Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

truce of Poischwitz

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: truce of Poischwitz
    Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 00:39
 

Originally posted by Temujin

nothign over, what you do is a. fail to understand what i write and b. claiming stuff doen by me that i didn't do. if you continue with poitn b further i will brign this up at the mdoerators room as violation of the AE CoC because i'm seriously pissed by your attitude now.
all references i gave about the Old Guard fighting are from German books (not prussian) which details all those battles quite clearly. Chandler doesn't give any details at all about battles, only random refernces to "Old Guard fought their" while inf act it is clear from the soruces that they did not but instead it was mostly the Young guard or simply an error ma de by your dear Chandler. anyone familiar with the battles we discuss here would laugh at your ridiculous claims. if you don't believe me, feel free to go to napoleon-series.org to verify my claims.


I am not pleased with your attitude either. When you bring up my behaviour with the mods be sure to mention that you were the first one to accuse me of 'lying' about what I said about the Vendee (which I most certainly did not) and referred to my reference as 'crap'.

What references did you give previously, alluding to sources in German is not a proper cite? I quoted both author and book title previously. The question was What battles did the Old Guard fight in between Marengo and Waterloo? I answered that question based on properly cited references. You did not provide references that stated the contrary. Your claim that you could not find any mention of fighting by the Old Guard in your unspecified sources, and further your assumption that the absence of any such mention constitutes a refutation of my claim, is a flawed methodology and makes your argument invalid. Either back up your claim properly or drop it.

Originally posted by Temujin

i didn't excluded new units from new territories and PoWs for obvious reasons, that is they were not available to Prussia & Russia during the armistice. what we were talking about was the armistice. just a remidner for your apparently overwhelmed mind. you failed up to this point to provide the new regiments raised in this period. all you gave are worthless numbers that follow your usual pattern: no details, just general references from general history books. the Landwehr already existed before the armistice and was still in the process of full mobilization. also i wodner how "what are Prussian sources"-Chandler can provide those numbers of the Prussian Landwehr at all. oh if orgott, Chandler is god to you and Prussian primary sources only exist in my mind...

See, this is typical of your 'technique'. Now you are talking about forming new units. You did not say previously that they did not form 'new units', you said that they did not raise new troops. New troops might be used to form new units, or they might be used to bring existing formations back up to strength. Chandler is not 'God' (nor even a god) to me. He is a well respected historian who has researched the period in question. When there is some doubt about his accuracy, I have cross referenced his claims with other sources. In each of the instances I have discussed here, Chandler has been consistent with other sources.

Originally posted by Temujin


even primary sources are either pro or anti-napoleon. however i can easily dismiss new secondary literature at will because of this because secondary literature is supposed to be objective and this book in particular is not cosniddered good reference work.

Here is info on the author of the reference that you dismissed, based on nothing more than the title

http://www.sc.edu/usctimes/articles/2005-08/connelly_owen.html

I will leave it to other fair minded readers to decide for themselves whether your viewpoint trumps that of Prof. Connelly.

Originally posted by Temujin

well its exactly the point being debatted, soemthing your confused mind hasn't realized up until now. do you think operation Barbarossa was a good idea? in hindsight? or Hannibals war with Rome? or do you really believed for one second i argue against established facts? this was about the truce of Poischwitz, not what happened after. theres no point arguing obvious facts (but don't tell that to the Hannibal lovers...)
also, you accused me of complete lack of knowledge on the diplomacy going on. then i requested you to provide me the original soruces of the diplomacy in French and German, which you refused to do. therefore you have no idea about the diplomacy yourself.

Well, it appears to me that you are in fact arguing against established facts (e.g. whether Spanish forces crossed the border into France, whether Austria made demands of France during the armistice, whether Austria, Prussia or Russia raised new troops during the armistice, or even during all of 1813 at all). While we are arguing about the armistice, obviously what happened after is relevant in assessing the impact of the armistice. French and German sources in particular are not necessary to have a knowledge about the history of the period. I knew before posting that the Austrians made certain demands during the armistice. You incorrectly claimed that they made no demands (see the quote of what YOU posted previously in this thread at the bottom of this post).



Originally posted by Temujin

ic an't proove the non-establishing of troops. the burden to proove anything is upon you. give me the names of new untis raised during and after the armistice not recruited from Germany or PoWs. good luck!

Again, you try to change the point being discussed from the raising of additional troops to the forming of new units.

Originally posted by Temujin

you didn't provided any sources, i have yet to see somethign in French and German...

Yes, I did. I referenced Chandler, Schom and Connelly. All of them are well respected historians who have written multiple books on the Napoleonic era. In case you didn't realize it, this is an ENGLISH website. I do not speak or read French or German well enough to do research in either of those languages. On the other hand a large number of historians can and have read French and German source documents and written works in English, which are themselves entirely legitimate (secondary) sources. I have no interest in or respect for your linguistic bigotry. If you want to reference French or German language sources, go ahead.

Originally posted by Temujin

nothing of this has anything to do with this topic. the horses do.

Once again you delve into minutia rather than actually addressing the point being discussed. YOU were the one who claimed that Napoleon could have accessed additional forces by, for one method, abandoning Spain (which was lost anyway) and taking those forces for the fighting in Germany. I made the point that Napoleon had already taken what he could afford to from the Spanish front and that stripping the front further wasn't a realistic option because the British / Spanish forces would simply invade SW France. That was when YOU made the false statement that the Spanish stopped at the border. You still haven't explained how those Spanish forces that you claimed didn't cross the border into France actually participated in the Battle of Toulouse (Toulouse is in France, or do you deny that as well?).


Originally posted by Temujin


then let your "historians" provide the numbers and names of corps as i have demanded. btw you really make yourself look like a complete idiot by now to refute accepted and well-researched OoBs of actual army strenghts....

you have only a few general books about general events and try to have an in-depth discussion. before any of this goes on, in your next post i want to see the following:
- names of new units raised by Russia and Austria in 1813
- franco-Austrian diplomacy during the armistice from primary sources
- the corps names of the forces opposite Austria in 1813

Now don't forget, when you are 'reporting' me to the mods, to mention that you have now called me an 'idiot', in addition to accusing me of 'lying' and calling my references 'crap'. The problem with your approach is that you want to try to look at everything with a 'microscope', but you're unwilling to put in the effort to be thorough enough to come up with the correct picture. If one is trying to identify an elephant, it's a lot easier to stand back and look at the entire animal with your 'naked eyes' than it is to jump in and look at it with a 'microscope' from the start without taking in the big picture. If I want a 'rough' idea of the forces that Napoleon allocated to Italy after the truce in 1813, then a total figure, such as 100,000 men, is perfectly fine. An exact Order of Battle is no doubt useful in certain contexts, but your approach of insisting on such precision in all cases is ridiculous and unproductive. Do you understand the different between accuracy and precision? You insist on extreme precision, but your accuracy is out to lunch. My references are to well researched books written by well respected historians. Anyone can go out and access these books themselves. Your internet links are just a fragment of information with no context. What are they based on? How are we supposed to know if they are well researched or not? What other forces, not mentioned, were also in Italy? How is anyone supposed to trust the total figure given of 35,000 for Austrian in Italy when YOU provided the much larger figure of 75,000 yourself previously? Which is it now? Were there 75,000 Austrians or only 35,000?

In any case, and this is the critical point that you continue to miss, the figure given for Austrians in no way contradicts the figure I previously gave for the FRENCH. You are the one making a ridiculous argument. To paraphrase I say, 'the French had 100,000 troops in Italy following the armistice in 1813'. You respond, 'no you are wrong, they only had 50,000 troops in 1814' then 'no, you are wrong the Austrians only had 75,000 in Italy' and then 'no, in fact the Austrians only had 35,000 troops in Italy' . Can you understand that when I make a statement about the number of troops the French had in Italy in 1813 following the armistice, that you stating the number of troops they had in 1814, or the number of troops that the Austrians had does not refute my claim regarding the number of troops that the French had in 1813, immediately following the armistice?



Originally posted by Temujin


and just for the record, you never mentioned the territory lost in 1809, you claimed that Austria demanded the French 1792 borders and nothing else.

You have the nerve to 'accuse' me of 'changing' what you said, yet here that is exactly what you do to me. 'For the record'? Lol. Show me, in my own words quoted from this thread, where I have said Austria demanded during the armistice that France return to pre-1792 borders. I said nothing of the sort. I said Austria demanded certain territories (e.g. Illyria) and the dissolution of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and Confederation of the Rhine. Below are quotes of your own words regarding your incorrect claims that Russia and Prussia got all they demanded in the peace treaty, that the Spanish did not invade France, that Russia raised no new troops (note not units but troops), and finally that Austria did not make any demands during the armistice.



Originally posted by Temujin

what are you talking? Prussia got all German territories they wanted and Russia got all Polish territories they wanted



Originally posted by Temujin

also i never claimed the british would stop at the pyrenees, however the Spanish did.



Originally posted by Temujin

Russia didn't raised any new troops after 1812 at all.

Originally posted by Temujin

Austria was absolutely in no position to ask for anything during the armistice. your idea on the other hand that they demanded something from Napoleon is highly laughable.

Originally posted by Temujin

Viceory Eugene had 50.000 troops in 1814 under his command, Bellegarde had 75.000

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 19:29
you failed to live up to my requests, i however was busy myself:

first, discrediting Chandler:

this is from Alexander Mikaberidzes new book about the battle of Borodino where he enters detailed discussion about army numbers:



he included this table for reference to other historians and their claims as well as the date etc. i udnerlined Chandler in red and the numbers accepted by Mikaberidze as most valid. as for the French army, the number given by Chambray in 1825 is the most accurate, however it was taken 4 days before Borodino and doesn't take into account the losses at the battle of Shevardino, other losses in between and troops detached for auxiliary services, so he argues the actual number of French troops was closer to the number given by Hourtoulle. i also have Hourtoulles book, which enters detailed discussion about unit strenght and meticulous research about the actual strenghtes invovled there, so either way, the numbers given by Hourtoulle and Chambray are closest tot eh truth. note how in the table Chandlers numbers is farthest off the real number (excluding Buturlins and Mikhailovsky-Danilevskis massive exaggerations). all other modern authors are more or less within the realistic range. as for the Russian Army he is again far off, this time however he is not alone. Mikaberidze used the study undertaken by Vasiliev which gives much higher number than usually accepted, however it is now prooven the Russian army was larger than previously thought (and larger than the French, which is the main point). for example Marbot with his slightly higher numbers gets about the correct ratio and Marbot is well known and most used reference for any Napoleonic study.

now as for the Young Guard (beware, your dear friend CHandler again takes a beating):

those are two pages from Philip Haythornthwaites book about Napoleons Young Guard, the pages in question are intersting for us for two reasons: 1. reference to famous combat achievements of the Young Guard and 2. numbers and references to numbers & units raised 1813-14. for quick reference, i underlined again the essential parts:





and as final blow to the Old Guard at Grogrschen (Ltzen) myth, here is from another source:

The Young Guard were in the forefront of Emperor's juggernaut, surging on to the bullet-swept fields of Lutzen and Leipzig, and wreaking havoc on every enemy that tried to stand before them. Chlapowski writes: "More and more battalions arrived in our front line, and the Emperor ordered them to direct all their fire at the village. ... the Emperor drew his sword, placed himself between the two columns of Young Guard, and advanced through the resulting gap toward Kaja. The Young Guard stormed the vilage without firing a shot and ejected all the enemy with the bayonet." (Chlapowski, - p 135)

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/IMPERIAL_GUARD_infantry_1.htm

as for units raised by Austria & France:


Austria

4th Uhlans

France

Line Regiments:
134-156 Regiments (22). the 134th was raised from the Garde de Paris (already existing) and the rest from cohorts of Garde Nationale, which also already existed but had to be mobilised.

