This is somewhat analogous to German naval actions in the First World War: both nations' ships were bigger, better, and more dangerous than the Royal Navy's ships, but there were far fewer of them and there were far more precious to the Germans/Americans. It's like Jutland. Almost every time British ships encountered the American heavy frigates, they would lose. But if they teamed up, they would eventually capture them, despite heavy losses (which they could afford). Remember, there were only three heavy frigates, and they were like no other ships in the world--at least, certainly unlike any French ships at the time.
Why did Napoleon attack Moscow?
- Thread starter Easterling
- Start date
This is somewhat analogous to German naval actions in the First World War: both nations' ships were bigger, better, and more dangerous than the Royal Navy's ships, but there were far fewer of them and there were far more precious to the Germans/Americans. It's like Jutland. Almost every time British ships encountered the American heavy frigates, they would lose. But if they teamed up, they would eventually capture them, despite heavy losses (which they could afford). Remember, there were only three heavy frigates, and they were like no other ships in the world--at least, certainly unlike any French ships at the time.
Thats not the point, he said and I quote "Nobody beats the Royal Navy" He was incorrect.
Who's we? Are you American? Because I disagree with that assertion. We lost a major front of the war, but in the end we got them to respect our naval rights.
The US lost every battle only escaped the way it did because they where pre-occupied in Europe.
Look, I want to know just one thing: would it be worse then going after Moskow?
I suppose, at least, that the infrastructure in the Baltics would be slightly better then in central Russia.
Hmmm.... it just seems like you have no idea what your talking about.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Moscow mattered to Napoleon because it was Russia's old capital and he felt capturing it would achieve his war aims of enabling Alexander to remove his "bad advisers" and seek peace. Napoleon did not take St. Petersburg, however, due to the Battle of Polotsk.
It's worth noting that Napoleon wrecked his cavalry between his victories culminating in Borodino and the Russian summer, while staying in Moscow did not help.
Two reasons.
The first and most important is that he believed that if he captured Moscow Czar Alexander would sue for peace. His experience had always been that when the capitol fell the ruler always asked for terms. Napoleon was under the mistaken impression that Alexander wanted peace and was eager to come to terms but that it was his court that was preventing it. He felt that if he could take Moscow that would be the signal to Alexander that it was time to make terms.
Napoleon didn't intend to try and conquer Russia. From start to finish what he wanted was to have Alexander come to him asking forgiveness and agreeing once more to follow the continental system. Much like the Japanese decision to bomb Pearl Harbor he was acting on a fundamentally flawed strategy. Alexander didn't want peace, and he most especially didn't want it on Napoleon's terms.
The second reason is he believed he had to end things in one campaign. He could have halted at Smolensk or Borodino, built up his supplies and numbers and waited out he winter to either negotiate a settlement or begin a new campaign come spring.
As a general all his successful campaigns had been wrapped up in one season with one or two decisive victories followed by negotiations. Up until this point the two times he had failed to achieve a real victory had been in Egypt and Spain. In both cases he won near every battle but could not force the opposition to give in. He likely saw Russia turning into a far worse version of Spain and was desperate to avoid this. So he kept advancing in the hopes that one more victory would give him the peace he felt he had won.
The first and most important is that he believed that if he captured Moscow Czar Alexander would sue for peace. His experience had always been that when the capitol fell the ruler always asked for terms. Napoleon was under the mistaken impression that Alexander wanted peace and was eager to come to terms but that it was his court that was preventing it. He felt that if he could take Moscow that would be the signal to Alexander that it was time to make terms.
Napoleon didn't intend to try and conquer Russia. From start to finish what he wanted was to have Alexander come to him asking forgiveness and agreeing once more to follow the continental system. Much like the Japanese decision to bomb Pearl Harbor he was acting on a fundamentally flawed strategy. Alexander didn't want peace, and he most especially didn't want it on Napoleon's terms.
The second reason is he believed he had to end things in one campaign. He could have halted at Smolensk or Borodino, built up his supplies and numbers and waited out he winter to either negotiate a settlement or begin a new campaign come spring.
As a general all his successful campaigns had been wrapped up in one season with one or two decisive victories followed by negotiations. Up until this point the two times he had failed to achieve a real victory had been in Egypt and Spain. In both cases he won near every battle but could not force the opposition to give in. He likely saw Russia turning into a far worse version of Spain and was desperate to avoid this. So he kept advancing in the hopes that one more victory would give him the peace he felt he had won.
Anglo-Spanish War:
The Spanish beat the Royal Navy in 1585, twice in 1591, 1593, 1594, and 1596.
First Anglo-Dutch War:
The Dutch beat the Royal Navy in 1652 twice and 1653 and managed a draw in 1652.
Second Anglo-Dutch War:
The Dutch beat the Royal Navy in 1665, 1666, and 1667
Third Anglo-Dutch War:
The Dutch beat the Royal Navy in several times in 1673 and managed a draw in 1672.
War of Spanish Succession:
The French beat the Royal Navy in 1703, at the Lizard in 1707, at Beachy Head in 1707, won again in 1710 and managed draws in 1702 and 1704.
War of Austrian Succession:
The French beat the Royal Navy in 1744.
The Spanish managed a draw against the Royal Navy in 1744.
Seven Years War:
The French managed a draw against the British in 1757, and several times in 1758.
American Revolution:
The Dutch managed draw against the Royal Navy at Dogger Bank in 1781 and in the West Indies.
The French beat the Royal Navy in 1778, 1779, twice in 1781, and 1782 and managed draws in 1778, 1780, 1781, again in 1781, and twice in 1782.
The Spanish beat the Royal Navy in 1780.
The United States beat the Royal Navy in 1775, 1778, again in 1778, 1779, 1781, and 1782, managed a draws in 1776 and 1779.
War of 1812:
The United States beat the Royal Navy in several small engagements in 1812, several small engagements in 1813, as well as a larger battle, several small engagements in 1814, as well as a larger battle, and more small http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Cyaneengagements in 1815.
Not sure what you mean.
If you're talking about impressment, that was indeed abandoned, but only because the war in Europe was over. The RN didn't use the press gang in peacetime, indeed sailors would be laid off with the end of war. This had nothing in particular to do with anything the US did.
Impressment was the reason the war started. The next time the British went to war they didn't try that shit on the Americans a second time. I count that as a win. If anything, it was a draw. Saying the US lost every battle and only got away because the British were busy.
We weren't at war again until the Crimea - four decades later. The old style press gang was a bit out of date by then, ands surely would have been regardless of anything that happened in 1812-14.
Yes, but we didn't beat the Royal Navy. We stymied them, yes, and delayed them, which was both a triumph for the US and a surprise for the Brits, but in the end, they did end up defeating the US Navy in open battle. Furthermore, yes, we did lose the war. Just because the cause of the war was rectified doesn't mean we won. For god's sake, man, they burned Washington! We were defeated on every single front in the war, except for a single battle, which happened after the war technically ended. The only reason we got anything from it was because they were busy fighting France and didn't have time to waste on us.
EDIT: I do agree though, despite what I seem to be saying. It was a draw.
Fine then it was a draw. Because the British certainly didn't win the war.
Well, if you hadn't been all TL;DR, then you would know that I said it would be much, much worse. Napoleon would be exposed to British bombardment and his supply lines would be right across very uncomfortable territory. Furthermore, he'd be vulnerable to encirclement.
We won the part of it that mattered to us - turning back your invasion of Canada. You were able to fight us to a standstill once the fighting had moved back onto your side of the border.
We could have carried on longer had we seen any point in it, but we didn't. The British Empire already had more virgin forest than it knew what to do with, and didn't need to try and conquer more.