Causes
Russia's unwillingness to be a part of the Continental System as agreed to in the Treaty of Tilsit.
Napoleon's refusal to give Russia a free hand in the Balkans, as agreed to in the Treaty of Tilsit.
Napoleon's refusal to gaurantee Russia that France will not allow the Grand Duchy of Warsaw to become the Kingdom of Poland.

Events Leading to War
The Treaty of Tilsit in 1807 was nothing more than a sham marriage between France and Russia. Napoleon though, thought he had the perfect partner in Russia to finally bring Britain to her knees. He was quite fond of Alexander and viewed him as family, even trying to arrange dynastic ties through marriage, much as he had done with Emperor Francis in Austria. The Russian Nobles would have none of this though and Alexander was under pressure to betray Tilsit almost immeadiatly. Russia thrived on exporting goods to Britain and France had little use for Russia's exports.

Tilsit also created the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, partially reviving the Polish State, although as a French sattelite. Though the land was essentialy taken from Prussia, the threat of a revived Poland was a direct threat to Russia. Alexander wanted a written gaurantee from Napoleon that he would never grant a sorverign Polish State. Napoleon flatly refused.

During the two year lead up to war Napoleon expressed optomism that if he could just meet with Alexander he could get him back in line and resume a benificial relationship. Conversley, Alexander began to see Napoleon as the Antichrist and used this vision of a holy crusade to infuse his troops and his serfs with Patriotic loyalty. (In Russia the war is known as The Great patriotic War). As the spector of war loomed, Napoleon was still sure that he could score a quick victory and get Alexander to capitulate in a manner that would not greatly harm Alexander's standing with his Nobles. The unwillingness to crush Alexander would be a major contributor to the defeat of the Grand Armee. Alexander almost prophetically predicted how the war would go, that the French would be sucked into Russia, starve, and be finished off by the winter climate.
So on June 24, 1812 the Grand Armee cossed the Neiman River on its way to Vilnia, where Alexander, still in the field, was presently holed up.


I created this thread to be a disscusion on the French-Russian war of 1812 and anything related. This is the tipping point in Napoleonic history and his actions from this point forward stand in stark contrast to the first 13 years of his rule.
Sources come from Adam Zamoyski's Moscow 1812 The Napoleon Bonaparte Podcast, Interviews with Alexander Mikaberidze

Alexander knew his Fabius, but I'm not sure the people who owned the estates that he didn't even try defending were too pleased about the strategy.

The plan of retreat was not popular. General Barclay de Tolly was ridiculed mercilessly for this plan, by both military and non military. His troops questioned him, General Bagration, commander of the 2nd Army, often was at odds with him. Because of his status as a non Russian he never gained full confidence. Alexander even called him "vermin".

Despite this, Alexander knew this was the best strategy and to meet the French head on was suicide. Alexander several times almost gave into hardliners who wanted an attack and seemed willing to cross the Neiman himself to clash with Napoleon.

On the 26th, Alexander recieves word that the French are rapidly approaching thier present quarters at Vinlia (present day Vilnius). He decides to withdraw to Drissa for the time being and on the way out De Tolly destroys the bridge into the town.

I wonder how much Napoleon knew about and studied the Mongols. It seems to me that when people talk about the failures of Napoleon and Germany and how difficult it is to conquer Russia they forget about Genghis Khan and the ease which the Mongols finished the task even after his death.

A serious look at History would clearly make Genghis Khan > Napoleon on my great general list.

I'd say both Napoleon and the Germans had relatively more on their imperial plates during their Russian campaigns, and different strategic objectives for invading.

Agreed.

It is interesting how many parallels their are between Napoleon and the German campaign over a century later, and how different the Mongols attempted the task. Both groups of leaders were probably to arrogant to look to the east for guidance. I still put the Romans well ahead of the Mongols in my greatest empire list. But if you want to look at just a great military strategist Khan is well ahead of Blitzkrieg and Napoleon on my list because of how they conquered Russia. A land erroneously believed to be unconquerable by a foreign power because of Napoleon and the German campaign failures.

And the Romans sort of had their own Russia-like problem with conquering Germania (although this spanned many years and campaigns).

Napoleon did not want to conquer Russia. He saw her as a wayward ally in rebellion to the Continental System. From his view, Napoleon never wanted to put Alexander in position where his position was in peril, he simply wanted to score a few military triumphs that would force Alexander to the negotiating table. What Napoleon failed to account for was the vitriolic hatred that Alexander had for Napoleon ever since coming home from Tisilt. Alexander was not going to war for political reasons at home as Napoleon believed. He was on a crusade to crush Napoleon.

What? In past days there was a lot of separated states in old Russia, but mongols was united! Can you feel the difference between a lot of independent states and Russian Empire ?
After old Russian states were united they banged mongols so so hard, that even now its 4th world country.

Sorry to burst your historical bubble but the Mongols run (short as it was) made them one of the three greatest super powers of all time. The Romans and the US over the last 75 years being the other two. Sure their are plenty of runners up but this is certainly the clear top 3.

Batu Khan's full-scale invasion occurred from 1237 to 1240; the campaign was ended by a Mongol succession crisis not anything external from the Russian states. The mongols would have all Russian states submitted to Mongol rule and became part of the Golden Horde empire until around 1480.

Your point of United Russian empire is most interesting as it can be (and often is) argued that without the Mongol destruction of Kievan Russia that Moscow, and subsequently the rest of the Russian Empire, would not have even risen. Trade routes with the East came through these lands, making them a center for trade from both worlds. In short, the Mongol influence, while destructive in the extreme to their enemies, had a significant long term effect on the rise of modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

Also the devastating effective of the Mongols against the Khwarazmian dynasty where all evidence shows the Mongols were outnumbered but still steamrolled over their opponents also works against your "United Russian" argument.

This is an understatement.

Genghis Khan = Phil Ivey

Napoleon = Jamie Gold

There isn't a chance the US is in the top 3.

You could make a solid case for Alexander and the Greeks, and maybe the Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great so I will make the US a clear top 5. Clearly the US not the greatest empire but as super powers go clear top 5. The fall of the soviet union was like the fall of Hannibal and Carthage to the Romans.

It has been a short run but the US is the clear dominant world power. The question of the US is not capability, but willingness to inflict it's will on others something the US has lacked unlike the resolve of the Romans, Mongols or German's in WWII or even The British Empire.

A superpower has the ability to inflict it's will on non-cooperating states. It is not a question of right or wrong but capability. The USA post WWII clearly has top 3 GOAT capability to inflict it's will on others. In 20 years, that may not be the case but 1945 - 2012 clearly.

The US is well ahead of Assyrian empire (2400 B.C. to 612 B.C.), the German's of WWII, Napoleon of the 1800's, The fallen Soviet Union in capability. Sure you could come up with regional powers like the Aztec Empire or some of the Chinese States, but a great power is a state that is recognized as having the ability to exert its influence on a global scale something all of the top 5 above possessed.

There are many empires that exercised hegemony orders of magnitude beyond the US. At the very least there is the British Empire, the Romans, the Achaemenids, the Ottomans, the Han Chinese, and the Maurya Empire. There are certainly others. Each one of these states exercised long stretches of virtually absolute control over whichever territory, and whichever peoples, it chose. The British Empire in the 19th century is the only modern state that comes close to the ancient empires.

The US does not control world affairs like the ancient states did. It does not have sufficient willpower or political clout.

Russian Empire should be in top5, 1721 - 1917.
1) Great Northern War. 1700-1721
2) Russian-Turkish war, 1877-1878
3) Defeat of Napoleon.
4) WW1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...Russian_Empire

And what about Soviet Union? It should be counted as empire, and most powerful of modern era.

The Soviet Union was arguably the worst empire of the great empires.

I actually agree with most of the above post. That said I think their is a huge difference between a great empire and a superpower. The Han Chinese would not make either list as a great empire or superpower. China has great culture and is certainly a regional power for many centuries and almost all of known history but only the Mongols run showed a capability beyond their region.

The US certainly has the capability to impose it's will on any other country it chooses, but as we both posted dose not have sufficient willpower to do so. But that is a good thing. Forcing compliance on other territories is a costly business, especially with a moral code unwilling to plunder or enslave. We do live in a better world then the past.

Empire that industrialize Russian and near countries, won WW2, first(!) traveled to the space, was superpower for 80x years, for you is 'worst empire' ?
You know what you are talking about, right?

So I said it was the worst of the great empires, which means it's greater than all of the not great empires, which means I didn't say it was the 'worst empire'; unless you think that empires are by definition great, so that the worst of the great just means the worst to you.

My main motivation for saying it's the worst of the great empires is because it collapsed economically and politically so quickly (I spent summers in Belarus as a kid from 85-94, and the changes that happened by 93 were remarkable; many many more goods in the stores for example); that and it had massive self-esteem issues, like having parades with giant rockets that couldn't actually launch.

While the Soviets unquestionably made the greatest sacrifice in WW2, greatness of sacrifice isn't greatness. They started winning after the Germans slaughtered like 15% of their civilians.

I hope you know what are you talking about.
All this ''sacrifice'' of civilians was not planed as sacrifice! It was just slaughtering!
And you are not right about 15% of civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_W...e_Soviet_Union
So it's about 13% of Soviet population died in that war, about 10% of population from German side ( only germans, without allies )
Military loses:
USSR - 8.8kk
Germans - 5.2kk

All great empires collapsed because of economy, in USSR they could manage economy because of collosal resources numbers, but, pro-american government (Gorbachev, Yeltsin) destroyed everything. Thats why they gave to Gorbachev noble prize, and he lives in Swithzerland now.

I said 'like 15%', which is a guesstimate (as indicated by the word 'like'), and an adequate guesstimate for the idea that the Soviets suffered dramatic losses; whether their performance on the eastern front is indicative of a 'great empire' seems like a judgment call to me -- I don't think that enduring and eventually winning battles of attrition necessarily makes one 'great'.

I don't want to argue ideology. For good or ill, it seems to me that the collapse of the USSR was very fast, which suggests that whatever was holding it together wasn't that strong. If I think of other great empires (Romans, Greeks, British), when they fell or declined a lot of their institutions endured for a long time. I don't see many Soviet institutions enduring in the same way, but maybe you have good examples that show otherwise.