Seven Greatest French People of All Time

[Steph]

I don't see what would have been achieved by Napoleon remaining with the army in Russia to the bitter end, if anything he would have just got in the way. What the army needed was a man like Ney, a tough hard fighter to hold together the rearguard. The fate of the army was sealed before Boney fled back over the Niemen, not by his departure.

Exactly. And beside, he did not left the army to hide. He came back to France to raise a new army, and the Coalition still needed almost two years of hard figthing before they can at least have him capitulate.

The French invasion started the 24 of June. They took Moscow the 14 of September. Less than 3 months after they started.

The German started their invasion of Russian the 22 of June. They came as close as 24 km from Moscow the 2nd December.

So Napoleon, on foot, reach Moscow in 3 months, while the German, with a motorized army, needed a bit more than 5 months.

 

[Plotinus]

Descartes was best after Greeks, thats sure. He hadnt much opponents to this time, middle ages were poor on philosophers.

That's completely untrue; the Middle Ages was an extremely important time philosophically, and the medieval philosophers were among the best in history. I would say that Descartes was an inferior philosopher to Scotus. But Descartes had more influence; indeed, he was so successful in branding himself as the "new Aristotle", and in changing the direction of philosophy, that medieval philosophy is still under-recognised and under-appreciated as a result.

 

[privatehudson]

Exactly. And beside, he did not left the army to hide. He came back to France to raise a new army, and the Coalition still needed almost two years of hard figthing before they can at least have him capitulate.

The French invasion started the 24 of June. They took Moscow the 14 of September. Less than 3 months after they started.

The German started their invasion of Russian the 22 of June. They came as close as 24 km from Moscow the 2nd December.

So Napoleon, on foot, reach Moscow in 3 months, while the German, with a motorized army, needed a bit more than 5 months.

Well that's one way of looking at it, the other is that Napoleon's army had withdrawn from Moscow all the way back out of Russia just as quick as it got there, in the process loosing probably 85-90% of the forces he took with him. Whatever the achievements in rebuilding his forces in the aftermath of the 1812 campaign the campaign itself was nothing short of a major disaster.

The Germans on the other hand were still deep in Russian territory and to some degree on the strategic offensive 2 years after the initial strike. They also only finally capitulated 4 years after the initial invasion. You could of course argue however that this prolonged conflict (1941-45) was much more detrimental to the health of Germany than the period between 1812 and 1815 was for France.

Not that I'm saying Hitler was a match for Boney in any military sense, but this kind of direct comparison between two very different campaigns doesn't always come out in the latters favour.

Didn't he also go back btw to stop some sort of attempted coup?

 

[Steph]

Well that's one way of looking at it, the other is that Napoleon's army had withdrawn from Moscow all the way back out of Russia just as quick as it got there, in the process loosing probably 85-90% of the forces he took with him. Whatever the achievements in rebuilding his forces in the aftermath of the 1812 campaign the campaign itself was nothing short of a major disaster.

I agree with you that the campaign was a major disaster, when the French had to start retreating in winter conditions, with broken supply lines, disease, and a regouped Russina army that was now with numerical superiority.
My comparison was only about the speed of the advance : moving a large army all the way to Moscow by foot, in ennemy territory, in 3 months is relatively impressive by itself.

But the biggest mistake Napoleon did is in the understanding of the Russian people. His plan was simple to go in Russia with a big army, meet the Russians not to far from the border, beat them, negociate a peace and go back. He did not plan to go as far as Moscow. But the Russians did not play the game of war with the same rules..

Here is what he said after the burning of Moscow:
" Cela dépasse tout : c'est une guerre d'extermination, c'est une tactique horrible, sans précédent dans l'histoire de la civilisation ... Brûler ses propres villes !... Le démon inspire ces gens ... Des barbares ... Quelle résolution farouche, quelle audace",

[This tops everything, this is an extermination war, this is an horrible tactic, without precedence in the history of civilization... Burning your own cities! This people are inspired by the Devil.. Barbarians... What a unflinching resolve, what boldness]

Didn't he also go back btw to stop some sort of attempted coup?

Yes, in early december 1812, Napoleon learned that General Calude de Malet had attempted a coup in France. But the coup was over, Malet had been executed the 19 of October. However, Malet based is coup on pretending Napoleon was dead, so it was important for Napoleon to go back quickly and show himself.

 

[privatehudson]

I agree with you that the campaign was a major disaster, when the French had to start retreating in winter conditions, with broken supply lines, disease, and a regouped Russina army that was now with numerical superiority.
My comparison was only about the speed of the advance : moving a large army all the way to Moscow by foot, in ennemy territory, in 3 months is relatively impressive by itself.

But the biggest mistake Napoleon did is in the understanding of the Russian people. His plan was simple to go in Russia with a big army, meet the Russians not to far from the border, beat them, negociate a peace and go back. He did not plan to go as far as Moscow. But the Russians did not play the game of war with the same rules..

