5 ms·

It is interesting that although Napoleon captured Moscow, the capital at that time was in Saint-Petersburg. Why didn't he go to the capital? This painting depic

It is interesting that although Napoleon captured Moscow, the capital at that time was in Saint-Petersburg. Why didn't he go to the capital? This painting depicts Napoleon hopelessly waiting for a delegation from Russian Emperor with burning city in the background [1]. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Napoleon_in_burning_Moscow_-_Adam_Albrecht_(1841).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Napoleon_in_burning_...

zemptime 11mo ago
One theory I've heard for this, and sorry I don't remember the source, is that Napoleon suspected if he truly did take down the Russian royalty then he expected the rest of European royalty to unite and attack attack him.
- codedokode 11mo ago
  As I remember, after French revolution, there were coalitions of foreign monarchies with the goal of punishing France [1]. Also what surprises me, after years of several revolutions and chaos in France, how could Napoleon gather such a large army. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition
  - itsnowandnever 11mo ago
    he essentially invented the modern concept of conscription. there were press gangs and conscription-like things all through history but for the most part soldiers were professionals
    - littlestymaar 11mo ago
      He didn't invent it, the revolutionary government did and Bonaparte then inherited a massive experimented army after the French Republic having been at war for a decade when he took power.
  - littlestymaar 11mo ago
    > Also what surprises me, after years of several revolutions and chaos in France, how could Napoleon gather such a large army. Conscription + France was basically the China of Europe at that point: it was almost as populated as the rest of Europe combined. France then had a very, very, early demographic transition which dramatically limited its population. Had France followed the demographic path of England or Germany, France would have around 250M inhabitants today.
    - mkl 11mo ago
      > France was basically the China of Europe at that point: it was almost as populated as the rest of Europe combined. That doesn't seem to be correct. From Wikipedia: "During the Middle Ages, more than one-quarter of Europe's total population was French;[8] by the seventeenth century, this had decreased slightly to one-fifth. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, other European countries, such as Germany and Russia, had caught up with France and overtaken it in number of people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France
paganel 11mo ago
Because Napoleon didn't want to depose the Tsar, much less to conquer Russia, he just wanted to impose his (Napoleon's) will on the Tsar and on Russia as a whole when it came to strictly imposing the Continental Blockade against the British. A heavily defeated Russia wouldn't have helped him into achieving that.
- bigbadfeline 11mo ago
  > Because Napoleon didn't want to depose the Tsar, much less to conquer Russia... A heavily defeated Russia wouldn't have helped him into achieving [the blockade of Britain]. You think a heavily defeated Napoleon would help him a lot in that matter? Realistically, there was no third option, going in guaranteed than one of them would be heavily defeated. At that point in time, Napoleon was in command of the largest and most heavily armed military force in history. And he assembled it to go beg the Tsar to blockade a third country? It doesn't make any sense.
  - paganel 11mo ago
    That’s what he had done to the Prussians and Austrians, yes.
boomboomsubban 11mo ago
His goal was the Russian army, they retreated towards Moscow and he pursued.
photonthug 11mo ago
The capital was better fortified and the French wanted food and loot. So softer target sounds nice, especially if you think this crushes morale immediately and don't believe the opposition will go scorched earth (but they did). > If I would take S.P., I would hold Russia by the head. If I take Kiev, I will hold Russia by legs. If I take Moscow, I will reach right into its heart!" https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/27588/why-did-napoleon-march-to-moscow-instead-of-saint-petersburg https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/27588/why-did-na...
lostlogin 11mo ago
Your comment has me remember a great graph of his army disintegrating. It’s such a good visualisation. https://brilliantmaps.com/napoleons-invasion-infograhic/ https://brilliantmaps.com/napoleons-invasion-infograhic/
cpleppert 11mo ago
A bunch of reasons. 1. Napoleon's goal was to pursue and defeat the Russian army in the field, not necessarily capture cities. Going north would have meant releasing the pressure on the main russian field armies and let them engage his main force at their discretion while exposing his flank. 2. St. Petersburg remained the political and economic capital of Russia; St. Petersburg never displaced Moscow in real world importance. 3. St. Petersburg was shielded from land and sea with prepared fortifications on both and Napoleon lacked a fleet to effectively blockade it. 4. Its in the middle of a very dense forest and swamp, not the the best logistics and ability to maintain a siege. The Nazis made the same choice in WWII and even though they were able to control the Baltics and had Finland as an ally never seriously threatened to take the city.
- hunterpayne 11mo ago
  > The Nazis made the same choice in WWII and even though they were able to control the Baltics and had Finland as an ally never seriously threatened to take the city. There was an 18 month siege of SP during WWII. SP starved and people there resorted to cannibalism to survive. I don't remember if it was ever taken but the Germans definitely tried to. And the situation there was ghoulish, so even if they didn't, they almost did.
  - cryptonector 11mo ago
    SP was never taken by the axis.
    - lostlogin 11mo ago
      Never taken, but it was a city in the Axis alliance while Russian and Germany carved up Poland.
      - cryptonector 11mo ago
        I know no one who considers the USSR to have been an Axis power between the start of the war and Operation Barbarossa.

