Why did the Russians do this lmao?

Hy cлyшaй мeня, ёбaный ты poт.
Пocкoлькy Mocквa былa cтoлицeй и чтoбы нe дaть eё вpaгy, oнa былa coжeннa. Этo oчeнь paccтpoилo Haпoлeoнa, пocкoлькy cтoлицa былa зaхвaчeнa, нo вpaг (pyccкиe) нe cдaлиcь. И eщё eды нeтy, apмия y Бoнoпapтa гoлoдaeт и eй нacтaвaл пoлный пиздeц.

Russians were too weak to fight in the open so they burned down all their own cities and ran away, hoping the French soldiers would be exposed and die due to the elements. Eventually the Russians fought back and lost.

File: napoleonArmy[1].jpg (147KB, 1148x472px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1148x472px

>What is Scorched Earth strategy

>>2499405
But Moscow wasn't the capital. Petersburg was.

>>2499353
It's not clear, why fire happened. The cause could be some french soldier trying to warm himself in wooden house.
>>2500008
Moscow was the spiritual capital, the first Capital, the hearth of Russia.

>>2500022
> spiritual capital
> the first Capital
> the hearth of Russia.
So nothing.

>>2499353
After losing at Borodino, Napoleon was expecting to take Moscow and compel Alexander I to accept defeat.

Instead Alexander ordered Moscow burned and all sources of food around the city with it, and just let Napoleon sit in the city and do nothing while his army starved and was forced to retreat.

Napoleon's campaigns all through the coalitions wars were about earning that one decisive victory and compelling his enemies to sue for peace. Alexander simply refused to see Napoleon and harassed his forces wherever they marched until starvation and attrition wiped out the Grande Armee, the destruction of which led to Napoleon's defeat in Leipzig and his eventual overthrow.

File: Russian_army_and_residents_of_Moscow_abandon_the_city.jpg (296KB, 855x604px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 855x604px

>>2499353
One reason was because the russians knew it would force Napoleon to either attack (with a now depleted army of tired and hungry men or retreat. Kutuzow had brilliantly moved south to Tula where he had nice cozy coffee and especially, the largest arms production in the empire.

When Napoleon had Moscow he was stuck between a rock (Tula) and a hard place (St-Petersburg)
>>2500022
this. (nice trip-dubs)
>>2500061
you underrestimate how seriously russians took spirituality and religion on those days. They were a tough nut to crack not because of some fancy tactics but because the peasant-soldiers were constantly itching to charge with bayonets (even when losing)
>>2500202
this too

File: 1812.png (293KB, 496x323px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 496x323px

>>2499353

that's quintesentially russian
they all want to kill themseles and burn their nation to write a book about it

File: 1482604929810.jpg (80KB, 670x677px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 670x677px

>>2500235
> you underrestimate how seriously russians took spirituality and religion on those days.
But evidently it was Napoleon who overestimated this. There is nothing religiously significant about Moscow for Russian Orthodox, it's not Mecca or something, all you have to do is to evacuate the patriarch. If anything, Napoleon should had know that Poles captured Moscow in 1612 and that didn't help them at all.

File: Russian_infantry_by_Grekov_Kamynina.jpg (92KB, 894x468px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 894x468px

>>2500255
The population of Moscow was extremely spiritual, russians from St-Petersburg would note how odd the Moscovites were and although they had a relatively large population in Moscow it was still seen by some russians as just a large, secluded village with the same backwater villagers in it (except larger). The russians saw their spiritual values in themselves more than in a rock (for meccas example) and where St-Petersburg was the modern capital of Russia, Moscow was the spiritual capital (that's why they called these cities 'the capitals' without picking one)

>>2500255
>But evidently it was Napoleon who overestimated this.

It was. Napoleon sat in the burnt-out ruins of Moscow for a month waiting for the Russian peace delegation to arrive. He assumed he'd already won (an assumption partially fed by Russian disinformation, mind you), and fiddled away precious time as reality slowly set in. They were on winter's doorstep by the time the French began their retreat, at which point they were already in the middle of rasputitsa.

>>2499353
Russians are willing to behead themselves in front of their enemy if it meant drowning their foe in their own blood.

>>2499353
>why did russians do whatever it took to defeat napoleon lmao

If Napoleon captured Moscow and still lost, why do Germans pretend that they would've won in 1941 if they just captured Moscow?

File: ussr_railways.jpg (166KB, 640x530px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 640x530px

>>2500454
Because there were no railroads in 1812.

>>2500454
Not just Moscow but Leningrad and the south as well. Also which Germans specifically are you referring to when you say that.

Tsar Alexander was actually mentally ill
He unironically thought that Napoleon was the Antichrist
That's why he burned Moscow and all the farms around it (thus dooming hundreds thousands of Russian civilians to death by starvation) just to avoid losing a war that wasn't at all about annexation, but merely about a trade agreement that would have barely affected Russia

Because Russians care more about defeating their enemies then protecting their own people.

>>2500497
>Tsar Alexander was actually mentally ill

Maybe. But he was also absurdly religious, he took his responsibilities as sovereign to be a source of divine inspiration and meaning. He assumed the throne at a relatively young age and amidst tumultuous circumstance; fanaticism was likely just a coping method to reconcile with the unavoidable complicity in his father's assassination. It's a pretty big cross to bear.

>He unironically thought that Napoleon was the Antichrist

He leveled this accusation against numerous people throughout his lifetime, so don't get carried away. And to someone living in the atmosphere of Europe c. 1812, an apocalyptic mood wrt Napoleon is not exactly unreasonable. He originally had great respect for the man, as it were.

>That's why he burned Moscow and all the farms around it (thus dooming hundreds thousands of Russian civilians to death by starvation)
[citation needed]

>>2500549
>[citation needed]

What citation?
What do you think happened to all the peasants whose farms and fields had been burned by the retreating Russian army on the road to Moscow?
Or to the poors of Moscow who barely had enough money to maintain a housing and suddenly became homeless and jobless as well as forced to leave their city?
There was no welfare state to save them, and it certainly isnt the Russian nobility (who gave zero shit about the people) who'd have helped them
The scorched earth policy starved the French army and caused its destruction, but an insanely heavy toll was also paid by the Russian lower class
It's well documented, you'll hear about that in any book about early 19th century Russia
This utter disdain Russian nobles had for the lives of their people was one of the major reasons the 1917 Revolution happened

>>2500604
>What citation?

Yeah, exactly. What citation? I'm familiar with the effects of a scorched earth doctrine, as well as the utter disdain for the lower classes held by the Russian aristocracy. But you're just speculating based on those facts.

Give me a book or a link detailing the aftermath of Napoleon's 1812 invasion and the "hundreds of thousands" of civilians who perished of starvation as result.