"Out of all my battles, the one by Moscow (Borodino) was the worst. We Frenchs proved ourselves capable of achieving victory... while the Russians won the right to be invincible." Those were words indeed of an inspired Napoleon!
FIRSTKAPOKMAN no! This is a forgery intentionally mistranslated by the Czar’s official historian/propaganda minister when writing the official 4-volume history of the French campaign for the 25th anniversary of the war of 1812 in 1837 in Russia. Napoleon actually said: “out of all my VICTORIES, the one I gave at the river Moscow was the most horrible...” Russians try to use this mistranslation as an argument to prove that even Napoleon though the battle was a draw even though it was a shameful defeat for the Russians. FYI- I am Russian.
@@WorshipinIdols so you are bullshiting people in general with "I am Russian" thing. You are not Russian, just a bullshiter which use this phrase to appear more relatable.
It must have been quite a moment when the Russian generals agreed to leave, to abandon Moscow. It takes a large amount of cold blooded intelligence and shrewdness to be able to do that. I think that, in doing so, such extraordinary sacrifice, the Russians really demonstrated to the world, and to future generations, the meaning and value of "Invincibility".
FIRSTKAPOKMAN I don’t know how much you know about this war but the French did not want to fight the Russians. The burning of Moscow was o the dumbest acts in human history. Napoleon wanted nothing more then the Czars recommitment to the treaty he had previously signed with France in ‘09, ending the war of the 4th coalition that the Russian empire started for no reason, and then shamefully lost but was forgiven by France if it only joined the continental system. Napoleon has no intent of sacking or harming Moscow in any way. In fact he wanted Russia as an ally against England who was the true enemy of both Russia and France at the time.
@@WorshipinIdols in your every comment, Russia for no reason is starting something, while you whitewash others. You really don't give an impression of someone who cares about history, but rather to push a bigoted agenda of yours.
WorshipinIdols Russia did not start a war for no reason. It was Napoleon being ambitions and Poland’s desire to rebuild the Polish commonwealth/Empire. And britain was literally nothing against France. Everybody believes britain was big. In reality they barely colonize Canada and did not control India.The brits were defeated time after time in Spain and were crushed in the Netherlands. britain was nothing before and during Napoleon’s time. And the only reason why britain won against France in the 7 Years War was because the French were also fighting the Germans.
Quite some inaccuracies here. For example the French losses were 49 generals of which only 12 were killed. Not literaly every single one of them. The battle was also not named "grave of the French cavalry" but "grave of the French infantry" because of the carnage that took place at the Bagration fleches. It is described as the bloodiest episode of the battle, with masses of bodies in and all around the earthworks. French cavalry actualy performed miracles in that battle. Not only did they rout Raevsky's batteries and disintegrated nearly the entire force deployed to defend the redoubt but also pushed back the entire Russian center and the massive Don Cossack assault on the right flank, even though they were already exhausted by that point. This is still great.
The word is actually fleche (with an accent grave on the first e). English borrows it from French. It's defined as "a fieldwork consisting of two faces forming a salient angle with an open gorge", so basically, two lines meeting at an angle with nothing closing it in the back. As Antoxa Ch states, it differs from a redoubt in that a redoubt offers protection in all directions.
IIRC, fleche is arrow so it's basically an arrow tip. A V pointed towards the enemy, hoping that they won't encircle you. A redoubt is ready to be encircled, with defenders on all sides.
I wonder what Suvoruv would have done before Boarding. How did Russian Army go from swift risk takers to ultra defense? Either way the strategy proved effective.
Suvorov was the lover of the risk. Barclay was too cautious. Kutuzov lost to Napoleon several battles during previous years. Seems like he was the author of the strategy to avoid main battle against Napoleon and attack his generals instead. If the commander of combined Russian armies would be Bagration, then Syvorovs rysky style would be continued. But that did not happen.
According to the video, the opinion of the other Russian generals at the military council held at Fili is unknown. However, it IS documented that General Konovnitsyn- right or wrong, voted to NOT give up Moscow without a fight. Some sources say that he, as well as General Uvarov if I'm not mistaken, advocated not just to merely defend the city, but to ATTACK the French. General Konovnitsyn said, "I can die peacefully, knowing i cannot be held responsible for having voted in handing Moscow over to Napoleon". And that NOTHING, and NOBODY- not even the extremely persuasive Kutuzov, could ever convince him of anything otherwise...
