Exactly, kek. Alexander I was 7/8ths German, and his successors were ethnically even more German, becoming more so with each generation. These 'Romanov' aristocrats couldn't stop making German princesses their wives.
>7/8ths German
and that only if we assume that Catherine II had her kids with a russian guy which didnt have to be true at all
>Russia's good at fighting Tatars, Mongols, Poles, and they gave the Brits and Turks a run for their money in Crimea.
Is it true Russia was formed in response to the Mongols stealing the locals and selling them as slaves?
https://www.rbth.com/history/332313-mongol-invasion-was-reason-russia-formed
[...]
How German was Peter the Great?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Great
Peter was mostly russian but Romanov dynasty descent from a Tartar warlord who converted to Christianity and fought for Muscovian dukes. Approximately 20% of Muscovian boyars were of Mongol descent
>and that only if we assume that Catherine II had her kids with a russian guy which didnt have to be true at all
Good point — I forgot to consider that. Pretty decent chance that Alexander’s father, Paul, was not fathered by Peter III.
Their wars against the Tartar khanates. They adapted to Mongol-Tartar equipment and tactics while also incorporating gunpowder weapons. The Siege of Kazan and the Battle of Molodi are probably the best triumphs of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy.
And let's not forget Suvorov. Quite possibly the greatest Russian commander in history.
I expected far better than this from IQfy. I'm not going to overrate Russians but thinking they're mindless zerg rushing reeks of stupidity. And Germans are neither ubermen of war nor are they overhyped; they did very well for themselves but had their share of bad losses (Battle on the Lake, Jena, Auerstedt, Kursk, etc.)
>be the b***h of literal who horsefrickers from the middle ages well into the modern era >DOOD THEY WERE GREAT AT FIGHTING MONGOLS
you're a walking meme >Suvorov
why should I rate this homosexual? for beating turks when anyone could do that?
Russia's good at fighting Tatars, Mongols, Poles, and they gave the Brits and Turks a run for their money in Crimea. When it comes to western powers their strength is being able to outlast and catch up to them, as with World War 2, or to never be subjugated except on their terms. They're very good at guerilla war, although we haven't seen that in a while.
>Russia's good at fighting Tatars, Mongols, Poles
kept losing to all of them until they fell apart due to internal crisises/wars with somebody else, you are a massive moron >and they gave the Brits and Turks a run for their money in Crimea
wow, beating Brits in land warfare, now that is truly fricking huge, it's not like anglogroids are huge jobbers on land, right?
too bad there were also frogs there and russia lost the crimean war badly (and that was on their home turf, mind you)
Say what you want about the Russians, but their willingness to sacrifice for their country is unparalleled. They are probably the most fearless of all Europeans, taking incredible risks in their daily lives like selfies with wild animals and balancing on roof edges.
Not trying to glorify them for any specific reason. I say this as a Swede who hates Russia. I simply recognize the facts as to why NATO members fear going to war with Russia, I cant imagine normies from Germany or France or Sweden being able to stomach a war like in Ukraine. They would either desert or surrender.
1 month ago
Anonymous
dont mistake the willingness to die as a valid tactic for winning a war, remember that the west was as much an enemy to napoleon and hitler and those wars are the only times russia won using those tactics, if russia tries its hand against nato, they will learn that there are far more bullets and bombs than russians in the world
1 month ago
Anonymous
You say it like its a negative attribute. It isnt. Russia prevailed where other states were defeated by the two enemies you just listed, and a major reason was their willingness to sacrifice. No state enjoys high casualties, they do it because it must be done. Russia didnt win those wars because of their manpower. There were phases during the war when their willingness to sacrifice was critical but it wasnt the reason why they won. What both Hitler and Napoleon have in common was that they lured themselves into the vastness of the Russian land which made them lose strategic direction and unable to inflict any decisive tactical victories.
1 month ago
Anonymous
yes it is and they only need those high casualties because of how shitty russia is and the people who run it, others dont do that, because they dont need too, get what im saying? its that it "must be done" its that its the only way that russia can do things, brutally and by dying in droves
1 month ago
Anonymous
And yet they still destroyed Prussian Germany
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Prussian Germany
yjk this guy learnt history from paradox games
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Implying Germany was not just Greater Prussia the way it was set up
1 month ago
Anonymous
You are one special fricking moron arent you?
Every state continues to resist if the military and poltiical will and ability exists in the circumstances.