Young Guard Regiments:
7. Tirailleurs (Pupilles of the Guard = already existing)
7. Voltigeurs (National Guard of the Imperial Guard= already existing)
8. Tirailleurs & Voltigeurs (newly raised march 1813)
9.-13. Tirailleurs & Voltigeurs (newly raised in April 1813)
14.-15. Tirailleurs & Voltigeurs (former Spanish Guards of Joseph = already existed)
16.-19. Tirailleurs & Voltigeurs (newly raised in January 1814)
Flanquers-Grenadiers of the Guard (newly raised May 1813)

25 new regiments, 19 of them new formations

additionally, 4 regiments of equippage de haute-borde (naval artillery regiments) which already existed, though were only mobilized now for active battlefield service.

Cavalry:
12. Hussars (9ieme bis Hussards = already existing)
13. Hussars (newly raised in Italy Jan 1813)
Hussars Jerome Napoleon (newly raised to serve in the Westphalian Army, later became 13. Hussars after them suffering heavy losses)
14. Hussars (newly raised in Italy Jan 1813)
4 Regiments of Garde d'Honneur
3 Regiments of Eclaireurs of the Guard

effectively, 10 (!) brand new cavalry regiments

Prussia

Infantry Regiment 12 (2 batt. Life-Regiment & 1 batt. 1. West-prussian = already existing)
2. Guard Infantry Regiment (Normal batt. & Colberg batt. & 1 batt. Life-Regiment = already existing)
Light Guard cavalry regiment (dragoon guard sqdn., hussar guard sqdn., uhlan guard sqdn., Cossack guard sqdn. = already existing)

East-Prussian National Cavalry Regiment (newly raised spring 1813)
Silesian National Cavalry Regiment (newly raised summer 1813)
Pommeranian National Cavalry Regiment (newly raised summer 1813)

Landwehr in general, heavy re-organization throughout the period, allegedly half of the Prussian army and over 100.000 men)

Russia
Borodino Infantry Regiment (newly established spring 1813)
Tarutino Infantry Regiment (newly established spring 1813)

summer 1813:
Krasnoie Infantry Regiment (later 54. Jger)
Rostov Infantry Regiment (later 55. Jger)
Izmail Infantry Regiment
Bender Infantry Regiment (later 56. Jger)
51.- 53. Jger
those units were created from 12 Zapasnyi batt. and 8 reservnyi batt. from the 8., 10., 12. & 22. Divisions = already existing)


Edited by Temujin - 28-Jan-2008 at 17:47
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 20:25
 First, what on earth does Borodino have to do with it?  Secondly, Chandler's figures are neither the highest, nor the lowest, in either column. Chandler shows 120,800 for the Russians, which is the same as many others and slightly below the average of all estimates shown for the Russians.  For the number of French troops, Chandler is a bit above the average, but is not the highest.  If you actually knew much about such estimates, you would know that there is always a range of numbers.  As long as one's estimate is not seriously divergent from the others, there is no reason to believe that there is anything 'wrong' with it.  Different methodologies will produce different figures.  This is no way 'discredits' Chandler's work.  In fact if anything it tends to reinforce its validity, as it is more or less in agreement with the figures many others have derived.

Originally posted by Temujin

... the Old Guard at Waterlo hasn't had a real fighting since ages, bascially Marengo was the last tough battle they were in. that is the reason they borke at Waterlo, ...

Your own source :

 
has this to say regarding the Old Guard:
 

There were two regiments of the real Old Guard, the oldest of the old and the bravest of the brave.

1er Grenadiers-?Pied de la Garde (1er Guard Grenadiers)
1er Chasseurs-?Pied de la Garde (1er Guard Chasseurs)


  • The Grenadiers and Chasseurs did fight in numerous battles; Eylau (1807), Wagram (1809), Dresden (1813), Leipzig (1813), Hanau (1813), Brienne, La Rothiere (1814), Paris (1814), Ligny (1815), Waterloo and Plancenoit (1815), to name only the biggest battles. Actually they participated in more combats and campaigned on more theaters of war than the Prussian, British and Russian foot guards



  • In 1812 the Old Guard fought at Krasne.


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 20:37
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by deadkenny

Regarding Austria - ... as they had clearly shown over and over again, since 1797, they would always fight again against Napoleon to try to regain their positions in Germany and Italy.


no they didn't. they didn't reclaimed ANY of the territories in Germany taken by either Napoleon or his allies. ...
 