zemptime 11mo ago

One theory I've heard for this, and sorry I don't remember the source, is that Napoleon suspected if he truly did take down the Russian royalty then he expected the rest of European royalty to unite and attack attack him.

codedokode 11mo ago
As I remember, after French revolution, there were coalitions of foreign monarchies with the goal of punishing France [1]. Also what surprises me, after years of several revolutions and chaos in France, how could Napoleon gather such a large army. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition
- itsnowandnever 11mo ago
  he essentially invented the modern concept of conscription. there were press gangs and conscription-like things all through history but for the most part soldiers were professionals
  - littlestymaar 11mo ago
    He didn't invent it, the revolutionary government did and Bonaparte then inherited a massive experimented army after the French Republic having been at war for a decade when he took power.
- littlestymaar 11mo ago
  > Also what surprises me, after years of several revolutions and chaos in France, how could Napoleon gather such a large army. Conscription + France was basically the China of Europe at that point: it was almost as populated as the rest of Europe combined. France then had a very, very, early demographic transition which dramatically limited its population. Had France followed the demographic path of England or Germany, France would have around 250M inhabitants today.
  - mkl 11mo ago
    > France was basically the China of Europe at that point: it was almost as populated as the rest of Europe combined. That doesn't seem to be correct. From Wikipedia: "During the Middle Ages, more than one-quarter of Europe's total population was French;[8] by the seventeenth century, this had decreased slightly to one-fifth. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, other European countries, such as Germany and Russia, had caught up with France and overtaken it in number of people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

paganel 11mo ago

Because Napoleon didn't want to depose the Tsar, much less to conquer Russia, he just wanted to impose his (Napoleon's) will on the Tsar and on Russia as a whole when it came to strictly imposing the Continental Blockade against the British. A heavily defeated Russia wouldn't have helped him into achieving that.

bigbadfeline 11mo ago
> Because Napoleon didn't want to depose the Tsar, much less to conquer Russia... A heavily defeated Russia wouldn't have helped him into achieving [the blockade of Britain]. You think a heavily defeated Napoleon would help him a lot in that matter? Realistically, there was no third option, going in guaranteed than one of them would be heavily defeated. At that point in time, Napoleon was in command of the largest and most heavily armed military force in history. And he assembled it to go beg the Tsar to blockade a third country? It doesn't make any sense.
- paganel 11mo ago
  That’s what he had done to the Prussians and Austrians, yes.

boomboomsubban 11mo ago

His goal was the Russian army, they retreated towards Moscow and he pursued.

photonthug 11mo ago

The capital was better fortified and the French wanted food and loot. So softer target sounds nice, especially if you think this crushes morale immediately and don't believe the opposition will go scorched earth (but they did). > If I would take S.P., I would hold Russia by the head. If I take Kiev, I will hold Russia by legs. If I take Moscow, I will reach right into its heart!" https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/27588/why-did-napoleon-march-to-moscow-instead-of-saint-petersburg https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/27588/why-did-na...

lostlogin 11mo ago

Your comment has me remember a great graph of his army disintegrating. It’s such a good visualisation. https://brilliantmaps.com/napoleons-invasion-infograhic/ https://brilliantmaps.com/napoleons-invasion-infograhic/

cpleppert 11mo ago

A bunch of reasons. 1. Napoleon's goal was to pursue and defeat the Russian army in the field, not necessarily capture cities. Going north would have meant releasing the pressure on the main russian field armies and let them engage his main force at their discretion while exposing his flank. 2. St. Petersburg remained the political and economic capital of Russia; St. Petersburg never displaced Moscow in real world importance. 3. St. Petersburg was shielded from land and sea with prepared fortifications on both and Napoleon lacked a fleet to effectively blockade it. 4. Its in the middle of a very dense forest and swamp, not the the best logistics and ability to maintain a siege. The Nazis made the same choice in WWII and even though they were able to control the Baltics and had Finland as an ally never seriously threatened to take the city.

hunterpayne 11mo ago
> The Nazis made the same choice in WWII and even though they were able to control the Baltics and had Finland as an ally never seriously threatened to take the city. There was an 18 month siege of SP during WWII. SP starved and people there resorted to cannibalism to survive. I don't remember if it was ever taken but the Germans definitely tried to. And the situation there was ghoulish, so even if they didn't, they almost did.
- cryptonector 11mo ago
  SP was never taken by the axis.
  - lostlogin 11mo ago
    Never taken, but it was a city in the Axis alliance while Russian and Germany carved up Poland.
    - cryptonector 11mo ago
      I know no one who considers the USSR to have been an Axis power between the start of the war and Operation Barbarossa.