@@steadyjumper3547 580,000 divided by 10 is 58,000, the main army counted 200,000 after the retreat so is a bit exagerated, but now go only with the Frenchs, 300,000 divided by 10 is 30,000, yet 120,000 made it back, so,
One of my fav part in the book, p.486 (at least in my version of the book,) i just summarized it: Benigsen questioned "Shall the holy and ancient capital of Russia be deserted without a blow being struck, or shall it be defended?" Silence followed "The holy, ancient capital of Russia!" Kutuzov repeated in an angry voice. "Permit me to tell you, your Excellency, that this question makes no sense to a Russian." "It is impossible to put such a question, and such a question has no sense. The problem I have convened these gentlemen to consider is a military one. This problem is as follows: The salvation of Russia is her army, and of Moscow as well, by accepting battle; or to abondon Moscow without battle? It is on this matter that I wish to know your mind." Fudgey Bar! Reading it again makes my blood boil and cheeks red.
Adam Anderson 22 of august was the bloodiest day in french military history with 27.000 and other thousands wounded german casualties are not know but it was also in the thousands, so I think that was the bloodiest day in warfare, but there probably are higher unknow number of casualty during one day like on the eastern front during WW1 and WW2.
If a civilian wandering around a battlefield seems weird, in the 19th century it was common for wealthy people to go and watch battles. It was done during the American Civil War. Under the generally accepted rules of those days, they were not directly targeted by either side. It was like watching a grand spectacle for them. Times have changed. ;-)
I read a rather funny account where masses of citizens from surrounding towns had gathered to watch a Napoleonic battle, and some of them started throwing spoiled eggs and vegetables at the French troops. At which point Marshal Villeneuve's second in command turned to him and said: _Regarde, Marshal; Les Autrichiens ont déployé leur artillerie!_ ["Look, Sir; The Austrians have deployed their artillery!"] 😄 Yeah, it was pretty weird... But heck, if I heard that 50.000 men are about to go shoot at each other in some field, and it's not too far from where I live... I'd grab a couple of lawn chairs, some beers and some popcorn. 'Cause it's show-time ;-)
I would have a hard time Imagining it happening by the time of the western front in ww1. Imagine some guy looking like the monopoly man walking around in no man's land collecting souvenirs🤔
@LineOfCars just like when Charles XII of Sweden attacked Peter the Great a century earlier. Or when Hitler attacked Stalin a century later. History pretty much repeated itself in those 3 centuries.
@@keelyleilani1326 > just like when Charles XII of Sweden attacked Peter the Great a century earlier. Well, you are right about Stalin, but in this case you are not exectly right. Charles XII did not attack Peter the Great. Peter the Great attacked Charles XII to gain access to Baltic Sea. And initial period of campaign did not went well for our army. However later tide has turned when Charles XII actually overestimated his forces and get deep in our territory without supplies (like Napoleon, yeah) and lost general battle for Poltava.
You're right, it was St.Petersburg, but they would have considered, and did consider it to be Russia's ancient capital and to be sacred. It's just an adaptation error not being caught because it was changed back.
@@GuruJudge21 The only error in adaptation is that Kutuzov does not spit his words back in his face and tell him to be practical. "Ancient and sacred capital" is a direct quote from the novel.
@@GuruJudge21 correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason St. Petersburg isn't chosen because the French had no naval dominance in the Baltic due to the British just trashed the Danes earlier, am I right? Hence it's pointless for him to siege a fortress that can still be supplied by sea.
Moscow was the ancient capital and the city of the Russian Church but at this time St.Petersburg was Capital until 1917 because it was foundet by Peter the Great
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. And tactics without strategy is just the noise before defeat- Sun Tzu, the Art of War. And Borodino exemplified that. The Russian Army stood its ground and traded blows with Napoleon's vaunted elite. And for all his pride, glory and wily tactics, the Corsican could only watch as his Grande Armee reduced itself to smithereens against an enemy who would simply not give up. I'd classify this as a Russian strategic victory and a pyrrhic tactical draw for the French with a liberal dash of eventual disaster for them. The Russian army avenged Austerlitz here. Later battles would come. But there is something you absolutely have to understand. They had run before at Austerlitz. They had been touted at Friesland. The Russian army found its spirit to fight at Borodino. And learned that even it could only be pushed so far. If anyone asks you... Borodino was the turning point.
Anirban Bhattacharya Ummmm....... How ironic the former paragraph is more true to the russians, they lost half their army. And to the latter paragraph, the turning point of the war is the burning of Moscow.
@@amongjamir3116 The guys talking rubbish Napoleon did not even use his elite the guard did not go into action the Russians lost the battle at the end of the day the redouts are in French hands they had no strong points left to defend if they stayed on the field the nxt day the Napoleon would have finished the job
@@Austerlitz-kb8ln yeah, but part of Russia's strategy has been trading land for time. Bringing the enemy deeper to Russia to extend their supply lines. Add in some scorched earth policy and they're set for a long waiting game.
Napoleon did not call Kutuzov an "old northern fox" for nothing. Kutuzov did not try to beat Napoleon where he was a genius. Kutuzov was the first general in Russia to understand that modern war is economics and logistics.
I don't understand why the Russians say that Borodino battle was a victory, the french were victorious ... Of course that the victory was costly in spite of the French suffered less casualties than the Russians, but the Russians saying that they were victorious, why, because they stopped the French army? In my opinion, that, is not a victory ...
Exactly, the battle itself was a French victory. The Russians suffered more casualties, they retreated and the French captured Moscow as a result. Just because the Russian army wasn't *utterly destroyed* doesn't make the battle a Russian victory or a draw.
It’s mainly because the French left the field, they couldn’t break through and had to regroup to lick their wounds, this gave the Russians time to do what they had been doing to Napoléon all through this campaign denying him a fight, they didn’t retreat cause they were broken they let Napoléon have it cause they didn’t care enough about to protect it, when they could just burn it to the ground which is what they did as soon a Napoléon took it they burned it then harassed the French out of Russian through the Russian winter.
Sure like your Braindeath Anti Russian Philisophy! Russian Empire take few years Later Paris! so it was a FAILURE? maybe your Birth was a EPIC Fail i don´t want call it even mistake!
Napolean wanted to destroy the Russian Army. It was needed for victory. Victory for Russia therefore would be to preserve the army and draw Napoleon further and further in. Borodino was a delaying action by the Russians and to placate nobles that demanded a set piece engagement. It may not have been a tactical victory, but the plan was to torch Moscow to deny it to Napoleon and draw him again further and further into Russia, breaking his logistics capabilities. It worked. It was a decisive Russian strategic victory. By the time they took Moscow, they were reduced to just under 100000 soldiers from an initial invasion force of 685000. Disease, combat, desertions, garrisoning supply centres, protecting supply routes, and not being able to meet the logistical needs did in the French.
Victory or not was usually decided on which side achieved his target, or who remained on the field come nightfall. Since Napoleon objective of destroying the Russians was NOT met, and the Russian target of holding of Napoleon was also NOT met, I'd classify this a draw at best. Also, if you consider just stopping an enemy army's advance, even for a small amount of time, not a victory, a lot of battles are going to be needing a new classification. Even at Waterloo, undoubtedly Napoleons defeat, he still had an army the winners were reluctant to face.
Just want to point out a few things. Kutuzov did absolutely nothing from his headquarters at Borodino. Moreover, the recent studies proof that Kutuzov slept while the battle was going on and orders were given mostly by Barclay De Tolly and Bagration. The only reason Aleksander appointed Kutuzov, was because Kutuzov was a true Russian. Barclay De Tolly was a better commander, but he was German and unpopular among Russian aristocracy. Russian nobility and officers didn’t like the fact that the Russian army was retreating all the time and blamed Barclay for this. They thought that he did this because he didn’t care about Russia (because of his German descent). This wasn’t true of course. Most historians agree now that Kutuzov put his army defenses terribly. Russian’s right wing was facing no enemy troops and were useless. Russians constantly had to move their troops from the right side to bolster their center where the actual battle took place. These Russian troop movements were costly and easy target for Napoleon’s gunners. This is the main reason why Russian loses were greater than Napoleon’s. Just think for a minute, Russians made defenses while Napoleon’s troops were in the open and had to attack Russian positions. At that time, this would usually mean more casualties for the advancing army. But this is not what happened for the reason that I just stated above. Another fact that just recently was discovered and published. Russians had approximately 30,000 wounded troops that were taken to Moscow after the battle (right before Napoleon took Moscow). When the Moscow was set on fire by Russian prisoners/police, most of those wounded were left behind and died because of this fire. Also, we should remember that Napoleon wasn’t planning to go to Moscow from the start and he wasn’t interested in occupying Russian territories. That was never his intention. His plan was to defeat Russian army at the boarder and make Russia his ally again. He wanted Russia to follow his “Continental Blockade” against United Kingdom. The reason Napoleon ended up in Moscow was because Russians were constantly retreating in the direction of Moscow, and Napoleon had to follow Russians to Borodino village. If the Russian army was retreating to Saint Petersburg (their capital city) this is where Napoleon would go instead. However, even though the Russians lost Borodino battle, Napoleon’s venture into Russia was a big mistake. Sorry for the long comment
Your not wrong thanks not many people know about his little involvement in the battle and he probably slept because he was 67 years old and at that age you don’t have the energy do things you used to do.
Впервые слышу этот бред. Огромное количество свидетелей того, что Кутузов присутствовал на сражении и командовал войсками с места событий. Второе - русские не были разбиты при Бородино, но и Наполеон не был остановлен. Это ничья, но никак не поражение одной из сторон
@@the_comrade_pavlik3468 "Нами никто не командовал”, - генерал Николай Раевский Военный теоретик, бывший в 1812 году при штабе русской армии, Карл Клаузевиц: роль Кутузова в руководстве битвой равнялась почти нулю. Граф Жозеф де Местр (1753-1821): «Кутузов находился в трех верстах от битвы. Конечно, главнокомандующий - это не простой гренадер, но все-таки надобно знать меру. На самом деле всем распоряжался Барклай, который искал смерти, и князь Багратион, которого она нашла" Барклай-де-Толли, взявший в свои руки после ранения Багратиона фактическое руководство сражением, утверждал: «Если в Бородинском сражении армия не была полностью и окончательно разбита - это моя заслуга, и убеждение в этом будет мне служить утешением до последней минуты жизни». “Неприятель одержал победу…” Генерал А.П. Ермолов о Бородинском сражении “Никакой, даже самый идиотический, идиот не сможет приписать неслыханные катастрофы Наполеона слабоумному Кутузову и его безвольному повелителю.” Командующий Союзной армией князь К.Ф. Шварценберг, 1814 г. "имел особенный дар драться неудачно" Багратион o Кутузовe
@@ilya126 для Ермолова отход с Бородинского поля был поражением, но для всего войска - нет. Ермолова был слишком горяч и все принимал близко к сердцу. Раевский был на батарее, откуда он мог точно знать, что "ими никто не командовал"? Он свечку не держал над Кутузовым
I do not like the way they portrayed Koutouzov as the brilliant general who is always right when the his officer corps was actually making most of the decision, and that is from russian historians as well. Both the Emperor and him were passive in this battle, letting their generals making the decisions, and never being decisive which is probably why the battle was so bloody in the end, along with the refusal of the Emperor to engage the Garde impérial allowing the russian army to escape.
Not correct. He was deciding all of the main strategic events during the battle. He was sending reserves and planning strategic manoeuvres and counterattacks
Kutuzov and was genius general and how Alexander said after his death,”I don’t know who would be a commender of a Russian army now, but I know one thing, we don’t have another Kutuzov”
@@WorldHistory42 he slept through most of it, and positioned his defensive line in a way that made his entire right flank sit on it’s ass. Bagration was the one who made the most decisions and fought at the fleches, only to die by shraphnel. Kutuzov is no genius, he is nothing compared to Benningsen, Bagration and Suvorov. He is only venerated because he was “pure russian”
Borodino showed that the Russians under Kutuzov could fight evenly with the Grande Armee under Napoleon. The two powers were tactically equal. The abandonment of Moscow to the French showed that strategically, in that moment, Kutuzov had greater wisdom and will than Napoleon. Kutuzov defeated his nation's greatest opponent in a hundred years, through letting him loot and burn their greatest city. He even aided his enemy in the plundering and pillaging, ahead of Napoleon's triumphant 'capture' of the city. Defeating the hitherto largest invasion in history, through a genuine (temporary) retreat, is something only a Christian general could think of. Quite appropriate, given that Napoleon was the great conqueror general of Liberalism/Humanism in Europe.
Kutuzov literally did nothing the entire battle tho? He slept through most of it, and positioned his army in such a way that the simplest troop movements led to massive casualties for them. Benningsen, Bagration and De tolly were far better.
Yes not bad but cannot compare with the greatest screen adaptation of all, Sergei Bondarchuk’s 1967 film. No CGI etc then just 120,000 soldiers employed for the battle scenes. Never equalled, never will be.
@@paullewis2413 Sure, but from the whole story perspective, BBC protagonists and the story is a hundred times better. Tell me you didn't almost get a mental breakdown watching Bondarchuk’s super annoying Natasha (who was clearly too young and looked just 13).
I did watch ten minutes of some TV show where he was not Napoleon, but an undercover spy guy. I couldn't acquire subtitles, so I didn't understand what the fuck he was talking about. Even though I supposedly studied French for many years. Oh well. He got laid in the first episode.
technicly you are correct but moscow still held the titel of sacred(or holy capital depending on the translation) capital... also generally the tsars court was fairly moblie during this period so and moscow hosted the royal court at least for some parts of the year...
@@ludde1300 Borodino happened just outside Moscow. He was proposing attacking the French army again, so they don't reach Moscow. Kutuzov wanted to leave the French alone and let them take Moscow.
