On the other hand, Napoleon knew well enough what happened to the Tsar's father when he went against the opinion of the nobility too much. It should have become obvious what the truth was once the Russians refused to surrender after Moscow. But he dithered and men died pointlessly.
Most Pivotal Battle in European History
- Thread starter IamtheEmps
- Start date
On the other hand, Napoleon knew well enough what happened to the Tsar's father when he went against the opinion of the nobility too much. It should have become obvious what the truth was once the Russians refused to surrender after Moscow. But he dithered and men died pointlessly.
Well, yes. Napoleon was expecting to fight a major battle (or battles) somewhere close to the border in the expectation that leaving Alexander without an army would force him to make a peace. Moscow, AFAIK, was not the planned ultimate goal of his campaign, it just became one when the Russian armies kept retreating. The funny thing is that Nappy had a realistic chance to succeed with his plan thanks to the idiotic strategy adopted by Alexander on advice of a former Prussian general (even his protege, Clausewitz, found it to be a deadly trap): the 1st Russian Army could be surrounded at the Drissa camp with the 2nd Army being too small to do anything of importance.
However, Nappy's problem was not as much Russian national patriotism (the tricky issue) but unpreparedness of his troops for that type of campaigning. They lost something between 10 and 20% of the horses while still close to the border due to a big rainstorm (one would expect that the cavalrymen must be taught how to take care of their horses, but not in Nappy's army). After Smolensk the bulk of his army had been marching by a single road in a scorching heat (and after the whole Russian army was there, eating whatever was available). The units sent to find some supplies had been using either force or the (counterfeit) paper money which the peasants never saw instead of gold, etc. He presumably created a big depot in Smolensk but the troops marching ahead could not be provisioned from it (no means of transportation) and on the way back most of the assembled food was destroyed by the disorganized looting.
After Moscow surrender was out of question: Napoleon had been sitting in the middle of nowhere with between 90 and 100K troops and, realistically, nowhere to go except back. OTOH, size of the Russian army had been steadily increasing notwithstanding Kutuzov's laziness and ineptitude. Clausewitz wrote that at this point Napoleon ceased to be a serious threat and made a critical analysis of the scenarios of him going to the "rich southern governorships".
Interesting! In our time line they did conquer the south coast of France in the 8th century and ruled there for some years. Later in the 9th/10th century they established a base there again at Fraxinetum and dominated the Alpine passes for a time, fighting several battles. They are reported as far north as Switzerland.
They also ruled parts of Italy (Sicily, Taranto, the Emirate of Bari) and had a base in Lazio, near Rome. In other words the western Mediterranean came close to total Muslim domination, with northern Italy the only area untouched by their expansion. So if you're right, even a small change could mean everything south of the Pyrenees and the Alps is Muslim today.
The Battle of Actium.
I think someone mentioned this one earlier but it hasn't come up since.
Had Antony and the Egyptians won, the Mediterranean world would have been divided in two with the west ruled from Rome and the east from Alexandria. I doubt if Antony would ever have been able to rule Rome, but Caesarion's claim might have led to years of conflict. A lot of future history would have changed, including the rise - or non-rise - of Christianity. Octavian's victory became the beginning of the Roman Empire.
BTW: I've been lurking here for a few years and finally decided to join. This is my very first post.
I think someone mentioned this one earlier but it hasn't come up since.
Had Antony and the Egyptians won, the Mediterranean world would have been divided in two with the west ruled from Rome and the east from Alexandria. I doubt if Antony would ever have been able to rule Rome, but Caesarion's claim might have led to years of conflict. A lot of future history would have changed, including the rise - or non-rise - of Christianity. Octavian's victory became the beginning of the Roman Empire.
BTW: I've been lurking here for a few years and finally decided to join. This is my very first post.
Last edited: