Russian blood for the salvation of "foggy Albion"

6 350 122
Russian blood for the salvation of "foggy Albion"
Napoleon awards the Legion of Honor to officers at the Boulogne camp. Artist: Jean-Victor Adam


Preparing for a great war


The Anglo-French War had been going on for two years already (The battle for the place of "king of the hill"). The British blockaded French ports and seized French ships sailing to the open sea. The French responded by blockading English trade on the continent. They seized Hanover, an English possession in Germany, and strengthened their positions in Germany and Italy. But this did not give either side an advantage.



In England, they feared the French landing army that was gathering at the Boulogne camp. The best French commanders—Davout, Ney, Soult, Lannes, Marmont, Augereau, and Murat—commanded the corps destined for the landing in Foggy Albion. The best officers and soldiers were gathered there. Bonaparte himself devoted exceptional attention to the preparations for the landing.

The distinguished French admiral Latouche-Tréville, who fiercely hated the British, devoted all his energy to preparing the landing operation. He reported to Napoleon that nearly 2,5 transport ships had already been prepared. Tragically, on the night of August 29, 1804, he died suddenly on his flagship. Given the skill of the British "knights of the cloak and dagger," he was likely poisoned.

What was to be done? There were two options. The first was to form a new anti-French coalition and attack France, disrupting Napoleon's landing in England. But this would take time. Austria, defeated by Napoleon, wanted revenge but feared war. Prussia hesitated. Russia was hesitant.

The negotiations took time. Months of intense diplomatic negotiations, both official and unofficial, and the use of rumors and other means were spent. The process was complex and slow.

The second option was to eliminate Bonaparte himself, like the Russian Tsar Paul. Use the French opposition, the royalists. But organizing a direct conspiracy in the Tuileries (the royal palace in central Paris) was difficult. The Guard and the new aristocracy were entirely on Bonaparte's side.

The British then deployed the royalists Georges Cadoudal (leader of the royalist peasants in Brittany) and General Charles Pichegru. The fanatical Cadoudal, who possessed immense physical strength and had survived dozens of bloody battles, was to assassinate Bonaparte with a group of his comrades. Pichegru and General Jean Moreau, Napoleon's rival who envied his success, were then to lead the army and place Louis XVIII on the French throne.

The plot failed, and all three were arrested by French police in February and March 1804. Pichegru was murdered in his cell, strangled with his own tie. Moreau was exiled from France to the United States. Cadoudal was executed. Standing before the guillotine, he cried out, "Let us die for our Lord and our King!"

Bonaparte, deeply irritated by the clandestine activities of the British and royalists, succumbed to Talleyrand's provocation and believed that the French prince Louis Antoine d'Enghien was in contact with the conspirators. He ordered the Duke of Rovigo and Caulaincourt to deal with d'Enghien. The Duke of Enghien was captured and executed in the moat of the Château de Vincennes in March 1804.

The execution of the Duke of Enghien caused a great uproar in the monarchical courts and hastened the formation of the Third Anti-French Coalition. As a result, the British achieved their goal, once again undermining peace in Europe.


"The Duke of Enghien in the Moat of the Château de Vincennes" by Jean-Paul Laurens

Third Coalition


The head of the British government, William Pitt, not counting millions of gold pounds sterling, was creating a new anti-French coalition.

Vienna was thirsty for revenge. Bonaparte had acted like a master in Western and Southern Germany, as well as in Italy, destroying the Austrian Empire's sphere of influence. Without it, Austria was becoming a second-rate power. It also presented an opportunity to fight for British gold.

Almost simultaneously with secret negotiations with the Austrians, the British were seeking an alliance with Russia.

Napoleon knew Britain was seeking an alliance with Austria and Russia. "If Austria intervenes, it will mean that England will force us to conquer Europe," he declared to Talleyrand. Bonaparte was unable to disrupt the anti-French coalition through diplomatic means. He had the opportunity to find common ground with Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Perhaps he wanted to settle the matter once and for all on the battlefield.

As the Russian historian Albert Manfred noted, Napoleon “was again playing a risky game, a game on the edge of a knife, where victory and defeat were separated from each other by the thinnest of lines.”

From 1804 until the summer of 1805, he hoped to resolve all the problems of European politics with a single blow—by defeating Britain. In the autumn of 1805, his primary target became the Austrian Empire.

Upon ascending the throne, Russian Emperor Alexander Pavlovich thwarted the creation of a St. Petersburg-Paris axis (involving Berlin), which could have doomed the project of a global British Empire. He relied on the aristocratic, noble, and merchant parties, which oriented themselves toward an alliance with the German royal courts and England. Britain was then Russia's main trading partner, purchasing agricultural raw materials.

Britain was also backed by the emperor's "friends" from the Secret Committee—Novosiltsev, Czartoryski, and others. Personality also played a role. Alexander believed Bonaparte had insulted him by hinting at his involvement in the conspiracy and murder of his father.

Thus, Russia and France had no fundamental contradictions, historical, territorial or economic disputes. Strategically, Russia benefited from the intra-European confrontation along the lines of Paris-London, Paris-Vienna, and Berlin. We could focus on our internal affairs (Siberia, the Far East, Russian America), resolve the problems of the Caucasus and Turkestan, and transform the Black Sea into a "Russian lake," completing the work of Catherine the Great: the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, and Constantinople-Tsargrad. Complete the reunification of the Russian lands by returning Galician and Carpathian Rus' (formerly part of Austria) when France defeated the Habsburg Empire.

However, Alexander succumbed to personal emotions, determined to defeat the "Corsican monster" and "liberate Europe" from French oppression. As a result, Britain gained control of Russian "cannon fodder."

At the same time, the political moment seemed opportune. Britain would provide the gold. France was opposed by England (with its finances and dominance of the seas and maritime communications), Austria, the Kingdom of Naples, and Prussia, which was deeply concerned about Bonaparte's arbitrary actions in Western Germany. Napoleon lacked the strength and resources to deal with such a powerful alliance.


Napoleon crowned King of Italy on May 26, 1805, in Milan. Italian artist Andrea Appiani.

Treaty of St. Petersburg


On March 30 (April 11), 1805, an alliance between Russia and England was signed in St. Petersburg, laying the foundation for the Third Coalition. The parties pledged to include Austria, Prussia, and other European powers in the alliance. By secret clause, both countries pledged to assist in the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty to the French throne and the House of Orange in the Netherlands.

The Allies planned to assemble a 500-strong army. Austria was to contribute 250 soldiers, and Russia 115. Britain pledged to assist the coalition with its fleet and provide the allied powers with a cash subsidy of 1,250,000 pounds sterling annually for every 100,000 men. The Russian government also pledged to deploy observation corps (from the Latin observetio, onis—observation, i.e., observational, auxiliary) to the borders of Prussia and Austria. Later, Alexander I agreed to increase the Russian force to 180,000 men with a corresponding increase in British subsidies (additional clause signed on May 10 (22), 1805).

Meanwhile, Napoleon continued to prepare for his landing in England. He strengthened his position in Italy, annexing Piedmont, Lucca, and Genoa. General Saint-Cyr occupied Otranto, Taranto, and Brindisi, capturing key points in southern Italy. The French thus threatened the Ionian Islands and Egypt, drawing England's attention to the Mediterranean.

On March 17, 1805, the Kingdom of Italy was created from the vassal Italian Republic, of which Napoleon was president. In May, Bonaparte was crowned with the ancient Iron Crown of the Lombards in Milan, and his stepson, Eugene de Beauharnais, assumed the title of Viceroy of Italy.

This pushed Austria, still hesitant, toward an alliance with Russia and England. On July 29 (August 8), 1805, Vienna issued a special declaration announcing its accession to the Russo-English agreement.


One of Alexander I's closest associates in the early years of his reign, a member of the so-called "Secret Committee," an Anglophile, and one of the authors of the Treaty of St. Petersburg, Nikolai Novosiltsev (1761–1838). Portrait by S. S. Shchukin

The emergence of the "Great Army"


In the spring and summer of 1805, Napoleon still believed in the invasion of England, which would cut all the tangled Gordian knots and contradictions. French troops in London were the surest way to stop a major war in Europe. The Emperor declared to his admirals that he needed not three, but two days, even just one day of calm on the English Channel, to land in England. Bonaparte wrote: "For six hours we will be masters of the world." A landing in England—and all the problems of world politics would be solved.

However, the clouds were gathering. The new fleet commander, Pierre-Charles Villeneuve, was unable to unite the disparate forces of the French fleet and relieve Brest, blockaded by the British. The Franco-Spanish fleet was blockaded in Cadiz, Spain.

Napoleon, who had repeatedly delayed the landing operation, traveled to the Boulogne camp in August 1805 to personally supervise the "leap across the sea." Initially, he was pleased with the preparations for the operation. Then the situation changed. Villeneuve's eagerly awaited fleet never arrived. By the second half of August, it became clear that Villeneuve had been unable to leave Cadiz and enter the English Channel.

Meanwhile, news was coming from Europe that a grave danger was threatening eastern France. The Third Coalition had mobilized over half a million bayonets and sabres. Russian corps had moved to join the Austrians, and the Austrians were ready to attack in Bavaria and Italy.

Napoleon decided to march against Austria. On August 29, 1805, the 180-strong "Army of England" was renamed the "Grand Army." Seven corps were led by Bernadotte, Marmont, Davout, Soult, Lannes, Ney, and Augereau, the cavalry by Murat, and the Guard by Bessières.

This was the end of the Boulogne camp, two years of preparations for the landing in England. Napoleon said, "If I'm not in London in 15 days, I must be in Vienna by mid-November." London was saved, finding cannon fodder for the war with France and the struggle for European and global dominance. And Vienna, like many thousands of Russian soldiers, had to pay for it.

Bonaparte spent several hours dictating the dispositions for the new campaign. Orders flew in all directions regarding new recruits for the reserves and about supplying the army during its march across France and Bavaria to meet the enemy. Couriers rushed to Berlin, Madrid, Dresden, and Amsterdam with new diplomatic instructions.

In a few days, taking advantage of the well-organized military organization created for the invasion of England, Napoleon raised the enormous Boulogne camp and formed the army into marching order, reinforced it with new units and moved from the shores of the English Channel across the whole of France to his allied Bavaria.

The Emperor decided to defeat the enemy piecemeal, first Mack's Austrian army. Napoleon's army advanced rapidly, outflanking the Austrian forces on the Danube from the north, whose left flank was the fortress of Ulm.

The French corps began moving on August 27, and by September 25, the French had deployed on the Rhine, having covered 490 miles (from Boulogne) in 28 days. Bonaparte acted swiftly and decisively, not giving the enemy time to recover and retaliate.

To be continued ...
122 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    3 October 2025 07: 24
    The article is probably good, but a bit confusing.
    Alexander I and Napoleon began to fight because a clash was inevitable. The Russian Tsar stated in his manifesto: "For faith, Fatherland, freedom." Napoleon stated: "To put an end to arrogant Russia."
    The Russian Tsar was burdened by the forced alliance with the French, the Treaty of Tilsit; Napoleon was essentially seeking to make Russia a vassal. War was inevitable, but not for English interests.
    1. +6
      3 October 2025 08: 12
      Quote: bober1982
      The Russian Tsar was burdened by the forced alliance with the French, the Treaty of Tilsit
      The article is about the 1805 war with Austerlitz, and Tilsit was after – in 1807.
      1. +1
        3 October 2025 08: 32
        Yes, I was in a hurry and got confused.
    2. -3
      3 October 2025 08: 52
      There, it seems, the Romanovs "disgraced themselves" by becoming regicides (Paul I sends his regards), in the end they died victoriously, killing a bunch of soldiers, the officers got their fill of revolutionary ideas, and off we go.
      In the end, the Romanovs finally fell asleep in the basement of the Ipatiev house, having been slightly executed by some Mensheviks (or maybe not, but those bastards were clearly not subject to Moscow’s control).
      It's either karma or irony.

      But in general, France couldn't screw over Russia at that time; it needed to finally crawl out of the Middle Ages with its serfdom and at least sit and develop steadily for a century.

      The morons couldn't understand that Europe didn't need to be "saved" but rather robbed.
      (By the way, country 404 is also "saving Europe" these days, but that country's conditions are so-so)
      1. 0
        3 October 2025 09: 20
        Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
        having been slightly executed by some Mensheviks (or not, but those bastards were clearly not subject to Moscow).

        And who were they, if not the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, aroused interest, although not on topic.
        1. +3
          3 October 2025 17: 37
          Who knows, everyone liked the "power to the soviets" slogan, and they're pushing everything from the SRs to who knows where. And they didn't exactly get along with the center.
          Perhaps there were also "wrong Bolsheviks".
          Those who are right and in Moscow wanted to put Romanov on trial, but these guys gave them this crap with poppy seeds... laughing
        2. +1
          3 October 2025 17: 38
          Who knows, everyone liked the "power to the soviets" slogan, and they're pushing everything from the SRs to who knows where. And they didn't exactly get along with the center.
          Perhaps there were also "wrong Bolsheviks".
          Those who are right and in Moscow wanted to put Romanov on trial, but these guys gave them this crap with poppy seeds... laughing
          1. +2
            3 October 2025 18: 40
            Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
            Who the hell knows,

            Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
            They're pushing what was there from SRs to who knows who

            You have either Mensheviks, now Socialist-Revolutionaries, or incorrect Bolsheviks.
            Do you believe in the devil? Does he exist?
  2. +4
    3 October 2025 08: 47
    As a result, the British achieved their goal. They blew it up again. peace in Europe.
    Bonaparte, who has already captured half of Europe and killed hundreds of thousands of people - is this peace?

    although, if "war is peace", then yes.

