Napoleon wins Bordino 5-0 instead of 4-3

[Redbeard]

In 1812 Napoleon gathered the biggest army yet seen to invade Russia, and counted on decisively beating the Russian main army and in that way end the campaign.

As we know, he advanced and won a lot of battles, but never in the decisive matter he liked, and which according to many theorists was/is the way to end a war.

But what if say Borodino is that kind of a French Victory? Would that end the Russian campaign, or would we just see a more WWII like campaign where first the Russian army takes horrendous casualties but King Frost next engages the invaders while new Russian forces are built up?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Grey Wolf]

Maybe after he had gotten his big battle with his big victory he would listen to Davout and pay more attention to the actual objectives of the campaign ? Though IIRC Davout was badly wounded at Borodino ? Though perhaps not in the ATL one here ?

Grey Wolf

[Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

Maybe after he had gotten his big battle with his big victory he would listen to Davout and pay more attention to the actual objectives of the campaign ? Though IIRC Davout was badly wounded at Borodino ? Though perhaps not in the ATL one here ?

Grey Wolf

What "actual objectives" are you thinking of? My impression is, that Nap. never planned this much beyond the battlefield victory. Anyway, short of a mental breakdown of Alexander having him quit, will a decisive defeat of the Russian army really change matters? Even if The French improve their logistics and survive the winter, they hardly can garrison anything but a thin supply route, and through that obligation deny themselves many opportunities for operating elsewhere - i.e. the same conseqences as from the OTL loss of the Grande Armee. No matter if you soldiers are in heaven/hell or in Russia, they are away from the main theatre (usually somewhere in Germany).

Can French pressence in Russia beyond 1812 keep the Russians from raising just another army, and one more, and one more? After all the Russians never cared much about half the recruits dying on the march from the depot to the unit.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard (leaving cyberspace until monday)

[Max Sinister]

WI he had started the campaign earlier than June 22nd? (It's almost funny if it wasn't tragic... both Hitler and Napoleon invaded Russia on that day, and both failed... why didn't they just start in May?)

[Kurt_Steiner]

Originally Posted by Max Sinister

WI he had started the campaign earlier than June 22nd? (It's almost funny if it wasn't tragic... both Hitler and Napoleon invaded Russia on that day, and both failed... why didn't they just start in May?)

Because Hitler was busy in the Balkans. About Nappy, well, I dunno...

[JHPier]

Originally Posted by Max Sinister

WI he had started the campaign earlier than June 22nd? (It's almost funny if it wasn't tragic... both Hitler and Napoleon invaded Russia on that day, and both failed... why didn't they just start in May?)

Because in May the post-winter snow melt turns every road into slush impossible to get horse-drawn artillery and supply-vehicles through.

[Bulgaroktonos]

I think May is the first month the rains and roads aren't mud.....

Hitler's initial plan was to invade in May. Possibly the 15th? I think they deemed that to be the first day that they could be positively assured of good road conditions in Russia......

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Redbeard

But what if say Borodino is that kind of a French Victory? Would that end the Russian campaign, or would we just see a more WWII like campaign where first the Russian army takes horrendous casualties but King Frost next engages the invaders while new Russian forces are built up?

IIRC, 1812 was a rather warm winter; that was part of a problem on the retreat.

Perhaps if Bonaparte mauls the Russian army bad enough, it doesn't pursue him in 1813, because Russia is too weak?