Here is an interesting 'animated' map which shows how Austria (re)gained considerable territory from Bavaria (an ally of Napoleon) in Germany at the Congress of Vienna, which clearly contradicts your previous claim (incidentally it also shows how Prussia got a piece of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which contradicts your claim that Russia got all of Poland). 
 


Edited by deadkenny - 27-Jan-2008 at 20:39
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 18:07
(i added Russia to my post above)

Originally posted by deadkenny

 First, what on earth does Borodino have to do with it?


because Mikaberidze gace a nice overview over different estimates from different authors from different ages. it is just a sample how "reliable" Chandler is.

Secondly, Chandler's figures are neither the highest, nor the lowest, in either column. Chandler shows 120,800 for the Russians, which is the same as many others and slightly below the average of all estimates shown for the Russians.  For the number of French troops, Chandler is a bit above the average, but is not the highest.  If you actually knew much about such estimates, you would know that there is always a range of numbers. 


another display of yourself not actually reading what i wrote. i really explained it in detail above, the range of French numbers (both underlined in the table) give the highest and lowest possible numbers. Chambray took the numbers when the roll was called 4 days before Borodino, it can't be higher than that by simple physical improbability. Chandler apparently just decided to ignore this, note the dates, Chandler is the ONLY one of the more recent authors to claim such a high number. (30.000 is about a whole new army corps)

As long as one's estimate is not seriously divergent from the others, there is no reason to believe that there is anything 'wrong' with it.  Different methodologies will produce different figures.  This is no way 'discredits' Chandler's work.  In fact if anything it tends to reinforce its validity, as it is more or less in agreement with the figures many others have derived.


to me it seems that at one point you decided to get Chandler and declare it your bible and ignore everyhting that has been written in the last 40 years since. Chandlers "methodology" is obviously guesswork, looking into crystal balls and other witchery... obviously he also got Grogrschen and Dresden wrong. oh and you also assumed the Old Guard "fought" at Reichenbach with Bessieres just because he was the commander of the Old Guard. you didn't admitted yourself wrong until this point, which doesn't really make you look like soemone you want to discuss smth with....

Your own source :

 
has this to say regarding the Old Guard:
 

There were two regiments of the real Old Guard, the oldest of the old and the bravest of the brave.

1er Grenadiers-?Pied de la Garde (1er Guard Grenadiers)
1er Chasseurs-?Pied de la Garde (1er Guard Chasseurs)


  • The Grenadiers and Chasseurs did fight in numerous battles; Eylau (1807), Wagram (1809), Dresden (1813), Leipzig (1813), Hanau (1813), Brienne, La Rothiere (1814), Paris (1814), Ligny (1815), Waterloo and Plancenoit (1815), to name only the biggest battles. Actually they participated in more combats and campaigned on more theaters of war than the Prussian, British and Russian foot guards



  • In 1812 the Old Guard fought at Krasne.




its not "my source" i only used it in this particular case because it has an actual hsitorical quote with it. "your source" doesn't bother to go into details, which id id. based on this, i can "proove" that the Old Guard fought at any battle it was in by using its battle flag which has inscriptions of every battle it was present at, including Borodino where it famously did NOT fought. however i won't lower myself on the level of Chandler and his "methodology"



http://www.drapeaux.org/Accueil.htm

note how it prominently says MOSCOU (=Borodino)
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 18:14
Originally posted by deadkenny

 
Here is an interesting 'animated' map which shows how Austria (re)gained considerable territory from Bavaria (an ally of Napoleon) in Germany at the Congress of Vienna, which clearly contradicts your previous claim (incidentally it also shows how Prussia got a piece of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which contradicts your claim that Russia got all of Poland). 
 


1. i already said pre-1809 in one of my previous posts. Austria didn't gained considderable territory from bavaria since Tyrolia was given to Italy after the 1809 uprising by Andreas Hofer. only the Innviertel and Salzburg were retrieved from Bavaria.
2. my claim was not that Russia got all of Warsaw, and your map doesn't show Cracow.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 23:55
Originally posted by Temujin

 
... my claim was not that Russia got all of Warsaw, and your map doesn't show Cracow.
 