    T.
  3. +3
    3 October 2025 09: 36
    Every week, the site publishes an article in which the author and commentators lament the fact that there is no 300-meter monument to Napoleon, the first emperor of mankind, in Red Square.
  4. -2
    3 October 2025 10: 44
    Russia has always been England's supplier of "cannon fodder." After Napoleon came World War I, which England would not have won without Russian soldiers. Then came World War II. In all these wars, Russia suffered heavy losses, but England reaped all the benefits. Today, England, as the customer of the current war in Europe, is the main beneficiary. They won't stop; they've been feeding on this for centuries!
  5. +6
    3 October 2025 10: 49
    I don't follow crime news. Remind me who's in the know, where is the real author of these ideas, the historian Sokolov, now? In prison for murder and dismemberment, or in a mental hospital? "A homeless poet is calling from a mental hospital!"
    How long can we continue to propagate this Sokolovism?
    Having crushed England, Russia found itself alone with Napoleon's empire, and the very existence of the state became completely dependent on the mood of the French emperor.
    How many times can one repeat the mantra about some mythical insults inflicted on Alexander Pavlovich?
    Does anyone really believe that for the most sophisticated and purposeful actor and politician of the early 19th century, some kind of "insults" could have mattered?
    Hell, there's another, much more rational point of view. I highly recommend reading Bezotosny's work.
    1. +2
      3 October 2025 11: 00
      What Sokolov did should not affect the assessment of the quality of his work.
      And insults most likely played a role, but the export of grain to England and the spread of French power beyond the Rhine are certainly more important.
      1. +2
        3 October 2025 13: 27
        Quote: Cartalon
        but the export of bread to England

        Not by bread alone)
        Russia was the main supplier of tackle for the Royal Navy - hemp, flax, hemp, masts - Russia had the best.
        And the counter-blockade caused irreparable damage to this trade - England barely managed to substitute imports, but we lost our sales market.
        But I think you know this perfectly well without me)
    2. +3
      3 October 2025 19: 17
      Quote: Grossvater
      Hell, there's another, much more rational point of view. I highly recommend reading Bezotosny's work.

      For starters, you could read the classic "Napoleon" by Tarle. He wrote long before our internet debates, but he answered absolutely every question. He irrefutably proves that an alliance between Napoleonic France and the Russian Empire is absolutely impossible—unless, of course, they accept the latter's complete impoverishment and vassalization.
      1. 0
        5 October 2025 18: 44
        So what? Is Tarle God's deputy on historical matters? He can't make mistakes? He can't write to order?
        1. +3
          5 October 2025 20: 10
          Quote: TermNachTER
          So what - is Tarle God's deputy on historical issues?)))

          Have you read it? No. You don't talk about colors with a blind person.
          Quote: TermNachTER
          He can't be wrong?

          Maybe. But it's not for you to judge. You lack basic knowledge of the subject and look more like a first-grader judging a tenth-grade physics textbook.
          Quote: TermNachTER
          He can't write to order?

          Whose, I wonder... You can't even see when Tarle lived :))))
          1. 0
            5 October 2025 21: 26
            Finding out when Tarle lived is no problem – there's Wikipedia.
            Regarding the first-grader))) I actually have a diploma from the history department of the University))) Probably the stupid teachers were joking))) so that the luminaries of historical science and shipbuilding would not be bored)))
            1. +1
              5 October 2025 21: 40
              P.S. Well, just for fun))) I studied at the Kherson Naval Academy and often walked along Suvorov Street, past the school where Tarle studied; there was a memorial plaque there (I don't know now). My mother also studied at this school, though, back in Soviet times, in the 60s)))
              1. +4
                6 October 2025 06: 51
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Regarding the first-grader))) I actually have a diploma from the history department of the University)))

                You might have a diploma (did you buy it in the underpass?). I don't have the knowledge. :))))
                You can't come up with anything in defense of your thesis about Russia and the Entente, other than "what if he's wrong," "maybe things will turn out differently," "but Socrates said so"... A person who actually graduated from the history department would have a sensible argument - he would have a clear and logical picture of the world, an understanding of the driving political forces, etc. His picture might differ from mine, yes, but he would have evidence and justifications that I could argue with, citing my own evidence and justifications.
                You have nothing. You're confused about dates and basic concepts. So don't tell me about your diplomas.
                1. 0
                  6 October 2025 10: 24
                  The diploma is genuine, awarded in a formal setting))) But you, perhaps in your youth, don't know how books were written in the USSR, so there's no need to present your guesses and assumptions as the ultimate truth)))
    3. +1
      6 October 2025 20: 36
      This is all well and good, but Napoleon could not threaten the Russian state in any way. He spent five years in Spain alone. And his entire success in Russia was due solely to the fact that Bonaparte didn't encounter a single (!) modern fortress on his way to Moscow (only the outdated Smolensk fortress and the field fortifications at Borodino). Moreover, he couldn't have won even theoretically, since remaining in Moscow caused Russia absolutely no harm and couldn't have done so due to Moscow's lack of strategic importance at the time.

      It's no wonder that modern war commentators seriously argue that Napoleon was feeble-minded. They say he was a brilliant tactician, but a complete failure in strategy.
  6. +1
    3 October 2025 11: 12
    Quote: Cartalon
    What Sokolov did should not affect the assessment of the quality of his work.

    Excuse me! If someone commits acts that make one doubt their sanity, shouldn't that affect the evaluation of their work?
    Oh well!
    1. 0
      6 October 2025 20: 40
      It shouldn't. Adequacy in everyday life and adequacy as a scientist are two different things; any reasoning must be refuted logically, regardless of who you are.
  7. -1
    3 October 2025 11: 17
    Quote: Cartalon
    And insults most likely played a role,

    If you remember the environment in which Alexander Pavlovich grew up, then it’s hard to know what needed to be done to influence his decisions.
    Read Bezotosny. His opinion seems far more rational. Sokolov can be read simply as a chronicle; he doesn't distort the events, but his conclusions...
    Or do you also believe that some "insults" were more important to Alexander than the highly probable possibility of a quick meeting with his father due to the infringement of the commercial interests of large landowners? This is without taking into account Russia's strategic interests.
  8. +2
    3 October 2025 11: 21
    Quote: Cartalon
    And insults most likely played a role,

    I think that Alexander's last emotionally motivated act was his de facto assumption of command of the Russian army at Austerlitz, which ended so tragically.
    All of Alexander Pavlovich's subsequent actions were dictated by cold calculation, although they could also be disguised as violent emotions.
  9. -1
    3 October 2025 12: 02
    How wonderfully everything worked out - bald Alexashka was selling Russian soldiers wholesale in the English interests.
    Those who justify the deaths of Russian soldiers in the interests of the English bourgeoisie—true patriots—look somewhat comical. In their view, Kutuzov, too, was a Napoleonic agent, since he advocated abandoning the campaign in Europe in 1812.
    And what about England? Maybe it sent its troops to help the Russian Empire, but no, it fought in the colonies and on the Iberian Peninsula, guided by its own economic interests.
    Only feudal-clerical Mother Russia fought for the "liberation" of Europe from Napoleon.
    And as a result, having lost at least 300 thousand Russian soldiers, it contributed to the revival of Prussia and thus 1914 and 1941.
    1. +3
      3 October 2025 13: 40
      Quote: dozornysevera
      Alexashka the Bald traded Russian soldiers wholesale for the English interests.

      What were the British interests at Borodino and Maloyaroslavets?
      What about England? Maybe it sent its troops to help the Russian Empire.

      France's total losses in Spain (irrecoverable) were about 400 people. Otherwise, no assistance.
      1. -1
        3 October 2025 14: 44
        Actually, before Borodino and Maloyaroslavets, there were Russian campaigns in Italy in 1798, and then Austerlitz, Friedland, and Preussisch-Eylau—that was in defense of the Russian people, right? The 400-strong loss in Spain is just a cliché. And once again, the British were fighting for THEIR economic interests, not providing aid to the Russian Empire.
        1. +3
          3 October 2025 14: 55
          Quote: dozornysevera
          There were campaigns of Russian troops in Italy in 1798

          What were French troops doing in Italy? Oh, and that has nothing to do with us...
          Austerlitz, Friedland and Preussisch-Eylau - this was in defense of the Russian people, right?

          Tell me, what was the reason for Napoleon's attack on Russia in 1812? Perhaps the concentration of Russian armies in the country's western regions? Or was Russia actively preparing for an invasion of... where? Prussia? Austria?
          History has answered your question most directly and immediately about what Russian troops did in Europe—they tried to stop Napoleon before he invaded Russia. Moreover, all the battles in which Russia participated before 1812 took place on the territory of third countries—the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Prussia... We did not invade France.
          But it seems to me that all these arguments are empty words for you.
          The 400 casualties in Spain are just a sham

          Bring yours. Let's discuss.
          1. -2
            3 October 2025 15: 11
            1. In fact, France borders Italy, and Savoy and Piedmont remained disputed territories for a long time. Moreover, Austrian troops were concentrated there for the intervention in revolutionary France.
            So why the French ended up in Italy is clear, but what the Russians were doing there is unclear. And if the Austrians were fighting the French for rich regions in Italy, then why were the Russian soldiers dying there?
            2. The reason Napoleon attacked the Russian Empire was that the Russian Empire galvanized resistance to the French in Europe, thereby acting in the interests of the English bourgeoisie. Therefore, it was necessary to act in its own interests, and there was no invasion.
            3. Regarding the invasion, the Russian Empire, together with the Austrians, was quite planning an invasion from Italy. It was feudal-clerical Europe, in alliance with the English bourgeoisie, that launched the aggression against revolutionary France. And the Russian Empire was among the aggressors. What were Russian soldiers doing in Holland in 1798?
            4. Regarding the losses, you stated the figures; you must also justify them.
            1. +3
              3 October 2025 17: 23
              I wonder if you even read yourself before publishing?
              That is, you give France, Austria and others the right to pursue an active foreign policy in their own interests, but not Russia.
              The reason for Napoleon's attack on the Russian Empire was the fact that the Russian Empire galvanized resistance to the French in Europe,

              Great phrase! Suitable for any aggressor. Just change the name of the country and that's it.
              The Russian troops, together with the Austrians, were planning an invasion from Italy.

              Is there evidence? Austria planned so hard, so much so that it attacked France together with Russia, that it attacked Russia. A clever move, my hat goes off to the Austrian diplomats and military.
              It was feudal-clerical Europe, in alliance with the English bourgeoisie, that began the aggression against revolutionary France.

              In 1812 year?
              And the Russian Empire was among the aggressors. What were Russian soldiers doing in Holland in 1798?

              A counter-question: what were French soldiers doing in Holland? And who was the aggressor and who the liberator in this case?
              Therefore, it was necessary to act in one’s own interests and there was no invasion.

              Russia's interests lay in free trade with England, the main consumer of our goods, something France was a major obstacle to. Logically, it would be Russia's interest to invade France; in fact, we see the exact opposite.
              Regarding the losses, you stated the figures; you must justify them.

              It's ridiculous. I don't owe anyone anything except my family and the state, but I cited the figures and asked you to cite yours, which you ignore. So either cite other data or agree with mine. The rest is demagoguery and disingenuousness.
          2. 0
            5 October 2025 18: 47
            I don't know what the French troops were doing there. But I certainly don't understand why Russia would want to fight the French in Italy and the Mediterranean.
        2. 0
          4 October 2025 19: 40
          Quote: dozornysevera
          Actually, before Borodino and Maloyaroslavets there were campaigns of Russian troops in Italy in 1798 and then Austerlitz, Friedland and Preussisch-Eylau.
          There was also a trip to Holland...
          On June 11, 1799, the Russian Empire signed an agreement under which it was obliged to send an expeditionary force of no less than 17,5 thousand bayonets, commanded by Lieutenant General Ivan Hermann von Fersen.
          During the course of this campaign there were only defeats in Holland; having had enough of it, the corps returned home to Russia in September 1800.
          sad
    2. -1
      5 October 2025 14: 37
      Read the history of wars from the 18th to early 19th centuries.
      About the "subsidies" to Frederick the Great, about the exact same "subsidies" from France to the USA (through the bank and firms of Beaumarchais).
      All wars against the French also involved English subsidies in the form of money, weapons and goods.
      And Russian "purchased" troops are also present, as are English guns and gunpowder.
      Or do you think that a continental, impoverished military empire could fight Napoleon on its own, using its meager finances?
      Or later with the same Kaiser or a little later with Hitler?
    3. 0
      6 October 2025 20: 42
      You see, at that time, there were no national interests. Nation states were only just emerging. And the ruling monarchs were guided by feudal interests, who was whose brother and sister.
  10. 0
    3 October 2025 13: 01
    The Russian Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, upon ascending the throne, destroyed the possibility of creating a St. Petersburg-Paris axis (with the involvement of Berlin), which could have buried the project of a global British Empire.

