Compare the defeat of Napoleon and the Nazis by the Russian?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
The invasion of Russia by the armies of Charles XII of Sweden was defeated at the battle of Poltava, 8 July 1709, after those armies had been severely affected by the winter of 1708-09 and the scorched earth tactics of the Russians. In other words, precisely the factors that defeated Napoleon.
Furthermore, there had been many successful invasions of Russia from the West. A Polish army took Moscow in the early 17th century, and Muscovy was a satellite of Poland for several years at that time.
An historical blunder of the first magnitude, my dear moderator! Do you not know your own nation's history?Napoleon couldn't possible had known what would happen - there were no history to warn him.
Christian
The invasion of Russia by the armies of Charles XII of Sweden was defeated at the battle of Poltava, 8 July 1709, after those armies had been severely affected by the winter of 1708-09 and the scorched earth tactics of the Russians. In other words, precisely the factors that defeated Napoleon.
Furthermore, there had been many successful invasions of Russia from the West. A Polish army took Moscow in the early 17th century, and Muscovy was a satellite of Poland for several years at that time.
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
- ziggy wiseman
- Member
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 13:52
- Location: Canada
Re: nap / hit
[quote="HaEn"]Both were Corporals who had military experience, but got in over their head.... )
I think Bonaparte was a general before becoming emperor,and i'm pretty sure that his code of law is still in use in France and part of Canada
I think Bonaparte was a general before becoming emperor,and i'm pretty sure that his code of law is still in use in France and part of Canada
- ziggy wiseman
- Member
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 13:52
- Location: Canada
Re: nap / hit
[quote="HaEn"]Both were Corporals who had military experience, but got in over their head.... )
I think Bonaparte was a general before becoming emperor,and i'm pretty sure that his code of law is still in use in France and part of Canada
I think Bonaparte was a general before becoming emperor,and i'm pretty sure that his code of law is still in use in France and part of Canada
- ziggy wiseman
- Member
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 13:52
- Location: Canada
Re: nap / hit
[quote="HaEn"]Both were Corporals who had military experience, but got in over their head.... )
I think Bonaparte was a general before becoming emperor,and i'm pretty sure that his code of law is still in use in France and part of Canada
I think Bonaparte was a general before becoming emperor,and i'm pretty sure that his code of law is still in use in France and part of Canada
- ziggy wiseman
- Member
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 13:52
- Location: Canada
- Christian Ankerstjerne
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 14027
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
I am Danish, not Swedish - be carefull if you come to Denmark or Sweden, and mix up the two in front of a drunk person. You might end up in a nasty situationmichael mills wrote:Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:An historical blunder of the first magnitude, my dear moderator! Do you not know your own nation's history?Napoleon couldn't possible had known what would happen - there were no history to warn him.
Christian
The invasion of Russia by the armies of Charles XII of Sweden was defeated at the battle of Poltava, 8 July 1709, after those armies had been severely affected by the winter of 1708-09 and the scorched earth tactics of the Russians. In other words, precisely the factors that defeated Napoleon.
Doesn't that support my point?michael mills wrote:Furthermore, there had been many successful invasions of Russia from the West. A Polish army took Moscow in the early 17th century, and Muscovy was a satellite of Poland for several years at that time.
I find it most interresting, thatthe country that has been most succesful in waging war against Russia is - Russia. After all, it has been thecivil wars that have been the longest, and often hard or impossible to break down.
Christian
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
Let's just as well consider the Swedish invasion in the early 18th century too. There are of course vast differences in many ways between the thre conflicts, but also some fascinating similarities.
* In all three cases, Russia was invaded by an army generally considered the best in Europe during it's day
* In all three cases, Russia met with serious initial defeats in battle at the hands of that army - Narva, Borodino, Minsk/Kiev/Smolensk/Vyazma/Brjansk.
* In all three cases, logistical difficulties due to the enormity of the space, lack of infrastructure and difficult terrain and weather played a crucial role in weakening the effective force of the invaders
* In all three cases, the decisive turning point came under circumstances where the invaders were weakened by these logistical difficulties, overstretched, and in a position where Russia could choose battle on her own terms to a considerable extent - Poltava, the retreat from Moscow, Uranus
* In all three cases, Russian victory brought the ultimate collapse of a great empire
All of which suggests that it is a risky business to invade Russia, to employ a monumental understatement . The key might have been to always put logistics first, and to avoid getting dragged into situations by which the defender would profit. But then you are looking at a drawn-out campaign that could go on indefinitely. Few invaders can afford that.
But then of course, there is one modern-day example of Russian defeat - World War I. Not that it contains much in the way of revolutionary solutions to these problems - it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the Germans succeeded in this mainly because Russia at that time happened to be in a state of uncharacteristic military and political weakness.
cheers
* In all three cases, Russia was invaded by an army generally considered the best in Europe during it's day
* In all three cases, Russia met with serious initial defeats in battle at the hands of that army - Narva, Borodino, Minsk/Kiev/Smolensk/Vyazma/Brjansk.
* In all three cases, logistical difficulties due to the enormity of the space, lack of infrastructure and difficult terrain and weather played a crucial role in weakening the effective force of the invaders
* In all three cases, the decisive turning point came under circumstances where the invaders were weakened by these logistical difficulties, overstretched, and in a position where Russia could choose battle on her own terms to a considerable extent - Poltava, the retreat from Moscow, Uranus
* In all three cases, Russian victory brought the ultimate collapse of a great empire
All of which suggests that it is a risky business to invade Russia, to employ a monumental understatement . The key might have been to always put logistics first, and to avoid getting dragged into situations by which the defender would profit. But then you are looking at a drawn-out campaign that could go on indefinitely. Few invaders can afford that.
But then of course, there is one modern-day example of Russian defeat - World War I. Not that it contains much in the way of revolutionary solutions to these problems - it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the Germans succeeded in this mainly because Russia at that time happened to be in a state of uncharacteristic military and political weakness.
cheers
Qvist, excellet points!
but with that moder example wwI doesnt really fit...afghanistan fits better
by the way, afghnas and mongols have won the war, to some extent, against russians...can it be because both theaters of war were in eastern part or russia rather than the european part?
perhaps napoleon and hitler invaded russia from the wrong side? lol
but with that moder example wwI doesnt really fit...afghanistan fits better
by the way, afghnas and mongols have won the war, to some extent, against russians...can it be because both theaters of war were in eastern part or russia rather than the european part?
perhaps napoleon and hitler invaded russia from the wrong side? lol
I think that both men,Napoleon and Hitler underestimated strength and resolve of Russian people.German soldiers,and Napoleons soldiers (who incidently came from quite a few backgrounds)commented that ferocity of Russian troops was that that was never seen in opponents anywhere.Ability of Russian soldier to fight on in bleak situations is major factor-they could not be worn down.
As for matter of Afghanistan,one looking at facts cannot really see MILITARY win for Afghans...if you look at everything,it was the Afghans who were soundly beaten.
Regards.
PS.Winter also played crucial parts,funny enough,both German army and Napoleon army faced very very strong Russian winter,ones that were due for a very long time.Weird....
As for matter of Afghanistan,one looking at facts cannot really see MILITARY win for Afghans...if you look at everything,it was the Afghans who were soundly beaten.
Regards.
PS.Winter also played crucial parts,funny enough,both German army and Napoleon army faced very very strong Russian winter,ones that were due for a very long time.Weird....