Umm, no your claim was (in your own words so you don't accuse me of changing it):
 
Originally posted by Temujin

...
what are you talking? Prussia got all German territories they wanted and Russia got all Polish territories they wanted...
    (emphasis added)
 
and the point is that claim is false.  Russia initially wanted all of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and had to settle for part of it.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2008 at 00:17

Originally posted by Temujin


because Mikaberidze gace a nice overview over different estimates from different authors from different ages. it is just a sample how "reliable" Chandler is.

another display of yourself not actually reading what i wrote. i really explained it in detail above, the range of French numbers (both underlined in the table) give the highest and lowest possible numbers. Chambray took the numbers when the roll was called 4 days before Borodino, it can't be higher than that by simple physical improbability. Chandler apparently just decided to ignore this, note the dates, Chandler is the ONLY one of the more recent authors to claim such a high number. (30.000 is about a whole new army corps)

to me it seems that at one point you decided to get Chandler and declare it your bible and ignore everyhting that has been written in the last 40 years since. Chandlers "methodology" is obviously guesswork, looking into crystal balls and other witchery... obviously he also got Grogrschen and Dresden wrong. oh and you also assumed the Old Guard "fought" at Reichenbach with Bessieres just because he was the commander of the Old Guard. you didn't admitted yourself wrong until this point, which doesn't really make you look like soemone you want to discuss smth with....


OK, let's see what Chandler actually has to say about the Borodino.


Originally posted by Chandler

Napoleon finally made up his mind on August 24, and the following day the Grande Arme resumed its eastward march, although conditions in its rear remained extremely confused and there was an even greater shortage of supplies. The corps moved in three parallel columns within easy marching distance of each other, for Napoleon anticipated that the Russians would stand and fight in the near future now that Kutusov was reported to be on his way to assume control of the Russian forces. The central column followed the main post road from Smolensk towards Moscow, led by Murat's over-employed and rapidly tiring cavalry, with the Guard, the Ist and IIIrd Corps in support. On the left marched Viceroy Eugene; on the right, Prince Poniatowski. All in all, some 124,000 infantry, 32,000 horsemen and 587 guns were on the move.

...

The afternoon and evening of the 5th saw a fierce struggle for possession of the outlying Schivardino Redoubt and various neighboring hamlets.

...

The greater part of the 6th passed in a state of unreal calm, both sides being fully occupied making plans and calling up outlying formations. The French patrols were soon reporting the approximate dispositions and strengths of Kutusov's forces. The Russians had at their disposal some 17,000 regular cavalry, all superbly mounted, 7,000 Cossacks, 72,000 infantry, possibly 10,000 militia and 640 pieces of artillery (14,500 gunners), a total of not less than 120,800 combatants.

...

An hour before dawn on September 7, the five infantry corps, the Guard and the four formations of the reserve cavalry, a total of 103,000 infantry and gunners, 28,000 cavalry and 587 guns, moved off to take up their assigned positions.


So, the figure of 156,000 for the French forces is NOT in fact what Chandler says was present at Borodino. The figure of 156,000 is in fact what Chandler says the French had when they left Smolensk on August 25. The figure Chandler gives for the French forces that were actually available for the Battle of Borodino is actually 131,000. Hmmm, looks pretty good compared to the others, doesn't it? So your source took the WRONG figure for Chandler's estimate of French forces at the Battle of Borodino. Regarding the figure for the Russian forces, note that Chandler says they had a total of not less than 120,800. In particular he says possibly 10,000 militia. So it is clear that the real question mark here is the number of militia. In fact, many of the sources may have similarly been uncertain about the exact figure for the number of militia, and also uncertain regarding the extent to which they should be counted at all (as some of them were semi or untrained and armed with pikes, lack in artillery or firearms). So much for the accuracy of your source, or the criticism of Chandler's work.



