Dead Soldiers' Teeth Reveal Diseases That Doomed Napoleon's Army

Decimate is a word that often raises hackles, at least those belonging to a small but committed group of logophiles who feel that it is commonly misused. The issue that they have with the decline and fall of the word decimate is that once upon a time in ancient Rome it had a very singular meaning: “to select by lot and kill every tenth man of a military unit.” However, many words in English descended from Latin have changed and/or expanded their meanings in their travels. For example, we no longer think of sinister as meaning “on the left side,” and delicious can describe things both tasty and delightful. Was the “to kill every tenth man” meaning the original use of decimate in English? Yes, but not by much. It took only a few decades for decimate to acquire its broader, familiar meaning of “to severely damage or destroy,” which has been employed steadily since the 17th century.

Language is what people speak not what people proscribe in books or the internet.

Apologists for language attrition will assert that converging language into a handful of very simple words is doubleplusgood, and we should embrace the dumbification because that's 'just how languages work'.

But for a historical article, I did expect a slightly more nuanced take.

2. Good dental health has always been part of the screening to join a professional army

(parent comment was posted before we merged the threads)

1. Napoleon's goal was to pursue and defeat the Russian army in the field, not necessarily capture cities. Going north would have meant releasing the pressure on the main russian field armies and let them engage his main force at their discretion while exposing his flank.

2. St. Petersburg remained the political and economic capital of Russia; St. Petersburg never displaced Moscow in real world importance.

3. St. Petersburg was shielded from land and sea with prepared fortifications on both and Napoleon lacked a fleet to effectively blockade it.

4. Its in the middle of a very dense forest and swamp, not the the best logistics and ability to maintain a siege.

The Nazis made the same choice in WWII and even though they were able to control the Baltics and had Finland as an ally never seriously threatened to take the city.

https://brilliantmaps.com/napoleons-invasion-infograhic/

> If I would take S.P., I would hold Russia by the head. If I take Kiev, I will hold Russia by legs. If I take Moscow, I will reach right into its heart!"

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/27588/why-did-na...

You could only save somebody time if they skipped the content and started doing comments on HN anyhow, but that’s not all the information either, just a couple key points.

One begins to suspect that the reason Kutuzov replaced Barkley was for a sort of reverse-DEI reasons.