Russian commanders that didn’t switch tactics just didn’t want Brusilov to look good- unfortunately seems like a lot of military leaders want to be heroes and stomp out anyone who might get in the way of that goal for themselves, or stomp out anyone who would just look better than them
I remember studying the Brusilov Offensive in my A Level History class, and the whole scale of it, in terms of the area it covered, was astonishing… This leads me to one constructive comment about Warographics…all of the videos are great, but I do think that there needs to be more maps shown during the narration, especially for something like the Brusilov offensive.. One other point about the offensive…Italy (allied with Britain, France and Russia in WW1) were crying out for an offensive on the eastern front against Austria-Hungary, as they were seriously struggling at the time…
Ah yes, the good old I see what you're doing is working fantastically. So I'm just gonna go ahead and do the same thing as before that worked horribly. Gotta love it
Its interesting to think what couldve happened if they didnt run out of equipment and the officers stayed to the tactics it may have ended the war there
_”By the beginning of 1916, it was becoming increasingly clear that Russia could no longer sustain the losses from several failed operations, while maintaining loyalty to autocratic and ever more dysfunctional monarchy of Tsar Nicholas II. Had the Austro Hungarians managed to halt Brusilov’s first advance, inflicting further wounds on Russia, it is likely that anger amongst the people at home would ignite the revolution immediately. Leading to the Bolsheviks pulling Russia out of the war before the winter set in, a huge blow to the allied alliance . . .”_ Battlefield 1, after winning the “Brusilov Offensive” operation as the Austro Hungarians.
The main problem was that the Austrian officers and generals, did not take advice from the German officials. Germany again had to do the hard lifting, as they did numerous times before and after. One can say Josef Conrad von Hötzendorf was the best Russian General even being Austrians top general.
If this moment in history where Brusilov took a lead command position in training and reform of tactics was a moment in a video game a big notification would have popped on the screen saying "Russia's Army has leveled up; they now have the ability to fight in trench warfare and will use artillery bombardment for besieging the enemy camps! +1 against heavy fortification and war machines!"
Simon you should do a an vid Sherman’s March to the sea as well as the battle of Stalingrad the bloodliest in recorded history and operations Bagrarion and Barbarossa
Simon: Enjoy your channels. But you need more in the way of illustrative photos, maps, and graphic reenactments. Right now we have you looking at the camera reciting facts and figures. It's getting a little static.
Amazing introducing & informative historical coverage 👏🏻 👌( victory which exhausted elite troops of Russian military) ...which rarely known in such detailed about Russian empire victory✌️ at 1916 ...against Austrian hungry empire... during WW1
The current events in Ukraine show how a single offensive can change a situation so completely. While most attacks aren't going to the last in a war, they all shape the aftermath.
unless it's like the Ardennes offensive and they throw all their resources into one push and it backfires in the end (although it did change the situation completely too, although in a different direction)
It's not over yet so it's early to access the results. And Brussilov's offence didn't change much for Russia in WW1, they still got beaten and had to quit the war.
_”The 1916 Brusilov Offensive proved to be the _*_worst_*_ crisis of World War One for Austria Hungry, and the Triple Ententes greatest victory. But it came at a tremendous loss of life on both sides, and without the promised support of Russia’s other armies, much of the territory gained by Brusilov would be lost to the Germans arriving from the west. _*_It is a sad irony that in the end, it was a political collapse in Russia, not a military defeat, that would decide the outcome of this regions war.”_* Battlefield 1, after winning the “Brusilov Offensive” operation as the Russians.
"Tsar Nicholas II decided" oh boy, you don't need to know a single thing about whatever the situation is to know: When you hear this only bad things are coming
Thanks for this, later on in 2022 I am going to do an Alternative History on this offensive, with the title being roughly: "What if the Allies Had Won WWI in 1914-16?" Stay tuned, and check out my other videos to get an idea of my style of historical analysis!
The most Pyrrhic victory of WW1, the Brusilov offensive, is indeed. This offensive unintentionally inspired the German Military to adopt Assault Trooper tactics and develop weapons for the task.
