Can Napoleon win at Vitebsk? Does it mean victory in Russia?

After trawling around the internet for a while, I have found that people reckon Napoleon's best chance for victory in Russia in 1812 was at Borodino, where he needs to get a decisive one instead of the Pyrrhic one of OTL. The only problem I have found with this is that it is too late in the campaign: Moscow was about to be burned, Napoleon's army was disintegrating and he was quite deep in enemy territory by then.

The same does not seem to hold true for the battle of Vitebsk (26-27 July 1812). This was fought when Napoleon's objective was still to quarter in Smolensk for the winter, and was close enough to friendly territory (Poland) that supply wasn't too big an issue.

In OTL, the Russians primarily fought a rearguard action that delayed the Grande Armee enough that the Russians could escape across the river towards Smolensk, while Napoleon never brought up all of his forces to fight them. In an ATL, would the forces he had available on the 26th or 27th be enough to rout the Russians, and is a decisive enough victory possible that will allow him to conclude the Russian campaign (say, territory stays as is, but Russia goes back to the Continental System and promises to leave Napoleon alone to fight in Spain).

- BNC
 
The Russians army refused to burn Moscow before Borodino and only bothered to comply after they lost. If Napoleon got a decisive victory, there would be no Russians to implement the burning of Moscow. Then Napoleon can house his troops and... well I'm not really sure how he can win from here to be honest. Napoleon's logistics staff are the unsung heros of the campaign. They were able to keep the Grande Army supplied when it was very far from their bases and managed to hold off both nature and the Russian harassment forces... at least until October.
 
The Russians army refused to burn Moscow before Borodino and only bothered to comply after they lost. If Napoleon got a decisive victory, there would be no Russians to implement the burning of Moscow.
1. Borodino only happened a week before the fire.
2. Even the bloodiest of battles doesn't result in 100% casualty rate.

Some soldiers will get away to destroy the city. I don't think that will change unless Borodino is a Russian victory, which won't help Napoleon win the war.

well I'm not really sure how he can win from here to be honest.
That's the problem I have found with choosing Borodino as a PoD. At Vitebsk Napoleon still had a concrete plan, but was it good enough to win the campaign?

- BNC
 

longsword14

Banned
Vitebesk was typical of the Russia opening moves in the campaign. It was very hard for Napoleon to make them stand and fight in one single mass, any possibility of fighting at level numbers was avoided and if outright destruction was never risked. The Russians always retreated and the advance of such a large opposing army was slow, became slower, more stretched out, and then the campaign season was over.
 
Vitebesk was typical of the Russia opening moves in the campaign. It was very hard for Napoleon to make them stand and fight in one single mass, any possibility of fighting at level numbers was avoided and if outright destruction was never risked. The Russians always retreated and the advance of such a large opposing army was slow, became slower, more stretched out, and then the campaign season was over.

He didn't attack with all his forces on the 27th, while the Russians were scrambling to get across the Dvina, which let them get away on the night of 27/28. If Napoleon chose to force a fight he could have had one.

- BNC
 
I meant the whole Russian Army was present? I have forgotten most details about 1812 campaign by now.

They had 90,000 in the morning of the 27th, and I'm guessing they started retreating properly as soon as Napoleon called off the battle, because they had practically zero forces there the next day. This is 50% of their forces on June 22, and I imagine losses at Ostrovno are probably similar to the newly trained forces at that time.

- BNC
 
1. Borodino only happened a week before the fire.
2. Even the bloodiest of battles doesn't result in 100% casualty rate.

If he gets a decisive victory at Borodino, Moscow doesn't get burned. A decisive victory means the enemy is quitting the field in complete disorder and lost all cohesion. Napoleon could send a cavalry unit 1/7 of the size of the surviving Russians and run down anyone carrying heavy equipment (the siege guns) and anyone between him and Moscow. A few might make it and start isolated fires, but Moscow won't burn.

That said, I'm still not seeing Napoleon win even with a nice safe camp at Moscow.
 
After trawling around the internet for a while, I have found that people reckon Napoleon's best chance for victory in Russia in 1812 was at Borodino, where he needs to get a decisive one instead of the Pyrrhic one of OTL. The only problem I have found with this is that it is too late in the campaign: Moscow was about to be burned, Napoleon's army was disintegrating and he was quite deep in enemy territory by then.

The same does not seem to hold true for the battle of Vitebsk (26-27 July 1812). This was fought when Napoleon's objective was still to quarter in Smolensk for the winter, and was close enough to friendly territory (Poland) that supply wasn't too big an issue.

In OTL, the Russians primarily fought a rearguard action that delayed the Grande Armee enough that the Russians could escape across the river towards Smolensk, while Napoleon never brought up all of his forces to fight them. In an ATL, would the forces he had available on the 26th or 27th be enough to rout the Russians, and is a decisive enough victory possible that will allow him to conclude the Russian campaign (say, territory stays as is, but Russia goes back to the Continental System and promises to leave Napoleon alone to fight in Spain).