Whoa so they brought printing presses with them to war? Now that is some geeky shit. But hey I mean have you ever considered the logistics of communicating a pre-battle speech to an army of 600000? I sure havent. Never even considered the possibility that you could delegate the same speech to your sub-alterns.
In the movies the leader shouts to his army while galloping on a horse and maybe a couple of guys at the front ranks can catch a few unconnected words. But somehow it always works in lifting their spirits.
I read that book for a while, very interesting to learn about Napoleon's mediocre political pamphlets and school grades. (Napoleon the Great, Andrew Roberts)
@@command_unit7792 the loser that has won more battles than any other commander past and present. Any military commander could only dream to have his record. He lost because odds (all Europe coalised) was too much. But everyone would love to have his life and successes
@@vaahtobileet The same Napoleon's "mediocre political" writings in which he had written while he was still very young : "Les hommes de génie sont des météores destinés à brûler pour éclairer leur siècle." that can be translated by : "Genius men are meteors that are destined to burn in order to enlighten their century (time)." Not that bad, even visionary, for a "mediocre" author according to your own words, wasn't he ?
Hi from Tillendorf (today Bolesławice village, close to Bunzlau in Poland). Here prince M.Kutuzov was shot by Napoleon's soldier. BUT in "town memory" he died not from being injured but due to...diarrhea and probably syphilis as well, which he already came to the town with. What ashamed death's causes! :D
The lines they gave to Kutuzov at the end are total nonsense. The French were *not* driven off, the Russians were. The suggestion that the Russians "go on the offensive" is absurd: the Russian army was incapable of resuming operations without reinforcements. Borodino was a disaster for them, not a triumph. Russia was only saved from capitulation by the enormous distances through which Napoleon had advanced, and by the time he wasted waiting for Tsar Alexander to offer peace terms.
Why didn’t Napoleon continue advance then? Oh, maybe because his losses were catastrophic and he didn’t have enough soldiers to continue an advance. Both armies lost around the same during that battle
@@WorldHistory42 He did continue. He captured Moscow and (a fatal mistake) waited for Alexander I to come to him with peace terms. The Tsar was determined never to make peace however. There was nowhere else, realistically, for Napoleon to have advanced to at this point. What he should have done was pull back straight away to Smolensk or better yet never have gone so far into the Russian interior in the first place. By waiting in Moscow he doomed his army to annihilation. You're right in saying that Borodino was a pyrrhic victory for the French, with no strategic advantage gained.
@@WorldHistory42 Since Napoleon wasn't intending to conquer Russia, only to get them to stop trading with Britain, the percentage of territory captured is irrelevant.
The original capital was Moscow, but in the rain of Peter "the great". He ordered the construction of San Petersburg, when the city was finished, he apointed as the new capital of Russia. That was before the bolchevique revolucion, then they moved the capital from San Petersburg ( later call Leningrad ) to Moscow.
Matthieu Kassovitz est un très bon acteur, regardez la série "Le Bureau des Légendes". C'est juste que le faire parler anglais n'était sûrement pas une bonne idée.
Désolé mais absolument pas crédible en Napoléon, il ne suffit pas de porter pour être, je n'ai rien contre ses talents d'acteur, mais dans le cas présent,,,erreur de casting,,en tous cas pour tous ceux qui connaissent la vie de l'Empereur
very good point Nguyen, however Napoleon himself didn't look like what he did on this show so this Russian officer whose name I don't remember anymore is a minor mistake (if the painting I added is even correct)
Well I passed it since the first episode,after watching the old Russian version,I was displeased with the kind of British drama film implemented into war and peace,and the portrait of Pierre was farther from my imagination than the Russian version
The russians retreated and left the field. By the rules of the time, it is a French victory as the French advanced to take Moscow. The russian overall strategy to let Napoleon go deep in Russia was a successfull strategy, but the result of this particular battle was a French victory. Russians try to rewrite it as their victory because Borodino was the first battle in which they were not utterly destroyed, which was a bit of a russian habit when they met Napoleon at that time
@@user-gd9bi2hg5m Russians beat Napoleon in most battles ? Are you stupid haha ? In this case, why general Kutuzov told all the time to the emperor Alexander to not face Napoleon? You want to talk about the humiliation of the battle of Austerlitz ?
The only good war to fight is of defense, anyone else is an agressor. If you are with the agressors......you are a pawn of their schemes. Countles millions have died, suffered and sacrificed for a handful or rich powerful men.
Perhaps but one that doomed the campaign and the french empire. Never again does napoleon have a commanding position in history. For the rest of his life he's on the back foot. Borodino is as pyrrhic as it gets, for after it napoleon's prospects were dismal.
@@alcoolamus4208 At borodino Napoleon's army was already doomed if they didn't wipe the russian army out. The problem was the campaign was ill planned. Napoleon's aim was to destroy russias warmaking abiltiy and force it to abide with his continental blockade. Because the russian army kept retreating, he couldn't accomplish this. He kept capturing cities but cities don't matter. Even if he took moscow whole, mind you half of moscow didn't burn and he did have that, he still would have presided over a campaign where a large and expensive expedition lost many men without accomplishing any of it's goals. Borodino was a final insult to injury as France lost many a general and veteran for no gain, as the russian army was still operational at the end of the day. It was an unmitigated catastrophe.
Ironically Napoleon was the good guy. If he had won, he would have ended serfdom, the peasants would have been freed and Russia could have industrialized a lot sooner. (Serfdom relied on an agricultural economy, not industrial)
Глупости не говорите. Наполеон воевал с Россией не затем, чтобы что-то сделать для России, а чтобы добиться возобновления торговой блокады Англии и прочих условий мирного Тильзитского договора. Это первое. Второе, он так недолюбливал и опасался необразованных, "диких" по его словам народных масс, что даже не стал летом 1812 г. разыгрывать карту "освободителя", заготовленные листовки не стали распространять. Он счел, что это не стоит его времени.
Exactly, he was a dictator but not like Hitler or Stalin. If he had succeeded in Europe, it may have avoided the coming failure of communism. But maybe not, as humans have a way for selfishness.
All napoleon wanted was glory he was a satanic monster defeated by the holy Tsar of Russia! Serfdom served as an orgenization system that boosted production and allowed Russia to become a major empire in only a few years! It was outdated by the end but when it was implemented it was an effective system of managing such a huge empire!
Command_Unit not correct. A few years you mean nearly 900 years from the middle ages till 1860 for Russia. It was outdated in Western Europe and declined after 1347 after the Great Plague. Serfdom is like slavery or communism. You should not see people as a commodity.
Um, France was a colonial empire that owned thousands of north african slaves. Napoleon was a slave trader. He was not a social justice warrior by any means. The reason why he attacked Russia in first place was due to Russia's mines. And the only reason why Russia hasn't managed to industrialize itself in time was due to the fact that it was forced to defend itself (and the entire Europe) from Napoleon.
It's the BBC version of War and Peace. I love the old Russian TV miniseries. The American Hollywood one with Henry Fonda as Pierre (weird casting but Fonda does his best) is so-so but Herbert Lom a fine Napoleon. Voila! A splendid death!
Russians are Indo-European people because they are slavs but the have a little mix with Tatars, Mongols and Turkish people but at this time the Royality an Elite of Russia was German or Skandinavian Descent. See Rurik the founder of Russia he was a Waragian from Sweden
@@ke358941 Spare me the pan-Germanic nonsense. Bagration - Georgian Miloradovich - Serbian Two of the most famous Russian generals in the battle. A bunch of Russian nobility was not Scandinavian or German.
@@ke358941 we have more finno-ugric blood then mongolian or scandinavian. And also, we have our state before Rurik and scands. But they colonised our lands and were part of our goverment and army. That All of the story.
@@ke358941 Russia's elite was of different descent. The majority were Slavs, some were tatars, some were caucasians, some were germanics. Only few had Scandinavian blood. Rurikids have long been assimilated.
True... Unless the losing general was sacked for this coward behavior and the Tsar would Have prefered to negociate the end of this non sense war. Europe was big enough for two Empires at this time.
@@Unpseudopascommelesautres The Russian army was not totally destroyed and finished off Bonaparte in the retreat from Moscow. However, Bonaparte did occupy Moscow but only temporally and did not achieve a peace treaty from the battle of Borodino. Had this battle not happened the French army would still have occupied Moscow and still have been destroyed by cold, hunger and disease.
@@stephencalcutt8396 There is a documentary on this subject, and there are documents from that time.Only a small part of Napoleon's army died of hunger, cold and disease...
@@vaahtobileet Then why have the accents? The accents trying to sound french and russian are just silly. Either go full English or go full French. If they wanted it to seem historically accurate they should have went with French instead of trying to sound French or Russian.
Can anyone tell me the music in the last scene
The track is "Vasily" from the OST. ruclips.net/video/GeA8K6sACiA/видео.html
vaahtobileet great soundtrack thank you for your help!!
vaahtobileet vaahtobileet Hey, do you know what are the two musics/choirs from 0.45 to 1.30 ? :)
sounds like at least parts of "Pierre" and "Retreat" from the same playlist
Great OST, thanks man !
To be honest, the war scenes in this movie are better than Napoleon 2023.
The movie was disappointment
weird movie
It’s a BBC series from 2016, highly recommend it!!
Well,Ridley Scotts "Napoleon" was a shitshow,and that was rather sure from the beginning
Those French soldiers who died that day were the lucky ones.
Treu. It would only get worse.
9/10 of the French never made it home, plus countless Russians.
@@steadyjumper3547 Russian military deaths are about 150.000 most Russian casualties were civilians.
@@steadyjumper3547 580,000 divided by 10 is 58,000, the main army counted 200,000 after the retreat so is a bit exagerated, but now go only with the Frenchs, 300,000 divided by 10 is 30,000, yet 120,000 made it back, so,
No, the winter is better than the summer they had endured, those were when the death toll spikes.
There is no Kutuzov's answer. He said: "The loss of Moscow doesn't mean the loss of the Russia".
One of my fav part in the book,
p.486 (at least in my version of the book,) i just summarized it:
Benigsen questioned "Shall the holy and ancient capital of Russia be deserted without a blow being struck, or shall it be defended?"
Silence followed
"The holy, ancient capital of Russia!" Kutuzov repeated in an angry voice.
"Permit me to tell you, your Excellency, that this question makes no sense to a Russian."
"It is impossible to put such a question, and such a question has no sense. The problem I have convened these gentlemen to consider is a military one. This problem is as follows: The salvation of Russia is her army, and of Moscow as well, by accepting battle; or to abondon Moscow without battle? It is on this matter that I wish to know your mind."
Fudgey Bar! Reading it again makes my blood boil and cheeks red.
fun fact: borodino was the single bloodiest day in all of warfare until ww1.
Hannible would like to say something to you after he's done directing the destruction of the Roman army at Cannae.
Adam Anderson 22 of august was the bloodiest day in french military history with 27.000 and other thousands wounded german casualties are not know but it was also in the thousands, so I think that was the bloodiest day in warfare, but there probably are higher unknow number of casualty during one day like on the eastern front during WW1 and WW2.
Manafish !
Who won at Borodino ?
It would be an extreme stretch to claim that the Russians won at Borodino. If anything, it was a French Pyrrhic victory.
vaahtobileet french tactical, russian strategic victory
If a civilian wandering around a battlefield seems weird, in the 19th century it was common for wealthy people to go and watch battles. It was done during the American Civil War. Under the generally accepted rules of those days, they were not directly targeted by either side. It was like watching a grand spectacle for them. Times have changed. ;-)
I read a rather funny account where masses of citizens from surrounding towns had gathered to watch a Napoleonic battle, and some of them started throwing spoiled eggs and vegetables at the French troops. At which point Marshal Villeneuve's second in command turned to him and said: _Regarde, Marshal; Les Autrichiens ont déployé leur artillerie!_ ["Look, Sir; The Austrians have deployed their artillery!"] 😄
Yeah, it was pretty weird... But heck, if I heard that 50.000 men are about to go shoot at each other in some field, and it's not too far from where I live... I'd grab a couple of lawn chairs, some beers and some popcorn. 'Cause it's show-time ;-)
@@runi5413 to be able to do that would be the dream wouldn't it
*When your dad gets you a front row seat to watch waterloo*
I would have a hard time Imagining it happening by the time of the western front in ww1. Imagine some guy looking like the monopoly man walking around in no man's land collecting souvenirs🤔
I honestly I find it unlikely they weren’t fired upon, a lot of soldiers in those days were ruthless men
1:13 me in total war .
The entire unit is dead, sir!
shamefur dispray
Turning General Ermolov into a bald man was a stupid move
Pretty sure that was General Levin August von Benningsen, the German General who was in service to the Russian Empire.
Actually, you were right
That wasn't Barclay De Tolly?
no thats Jodl
They run out of hair !
Napoleon shined as the New Alexander the Great of the Black powder era... But after 1812 he ended as Pyrrhus the 1st.
@LineOfCars just like when Charles XII of Sweden attacked Peter the Great a century earlier. Or when Hitler attacked Stalin a century later. History pretty much repeated itself in those 3 centuries.
@LineOfCars Lol, he defeated him many times even before 1812.
@K D'Arcy hi english
@@keelyleilani1326
> just like when Charles XII of Sweden attacked Peter the Great a century earlier.
Well, you are right about Stalin, but in this case you are not exectly right. Charles XII did not attack Peter the Great.
Peter the Great attacked Charles XII to gain access to Baltic Sea. And initial period of campaign did not went well for our army. However later tide has turned when Charles XII actually overestimated his forces and get deep in our territory without supplies (like Napoleon, yeah) and lost general battle for Poltava.
@LineOfCars
His biggest mistake was making his troops take positions across Spain. Starting a 8 year long guerilla war
“What was it all for, I wonder? What was any of it for?” - Vir Cotto, Babylon 5, “The Long Night” (1997).
Napoleon looks like he's been drinking a lot in this movie...
Moscow wasn't even the capital of Russia at the time
Apparently they say in the novel that Moscow is "Russia's ancient and sacred capital."
You're right, it was St.Petersburg, but they would have considered, and did consider it to be Russia's ancient capital and to be sacred. It's just an adaptation error not being caught because it was changed back.
@@GuruJudge21 The only error in adaptation is that Kutuzov does not spit his words back in his face and tell him to be practical. "Ancient and sacred capital" is a direct quote from the novel.
@@GuruJudge21 correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason St. Petersburg isn't chosen because the French had no naval dominance in the Baltic due to the British just trashed the Danes earlier, am I right? Hence it's pointless for him to siege a fortress that can still be supplied by sea.
Moscow was the ancient capital and the city of the Russian Church but at this time St.Petersburg was Capital until 1917 because it was foundet by Peter the Great
Brian Cox is a legend.
Great actor , the original hannibal lector!
I love the opening speech of Napoleon with this epic soundtrack ! Vive l’empereur !
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. And tactics without strategy is just the noise before defeat- Sun Tzu, the Art of War. And Borodino exemplified that. The Russian Army stood its ground and traded blows with Napoleon's vaunted elite. And for all his pride, glory and wily tactics, the Corsican could only watch as his Grande Armee reduced itself to smithereens against an enemy who would simply not give up. I'd classify this as a Russian strategic victory and a pyrrhic tactical draw for the French with a liberal dash of eventual disaster for them. The Russian army avenged Austerlitz here. Later battles would come. But there is something you absolutely have to understand. They had run before at Austerlitz. They had been touted at Friesland. The Russian army found its spirit to fight at Borodino. And learned that even it could only be pushed so far. If anyone asks you... Borodino was the turning point.
Anirban Bhattacharya Ummmm....... How ironic the former paragraph is more true to the russians, they lost half their army.
And to the latter paragraph, the turning point of the war is the burning of Moscow.
But Napoleon used tactics
@@amongjamir3116 The guys talking rubbish Napoleon did not even use his elite the guard did not go into action the Russians lost the battle at the end of the day the redouts are in French hands they had no strong points left to defend if they stayed on the field the nxt day the Napoleon would have finished the job
Well Kutusov lost all his positions and his best troops. Strategic victory ? Lmfao.
@@Austerlitz-kb8ln yeah, but part of Russia's strategy has been trading land for time. Bringing the enemy deeper to Russia to extend their supply lines. Add in some scorched earth policy and they're set for a long waiting game.
What is the name of that painting at the end of that video and who is it by?
Painting by Alexei Kivshenko "Military Council at Fili" (1880)
Kutusov was indeed a clever general but was no match for Napoleon's grand war machine
Napoleon did not call Kutuzov an "old northern fox" for nothing. Kutuzov did not try to beat Napoleon where he was a genius. Kutuzov was the first general in Russia to understand that modern war is economics and logistics.
@@vadimanreev4585 Good point
How can I watch the whole movie or serie in India ??
When you won every single bataille and you lose the compagne at all 🤪
when you can't speak English
he didnt win every batlle
wonderfull ! *Giai Thoai Bat Hu* thank you so much
Is the actor that plays Kutuzov the voice actor for scholar vizari from killzone?
Brian Cox has been in a lot of shit
What year is this production from? British or American? TV or Cinema ?
2016
British
TV // BBC
What is the background hymn
VIVE L'EMPEREUR!
Mpiraturi Corsican ulol
Mpiraturi Corsican jolie portrait de lannes
Gaetan Dubreuil merci l'ami
Mpiraturi Corsican marshall Lannes!
God Save The Tsar!
The master of all Europe .. but he can’t find a hat that fits ? 🤔
Hahaha
end give goosebumps to history lover
I don't understand why the Russians say that Borodino battle was a victory, the french were victorious ...
Of course that the victory was costly in spite of the French suffered less casualties than the Russians, but the Russians saying that they were victorious, why, because they stopped the French army? In my opinion, that, is not a victory ...
Exactly, the battle itself was a French victory. The Russians suffered more casualties, they retreated and the French captured Moscow as a result. Just because the Russian army wasn't *utterly destroyed* doesn't make the battle a Russian victory or a draw.
It’s mainly because the French left the field, they couldn’t break through and had to regroup to lick their wounds, this gave the Russians time to do what they had been doing to Napoléon all through this campaign denying him a fight, they didn’t retreat cause they were broken they let Napoléon have it cause they didn’t care enough about to protect it, when they could just burn it to the ground which is what they did as soon a Napoléon took it they burned it then harassed the French out of Russian through the Russian winter.
Sure like your Braindeath Anti Russian Philisophy! Russian Empire take few years Later Paris! so it was a FAILURE? maybe your Birth was a EPIC Fail i don´t want call it even mistake!
Napolean wanted to destroy the Russian Army. It was needed for victory. Victory for Russia therefore would be to preserve the army and draw Napoleon further and further in. Borodino was a delaying action by the Russians and to placate nobles that demanded a set piece engagement. It may not have been a tactical victory, but the plan was to torch Moscow to deny it to Napoleon and draw him again further and further into Russia, breaking his logistics capabilities. It worked. It was a decisive Russian strategic victory. By the time they took Moscow, they were reduced to just under 100000 soldiers from an initial invasion force of 685000. Disease, combat, desertions, garrisoning supply centres, protecting supply routes, and not being able to meet the logistical needs did in the French.
Victory or not was usually decided on which side achieved his target, or who remained on the field come nightfall. Since Napoleon objective of destroying the Russians was NOT met, and the Russian target of holding of Napoleon was also NOT met, I'd classify this a draw at best.
Also, if you consider just stopping an enemy army's advance, even for a small amount of time, not a victory, a lot of battles are going to be needing a new classification. Even at Waterloo, undoubtedly Napoleons defeat, he still had an army the winners were reluctant to face.
Fools...did they not understand that Borodino WAS the fight for Moscow?
But, as Dr. Strange would say, 'we are in the end game, now'...
I think it was only after the battle at Borodino that it was realized that it was the battle for Moscow.
Just want to point out a few things. Kutuzov did absolutely nothing from his headquarters at Borodino. Moreover, the recent studies proof that Kutuzov slept while the battle was going on and orders were given mostly by Barclay De Tolly and Bagration. The only reason Aleksander appointed Kutuzov, was because Kutuzov was a true Russian. Barclay De Tolly was a better commander, but he was German and unpopular among Russian aristocracy. Russian nobility and officers didn’t like the fact that the Russian army was retreating all the time and blamed Barclay for this. They thought that he did this because he didn’t care about Russia (because of his German descent). This wasn’t true of course.
