[Tinned_Tuna]

I don't think the author read even the Wikipedia page on Napoleon's invasion of Russia? Napoleon _did_ have reasons for attacking Russia, he _did_ prepare logistics. His motives, rationale, and actions are well-documented and widely studied.

> watching an unchecked megalomaniac march 685,000 soldiers into a Russian winter without a fur coat in sight

Napoleon famously crossed the Neman River in *June*.

[usrnm]

For some weird reason people like to simplify that war to "Napoleon vs. Russian winter", completely overlooking Kutuzov. Kutuzov was dealt a bad hand but he played his cards very well

[Arainach]

If you believe a war with a country the size of Russia will be over within 4 months you might not be a genius.

[lukan]

The main parts that mattered were the european ones. And usually, capturing the enemies capital equals victory and Napoleon did capture Moscow. The russians just decided to keep the fight going, despite the chance that their capital burns down, which it did (allegedly on purpose to drive Napoleon out).

In general, Napoleon did not think the russians would use scorched earth tactics, meaning burning their own land, villages, food to deny the french army any supplies (and the russian peasants did not agree to this, but they were not asked).

[Atatator]

> usually, capturing the enemies capital equals victory and Napoleon did capture Moscow.

Too bad the capital was Saint Petersburg at that time.

[TeMPOraL]

That's why you should never trust a time traveler. They probably know as much about your time as you about theirs.

[wood_spirit]

Through a modern lenses and with hindsight and memes that follow from napoleons failed attempt we can say flippant things like this and say napoleon wasn’t a genius. But students of history and future generals will obviously investigate the facts and see things through the lenses and circumstances of the time rather than from the seat or the internet commentator.

[bryanrasmussen]

but they have already, rhetorically, dealt with anyone that might come with some sort of context that does not agree with their conclusion:

>There’s a particular kind of person who can’t accept that story at face value, and you’ve met them. I am absolutely sure of it. They show up in every comment section and reply thread where someone powerful does something that looks, on its face, like a mistake - and their argument always runs the same way: you don’t understand, this is actually part of a larger plan, there’s a strategy here that you and I can’t see because we’re not operating at that annointed and elevated level…

Which is, of course, one of the things you have to do when dealing with shooting some bullshit in order to get to your next level of argument, you have to deploy arguments as to why the people who might show up to say hey that's bullshit are actually the stupid people who talk the bullshit, and not you.

As an example of the genre it's pretty tepid, they manage the "I'm telling you the truth part" and the talking down part of the message, but I personally find the best of this genre always includes a pithy little witticism that is just so bitchy and deliciously mean that nobody wants to make the bullshit accusation. At least that's my recommend!

I give it a C+/B- for effort.

on edit: I of course mean what the original article did, in making its flippant comments, not what Arainach did.

[pas]

the larger plan people are not the historians, IMHO that's clearly a description of people who spent a bit too much time reading about conspiracy theories (and generally are too partisanal)

but yes, including this snark seems unnecessary

[red-iron-pine]

Napoleon thought the Russians would come out and fight him, instead of burning their country down in retreat and letting L'Empereur's army steal their stuff and rape their people

they chose scorched earth retreat, and history proved them right.

[bryanrasmussen]

I think the belief was probably taking Moscow and forcing a treaty.

[yread]

Tell that to Germany in 1917

[ekianjo]

> country the size of Russia

density of population is not equal to land mass, you know

[Arainach]

I intentionally didn't say "the population of Russia". Occupying an enormous land mass takes an enormous amount of time (arguably infinite) and resources.

OK, Napoleon is right and he's "conquered" Russia in a month. Are all of those troops being sent home before winter?

[ekianjo]

Napoleon was never going to go to Vladivostok. You do know that most of Russia is empty apart from the western part? So in effect if you capture Moscow and a few other major cities you are done.

[whamlastxmas]

TFA feels like a thinly veiled excuse to shit on Elon, I closed it the second I saw his name. It's not surprising he doesn't know what he's talking about

[netcan]

The danger of pastiche.