Page 1 of 1

Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:38 am
by Thriller
Napoleon's idea to invade Russia was one of the worst military decisions in history.


In 1811 Napoleon's was hell bent on destroying Great Britain through a continental blockade, (Unable to establish a foot hold on the British island, he believed he could starve them into submission.) The plan though was being undone by Russians who continued on trade, undermining the French authority and previous peace deal they had already made with France 4 years earlier.

In December of 1812 Napoleon set out to deal with this challenge to his authority like any good dictator. To teach the Tsar a lesson he gathered a huge army of around 600 000 troops and set off to conquer his one time ally. By invading Russia in 1812, Napoleon was upping the ante. Once he sent his vast army eastward, there was no turning back; he was sucked farther and farther into the one territory he could not conquer.

Napoleon had developed a strategy of feeding his army off of the lands he conquered. To counter this, the Russians came up with what would now be called a "scorched earth" policy. By laying waste to the lands as they retreated, they were successfully able to cut off Napoleon's ability to replenish his supply's that were needed for such a large scale force. Leading the army into starvation, desertion, typhus, and suicide that would rob the French Army of more men than all the battles of the Russian invasion combined.

The tactic of constant retreat might not have been honorable in many peoples eyes, but it was definitely effective. Killing off a large number of Napoleons horses, destroying supply wagons and depleting the rations and other supplies brought along which were unable to be replenished. At the battle Borodino an embattled French army finally got their chance to take the Russian forces head on. It was the bloodiest single day of battle in the Napoleonic Wars. The Russian army could only muster half of its strength on September 8 and was forced to retreat, leaving the road to Moscow open.

The Russians decided to evacuate their capital and it was stripped of all supplies. When Napoleon marched in he was expecting to receive a delegation of dignitaries to finalize his triumph over Russia. Instead he found what could be described as a ghost town. With only about 1/4 of the city's population remaining.

In a normal surrender, the city officials would be forced to find billets and make arrangement for the feeding of the soldiers, but the situation caused a free-for-all in which every man was forced to find lodgings and sustenance for themselves. In the aftermath of that looting a fire was started. It it unknown it it was accidental or deliberate but it is estimated 4/5 of the city was destroyed in the blaze.

This left destitute an already distraught French force. Sitting in the ashes of a ruined city without having received the Russian capitulation and facing a Russian maneuver forcing him out of Moscow, Napoleon started his long retreat by the middle of October. At the Battle of Maloyaroslavets, Kutuzov was able to force the French army into using the very same Smolensk road on which they had earlier moved East and which had already been stripped of food supplies by both armies.

This resulted in an army of 600 000 strong turning into a mere 45 000 frost bitten troops.

Napoleons inability to adapt to changes in tactics and pigheaded advance in the name of victory destroyed his once Grand Armée. He said it himself that an army runs off of it stomach. But when push came to shove he was too proud to apply his own wisdom and marched his army straight into the frozen ground.

What did he end up having to show for this whole thing? Nada.
He just gave time for his enemies to strengthen their resolve and thoroughly destroyed his reputation as the unbeatable general.

500 000 + of his troops died for nothing. A terrible defeat.

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:50 am
by [KMA]Avenger
i truly believe Napoleon sacrificed his army in Russia, his desertion of his own army has way to many unanswered questions.
lets face it, Napoleon was no fool, and he was an excellent commander, to make such a massive "mistake" is just to unbelievable...the same can be said of Hitler and the destruction of his army in the east.

don't ask me why someone like Napoleon (or Hitler for that matter) would do such a thing since it doesn't seem to serve any purpose, and i have no theory as to what would be achieved, but reading about Napoleon, i cant escape the thought he did it on purpose :?

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:00 am
by [BoT] Jason
Moral of the story being that through out history Russia has been unbeaten on home soil?

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:10 am
by Thriller
Jason... wrote:Moral of the story being that through out history Russia has been unbeaten on home soil?


No, they have been beaten at home.

Just not by arrogant short pricks

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:14 am
by [BoT] Jason
When I say beaten I mean completely conquered . But my history is crap so please link me to enlighten me.

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:28 am
by Thriller
This is the first one that comes to mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:34 am
by Thriller
[KMA]Avenger wrote:i truly believe Napoleon sacrificed his army in Russia, his desertion of his own army has way to many unanswered questions.
lets face it, Napoleon was no fool, and he was an excellent commander, to make such a massive "mistake" is just to unbelievable...the same can be said of Hitler and the destruction of his army in the east.

don't ask me why someone like Napoleon (or Hitler for that matter) would do such a thing since it doesn't seem to serve any purpose, and i have no theory as to what would be achieved, but reading about Napoleon, i cant escape the thought he did it on purpose :?


Some times it's hard to see the picture when you can't stop looking in the mirror.

I chalk it up to arrogance, He should have turned around after he lost about 3/4 of his horses and almost all his supply wagon's. He didn't and historians generally think it's due to arrogance and also a naive belief the Russians would follow along traditional rituals of war.