And yet Operation: Michael ultimately failed in its objective... whatever that was. Try to kick the British off the continent before the Americans arrived? A last-ditch attempt to get to Paris?
@@pyromania1018 The Germans still won in the East in part because of The Brusilov Offensive making Germany finally abandon the Schleifen plan. Germany only lost WW1 because the USA was on the side of the Entente.
This is certainly not a Pyrrhic victory as it debilitated the Austro-Hungarian empire. It wasn't enough to change the course of the war, true, and Russia still dissolved from its own ineptness at caring for its people, not to mention the numerous military blunders it made throughout the war. However, to call this Pyrrhic victory is a major misnomer. It was a very tactfully successful offensive that would greatly did not succeed in its full strategic objectives, due to the abject stupidity and self-absorbedness of aristocratic commanders jealous of Brusilov.
@@theoutlook55 They were too successful; that's why it was a pyrrhic victory. The Excessive Success of The Brusilov caused Germany to finally abandon the Schlieffen plan and instead did its reverse; to hold in the west until Russia was defeated, which worked.
@@InquisitorXarius I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the actual meaning of "Pyrrhic" (versus ephemeral or counterproductive) victory. Also, the Schlieffen Plan was not a factor after 1914 and Germany continued, well into 1918, trying to secure a strategic victory by taking Paris.
Id love to see a collaboration between Simon and Kings and Generals or History Marche. Combining Simon's excellent narrative ability and their great visuals would be epic
So it DID succeed as Brusilov intended when executed as he planned, and it went wrong because of typical Russian timidity, lack of thinking/falling into the old wars and Tsar Nicholas' decision making. No wonder the guy jumped to the Bolshevik side.
Back home, in Russia, the immense casualties and palpable incompetence of leadership angered many." The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I love and hate this topic because it make me so sad how Russian empire collapsed and how it also had such a bright future how things could have gone another way how it was so possible how it was right there how Russians could of won the war and stayed United it’s so utterly tragic and devastating
Imperial Russia gets lots of flak for having a shitty army and shitty commanders, but it really feels like the Austro-Hungarians should be in that spot. The more I learn about their part in WW1, the more obvious it feels.
This sounds more like Chat GPT than human authored. These videos usually aren't this bad. The Russians lost most of their officers early in the war because they believed that fighting spirit was more important than tactics, which was probably true given the uneducated peasants they had to lead. So they led from the front, got mown down like the rest of their peasant army, and Russia couldn't find enough people who could even read a watch to replace them, which was necessary for things like creeping barrages. As you push forward across massive distances, your logistics inevitably become a mess unless you're moving along an intact rail line. As you take the massive casualties that an offensive will inevitably bring, units become combat ineffective and need to either be replenished, reorganized, or withdrawn and replaced, which takes time and more trained men, one way or another. If you think "Oh, if only they had listened to that one guy with his logic who was the only un-retarded person alive at the time" sounds reasonable, you might want to think harder.
Anyone else ever find their opinion of the Russian military being colored by the novel All quiet on the western front . I sometimes have to remind myself that's a one-sided version like most 🤣
I really dont understand why no-one ever though to give troops angled-steel shields to advance behind when going 'over the top'? And if it wouldve been too heavy, why not have teams of 2-3 guys share 1 slightly-bigger shield? Make it pointed like 90° to help deflect rifle rounds, and make it easy to stay standing when set-down. Surely this wouldve gave them a fighting chance & allowed them to clear barbed wire if necessary. And yeah there was artillery.. but it really wasnt accurate enough to pinpoint each and every shield-team right? Any criticism of my plan would be appreciated, i just dont get why they wouldnt atleast try this🤔
Fine, except steel big enough to cover all your exposed bits, and thick enough to deflect 7.62, 8mm, or 30 caliber rifle ammo is heavy, very heavy. So you then need wheels to carry it, but wheels get stuck in the terrain, so you need tracks. See where I'm going with this? Indeed the tank was one of the key factors in breaking the trench stale-mate.