From 1914-1918, the French suffered 6 million casualties, roughly 70% of their active frontline soldiers. Thats 6 milion in 4 years in porportion to a population far smaller and fewer duty-age than the Soviet Union in in 1940s.
Historians estimate that Germany may have suffered over a million casualties on the eastern front in less than 6 months from January 1945 to May.
They suffered those staggering losses cause they kept defending impossible positions with less equiptment and worse training/experience against an overwhelming enemy. In the last couple of months they literally sent in armed civilians, even children. You want to talk about autistic government and human waves, not knowing when to surrender? There you go.
1 month ago
Anonymous
shut the frick up russiaboo, talking about 100 years ago as if people should take dying in droves as an example. WW1 is seen as a horrendous tragedy for russia its just another war. FRICK THAT
1 month ago
Anonymous
Assuming you are that anon, then you're the one who started talking about fricking Napoleon, which is an additional 100 years further back in history.
And if you arent that anon, then shut the frick up. I'm not a tankie, I'm simply calling out the stupidity most anons have cause they keep parroting old ww2 myth about "human wave tactic". You havent read a single book on the eastern front and wouldnt fricking know two things about how the Russians were actually able to defeat the wehrmacht.
1 month ago
Anonymous
They're the real lasts europeans.
dont mistake the willingness to die as a valid tactic for winning a war, remember that the west was as much an enemy to napoleon and hitler and those wars are the only times russia won using those tactics, if russia tries its hand against nato, they will learn that there are far more bullets and bombs than russians in the world
Cope and dilate NATOtroony. That will never happen lmao.
The only time a country called Russia fought a country called Germany, Germany kicked Russia's ass so hard that the entire country fell apart and a German agent took over the remnant.
Russia's good at fighting Tatars, Mongols, Poles, and they gave the Brits and Turks a run for their money in Crimea. When it comes to western powers their strength is being able to outlast and catch up to them, as with World War 2, or to never be subjugated except on their terms. They're very good at guerilla war, although we haven't seen that in a while.
>posts an overglorified failure of a charge because it was the only time Britain did any contribution
The absolute state of Britishite """warfare""".
1 month ago
Anonymous
It was such a boring event too. Some moronic bongogoblin couldn't use a map properly and sent som unit to make a reconnaissance in an area where russians had massive field fortifications.
Said cavalry unit rode a bit close, got shot at, and came back. End of story. Yet anglogroids are still romanticizing the whole thing, have a whole legend around it etc. It's so dumb. British history is full of botches like this, sometimes on a much bigger scale. Why jerk off to that moment for 2 centuries and counting? Bizarre
>Russia's good at fighting Tatars, Mongols, Poles, and they gave the Brits and Turks a run for their money in Crimea.
Is it true Russia was formed in response to the Mongols stealing the locals and selling them as slaves?
https://www.rbth.com/history/332313-mongol-invasion-was-reason-russia-formed
Exactly, kek. Alexander I was 7/8ths German, and his successors were ethnically even more German, becoming more so with each generation. These 'Romanov' aristocrats couldn't stop making German princesses their wives.
How German was Peter the Great?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Great
>How German was Peter the Great?
Not. I wasn’t speaking about his generation. I was speaking about the ‘Romanovs’ from after the reign of Catherine II, hence me putting their name in quotation marks.
The Romanovs were Russian, but they became German, and the Germans only took the name to give themselves legitimacy.
Everyone can see how superior the russians are in Ukraine. Definitely "more intelligent" than everyone else. And especially their leader comrade Putin.
Not.
I can't, as much as people shit on them fricking up and doing half-assed logisitics and leaning on humans waves, they understand endurance and how to eventually turn a way into their favor.
Germans gamble everything every time, then immediately kill themselves when they make a moronic gamble and it blows up in their face
I mean, to put in perspective, virtually all major powers fricked up their strategic handling in the opening phase of ww1. All of them rushed to complete their objective because they all believed they had the winning strategy to end the war quickly. Both AH (all fronts), France, Italy, Russia, Germany (west front), Ottoman (Caucasus front) had questionable results due to poor planning and overconfident execution.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Not to mention, all sides has been condemned of using human wave tactics in ww1.
Thing is "Russia" is a made up construct and you can easily refer to most Russian "citizens" by their "original" ethnicity.
Considering wars happen in the border regions, they involve even less people from the core areas. Russian wars have mostly been fought by whatever people live in those border regions and also, through experience in being involved in an actual war, have gained in military ranks and so, most "Russians" who make it to top brass, have been from those people and thus, non "Russians"
>Posts a German
Exactly, kek. Alexander I was 7/8ths German, and his successors were ethnically even more German, becoming more so with each generation. These 'Romanov' aristocrats couldn't stop making German princesses their wives.
