Hobbyworker wrote:I think the russians could get a bonus in morale for there stubbornes.
So that would be the same “stubborn” Russians who ran away in their droves at Austerlitz and Friedland would it?
The Russians certainly had a
reputation for endurance amongst contemporary observers but was it fully deserved? There was no sign of it at Austerlitz and precious little sign of it at Friedland (until it was too late). As far as the Napoleonic Wars are concerned the Russian stubborn tag is based primarily on their performance at Eylau and Borodino. The first, was a toe-to-toe slugfest in the snow were the unimaginative French (somewhat lacking in French elan that day) effectively allowed the Russians to be ‘stubborn’, and the second was on their home soil defending the very gates of their capital – a situation were I would suggest many nationalities might demonstrate great stubbornness, so perhaps not such a unique Russian trait after all?
I prefer rules writers not to pander to these sweeping statements or (in some cases) outright myths. The behaviour (or character if you prefer), of any army can vary radically from year to year, campaign to campaign, battle to battle - depending on a raft of complicated and intertwined circumstances. If players want to add their own temporary rule amendments to model an army’s behaviour in a specific campaign / action (by all means make your Russians more stubborn for Borodino if you want) then fair enough, but the official core rules should follow a more objective – and I would say more realistic – course.
Just my two cents worth.
DPT