@@ВалБал-н3йHello, yes, at first glance, this could appear to be so. However, anyone who has looked deeply into the issue, and specifically has followed General Konovnitsyn will know that he was genuine in his opinion, without pretensions. He had a reputation for being honest, reliable, and avoided intrigue, emphasizing the need to put all personal ambition and ego aside in the interest of defending the Fatherland. That is why, among other things possibly, that Kutuzov chose him to eventually replace Bennigsen, who ALSO voted to defend Moscow- yet probably did so out of intrigue and political motivation to appear to be more patriotic than his rival Kutuzov, whom he was in competition with, and also had to ultimately answer to the Tsar and to Russia. In any case, it was a very interesting and trying time for Russia. Good video, but hard to include, and, hard to even know all the details. One could spend a lifetime researching and still have much to learn. Cheers...
Ну во первых-тактику партизанских войн придумал не Денис Давыдов а именно Сеславин,и второе Денис Давыдов после 13 атаки взял Лейпциг а не Дрезден за что немецкие газеты присвоили ему звание Генерал лейтенанта с чем в последствии и согласился Александр 1.
I mean... I don't wanna make an affirmative statement but if they had to retreat, Borodino was a defeat. They won the war but the battle was lost, they traded a tactical loss for a strategic victory. But hindsight is 2020, they couldn't have easily known how badly the French were hurt, just like Napoleon didn't know how many soldiers in the Russian army had guns or how much ammo they had, so he didn't immediately pursue them.
I commend to you War and Peace where this is analyzed in detail. What is victory, what is defeat? What is to lose the battle and win the war? What is a victory such as those achieved by Pyrrhus? Who on his third victory against the Romans when congratulated replied, another such victory and I will be completely defeated.
in the battle of Borodino the russians lost the most experimented troops so Napoleon was in advantage.The russian morale was also at the low less point. The retreat was a good decision in order to avoid anihilation. in the same time that boosted the morale of Napoleon wich was on the point of deciding the retreat . A second compaign from Napoleon on the Russia was in fact the right answer to how to beat Russian Empire; Kuzutov was the savior of Russia.
In July 1812 he did try to get Oudinot to head for St. Petersburg, but due to two battles at Polotsk where Wittgenstein's army corpse defeated him he didn't make it. After taking Moscow N. didn't even try to venture a St.Petersburg march. His army had shrunk a great deal even before Borodino. After Borodino there was no way they could make it, he probably realized they would all end up dead halfway through the unknown and hostile terrain with all those woods and swamps, so he chose a safer way back home.
Oh yes, that crossed my mind too. It doesn't make much sense heading for the second city instead of the capital. Maybe the Indian theory makes sense after all. Or maybe he imagined that losing the sacred "Third Rome" would make the Russians too upset to keep fighting.
@@НиколайКазанский-м7я But wasn't St. Petersburg the political capital? I think Moscow was the spiritual capital of the Russians during Napoleon's time. The capture of the political capital could have dealt a fatal blow.
You're quite right in saying Moscow was the spiritual capital of the Russians while St. Petersburg was the official capital. The capture of St. Petersburg would've been very embarassing and disorganizing! But even that wouldn't have dealt a fatal blow. That wasn't an emperor-vs-emperor or an army-vs-army kind of war. Like Tolstoy wrote, "The club of the people's war rose", people would just deny any supplies and help of any kind to the invader, also the Russian ruling elite wouldn't have recognized defeat even if both SPb and Moscow had been captured. The Russian goverment would've chosen a place for a temporary capital. Probably Nizhny Novgorod. I think that the army and the people would've still stayed loyal. So in any case the invader would've had no option but just flee. Losing the Russian capital to an enemy wasn't something unheard of. Even the Polish captured Moscow and tried to rule for a couple of years 200 years earlier. (That was about 90 years before SPb was founded). Even Moscow boyars (lords) committed a treason and chose to obey them. But people in the depths of the country organized a new army which eventually kicked them all out.