    What's not mentioned is that Alexander Pavlovich ascended the throne as a result of the assassination of Emperor Paul I by conspirators. Paul had already dispatched an expeditionary force to Central Asia, commanded by Vasily Orlov, ataman of the Don Cossack Host. The very next day after Paul I's death, this Cossack detachment was recalled. Paul's assassination was largely in Britain's interests, as a joint Russian and French expedition to India was planned. According to researchers of the "Indian Campaign," this expedition was planned to involve approximately 70,000 soldiers, comprising two expeditionary forces—one Russian and one French. One should also remember Alexander's meeting with Napoleon on the Neman, where Napoleon, who was attempting to revive relations with Russia, was perceived by Alexander as no match for the true royal blood.
    What pushed Alexander toward the British? Perhaps it was his Anglophile tutor, perhaps the incriminating evidence linking him to his father's murder, perhaps shortsightedness, or simple stupidity. The point is that Russia, whose soldiers reached Paris, lost all potential for strengthening and development, retained serfdom, and ultimately suffered the Crimean War from its "partners." Then came the Russo-Japanese War and the First World War, where, forgetting everything else, the sadomasochistic desire to fight for England continued.
    1. +1
      3 October 2025 19: 22
      Quote: Per se.
      What pushed Alexander towards the British?

      A clear understanding of Napoleon's power and where that power would be directed after the fall of Europe
      Quote: Per se.
      What we have is that Russia, whose soldiers reached Paris, lost all its opportunities for strengthening and development, retained serfdom, and ultimately received the Crimean War from its "partners."

      And this is much better than becoming a poor French province in which all industry would be destroyed.
      1. +1
        6 October 2025 09: 44
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And that's much better than becoming a poor French province.

        A French province when the Russian army reached Paris? France could have become a Russian protectorate and paid for the invasion of Russia. We could have raised all our production and technology to a new level. This was a chance to end slavery and stake a claim to world supremacy. The Anglo-Saxons wanted to become the leaders of capitalism, and one way or another, they did. It's a shame that, having achieved socialism and become a superpower, today's Russia has backslidden from its great achievements, squandering its great legacy. One can take solace in the fact that everything is God's will, the program in the "matrix," as written in the script, so it will be.
        1. +1
          6 October 2025 10: 25
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And this is much better than becoming a poor French province in which all industry would be destroyed.


          Quote: Per se.
          A French province when the Russian army reached Paris?

          You're talking about completely different things. Andrei says we would have become a French province if we had entered into an "alliance" with Napoleon, but you're already moving on to the events of the real year 1814.
          1. +2
            6 October 2025 15: 00
            Quote: Trapper7
            You are talking about completely different things.
            That's all true, Dmitry. What would have been is "alternative history," but learning from the past helps us in the present and future.
            If Paul I hadn't been assassinated, the alliance between Russia and France would have remained. Pros and cons. Without Paul, Alexander emerged, essentially promising the conspirators that "everything would be like it was under Grandmother." First, how was an alliance with Britain better than an alliance with Napoleon? What kind of French colony would Russia have become had it allied with Bonaparte? Second, what did Russia gain from grateful allies, and Britain in particular, and what could it have gained as a victorious country, given that the bulk of the French army fell in the campaign against Russia? Be that as it may, the English have always been a nuisance, and the Crimean War is a true story, and it is the result of choosing friendship with Britain. Then there will be the Russo-Japanese War, in which England will play a significant role, and Russia will once again join the Entente, having lost its silver ruble ("thanks" to Witte), falling under the influence of the Rothschilds, who had seized all the gold in banking. So, with German queens and half-breed emperors, we clashed with Germany in 1914, instead of another alliance.
        2. +2
          6 October 2025 10: 33
          Quote: Per se.
          A French province when the Russian army reached Paris?

          Yes. Because for some reason you're ignoring the simple fact that it wasn't the Russian army that reached Paris, but an allied army consisting of Russian, Austrian, Prussian, and German corps. And even this army wouldn't have reached Paris if not for the "Battle of the Nations" at Leipzig, where Napoleon's back was broken not only by them, but also by Sweden and others.
          Quote: Per se.
          We could raise all our production and technologies to a new level.

          Let's say Russia enters into an alliance with Napoleon. He quickly takes control of Europe and runs into England, which he can't handle due to the lack of a navy. The result is exactly what Napoleon demands of us:
          1) Join the continental blockade, which will ruin us
          2) Open sales markets for French industrial goods, which will ruin the beginnings of our industry
          And we'll either have to put up with this, which is what makes us a poor French province, or... fight anyway. And the invasion of 1812 will still happen, well, maybe in another year.
          1. +2
            6 October 2025 10: 41
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            1) Join the continental blockade, which will ruin us

            Moreover, the consequences, unfortunately, turned out to be long-lasting, because if up to this point Russia didn’t give a damn - the sales market was established and money was flowing into the country like a river, then after 1815 we were shown a fig with butter and advised to hold on, because they found where to get the same thing without the risks.
  11. -1
    3 October 2025 16: 05
    Yeah, damn... If Sasha and Bonya had cooperated, and Joseph the Great with the unforgettable Adik, then there would have been order in the world.
    1. +3
      3 October 2025 17: 27
      Quote: Valery_Erikson
      Yeah, damn... If Sasha and Bonya had cooperated, and Joseph the Great with the unforgettable Adik, then there would have been order in the world.

      Doesn't it bother you that Sashka and Bonya went into cooperation, just like Joseph and Adik, both times they ended up with an invasion and an enemy in the Moscow region.
      1. 0
        5 October 2025 13: 29
        Neither Sashka with Bonya, nor Joseph the Great with the unforgettable Adik collaborated. Learn history without liberal textbooks. And analyze.
        1. +1
          6 October 2025 10: 29
          Quote: Valery_Erikson
          Neither Sashka with Bonya, nor Joseph the Great with the unforgettable Adik collaborated. Learn history without liberal textbooks. And analyze.

          I am, of course, not a historian, but I feel like I know real history better than you.
          If they did not cooperate, then what do we call Russia's entry into the continental blockade against England and the large-scale trade agreement with Berlin in 39?
          I'm not talking about a military alliance, but rather about cooperation. And in both cases, Russia tried to avoid involvement in a major war through peace initiatives, and each time, a major war came to us (and reached Moscow).
  12. 0
    3 October 2025 16: 27
    Quote: dozornysevera
    In their understanding, Kutuzov was also a Napoleonic agent, since he advocated abandoning the campaign in Europe in 1812.

    Where is the droushka?
  13. -2
    4 October 2025 11: 02
    It must be admitted that the "Russian meat" story repeated itself in the PVM. It's completely incomprehensible why Nikolashka dragged Russia into the Entente. Two years had passed since Tsushima, when thousands of Russian sailors were killed on British ships, by British guns, and by British shells, and dozens of ships were destroyed. And he signs a treaty stipulating that Russia will start a war if England screws up somewhere. Utter nonsense.
    1. 0
      4 October 2025 12: 06
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Complete nonsense.

      So this is normal for you...
      1. 0
        4 October 2025 14: 29
        Well, sometimes you also draw things that you can't even pull off, so don't be shy)))
        1. +1
          4 October 2025 19: 40
          Quote: TermNachTER
          Well, sometimes you also draw things that you can't even pull off.

          Maybe it wasn't meant to be pulled over the head?:)))
          Quote: TermNachTER
          It is absolutely unclear why Nikolashka dragged Russia into the Entente?

          What could be unclear here? Twice Europe was united under a single ruler: under Napoleon and under Hitler. And both times, a consolidated Europe rushed East, while we were forced to fight alone – yes, we were supported with money and supplies, but not with armies.
          But no, you want to give it a third time - when Austria-Hungary and Germany would have ground the Franks into dust in WWI, and then, of course, would have turned on us again...
          Truly, the only lesson of history is that people do not remember (or are unable to understand) its lessons.
          1. -2
            4 October 2025 20: 44
            Maybe you can't stretch it, but you can't think of any other use for it)))
            While the Triple Alliance was grinding the Anglo-French into dust, much could have happened. A year or two of preparation would have allowed us to enter the war from a much better position than in the summer of 1914. Bismarck had spoken of this.
            1. +1
              4 October 2025 23: 09
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Maybe you can't stretch it, but you can't think of any other use for it)))

              As I already said, this is not your thing:)
              Quote: TermNachTER
              While the Triple Alliance was grinding the English and Franks into dust, many things could have happened

              Yes. For example, Italy would almost certainly have sided with the Germans.
              Quote: TermNachTER
              A year or two of preparation would have allowed us to enter the war from a much better position.

              Uh-huh. So, in 1915, the Germans, with a front in France, inflicted a serious defeat on us with part of their forces, forcing us into the "Great Retreat." But if, in that same year of 1915, after the fall of Paris, the Germans had descended on us with all their force, with the same support from the still-unbeaten Austria-Hungary, we would, of course, have crushed them with one hand...
              L-logic. laughing
              1. -2
                4 October 2025 23: 51
                How can you be so sure that the same thing happened in 1915 as in 1940? In 1914, the French were preparing for war, but by 1940, appeasement led to it. So, we can only guess what things would have been like in 1915. And in 1941, Hitler, with the resources of all of Europe, couldn't defeat the USSR, while Kaiser Wilhelm could have in 1915. Your logic is lame not only on both legs, but also on the crutch you're trying to prop it up with.
                1. +1
                  5 October 2025 09: 41
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  How can you be sure that the same thing happened in 1915 as in 1940?

                  What does 1940 have to do with this? Why are you so incompetent with dates again?
                  If Russia hadn't entered the war, there would have been no "Miracle on the Marne." Paris would fall, and the Germans would get their blitzkrieg. Then, an exasperated Austria-Hungary would make its demands on Russia, but we would reject them. War would break out in 1915, as soon as the Germans and Austrians regrouped.
                  Thus, we will be confronted by far more powerful forces than in reality - and in reality we have not been successful on the fronts.
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  And in 1941, Hitler, having the resources of all of Europe, was unable to defeat the USSR, but Kaiser Wilhelm in 1915 could have done so))

                  Of course. Because the Russian Empire is nothing like the USSR. Stalin succeeded in something crucial: building a very powerful industry, which is what got us through the war. The Russian Empire had nothing like that. You've heard of the shell shortage, I hope?
                  But that's not the most important thing. The question isn't whether Russia will lose the war or win. The question is that you're not even aware that the USSR lost at least 26,2 million people in the war against Hitler, despite the enemy reaching Moscow. You're not aware that Russia's losses in WWI amounted to a maximum of 1,7 million in the army, plus some civilians, but not too many.
                  That is, even if we assume that Russia would have miraculously won, its losses would have been many times higher than those it suffered in reality - at least from this point of view, the Entente looks not just advantageous, but the only reasonable alliance.
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  logic

                  Don't say this word. It's unfamiliar to you.
                  1. 0
                    5 October 2025 11: 38
                    What if Paris doesn't fall? Or if it does, but the war in the West continues? How can we be sure that a situation like 1940 could have happened in 1914? And even if France leaves the war, England remains, and the situation like in Normandy in 1944 repeats itself. That is, not all troops will go against Russia, only a portion. And the transfer of such contingents will take months. Because in 1915, the network of highways and railways that Hitler built didn't yet exist, and transport had a completely different carrying capacity than it would a quarter of a century later. And there are many other nuances.
                    So, as I understand it, you read the word "logic" in Dahl's (Ozhegov's) explanatory dictionary, but apparently still didn't understand its meaning.
                    1. 0
                      5 October 2025 13: 36
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      What if Paris doesn't fall? Or if it does, but the war in the West continues?

                      Why shouldn't it fall if there's no troop transfer to the Eastern Front? Why should the war continue when the French army is suffering defeat, its only allies are England, and England has no army. But Italy will side with Germany; they actually spent a long time choosing whether to ally with the victor, and now there's no choice.
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      And even if France leaves the war, England remains and the situation repeats itself as in 1944 in Normandy.

                      laughing fool
                      Is Sunday your day for mental rest from even the most minimal activity? What kind of Normandy do you think, which was only possible with the Eastern Front, where the Wehrmacht was bogged down? What kind of Normandy do you think if England doesn't yet have a proper army? What kind of Normandy without US support? What kind of Normandy in the face of an as-yet-undefeated High Seas Fleet?
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      And the transfer of such contingents will take months.

                      Considering that the Battle of the Marne took place in September 1914, the Germans had more than enough of these months before the beginning of the summer of 1915.
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      And there are a lot of other nuances.

                      There's just one nuance here. You said something stupid once.
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      It is absolutely unclear why Nikolashka dragged Russia into the Entente?

                      And now, instead of admitting it, you continue to make even more absurd statements. But then again, that's what you always do.
                      1. -1
                        5 October 2025 18: 52
                        And why on earth would the Italians fight on Germany's side? What could the Teutons possibly offer that was so tasty? Giving up a piece of Austria-Hungary? The Austrians wouldn't agree to that.
                      2. +1
                        6 October 2025 13: 24
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And why on earth would Italians fight on Germany's side?

                        And after this you say that you graduated from the history department?
                        Google "Triple Alliance"! They've been allies since 1882.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        What delicious food could the Teutons offer?