Originally posted by Temujin


its not "my source" i only used it in this particular case because it has an actual hsitorical quote with it. "your source" doesn't bother to go into details, which id id. based on this, i can "proove" that the Old Guard fought at any battle it was in by using its battle flag which has inscriptions of every battle it was present at, including Borodino where it famously did NOT fought. however i won't lower myself on the level of Chandler and his "methodology"


Oh, so when I quote Chandler, then you claim that Chandler is 'my god' or that his book is 'my bible'. But then you proceed to quote a fragment from some source which appears to superficially support your claims, then I quote from that very same source to prove your claims regarding the Old Guard are false then it's 'not your source'. Regarding methodologies, you would have to raise yours several orders of magnitude to be anywhere near that of Chandler. You've made so many glaring errors and omissions at this point that you somehow imagining that you are in a position to 'lower' yourself to Chandler's level is simply at best delusional.



Edited by deadkenny - 29-Jan-2008 at 00:19
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2008 at 00:29
Originally posted by Temujin

Russia didn't raised any new troops after 1812 at all.
 
Originally posted by Temujin

Russia
Borodino Infantry Regiment (newly established spring 1813)
Tarutino Infantry Regiment (newly established spring 1813)

summer 1813:
Krasnoie Infantry Regiment (later 54. Jger)
Rostov Infantry Regiment (later 55. Jger)
Izmail Infantry Regiment
Bender Infantry Regiment (later 56. Jger)
51.- 53. Jger
those units were created from 12 Zapasnyi batt. and 8 reservnyi batt. from the 8., 10., 12. & 22. Divisions = already existing)

Well, thanks for doing the 'leg work' to prove that your own statement is false.  Not that I would have much confidence that you have done a complete or thorough job of researching the increase in Russian forces during 1813.  However, you have definitely provided enough to clearly demonstrate that you were wrong in what you stated previously. :)

 


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2008 at 18:11
you selectviely pick answers i gave and ignore other, for example i didn't heard you comment my list about Austria and France, which support my standpoint. also you convieniently agree what i wrote first and accidentally deleted, that the Opolchenye (~100.000) troops were demobilized, so Russia actually decreased in strenght in the given time period, despite those few new regular troops. finally, before i drop out of this nonsentical discussion with you, i recap my initial standpoint from the top 100 generals thread:

Napoleon won 2 victories with heavy losses that recuired the naming of phyrric, another one might as well had gone the other way, other than that due to the lack of cavalry he wasn't able to fully exploit any victory anyways. therefore, it was not dumb to take some time to get more troops to the important front and raise new ones, which were apparently there. Austria, well, it was a spent force, it could be defeated again, and Dresden just prooved that. armistice or not, Austria could join any day and the armistice at least was some sort of gurantee they would rather join later than earlier. of course Prussia also could mobilize up, but their regular troops number was still less than half of the 1806 army and considderign the ill performance of the Austrian Landwehr and the Russian Opolchenye, the Prussian Landwehr was not considdered reliable enough to make a difference. so at this point, ignoring everything thereafter, it was a reasonable thing to do for Napoleon.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Feb-2008 at 15:20

Originally posted by Temujin

you selectviely pick answers i gave and ignore other, for example i didn't heard you comment my list about Austria and France, which support my standpoint. also you convieniently agree what i wrote first and accidentally deleted, that the Opolchenye (~100.000) troops were demobilized, so Russia actually decreased in strenght in the given time period, despite those few new regular troops. finally, before i drop out of this nonsentical discussion with you, i recap my initial standpoint from the top 100 generals thread:


