Military Review

Napoleon Code

160

Man of War


This name immediately brings to mind his many battles and wars. Napoleon Bonaparte is a commander whom Suvorov placed on a par with Caesar and Hannibal. Immediately after the campaign of the 1796-97 years, even when there were no Ulm and Austerlitz, Yen and Wagram. 15 of August marks the 250 years since the birth of Napoleon.


Napoleon Code


Not a single person who is interested in the military will be able to pass by such a date. история, as well as the story in general. The island of Corsica, which even in our era of global communications remains something like terra incognita, endowed the history of the New Age with perhaps the most extraordinary hero. Perhaps many managed to surpass him as a politician and statesman, some as a strategist, but the greatest of the commanders in the history of Napoleon is recognized without reservation.

Yes, the first thing that comes to mind when talking about Napoleon is numerous victories and rather rare defeats. The defeat and failure of General Bonaparte, the first consul and emperor Napoleon I, is devoted to the ongoing series of publications on the Military Review website. To our readers, Napoleon, as a unique master of military affairs, must be no less interesting than as an emperor of the French and a reformer of Europe.

Someone said about him that in his defeats Napoleon is even greater than in brilliant victories. It is hardly worth arguing with this, although one cannot but take into account that the final result of all these victories was an unconditional defeat. Life, more like an ancient legend, ended with a solitary confinement on a distant island in the middle of the ocean. The “Little Runaway”, who managed to retire on time from the place where he was in complete collapse, failed to make his last escape from St. Helena.


But the fact that he knew how to fight like no one else, at least in his time, is an indisputable fact. The Duke of Wellington, when Napoleon, having taken Charleroi with his army, literally cut off the British from the Prussians, dropped in conversation with Blucher: "This man honors the war."

The Little Fugitive


Very soon after these words of the English aristocrat, who became the last of Napoleon's victors, he had to leave the broken army in an attempt to save the throne and France, which they could again “surrender to the Bourbons”. As a result, everything ended on the English ship and the island of St. Helena. The most recent escape from which, as already mentioned, never happened.

Meanwhile, this craving for flight was one of some features, one might say, “chips” of Napoleon. Everyone knows how he left Egypt, leaving the army melting from disease and hunger against General Kleber, one of his potential rivals. It is also known how Napoleon drove away from Russia immediately after crossing the Berezina, having received news of the plot of General Male. From Spain, seemingly also defeated, Napoleon escaped in order to prevent the Austrian invasion of Bavaria.



As an escape, however, more tactical, one can also regard Napoleon’s maneuver to Troyes in the 1814 campaign of the year. He was ready to leave Paris to himself, moving the capital to Orleans. But under the threat of the Allied offensive Napoleon, having left the army at Bertier, with headquarters and a small convoy urgently drove to Paris. He arrived in Fontainebleau on a postal card with only five officers, reached Esson, where he met the courier with news about the surrender of the capital.



Finally, few people know that even before Toulon, the Vandemeier and the Italian campaign, Napoleon fled several times to Corsica, and not only for family affairs and leisure, but also for politics. Immediately taking the side of the Revolution, Bonaparte quarreled with all the local patriots. Moreover, his brother Lucien, who managed not only to become a member of the Convention, but also to accuse the Corsican leader Paoli of counter-revolutionary activity, added fuel to the fire.


Pasquale Paoli


In the end, everything ended with a complete "divorce" of Napoleon with Paoli, the evacuation of the Bonaparte family on the continent and fate abruptly of any French novel. But in fact, as a young officer, Napoleon Buonaparte did not bother himself with service in any way - for six years he managed to spend thirty-two months on various holidays, which, however, speaks more about morals and level of discipline in the royal army of Louis XVI. Napoleon will visit Corsica only once more - returning from the Egyptian expedition in the 1799 year, he will be here waiting for a storm for a week.

Russian Footprint


Like many other conquerors, he had to trip over Russia. However, he stumbled, he seems, after all, in Spain, and in Russia, rather, got stuck to the neck. Under Berezin, he got out of our endless snowy expanses just like a swamp. And let the ardent Bonapartists consider the crossing among his victories, as, however, Borodino, Maloyaroslavets, and Krasny ...