>7/8ths German
and that only if we assume that Catherine II had her kids with a russian guy which didnt have to be true at all
Peter was mostly russian but Romanov dynasty descent from a Tartar warlord who converted to Christianity and fought for Muscovian dukes. Approximately 20% of Muscovian boyars were of Mongol descent
>and that only if we assume that Catherine II had her kids with a russian guy which didnt have to be true at all
Good point — I forgot to consider that. Pretty decent chance that Alexander’s father, Paul, was not fathered by Peter III.
KWAB
OP ethered
also most of his officers were non-russian with Baltic Germans holding the most influence
name one war Russia has won without resorting to outlasting the meat grinder with sheer quantity of bodies
Their wars against the Tartar khanates. They adapted to Mongol-Tartar equipment and tactics while also incorporating gunpowder weapons. The Siege of Kazan and the Battle of Molodi are probably the best triumphs of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy.
And let's not forget Suvorov. Quite possibly the greatest Russian commander in history.
I expected far better than this from IQfy. I'm not going to overrate Russians but thinking they're mindless zerg rushing reeks of stupidity. And Germans are neither ubermen of war nor are they overhyped; they did very well for themselves but had their share of bad losses (Battle on the Lake, Jena, Auerstedt, Kursk, etc.)
>be the b***h of literal who horsefrickers from the middle ages well into the modern era
>DOOD THEY WERE GREAT AT FIGHTING MONGOLS
you're a walking meme
>Suvorov
why should I rate this homosexual? for beating turks when anyone could do that?
>Russia's good at fighting Tatars, Mongols, Poles
kept losing to all of them until they fell apart due to internal crisises/wars with somebody else, you are a massive moron
>and they gave the Brits and Turks a run for their money in Crimea
wow, beating Brits in land warfare, now that is truly fricking huge, it's not like anglogroids are huge jobbers on land, right?
too bad there were also frogs there and russia lost the crimean war badly (and that was on their home turf, mind you)
WW2. The meat grinder thing is a meme.
Virtually all of them minus ww2.
napoleon
ww2
now ukraine
its all meat all the time its a feast for satan when russia tries to empire
Say what you want about the Russians, but their willingness to sacrifice for their country is unparalleled. They are probably the most fearless of all Europeans, taking incredible risks in their daily lives like selfies with wild animals and balancing on roof edges.
Not trying to glorify them for any specific reason. I say this as a Swede who hates Russia. I simply recognize the facts as to why NATO members fear going to war with Russia, I cant imagine normies from Germany or France or Sweden being able to stomach a war like in Ukraine. They would either desert or surrender.
dont mistake the willingness to die as a valid tactic for winning a war, remember that the west was as much an enemy to napoleon and hitler and those wars are the only times russia won using those tactics, if russia tries its hand against nato, they will learn that there are far more bullets and bombs than russians in the world
You say it like its a negative attribute. It isnt. Russia prevailed where other states were defeated by the two enemies you just listed, and a major reason was their willingness to sacrifice. No state enjoys high casualties, they do it because it must be done. Russia didnt win those wars because of their manpower. There were phases during the war when their willingness to sacrifice was critical but it wasnt the reason why they won. What both Hitler and Napoleon have in common was that they lured themselves into the vastness of the Russian land which made them lose strategic direction and unable to inflict any decisive tactical victories.
yes it is and they only need those high casualties because of how shitty russia is and the people who run it, others dont do that, because they dont need too, get what im saying? its that it "must be done" its that its the only way that russia can do things, brutally and by dying in droves
And yet they still destroyed Prussian Germany
>Prussian Germany
yjk this guy learnt history from paradox games
>Implying Germany was not just Greater Prussia the way it was set up
You are one special fricking moron arent you?
Every state continues to resist if the military and poltiical will and ability exists in the circumstances.
From 1914-1918, the French suffered 6 million casualties, roughly 70% of their active frontline soldiers. Thats 6 milion in 4 years in porportion to a population far smaller and fewer duty-age than the Soviet Union in in 1940s.
Historians estimate that Germany may have suffered over a million casualties on the eastern front in less than 6 months from January 1945 to May.