                        Savoy and Nice.
                        You might be interested in the circumstances under which these provinces became part of France and why Orsini shot Napoleon III.
                      3. -1
                        6 October 2025 13: 30
                        They were allies on paper, but in reality, in 1915, Italy sided with the Entente, although the Germans were doing their best to pull their allies over to their side.
                        So the Angles and Franks also promised the Italians a lot when they were trying to pull them over - in the end, they gave them little more than a walrus's dick))) If we start dividing Europe according to the principle that at one time, in the 10th century or some other, it belonged to us, then it would be better to immediately smash our horns against the wall, anyway, it won't be divided fairly.
                      4. +1
                        6 October 2025 13: 34
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        They were allies on paper, but in reality, in 1915, Italy sided with the Entente

                        Because Austria got a very hard beating from the Russians in 1914.
                        If instead of the defeat of Austria there will be the defeat of France, the Italians will not hesitate.
                      5. -1
                        6 October 2025 13: 36
                        These are all assumptions and speculations about how it could have happened, or maybe it couldn't have happened. The Italians were attacking the French in 40. Everyone laughed, except the Italians.
                      6. +1
                        6 October 2025 13: 41
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        The Italians attacked the French in 40.

                        And the Franks won that war?
                        The Italians' task was to withdraw part of the French forces. They succeeded in this.
                        These are all assumptions and speculations.

                        As well as Russia's possible non-entry into the war
                      7. -1
                        6 October 2025 17: 14
                        The Italians didn't lose because the French lost elsewhere. Had the war continued any longer, who knows how it would have ended.
                    2. +1
                      5 October 2025 16: 37
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      What if Paris doesn't fall?

                      Why would that be? At worst, instead of driving Ranenkampf's army out of East Prussia in the winter of 1914-15, the Germans would continue to press the Franks.
                      Then, if we do not enter the war, there is no defeat of Austria in Galicia, and accordingly Italy either sits still, or remembers that it is participating in the Triple Alliance and helps to put pressure on the Franks.
                      And that's where things get interesting. The combined Italian and Austro-Hungarian fleets are superior to the French. This means the Franks can't transfer troops from their colonies.
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      And there are a lot of other nuances.

                      Which you don’t even realize. request
                  2. +2
                    6 October 2025 08: 58
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Of course. Because the Russian Empire is nothing like the USSR. Stalin succeeded in something crucial: building a very powerful industry, which is what got us through the war. The Russian Empire had nothing like that. You've heard of the shell shortage, I hope?
                    But that's not the most important thing. The question isn't whether Russia will lose the war or win. The question is that you're not even aware that the USSR lost at least 26,2 million people in the war against Hitler, despite the enemy reaching Moscow. You're not aware that Russia's losses in WWI amounted to a maximum of 1,7 million in the army, plus some civilians, but not too many.
                    That is, even if we assume that Russia would have miraculously won, its losses would have been many times higher than those it suffered in reality - at least from this point of view, the Entente looks not just advantageous, but the only reasonable alliance.

                    Andrey Nikolaevich, thank you! Your words are a balm for my soul.
                    I'm so tired of explaining basic things to people during arguments.
                    1. +2
                      6 October 2025 09: 10
                      Quote: Trapper7
                      I'm so tired of explaining basic things to people during arguments.

                      I had a hunch :) That's why I intervened. I understand you perfectly :)
                    2. -2
                      6 October 2025 13: 34
                      Of course, Tsarist Russia is not the USSR, so they transported practically everything, from aluminum ingots to penicillin, both under Lend-Lease and for cash.
                2. 0
                  5 October 2025 11: 19
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  and Kaiser Wilhelm could have done it in 1915)))

                  Well, if the USSR had existed in 1915, maybe it wouldn't have been possible. But there was Tsarist Russia, which was poor at resisting the Central Powers even when their best units were stationed on the Western Front.
                  1. 0
                    5 October 2025 11: 33
                    What is the basis for this conclusion? In 41, the Germans rode tanks, cars, and motorcycles. In 1915, they rode horses and walked—the pace of movement was a bit different. There was a lack of aerial reconnaissance, radio communications, and many other things that made the blitzkrieg so effective.
                    1. 0
                      5 October 2025 12: 58
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      There is a lack of aerial reconnaissance, radio communications, and many other things that made the blitzkrieg so effective.

                      You don't know anything about the blitzkrieg either. I'm not surprised.
                      1. +2
                        5 October 2025 13: 35
                        Of course I don't know anything, not even the alphabet))) I just click on the keyboard - it happens by itself)))
                      2. 0
                        5 October 2025 13: 37
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Of course I don't know anything, not even the alphabet)))

                        That's noticeable
                      3. +1
                        5 October 2025 13: 44
                        There was once a clever ancient Greek man—Socrates, that was his name. They say he was the smartest man alive. Well, he used to say, "I only know that I know nothing"—because he was smart. But anyone who claims to know everything makes me suspicious, because he's not exactly Socrates.
                      4. +1
                        5 October 2025 15: 09
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        So, he said: “I only know that I know nothing” - because he is smart

                        Yeah. You, contrary to Socrates, say
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        It is absolutely unclear why Nikolashka dragged Russia into the Entente?

                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Complete nonsense.

                        So don't rely on authority, it won't support you:)
                      5. 0
                        5 October 2025 16: 42
                        That's what I'm saying: I don't understand. And you're so confident in your own infallibility.
                    2. +1
                      5 October 2025 16: 30
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      On what basis is this conclusion drawn?

                      Based on the results of the 1915 campaign.
                      Despite relative equality in numbers (because most Germans were in the West), we lost Poland and a good half of the Baltics. Even though the Allies attempted several offensives to distract the Germans, if the entire German army had concentrated on the Eastern Front, we would have been simply wiped out.
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      There is no aerial reconnaissance, no radio communications, and much more is missing.

                      We really don't have all of the above, or only in tiny quantities. But the Germans already have...
                      Just for comparison. We produced about two and a half hundred aircraft engines during the entire war. The Germans produced over forty thousand.
                      Before the war, the Germans produced about 20 cars of all makes per year. We... imported five thousand. A significant portion of them came from Germany. Meanwhile, RBVZ produced about 800 chassis in-house over the entire plant's existence.
                      1. +2
                        5 October 2025 16: 39
                        1. In '41, we lost much more in the first year. How did it end?
                        2. What do the Germans have? VHF radios with a telephony mode? Dive bombers? What's 20,000 vehicles on a 2000-kilometer front? Can you figure out how much that is per kilometer of front?
                      2. +1
                        5 October 2025 16: 46
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        In '41, we lost much more in the first year. How did it end?

                        So I’m explaining to you that the situation is much worse than in 41.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        What is 20 cars?

                        This is exactly 20 thousand more than nothing at all.
                        Just remember that before WWII, the USSR was the second-largest truck producer in the world. And yet...
                        That during WWI, when an attempt was made to carry out a draft in Central Asia, uprisings broke out, so no Panfilovites would have happened.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        What do the Germans have?

                        Communications are better than ours. Artillery (especially heavy) is better than ours. More machine guns than ours. The navy is larger than ours. Air force simply exists, unlike us.
                      3. 0
                        5 October 2025 17: 44
                        Why was it worse in 1915 than in 41?
                        There were no cars in Russia at all and it was impossible to buy one in America?
                        How was their connection in 1915 better than ours? There were more machine guns—no one argues.
                        The High Seas Fleet has its own problems, and we have the Central Marine Aviation Administration. And Sikorsky built the Ilya Muromets and Svyatogor after WWI, in America?
                      4. +2
                        5 October 2025 17: 44
                        P.S. Austro-Hungarian aviation)))
                      5. 0
                        6 October 2025 13: 14
                        And our air force navigators at this time have a carbine and a frying pan under their butts...
                      6. +1
                        6 October 2025 13: 14
                        Why was it worse in 1915 than in 41?

                        Because Tsarist Russia is not the USSR.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        There were no cars in Russia at all and it was impossible to buy one in America?

                        They certainly wouldn't have supplied it to Lend-Lease.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        How was their connection in 1915 better than ours?

                        The quantity and quality of the material part. After all, whose company is Siemens?
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        There are more machine guns - no one argues.

                        And also guns (and especially heavy ones), shells, cartridges, sappers and much more.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        The High Seas Fleet has its own problems, and we have the Central Military Aviation Administration.

                        When FOM needed it (see Moonzund), he opened the CMAP with complete calm. In fact, our positions held only because the Germans couldn't risk their battleships.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Did Sikorsky make "Ilya Muromets" and "Svyatogor" after WWI, in America?

                        I would understand if Olgovich had made this argument. fool
                        You see, for the developed aviation industry of that time, two technologies were critically needed: the production of aircraft engines and varnishes for impregnating upholstery. The rest could be produced at any furniture factory. I wrote to you about the engines. But they couldn't make varnish at all!
                        As many as 80 "Vityaz" fighters of all models were produced throughout their entire production run. However, no bombers ever numbered more than 20-30 units. They had imported engines producing 100-150 horsepower.
                        Just for comparison, the German company Gothaer Waggonfabrik alone produced over 300 bombers, with engines up to 260 horsepower, making the twin-engine aircraft more powerful than our four-engine aircraft. Friedrichshafen produced over 500, and so on.
                      7. 0
                        6 October 2025 13: 26
                        What does Lend-Lease have to do with it? You can't just buy it? And Lend-Lease was free, in case you weren't aware. The USSR sent gold, timber, and other goodies to the US. So, there's no need to exaggerate the role of Lend-Lease.
                        In general, it is my purely opinion that Lend-Lease was a cunning move by Roosevelt to force fools to fight until they lost all their blood.
                        So what was the range of Telefunken transmitters? Siemens is a different story.
                        And when did the Germans break through the CMAP? Come on, enlighten me, I must have missed something in this life. What does Moonzund have to do with the CMAP?
                        What's the problem for an underdeveloped industry to buy aircraft engines and varnish from the US? In any commercial quantities.
                      8. +1
                        6 October 2025 13: 40
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        What does Lend-Lease have to do with it? You can't just buy it? And Lend-Lease is free,

                        So, in your opinion, buying is better than getting it for free?
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Come on, enlighten me, apparently I've missed something in this life)))

                        A lot. And I'm afraid this can no longer be fixed. request
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        What does Moonzund have to do with CMAP?

                        It was protected in about the same way.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And what are the problems for an underdeveloped industry to buy aircraft engines and varnish from the USA?

                        As Khodja Nasreddin said, there are forty reasons for this.
                        Firstly, we're not doing so well financially. Secondly, logistics are a bit of a bummer... and so on.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And what was the range of the Telefunken transmitters?

                        Well, better than Popov-Ducretet...
                        And most importantly, at best we have them in buildings.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Siemens is a slightly different story.

                        That same one. Phones and such. Which German industry makes, but ours doesn't.
                      9. 0
                        6 October 2025 17: 11
                        1. Free may be better, but there's a saying about free cheese)))
                        2. The CMAP was supposed to support the Sevastopol-class battleships, while the hapless Slava and Tsesarvich were in Moonzund. These ships were very different in both quantity and quality.
                        3. Financial problems are always a problem for everyone. Logistics—from the port of Vladivostok to Moscow via the Trans-Siberian Railway—are no problem. Varnish in barrels and aircraft engines easily fit into a few train cars.
                        4. What was the range of the Telefunken radio station (of that era)? 100 km? At Russian distances, that's nothing. Siemens phones are awesome. Just imagining a German signalman with a 100 km cable reel makes me want to cry.
                        And anyway, how can you be so sure that the Germans could have knocked France out of the war in 1914, like they did in 40? In 1916, they fought at Verdun, lost almost a million lives, and nothing happened, but then, defeat at the Marne, and that's it – "paws up"?
                      10. +1
                        7 October 2025 16: 05
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And in general, how can you be sure that the Germans could knock France out of the war in 1914, like in 40?

                        From a true story.
                        During WWI, the Germans were constantly forced to focus on two different fronts: first on us, then on the French. If it hadn't been for this, the French would have been finished off.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        In 1916, they cut down the troops near Verdun

                        That's right, in 1916. Because the previous year they were forced to shift their efforts to the Eastern Front, giving the French time and opportunity to accumulate resources.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        and here, the defeat at the Marne and that's it - "hands up"?

                        If the Germans don't need to be distracted by the Eastern Front, they could very well arrange a couple more "Marnes".
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        What was the range of the Telefunken rocket launcher (of that time)? 100 km.

                        Enough for communication between divisions. We only had that between corps. See the difference?
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Siemens phones are so cool. Just imagining a German communications guy with a 100-kilometer cable reel makes me want to cry.

                        If you're hoping I'm going to console you, you're in vain. In fact, if you didn't know, the signalman with a coil of wire is a classic from both world wars.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        The CMAP was supposed to support the Sevastopol-class battleships.

                        Four of them. The Germans had 17 battleships alone at the start of the war. Plus battlecruisers.
                        If there is no Western Front, the Germans can take risks.
                      11. 0
                        7 October 2025 16: 40
                        1. At the Marne, the Germans advanced while losing to the Allies in personnel. So they would have lost there in any case, with or without the corps they had transferred to the east. In general, England and France, with their colonies, were far superior to the Germans in manpower, with or without Russia. So, the likelihood of France being knocked out of the war in 1914 is not very high.
                        2. Between divisions, a courier on a horse can travel faster than by radio station—the message has to be encrypted, transmitted, decrypted, and read. Not to mention that radio communications are dependent on both the weather and the surrounding environment. Especially the kind we had back then.
                        3. And aren't you counting the coastal batteries? And the Grand Fleet—has it gone to smoke? Or has it vanished along with France? And where are those 17 battleships in the Gulf of Finland? They'll be more of a hindrance to themselves than they are to the Russians.
                      12. +1
                        7 October 2025 16: 54
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        So they would have lost there in any case, even with those corps

                        Only in your fantasies. Single-handedly, the Germans could have defeated both us and the Franks. Only with the coalition did they have a chance.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        In general, in terms of people, England and France

                        Troops must be brought in from the colonies. And unless Italy defects to the Entente, and without the defeat of Austria, this is more than likely, the Franks will not receive reinforcements from Africa. Or at least not in the required quantities.
                        Cross England off this list right away. They didn't have any real ground forces until Kitchener's army was deployed. And that was already 1916.
                        And yes, in 1940 they also surpassed Germany in both industrial capabilities and human resources, but...
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Especially the one that was there back then.

                        Well, we didn't really have that either.
                        Once again, you're comparing incomparable things. The technological gap between us and the Germans in 1941 was much smaller than between Tsarist Russia and Imperial Germany. And yet, we barely held our own.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And don't you count the coastal batteries?

                        So, how much did they help in real life?
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And Grand Fleet - went for a smoke?

                        It definitely won't go to the Gulf of Finland.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And where are the 17 battleships?

                        Why 17 at once? The Germans will simply have the ability to replace damaged ships, but we won't. Because we don't have any.
                        The Germans were unable to break through the Central Military Park only because they didn't really try.
                      13. 0
                        7 October 2025 17: 40
                        1. Whether it's my imagination or yours, when 750 mugs attack a million, the result is obvious. He's on the Marne River, and the Brits were already 100 mugs there. Ask Kitchener where he got them. French colonies right in North Africa, a day's sail by steamship and you're already in Toulon, Marseille, and so on. So why did the French have a fleet in the Mediterranean—to catch sardines? And what was the British Mediterranean fleet for? How long would the spaghetti-men have held out against the Brits? That's assuming, in the completely fantastical scenario, that they actually decided to side with Germany.
                        3. Explain to me how the German AEG-Telefunken is much better than the Popov-Ducretet. Please provide specifics, including technical details. I graduated from the radio-electronics department of the naval academy and have a second-grade radio operator's working diploma. So please provide specifics, not your guesses.
                        Did anyone actually try to get through the Central Military Aviation Port before 1918? Remind me – I've forgotten. The Grand Fleet doesn't even need to go into the Gulf of Finland – it could just enter the Baltic and make a light blunder. And towing a damaged battleship to Szczecin or Danzig is no more difficult than ours reaching Reval or Sveaborg and undergoing repairs there. That's why the Germans didn't bother with the Central Military Aviation Port; they knew it was completely hopeless.
                      14. +1
                        8 October 2025 08: 23
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        So what was the French fleet in the Mediterranean for then – to catch sardines? And what was the British Mediterranean fleet for? How long would the "macaroni" have held out against the Brits?

                        On September 1, 1914, the combined Italian-Austrian fleet consisted of five (five) full-fledged dreadnoughts against two (two) French ones. Plus Goeben. Plus a slew of Italian armored cruisers specifically designed for raiding the Mediterranean. Even with the British battlecruisers, the balance was precarious.
                        This is if we take into account the completely fantastical option that they decided to take the German side)))

                        Well, this isn't really a fantasy scenario. It's a very real twist of history. And my personal opinion is that if Italy had entered the war on Germany's side immediately, the Entente's position would have become VERY precarious, and defeat quite possible.
                      15. +1
                        8 October 2025 10: 49
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        There were already 100 thousand Britons there

                        On the scale of WWI, it's nothing. The Allies lost twice as many in the First Battle of the Marne.
                        Ask Kitchener where he got them.

                        He stripped all his reserves. And all the rear garrisons. There were simply no more.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        How long would the macaroni have held out against the Britons?

                        March to learn the material.
                        1) All new British ships are guarded by the FOM. The Mediterranean fleet is a cluster of obsolete battleships.
                        2) Finally, remember that the war was a coalition war and Austria also had a navy and an army.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Explain to me how the German AEG-Telefunken is so much better than the Popov-Ducretet. Please be specific, with technical details. After all, I graduated from the radio-electronics department of the naval academy and have a working diploma as a second-grade radio operator.

                        Are there any educational institutions that you didn't graduate from?
                        Both a sailor and a historian... No, I understand that whistling is not like carrying sacks, but...
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        specifics please,

                        Well, if you're a radio operator, start learning the ropes.
                        By the way, if you please. Popov-Dyukretet. Range - 15-20 nautical miles. Telefunken - 100-150.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        The Germans didn't even bother with CMAP, they understood the absolute futility of it.

                        No, that's not why. Their fleet simply had a multitude of other tasks. But if the war on the Western Front is over, there will be nothing to distract them. And they will calmly and methodically open up all these positions.
          2. 0
            6 October 2025 21: 18
            Yes, Andrey. So that's what I wanted to write about Napoleon.

            I reread the threads with interest, and in general, your argument with your opponents can be summarized as follows: your opponents ask why Russia chose England's side, and you explain that England's enemies would have taken Russia's side anyway, so England would have been the better choice. Or, as you write, "Twice Europe united under a single ruler... And both times... it rushed East."

            But in Napoleon's case, alas, these conclusions, despite their logicality, remain unfounded. Not because the logic is flawed, but because the underlying premises themselves require further examination.

            In short, the entire "war with Napoleon" is a completely virtual phenomenon, and this is perfectly clear from an unbiased analysis of the so-called "military operations." That is, some event did occur in 12, but it looked completely different from how the court historians described it. But what that event was is another matter. Frankly, the bombing of Moscow with nuclear bombs from flying saucers is more believable than the nonsense the officials are portraying.

            Of course, you might say, both the course of the War of 1812 and the causes that led to it are well documented and studied by serious historians. I would respond that the problem with serious historians is that they also take documents too seriously, failing to correlate them with other material evidence and not even considering that the testimony of war participants could be false.

            Or, to put it simply, historians approach documents as historians, not as investigators. If they approached them as investigators, with a healthy dose of skepticism, the story would make more sense.

            This means that the entire familiar narrative—"Europe is united by a bloody conqueror, and Russia stops him at great cost because this conqueror is a greater evil than England"—is entirely artificial. It's like the plot of a play that is performed in the theater over and over again, while the true story is entirely different. Perhaps even different each time. And by the way, not twice, but two and a half times—we can also add the "phony war" with the Swedes at Poltava. It's possible that this play benefits England and pro-English forces, each time presenting their side as the most progressive and absolutely uncontested. Or perhaps the opposite is true—it's possible that Napoleon and Alexander never actually fought each other seriously, but staged a spectacle, albeit a bloody one, for England.

            I understand, of course, that this sounds something like “there was no moon landing” and “there was no Tatar-Mongol yoke,” so, to avoid being unfounded, I will list all the oddities in the following comment.
            1. +1
              7 October 2025 16: 43
              Yeah, I've tried more than once to explain to people how to write reports after a battle or an implementation, especially if they went unsuccessfully.
              1. +2
                7 October 2025 23: 01
                "Victory has many fathers, but defeat is always an orphan." "Never are so many lies told as during war, after a hunt, and before elections."
          3. -1
            6 October 2025 21: 44
            And the most basic consideration is that before the invention of motor vehicles and railways, land warfare could not have been waged in the manner attributed to Napoleon. There could have been no "blitzkriegs" in the early 19th century, and large masses of infantry could not have marched from one end of Europe to the other.

            In fact, this is why Napoleon never demonstrated the fantastic super-efficiency attributed to him in other cases. The occupation of Egypt failed. The occupation of Spain turned into a protracted five-year war.
            The point is that the purely land war ended at the very walls of the first fortress that would have had to be taken with 12-pounder field guns (the maximum caliber Napoleon's army had). And here we must delve into our own memories and make a shocking discovery: there were no modern fortresses along Napoleon's route. Not a single one. Zero. Only the outdated Smolensk fortress and the field fortifications at Borodino. Alexander not only failed to prepare for war with Napoleon, but seemed to have planned from the very beginning for him to reach Moscow. Any fortress would have immediately become an insurmountable obstacle. Moreover, even Smolensk was miraculously captured by the Franks, as the wall generally withstood their gunfire. And even from Smolensk, Alexander's army withdrew, as well as from Borodino and Moscow. There was no serious resistance; it was a bloody deal.

            But how were other wars fought? Is all military history falsified? No, quite the contrary. Wars were fought over transportation arteries, i.e., rivers. This is precisely how the Opium Wars were fought, for example.

            However, in the case of Napoleon's campaign, military logic was completely absent. There were no proper logistics, no proper fortresses, no clear objectives. In terms of strategic importance, Moscow (a dead end for river routes) was a dead end, and to paralyze Russian logistics, Napoleon should have marched, for example, to Kolomna.
            The officials describe the very logic of the campaign in such a way that one word comes to mind: insanity. At first, N. allegedly wanted to defeat the Russian army (as if resistance couldn't continue after that), but then he settled in Moscow and spent three weeks completely passively waiting for the unbeaten army to capitulate. Idiocy? Damn it.
            The fate of the wounded in Moscow is a bloody spectacle in itself. If the wounded were transportable, why weren't they evacuated? If not, how did they get them all the way from Borodino—it took five days on the roads of the time?

            In short, the war may have happened, but it proceeded completely differently than we're told. This also casts doubt on its underlying motives. For example, before the invention of railways, there were no preconditions for European unification—there were no economically viable land routes. This meant that unification could only be achieved through the basins of the major seas. England was the leader of the North Atlantic powers, and France should naturally have become the leader of the Mediterranean countries. However, this didn't happen, despite N.'s attempt (with the campaign in Egypt). From this perspective, France's main adversary should have been not Russia, but the Ottoman Empire, but here N.'s logic failed him again.
            In general, Turkey's participation in many wars that affected its interests is described with astonishing sparseness. It's possible that the true purpose of these historical falsifications is to downplay Turkey's influence in Europe.

            But let's return to Napoleon. Those who have read this far will shake their heads and say, "What a bunch of people! Maybe you even think the Earth is flat, after all, there are documents and archaeology." Alas, both the documents and archaeology of the shady Napoleon are murky: valuable documents burned in Moscow, and no archaeological traces of the Battle of Waterloo have been found. Not a single mass grave. Yes, it sounds stupid, but anyone who wants to can check the English Wikipedia and see for themselves.

            I'll finish here, thank you for your attention.
            1. +2
              6 October 2025 22: 59
              Quote from Evil Eye
              And the most basic consideration is that before the invention of motor vehicles and railways, land warfare could not have been waged in the manner attributed to Napoleon. There could have been no "blitzkriegs" in the early 19th century, and large masses of infantry could not have marched from one end of Europe to the other.

              A simple question: why do you think so? :))) The standard march of an infantry division during WWII (specifically, infantry, without vehicles) was about 20 km per day. In fact, when I was younger, I used to walk 30 km with a large backpack and a tent. And 30 days of 20 km each is 600 km, which is quite a lot by the standards of either Russia or Europe.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              Actually, that is why in other cases Napoleonchik did not demonstrate any of the fantastic super-efficiency that is attributed to him.

              We will see
              Quote from Evil Eye
              The occupation of Egypt has failed.

              True, but this happened thanks to the French fleet, destroyed at Aboukir. An army cannot fight without supplies and reinforcements. Napoleon, however, was an ordinary general at the time, even though he was visible to the Directory; he had no imperial powers.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              The occupation of Spain turned into a five-year protracted war.

              I agree. But let's be clear: not just any war, but a guerrilla war. Which, as I already substantiated in the previous discussion, cannot be won by an army.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              The whole point is that the purely land war ended under the walls of the first fortress that would have to be taken with 12-pounder field guns (the maximum caliber that Napoleon’s army had).

              Why take them? :)))) The Allies did the same in 1813 – they left detachments (the size of a garrison) blockading the fortress, while the main forces moved on. We did the same in WWII, and the Germans, having broken into the Brest Fortress, didn't stop the rest of the offensive.
              The problem is that a fortress is only useful when it absolutely must be taken and there's no other option. Russia, however, has an insane amount of territory, so no fortress could have stopped the French.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              However, in the case of Napoleon's campaign, military logic is completely absent.

              I absolutely cannot agree.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              But how were other wars fought? Is all military history falsified? No, quite the contrary. Wars were fought over transportation arteries, i.e., rivers.

              I'm afraid this is completely untrue. There are the fundamentals of military art, and they state that the primary task of troops is the destruction of enemy armed forces, and that the capture of absolutely any geographical point is only important in the context of this objective. Which, generally speaking, is entirely true. Rivers may be the goal of post-war world reorganization, but nothing more.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              From the point of view of strategic importance, Moscow (a dead end for river routes) was a zero without a stick, and in order to paralyze Russian logistics, Napoleon should have gone, for example, to Kolomna.

              Paralyzing logistics altogether would hardly be possible, nor would it be necessary. In those years, Rus''s logistics flows, for all their importance, were not at all decisive. Russia has many rivers, so what would Kolomna offer? Well, they took control of the river there, and everything upstream and downstream would continue to function as before.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              The officials describe the very logic of the campaign in such a way that one word comes to mind: insanity. At first, N. allegedly wanted to defeat the Russian army (as if resistance couldn't continue after that), but then he settled in Moscow and spent three weeks completely passively waiting for the unbeaten army to capitulate. Idiocy? Damn it.