Most historians agree now that Kutuzov put his army defenses terribly. Russian’s right wing was facing no enemy troops and were useless. Russians constantly had to move their troops from the right side to bolster their center where the actual battle took place. These Russian troop movements were costly and easy target for Napoleon’s gunners. This is the main reason why Russian loses were greater than Napoleon’s. Just think for a minute, Russians made defenses while Napoleon’s troops were in the open and had to attack Russian positions. At that time, this would usually mean more casualties for the advancing army. But this is not what happened for the reason that I just stated above.
Another fact that just recently was discovered and published. Russians had approximately 30,000 wounded troops that were taken to Moscow after the battle (right before Napoleon took Moscow). When the Moscow was set on fire by Russian prisoners/police, most of those wounded were left behind and died because of this fire.
Also, we should remember that Napoleon wasn’t planning to go to Moscow from the start and he wasn’t interested in occupying Russian territories. That was never his intention. His plan was to defeat Russian army at the boarder and make Russia his ally again. He wanted Russia to follow his “Continental Blockade” against United Kingdom. The reason Napoleon ended up in Moscow was because Russians were constantly retreating in the direction of Moscow, and Napoleon had to follow Russians to Borodino village. If the Russian army was retreating to Saint Petersburg (their capital city) this is where Napoleon would go instead.
However, even though the Russians lost Borodino battle, Napoleon’s venture into Russia was a big mistake.
Sorry for the long comment
Your not wrong thanks not many people know about his little involvement in the battle and he probably slept because he was 67 years old and at that age you don’t have the energy do things you used to do.
Впервые слышу этот бред. Огромное количество свидетелей того, что Кутузов присутствовал на сражении и командовал войсками с места событий.
Второе - русские не были разбиты при Бородино, но и Наполеон не был остановлен. Это ничья, но никак не поражение одной из сторон
Бредни панасенкова
@@the_comrade_pavlik3468 "Нами никто не командовал”, - генерал Николай Раевский
Военный теоретик, бывший в 1812 году при штабе русской армии, Карл
Клаузевиц: роль Кутузова в руководстве битвой равнялась почти нулю.
Граф Жозеф де Местр (1753-1821): «Кутузов находился в трех верстах от битвы. Конечно, главнокомандующий - это не простой гренадер, но все-таки надобно знать меру. На самом деле всем распоряжался Барклай, который искал смерти, и князь Багратион, которого она нашла"
Барклай-де-Толли, взявший в свои руки после ранения Багратиона фактическое руководство сражением, утверждал: «Если в Бородинском сражении армия не была полностью и окончательно разбита - это моя заслуга, и убеждение в этом будет мне служить утешением до последней минуты жизни».
“Неприятель одержал победу…” Генерал А.П. Ермолов о Бородинском сражении
“Никакой, даже самый идиотический, идиот не сможет приписать неслыханные катастрофы Наполеона слабоумному Кутузову и его безвольному повелителю.”
Командующий Союзной армией князь К.Ф. Шварценберг, 1814 г.
"имел особенный дар драться неудачно" Багратион o Кутузовe
@@ilya126 для Ермолова отход с Бородинского поля был поражением, но для всего войска - нет. Ермолова был слишком горяч и все принимал близко к сердцу. Раевский был на батарее, откуда он мог точно знать, что "ими никто не командовал"? Он свечку не держал над Кутузовым
"Dedicated to E.T."? What has an extraterrestrian to do with Borodino?
he was a good friend
I do not like the way they portrayed Koutouzov as the brilliant general who is always right when the his officer corps was actually making most of the decision, and that is from russian historians as well. Both the Emperor and him were passive in this battle, letting their generals making the decisions, and never being decisive which is probably why the battle was so bloody in the end, along with the refusal of the Emperor to engage the Garde impérial allowing the russian army to escape.
Not correct. He was deciding all of the main strategic events during the battle. He was sending reserves and planning strategic manoeuvres and counterattacks
Kutuzov and was genius general and how Alexander said after his death,”I don’t know who would be a commender of a Russian army now, but I know one thing, we don’t have another Kutuzov”
@@WorldHistory42 he slept through most of it, and positioned his defensive line in a way that made his entire right flank sit on it’s ass.
Bagration was the one who made the most decisions and fought at the fleches, only to die by shraphnel.
Kutuzov is no genius, he is nothing compared to Benningsen, Bagration and Suvorov. He is only venerated because he was “pure russian”
@@_greenrunner_ слушай больше Понасенкова ю
@@_greenrunner_ I would add Barclay de Tolly to your list as well.
Ah yes. The dead emperor my great grandparents fought for.
?
@@rservajean ?
@@Spacemuffin147 he means which one
Thumb down: Geeze Louise! How many times is this going to be reposted???
oh I'm sorry
Every Napoleon's Army Gangsta until WINTER Shows up .
Nome do filme? pfvr!
it was st.Petersburgh
When they come we run away
the general did well for himself.. now running a media empire and worth over billions.
Wow beautiful scene
what is the song towards the end?
"Vasily" from War&Peace ost
Borodino showed that the Russians under Kutuzov could fight evenly with the Grande Armee under Napoleon. The two powers were tactically equal. The abandonment of Moscow to the French showed that strategically, in that moment, Kutuzov had greater wisdom and will than Napoleon. Kutuzov defeated his nation's greatest opponent in a hundred years, through letting him loot and burn their greatest city. He even aided his enemy in the plundering and pillaging, ahead of Napoleon's triumphant 'capture' of the city. Defeating the hitherto largest invasion in history, through a genuine (temporary) retreat, is something only a Christian general could think of. Quite appropriate, given that Napoleon was the great conqueror general of Liberalism/Humanism in Europe.
Kutuzov literally did nothing the entire battle tho? He slept through most of it, and positioned his army in such a way that the simplest troop movements led to massive casualties for them.
Benningsen, Bagration and De tolly were far better.
The napoleon guy had some problem with his hat! Don´t fit him well.
Kutozovs:WINTER IS COMING
Beginning of the end for Napoleon
Anyone Can Give Me Link
The French actually called it the Battle of the Moskva, not the Battle of Borodino.
Who cast this guy as Napoleon? He looks like Mr Bean.
HOW CAN I SAW FULL PART OF WAR AND PEACE
Buy it from your local VHS-store. Seriously how do I ban Indians from commenting?
@@vaahtobileet Thank Very much for your Answer
But From Net Can I Get It ??
@@prakashghumaliya2002 Sir, it is a conundrum
Что это за фильм? What' film?
War & Peace (2016 TV series)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%26_Peace_(2016_TV_series)
What the title of the movie
?
War & Peace. It's a TV show by BBC
What a great scene!!!
Yes not bad but cannot compare with the greatest screen adaptation of all, Sergei Bondarchuk’s 1967 film. No CGI etc then just 120,000 soldiers employed for the battle scenes. Never equalled, never will be.
@@paullewis2413 Sure, but from the whole story perspective, BBC protagonists and the story is a hundred times better. Tell me you didn't almost get a mental breakdown watching Bondarchuk’s super annoying Natasha (who was clearly too young and looked just 13).
Is this a movie r doc?