The Russians are still trying to unravel the peculiar "code of Napoleon", which, like the devil, drove him into a distant northern country. The Russian campaign is, in someone’s opinion, just a series of continuous triumphs, with an apotheosis in the form of the capture of the capital’s capital of the throne - Moscow. But how then can one explain why, as a result of a series of victories, the great commander managed to squander the most powerful 600-thousandth Great Army in history?



In Russia, fortunately, it never occurred to anyone to erect a monument to Napoleon. Although in comparison with Mannerheim and even with Kolchak, he would have been able to win. To the fallen French soldiers and officers - this, please, as much as you like. But nevertheless, in comparison with other conquerors of Russia, Napoleon definitely wins.

Is this why it was not an attempt in Russia, in official history, or in journalism, even yellow, to try to somehow impose on the public the parallels between Napoleon and Hitler? A different scale, different plans. Napoleon, although he was called in propaganda not only a "usurper", but also a "cannibal", and those ideas that the "Fuhrer" brought to Russian land would not have crossed his mind.

Parallels with Stalin, who had also “put an end” to the Great Revolution, but somehow didn’t work out, could have been more appropriate. Although, judging by the way France became under Napoleon and Russia under Stalin, the desire to draw parallels becomes simply obsessive.



However, it is known that Academician Tarle was by no means just given carte blanche so that, singing the heroes of the 1812 of the year, not to sculpt from Napoleon the image of a "world villain." As a result, Napoleon at the famous historian turned out to be in some ways even prettier than Kutuzov and even more so Emperor Alexander I.

For a long time it was not too customary for us to directly oppose the Emperor of the French to Alexander the Blessed. But today, his leading role in the victory over Napoleon is no longer hushed up. No, the main role, of course, was played by the Russian army, but in those great years, without the rare stubbornness of the sovereign, it would hardly have reached Paris.

Moreover, it was in Russia that something like a kind of “cult of Napoleon” developed, although it is sometimes simply amazing in nature. Here and Bonapartism, which once literally hurt the “reds”, from some Colonel Muravyov to Trotsky and Tukhachevsky, and the “whites”, from Kornilov to Wrangel. There is an irresistible craving for the Empire style - the imperial style, which was easily adopted by the entire Stalinist culture.

Among other things, there is respect for the most worthy of all the conquerors or just opponents who tried to conquer us. And, perhaps, a latent understanding that Russia with such a French ally a hundred years before the world war and the Entente could "fit into Europe" is somehow completely different.

Genius games


Few doubt that Napoleon was a genius. Like any other genius - not like everyone else. Moreover, almost all the positive and negative qualities that ordinary people have are concentrated in the image of Napoleon. And the fact that he spent the most significant part of his life in battles and campaigns only more fully revealed all of his qualities.

For some reason, it is generally accepted that he was a parvenu - an upstart, although the Corsican clan Buonaparte was probably no less ancient than the Bourbons, and certainly the ancient clan of the Romanov boyars. Although this was not at all annoying Alexander Pavlovich Romanov, who had never forgiven Napoleon for a too frank hint of participation in the murder.



Another thing is that fate has repeatedly provided Napoleon from the Bonaparte clan with unique opportunities that he truly ingeniously enjoyed. Until the rock turned his back on him. He himself perfectly understood this, saying once: “No matter how great my material power, spiritual was even greater. It came to magic. ”

At the same time, fate, at first, was by no means always favorable to this chosen one. He had failed more than once, long before the first military defeats, in his studies, in his service, in the political struggle in his native Corsica, although he quickly cooled down to island patriotism.



But only his military failures, as well as the biographies of the winners of Napoleon, who, if possible, tries to consider in detail in his publications “Military Review”, can serve as especially fertile material for researchers and readers. Among those who are interested to at least get closer to unraveling the notorious “Napoleon’s code”.
Author:
Articles from this series:
12 failures by Napoleon Bonaparte
160 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ravil_Asnafovich
    Ravil_Asnafovich 15 August 2019 19: 59
    -8
    Let the descendants of this "genius" answer to Russia, although the whole of Europe must answer to Russia.
    1. Kenxnumx
      Kenxnumx 15 August 2019 22: 22
      -5
      Why Europe our return visits.
  2. Oleg Monarchist
    Oleg Monarchist 15 August 2019 20: 06
    -1
    The tyrant who usurped blood all over Europe. The French must repent daily, tear down all the monuments of this bloody ghoul.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 16 August 2019 08: 29
      -4
      Quote: Oleg Monarchist
      the tyrant who usurped blood all over Europe.

      First of all, RUSSIA flooded.

      The author’s statement that they do not put him on a par with Hitler in Russia is puzzling: they put him, and how!

      A sort of ingenious fluffy (according to the author) inflicted injuries to Russia quite comparable to Hitler’s: Russia's demographic losses are estimated in loss 10% of the population! Only in Smolensk province the victims of the invaders became 100 000 people!burned more than half of the houses. And Moscow, Smolensk, Maloyaroslavets, etc.?

      According to the exertion of forces, victims of the war of 12 g is comparable to the Second World War.

      A genius does not bring its country to collapse, depopulation and catastrophe. France has broken. And then she just tried to prove that she was the former France. But- did not work .....
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 16 August 2019 08: 49
        +2
        Quote: Olgovich
        estimated at a loss of 10% of the population!

        Let the ignoble squeals be left to the ignorant ... the population of the Republic of Ingushetia in 1812-41 million souls ... tell us how Napoleon killed 4 million people in a couple of months ... with documents
        not screaming

        Quote: Olgovich
        France has broken. And then she just tried to prove that she was the former France. But- did not work .....

        Especially did not work out in 1853-1856
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 16 August 2019 09: 00
          +2
          Especially did not work out in 1853-1856


          Do you think that in three years of war a half-city on the outskirts of the State will be squeezed out by a bunch of corpses and as a part of a coalition and at the same time rounded off on all other fronts these acts are comparable to that of Napoleon’s France? The second empire is a miserable parody of the first, and the miserable emperor imitator Napoleon the third, according to his ancestor, lost everything and was captured
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 16 August 2019 09: 18
            -3
            With victory in the Crimean War, France and England for a long time transferred RI to the category of secondary powers.
            1. Pissarro
              Pissarro 16 August 2019 09: 52
              +2
              England and France did not achieve a single goal in the Crimean War. For a maximum of ten years, Russia did not have a fleet on the Black Sea. At the same time preserving the Nikolaev shipyards. And since the sailing fleet rested at the bottom, sunk by the Russians themselves, and the steam still had to be built from scratch, but this ban is ridiculous.
              1. Antares
                Antares 17 August 2019 14: 30
                -1
                Quote: Pissarro
                England and France did not achieve a single goal in the Crimean War.

                Sevastopol (south side) is taken, the Russian fleet at that time sailing - drowned.
                Trading in the World Cup is violated. Shipbuilding is temporarily stopped (military)
                And so yes - these allies achieved almost nothing .. laughing
                but this is a useful defeat. Thanks to the teachers (English-French) for showing the lag in technology and logistics.
            2. Oleg Monarchist
              Oleg Monarchist 16 August 2019 13: 53
              +4
              Town Hall (Town Hall)
              Pathos squeals leave for the ignorant ...
              With victory in the Crimean War, France and England for a long time transferred RI to the category of secondary powers.


              And you are therefore very Svidomo ....
              Well, tell us how France blew the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 to the nines, lost Alsace and Lorraine, paid 5 billion francs and kept the Prussian occupation troops at its French expense until the full payment was paid. Losses of the French 756 thousand people., Germans - 144 thousand people.
              So France became tertiary ???? laughing
        2. Olgovich
          Olgovich 16 August 2019 09: 07
          +1
          Quote: Town Hall
          The pathos squeals leave for the ignorant ... the population of the Republic of Ingushetia in 1812-41 million souls.

          Leave a yelp of the ignoramus for the same ignoramuses and find out first what the term means "demographic losses".

          When you learn, quote, so that it is clear that before you, nevertheless, at least something has come down.
          Then it makes sense to talk to you.
          Quote: Town Hall
          Especially did not work out in 1853-1856

          Of course. Or list WHAT France received in these years — territories, reparations, and people, besides wild financial and human losses.

          Nothing but the loss of support for Russia, which led to its final collapse in 1870
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 16 August 2019 09: 15
            -1
            I didn’t even doubt that besides screams there were no documents. And for more than 100 years (until June 1940) France was a leading world power in all spheres - cultural, economic, military. And the entire RI elite considered French their mother tongue and spoke only it)
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 16 August 2019 09: 37
              0
              Quote: Town Hall
              I didn’t even doubt that apart from the cries of no documents.

              In addition to the cries of the ignorant, there will be a report on the learned concept of "demographic losses"? No? And did not doubt
              Quote: Town Hall
              And France for more than 100 years (until June 1940) was a leading world power in all spheres - cultural, economic, military.

              To school, the ignorance of the defeat of France in 1870 is the worst in the world among all countries for the entire 19th century!
              And this is the result, incl. and the 1854 war in Crimea: the French crawled at the feet of Russia, asking for help, they only sympathized with them ...
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 16 August 2019 20: 03
                -1
                Eco abandoned you ... from the "genocide" of 4.000.000 Russians by Napoleon in 1812 to the defeat of France in 1870). France and after 1870 remained the leading country ... Antanta and all that ... and RI there, as a poor relative. 1812 and the state of France - argue with Pushkin ... not even 20 years have passed ..

                (Letter to P. A. Vyazemsky, May 27, 1826 from Pskov to St. Petersburg) is as follows, which fundamentally changes the meaning of the statement, in my opinion:

                Of course, I despise my fatherland from head to toe - but I am annoyed if a foreigner shares this feeling with me. You who are not tied, how can you stay in Russia? if the king gives me a settlement, then I will not stay a month.

                We live in a sad age, but when I imagine London, cast-iron roads, steam ships, English magazines or Parisian theaters and "brothels" - then my deaf Mikhailovskoe makes me sad and furious. In the fourth song of Onegin, I depicted my life; someday you will read it and ask with a sweet smile: where is my poet? in him the talent is noticeable - you will hear, dear, in response: he fled to Paris and will never return to accursed Russia - oh yes, clever.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 17 August 2019 07: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  Eco abandoned you ... from the "genocide" of 4.000.000 Russians by Napoleon in 1812 to the defeat of France in 1870). France remained the leading country even after 1870.

                  1. Genocide-YOUR crap, not mine (by the way, learn this concept)
                  2. About the "greatness" of France for a hundred years, YOUR nonsense, not mine.
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  France and after 1870 remained the leading country .. Entente and all that .. and RI there, as a poor relative

                  In WWI, she was so beaten that she didn’t even fight in the next war. immediately gave up. Without RI Entente zilch without a stick
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  А about 1812 and the state of France, argue with Pushkin .. less than 20 years ..

                  (Letter to P. A. Vyazemsky, May 27, 1826 from Pskov to St. Petersburg) is as follows, which fundamentally changes the meaning of the statement, in my opinion:


                  And where is it about 1812, a talker?

                  As a matter of fact, the letter-: to the italaster from the Town Hall- cannot be understood by the Russians — this is a letter stating that Russia is the best country in the world — for everyone .....
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 17 August 2019 08: 16
                    -3
                    Once on the topic they merged fluidly and switched to lyrics ... How does an unlucky pensioner Velikoros live under the yoke of evil Moldavians?) .. By the way ... this tendency of super-hot turbopatriots has always been touched by boiling water for love of the Motherland .. but for some reason
                    Clear Moldavian is far away ... and not from sunny Magadan for example ..) ... Or to break away from the jug of Moldovan home-made wine and go to serve the Motherland is an impossible task for a monarchist .. secret member of the Union of Sword and Claudia)
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 17 August 2019 09: 03
                      -1
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Once on the topic they merged fluidly and switched to the lyrics.

                      By topic, resume:
                      1. Your mention of "genocide" in the context of the losses in the war of 1812 said that you do not know what "genocide" is, nor what is "demographic losses" (which I mentioned).

                      2.Your statement about the "greatness" of France for still one hundred years after 1812- revealed your deep ignorance: such a rout, losses, national shame as in 1870 g- France had NEVER.

                      3. The fact that France did not receive ANYTHING from the Crimean War, except for the losses, too, by your hearing, not by

                      4. And what to talk about with you?
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      How does an unlucky pensioner Velikoros live under the yoke of evil Moldavians?)

                      1. IN RUSSIA, everywhere is good! yes
                      2. puzzling .... Gaster writes about ... unluckiness belay lol In Moldova, by the way, the mass western companies work and only full s go to work in ... west fool
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      .By the way ...always touched this tendency of super-hot turbopatriots to go boiling water for love of the motherland .. but for some reason
                      Clear Moldavian far .. but not from sunny Magadan for example ..)

                      Yes, it will simply be explained: Your tenderness is from (ignorance of the history of the Bessarabian Province Russia). yes
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Or break away from the jug of Moldovan homemade wine and go home serve - an impossible task for a monarchist .. secret member of the Union of the Sword and Claudia)

                      You have strange ideas about happiness is a jug of bacon. belay request lol
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      to go to serve the Motherland is an impossible task for a monarchist .. a secret member of the Union of the Sword and Claudia)

                      Always served yes
                      1. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 17 August 2019 13: 12
                        -1
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        Always served

                        I will give you parabellum ...
                      2. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 17 August 2019 13: 23
                        -1
                        Quote: Town Hall

                        I will give you parabellum ...

                        I'll give you a glander yes
                  2. Antares
                    Antares 17 August 2019 14: 34
                    -2
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    In WWI, she was so beaten that she didn’t even fight in the next war. immediately gave up. Without RI Entente zilch without a stick

                    the French bore the brunt of the war in WWI on the Western Front. The war also the main PF occurred on the territory of France. They had something to lose and someone. And they won a stubborn war. There are no complaints to them at all.
                    1940 was a different war. And another France and another Germany.
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 17 August 2019 14: 40
                      -1
                      Quote: Antares
                      И they won the stubborn war.

                      And they, INCLUDING, no more.
                      Quote: Antares
                      1940 was another war.

                      Yes, no, it is considered a continuation of the WWI, so all competent people think so
                      Quote: Antares
                      .AND another France and other Germany.

                      lol
            2. sivuch
              sivuch 17 August 2019 15: 48
              +1
              However, to the question - What did France receive, you did not answer. And what language the elite spoke is a very powerful argument. Under Peter the Great and before Elizabeth, German was the court language - and so what?
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 17 August 2019 16: 52
                -2
                Quote: sivuch
                What did France get

                When?
                Quote: sivuch
                . And what language the elite spoke is a very powerful argument. Under Peter the Great and before Elizabeth, German was the court language - and so what?

                Do you know the concept of soft power?
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 17 August 2019 17: 44
                  +1
                  What did France get as a result of the Crimean War?
                  No, unfamiliar. What is it and how is it manifested?
      2. Sunstorm
        Sunstorm 19 August 2019 15: 23
        -1
        Quote: Olgovich
        First of all, RUSSIA flooded.

        Right here earlier than Spain? Or are you saying that there is more Russian blood than Spanish? And how did you measure this? Although yes, who am I asking. Do not bother to answer. I'm sorry to trouble you.
    2. Antares
      Antares 17 August 2019 14: 26
      +1
      Quote: Oleg Monarchist
      The tyrant who usurped blood all over Europe. The French must repent daily, tear down all the monuments of this bloody ghoul.

      weird. The man who stopped the Moloch of terror of the Convention - which just flooded France ...
      Europe that rushed to defend the Bourbons and spilled blood on France
      "Usurper" is a man who made himself an Emperor - CAM! No origin and no money!
      Few people succeed like him.
      To demolish the monument to the man who brought glory to France, who saved the country from interventionists? Victorious terror and separatism?
      Oh well ... this is without his merits in economics and law. Without merit in building a society.
  3. Svarog
    Svarog 15 August 2019 20: 22
    +10
    I don’t understand, what is the genius of Napoleon? Good organizational skills, ambitions and a thirst for adventure .. Ultimately, he lost everywhere ... in this regard, the comparison with Stalin is not correct, Stalin won everywhere and in everything.
    1. dvina71
      dvina71 15 August 2019 20: 25
      +1
      Quote: Svarog
      I don’t understand, what is the genius of Napoleon?

      Napoleon destroyed all the French passionaries who left the guillotine .. After him, France just merged its wars and met the winner in Paris with tears in her eyes ..
      1. lucul
        lucul 15 August 2019 20: 47
        +1
        Napoleon destroyed all the French passionaries who left the guillotine ..

        They are called differently ....
      2. Antares
        Antares 17 August 2019 14: 41
        0
        Quote: dvina71
        I don’t understand, what is the genius of Napoleon? Good organizational skills, ambition and thirst for adventure.

        his role in history is huge. Merit to the country, merit for works, military art, etc.
        Quote: Svarog
        Ultimately lost everywhere

        lost on the battlefield, but on the whole he changed society and Europe.
        Such progressors are usually remembered.
        Quote: Svarog
        connection with Stalin, the comparison is not correct, Stalin won everywhere and in everything.

        the comparison is not in victories everywhere and always, but in a change in society. Both could come after the first wave of revolutionaries.
        Quote: dvina71
        Napoleon destroyed all the French passionaries who left the guillotine

        which ones? If the Robespierre Convention destroyed even the light of French science! Which Napoleon had to restore and increase again. The names of famous scientists executed by order of the revolutionary executioners are known to everyone. Napoleon stopped it all.
        But the passionaries were destroyed by the revolutionaries themselves as well as themselves.
        Quote: dvina71
        After him, France only merged its wars and met the winner in Paris with tears in her eyes ..

        Wow drained ...
        I immediately have a "drain" in Algeria, a "drain" in the Republic of Ingushetia ... I remember ...
        Well, the global "drain" in PMV!
    2. Phil77
      Phil77 15 August 2019 20: 49
      +7
      Quote: Svarog
      I don’t understand, what is the genius of Napoleon? Good organizational skills, ambitions and a thirst for adventure .. Ultimately, he lost everywhere ... in this regard, the comparison with Stalin is not correct, Stalin won everywhere and in everything.

      Vladimir! I welcome you! But still, listen to the opinion of A.V. Suvorov, who lived at that time (a little earlier) and highly appreciated Napoleon, precisely as a commander. This opinion is expensive! As always, my personal point of view is as always.
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 15 August 2019 20: 58
        +2
        Sergei welcome! I did not understand the genius of the article, that Napoleon was a great commander, perhaps, but rather an organizer. Once upon a time, I read that he had a very gifted general, I don’t remember the name and I don’t even remember the exact rank, but it was this person who was involved in the strategy. And I did not find specifics in the article, in another way, the author, in my opinion, did not open this question .. while the comparison was with Stalin, again I did not understand what they looked like. hi
        1. Phil77
          Phil77 15 August 2019 21: 12
          +3
          I will answer this way, the comparison with Joseph Vissarionovich is simply, well, well, it’s not right. -The war that followed Napoleon was transferred to Pts. authentic and exciting!
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 16 August 2019 05: 00
            +4
            Quote: Phil77
            And the secret, or Napoleon’s code, seems to me to be very open in the books about Gerard Arthur Conan-Doyle’s foreman.

            Why open there? While Suvorov was at war in Europe, this guy did not even think to "rock the boat" on Russia. Napoleon's army on the territory of Russia showed "miracles of atrocity and inhumanity", but Lev Nikolayevich, who was born 15 years after the invasion, presented these events in such a way (in particular, in French) that one can only wonder how French-speaking Russians did not deign to celebrate Napoleon's merits. .. belay
            By the way, quite a short time of the 90s, some civilians and their entourage are presented for saving the country from ...
            Napoleon cannot be compared with Stalin, because for Russia he is an invader, just like Hitler. And, what goals and plans he had, let him remain on his conscience.
            Quote: Mordvin 3
            And more, so, without thinking, I don’t remember what else Suvorov said about him there.