Similar rolling devices were attempted to be deployed, but as the other comment mentioned it was heavy, slow, and ineffective at going over very uneven terrain. Also, you have to consider that people are shooting at you from your sides at an angle too. Indeed, machine gunners were trained to fire at oncoming troops diagonally, not right in front of them. You would need hundreds of these to cover your masses of troops trying to penetrate the enemy trenches, which themselves are meant by several dozen, if not hundreds, of troops. Even in that situation, given the difficulties mentioned previously, it seems like a golden opportunity for an enemy artillery unit's target practice. In sum, that idea was tried and it failed. The technology was not yet there and/or the environment was ill-suited to using that device.
Definitely need to cover the Battle of Fredericksburg. One of the key battles of the US War Between the States; this battle had a significant moment of courage, heroism, and compassion when Sergeant, later 2nd Lt. Richard Rowland Kirkland of the CSA brought water to wounded Federals despite major risks to his person.
I'd call you a broken record (especially since I explained why it *wasn't* a key battle), but since I've done this sort of before, myself, so I won't in order to avoid looking like a hypocrite.
@@Dank-gb6jn I know you're not talking to me, but no, a *key* battle tends to lead to some sort of decisive aftermath. And since the South ultimately *lost,* it's significance is diminished even further. A key battle in the Southern rebellion would be, say, Grant's victory at Vicksburg: it split the Confederacy in two, secured a vital body of water for the Union, and ensured the ascension of Ulysses S. Grant, who crushed the rebellion in less than a year after he was made commander-in-chief. Conversely, Fredericksburg accomplished *nothing* other than fanning Bobby's ego and wasting men he could not replace. In fact, not a single rebel victory was key unless you consider that Chancellorsville made Bobby think he was invincible, whereas on the Union side it led to the Army of the Potomac being handed over to General Meade, its first *competent* commander. Fredericksburg was just a drop in the water, nothing more, nothing less. Also, the morale boost thing only matters if (a) you win, or (b) you're able to get a negotiated peace if outright victory is not possible. Neither happened.
@@Dank-gb6jn Not if it's pyrrhic or accomplishes nothing in the long or short run. Well, maybe it did, but in the same way Lee's other (costly) victories: he lost a lot of men he couldn't replace, and his victories prolonged the war, thus giving abolitionists more time to garner support and bring matters to a head in Congress--which Lee certainly had not intended. Do you even know what a key battle is, because your obsession with this one implies that you don't.
There is just a symbol. Humans not die to be cloth., family community people. Hence the old monarchies. Yee issue the emulate sssss anarchy atheism, water to right weight for height.
Islam is a religion that calls for the worship of God alone, who has no partner, and that Muhammad is the last of the messengers. The Qur’an is the last book of God. It is one copy that has not been distorted. Scientists prove scientifically things that were discovered only in recent years, such as the stages of the formation of the fetus and many other facts that God has mentioned in the Qur’an to prove the authenticity of the Qur’an. That is, from God, and to establish an argument against the people and upon those who heard of this, God is the one who created you and He is the one who will send you after the grave to the reckoning. Have you not wondered one day who holds the heavens and the earth to pass away, and who provides for you and who created you from dust, and where you are when you sleep and this is an example of the grave And sleeping after it is an example of the resurrection of the resurrection
Islam complements other religions, as it is mentioned in the Torah and the Injeel that there will come a messenger whose name will be Ahmad and the nation of Muhammad that God favored over many of those before them because they obey God and enjoin good and forbid evil. Among the good qualities of Islam are the enjoining good and forbidding evil, benevolence to the offender, supplicating for him with guidance and good manners, turning a blind eye to what is forbidden, preserving chastity, living a lasting heartfelt happiness that is found only in Islam, avoiding vices, loving goodness for all people, and pardoning the oppressor who repented and not oppressing people or Eating the rights of others.. Advice for you. Enter Islam. Just try and read the Qur’an
