Why was Napoleon's army destroyed after his invasion of Russia?

[Larry1]

Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812 with the largest army he ever put into the field, consisting of 500,000 - 600,000 men, depending on whose figures you read.  His army fought the Russians at a couple of pitched battles, most notably Borodino.  Casualties were heavy but less than 50,000 on either side, if my memory serves.   After the French occupied Moscow for a time, they marched back out of Russia, fighting from time to time, yet with no huge battles such as Borodino had been.  Yet only about 25,000 French soldiers made it home.  I have long wondered why.

During history classes and outside reading I have encountered various theories.  Some say most of the French died from the cold.  Fairly recent examination of bodies of thousands of bodies of French soldiers found in Lithuania indicated that most of them probably died from starvation or malnutrition.

An article in Foreign Policy magazine presents an explanation:

Today marks the bicentennial of the culminating catastrophe that befell the Grande Armée as it retreated from Russia. This past weekend one of the French Emperor's descendants, Charles Napoleon, traveled to Minsk in Belarus to attend ceremonies commemorating the disaster at the nearby Beresina River crossing, where thousands died -- many by drowning -- in a final, panicked rout in freezing weather. Bonaparte had marched deep into Russia with nearly half a million soldiers; he returned with less than 25,000.

Given that Napoleon was the great captain of his time -- perhaps of all time -- and that his armies had conquered and held most of Europe, the tragic events on the Beresina demand explanation. His defeat is something of a puzzle, too, as the Grande Armée won the campaign's pitched battles fought at Smolensk and Borodino. Harsh winter weather, the commonly assumed culprit, cannot explain the result either; the first frost didn't arrive to bedevil the retreat until just a few weeks before the Beresina crossing.

The answer to the puzzle is that Napoleon and his forces were beaten by what a young Russian hussar, Denis Davydov, called his "indestructible swarm" of Cossacks and other raiders who constantly harried the French columns on the march. They also struck relentlessly, repeatedly, and to fatal effect at the Grande Armée's supply lines. As David Chandler, an eminent historian of Napoleon's campaigns, put it: "raids of Cossacks and partisan bands did more harm to the Emperor than all the endeavors of the regular field armies of Holy Russia."

Davydov, who probably inspired Tolstoy's character "Denisov" in War and Peace, had lobbied his superiors hard for the creation of a small force of behind-the-lines raiders. General Pyotr Bagration, not long before his death in battle at Borodino, gave Davydov permission to launch his swarm -- though he detached only a single troop of riders to accompany him. This was all that Davydov needed, though, as he picked up Cossacks, freed Russian soldiers taken prisoner, and recruited willing peasants along the way. Soon the French knew no rest. In Davydov's own words, they "had no choice but to retreat, preceded and surrounded by partisans."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/killer_swarms?wp_login_redirect=0

The site requires you to register in order to read the article.  You can do so with a facebook account.

Where I think the article falls down is that it doesn't go into detail as to exactly how the Russian partisans did the French in.  If this was due to killing French soldiers, it would be important to read estimates of casualties.  If, however, partisan activity resulted in drastically reducing French food supply it would be helpful to say so.  I suspect this was the key to the death of so many French troops.

The French armies relied mainly on food taken from the areas they conquered.  In some areas invaders were stymied by scorched earth practices by the Russians, denying the invaders sustenance by burning anything they could use.  But this practice didn't seem to be universal.  The French would send out small foraging parties to steal food for the French troops and hay for their horses.  The French army did this in Spain and found that Spanish partisan bands would destroy the small French foraging parties.  The French eventually had to send our major formations of troops in order to steal enough food for their troops and horses, which became difficult.

I think it's likely that something similar happened during the French retreat from Russia. The French could not fight Russian armies, partisan bands, and steal enough food to keep themselves fed.

[ML]

I made mistake once of, in what I thought to be a casual conversation with a RW, saying that the Russian winter defeated Napoleon.

She screamed at me it was the Russian soldiers who defeated Napoleon.   

[Larry1]

I made mistake once of, in what I thought to be a casual conversation with a RW, saying that the Russian winter defeated Napoleon.

She screamed at me it was the Russian soldiers who defeated Napoleon.   

I once made the mistake of mentioning the Anna Chapman case during a casual conversation with my  Belarusian then-fiancee.  These days I'm more circumspect in my conversations with FSUW, at least conversations about anything to do with Russia or FSU.

I learned quite a bit from some missteps in my rookie year.   It's hard to believe how naive I was at the beginning.  I thought this search would be easy.  I subsequently found that it wasn't easy.  Sometimes I think it's as difficult as climbing Mt. Everest.  Without oxygen.  Without a sherpa guide.  In a snowstorm.  But perhaps I exaggerate.

[Shadow]

In general when you wish to conquer Russia it is said you need to conquer every single citisen.
Russia used a trick that has been done repeatedly. They let the army advance quickly by withdrawing, then cut off the supply roads behind them and hid/burned any food sources.
The result is an army that is without food, and has no experience in the Russian winter landscape. Easy to understand why most did not make it home.

But do not put this on the account of the winter, it was a known tactic.

[Slumba]

An excellent graphic of the decline of Napoleon's forces, is the excellent graphic by Charles Joseph Minard, a French engineer, described here and with a high-res version (click on the image):

http://innovatobase.wordpress.com/category/william-playfair/

Other neat graphs not having to do with Napoleon are farther down.

[tfcrew]

They let the army advance quickly by withdrawing, then cut off the supply roads behind them and hid/burned any food sources.
 

Didn't that happen [to Germany] in WW2?

[Lily]

Good article about Napoleon and Russia by V.Lulechnik
http://www.myreklama.com/myreklama/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2298:2012-06-14-19-35-05&catid=54:2009-06-17-22-24-25&Itemid=56
A good opportunity to use some online translators

[BBC]

I made mistake once of, in what I thought to be a casual conversation with a RW, saying that the Russian winter defeated Napoleon.
She screamed at me it was the Russian soldiers who defeated Napoleon.   

I once made the mistake of mentioning the Anna Chapman case during a casual conversation with my  Belarusian then-fiancee.  These days I'm more circumspect in my conversations with FSUW, at least conversations about anything to do with Russia or FSU.

I don't think it's a mistake from your side to express the opinion which apparently doesn't match with opinion of your FSUW. If you didn't mention, how would you know what does she think? If she screams in response - too bad for her, but good for you as you got the red flag about her.

You can't expect to meet the woman from the other part of the world who will be your mental clone (nor you can find such a woman in your homeland, I guess  ). Different standpoints between two of you about Napoleon, Anna Chapman, WW2, who invented the radio, what vacuum cleaner is better, etc. will regular come up, and I'm not sure that the right solution is to avoid topics which in your opinion might cause the disagreeing. If a woman is not able to hold rational discussion, explain her position as an adult and listen to yours, your relationship with her has low chances to survive. The earlier you detect this, the better for you. I think it's nothing to do with the FSUW' nature or culture, but personality of those women you met so far. 

I learned quite a bit from some missteps in my rookie year.   It's hard to believe how naive I was at the beginning.  I thought this search would be easy.  I subsequently found that it wasn't easy.  Sometimes I think it's as difficult as climbing Mt. Everest.  Without oxygen.  Without a sherpa guide.  In a snowstorm.  But perhaps I exaggerate.

No, you don't exaggerate, you rather understate  .

[Anotherkiwi]

...No, you don't exaggerate, you rather understate  .

Too true, as I'm sure most members here (whether married or single) will attest.

[ML]

Quote from: Larry1 on January 15, 2013, 01:02:43 PM<blockquote>I learned quite a bit from some missteps in my rookie year.   It's hard to believe how naive I was at the beginning.  I thought this search would be easy.  I subsequently found that it wasn't easy.  Sometimes I think it's as difficult as climbing Mt. Everest.  Without oxygen.  Without a sherpa guide.  In a snowstorm.  But perhaps I exaggerate. </blockquote>

No, you don't exaggerate, you rather understate  .

Not sure where others fall along a spectrum in this regard;
but I didn't find the search process all that difficult.

Time consuming, yes?

I suspect it depends on the type of work the man does . . . i.e. is he regularly planning, analyzing, coordinating, communicating with diverse persons, traveling, etc. . . . or not.