              Absolutely not.
              A war is won when one country admits defeat. Note: not when it exhausts all means of resistance, but when it admits defeat.
              So, the classic European warfare of those years was that one side would admit defeat when one of two conditions occurred:
              1) The regular army is defeated and there is nowhere to get a new one from
              2) The capital has been captured, or is under threat of being captured, and there is no way to counter the threat.
              This is absolutely historical and logical. Simply put, guerrilla warfare is only possible when the population is highly motivated to fight the aggressor. But where would feudal peasants get that motivation? Would they care which lord fleeces them?
              Remember how Frederick wondered how he could be safe in his own army? It's logical—with a bunch of armed men under his command, embittered by corporal punishment, it's hard to imagine them not turning their weapons against their tormentors.
              Well, the capital is, whatever one may say, the king’s wealth, a technically and politically advanced region, the most important in the country.
              In this logic, there is no sign of any madness in Napoleon - he acted absolutely correctly, within the paradigm of his experience and the history of Europe.
              First, he tried to defeat the Russian army, and when that failed, he captured Moscow. That should have been enough for peace, but, dammit, it wasn't.
              He remained in Moscow for three weeks precisely because he hoped to conclude peace while maintaining the victor's posture, even though he himself had already realized he hadn't won. He was ready to abandon the demands for a continental blockade and so on; his phrase, "peace is needed if only honor is saved," was entirely accurate. He had little reason to follow the Russian army further—if the Russians had decided to fight, even after surrendering Moscow, they could retreat to the Urals, or even beyond them, but Napoleon couldn't follow them any further.
              In general, he tried to negotiate by sending letters to Alexander, but it didn’t work out.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              The fate of the wounded in Moscow is a bloody spectacle in itself. If the wounded were transportable, why weren't they evacuated? If not, how did they get them all the way from Borodino—it took five days on the roads of the time?

              It's an interesting question, but a specific one. I don't really see any particular problems, since we evacuated a lot of people from Borodino to Moscow.
              It's important to understand that medicine in those days was... well, so-so. In fact, in the 18th century, it was common for a regiment to carry its wounded with it. You can imagine what that looked like and how many died during such transfers. The very fact that hospital care was organized separately from the active army was a great blessing.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              Unfortunately, both documents and archaeology are murky for the shady Napoleon: valuable documents burned in Moscow, and no archaeological traces of the Battle of Waterloo have been found.

              So what? This is, excuse me, an argument on the level of saying the Battle of Kulikovo never happened because no deposits of battle iron were found at its site. Or that the Mongol armies couldn't have existed because nomads would never have been able to smelt enough iron for their weapons.
              In any case, thanks for the conversation, it was nice talking to you! hi
              1. 0
                7 October 2025 16: 48
                A month on foot, 20 km every day, with a backpack on your back, in the rain, in the snow, through soggy field, spending the night in a wet tent, at 0 degrees (at best)?))) Yes, sir, you are an optimist)))
                1. +1
                  7 October 2025 16: 58
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  A month on foot, 20 km every day.

                  20 km isn't much. It's only 4-5 hours of walking a day:)))
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  with a backpack on his back

                  Yes. And nothing too heavy in the backpack, since heavy things travel on carts.
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  under rain


                  Yes, sometimes things are not pleasant, but a competent commander will organize a rest stop
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  Under the snow, on a soggy field, spending the night in a wet tent, at 0 degrees (at best)?)))

                  More Siv Cable nonsense. Military campaigns were usually held in the summer, and if in the winter, then without major marches.
                  1. 0
                    7 October 2025 20: 17
                    1. It's easy and simple for someone who hasn't bled their feet or rubbed their shoulders raw with a backpack on forced marches. Someone who hasn't had their lungs "burn" from lack of oxygen, someone who hasn't run until their vision darkened. Anyone who has felt this with their own feet and skin knows the value of this ease.
                    So, you were planning, like Hitler, to end the war in Russia in the summer, in a couple of months))) congratulations - the plan is as reliable as a Swiss watch)))
                    1. +2
                      7 October 2025 20: 25
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      It's easy and simple for those who haven't bled their feet or rubbed their shoulders raw with a backpack on forced marches. For those who haven't had their lungs "burn" from lack of oxygen, who haven't run.

                      It's easy and simple because soldiers of those years didn't engage in forced marches except in cases of extreme necessity. And only you could have come up with the idea of ​​running across Europe on forced marches.
                      However, I didn’t expect anything else from you.
                      1. -2
                        7 October 2025 20: 28
                        That's because you've only seen the army on TV. And you don't know what you're talking about. A month of walking will ruin your legs and boots. And there are a ton of little nuances that teretegs don't understand.
                      2. +2
                        7 October 2025 20: 36
                        Yes, yes... You're the one talking nonsense about forced marches, and I don't understand what I'm talking about:)))
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And a lot of other little nuances,

                        The main one is that you are again mindlessly trying to apply your personal experience to the army of 200 years ago.
                      3. 0
                        7 October 2025 21: 11
                        Human legs are the same whether they were 200 or 2000 years ago. No new ones have been invented yet.
                      4. +1
                        7 October 2025 21: 24
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Human legs are the same whether they were 200 or 2000 years ago.

                        True, and he wears them for months and years without any problems.
                      5. 0
                        7 October 2025 21: 58
                        Yeah, with a three-line rifle, ammunition, a greatcoat, a shovel, and other small stuff on your back. And not on asphalt, but at best on dirt roads, through puddles and mud. And at worst, no roads at all.
                        However, this is a pointless discussion; anyone who hasn’t felt it with their own feet, shoulders, and back will still not understand.
              2. -1
                7 October 2025 23: 30
                I'm not sure you're in the mood for more, but I'll answer anyway. Let's start with the most important thing.

                The capital has been captured or is under threat of being captured


                But Moscow wasn't the capital. laughing laughing laughing
                That is, even purely formally, Alexander could respond to all of Napoleon's letters from Moscow with the following responses: "And what next?", "And who cares," "You're a loser, you didn't study geography," etc.
                Actually, to this day no one can clearly explain why N. went to Moscow and not to St. Petersburg.

                As for your words about wars ending with the capture of capitals and the defeat of armies, and about how fortress garrisons were easily besieged, this suggests that there were anything but full-scale military operations. Perhaps there were military-political games, similar to the assault on Pristina, the seizure of administrative buildings in Ukraine, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and even the hostile takeover of enterprises. But not wars. And no one wanted to fight seriously, only looking for excuses to avoid plunging into wars. In some ways, this is reminiscent of the military actions of desert Bedouins – there, too, the tribes don't like to wage total wars; you either captured a settlement or camp in a single blow, or fled.
                I fully admit that until the mid-19th century, Europeans had a similarly "Bedouin" attitude toward war (like, "Let the feudal lords fight their soldiers, but leave the civilians alone"). Then, mobilization warfare became a reality, and a corresponding ideological framework was concocted for it, with a history 90% consisting of the great campaigns of great conquerors—to arouse patriotic feelings in schoolchildren and hide economic interests. Hence the falsification of history.

                Because when the going got tough, they didn't care about the loss of capitals (the Poles in Moscow), they recruited peasants (at the same time), and they remobilized an army of amateurs. In fact, the first mobilization, close to what is understood by this word today, was carried out by the French themselves after the Revolution. Napoleon couldn't have been unaware of this. And he couldn't have been unaware of the Poles' hold on the Kremlin, especially since they at least had political reasons, plus the support of part of the population and the elite, while Bonaparte (allegedly) had nothing. The loss of the army didn't stop Napoleon himself—allegedly, having lost almost all his fighters, he quickly recruited new ones in France. And then he returned to the game once again after his first exile. And Russia had already lost once at Austerlitz—and nothing happened, it went back into action, and Prussia capitulated, and then again entered into new coalitions—and it would seem obvious that promises to capitulate could be ignored and more substantial guarantees could be considered, like "what and where to occupy so that these bastards would be physically unable to fight after capitulation." But no, Napoleon turned out to be literally unteachable (allegedly), time and again stepping on the same rake.

                >> >> wars on land could not be waged in this way

                >>A simple question - why do you think so?:)))

                It's very simple. Moreover, you think so too. More precisely, the logic of your articles leads to precisely this conclusion.

                I'll refer to your article entitled "On the Role of VTOL Aircraft in Combat Operations of Modern Armies" from August 28, 2018. It's a shame, of course, that the programmatic text on military strategy is hidden inside an article devoted to a specific issue, but at least I can boast of my knowledge. feel

                Below is an abbreviated quote:

                "In... WWII... infantry divisions marched on foot - the vehicles assigned to them (and horses, by the way) were engaged in transporting guns, ammunition, food and other cargo necessary for fighting (...) the tactic of blitzkrieg was to, having broken through the front line, introduce motorized units into the breach, which, due to their high mobility, would be able to encircle the slow-moving enemy infantry forces, destroy their rear supplies, cut them off from supplies, and thereby force them to capitulate... even if the encircled... do not capitulate, then due to the lack of provisions and ammunition, they will soon lose most of their combat effectiveness. [When attempting a breakthrough] infantry "in an open field" is relatively easily destroyed by tank divisions, which can be quickly transferred to the breakthrough site."

                So, your main idea is that the infantry walks on foot, but transports the bulk of its military equipment by motor vehicles and horses.
                But we will develop this idea further: this is about property that the division has already received and which is at its disposal permanently.

                But to obtain this equipment, or to deliver supplies (ammunition), or to receive reinforcements, or simply to transport large masses of troops and supplies for them, railways or, at a pinch, roads were used. That is, freight highways. And what do we see in the "Napoleonic Wars"? There are no freight highways, that is, in those conditions—river ones—only horses. It's as if the Germans from Brest to Moscow hadn't used a single locomotive, let alone a single truck. Even though in other pre-steam locomotive wars, river logistics were in perfect order.

                Yes, infantry can march like that, but marching and fighting are two different things. Pulling siege guns like that is simply impossible. And pulling field guns with horses, not just to the battlefield but across the entire theater of operations, is idiotic. For various reasons, but one of them is that even if N. had done so, Alexander would have had a total advantage over him, simply because he could have dragged artillery in any quantity and of any caliber down the rivers to any convenient location, even to Moscow. But no, Sasha turned out to be as much of a Pithecanthropus as N. and knew nothing about river logistics either (supposedly), and he never once asked his advisors where grain was coming from in St. Petersburg. Furthermore, provisions would have had to be delivered somehow, not in knapsacks, since the norm before Napoleon's turbulent campaign was a five-day march from one warehouse ("magazine") to another. And these stores had to be formed only along the rivers, since there was no railroad or automobiles back then.

                Either they had to drag horse-drawn supply trains behind them, as during the Crusades, and move at a snail's pace, accepting that they would eventually have to wait a month for reinforcements—and they would certainly never reach Moscow before the cold weather set in—or (as historians claim) they couldn't count on reinforcements and march on as they were. That's why, they say, during the retreat, N. had almost no cavalry, and the artillery was at a loss—there was nothing to haul it with.

                Next.
                30 days at 20 km is 600 km


                Daily rations per person are at least 1,5 kg, and the load is, say, 30 kg. This means that without a supply train, a soldier can march 30 : 1,5 = 20 days, not 30, and that doesn't include carrying weapons, ammunition (and the ammunition consumption of smoothbore rifles was monstrous given the appalling spread of bullets), tools, blankets, and spare trousers, not to mention artillery, odds and ends like siege ladders, and provisions for the horses. So, the infantry's speed is determined not by the march speed (this doesn't take into account enemy counteraction, the destruction of crossings, etc.—not counting the actual combat), but by the speed of the supply train.

                So, the movement remains along the transport arteries with the infantry retreating for no more than 5 days’ marches.

                Either... Or support from the local population. That is, we should expect the Franks, just like the Poles and False Dmitrys in their time.

                So what do historians paint? Some kind of middle ground—saying Napoleon didn't count on supplies, marching lightly, and so he pressed on without stopping. The soldiers carried off enough equipment for the one-off trip (after crossing the border), and hoped to scavenge for provisions from the local population. And from which trees they hoped to collect cannonballs and gunpowder is a mystery. Or perhaps they knew in advance that there would be no shortage of gunpowder because there would be no serious resistance. True, the local population resorted to guerrilla warfare (something that had never happened in Spain or Egypt, and now they were doing it again)—and it wasn't so much the loss of soldiers from guerrilla actions that was the issue. how much is in the foraging breakdownWhile Alexander, albeit vaguely, employed scorched-earth tactics (like N. in the Greater East, but how could N. have expected such treachery from Sasha? And why us?!). And yet, he advanced toward Moscow, which lacked strategic significance and had no capital status, using fine phrases about the heart and kidneys of Russia. Then, when he realized there would be no capitulation, he for some reason abandoned Moscow, even though he already knew he would have to face winter in the Russian Empire. At least in Moscow there was fuel. And so the great commander hoped not only to avoid starving his army to death (which is exactly what happened), but even to win.

                And, of course, there was no hidden agenda here, none of the officials saw anything strange, they just said that the great commanders of the past were a bit of idiots, it’s a common thing.
              3. -1
                8 October 2025 00: 04
                It would be fine if N. had gotten carried away pursuing the retreating Russian army. But didn't he really have a plan B in case there was no capitulation? Hadn't he heard anything about the Poles in Moscow, even from his own Poles? He could have at least brought up the rear from Europe along the Smolensk road during the three weeks of sitting in Moscow—like, "Guys, where are we going to retreat anyway? We'll physically never rake in provisions from the peasants on that road again, having already gobbled them all up the first time." So, even if our rear is lagging behind, while we're sitting here, organize some stores for me (at least three, if we follow the five-marching rule—that's all the way to Smolensk, considering that even in Smolensk the supplies were a mess) so we can retreat without losses. We'll even give those Russians a run for their money during their retreat; we'll show them!