These mini-series (napoleonic campaign’s, WWI, etc.) are fairly good, and accurate considering the source I expected them to be much more screwed. However the description of the battle of Borodin is grossly inaccurate. I don’t have the space or inclination right now to write a history lesson here. But the main point is that the French losses did NOT exceed 30,000 (usually put at 28k-29k and not counting the approximately 5k lost at Shevardino doubt) while Russian losses were in excess of 45k (historian put the number at between 45k-50k but modern research and reevaluation has put the actual number at above even 50k, closer to 55k depending of certain variables) not counting those that died from wounds later (such as prince Bagration) and POWs abandoned by the retreating Russian army 1) on the field of battle, 2) at various villages along the route to Moscow and 3) abandoned in Moscow during the fire. Modern historians approximate the number of wounded Russians that died inside Moscow during the fire after being abandoned by their army exceeded 10k by a significant amount.
Keeper Web no my friend. sources are not subjective. The science of History is not subject. There is history, and then there are the people who choose to lie about it (that includes people who spread falsehood out of ignorance for a wide variety of reasons). Even though there are some rare cases where the historical record is either incomplete or contradictory, this is not one of them. For this battle Both the Russian and the French records confirm the same facts, although the French army records are more detailed and more extensive. These points of fact have recently been REDOCUMENTED and RECONFIRMED by an excellent young Russian historian named Nikolai Ponesenko, who wrote 2 monographs or histories (or documentaries) covering this war in great detail. Btw- please reread my original message because I edited it and it is slightly different. If u want more information let me know. And I will write. Thank you.
@@WorshipinIdols I'm all for history to be resized, but this is an exaggeration. An army attacking prepared positions to inflict twice the damage is just not logical. Napoleon was a great commander, but Kutuzov was too. So, such estimate as French 55K, with good generals on both sided, defensive advantage for Russians, Russian commander clearly wants to preserve his forces, and with French army being the marching army is just overkill to claim. For such claim to stand, there should be more than one extraordinary events throughout the battle, but beyond the French pincer around Russian center which failed at the end, nothing of the extraordinary really happened.
Keeper Web now your asking the right questions my friend. 1) how did Napoleon do it? 2) how did the Russians allow it? As far as Kutuzov, he was a good commander. Not very inspiring, or innovative, but very intelligent. Kutuzov was a natural diplomat, and socialite. It was in diplomacy that he made his greatest contributions to the Russian Empire, not in the battlefield. By the time of Borodino his old age and poor health was really starting to show. (he will die in the very beginning of 1813) Kutuzov was very corrupt, but nevertheless was able to set his kleptocracy aside when the time required it and apply his available resources effectively to the task at hand if their was no other way. If you would like to know more I will continue... Spoiler alert, the star of the show was Barclay de Toly, he saved the Russia army from being completely destroyed and managed to prevent a severe beating where total destruction was at the doorstep.
@@WorshipinIdols to the edited portion. The video clearly said that the number was about the battle only. Russian army retreated in an orderly fashion, so, there were no abandoned soldiers there which would add significantly to the numbers. Left in the villages is not abandoned if a person can't be moved anymore under the danger of their death. Their fate was on French attitude after this. Adding these numbers is really an admission of a war crime. Abandoning Moscow was not an expected event, so, wounded who couldn't be moved anymore, is not abandoning. Most of these wounded were from other battles and had nothing to do with Borodino since the wounded from Borodino went with the retreating armies. With the medicine of the 19th century, the mortality rate of all wounded was very high. This was the situation until the penicillin was invented. So adding these numbers could easily be received as just a try to blow the numbers out of proportions for a "sensational new study". So, personally, I'm very skeptical of such grand clams.
Was this an RT documentary? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!. Yes the Russian Soldiers fought bravely and with some skill but it was a defeat. Had they stayed and renewed the battle the following day it would have turned into a disaster for them . Kutuzov had no reserves, he had been driven off his defensive position, ground of his own choosing while Napoleon still had his Guard . By continuing the retreat, they lost the battle but ended up winning the campaign. It does no credit to change what actually happened and detracts from the what followed in that the Czar outmaneuvered Napoleon in the Negotiations, kept him hanging on thinking that he would get a good peace deal so when he finally decided to retreat, the Russian Army and General Winter virtually annihilated the Grand Army albeit at great cost.
One has to marvel at the ability of the commentator and overall turn of this video to favour Russian victory over the French's every battle!! "The (Russian) commander pursued their advances repulsing the French in more numerous numbers and then retreated to Smolensk, than the same thing but retreated to Moscow!! then retreated away from Moscow!!" The Russian are burning their own city! What fierce decisiveness! What indomitable courage! No doubts a Russian perspective on the whole campaign! And we know how the Russian under Putin likes to massage the truth...(Putin: Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and Russia did not fight/paraded with the Wehrmacht, invade Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Afghanistan, Chechnya East Ukraine Crimea Georgia, Transnistria, Kurils East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Moldovia, Yugoslavia, Chezkolosvakia, Romania but Soviet failure greatest "tragedy" of 21 century!...the Germans killed 25,000 poles at Katyn forest, not the NKVD...it was the fault of the French and the British is Russia signed a pact with Hitler! The Russian did not create man-made famine in Ukraine (Holodomor) The whole Russian Napoleon campaign was a steady retreat to the high point of abandoning and burning Moscow in one masterful cowardly act... General Winter did away with Napoleon's army just like it did the Wehrmacht in WW2 with most of the German army not adequately supplied for the winter. But Russia fought bravely...
@@arty5876 There were losses at Borodino, but Napoleon left burned out Moscow on October 17th with his army, after the Russian army refused to fight. His greatest losses occurred on his way home due to early winter and lack of winter equipment, the worst winter in decades...I know Russians like fake news, but unless you're from the troll factory in St Petersburg, stick to historical facts!
@@FrancoisLabelle-yf8tj in start of war Napoleon has 700 000 army. After battle of Borodino in august he has only 80 000 army. 80% off all french casualities were *before* winter
русская армия в основном состояла из солдат.Сражались за Родину,разумеется.Если ты думаешь,что французы сражались за демократию,то ты тупой,как минимум.
как будто армия французов состояла из дворян только. у меня тогда встречный вопрос: за что они сражались? Правильно, неуч, они тоже сражались за родину и императора и тоже были рабами своих властителей
а вы знаете сколько простых солдат из армии Наполеона остались жить по всей России от Дона до Сибири, многие записались крестьянами, некоторые казаками, через 20 лет практически полностью ассимилировались. Это были простые люди, которых погнали на войну через всю Европу. Дома их ждала нищета и разоренная десятилетиями войн и революций Европа.
interesting but a pity about the over the top, patriotic flourishes of propaganda. (Stalin would have approved) Me I liked the bit where Treebeard and the Ents came to the rescue.
"Out of all my battles, the one by Moscow (Borodino) was the worst. We Frenchs proved ourselves capable of achieving victory... while the Russians won the right to be invincible."
Those were words indeed of an inspired Napoleon!
Bravo.answer of real men and soldier.
FIRSTKAPOKMAN no! This is a forgery intentionally mistranslated by the Czar’s official historian/propaganda minister when writing the official 4-volume history of the French campaign for the 25th anniversary of the war of 1812 in 1837 in Russia.
Napoleon actually said:
“out of all my VICTORIES, the one I gave at the river Moscow was the most horrible...”
Russians try to use this mistranslation as an argument to prove that even Napoleon though the battle was a draw even though it was a shameful defeat for the Russians.
FYI- I am Russian.
@@WorshipinIdols so you are bullshiting people in general with "I am Russian" thing. You are not Russian, just a bullshiter which use this phrase to appear more relatable.
@@webkeeper you are correct! That guy is a puke!
@@JohnDoe-id1es Here says John Doe!! LOL!
These are better then most movies. American and British documentaries are shoddy at best compared to this.
Так круто что этот шедевр смотрят англоязычная аудитория
Excelente serie de documentales. Gracias por subirlos.
Вы из какой страны?
А у актёра игравшего Наполеона хорошо удалось сыграть его и достаточно живо
Отвратительно сыграл самовлюблённого идиота с наполеоновскими амбициями, но точно не Наполеона
@@EvgenyVSparrow ну вот и пиздуй смотреть безхарактерных кукол
@@somebody2344 по существу сказать тебе нечего, дурачок?
@@EvgenyVSparrow посмотри на свой высер и сделай выводы
@@somebody2344 высер - это твое второе имя, раз не можешь хотя бы казаться адекватным
It must have been quite a moment when the Russian generals agreed to leave, to abandon Moscow.
It takes a large amount of cold blooded intelligence and shrewdness to be able to do that. I think that, in doing so, such extraordinary sacrifice, the Russians really demonstrated to the world, and to future generations, the meaning and value of "Invincibility".
FIRSTKAPOKMAN either that or their stupidity. Your comment is both contextually wrong, and socio-historically anachronistic.
FIRSTKAPOKMAN I don’t know how much you know about this war but the French did not want to fight the Russians. The burning of Moscow was o the dumbest acts in human history.
Napoleon wanted nothing more then the Czars recommitment to the treaty he had previously signed with France in ‘09, ending the war of the 4th coalition that the Russian empire started for no reason, and then shamefully lost but was forgiven by France if it only joined the continental system.
Napoleon has no intent of sacking or harming Moscow in any way. In fact he wanted Russia as an ally against England who was the true enemy of both Russia and France at the time.
@@WorshipinIdols in your every comment, Russia for no reason is starting something, while you whitewash others. You really don't give an impression of someone who cares about history, but rather to push a bigoted agenda of yours.
WorshipinIdols Russia did not start a war for no reason. It was Napoleon being ambitions and Poland’s desire to rebuild the Polish commonwealth/Empire. And britain was literally nothing against France. Everybody believes britain was big. In reality they barely colonize Canada and did not control India.The brits were defeated time after time in Spain and were crushed in the Netherlands. britain was nothing before and during Napoleon’s time. And the only reason why britain won against France in the 7 Years War was because the French were also fighting the Germans.
WorshipinIdols “they didn’t want to fight the Russians” and that’s why they invaded Russia.
The most illogical phrase I ever heard.
Очень хороший фильм. Спасибо Сергею Чонишвили за рассказ
A lovely series. The costumes are beyond praise. The series just charmed.
С удивлением обнаружил только англоязычных в комментариях.
Ариец Плачевный ну там написано ведь на английском
Мда это странно
Название канала StarmediaEN и название видео на английском ни на какие мысли не натолкнули?
Quite some inaccuracies here.
For example the French losses were 49 generals of which only 12 were killed. Not literaly every single one of them.
The battle was also not named "grave of the French cavalry" but "grave of the French infantry" because of the carnage that took place at the Bagration fleches. It is described as the bloodiest episode of the battle, with masses of bodies in and all around the earthworks.
French cavalry actualy performed miracles in that battle. Not only did they rout Raevsky's batteries and disintegrated nearly the entire force deployed to defend the redoubt but also pushed back the entire Russian center and the massive Don Cossack assault on the right flank, even though they were already exhausted by that point.
This is still great.
Flashes = Redoubts.
no. Redoubt for circular defense. Redoubt usually behind redan. Redan = Flashes but flushes smaller. so redoubt is not needed after flashes/
The word is actually fleche (with an accent grave on the first e). English borrows it from French. It's defined as "a fieldwork consisting of two faces forming a salient angle with an open gorge", so basically, two lines meeting at an angle with nothing closing it in the back. As Antoxa Ch states, it differs from a redoubt in that a redoubt offers protection in all directions.
IIRC, fleche is arrow so it's basically an arrow tip. A V pointed towards the enemy, hoping that they won't encircle you. A redoubt is ready to be encircled, with defenders on all sides.
С 25 минуты - война это очень страшно.. Всевышний спаси🙏🏻🙏🏻
I wonder what Suvoruv would have done before Boarding. How did Russian Army go from swift risk takers to ultra defense? Either way the strategy proved effective.
Suvorov was the lover of the risk. Barclay was too cautious. Kutuzov lost to Napoleon several battles during previous years. Seems like he was the author of the strategy to avoid main battle against Napoleon and attack his generals instead. If the commander of combined Russian armies would be Bagration, then Syvorovs rysky style would be continued. But that did not happen.
What happened to the subtitles?
According to the video, the opinion of the other Russian generals at the military council held at Fili is unknown. However, it IS documented that General Konovnitsyn- right or wrong, voted to NOT give up Moscow without a fight. Some sources say that he, as well as General Uvarov if I'm not mistaken, advocated not just to merely defend the city, but to ATTACK the French.
General Konovnitsyn said, "I can die peacefully, knowing i cannot be held responsible for having voted in handing Moscow over to Napoleon". And that NOTHING, and NOBODY- not even the extremely persuasive Kutuzov, could ever convince him of anything otherwise...
For all we know it was a politically motivated speech to look patriotic on record and get bonuses later. So I would not put too much in those words.
@@ВалБал-н3йHello, yes, at first glance, this could appear to be so. However, anyone who has looked deeply into the issue, and specifically has followed General Konovnitsyn will know that he was genuine in his opinion, without pretensions. He had a reputation for being honest, reliable, and avoided intrigue, emphasizing the need to put all personal ambition and ego aside in the interest of defending the Fatherland. That is why, among other things possibly, that Kutuzov chose him to eventually replace Bennigsen, who ALSO voted to defend Moscow- yet probably did so out of intrigue and political motivation to appear to be more patriotic than his rival Kutuzov, whom he was in competition with, and also had to ultimately answer to the Tsar and to Russia.
In any case, it was a very interesting and trying time for Russia.
Good video, but hard to include, and, hard to even know all the details. One could spend a lifetime researching and still have much to learn. Cheers...
28:35 that's old Russian. I can make sense of it but it sound weird to me.
Archaic (устаревший), not old. Old (старый) Russian period is before the Mongol invasion.
Valery Sinitsine no, it’s not archaic Russian. It’s the same Russian that people speak now days
Да, были Люди.
Why the subtitles do not exist anymore;
Ну во первых-тактику партизанских войн придумал не Денис Давыдов а именно Сеславин,и второе Денис Давыдов после 13 атаки взял Лейпциг а не Дрезден за что немецкие газеты присвоили ему звание Генерал лейтенанта с чем в последствии и согласился Александр 1.
Почитайте про Фигнера. Тот вообще отморозок был в хорошем смысле слова )
@@chirickman да я читал про Фигнера и про то как он над пленными издевался-но бог не фраер шельму метит-утонул где то по пути в Париж.
На 31 минуте. Куда у Барклая акцент подевался?
I mean... I don't wanna make an affirmative statement but if they had to retreat, Borodino was a defeat. They won the war but the battle was lost, they traded a tactical loss for a strategic victory. But hindsight is 2020, they couldn't have easily known how badly the French were hurt, just like Napoleon didn't know how many soldiers in the Russian army had guns or how much ammo they had, so he didn't immediately pursue them.
Of course Borodino was a defeat.
I commend to you War and Peace where this is analyzed in detail.
What is victory, what is defeat? What is to lose the battle and win the war?
What is a victory such as those achieved by Pyrrhus? Who on his third victory against the Romans when congratulated replied, another such victory and I will be completely defeated.
Про пленение 120 всадниками 2000ые войско мотерых французов это уже бред😄
Бред у тебя в голове диванный даун
in the battle of Borodino the russians lost the most experimented troops so Napoleon was in advantage.The russian morale was also at the low less point. The retreat was a good decision in order to avoid anihilation. in the same time that boosted the morale of Napoleon wich was on the point of deciding the retreat . A second compaign from Napoleon on the Russia was in fact the right answer to how to beat Russian Empire; Kuzutov was the savior of Russia.
The French took Moscow or would not take, still no one can defeat the Russian people.
Блин откуда здесь столько англоязычных
Потому что это специальные переведенные серии для иностранцев. Есть наших восемь серий и есть восемь вот этих, которые ты сейчас наблюдаешь.
Don Route Понятно
Das ist richtig so. Unsere Stärke liegt nicht in Moskau.
I fail to understand why Napoleon did not head for St. Petersburg even after taking Moscow.
In July 1812 he did try to get Oudinot to head for St. Petersburg, but due to two battles at Polotsk where Wittgenstein's army corpse defeated him he didn't make it.
After taking Moscow N. didn't even try to venture a St.Petersburg march. His army had shrunk a great deal even before Borodino. After Borodino there was no way they could make it, he probably realized they would all end up dead halfway through the unknown and hostile terrain with all those woods and swamps, so he chose a safer way back home.
@@НиколайКазанский-м7я I mean to say Napoleon could have gone to St. Petersburg directly instead of Moscow.
Oh yes, that crossed my mind too. It doesn't make much sense heading for the second city instead of the capital. Maybe the Indian theory makes sense after all. Or maybe he imagined that losing the sacred "Third Rome" would make the Russians too upset to keep fighting.
@@НиколайКазанский-м7я But wasn't St. Petersburg the political capital? I think Moscow was the spiritual capital of the Russians during Napoleon's time. The capture of the political capital could have dealt a fatal blow.
You're quite right in saying Moscow was the spiritual capital of the Russians while St. Petersburg was the official capital. The capture of St. Petersburg would've been very embarassing and disorganizing! But even that wouldn't have dealt a fatal blow.
That wasn't an emperor-vs-emperor or an army-vs-army kind of war. Like Tolstoy wrote, "The club of the people's war rose", people would just deny any supplies and help of any kind to the invader, also the Russian ruling elite wouldn't have recognized defeat even if both SPb and Moscow had been captured. The Russian goverment would've chosen a place for a temporary capital. Probably Nizhny Novgorod. I think that the army and the people would've still stayed loyal. So in any case the invader would've had no option but just flee.
Losing the Russian capital to an enemy wasn't something unheard of. Even the Polish captured Moscow and tried to rule for a couple of years 200 years earlier. (That was about 90 years before SPb was founded). Even Moscow boyars (lords) committed a treason and chose to obey them. But people in the depths of the country organized a new army which eventually kicked them all out.
Στην μάχη του Borodino εγώ βρισκόμουν στο Γαλλικό στρατόπεδο
Είδες που μόνο ανοησίες λες;
These mini-series (napoleonic campaign’s, WWI, etc.) are fairly good, and accurate considering the source I expected them to be much more screwed.
However the description of the battle of Borodin is grossly inaccurate. I don’t have the space or inclination right now to write a history lesson here. But the main point is that the French losses did NOT exceed 30,000 (usually put at 28k-29k and not counting the approximately 5k lost at Shevardino doubt) while Russian losses were in excess of 45k (historian put the number at between 45k-50k but modern research and reevaluation has put the actual number at above even 50k, closer to 55k depending of certain variables) not counting those that died from wounds later (such as prince Bagration) and POWs abandoned by the retreating Russian army 1) on the field of battle, 2) at various villages along the route to Moscow and 3) abandoned in Moscow during the fire.
Modern historians approximate the number of wounded Russians that died inside Moscow during the fire after being abandoned by their army exceeded 10k by a significant amount.
Your stated estimation is entirely one-sided. Meaning, you are taking into account the sources with minimum French loses and maximum Russian losses.
Keeper Web no my friend. sources are not subjective. The science of History is not subject.
There is history, and then there are the people who choose to lie about it (that includes people who spread falsehood out of ignorance for a wide variety of reasons).
Even though there are some rare cases where the historical record is either incomplete or contradictory, this is not one of them. For this battle Both the Russian and the French records confirm the same facts, although the French army records are more detailed and more extensive.
These points of fact have recently been REDOCUMENTED and RECONFIRMED by an excellent young Russian historian named Nikolai Ponesenko, who wrote 2 monographs or histories (or documentaries) covering this war in great detail.
Btw- please reread my original message because I edited it and it is slightly different. If u want more information let me know. And I will write.
Thank you.
@@WorshipinIdols I'm all for history to be resized, but this is an exaggeration. An army attacking prepared positions to inflict twice the damage is just not logical. Napoleon was a great commander, but Kutuzov was too. So, such estimate as French 55K, with good generals on both sided, defensive advantage for Russians, Russian commander clearly wants to preserve his forces, and with French army being the marching army is just overkill to claim.
For such claim to stand, there should be more than one extraordinary events throughout the battle, but beyond the French pincer around Russian center which failed at the end, nothing of the extraordinary really happened.
Keeper Web now your asking the right questions my friend.
1) how did Napoleon do it?
2) how did the Russians allow it?
As far as Kutuzov, he was a good commander. Not very inspiring, or innovative, but very intelligent.
Kutuzov was a natural diplomat, and socialite. It was in diplomacy that he made his greatest contributions to the Russian Empire, not in the battlefield.
By the time of Borodino his old age and poor health was really starting to show. (he will die in the very beginning of 1813)
Kutuzov was very corrupt, but nevertheless was able to set his kleptocracy aside when the time required it and apply his available resources effectively to the task at hand if their was no other way.
If you would like to know more I will continue...
Spoiler alert, the star of the show was Barclay de Toly, he saved the Russia army from being completely destroyed and managed to prevent a severe beating where total destruction was at the doorstep.
@@WorshipinIdols to the edited portion. The video clearly said that the number was about the battle only.
Russian army retreated in an orderly fashion, so, there were no abandoned soldiers there which would add significantly to the numbers.