TV show "War & Peace"
Ah ah ah, Mathieu Kassovitz playing Napoléon, it is even worse than Christian Clavier! And this hat?!? They could have find the right size... :-)
ah ah ah
I did watch ten minutes of some TV show where he was not Napoleon, but an undercover spy guy. I couldn't acquire subtitles, so I didn't understand what the fuck he was talking about. Even though I supposedly studied French for many years. Oh well. He got laid in the first episode.
1:11 I'm so confused whether this is a painting or not..
Computer graphics
You think they would have got a hat to fit him lol !
Viva l’emeur!
In France we called it battle of the Moskova not battle of Borodino.
battle of borodino sounds better though
Really? That is news for me. We, too, call it Battle of Borodino in Turkish.
Berk Cicik
A French general : Michel Ney was even named prince of the moskova after this battle.
Plumps Medici
Yes surprisingly It sounds Italian, it's pretty good.
OK. But Borodino battle was 125km from Moscow.
To be precise St.petersburg was capital of russia that time
technicly you are correct but moscow still held the titel of sacred(or holy capital depending on the translation) capital...
also generally the tsars court was fairly moblie during this period so and moscow hosted the royal court at least for some parts of the year...
Sacred capital means the heart of Russia
Who was the old man speaking on behalf of Napoleon on the end?
The Russian General Kutuzov. To be clear, he was fighting against Napoleon.
@@vaahtobileet Why was the other general then proposing going on the "offensive" toward Moscow?
@@ludde1300 Borodino happened just outside Moscow. He was proposing attacking the French army again, so they don't reach Moscow. Kutuzov wanted to leave the French alone and let them take Moscow.
I do not know why, but at 1:26 Napoleon reminds me of Michael from The Godfather lol :)
Whoa so they brought printing presses with them to war? Now that is some geeky shit.
But hey I mean have you ever considered the logistics of communicating a pre-battle speech to an army of 600000? I sure havent. Never even considered the possibility that you could delegate the same speech to your sub-alterns.
In the movies the leader shouts to his army while galloping on a horse and maybe a couple of guys at the front ranks can catch a few unconnected words. But somehow it always works in lifting their spirits.
Napoleon the GREAT
I read that book for a while, very interesting to learn about Napoleon's mediocre political pamphlets and school grades. (Napoleon the Great, Andrew Roberts)
Napoleon the loser...
@@command_unit7792 the loser that has won more battles than any other commander past and present.
Any military commander could only dream to have his record. He lost because odds (all Europe coalised) was too much. But everyone would love to have his life and successes
@@skiteufr He is a loser died on an island in Africa and he tried killing himself while in Exile...He is a loser like Hitler!
@@vaahtobileet The same Napoleon's "mediocre political" writings in which he had written while he was still very young : "Les hommes de génie sont des météores destinés à brûler pour éclairer leur siècle." that can be translated by : "Genius men are meteors that are destined to burn in order to enlighten their century (time)." Not that bad, even visionary, for a "mediocre" author according to your own words, wasn't he ?
Epic history TV sent me here
I like that channel
Hi from Tillendorf (today Bolesławice village, close to Bunzlau in Poland). Here prince M.Kutuzov was shot by Napoleon's soldier. BUT in "town memory" he died not from being injured but due to...diarrhea and probably syphilis as well, which he already came to the town with. What ashamed death's causes! :D
что ты клоун несешь? мозг купи
What?🤣🤣🤣 He died from sickness
For the Emperor ! Vive Napoléon !
The lines they gave to Kutuzov at the end are total nonsense. The French were *not* driven off, the Russians were. The suggestion that the Russians "go on the offensive" is absurd: the Russian army was incapable of resuming operations without reinforcements. Borodino was a disaster for them, not a triumph. Russia was only saved from capitulation by the enormous distances through which Napoleon had advanced, and by the time he wasted waiting for Tsar Alexander to offer peace terms.
Why didn’t Napoleon continue advance then? Oh, maybe because his losses were catastrophic and he didn’t have enough soldiers to continue an advance. Both armies lost around the same during that battle
Parts of Russia captured by Napoleon don’t contain even 5 presents of Russian territory🤣
@@WorldHistory42 He did continue. He captured Moscow and (a fatal mistake) waited for Alexander I to come to him with peace terms. The Tsar was determined never to make peace however. There was nowhere else, realistically, for Napoleon to have advanced to at this point. What he should have done was pull back straight away to Smolensk or better yet never have gone so far into the Russian interior in the first place. By waiting in Moscow he doomed his army to annihilation. You're right in saying that Borodino was a pyrrhic victory for the French, with no strategic advantage gained.
@@WorldHistory42 Since Napoleon wasn't intending to conquer Russia, only to get them to stop trading with Britain, the percentage of territory captured is irrelevant.
These are the same tactics they used in ww2. Coincidence?!?!?
Who this your excellent guy?
He was a good friend, and a cunning warrior.
Moscow wasn't the capital of the Russian Empire, but it was considered a important place
the original capital is Petrograd / Leningrad / St Petersburg
@@nizar5014 Petrograd is named temporarily to St. Petersburg in WW1 to sound less German :)
The original capital was Moscow, but in the rain of Peter "the great". He ordered the construction of San Petersburg, when the city was finished, he apointed as the new capital of Russia.
That was before the bolchevique revolucion, then they moved the capital from San Petersburg ( later call Leningrad ) to Moscow.
@@marcusguanio1290 Yeah that's true. Fun fact haha
@@djfiore7103 :)
A French frog will freeze in a Russian winter the bear laughs in his hiding.
And the brit is hiding on his island behind the Channel and arming all Europe against France
a truly confusing adage
Gears are expensive, but lives are more expensive
that guy just looks nothing like napoleon they could have found someone else
Moscow was not the capital of Russia at the time. It was Saint Petersburg
Le choix de l'acteur pour jouer Napoléon est vraiment très mauvais,,,coipinage ?
Ok
Effectivement, il a pas du tout l'étoffe d'incarner l'Empereur.
speak frog elsewhere
Matthieu Kassovitz est un très bon acteur, regardez la série "Le Bureau des Légendes". C'est juste que le faire parler anglais n'était sûrement pas une bonne idée.
Désolé mais absolument pas crédible en Napoléon, il ne suffit pas de porter pour être, je n'ai rien contre ses talents d'acteur, mais dans le cas présent,,,erreur de casting,,en tous cas pour tous ceux qui connaissent la vie de l'Empereur
Rather young Napoleon
2:15 who allowed this guy to be bald ,it’s a betray to historical truth as I see no baldman in the painting
very good point Nguyen, however Napoleon himself didn't look like what he did on this show so this Russian officer whose name I don't remember anymore is a minor mistake (if the painting I added is even correct)
Well I passed it since the first episode,after watching the old Russian version,I was displeased with the kind of British drama film implemented into war and peace,and the portrait of Pierre was farther from my imagination than the Russian version
VIVE L'EMPEREUR !!!!
