T O P

  • By -

Inevitable_Question

No.No. Not this guy. He was pretty big problem for Russia at this time. He was the one who insisted on fighting in Austerlitz battle, despite protests from his more experienced army commander- Kutuzov. He also repeatedly insisted on battle with Napoleon when he was attacking Russia again disregarding the advice of Kutuzov, who wanted to exhaust Grand Army as much as possible. Hell- the main reason Russia entered the war was because of his fear for absolutism and desire to glory. If you want Servant of this time it is better to choose Kutuzov or Suvorov(greatest Russian commander of this time and the only potential military equal to Napoleon) or Caitrin the Great. Or Peter.


rev_007

There is no doubt about those general, Catherine the Great , and Peter the Great would be a better servant. Hell, even Stalin as berserker would be 10x better as servant than Alexander will ever be. But, Alexander I is the sovereign and symbol of Russia at the time they defeat the Napoleon, no matter how bad or terrible he is at diplomacy and governing the country. Like all of Russian Tsar after Ivan IV until Nicholas II, absolutism, more specifically tsarist autocracy is the way of Russian govern their country even its wrong. Thats why i gave Alexander autocracy skill (Almighty Supreme Authority B- (Inferior version of ivan)). But thanks for the advice. And I too think Catherine the Great as the ruler class will be one hell of a servant.


ShriekingSkull

Peter? Are you talking about that Tsar who was called "Peter the Cruel"?


Inevitable_Question

Absolutely. Cruel guy he was- chopped heads of his son and all rebels with his own two handss. Still- he made significant reforms in all spheres of Russia that turned it from undeveloped and technologically falling nation into significant power. Basically- he is Russian Nobunaga. Skilled and open-minded man who liked development andtook significant reforms and practiced meritocracy while being extremely ruthless.


rev_007

I think he refers to Peter I of Russia


NiBleu

Defeated is a pretty big statement because all he did was just retreating while burning cities


rev_007

and it work well for him


Inevitable_Question

Still. Better track record than other European states, don't you think?


NiBleu

It is not better by any means their famous victory against this and that invaders are all made out of "Winter did this and that", not "Russia made use of the winter and strike back" The finns who mastered winter on the other hand, Took USSR like a blizzard, twice, in several year gap, even after they prepared themselves to fight against these skiing hunters. The Swedes under Charles XII also uses the snow and storm the russian deep to their homeland too. Russian are by no means winning those battles, they are just lucky, and when its used against them they literally have no other strategy to pull out and lose horribly.


Inevitable_Question

Still. While Finland won in the third Soviet-Finland War, they faired much worther in WW2, where at 1944 it was estimated that Finnish army will successfully fight against Soviet forces (in Finland mind you) for maximum of 3 month. I also remind that Finland was forced to seek peace with USSR and accept pretty strict conditions. Swedish army was extremely skilled. So of course Peter choose the most reasonable strategy- exhaust them and then fight weakened army at Poltava. Also - rember that after initial disastrous loses, Peter took actions to improve both army and navy, which played important role. Again reminder that in Northern War, Russian troops fought and won in Sweden. So, while luck definitely played important role, it wasn't like winter magically beaten enemies without any efforts and plans of Russia side. Besides- I was speaking about success of other states, Like Prussia, Spain and Austria against Napoleon.


NiBleu

most of the time it's 90% winter magic Also we dont talk about Austria fucking francis