Political Crossfire Forums

[Simon De Montfort]

SaintLucifer wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Slava wrote: Napoleon was a bastard who caused so much suffering to Russia and many other European states.

No one has EVER cared about Russia. They were merely a nuisance to Napoleon. A third-rate power if you will. Russia only became a power as the Soviet Union.

You don't really know much history do you?

Russia has been a major power since the early 18th century.

No they have not. The Czar was defeated by everyone during his reign. So many countries bitchslapped the Russians it is not funny. Russia managed to assemble an 'Empire' thanks to much weaker neighbours. Show me ONE major military power the Russians took on and defeated with the exception of WWII and up. This should prove most interesting.
On the other hand, my ancestors the British took on major world powers and defeated them. To tell a Briton that Russia was always a world power is to make my ancestors kill themselves laughing. Russia has always been known for having an inept military.

Yeah, Russia carved out the huge Empire because they had an "inept military." :roll:

I will list Russia's victories over major Eurpoean powers since 1700. The list of victories over non-Eurpean power would be too many.

1700-1721 Great Northern War: Russia defeats Sweden (a major power at the time.)
LINK

1733-1735 War of Polish Succession
LINK

The Russo-Ottoman War of 1735-1739
LINK

The Swedish-Russian War of 1741-1743
LINK

In the Seven Years War the Russians made a good showing.

Battle of Zorndorf
LINK
Notice the Russians weren't destroyed. Not bad for an "inept military against the best European army of the mid 18th cent.

Battle of Kay
LINK
OMG!!! The inept won!!!

Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf
LINK
Question, how does an inept military defeat the best European army?

Battle of Kunersdorf
LINK
This one almost finished Frederick the Great. Not a bad showing for the inept.

The Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774
LINK

The Russo-Turkish War of 1787-1791
LINK

The Swedish-Russian War of 1808
LINK

In 1812 Russia defeated Napoleon and procceeded to drive him into exile.

For most of the 19th century Russia was at war defeating non-European powers. They were defeated in by Britain and France in the Crimean War. But I wouldn't crow about that victory if I were you. Britain performed horribly in the Crimea. It was a national embarrassment.

In WWI the Russians were defeated repeatedly by the Germans but they repeatedly defeated the Austrians.

All those battles against third-rate powers. *ROTFLMAO* The Russians NEVER defeated Napoleon. That honour falls onto the British and you know it. The Russians did not drive Napoleon into exile. That was the British. Twice. The Russians defeated the Turks? Whoa! Major power! Whooee! The Russians before WWII had never faced a major power and won even though her army was far larger than any of them.

This is what I get when I debate a 13yr old. :roll:

Britain could never have defeated Napoleon by themselves. Napoleon remained in power until Prussian, Austrian and Russian armies marched into Paris in 1814. Notice I didn't mention the British. They didn't fight in the Battle of Leipzig and they didn't participate in the coalition's 1814 invaision France.

BTW I am an Anglophile but even I can't tolerate the jingoism of this 13yr old.

And for your information the Turks were a major power. Russia's constant waring against them was a major reason for their decline.

[SaintLucifer]

Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Mahanon wrote: good tactican bad strategist ;) - could take whole europe if he wouldnt go for the big bear

Bad strategist?? The man not only took on Russia but he DEFEATED them and everyone knows it. You do recall that he is the only foreigner to ever march into Moscow? A shame the city was already in flames when he marched into the city. The cowardly Russians fled for their lives after burning their capital to the ground and destroying all food stocks. No invading power could have forseen such cowardice on a grand scale. The Russians did not defeat him. The Russian winter defeated him as he was forced to make do without proper food and supplies thanks to the cowardly Russians employing a 'scorched earth' policy.

This post reveals an astonishing amount of ignorance as to be embarrassing to the reader.

The Russians were being smart. For the most part they knew better than to fight the most powerful nation led by best general in the world. Kutusov (Russian general) was forced to fight at Borodino. Kutusov new that Napoleon's army out classed his. And a smart military leader (something you obviously aren't and never will be) knows when he should and shouldn't fight. Kutusov kept his army intact, allowed Napoleon to make a fatal error then attacked him when we was weak. It was brilliant. He not only saved Russia from French domination but laid the ground work for the coalition that would eventually drive Napoleon to Elba.

