Royal Prussian Army vs Imperial Russian Army: Who wins?

Who would win? Prussians vs Russians.

  • 65,000 Prussians under Blucher win.

    Votes: 40 58.8%
  • 65,000 Russians under Kutuzov win.

    Votes: 28 41.2%

  • Total voters
    68
Let's say, someway, somehow, in 1810 a Prussian army of 65,000 men under Gebhard von Blucher fought with a Russian army of 65,000 men under Mikhail Kutuzov.

Who would win? It is early autumn, and it is at Dresden.

Think of:

Whose army is more elite? Who had better training? Etc, etc.

No outside help. Just 65,000 Prussians vs 65,000 Russians.

Who do you reckon would win?
 
1810, same numbers - composition? The Prussians in 1810 began seeing the fruit of their army reform, they had pretty decent, well-trained and motivated infantry. A Prussian line regiment has better than an even chance of being as good as a Russian guards regiment, I'd say. But infantry was the only thing the Prussians could afford to be good at at that point.

Cavalry, the Russians have the edge. Better horses, better-trained men. The Prussians would need to bring good troops to the party.

Artillery, let's hope for Blücher's sake they don't use that much. Kutuzov's gunners alone could turn the battle if he has enough - Russian artillery of that era was probably the best in the world.

On the whole, with both armies having recently suffered demoralising defeats and both still suffering from poor leadership, either side could lose. But if Kutuzov brings cossacks, chevalier guards and howitzers, Blücher is toast IMO.
 
Eeeeeh..

The fall of Shevardino unanchored the Russian left flank but Kutuzov did nothing to change these initial dispositions despite the repeated pleas of his generals to redeploy their forces. Thus, when the action began and became a defensive rather than an offensive battle for the Russians, their heavy preponderance in artillery was wasted on a right wing that would never be attacked, while the French artillery did much to help win the battle

During the height of the battle, Kutuzov's subordinates were making all of the decisions for him; according to Colonel Karl von Clausewitz, famous for his work On War, the Russian commander "seemed to be in a trance."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Borodino#cite_note-Riehn_251-50

Kutuzov could be pretty incompetent at times, but still, I'm inclined to think Kutuzov would win, especially if his subordinates would be Barclay and Bagration.
 
So far, it seems that many people think the Prussians would win by a long shot. To the people who think Russia would win, why?
 
Russians, hands down. The 1810 Prussians are just building up their numbers again so a lot of their forces will be very green and very raw. While Blucher was a pretty good commander and Kutuzov is extremely overrated, Russia had a lot more depth in the general staff.

Along with better and more cavalry, better and more artillery...

...to be honest the Russia record in the Coalition wars is just generally much better than the Prussian. There's a reason the Prussians copied from Russia in the period and immediately afterwards instead of the other way around.
 
So far, it seems that many people think the Prussians would win by a long shot. To the people who think Russia would win, why?

Well, better and a lot more artillery (though I can't remember if they've cleared up the saltpeter problems by 1810 or not), better light cavalry and infantry that are better motivated and better up close (though their shooting performance matches that of Imperial Stormtroopers). The Prussian heavy cavalry was pretty good, as was the Prussian cavalry as a whole (it was the strongest arm since the time of Frederick), but the Russians also had good heavy horse. The only real edge the Prussians have is in their musketry, which may not be enough to hold back the Russian infantry.
 
All the people commenting are saying Russia, but the Prussians are winning on the poll! I don't know what to think now.
 
All the people commenting are saying Russia, but the Prussians are winning on the poll! I don't know what to think now.
I guess because 1810 is one of the most difficult years to estimate the ability of the Prussian army. The reforms which transformed the army into the best of the 19th century were under way, but in that year the Prussians still lacked equipment, were still training the new army and a lot of reform-minded officers were - under French pressure - side-lined. A few years earlier and the Prussians are toast, a few years later and they are imo in the superior position. 1810 is a year of transition. Some of the Prussian advantages have begun to form, but they are not yet established enough to have a resounding effect.
 
Top