Left in the villages is not abandoned if a person can't be moved anymore under the danger of their death. Their fate was on French attitude after this. Adding these numbers is really an admission of a war crime.
Abandoning Moscow was not an expected event, so, wounded who couldn't be moved anymore, is not abandoning. Most of these wounded were from other battles and had nothing to do with Borodino since the wounded from Borodino went with the retreating armies.
With the medicine of the 19th century, the mortality rate of all wounded was very high. This was the situation until the penicillin was invented. So adding these numbers could easily be received as just a try to blow the numbers out of proportions for a "sensational new study". So, personally, I'm very skeptical of such grand clams.
Was this an RT documentary? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!. Yes the Russian Soldiers fought bravely and with some skill but it was a defeat. Had they stayed and renewed the battle the following day it would have turned into a disaster for them . Kutuzov had no reserves, he had been driven off his defensive position, ground of his own choosing while Napoleon still had his Guard . By continuing the retreat, they lost the battle but ended up winning the campaign. It does no credit to change what actually happened and detracts from the what followed in that the Czar outmaneuvered Napoleon in the Negotiations, kept him hanging on thinking that he would get a good peace deal so when he finally decided to retreat, the Russian Army and General Winter virtually annihilated the Grand Army albeit at great cost.
One has to marvel at the ability of the commentator and overall turn of this video to favour Russian victory over the French's every battle!! "The (Russian) commander pursued their advances repulsing the French in more numerous numbers and then retreated to Smolensk, than the same thing but retreated to Moscow!! then retreated away from Moscow!!" The Russian are burning their own city! What fierce decisiveness! What indomitable courage! No doubts a Russian perspective on the whole campaign! And we know how the Russian under Putin likes to massage the truth...(Putin: Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and Russia did not fight/paraded with the Wehrmacht, invade Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Afghanistan, Chechnya East Ukraine Crimea Georgia, Transnistria, Kurils East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Moldovia, Yugoslavia, Chezkolosvakia, Romania but Soviet failure greatest "tragedy" of 21 century!...the Germans killed 25,000 poles at Katyn forest, not the NKVD...it was the fault of the French and the British is Russia signed a pact with Hitler! The Russian did not create man-made famine in Ukraine (Holodomor) The whole Russian Napoleon campaign was a steady retreat to the high point of abandoning and burning Moscow in one masterful cowardly act... General Winter did away with Napoleon's army just like it did the Wehrmacht in WW2 with most of the German army not adequately supplied for the winter. But Russia fought bravely...
@@FrancoisLabelle-yf8tj You crap here. but just clean up please
70% of all french army was destroyed BEFORE winter, and french army started went back in october. In october Napoleon was defeated.
@@arty5876 There were losses at Borodino, but Napoleon left burned out Moscow on October 17th with his army, after the Russian army refused to fight. His greatest losses occurred on his way home due to early winter and lack of winter equipment, the worst winter in decades...I know Russians like fake news, but unless you're from the troll factory in St Petersburg, stick to historical facts!
@@FrancoisLabelle-yf8tj in start of war Napoleon has 700 000 army. After battle of Borodino in august he has only
80 000 army. 80% off all french casualities were *before* winter
Русская армия состояла в основном из крепостных. Так за что эти рабы сражались спрашивается?
русская армия в основном состояла из солдат.Сражались за Родину,разумеется.Если ты думаешь,что французы сражались за демократию,то ты тупой,как минимум.
как будто армия французов состояла из дворян только. у меня тогда встречный вопрос: за что они сражались? Правильно, неуч, они тоже сражались за родину и императора и тоже были рабами своих властителей
@@КантсеквенциалистА они сражались за свое благополучие и за будущее своей страны и своих детей.
@@werstv2029 толсто
а вы знаете сколько простых солдат из армии Наполеона остались жить по всей России от Дона до Сибири, многие записались крестьянами, некоторые казаками, через 20 лет практически полностью ассимилировались. Это были простые люди, которых погнали на войну через всю Европу. Дома их ждала нищета и разоренная десятилетиями войн и революций Европа.
interesting but a pity about the over the top, patriotic flourishes of propaganda. (Stalin would have approved) Me I liked the bit where Treebeard and the Ents came to the rescue.
Наполеон на Зеленского похож 😂не только внешне но и голосом
Зеленский играл Наполеона в свое время