Fascinating. I watched this shortly after watching Professor Lieven's discussion of his book and this period with an audience in Cananda. Pf. Lieven is described as a doctor in this talk and memorably sips cognac. My point being, I found the discussion so interesting I watched this one on the same subject only two days later and still learned a great deal. As a Napoleon hobbyist i'd always felt their was relatively little said about events following the retreat from Moscow. These talks and Pf.Leiven's book shed enormous light and insight into this somewhat overlooked and crucial couple of years of the Naploeonic era. Many thanks.

This was such a fun lecture i hope to see this man more in the future!

Very interesting. I am the proud owner of this book and it in my mind it is a breakthrough in Napoleonic history. I wish we could have his book covering 1807 Campaign

The fact that Russia didn’t capitulate after Moscow was captured was an amazing feat of national unity

@magicfire763

2 жыл бұрын

Then the capital of Russia was St.Petersburg. Napoleon should conquer the capital, not Moscow.

@farkasvilkas

2 жыл бұрын

@@magicfire763 Not true? Moscow was one of the biggest cities, it was 270 000 strong population-wise.

@Badnercalabrese

Жыл бұрын

@farkasvilkas it is true. Moscow was always seen as the spiritual capital of Russia but St.Petersburg was the capital of the Russian Empire since Peter the Great. Think of the late western Roman Empire when Ravenna was the capital but Rome was still Rome.

@Neat_profile

Жыл бұрын

It cannot be destroyed. For every division of their army you can destroy they will send a smarter, better trained one in its place and their victory will be inevitable. I'm sure the Swedes can relate too.

a wonderful speaker and a great teacher...inspirational

For a more modern Russian perspective, see the books by Alexander Mikaberidze. Especially his books The Burning of Moscow, The Battle of Borodino, The Battle of Berezina.

This was really good.

@SENSUSCOMMUNE

9 жыл бұрын

Here's a famous lecture by prominent Napoleon historian from Russia - Evgeny Ponasenkov on the topic of "The Decline and Death of Western Civilization". Give it a listen, leave a comment and tell us what you think. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qaGWu8ucctnQZag.html Thanks.

Is this a good book to read for someone with little knowledge on the Napoleonic Wars?

@mphet26: So you deny the Battle of the Kalka River taking place in 1223?

@mphet26: For even Napoleon had his Achilles heel and in his case it was his utter lack of regard of supplying his troops, which is when it comes to great commanders unequalled in history, though Alexander made a similar blunder when returning from India; and in the ancient time one cannot simply encircle an army, unless it fails to retreat in due time or one does manage to cut off its way and that is difficult to do in a country with Russia, which lacked roads and bridges.

skip to 6:40 for the start of the lecutre

@brocalfur: While Napoleon had virtually no chance of turning the tide in 1814 as he had lost his German vassals after the battle of Leipzig and they were very eager to earn some merits against him, in order to repair their collaborations with him to the Coalition; and the French troops in Spain have been defeated and Wellington attacking Toulouse, while France was exhausted and Napoleon could as an usurper not risk to lose the capital; so he was defeated by mere numbers.

@mphet26: Nope, as cannons did become very common in the Hundred Years War and where one of the causes of the English defeats, so you should read some of the sources about that time and you will surely find them there.

@lou3331mig4413: There is no need to do so, unless you can contradict Clausewitz, who stated that the French combat losses were minimal in comparison to those due to starvation, thirst and exhaustion. While I see no Russian planning I this entire campaign but a steady retreat in the face of the massive Frech onslaught, which is by the way the normal procedure in warfare as very few campaigns do follow a clear strategy or a plan but are conducted according to strength and luck in battle.

Loved the French rat anecdote, such fun! The key for me is the way in which the populous is so easily manipulated by the elites, whether by religion or by nationalism or monarchy. You might have thought we should have learnt by now, how dumb we are.

@mphet26: But you are aware that France did use cannons ever since the 100 Years War, which took place full 300 years ere Tsar Peter had even been born? Besides: If a military officer becomes the ruler of a country he tends to favour his branch the most; besides the quality of armament is not everything in warfare but the tactical and strategic usage one does made of them and so Wellington marvelled at Waterloo at the skill with which Napoleon did use his artillery.

@lou3331mig4413: And according to the account of Clausewitz, the famous German philosopher of war, who took part as a somewhat neutral observer on the Russian side, the Russians had no concept or plan but always retreated before the French onslaught out of a feeling of weakness and improvised all their battles. So without the fastness of their country and the bad supply planning of Napoleon they would have been crushed with ease by him.

@lou3331mig4413: The half hearted Russian attempt at Berezina does not count, as the whole army of Wittgenstein could have blocked his way, but Kutuzov stayed wantonly far behind Napoleon’s army and so there was no hope in stopping it; and if you know Clausewitz, you should be aware that he judged that without his many mistakes Napoleon could have bought back some 250,000 men of his army and that he would have suffered no more harm than a failed campaign.

@mphet26: And of course were the Russians forced back by their general weakness as many of their commanders demanded to attack Napoleon’s army when it did cross the Russian border but found no heart to do so until Borodino, when Napoleon’s army had already greatly diminished in strength.

Strangely it always ends up several thousand kilometres westward with Russian boots in the invader's capital...

@irinabobrova3061

5 жыл бұрын

Well, what else can you expect when Russia has been invaded??? Should have we just said " Thanks for popping by"?

@HueyPPLong

Жыл бұрын

Not in ww1, or the first Soviet polish war. Or Crimean war or many others

Being Russian and listening to Prof. Lieven's narrative I felt like the proverbial Jew whose only joy in his miserable life was reading Anti-Semitic press because that was his only chance to feel mighty and powerful.

@mphet26: Nope, as Genghis Khan did die in 1227, while his Mongol hordes did crush the Russian realm of Kiev in 1223 already; and it is a pretty poor excuse that the realm of Kiev was not the predecessor of Russia, which would be as odd as to claim that the realm of the Franks had nothing to do with France; and of course Novgorod paid tribute to the Mongols for centuries and therefore didn’t have to be conquered by them, once they settled down on the Crimea.

Bought the book

@SENSUSCOMMUNE

9 жыл бұрын

Here's a famous lecture by prominent Napoleon historian from Russia - Evgeny Ponasenkov on the topic of "The Decline and Death of Western Civilization". Give it a listen, leave a comment and tell us what you think. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qaGWu8ucctnQZag.html Thanks.

The topic of Intelligence during the Napoleonic Wars isn’t covered enough

You're right, the Russians did indeed win in the end, but you don't mention that it was an Allied victory. FireEyed and I are merely telling you that the Russians were incapable of beating Napoleon alone without fighting in Russia and relying on scorched earth tactics. Russia needed the numerous allies to push Napoleon from Germany to France. This was proven many times with battles like the one you just mentioned.

Napoleon should really put to a court-martial for not securing the food supply of his great army, but then again he was used to wage war in the civilized parts of the world and so can be forgiven to have not considered that Russia is not amongst them and so one has to supply one’s army. Had Napoleon done so the conquest of Russia by France would have been as swift and complete as it has been by the Mongols under Genghis Khan, for the Russian troops were a mere nuisance and hunger the sole foe.

1:10:40 "played in to hands"... he means THEY WERE RIGHT.

...and the combined power of almost all of Europe couldn't beat the Russians in 1812...wouldn't be the last time lol

@lou3331mig4413: Nope, as Napoleon is infamous for his utter lack of proper food supply as he did commandeer his food in the countryside; and old Spain was rather poor and arid compared to Holland or Northern Italy and it was one of the main causes of the Spanish insurrection that the French forces did commandeer from the poor villages and so the rural folk had to choose between fighting and starvation; and without the popular insurrection war, Wellington wouldn’t have dared to enter Spain.

@brocalfur: But you are aware of Genghis Khan and his Mongols, who were accustomed to the climate and conditions of Russia and crushed therefore the Russians with ease? And as I said much more the desolate shape and vastness of their country rather than their bravery or military brilliance did save the Russians against Sweden, France and Germany and without allies their counterattacks would have been bootless; and a word of caution never try to fight an enemy like China in that way.

@lou3331mig4413: While it is utterly ridiculous to assume that the Russians had a better artillery as Napoleon did, as Napoleon was an artillerist himself and his artillery was surely the best in Europe at that time, while the Russians were always a bit backward; and once more: The Russians had no strategic plan but were forced back by the feeling of weakness, until they dared to make an attempt to defend Moscow but abandoned it and waited for the French retreat.

This is fascinating. There are so many misconceptions about Napoleon's Russian campaign and its myriad complexities. I have ordered the book and am looking forward to reading it. The amount of human suffering and loss of life is staggering and brings Hitler's Barbarossa into focus as well. Mother Russia and her winter were indeed formidable--but there is so much more to this story.

@lou3331mig4413: Nope, as scorched earth tactics do work only in uncivilized countries, if any government would try to destroy the countryside in a civilized country like the Netherlands or Northern Italy, the invading enemy would be greatly aided by the plagued population; so had Napoleon considered this he would have brought enough food with him and so crushed the Russians with ease as they were even afraid to dare his retreating and starving army for a final battle.

Strange foreigners, none of them were srange to Russia, all of them were born in the Russian Empire and were since a couple of generations already subject of the Russian Tsar. Osterman-Tolstoy, Yermolov, Raevsky, Kutuzov were all Russians, at the heart of the Battle of Borodino was the Raevsky Redoubt, were the Yermolov's cannons that stormed the gates of Paris.

Vive Napoleon 👍

Tsar didn't liberate Europe. Partition of Poland was still going on.

Sorry, but you need to rephrase that. Russia was NOT responsible for pushing Napoleon back. Less than a year after the Russian Campaign, Russia still couldn't beat Napoleon during the Sixth Coalition. They even had Prussia's help. It took the combined power of Prussia, Russia, treacherous Austria breaking its alliance, and Sweden to beat Napoleon in Germany. Then the British, Spanish, and Portuguese joined them for the invasion of France.

@lou3331mig4413: The internet is treacherous. It will hold you to your word.

@brocalfur: Not really, as the Russians were totally exhausted at the western border of Poland and wouldn’t stood a chance against the forces Napoleon did muster, had Austria and Prussia not entered the war on their behalf; take Charles XII for example: Though his army was destroyed within Russia, the Russians came nowhere near invading Sweden or capturing its capital. Even in World War II I doubt that the Russians would have reached Berlin without the USA and its allies.

Как вй учить любите,ещё и деньги получаете

This war is depressing. Poor soldiers freezing to death in Russia.

@Jurgen_Ibro

7 жыл бұрын

They went there in summer. Regarding the winter: winter is equal for all parties and I'm sure it didn't last for 2 years.

None of them are British????? Its a joke

Yes he liberated Europe from the dangers of free living & saved their serfdom status for them & their children.

this guy explains that "Britain was an extremely powerful peripheral center" during the 20th century... yeah like during ww1 and ww2... this guy takes his fantasies for realities ..typical delusion of British grandeur

Russians just constantly rest on the winter factor. Fine. But then let them not think they are actually great strategists. One day technology will inhibit this factor...its simply a matter of time...

@captderichelieu2280

9 жыл бұрын

If you talking about nuclear war with new technology,.. you are idiot !

@SENSUSCOMMUNE

9 жыл бұрын

Here's a famous lecture by prominent Napoleon historian from Russia - Evgeny Ponasenkov on the topic of "The Decline and Death of Western Civilization". Give it a listen, leave a comment and tell us what you think. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qaGWu8ucctnQZag.html Thanks.

@Jurgen_Ibro

7 жыл бұрын

They went there in summer. Regarding the winter: winter is equal for all parties and I'm sure it didn't last for 2 years.

@alt-monarchist

5 жыл бұрын

You are a fucking idiot.

@mint8648

Жыл бұрын

Russia captured Paris in winter lol