When was he closest to winning?

When was he closest to winning?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He'd actually won by the rules of war at the time when he took Moscow. The issue is that war having rules was kinda stupid to begin with. I'd assume having an actual fallback plan after taking Moscow would have helped as well, establish a supply line and garrisons so the Russians don't just burn everything behind you.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      capital was st petersburg

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I keep forgetting that they moved the capital because they wanted to copy the west

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not 'copy' but 'be in contact with'. It's much easier to communicate across the Baltic than across the Baltic + 300 miles of forest

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      he'd lost a significant number of his men to disease by the time he took Moscow
      he should never have gone

      https://i.imgur.com/2kSLE58.jpeg

      When was he closest to winning?

      1807
      he shouldn't have invaded Spain

      nobody liked the Bourbons, if he had just stopped there they would have made peace deals with him

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He doesn't reign Russia in the continental system falls apart completely and he might as well hand England his balls on a platter

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Invading Spain was fine; where he went full moron was trying to enforce liberalism on the Spanish, who, being Catholic traditionalists, had little interest in the ideas of liberalism, and therefore resisted French rule, forcing him to waste a lot of resources maintaining order there.

        Had he just let the Spanish run their society as they wanted, Spain would have been a good addition to the French empire.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that wasn't going to fly; there was no Spaniard ruler he could trust and you can't make exceptions in one bit of your empire for the Catholic Church; exceptions foment dissatisfaction. which leads to rebellion

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The whole point of Napoleons empire was spreading the ideals of the revolution in order to sweep away the ancien regime. Accepting some kind of truce with Spanish traditions would have shaken the legitimacy of the entire project

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He didn't try to enforce liberalism onto Spain. Napoleon was dissatisfied with the incompetence and (in his mind) non-reliability of the Spanish, so he invaded to place a puppet on the throne. In fact, Spanish liberals allied with England made up a large portion of the resistance, so much so that they garnered enough influence to force the exiled king to accept a liberal constitution in exchange for restoring him post-war. Spain didn't try to resist because liberalism was being thrust upon them, nor were they wholly illiberal in attitudes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the Spanish who fought against Napoleon were more conservative than the Spanish who fought for Napoleon
            it was one of the major rallying cries for the Spanish junta and guerillas that Napoleon was destroying the Church, for example

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That's true, but it doesn't mean that Spanish rebels=non-liberals or that Spain fought because it didn't want liberalism

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He himself solemnly vowed to beat the russian army in the field and not go for the cities. Yet when the russian army withdrew and regrouped, again and again he broke his own promise with ultimately disastrous results and he wasn't the only one.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      After the Treaty of Tilsit.

      There are no rules in war. Kutuzov trading Moscow for time was genius. The French had depots and security troops all along their supply lines through Belarus, they were just overstretched and couldn't secure the hinterland. The Grand Armee had already lost the majority of their troops when they reached Moscow without prospect of recieving significant reinforcements, while the Russians could draw on the resources of southern Russia and Ukraine to refill their ranks and feed their troops. The French needed to feed the army predominantly through foraging due to the length of their supply lines and a lack of sufficient numbers of horses and carriages to supply them. Napoleon tried to retreat south of the Pripjat marshes to march through unspoiled land but the Battle of Malojoroslavets forced him back onto the northern route through Belarus, which condemned the retreating survivors to starve and freeze to death. There was a plan, it just failed because the French lost that battle and by that time had effectively run out of troops to force a decision in the field. Kutuzov simply beat them through attrition.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There are no rules in war.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's good to see Uncle Billy smiling again.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    he won like 28 times, what are you on about

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Loses 90% of a million troops
      But he won! Really! Look!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        kys

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Did I mention he abandoned his defeated army? ...Again!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your shithole never produced a better statesman and a general, apply cope on the affected thread.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Winnig battles does not mean winning the war.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not every battle indeed, but I'd say it counts when it ends with a signed peace treaty.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He lost in the end, which is what really counts.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Winning what? Which set of exponentially expanding war goals are we talking about?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For most of his rule, he was on defense against slaver regimes in Europe.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Making the English eat the snail

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When he won
    But he couldn't stop himself he had to keep trying to win and so lost it all

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    5 minutes before the Battle of Trafalgar was the closest Napoleon ever got to defeating England and ending their constant coalition-building against his will. The Continental System never would have worked and the Grand Armee would have been beaten eventually even if it hadn't been destroyed in Russia

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Napoleon is a hero in this house, end of discussion!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I imagine a little seething french guy now

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When he won. The problem was that he kept doubling down until he eventually lost.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *