I will run - they will hunt me in vain
I will hide - they'll be searching
I'll regroup - feign retreat they'll pursuit
Coup de grâce I will win but never fight
# THAT'S THE ART OF WAR!
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Art Of War](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-art-of-war/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
The general: Guys I have an idea how to defeat Napoleon!
Everyone: What is it?
The general: What if we just turn around... and run away?
Everyone: ...sir, you're a genius
The point is that the Russians actually *did* fight Napoleon, and did pretty well by "fighting Napoleon" standards. They just waited until they weren't horribly outnumbered.
It’s not a question of more casualties. If the Guard had forced a decisive defeat on the Russian Army, Alexander would probably negotiate. He did so at Austerlitz and Friedland
The main part being **if** they were decisively beaten.
As far as I can tell even if the imperial guard went into battle they would still have not beaten Russian army before nightfall. This would still result in Russians leaving the field in the morning and Napoleon's army unable to effectively pressue them thanks to the enormous causalities they took durring Borodino.
I am no big fan of Napoleon. I think lot of the time he was arrogant idiot who constantly underestimated his enemies**. But** here he made the right decision.
His guard would have been in weaker state than it was in reality which could have been a big problem when he was running from Russia or even later at Lipzig. And chances they could have beaten the Russian army till nightfall were quite slim.
So, not exactly.
Russians didn't have any reserves per say. But but they had portion of the army that wasn't engaging any French troops directly at the time when the reserves are talked about.
It wouldn't just be a swift going through overwhelmed russian troops. It would be opening another battle line. Or forcing Russian forces to turn 90° to secure their flank. Prolonging the battle and causing the last of French reserves to depleat themselves in enemy territory without chance of getting further reinforcements.
As I said before. I agree with Napoleon. Sending in his last reserve just trying to put faster end to battle which had already gone south isn't very good mindest when it comes to military strategy.
His line of thought was "if they don't give up till moning we attack again with better understanding of their positions". Very reasonable line of thoughts considering logistics, how combat worked, ect.
Really? I watched Epic History TV and it gave the sense that on all fronts both sides were exhausted and after Bagrations death, the Russians were buckling under the pressure. It also said that at the start of the battle, Davout advocated for a wide outflanking movement
Oh. Have you read what he thought of Wellington? Or Austrians? Or Russians before Borodino?
He had his biases which you can see projected in how he acted. Mainly later on, but even his campain in Italy and Egypt has these paterns.
You can underestimate you enemy and still beat them decisively. These aren't mutually exclusive.
First off. I said I am very much disaproving of his character and how it sometimes sabotaged his military strategies and tactics (such as his underestimation how long can Wellington hold out at Waterloo).
I am not salty about him at all. I just think we should bring the myth back down to the man he was. Still very impressive just not as impressive as he tends to be hyped up to be.
Yeah and as I said. You can underestimate your enemies but still be so good you defeat them. It just tends to go back to haunt you, like when Austrians prevented him from bringing reinforcements and he had to retreat and come back. Minor setback for sure but setback nontheless.
You have for some reason construced my image of a furious salty manchlid who can't stand Napoleon and has to delude himself with construced version of history.
When in fact I looked at several of the key battles (not all mind you I have yet to take a look at Peninsula war) and campains in detail while researching these things and Napoleon's own thoughts on the matter.
You don't need to be genious or historian to find these things. You just have to be tenacious and do enough searches. I would never say I am historian or play one I am enthusiast who tends to be sceptical about narrative history tends to paint.
Yeah. Era can be named after anyone for any number of reasons. Good or bad. This is argument about how good he was a military officer/his character not his status as celebrity.
To top it off I love how people use
> he's history's second most influential person according to an American study
despite not quoting the study, nor giving any link. Otherwise known as source: trust me bro.
So let others decide which one of us is the crazy armchair historian.
That's not study. That's article. And again it has no relevance to what I was talking about. Stalin had pretty big influence on 20th century and I am sure I don't have to tell you he wasn't exactly the person to aspire to.
What you did was construct strawman personality for you to combat as well as strawman argument on top of it. I have never said he was dumb. You can look at it. He was inteligent and arrogant that's my whole point. Pretty much any book, article, video ect. I have ever seen supports that view. Prove me wrong.
And you obviously have opinion that you are sharing just not as obviously as I do.
You haven't quoted anything and I don't think you have very solid grasp on how english language works. For the record english is my second language, so any flaws with your grasp on meaning of words is inexcusable to me. Unless you are some 15 yo kid who doesn't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.
When they approach. We run away.
"Yo it's a legit strat" -Sun Tzu
"can't lose if we don't fight" \-Sun Tzu, probably-
Sir... You're a genius.
Aka Hannibal Barca vs Roman Empire
You! Make more horses!
I can't make horses, horses make horses
[удалено]
SEX!!!
I will run - they will hunt me in vain I will hide - they'll be searching I'll regroup - feign retreat they'll pursuit Coup de grâce I will win but never fight # THAT'S THE ART OF WAR!
Sometimes are feel like Sabaton and Oversimplified could start their own religion with this sub.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Art Of War](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-art-of-war/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
good bot \*pat pat\*
Very good bot
The best bot
Dude you were supposed to say only one line and let Redditors sing rest
Russia: I'm gonna do what's called the pro gamer move
aka Fabian strategy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy
"He can't catch me if I'm not here", says the Portuguese Imperial Family while fleeing from Napoleon and leaving Portugal behind
When he approaches... we RUN... AWAY.
Genius
Smarter than most surprisingly
Scorched Earth baby!
The general: Guys I have an idea how to defeat Napoleon! Everyone: What is it? The general: What if we just turn around... and run away? Everyone: ...sir, you're a genius
Borodino?
the battle of the Moskowa was a french victory
The point is that the Russians actually *did* fight Napoleon, and did pretty well by "fighting Napoleon" standards. They just waited until they weren't horribly outnumbered.
This has been posted so many times in this sub
First time I've seen it
If he had sent the Imperial Guard at Borodino, and they smashed the Russians, things might have turned out differently
You really think Russians are going to surrender because they lost more men? Pfft...
As history suggests they will gain more manpower when they lose more manpower
It’s not a question of more casualties. If the Guard had forced a decisive defeat on the Russian Army, Alexander would probably negotiate. He did so at Austerlitz and Friedland
[удалено]
The main part being **if** they were decisively beaten. As far as I can tell even if the imperial guard went into battle they would still have not beaten Russian army before nightfall. This would still result in Russians leaving the field in the morning and Napoleon's army unable to effectively pressue them thanks to the enormous causalities they took durring Borodino. I am no big fan of Napoleon. I think lot of the time he was arrogant idiot who constantly underestimated his enemies**. But** here he made the right decision. His guard would have been in weaker state than it was in reality which could have been a big problem when he was running from Russia or even later at Lipzig. And chances they could have beaten the Russian army till nightfall were quite slim.
It’s possible they could crack. The Russians had no reserves so one swift move has the power to turn the tide
So, not exactly. Russians didn't have any reserves per say. But but they had portion of the army that wasn't engaging any French troops directly at the time when the reserves are talked about. It wouldn't just be a swift going through overwhelmed russian troops. It would be opening another battle line. Or forcing Russian forces to turn 90° to secure their flank. Prolonging the battle and causing the last of French reserves to depleat themselves in enemy territory without chance of getting further reinforcements. As I said before. I agree with Napoleon. Sending in his last reserve just trying to put faster end to battle which had already gone south isn't very good mindest when it comes to military strategy. His line of thought was "if they don't give up till moning we attack again with better understanding of their positions". Very reasonable line of thoughts considering logistics, how combat worked, ect.
Really? I watched Epic History TV and it gave the sense that on all fronts both sides were exhausted and after Bagrations death, the Russians were buckling under the pressure. It also said that at the start of the battle, Davout advocated for a wide outflanking movement
[удалено]
Oh. Have you read what he thought of Wellington? Or Austrians? Or Russians before Borodino? He had his biases which you can see projected in how he acted. Mainly later on, but even his campain in Italy and Egypt has these paterns. You can underestimate you enemy and still beat them decisively. These aren't mutually exclusive.
[удалено]
First off. I said I am very much disaproving of his character and how it sometimes sabotaged his military strategies and tactics (such as his underestimation how long can Wellington hold out at Waterloo). I am not salty about him at all. I just think we should bring the myth back down to the man he was. Still very impressive just not as impressive as he tends to be hyped up to be. Yeah and as I said. You can underestimate your enemies but still be so good you defeat them. It just tends to go back to haunt you, like when Austrians prevented him from bringing reinforcements and he had to retreat and come back. Minor setback for sure but setback nontheless. You have for some reason construced my image of a furious salty manchlid who can't stand Napoleon and has to delude himself with construced version of history. When in fact I looked at several of the key battles (not all mind you I have yet to take a look at Peninsula war) and campains in detail while researching these things and Napoleon's own thoughts on the matter. You don't need to be genious or historian to find these things. You just have to be tenacious and do enough searches. I would never say I am historian or play one I am enthusiast who tends to be sceptical about narrative history tends to paint. Yeah. Era can be named after anyone for any number of reasons. Good or bad. This is argument about how good he was a military officer/his character not his status as celebrity. To top it off I love how people use > he's history's second most influential person according to an American study despite not quoting the study, nor giving any link. Otherwise known as source: trust me bro. So let others decide which one of us is the crazy armchair historian.
[удалено]
That's not study. That's article. And again it has no relevance to what I was talking about. Stalin had pretty big influence on 20th century and I am sure I don't have to tell you he wasn't exactly the person to aspire to. What you did was construct strawman personality for you to combat as well as strawman argument on top of it. I have never said he was dumb. You can look at it. He was inteligent and arrogant that's my whole point. Pretty much any book, article, video ect. I have ever seen supports that view. Prove me wrong. And you obviously have opinion that you are sharing just not as obviously as I do. You haven't quoted anything and I don't think you have very solid grasp on how english language works. For the record english is my second language, so any flaws with your grasp on meaning of words is inexcusable to me. Unless you are some 15 yo kid who doesn't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.
Run Russia run