They suffered those staggering losses cause they kept defending impossible positions with less equiptment and worse training/experience against an overwhelming enemy. In the last couple of months they literally sent in armed civilians, even children. You want to talk about autistic government and human waves, not knowing when to surrender? There you go.
shut the frick up russiaboo, talking about 100 years ago as if people should take dying in droves as an example. WW1 is seen as a horrendous tragedy for russia its just another war. FRICK THAT
Assuming you are that anon, then you're the one who started talking about fricking Napoleon, which is an additional 100 years further back in history.
And if you arent that anon, then shut the frick up. I'm not a tankie, I'm simply calling out the stupidity most anons have cause they keep parroting old ww2 myth about "human wave tactic". You havent read a single book on the eastern front and wouldnt fricking know two things about how the Russians were actually able to defeat the wehrmacht.
They're the real lasts europeans.
Cope and dilate NATOtroony. That will never happen lmao.
WW2
>NOOO!!!! YOU CAN'T USE YOUR COUNTRY'S ADVANTAGES DURING A WAR!!!!
Why not?
>Nooo you can’t use the resources of your country to win wars you need to rely on pure luck like Frederick the “Great.”
Russian population through most of its history was way smaller than of russia from the 18th and 20th century
Same could be said about literally any country you useless Black person
The only time a country called Russia fought a country called Germany, Germany kicked Russia's ass so hard that the entire country fell apart and a German agent took over the remnant.
Russia's good at fighting Tatars, Mongols, Poles, and they gave the Brits and Turks a run for their money in Crimea. When it comes to western powers their strength is being able to outlast and catch up to them, as with World War 2, or to never be subjugated except on their terms. They're very good at guerilla war, although we haven't seen that in a while.
Brits were an insignificant part of the Crimean War relative to France and Turkey
>insignificant
>posts an overglorified failure of a charge because it was the only time Britain did any contribution
The absolute state of Britishite """warfare""".
It was such a boring event too. Some moronic bongogoblin couldn't use a map properly and sent som unit to make a reconnaissance in an area where russians had massive field fortifications.
Said cavalry unit rode a bit close, got shot at, and came back. End of story. Yet anglogroids are still romanticizing the whole thing, have a whole legend around it etc. It's so dumb. British history is full of botches like this, sometimes on a much bigger scale. Why jerk off to that moment for 2 centuries and counting? Bizarre
>Russia's good at fighting Tatars, Mongols, Poles, and they gave the Brits and Turks a run for their money in Crimea.
Is it true Russia was formed in response to the Mongols stealing the locals and selling them as slaves?
https://www.rbth.com/history/332313-mongol-invasion-was-reason-russia-formed
How German was Peter the Great?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Great
>How German was Peter the Great?
Not. I wasn’t speaking about his generation. I was speaking about the ‘Romanovs’ from after the reign of Catherine II, hence me putting their name in quotation marks.
The Romanovs were Russian, but they became German, and the Germans only took the name to give themselves legitimacy.
Everyone can see how superior the russians are in Ukraine. Definitely "more intelligent" than everyone else. And especially their leader comrade Putin.
Not.
>saying that anything Russian is good, actually
You're asking for trouble
I can't, as much as people shit on them fricking up and doing half-assed logisitics and leaning on humans waves, they understand endurance and how to eventually turn a way into their favor.
Germans gamble everything every time, then immediately kill themselves when they make a moronic gamble and it blows up in their face
>doing half-assed logisitics and leaning on humans waves,
What are you refering to here?
Their frick-up in WW1, their frick-up in Finland, and their frick-up in Ukraine.
I mean, to put in perspective, virtually all major powers fricked up their strategic handling in the opening phase of ww1. All of them rushed to complete their objective because they all believed they had the winning strategy to end the war quickly. Both AH (all fronts), France, Italy, Russia, Germany (west front), Ottoman (Caucasus front) had questionable results due to poor planning and overconfident execution.
Not to mention, all sides has been condemned of using human wave tactics in ww1.
They lost WW1 despite massive numerical advantage as Germany was concentrated almost entirely on the Western front.
They had to take German rocket designs because they were unable to make their own. Sad.
Thing is "Russia" is a made up construct and you can easily refer to most Russian "citizens" by their "original" ethnicity.
Considering wars happen in the border regions, they involve even less people from the core areas. Russian wars have mostly been fought by whatever people live in those border regions and also, through experience in being involved in an actual war, have gained in military ranks and so, most "Russians" who make it to top brass, have been from those people and thus, non "Russians"
>Russians are way more intelligent at war than Germans.
Is there a book that talks about this?