I respond 'immediately' to your incorrect statements which I know are false and / or can quickly and easily provide cites which demonstrate that your statements are false. The fact is that it is easier for you to simply type false statements 'off the top of your head' than it is for me do the research to provide the contradictory cites. To top it off, you then refuse to accept well respected historians, each of whom has published multiple books on the topic (e.g. Chandler, Connelly, Schom, Headley). Regarding what you posted about France and Austria, I didn't comment because it was practically meaningless and worthless as far as 'proving' anything about the point being discussed. You haven't given dates for all of the 'units' that you claimed were raised. Many of the dates are prior to the armistice, which means nothing. I never denied that Napoleon raised a large number of troops BEFORE the armistice. Practically his entire army had been wiped out in Russia, and obviously he raised a large number of troops early in 1813 that is what he used to fight the largely successful pre-armistice phase of the 1813 campaign. The point of the argument was about who increased their forces, and by how much, DURING the armistice. Furthermore, you failed to include any manpower figures. As I previously stated, many of 'new troops' raised during the armistice were absorbed into existing formations to bring them up to full strength. If one were to use your flawed methodology of simply 'counting' new formations and ignoring manpower, one would come to the conclusion that Germany actually gained an advantage over their opponents towards the end of WWII, on the basis of the number of new formations that they raised. I simple dismiss your claim that the only increase in Austrian forces was a single regiment of Uhlans as being ridiculous. Your point about me not responding to something that you say you deleted yourself is bizarre to say the least. If you're claiming that the Russians 'demobilized' militia that was still back in Russia and had not joined in the 'pursuit' of the French into Germany, then I say it is irrelevant as it had no effect on the forces that were actually fighting the French. If you're claiming that the Russians actually decreased the size of their forces facing the French in Germany by 100,000, then I simply say that you are making yet another false claim.

Originally posted by Temujin


Napoleon won 2 victories with heavy losses that recuired the naming of phyrric, another one might as well had gone the other way, other than that due to the lack of cavalry he wasn't able to fully exploit any victory anyways. therefore, it was not dumb to take some time to get more troops to the important front and raise new ones, which were apparently there. Austria, well, it was a spent force, it could be defeated again, and Dresden just prooved that. armistice or not, Austria could join any day and the armistice at least was some sort of gurantee they would rather join later than earlier. of course Prussia also could mobilize up, but their regular troops number was still less than half of the 1806 army and considderign the ill performance of the Austrian Landwehr and the Russian Opolchenye, the Prussian Landwehr was not considdered reliable enough to make a difference. so at this point, ignoring everything thereafter, it was a reasonable thing to do for Napoleon.


The fact that you don't seem able or willing to grasp is that France's resources were seriously drained. What you continue to ignore is that money was a major factor, not just men or horses. That France was weakened is evidenced by the fact that after his defeat at Leipzig, Napoleon was forced to 'spend' his own accumulated wealth in order to raise another army with which to defend France, because the public treasury was bankrupt from his expenditures to rebuild the army in 1813. During the armistice, Britain was involved in the 'negotiations' with Russia, Prussia and Austria and provided Russia and Prussia with large subsidies, and offered the same to Austria if they joined in the fight. Although it is true that Napoleon had been frustrated during the pre-armistice phase of the campaign in trying to win a crushing victory over the Russians and Prussians with his deficiency in cavalry playing a significant role in that failure the fact is that he had defeated his opponents on the battlefield, repeatedly and had them 'on the ropes'. The armistice allowed the Russians and Prussians to reorganize and strengthen their own forces as well as develop a better strategy for their campaign (thereafter they sought to defeat Napoleon's subordinate commanders while attempting to avoid a decisive battle against Napoleon himself). Furthermore, agreeing to the armistice at all made Napoleon appear 'weak'. Then of course on the political front, Sweden as well as Austria joined the coalition against Napoleon. I never claimed that Napoleon was 'stupid' for agreeing to the armistice. However, both militarily as well as politically it was obviously a bad move, which Napoleon himself realized in retrospect. So if one is considering Napoleon's decision AT THE TIME that he made it, I would still say that he failed to sufficiently consider the weakness of the Russians and Prussians and focused too much only on 'fixing' his own problems. He also failed to factor the political considerations into the equation. Although Napoleon did no doubt improve his own situation during the armistice, the Russians and Prussians also improved theirs as well as bringing Austria and Sweden into their camp. In terms of an analysis of the 'at the time' decision of Napoleon to accept the armistice, I would still say it was a mistake, albeit not a completely obvious one (there being good arguments on both sides). With hindsight, it is completely obviously that it was a serious error that cost Napoleon any chance of being victorious in 1813 on this terms.



Edited by deadkenny - 01-Feb-2008 at 15:22
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.