Russians keep saying they have never been conquered.
>Except that one time Naploeon captured your capital Moscow.
Capturing the capital doesn't mean full conquest. I know this is mostly a bait thread, but if the majority of your military is still intact and large amounts of core territory are still unoccupied by the enemy (and are still controlled by the defending authority), then you haven't really been conquered.
That being said, Russia was ACTUALLY conquered by the Mongols, though they were a lot smaller than today at the time since they had yet to conquer Siberia.
>actual historical accuracy
Pick one and then kill yourself.
Why are Russians so proud of never being conquered when its wrong and even tiny countries like Denmark only have been conquered entirely only once in history? Nazi occupation of WW2 to be exact.
It's really nothing special.
I don't even get why he's stereotyped as being a literal midget anyways, he's about as a tall as a chinese guy [spoiler]and he was hot when he was desu[/spoiler].
I'm what some would call a Napolaboo. Whilst Napoleon did severely wreck the Russians on his approach to Moscow, Alexander abandoned the city and sparked fires throughout it. I hardly call that conquering, Tsar Alexander honestly did look like he would fight to his death.
Napoleons retreat from Russia was amazingly catastrophic as shown in this famous graph >>528945
British propaganda portrayed him that way so much that he has become a stereotype for short angry men, often applied to Hitler as well. From memory he was above average height but the French inch was bigger than the English inch and so he was confused as short
>Whilst Napoleon did severely wreck the Russians on his approach to Moscow, Alexander abandoned the city and sparked fires throughout it. I hardly call that conquering, Tsar Alexander honestly did look like he would fight to his death.
Are you retarded?
Dozens of battles happened on the road to Moscow, just because the Russians lost all of them and kept retreating doesnt mean they didnt try to resist
Do I even need to bring up Borodino, where the Russians threw all they had to prevent the fall of Moscow?
I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. All I meant was he didn't conquer 'Russia' but Moscow, as Alexander had not yet surrendered and Russia is absolutely fucking massive with an enormous population
In this very case it makes sense
Napoleon was a progressive and very talented leader trying to achieve peace on a backward-minded continent
Meanwhile, Tsar Alexander was a retarded tyrant who doomed hundreds thousands of his own civilians to starvation with his scorched earth strategy just to avoid having to come back in an economical system Napoleon etablished, and this because he was convinced the man was the Antichrist...
It was literally genius and progress VS mental illness and feudalism
>Napoleon was a progressive and very talented leader
Give me examples of progressive and talanted works of King and Emperor Napoleon I.
>Tsar Alexander was a retarded tyrant
Emperor Alexander I was liberal of Switzerland school and reformer. Reforms of Alexander I did not translated to English into wikipedia, may be just as Cold War echo. So read this:
>Give me examples of progressive and talanted works of King and Emperor Napoleon I.
...In April 1789 Napoleon I was sent as deputy commander in Seurre for the suppression of hungry rebellion. Napoleon I participated in the suppression of hungry rebellions, but it was one of the early supporters of the society of friends of the constitution. Napoleon I was king not to the right of the royal blood, but by right of the dictator...
the anglosphere uses the red one that makes it the best
Derived from Roman law
During the French offensive and their onslaught towards Moscow (during the Summer/Autumn), the Russian Cossacks were ordered to burn down villages and farms to make it impossible for the French to live off the land. This extended the French supply lines waaaay to far and made them vulnerable to attack and made it almost impossible to adequately supply the French troops, especially when the winter fell and the retreat began. This forced men to head of hunting and gathering in small parties during the night who were then picked off by the waiting Russian horse men.
Once they finally reached Moscow, Napoleon was let with an abandoned city and many of the important buildings had been set alight. As the winter drew closer Napoleon waited in Moscow for the Tsar Alexander to surrender; with each day he waited his situation becoming worse. Napoleon pushed forward out of Moscow but once again the Russians retreated Napoleon, completely lacking the rations and winter clothes needed, knew a decisive battle would never be allowed by the Russians and so was forced to retreat.
As they retreated the Russian winter fell and temperatures plummeted to as low as -40C. The French horses were unable to be fed with the frozen countryside and were thus killed and eaten by the starving French troops. Many French Troops simpy collapsed from exhaustion, starvation and exposure where they froze to death or were captured. With supply lines cut off the Grande Armee fell to pieces and was attacked by small units of Cossacks and peasants picking off the stragglers and hunters. Of the 600,000 soldiers sent to Russia only 25,000 remained fit with 100,000 captured and almost 400,000 killed.
He was winning super hard while the Russians were retreating. Unfortunately Napoleon didn't know what season came after autumn and that this season might be quite severe in Russia. I assume some of his commanders might've advised him not to do this and focus on different regions for now but he was the god of war.
He knew perfectly well from his studies of King Charles XII of Sweden's campaign that the Russian winter could become as low as -67C. He just pushed his luck waiting for Russian surrender in Moscow
Which Napoleon haircut do you prefer? The young one or the old one?
>byzantine empire loses it's capital to catholic knights in the fourth crusade
>re-establishes government in Nicea
No-one claimes that the byzantine empire was conquered, they merely had their capital city taken off them for a period of time.
Also St. Petersburg was the capital of russia in 1812
Roberts is sickeningly biased. He feels compelled to defend Napoleon, which wouldn't be so bad if he didn't resort to imageboard-tier arguments such as whatabouttery. He should be held as an example of "if he can get into academia, then so can I".
How about I cite picrelated, the single most respected European History textbook by the titan of European history, R.R. Palmer? As an American, you bring shame upon our country. Now get the fuck off /his/ and never return.
it's also worth noting that the Alexander studied and understood Napoleon's grand strategy for victory, and refused to play along and be baited into it.
Napoleon's winning strategy wasn't a full conquest or holding of territory, it was knocking out the enemy army in a quick decisive battle, enough to completely cripple a nation's military in just a few days.
Napoleon believed that his invasion of Russia would compel the Russians to send a massive army to be wiped away by his troops, but Alexander never allowed it to happen, and knew that the longer Napoleon remained in Russia, the weaker his army became.
Russia's leadership knew that time was completely on their side, and letting the cold kill them while the army harassed them every step of the way was enough to ruin the French army beyond recovery.
Napoleon took Moscow but never conquered Russia. Shortly after taking Moscow winter set in and his Grande Armee was driven out of Russia and all the way back to Paris. Napoleon took a pile of ash. The Russians burnt it to the ground, it was hardly a prize to begin with.
>He feels compelled to defend Napoleon, which wouldn't be so bad if he didn't resort to imageboard-tier arguments such as whatabouttery.
So you'd rather judge Napoleon with your modern standards than wonder "what about the other leaders of his time and how did they compare to him"?