But I guess in your erudite understanding of military strategy you would have thought it better for the Russian's to have fought Napoleon's 600,000 man army at the border, get crushed, then have to surrender. Fighting when one is not ready is what led to the allied defeat at Austerlitz. You seem to have the same grasp of military strategy as the Austrian Emperor. :lol:

Before you start calling people cowards please learn something about military strategy.

This is proof the Russians were cowards: CHICKEN RUSSIA

Did you read the article?

First paragraph
Quote: In June of 1812, Napoleon began his fatal Russian campaign, a landmark in the history of the destructive potential of warfare. Virtually all of continental Europe was under his control, and the invasion of Russia was an attempt to force Tsar Alexander I to submit once again to the terms of a treaty that Napoleon had imposed upon him four years earlier. Having gathered nearly half a million soldiers, from France as well as all of the vassal states of Europe, Napoleon entered Russia at the head of the largest army ever seen. The Russians, under Marshal Kutuzov, could not realistically hope to defeat him in a direct confrontation. Instead, they begin a defensive campaign of strategic retreat, devastating the land as they fell back and harassing the flanks of the French. As the summer wore on, Napoleon's massive supply lines were stretched ever thinner, and his force began to decline. By September, without having engaged in a single pitched battle, the French Army had been reduced by more than two thirds from fatigue, hunger, desertion, and raids by Russian forces.


Are you trying to support your position or mine?

Wow! I never knew such ignorance existed. Read it again. Sloooowwwwlllyyyy this time.

[Simon De Montfort]

SaintLucifer wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Mahanon wrote: good tactican bad strategist ;) - could take whole europe if he wouldnt go for the big bear

Bad strategist?? The man not only took on Russia but he DEFEATED them and everyone knows it. You do recall that he is the only foreigner to ever march into Moscow? A shame the city was already in flames when he marched into the city. The cowardly Russians fled for their lives after burning their capital to the ground and destroying all food stocks. No invading power could have forseen such cowardice on a grand scale. The Russians did not defeat him. The Russian winter defeated him as he was forced to make do without proper food and supplies thanks to the cowardly Russians employing a 'scorched earth' policy.

This post reveals an astonishing amount of ignorance as to be embarrassing to the reader.

The Russians were being smart. For the most part they knew better than to fight the most powerful nation led by best general in the world. Kutusov (Russian general) was forced to fight at Borodino. Kutusov new that Napoleon's army out classed his. And a smart military leader (something you obviously aren't and never will be) knows when he should and shouldn't fight. Kutusov kept his army intact, allowed Napoleon to make a fatal error then attacked him when we was weak. It was brilliant. He not only saved Russia from French domination but laid the ground work for the coalition that would eventually drive Napoleon to Elba.

But I guess in your erudite understanding of military strategy you would have thought it better for the Russian's to have fought Napoleon's 600,000 man army at the border, get crushed, then have to surrender. Fighting when one is not ready is what led to the allied defeat at Austerlitz. You seem to have the same grasp of military strategy as the Austrian Emperor. :lol:

Before you start calling people cowards please learn something about military strategy.

This is proof the Russians were cowards: CHICKEN RUSSIA

Did you read the article?

First paragraph
Quote: In June of 1812, Napoleon began his fatal Russian campaign, a landmark in the history of the destructive potential of warfare. Virtually all of continental Europe was under his control, and the invasion of Russia was an attempt to force Tsar Alexander I to submit once again to the terms of a treaty that Napoleon had imposed upon him four years earlier. Having gathered nearly half a million soldiers, from France as well as all of the vassal states of Europe, Napoleon entered Russia at the head of the largest army ever seen. The Russians, under Marshal Kutuzov, could not realistically hope to defeat him in a direct confrontation. Instead, they begin a defensive campaign of strategic retreat, devastating the land as they fell back and harassing the flanks of the French. As the summer wore on, Napoleon's massive supply lines were stretched ever thinner, and his force began to decline. By September, without having engaged in a single pitched battle, the French Army had been reduced by more than two thirds from fatigue, hunger, desertion, and raids by Russian forces.