Nothing to do but to in joy war.
nice
The russians retreated and left the field. By the rules of the time, it is a French victory as the French advanced to take Moscow. The russian overall strategy to let Napoleon go deep in Russia was a successfull strategy, but the result of this particular battle was a French victory. Russians try to rewrite it as their victory because Borodino was the first battle in which they were not utterly destroyed, which was a bit of a russian habit when they met Napoleon at that time
Both sides left the field...The Russian army did retreat first
@@user-gd9bi2hg5m Russians beat Napoleon in most battles ? Are you stupid haha ? In this case, why general Kutuzov told all the time to the emperor Alexander to not face Napoleon? You want to talk about the humiliation of the battle of Austerlitz ?
The only good war to fight is of defense, anyone else is an agressor. If you are with the agressors......you are a pawn of their schemes. Countles millions have died, suffered and sacrificed for a handful or rich powerful men.
Viva borideno
Songname 0:57 plz love it!
check the pinned comment
can't see the pinned comment.
Napoleon is badass
celui qui fait l'empereur ne ressemble pas a Napoléon Christian Clavier était plus vrai
Oui Kassovitz a été un très mauvais choix pour Napoléon
Kutusov seems not aware Borodino was a French victory. A pyrrhic victory, a victory nonetheless
Perhaps but one that doomed the campaign and the french empire. Never again does napoleon have a commanding position in history. For the rest of his life he's on the back foot. Borodino is as pyrrhic as it gets, for after it napoleon's prospects were dismal.
@@ImperialGuardsman74 Winter and Moscow's fire doomed the French campaign more than Borodino I reckon
@@alcoolamus4208 At borodino Napoleon's army was already doomed if they didn't wipe the russian army out. The problem was the campaign was ill planned. Napoleon's aim was to destroy russias warmaking abiltiy and force it to abide with his continental blockade. Because the russian army kept retreating, he couldn't accomplish this. He kept capturing cities but cities don't matter. Even if he took moscow whole, mind you half of moscow didn't burn and he did have that, he still would have presided over a campaign where a large and expensive expedition lost many men without accomplishing any of it's goals.
Borodino was a final insult to injury as France lost many a general and veteran for no gain, as the russian army was still operational at the end of the day. It was an unmitigated catastrophe.
He won. Yet his lost was greater after that battle. Invade Russia and Spain was his downfall.
Ironically Napoleon was the good guy. If he had won, he would have ended serfdom, the peasants would have been freed and Russia could have industrialized a lot sooner. (Serfdom relied on an agricultural economy, not industrial)
Глупости не говорите. Наполеон воевал с Россией не затем, чтобы что-то сделать для России, а чтобы добиться возобновления торговой блокады Англии и прочих условий мирного Тильзитского договора. Это первое. Второе, он так недолюбливал и опасался необразованных, "диких" по его словам народных масс, что даже не стал летом 1812 г. разыгрывать карту "освободителя", заготовленные листовки не стали распространять. Он счел, что это не стоит его времени.
Exactly, he was a dictator but not like Hitler or Stalin. If he had succeeded in Europe, it may have avoided the coming failure of communism.
But maybe not, as humans have a way for selfishness.
All napoleon wanted was glory he was a satanic monster defeated by the holy Tsar of Russia!
Serfdom served as an orgenization system that boosted production and allowed Russia to become a major empire in only a few years!
It was outdated by the end but when it was implemented it was an effective system of managing such a huge empire!
Command_Unit not correct.
A few years you mean nearly 900 years from the middle ages till 1860 for Russia. It was outdated in Western Europe and declined after 1347 after the Great Plague.
Serfdom is like slavery or communism. You should not see people as a commodity.
Um, France was a colonial empire that owned thousands of north african slaves. Napoleon was a slave trader. He was not a social justice warrior by any means. The reason why he attacked Russia in first place was due to Russia's mines. And the only reason why Russia hasn't managed to industrialize itself in time was due to the fact that it was forced to defend itself (and the entire Europe) from Napoleon.
Napoléon speaking English... what kind of documentary is this ?
it's not a documentary, Monsieur Dupont !
It's the BBC version of War and Peace. I love the old Russian TV miniseries. The American Hollywood one with Henry Fonda as Pierre (weird casting but Fonda does his best) is so-so but Herbert Lom a fine Napoleon. Voila! A splendid death!
Very Indo-European
CIVILISED degenerate ?
Russians are Indo-European people because they are slavs but the have a little mix with Tatars, Mongols and Turkish people but at this time the Royality an Elite of Russia was German or Skandinavian Descent. See Rurik the founder of Russia he was a Waragian from Sweden
@@ke358941 Spare me the pan-Germanic nonsense.
Bagration - Georgian
Miloradovich - Serbian
Two of the most famous Russian generals in the battle.
A bunch of Russian nobility was not Scandinavian or German.
@@ke358941 we have more finno-ugric blood then mongolian or scandinavian. And also, we have our state before Rurik and scands. But they colonised our lands and were part of our goverment and army. That All of the story.
@@ke358941 Russia's elite was of different descent. The majority were Slavs, some were tatars, some were caucasians, some were germanics. Only few had Scandinavian blood. Rurikids have long been assimilated.
If this battle never happened french army would just starve faster later. Pointless bloodshed.
True... Unless the losing general was sacked for this coward behavior and the Tsar would Have prefered to negociate the end of this non sense war. Europe was big enough for two Empires at this time.
It was to defend moscow...
It was to please the Russian nobility into convincing them that the empire and its army is no coward when faced with Napoleon and his army.
Was Moscow already the capital?
It was st petersburgh at that time but moscow was an an important city as well since it used to be russias capital before tsar peter
no actual footage of the battle, what a waste of time
sorry my friend
1812 what did you expect. Come on
lol wtf is kutuzov saying. he did not repulse the french lol
He saved his army. This alone was a success.
While they did lose a few importent positions during the battle the Russian army was still fully capable and wasnt defeated.
@@command_unit7792 … I will repeat, he didn’t repulse the French
One of the cruelest battles in human history, and one of the most pointless.
Pointless ? it changed history forever
@@Unpseudopascommelesautres The Russian army was not totally destroyed and finished off Bonaparte in the retreat from Moscow. However, Bonaparte did occupy Moscow but only temporally and did not achieve a peace treaty from the battle of Borodino. Had this battle not happened the French army would still have occupied Moscow and still have been destroyed by cold, hunger and disease.
@@stephencalcutt8396 There is a documentary on this subject, and there are documents from that time.Only a small part of Napoleon's army died of hunger, cold and disease...
Panpan cucul les popovs !
what
@@vaahtobileet Spank the ivans
Why not let them speak French? Like, everyone including the Russians.
Obviously because it's a British-American show and the actors are mainly British.
@@vaahtobileet Then why have the accents? The accents trying to sound french and russian are just silly. Either go full English or go full French. If they wanted it to seem historically accurate they should have went with French instead of trying to sound French or Russian.
None shall walk through moscow
The French and the Poles did.
@@VRichardsn And Swedes:)
@@napoleon7107 Indeed. Although they were allied with the Russians.
oujea
1966 version is better
So many dead. And for what?