                But no. A bloody circus.

                [about Egypt]
                An army cannot fight without supplies and reinforcements.


                But for some reason he went to Russia without normal supplies and without counting on replenishment.

                [In Spain, what I got] wasn't just a war, but a guerrilla war. Which, as I already substantiated in the previous discussion, cannot be won by an army.


                Well, Wellington got involved too. In any case, N. should have at least considered the possibility of uprisings and guerrilla warfare in Russia and had a plan in place for that, but it turns out life has taught him nothing.

                And by the way, about Spain and the fleet lost in Egypt. Have you heard of Bonaparte trying, for example, to seal off Gibraltar, then drive out the English and systematically reclaim the Mediterranean? I haven't heard of it, and I couldn't find it on Google. Maybe I Googled it poorly. And I haven't heard of any attempts to use an asymmetrical fleet either. Fireships, galleys. Only the Swedish fleet was quite light, and even then, the Swedes were in charge of those themselves. The disappearance of war galleys, in my humble opinion, has no rational explanation. The first steamships were still a few years away, and the only alternative to sails was oars, but no, it's another mystery of history.

                Speaking of the Baltic theater, here's what they write about the Russian Empire's war with England (supposedly a formal war, purely under pressure from Napoleon): "Immediately after the war began, Russia was forced to undertake a huge amount of work to fortify all its Baltic ports, even the Novodvinsk fortress on the White Sea." For some reason, the Baltic fortifications were seriously fortified; no one knew they were useless. And after all the oddities with Napoleon, it's fitting to ask where the war was formal—with the English or the Franks. Especially since in that same Baltic, the Russians, in alliance with the Franks, wrested Finland and Åland from the Swedes, and in favor of the Russian Empire (i.e., Napoleon was, in principle, willing to share).

                There are basics of military art, and they state that the main task of the troops is the destruction of enemy armed forces.


                Well, for example, I would argue, since even by the late 18th century, it had become necessary to speak not only of the destruction of armed forces but also of the entire military mobilization machine (no matter how rudimentary). And "destruction" doesn't just mean physical destruction, but also encirclement (again, I remind you of your own text) – and Napoleon's own soldiers weren't so much killed in battle as "dynamically encircled," deprived of normal supplies, which is what killed them.
                In any case, by the same logic, N. did not complete the task – he did not destroy the army, did not occupy the territory, did not occupy the capital (I remind you, Moscow was not the capital... Unless you agree with the conspiracy theorists who considered Muscovy at that time a state separate from St. Petersburg Rus).

                Rivers may be the goal of post-war reorganization of the world, but nothing more.


                Well, the Germans, for example, didn't know about this and tried to cut the Volga artery in '42. But the point, I repeat, isn't all that; the point is that without rivers, it would have been impossible to transport siege weapons or generally properly supply themselves from their bases, but we'll come back to that when we talk about fortresses.

                There are many rivers in Russia, so what will Kolomna offer?


                Let me just remind you that the Moskva River and the Oka River merge in Kolomna. Not as significantly, of course, as in Nizhny Novgorod, where the Oka and Volga meet, but still useful; after all, part of the basin had already been lost to the Russians and would have gone to the French. In any case, at least it would have been somewhat useful, unlike capturing Moscow. But the best option would have been to go to Nizhny Novgorod; then St. Petersburg would have been cut off from all the southern grain-producing provinces. Let me remind you that despite its "multitude of rivers," St. Petersburg was supplied by a single waterway.
                By the way, if you haven’t been to Kolomna and Nizhny, I recommend going there; they have beautiful views (although you probably have).

                Guerrilla warfare is only possible if the population is highly motivated to fight the aggressor. But where would feudal peasants get that motivation? Would they care which lord fleeces them?


                And yet, the guerrilla warfare continued. Why? For example, they usually skin three at a certain standard, but they want to squeeze out the current harvest here and now, and what will they eat in the winter? Excellent motivation.

                He was already ready to abandon the demands for a continental blockade.


                Well, you see how the officials are struggling. A continental blockade is no longer necessary. Either N really was an impulsive idiot, didn't know what he wanted (and didn't even try to use those three weeks wisely, although there were options)... Or he had other goals.

                If the Russians had decided to fight, even after surrendering Moscow, they could have retreated to the Urals, or beyond the Urals, but Napoleon could not have followed them any further.


                Let me reiterate that the defeat of the army seems like a fixed idea. It's as if, if Soviet troops had retreated to Western Siberia, the Germans wouldn't have seized control of the abandoned European part of Russia and the Urals, with all their minerals and other resources, but would have followed suit. It's absurd, but we attribute similarly absurd thinking to Napoleon.

                [about the wounded] The question is interesting, but specific.


                Yes, it is private, but the whole history of this war consists of such private absurdities.

                So what? This is, excuse me, an argument on the level of saying the Battle of Kulikovo never happened because no deposits of battle iron were found at its site. Or that the Mongol armies couldn't have existed because nomads would never have been able to smelt enough iron for their weapons.


                Yes, that's right. Whether it's the Napoleonic Wars or the "Mongol invasion," it's all the same murky picture: witnesses are confused, troop movements are absurd, battles take place in open fields, and there are no archaeological traces. Perhaps the event did occur, but its interpretation raises questions.
              4. 0
                8 October 2025 00: 56
                So, fortresses.

                Let's start by reiterating that before the advent of railroads, only rivers could serve as transport arteries. Rivers weren't used—wars were fake (a dig at the Mongols, too). All the old fortresses, as is easy to see, were built on river banks to control traffic. You can't bypass rivers—meaning, tactically, all sorts of bold flanking maneuvers and maneuvers away from the supply train are possible, but strategically, they are not.

                The importance of rivers is underscored by this episode from the Napoleonic Wars: "The Walcheren campaign was an unsuccessful British expedition to Holland in 1809... the expedition's commander was ordered to capture the cities of Vlissingen and Antwerp and thereby ensure the safe passage of British ships along the River Scheldt."
                But in Russia, for some reason, this logic has broken down.

                But let's agree with the historians for now. Let's say Napoleon's men loaded their provisions into backpacks, took horses, armed foragers, and marched entirely on foot, not relying on rivers. And, accordingly, bypassing the fortresses you're writing about:

                Russia has an insane amount of territory, which is why no fortress could stop the French.


                Well, I'll modestly remind you that fortresses were built, both in the Baltic and in Bobruisk (but why the defenders of Raccoon City... excuse me, Bobruisk were besieged—that's precisely the question of who was actually fighting whom). Furthermore, even if Alexander hadn't built any fortresses at all, any city in Napoleon's path could and should have been turned into an impromptu festung. Moscow, for sure. But no. Meanwhile, the Franks didn't bypass Smolensk; they had to take it (and they did, with difficulty, even though there were no modern fortresses there), and for some reason they didn't bypass Maloyaroslavets either; they had to storm it—and unsuccessfully. Thirdly, if it comes down to it, they could have chosen any convenient natural defensive line (for example, any river along Napoleon's route) and at least hastily constructed field fortifications and positions – if there had been plenty of cannons and gunpowder (a moment of conspiracy theory – if Muscovy had been a separate state, there might not have been enough gunpowder, by the way). Then they could have been made extended – not a continuous front, but still. Moreover, the Franks couldn't outflank the positions at Borodino, and there was only a stream there, not a river. It would seem that finding a suitable river, burning the bridges, and that's it – cannons wouldn't be so easily dragged across, and fording infantry would be a real pain with pre-targeted shrapnel mortars. And at least some trenches and wooden stakes would have been enough. Even if the enemy had overwhelmed the defense with mass, the losses would have been monstrous.

                But no. The great, murky commanders of the past fought in the open, completely ignoring fortifications (another stone thrown at the Mongols). And all that the French encountered on their way was the old Smolensk wall, the fleches, and the redoubt.

                Now let's recall your article again and consider whether Napoleon's troops had any chance of SURVIVING (I'm not talking about "winning") if they hadn't taken the fortresses but had ridden around them on land. Given that they had no allies within the Russian Empire. And let's immediately note that the Franks ultimately (according to the official version) didn't survive. The whole question is how obvious this outcome was.
              5. 0
                8 October 2025 02: 02
                So, with this approach, Napoleon's forces were literally programmed to perish even with minimal resistance—which is what ultimately happened. Judge for yourself.

                Firstly, in order to quickly reach Moscow before winter, the Franks were forced not to count on reinforcements (which I have already written about).
                Secondly, in this case, any delay would have been disastrous for them – there would have been nothing to eat. Delay due to battles would have been even more disastrous, even assuming tactical victories (and assuming our troops didn't surrender, along with provisions and weapons, of course). They would have run out of men (but that's irrelevant; the expression "cannon fodder" is not without reason associated with Napoleon's soldiers), but also gunpowder, and even worse, horses, with nowhere to get new ones. If they ran out of horses, the army would cease to be combat-ready, without cannons and cavalry (which is what ultimately happened). They would also have run out of provisions in their backpacks, and that would have meant the death of the entire army. Therefore, it made sense for the Russian troops to defend themselves... But they politely defended nothing until Borodino. How lucky!
                Thirdly, there was the real risk of being trapped. And even more so, the risk that Bonaparte himself could be captured by the imperial ass. But even here, there was incredible luck – Napoleon's troops were blockading Bobruisk, while ours somehow didn't think to encircle Napoleon in Moscow. "There was no order," huh. And then they only pushed the Franks to the border, but didn't really try to cut off their retreat.
                It's worth noting here, by the way, that the Russian troops retreated politely toward Moscow, so that N. wouldn't have any fears of being caught in a pincer movement. There are no plausible explanations for this, either, and those that exist are along the lines of "flying saucers with nuclear weapons were better."
                In 4 cases, the entire army became drastically dependent on local resources. Now let's do a little mental arithmetic: N.'s army allegedly had at least 400 men, i.e., one and a half times more than the supposed population of Moscow, despite the fact that Moscow was supplied by half the country via rivers. This meant the entire tax and trade system and the entire state apparatus were working to collect and transport provisions, while Napoleon's foragers would have had to do this work themselves, and then spread out across the entire territory. This was a diet of foraging; one could do the math and prove that it would have been insufficient, but officials already admit it was, and that Bonaparte's horses and men began to die almost immediately, and the "Great Army" approached Moscow already shrunk to a quarter its size.

                At the same time, we remember that infantry may be able to stomp along paths, but cannons and rockets must be carried only along more or less decent roads (in fact, they did travel along roads), which means that there weren’t many places where the Franks could march (as a combat-ready army, and not a crowd of men with guns), so the lack of defensive battles seems even more mysterious.

                Ultimately, the French literally had to either end the war (and without the assumption of hidden pro-French forces, they had no chance), or occupy any city (not one abandoned, like Moscow, but one that was still functioning) – simply to have somewhere to spend the winter, or… take up farm work – reaping grain, harvesting firewood and hay, and making village huts habitable (that's a couple hundred thousand people – how many houses would you need?). There was no time for war, and if the Russian cavalry rode up to the French brothers binding sheaves, all they could do was wave their white trousers. And whether they surrendered Moscow or not, the end would be the same.

                It turns out that bypassing the fortresses (or, in other words, bypassing normal transport hubs) was a monstrous gamble for Napoleon's forces, and that's exactly how officials describe it. And it's a doubly stupid gamble, since Napoleon allegedly already lost 20 horses in the Polish campaign of 1806-1807, and in Egypt, everything was tied up in supplies. Conclusions should be drawn, but, as official historians have it, Bonaparte was an unteachable baboon and incapable of drawing conclusions.

                Or perhaps it only appears that way to official historians, who took the propaganda of the parties to the then redivision of the world at face value.
                1. +2
                  8 October 2025 10: 39
                  Good afternoon!
                  I'm quite ill, so I'll keep my reply brief. I have no intention of offending or insulting you, so if my words seem harsh, please know that's due to the brevity of my presentation.
                  Well, let's go, actually:)))
                  1.
                  Quote from Evil Eye
                  Actually, to this day no one can clearly explain why N. went to Moscow and not to St. Petersburg.

                  Well, why not? It's been explained long ago. The Russian army was retreating specifically toward Moscow, and Napoleon was following behind. As I've already said, the primary goal of any war is the destruction of the enemy army. A turn toward St. Petersburg, leaving the Russian army on the flank, with the possibility of the Russian army reaching the rear of Napoleon's army, is a very bad idea.
                  And yet, Russia was a rather unique country, essentially having two capital cities instead of one. Moscow was very important, and one could expect Alexander to opt for peace when threatened with capture.
                  Quote from Evil Eye
                  As for your words about wars ending with the capture of capitals and the defeat of armies, and about the fact that fortress garrisons were easily blockaded, this suggests that there was anything but full-scale military action.

                  Your mistake is that you view military operations through the prism of total wars—WWI and WWII. This is absolutely unnecessary—the world simply hasn't matured enough for them yet. If we consider Napoleonic and other wars as derivatives of feudal warfare, everything falls into place.
                  WWI and WWII are only possible in an industrial society, when labor productivity is at a level capable of supporting and arming multi-million-strong armies.
                  Quote from Evil Eye
                  Because when the going got tough, they didn't care about the loss of their capitals (the Poles in Moscow), they recruited peasants (then), and they remobilized an army of amateurs. In fact, the first mobilization, close to what we understand by that word today, was carried out by the French themselves after the Revolution.

