I was just reading a little about Napolean’s invasion of Russia, and there is something that perplexes me. Moscow was the capital of Russia for hundreds of years (and still is), but in the early 1700’s, the capitol was moved to St. Petersburg, on the coast, and remained there until the early 1900’s. This means that in 1812, when Napoleon marched into Russia, he did not go to the capitol at all, which would have seemed to be the logical thing for an invader to have done. Instead he went to Moscow, which had not been the capitol for over 100 years. “The city ceased to be Russia’s capital in 1712, after the founding of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great on the Baltic coast in 1703. When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, the Muscovites burned the city and evacuated, as Napoleon’s forces were approaching on September, 14th. Napoleon’s army, plagued by hunger, cold, and poor supply lines, was forced to retreat and was nearly annihilated by the devastating Russian winter and sporadic attacks by Russian military forces. In January 1905, the institution of the City Governor, or Mayor, was officially introduced in Moscow, and Alexander Adrianov became Moscow’s first official mayor. Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, on March 12, 1918, Moscow became the capital of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Soviet Union less than five years later.” Why did Napoleon send his invading army to Moscow instead of to St. Petersburg ?
Interesting topic and some Good posts from two years ago. Think that at the time Moscow was the biggest City in Russia...capture it and you have a better chance of controlling the country. Depends were the main Military headquarters and the main enemy soldiers. But to be truthful I don't no.
The Russian capital had been moved to St. Petersburg, and Moscow was pretty much kind of a farming community, and workers, from what I can find. In 1771, there was an epidemic of bubonic plague , which killed somewhere between 100,00-200,000 people (depending on various reports), and it also said that about 3/4 of the population left Moscow in fear of dying from the plague. Even though many of the survivors had probably returned before the time that Napoleon invaded Russia, it still seems like going to the capital would have made more sense than tramping through little farming villages that burned everything behind them as they fled the towns. It doesn’t sound like they really encountered much of a Russian military, just kept advancing through the Russian countryside, until hunger and cold decimated the troops, and they turned around and left again. If someone intended to take over the US, they probably would not attack Nashville, they would head for the capitol in Washington DC, or at least something close to there.
I agree with this, but back in the early 1800’s, we would not have had all of those, and I think that an invading army would have at least tried to get to our national capitol. This is why I wonder about Napoleon going to the devastated city of Moscow, instead of making an assault on the capitol in St. Petersburg, which is where the main Russian/English trading port was at that time as well ?
Am I remembering wrong? Didn't the Tsar spend winters in St Petersburg and the rest of the year in Moscow?
I would think it was because it was St Petersburg was too far north and there probably wasn't any decent roads in Russia at that particular time. I don't think they even had to struggle to take Moscow, as the more 'important' residents had already left. Probably just a good place to camp out in style while they could easily loot for whatever they needed. I'm not sure the time of year, but if it was already snowing, marching to St Petersburg would've been a nightmare for the troops......if they even made it.
While Russia and the US have had Honeymoon periods because of mutual interests and support, Russia has a warring and dominating history with many European countries, Sweden, Poland,France Germany, This history is what causes concern with the Deep State. Russia and the US will get along with each other only to the extent that it's mutually beneficial.
Napoleon (N.) was fully aware of Russia's vastness. Alexander (A.) could evade him endlessly if he wanted to which could have intensified the huge logistical problems Bonaparte was having anyway. That's why N. needed to find something that A. would be fighting for and that was Moscow. He was desperately in need of a quick battle of decision. Since A. couldn't do without Moscow he was willing to fight for it. Being centrally located, Moscow was the trade center, the pivotal point of Russia from which central Russia and all provinces could be controlled and reached. In contrast, Petersburg was out of the way due to its isolated location and wouldn't have been a good starting point for further campaigns once winter was over. N. didn't need another port in Russia because he knew there was nothing to be gained as a naval power.
I sure can't add to your historical contributions, so I'll just have a bowl of Cottage Cheese and take a nap...Steer & Stein tonight! Hal
Capturing the capitol of a country does not mean controlling the countryside. What would D.C. amount to... without the rest of the country? (Be careful answering that, as big brother might be watching.)
Capturing the capitol and not holding it means nothing if you leave and then after that they call it the White House