You do rather have to question the choices he made throughout the campaign yes. Ultimately as much as the speed of the capture of Moscow represented an achievement it also in a very real sense represented a failure of Napoleon's strategy, and the destruction of the Grand Armee merely the logical conclusion of that failure.

Here is what he said after the burning of Moscow:
" Cela dépasse tout : c'est une guerre d'extermination, c'est une tactique horrible, sans précédent dans l'histoire de la civilisation ... Brûler ses propres villes !... Le démon inspire ces gens ... Des barbares ... Quelle résolution farouche, quelle audace",

[This tops everything, this is an extermination war, this is an horrible tactic, without precedence in the history of civilization... Burning your own cities! This people are inspired by the Devil.. Barbarians... What a unflinching resolve, what boldness]

Well that merely demonstrates his complete misjudgement of the Russian people, not that he'd be the first or last of course. Typical Napoleonic rhetoric though as if there's one thing history tells us its that scorched earth strategy was clearly not an invention of Russia.

Yes, in early december 1812, Napoleon learned that General Calude de Malet had attempted a coup in France. But the coup was over, Malet had been executed the 19 of October. However, Malet based is coup on pretending Napoleon was dead, so it was important for Napoleon to go back quickly and show himself.

Thank you for that info. I believe that clears up the question of whether his actions in leaving the army in 1812 was cowardice or not.

 

[Steph]

Well that merely demonstrates his complete misjudgement of the Russian people, not that he'd be the first or last of course. Typical Napoleonic rhetoric though as if there's one thing history tells us its that scorched earth strategy was clearly not an invention of Russia.

Well, as I said Nappy completed missed the basic "learn Russian mind" at school. (BTW, is there one school that can teach it right?).
However, scorched earth strategy were not so much used in early 19th century, I think Napoleon knew the tactic was not an invention of Russia... But he didn't think they would use it.
He tried to beat the Russians quick and clean, but they did the only logical thing : withdraw and gather reinforcement.

Thank you for that info. I believe that clears up the question of whether his actions in leaving the army in 1812 was cowardice or not.

It should!

 

[REDY]

That's completely untrue; the Middle Ages was an extremely important time philosophically, and the medieval philosophers were among the best in history. I would say that Descartes was an inferior philosopher to Scotus. But Descartes had more influence; indeed, he was so successful in branding himself as the "new Aristotle", and in changing the direction of philosophy, that medieval philosophy is still under-recognised and under-appreciated as a result.

In my view middle-ages ones philospohers interpreted Aristotle in idealistic way to settle it with christian tradition and other were only criticising this way I have to admit that I dont know much about it, maybe because its under-recognisation.

 

[Plotinus]

There's an awful lot more to medieval philosophy than the late-thirteenth-century dispute over Aristotelianism...

 

[philippe]

There's an awful lot more to medieval philosophy than the late-thirteenth-century dispute over Aristotelianism...

time for me to bump the "ask the theologian" thread

 

[holy king]

There's an awful lot more to medieval philosophy than the late-thirteenth-century dispute over Aristotelianism...

augustinus, thomas aquinus and...? (and those where christian scholastics anyway, so you dont even have to count them...)

 

[Archbob]

Toss-up between Rousseau and Jeanne d'Arc

I swing in favor of d'Arc in the end because of the divine inspiration thing.

 

[Plotinus]

augustinus, thomas aquinus and...?

Augustine wasn't medieval, he was late ancient. He certainly wasn't a scholastic philosopher.

Other notable medieval philosophers from before the rediscovery of Aristotle include Berengar of Tours, Anselm of Canterbury, William of Champeaux, Roscelin of Compiègne, Peter Abelard, Adelard of Bath, Thierry of Chartres, Gilbert de la Porrée, William of Conches, Peter Comestor, Alan of Lille, Amalric of Bène, and Alexander Nequam.

Thirteenth-century philosophers involved in the rediscovery and debates over Aristotle include William of Auxerre, Alexander of Hales, William of Auvergne, David of Dinant, Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus, Siger of Brabant, Roger Bacon, John Pecham, Henry of Ghent, Robert Kilwardby, Peter John Olivi, Richard of Middleton, and Matthew of Aquasparta.

Medieval philosophers writing after the rows about Aristotle would include John Duns Scotus, Durandus of St Pourcain, Marsiglio of Padua, William of Ockham, Thomas Bradwardine, Robert Holcot, Gregory of Rimini, John Buridan, Francesco Petrarch, John Wycliffe, and so on.

These are all just the most famous and important figures; there are many more minor ones too. Note the many French names among them!

(and those where christian scholastics anyway, so you dont even have to count them...)

I'd be interested to know what you mean by that.

 

[holy king]

nothing, except "i'd seriously need some sleep instead of posting strange things on the internet"

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Victor Hugo barely beats out Cezanne, Monet, Jeanne D'Arc, Napoleon, and Voltaire.

They're all so awesome (I wish I was French!)!