                  The militia of the time of Minin and Pozharsky is a relic of the times when young and old alike took up arms when faced with a grave threat. The problem is that such a militia was completely incapable of confronting the regular army of the Napoleonic Wars.
                  French mobilization—yes, but that was in a country that had rejected feudalism. And again, the scale of this mobilization was such as to simply replenish the existing army, not to completely replace it, so this example is also inappropriate.
                  The loss of his army didn't stop Napoleon himself—allegedly, having lost almost all his fighters, he quickly recruited new ones in France. And then he returned to the game again after his first exile. Russia had already lost once at Austerlitz—and yet, it was back in action.

                  It was precisely the destruction of the Grande Armée that stopped Napoleon, because he was unable to assemble an army comparable in size, let alone the same one. This is precisely why he lost and was forced to abdicate for the first time.
                  So, your main idea is that the infantry walks on foot, but transports the bulk of its military equipment by motor vehicles and horses.

                  You forgot to mention that this property also stomps on all fours. Simply put, livestock used for food stomps its feet and is gradually slaughtered.
                  But to obtain this equipment, or to transport supplies (ammunition), or to receive reinforcements, or simply to transport large masses of troops and supplies for them, railways or, at a pinch, roads were used. That is, freight highways. And what do we see in the "Napoleonic Wars"?

                  The fact that you are again drawing erroneous parallels with WWII. DON'T:)))))))
                  Even WWI was the era of rapid-fire rifles, rapid-fire artillery, and rapid-fire machine guns. This means the amount of ammunition expended in combat is enormous. And supply chains had to be just as plentiful. The armies of the Napoleonic Wars were much more modest—they didn't need as much supply. Furthermore, during WWI/WWI, fighting was constant, practically daily. During the Napoleonic Wars, it was a matter of a few battles. So, in terms of both expenditure and intensity, you're comparing the incomparable.
                  1. +2
                    8 October 2025 12: 20
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    And hauling field guns by horse, not just to the battlefield but across the entire theater of operations, is idiotic. For various reasons, but even if N. had done so, Alexander would have had a total advantage over him, simply because he could have dragged artillery in any quantity and caliber down the rivers to any convenient location, even to Moscow.

                    There's no advantage. There's an army, and it has artillery. Why drag it somewhere separate from the army?
                    Quote from Evil Eye

                    Or else pull horse-drawn convoys behind you, as during the Crusades, and move at a snail's pace

                    Let's make it simple:))))) Napoleon's army marched from the Neman to Moscow for 83 days. The distance there is about 870 km as the crow flies, or, let's say, 1000 km by road. So, on average, Napoleon covered a whopping 12 km per day:)))))
                    A 12-pounder field gun, including its carriage, weighs up to 1700 kg, a mere sizable load for four horses. A 6-pounder, naturally, is lighter. Napoleon had 1300-1400 cannons of all types.
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    And what do historians draw?

                    A perfectly reasonable picture. But let's start, as they say, from the beginning.
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    They say Napoleon didn't count on supplies, he was traveling light, so he moved without stopping, the soldiers carried off all the property on themselves in one go

                    Sorry, but I haven't read anything like that from any official. I've read from historians that Napoleon naturally expected the Russian army to advance and defeat him. But when that didn't happen and the Russians began to retreat, Napoleon followed them. Moreover, at one point, he even considered stopping in Smolensk and not advancing any further, spending the winter and continuing the war the following year, but then changed his mind. However, having changed his mind, Napoleon decided to make Smolensk a supply base. He left a sizeable army there (on the return journey, he was met by something like 45 healthy soldiers, along with a large number of sick and wounded) with the task of organizing foraging, and then he moved on.

                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    At least pull up the rear from Europe along the Smolensk road during the 3 weeks of sitting in Moscow - like, guys, if anything happens, then where are we going to retreat?

                    Napoleon planned to retreat through Kaluga, a region still unplundered. He failed to do so – the Battle of Maloyaroslavets.
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    Well, the Germans, for example, didn’t know about this; they tried to cut off the Volga artery in 42.

                    Forgive me, but please study WHY they did this:)))) All desire to draw such parallels will disappear on its own.
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    And yet, the guerrilla war continued. Why?

                    Exactly. Why? :)))))) In Spain, the answer would be simple: the continental blockade. The point is that the Spanish peasants fought guerrillas not out of any particular patriotism, but because the regime imposed by Napoleon (the ban on trade with England) led to the mass impoverishment of the peasantry—the goods they produced were simply of no use to anyone. In other words, Napoleon had driven the Spaniards into a corner from which there was no escape—and they fought.
                    And why would this happen in Russia? :))) The blockade will come later, after the end of military operations, but even if it does, the peasant makes bread, even without selling it to England, he will not die of hunger.
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    Like, if the Soviet troops had retreated to Western Siberia, then the Germans would not have taken over the ownerless European Russia and the Urals with all their minerals and other resources, but would have definitely followed suit.

                    They would have done both. But you're forgetting that the Germans were going to destroy the USSR and seize territory, while Napoleon wanted neither. He needed a continental blockade.
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    The importance of rivers is underscored by this episode from the Napoleonic Wars: "The Walcheren campaign was an unsuccessful British expedition to Holland in 1809... the expedition's commander was ordered to capture the cities of Vlissingen and Antwerp and thereby ensure the safe passage of British ships along the River Scheldt."

                    I wrote to you
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    There are basic principles of military art, and they state that the primary task of troops is the destruction of enemy armed forces, and that the capture of absolutely any geographical points is important only in the context of the above-mentioned task.

                    The English were climbing onto the river because the French fleet had gone there and they wanted to destroy it, and not at all because they were going to cut off any communications.
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    Well, I'll humbly remind you that fortresses were built after all.

                    Of course. Because fortresses were useful—as resource accumulation points for the army or for protecting key points—like naval bases, for example, or river estuaries that could be penetrated by enemy fleets.
                    From which it does not at all follow that the enemy must necessarily take these fortresses, especially Napoleon, who wanted a continental blockade, and not the conquest of Russia.

                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    Furthermore, even if Alexander had not built any fortresses at all, any city on Napoleon’s route could and should have been turned into an impromptu festung.

                    It's completely unnecessary and downright harmful. Any fortress will only hold out for a certain amount of time, and then it will fall under siege simply from starvation. By trying to fortify the fortress, you'll be handing over the Russian army to Napoleon.
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    At the same time, the Franks did not bypass Smolensk, they had to take it (and they took it with difficulty, although there were no modern fortresses there), and for some reason they also did not bypass Maloyaroslavets, they had to storm it - and unsuccessfully.

                    In both cases, the fortresses have nothing to do with it.
                    The Battle of Smolensk resulted solely from the Russian army's attempt to defeat part of the French. Napoleon divided his forces, Barclay attempted to attack one of the units, Napoleon quickly assembled a striking force, and Barclay, realizing the failure, was forced to retreat, fighting a rearguard action to save his army. The fact that these battles took place in Smolensk was a coincidence.
                    As for Maloyaroslavets, there was also a clash of two armies there: Napoleon tried to retreat to Smolensk via Kaluga, while Kutuzov tried to prevent it. So here too, we have a clash of armies, not a capture of a fortress.
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    Firstly, to make it to Moscow quickly – before winter,

                    They didn't initially plan to go to Moscow at all.

                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    Secondly, in this case any delay would be disastrous for them – there would be nothing to eat.

                    incorrect for the reasons I described above
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    In 3 cases, there was a real risk of getting into the bag

                    What are you talking about? :))) Napoleon's army was more than twice as big, what a sack:))))) Yes, he would have dreamed of ending up in a sack - he just needed a battle in which he would have defeated the Russian army
                  2. -1
                    8 October 2025 12: 46
                    Good health to you, Andrey, I’m a bit ill myself.

                    About wars and non-wars
                    I'm perfectly aware of the differences between 19th-century wars and industrial wars, and between feudal wars and national wars. And that's precisely why I look at this entire story critically.

                    There is a difference between a feudal war (when a small group of interested parties fights professional fighters, and the people, at best, pay taxes with the words "a plague on both your houses") and a fake war, when there is no military action at all.
                    The modern equivalent of the first is the wars waged by mercenaries and private military companies over all sorts of resource goodies in Africa. The equivalent of the second is the infamous Yevgeny V-ch P.'s march on Moscow a couple of years ago. I have no doubt that future historians will also be scratching their heads, trying to explain "what the heck happened," and will also speculate that 21st-century wars were supposedly like that: fleeting, mobile, without major battles, built on daring maneuvers (straight as a rail—moving straight to the capital and never turning back). And there was no resistance to Yevgeny V-ch P. not for domestic political reasons, but because, supposedly, Vladimir V-ch P. feared losing all his security forces in the fight against the daring opportunist, so he saved them until the very end.
                    This is the key difference: in a non-war, the key is not armed force, but behind-the-scenes negotiations. But armed force is also necessary, because an armed demarche can't simply be dispersed with water cannons. The result is a land-based equivalent of a "flag show," where the manpower is determined not so much to wage a serious war as to test the limits of escalation.

                    If we look at Napoleon's campaign from this point of view, then everything becomes logical - there was no resistance not because there couldn't be any, but because of some behind-the-scenes arrangements, hence our strategy of "fight, don't give up."

                    Sitting in Moscow and waiting for some "boyars" in this case isn't stupid either; it could be a genuine wait for their supporters, and even a display of force in their favor. Let's imagine that some "boyars" arrive in Moscow with a reserve heir to the throne (let's say, Konstantin Pavlovich), and under the protection of Napoleon's soldiers, accuse Alexander of conniving at Paul's murder and therefore being a usurper who should abdicate. Damn it. But Sasha eventually resolved all the issues, and asked Bonaparte to leave without promising to feed him on the way. I'm not insisting on this version, but it's simply an example of how much more logical everything would have been.

                    Yes, of course, in regular wars there are always capitulations, surrenders of positions without a fight (sometimes unjustifiably, simply out of cowardice), and certain agreements (like "Okay, we'll leave, and you'll let us leave in peace"), and even simply certain rules (like "don't finish off the wounded"). After all, even the Germans, who violated everything imaginable, didn't eat people (and the Japanese rarely did). But, firstly, such cases don't happen every time in real wars, and secondly, at least it's clear from the plans and equipment of the parties that they were prepared to fight even if it never came to war.

                    As for feudal wars, yes, they involved a tiny fraction of the population. But this doesn't mean the feudal lords didn't fight seriously. When necessary, they fought, and even pulled each other's guts out in the public squares. The problem is different: the feudal lords' interests differed not only from those of the bulk of "their" people (even though the nobility and the common people could speak different languages)—well, that's a truism—but also from the interests of the bourgeoisie and the administration. But the feudal lords were under pressure from ancient customs; even in the question of who would rule where, the order of succession played a greater role than the opinions of, say, local elites, or the feudal lords themselves. Then William IV died, and the union of Britain and Hanover ended because of differences in succession. 120 years down the drain.

                    But this in itself (I repeat) is an excellent pretext for falsifying history, since it's better not to reveal narrow clan interests to the public opinion of nascent nation-states (with a broad stratum of educated people and a more popular army, albeit not yet massive). The opposite is also true: beautiful national myths with great wars help unite the nation.

                    Now let's get to the heart of the matter, to how the war should be waged simply based on logic and common sense.
    2. -1
      5 October 2025 13: 31
      It's simple. Mykolka was an asshole. And he got what he deserved. Those who began their reign at Khodynka will end it at the scaffold.
      1. +1
        5 October 2025 13: 34
        Well, that's a simplified version. It was still a bit more complicated. They say, "The king is played by his retinue." No matter how great Nicholas was, he couldn't possibly keep track of such a vast country. There were those who helped him.
        1. +1
          5 October 2025 13: 38
          Everything brilliant is simple. He was an asshole. And he had plenty of "assistants," of course. Witte, Yusupov, and so on and so forth. For some reason, his ancestors were able to rule a huge country. And this is the only emperor under whom Russia's territory shrank.
          1. 0
            5 October 2025 13: 46
            - unfortunately, that's not a very precise (specific) description. And unfortunately, the empire didn't just shrink; it partially collapsed. And then, it had to be put back together.
          2. +1
            6 October 2025 10: 20
            Quote: Valery_Erikson
            For some reason, his ancestors were able to rule a huge country.

            Are you talking about Alex II, who ruined the entire industry so completely that it had to be rebuilt from scratch? Or Alex I, who planted a Polish mine under Russia. So how many uprisings were there? Three? And each one was almost a full-scale military operation, not the peasants being driven out and flogged for burning down their estate.
            And yes, Nikolai inherited a country full of prosperity, yeah.
            1. -1
              7 October 2025 16: 51
              Well, let's say that the wild people lived not only in Poland, but also in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
              Industry in Russia has never been very good. Peter started it, but his successors never fully developed it.
              1. +1
                7 October 2025 17: 06
                It's just that even the frail industry that existed under Nikolai I and which, for better or worse, was exported to Crimea, died under Al2 and only began to be restored under Al3.
                I happened to read an opinion that it was because of Al2 that we were hopelessly behind in the industrial race.
                Well this is so, by the way.
                Best regards drinks
                1. -1
                  7 October 2025 17: 47
                  The Crimean War is a complex phenomenon in many respects, from the countries involved to the geography. Military action took place on the Black and Baltic Seas, in the North and Far East. Russian industry simply could not cope with a war against two of the most powerful countries in scientific, technological, industrial, and financial terms.
                  And if it weren’t for the stupidity of their politicians and commanders, things could have been worse.