Are you trying to support your position or mine?

Wow! I never knew such ignorance existed. Read it again. Sloooowwwwlllyyyy this time.
Great come back :roll:

You have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to debate. Your knowledge of history is seriously lacking and you try to make up for it with insults. Judging from the quality and tone of your posts your tenure here will be short.

[JRM4833]

Lets stick to the issues in here please. Personal attacks are not allowed. Please see the forum rules for more on this notion. Thanks.

[thundertaker]

Dang, Saint Lucifer got banned. I was looking forward to seeing more of his posts. It's comedy idiots like him that make forums so much more interesting at times.....:lol:

[Simon De Montfort]

thundertaker wrote: Dang, Saint Lucifer got banned. I was looking forward to seeing more of his posts. It's comedy idiots like him that make forums so much more interesting at times.....:lol:

I didn't realize how prophetic my statement on his short tenure here would be. :lol:

I expected him to be banned but not that fast. Good job mods.

[Aibolit]

Simon De Montfort execuse me for my post, but I can't restrained when my ancestors mixed with dust :(

And thank you for knowledge :)

[Simon De Montfort]

Aibolit wrote: Simon De Montfort execuse me for my post, but I can't restrained when my ancestors mixed with dust :(

Well you going to have to learn how to redirect your anger if you want to stay around here. For example I like to slap people around like that with facts and evidence. It's a good way to relieve stress. :twisted:

Quote: And thank you for knowledge :)

My pleasure, I happily teach and happily learn. :-D

[XiangYu]

Quote: Napoleon: Good or Bad? Bad

[cap'n queasy]

Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Mahanon wrote: good tactican bad strategist ;) - could take whole europe if he wouldnt go for the big bear

Bad strategist?? The man not only took on Russia but he DEFEATED them and everyone knows it. You do recall that he is the only foreigner to ever march into Moscow? A shame the city was already in flames when he marched into the city. The cowardly Russians fled for their lives after burning their capital to the ground and destroying all food stocks. No invading power could have forseen such cowardice on a grand scale. The Russians did not defeat him. The Russian winter defeated him as he was forced to make do without proper food and supplies thanks to the cowardly Russians employing a 'scorched earth' policy.

This post reveals an astonishing amount of ignorance as to be embarrassing to the reader.

The Russians were being smart. For the most part they knew better than to fight the most powerful nation led by best general in the world. Kutusov (Russian general) was forced to fight at Borodino. Kutusov new that Napoleon's army out classed his. And a smart military leader (something you obviously aren't and never will be) knows when he should and shouldn't fight. Kutusov kept his army intact, allowed Napoleon to make a fatal error then attacked him when we was weak. It was brilliant. He not only saved Russia from French domination but laid the ground work for the coalition that would eventually drive Napoleon to Elba.

But I guess in your erudite understanding of military strategy you would have thought it better for the Russian's to have fought Napoleon's 600,000 man army at the border, get crushed, then have to surrender. Fighting when one is not ready is what led to the allied defeat at Austerlitz. You seem to have the same grasp of military strategy as the Austrian Emperor. :lol:

Before you start calling people cowards please learn something about military strategy.

Borodino and Preussisich-Eylua were both the first checks on French power, and both times it was the Russians who Napolean faced. They were definitely not cowards. But Napolean gathered a huge army to invade Russia, almost 700,000 men. The Russians had no choice but a strategic retreat.

It was disease, cold and starvation that reduced the largest army the world had ever seen at that point to about 10,000 men. It was impossible to supply such a fast moving army off the land and his wagons couldn't keep up. This was Napolean's mistake, which is ironic because organization was his field of genius.

It's a very interesting subject. IMHO Napoleon had a lot of good points, as well as some bad. As some other posters pointed out the Code Napoleon is still in use.