I like it if you elaborated on your theory though, if you have the time.

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:39 am
by [KMA]Avenger
not at the moment, on a school run and martial arts in a couple hours, but i'll have a go tomorrow :-)

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:25 am
by Ashu
Thriller wrote:
Jason... wrote:Moral of the story being that through out history Russia has been unbeaten on home soil?


No, they have been beaten at home.

Just not by arrogant short pricks

Exactly! Great pride before the fall!

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:33 pm
by Mister Sandman
Napoleon was an arrogant man.

Bahá'u'lláh the prophet of the Bahá'í faith wrote to Napoleon saying that he is God. Ect ect.

^ Equally as arrogant man.

Napoleon replied. "If you are God, I am two Gods."

Clearly showing that, Napoleon is arrogant.

I do believe it was Napoleon's arrogance that made him think that he could take anything on even defy nature. Hence, his army was defeated.

Taking the mind of a strategist, Napoleon did do the unexpected. So, it may rather be a miscalculation on the harshness of the Russian winter.

The miscalculation sided with his ego and arrogance lead to his downfall.


Same thing with Hitler. Although, Hitler was also highly superstitious. He was highly involved in the occult. And believed the number 7 was lucky.

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:39 pm
by Dubby_CompGamerGeek2
Hitler was also, um, a lot crazier, not just in evil ways... but in more practical ways as well... :P

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:25 am
by [KMA]Avenger
Thriller wrote:
I like it if you elaborated on your theory though, if you have the time.



now i have the time :-)

Ok, Napoleon and Hitler have allot of similarities, both were good at rallying the troops, both had exceptional generals/commanders who were innovators in warfare. both had a professional army capable of going toe to toe with ANY army in the world.
as you point out, both were also EXTREMELY arrogant to say the least, but when you look at their early victories, they did have a right to be that arrogant given they were pasting every army in sight, but that's up for debate...anyways...
both took their broken and bankrupt nations from destitution to world beaters in just a few short years.
both were in their own right great commanders (though Hitler was a louzy tactician to say the least), this is evidenced by the fact that men were willing to die for them.
both had experienced and battle hardened generals who pleaded with both to stop the advance into Russia dig in, fortify the front lines and see out the winter. neither Hitler nor Napoleon were stupid men, you don't rise to power, build a nation/army that ends up being the scourge of the European continent under the collective noses of the other powers by being stupid, so why didn't they heed the warnings of the generals and commanders, especially Hitler? personally i believe it was because they were given bad intell with regards to the state of the Russian army-by the Rothschild's whose spy ring was/is legendary.

at this point i have to quote Napoleon:

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."

that quote is with regards to the House of Rothschild's who financed both Napoleon and the duke of Wellington sending something in the region of £9.8 million in bullion to Wellington's army's in Spain and Portugal.

i have no clue as to how much Napoleon was indebted to the house of Rothschild's but i assume it was less than what England owed since they won and Napoleon obviously lost.

Hitler was also financed by the Rothschild's which was recorded in the US congressional record after Prescott Bush was caught sending money from the bank he was president of to Germany via Fritz Thyssen.
8 years before Germany's invasion of Poland and the outbreak of WW2, representative Louise McFadden (chairman of the house banking and currency committee) said and i quote:

"After World War I, Germany fell into the hands of the German International Bankers. Those bankers bought her and now they own her, lock, stock, and barrel. They have purchased her industries, they have mortgages on her soil, they control her production, they control all her public utilities.

The international German bankers have subsidized the present Government of Germany and they have also supplied every dollar of the money Adolph Hitler has used in his lavish campaign to build up a threat to the government of Bruening. When Bruening fails to obey the orders of the German International Bankers, Hitler is brought forth to scare the Germans into submission...

Through the Federal Reserve Board over 30 billion of dollars of American money...has been pumped into Germany...You have all heard of the spending that has taken place in Germany...modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her gymnasiums, her swimming pools, her fine public highways, her perfect factories. All this was done on our money. All this was given to Germany through the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board...has pumped so many billions of dollars into Germany that they dare not name the total."

the money pumped into Germany to build her up in preparation for World War II goes into the Thyssen banks, which are affiliated with the Bushes and Harrimans in New York.


the point being, both Napoleon and Hitler were financed and then that finance was cut off otherwise (in my opinion) both of them would have turned on the bankers and sought complete domination of the world on their own, but the Bankers were to smart and because they had all the money it wasn't to difficult for them to just finance the other side that bit more to secure victory.

this isn't some "conspiracy theory" i have come across, all i did was join the dots between the to many similarities and historical records and some logical deduction.

i stress again, i have NEVER come across this as a "conspiracy theory", its all my opinion on the matter.

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:26 am
by Thriller
:roll:

Again, I am left wanting

Re: Nap-dog and the Rushies.

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:45 am
by [KMA]Avenger
ask and ye shall receive ;)