- BNC

Doubt it, he's deep in hostile frozen wasteland surrounded by people who wanted him dead.

Plus I hear that it wasn't really the burning of the town that did it. He managed to save enough of the town to weather the winter. After the burning he realized he would never be able to maintain his supply lines and the Russians were still committed to defeating him and would whittle them down. He'd felt that the symbolic victory would demoralize Russia into an eventual surrender. It didn't happen.

If the burning doesn't happen then they will do something else.
 
Doubt it, he's deep in hostile frozen wasteland surrounded by people who wanted him dead.

Plus I hear that it wasn't really the burning of the town that did it. He managed to save enough of the town to weather the winter. After the burning he realized he would never be able to maintain his supply lines and the Russians were still committed to defeating him and would whittle them down. He'd felt that the symbolic victory would demoralize Russia into an eventual surrender. It didn't happen.

If the burning doesn't happen then they will do something else.

That's Moscow though. At Vitebsk he wasn't any deeper in Russian territory than he was taking Berlin in 1806 from the Prussians.

- BNC
 
He wasn't seeking occupation in 1812 though. He simply wanted the Tsar to stop trading with England and leave him alone to focus on Spain.

- BNC

That's true. But the tsar was price gouging England on its trade, so I think a 200% markup isn't exactly helping the English.

Anyways, as I said if Napoleon wins decisively at Borodino, he gets Moscow mostly intact. Anyone heading towards Moscow will be taken care of by his cleanup squads. The Russians can try to split up to avoid all getting run down, but Napoleon will tell his guys there is ONE escape route he doesn't want any survivors in, and that's the one towards Moscow. The problem here is that Napoleon already lost 70% of his manpower. It wasn't winter alone that did him in. He was already weakened by disease. Plenty of units simply quit it when they got bogged down in mud. Some units semi-deserted, regrouping at the Austrian boarder and helping Napoleon after Russia, but obviously useless during that time.
 
The problem here is that Napoleon already lost 70% of his manpower. It wasn't winter alone that did him in. He was already weakened by disease. Plenty of units simply quit it when they got bogged down in mud. Some units semi-deserted, regrouping at the Austrian boarder and helping Napoleon after Russia, but obviously useless during that time.

That's why I'm looking at Vitebsk - at which point the losses were more like 20% than 70. If he wins there, is that enough for the tsar to fold?

- BNC
 
Hmmm... the tsar would have 3 options.

1 Give up Modern Day Ukraine and hope Napoleon comes into modern day Russia. Even if Napoleon keeps his losses to 25% instead of 75%, if Napoleon goes into Russia the winter will cause problems.

2 Make peace on Napoleon's terms. At one point Napoleon simply wanted Russia to go back into the continental system and give an apology, but I think at some point he wanted to replace the tsar, so depending on if Napoleon lets him keep his throne, this might be tenable.

3 Convince the Hapsburgs to throw in their lot with Russia. Let me explain this one.

Even after the loss at Russia, Napoleon was able to numerically replace his losses. Against the Poles, the Prussians, and the Russians, he beat them and only mobilized 30% of his available infantry and cavalry. After Russia the problem was that the new troops were of lower quality.

In the days of muskets, a good test of troop quality is, how badly would the infantry fare if charged by a cavalry unit 1/3 its size... on the FRONT. If the infantry will rout or engage but lose cohesion as a unit, it sucks as any unit made of professionals would easily kill cav stupid enough to come in the front (bayonets remember?). Even new recruits. Conscripts on the other hand had some training that could be as good as or as bad as the 1700s era twining. A lot of Napoleon's new troops were very motivated (although dishearten by the loss at Russia) but were merde. They failed this frontal charge test with flying colors. most could hit individual targets (that's actually OK, only light infantry or some of the specialized British units needed to do so), and his troops were prone to falling for fake retreats.

Then the Hapsburgs threw their weight in and Napoleon was in trouble. The army he personally led still couldn't be beaten by the enemies when they moved fast, but they would snipe away French armies led by his subordinates and he found that he was unable to siege anything without the enemy taking the fight to him on unfavorable ground. It all went downhill from here.

The Hapsbrurgs and the Russians didn't like each other at all. Tarylland wanted Napoleon to keep the Holy Roman Empire and let the Austrians off with all their 1740s land so that they could be used as a buffer against France's less reliable allies (Prussia and Russia). The various countries ended up fighting each other again, but only after beating Napoleon.

In OTL the Hapsburgs were talking tot he British after the War of the Third Coalition in secret about how best to get rid of Napoleon. The British kept saying "openly support us" and the Hapsburgs kept saying "no we can't we got out butts kicked, so give us money for our information network" and information kept flowing from Vienna to London (probably after the Austrians pocketed some). If Austria gets a message from an old enemy "let's kick Napoleon's butt" they might agree... or maybe think "gee, the guy we hate just got beaten by the guy we hate slllliggghtllly more (Napoleon if you didn't figure it out) at Vitebsk wants us to bail him out. Not on our money"
 
Top