            good There was an option:
            "Well done: either he will tear his pants or he will reach the Vistula"
            Letter from Suvorov to his nephew A. Gorchakov (October 26, 1796):
            “Oh, how this young Bonaparte strides! He is a hero, he is a miracle hero, he is a sorcerer! He conquers both nature and people. He walked around the Alps, as if they were not there at all. He hid their formidable peaks in his pocket, and hid his army in the right sleeve of his uniform. It seemed that the enemy then only noticed his soldiers, when he shot them like Jupiter his lightning, spreading fear everywhere and striking the scattered crowds of the Austrians and Piedmontese. Oh how he strides! As soon as he entered the path of military leadership, he had already cut the Gordian knot of tactics. Not caring about the number, he attacks the enemy everywhere and smashes it clean. He knows the irresistible force of the onslaught - no longer needed. His opponents will persist in their languid tactics, subordinate to the feathers of the cabinet, and he has military advice in his head. In actions, it is free as the air that it breathes. He moves his regiments, beats and wins according to his will! ”
            1. Kronos
              Kronos 16 August 2019 13: 05
              0
              Napoleon was in Egypt and didn’t even know what was happening in Italy so you are corny lying that he didn’t dare to rock the boat
        2. Kronos
          Kronos 16 August 2019 13: 04
          0
          Organize everything so that you work like a clock and grow a galaxy of talented marshals of generals and there is a sign of genius
          1. Sertorius
            Sertorius 16 August 2019 16: 58
            0
            to grow a galaxy of talented marshals of generals and there is a sign of genius

            He did not raise them. They were brought up by the revolution. Many of his marshals had deservedly been generals before him. The exception is the favorites of Napoleon Murat, Lannes and Bessières. Of these, only Lannes is an indisputable talent. We can talk about Davout and Susha, who became high-flying people already under the command of the Corsican.
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 17 August 2019 16: 17
            0
            At the same time, the marshals worked together and harmoniously love
            especially Lannes with Bessieres, Massena with Ney, Bernadotte with Augereau ...
      2. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 15 August 2019 21: 17
        +3
        Quote: Phil77
        But still, listen to the opinion of A.V.Suvorov who lived at that time (a little earlier) and highly appreciated Napoleon, precisely as a commander.

        "Walking far! It's time to calm the fellow!" wink
        And more, so, without thinking, I don’t remember what else Suvorov said about him there. recourse
        1. Phil77
          Phil77 15 August 2019 21: 26
          0
          Volodya, hello! Immediately! Not literally, but close: * Oh, how this Frenchman is walking! He is a sorcerer! He is a genius! Miracle is a hero! * From the letter of A.V. Suvorov I don’t remember whom I can, but you can search if you wish!
          1. Svarog
            Svarog 15 August 2019 21: 53
            +2
            Quote: Phil77
            Volodya, hello! Immediately! Not literally, but close: * Oh, how this Frenchman is walking! He is a sorcerer! He is a genius! Miracle is a hero! * From the letter of A.V. Suvorov I don’t remember whom I can, but you can search if you wish!

            Sergey, earlier they formulated sentences elegantly, speech and writing were figurative and beautiful .. But in my opinion the truth cannot be hidden behind respectful lace. Once I was fond of the history of France (after reading Dumas) and there were memories of Napoleon as a man, certainly bright, but my tongue does not turn out to be a genius to call him. In general, a genius, in my understanding, is primarily a creator, an outstanding person who has found a special way or solution for civilization, and this was done not because of, but contrary to circumstances ..
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 15 August 2019 22: 52
              0
              Quote: Svarog
              In general, a genius, in my understanding, is primarily a creator,

              I agree with you, a genius is a creator, a great warrior, a commander is a winner, but a destroyer.
            2. Ross xnumx
              Ross xnumx 16 August 2019 05: 02
              +1
              Quote: Svarog
              In general, a genius, in my understanding, is primarily a creator, an outstanding person,

              Short but capacious! good
          2. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 15 August 2019 22: 08
            +8
            Quote: Phil77
            Volodya, hello!

            Hello, boyar! I found something like this:
            A.I. Gorchakov October 27 1796
            “Oh, how this young Bonaparte strides! ... not caring about the number, he is everywhere
            attacks the enemy and smashes it clean. He knows the irresistible
            onslaught - no longer needed. His opponents will persist in
            sluggish tactics, subordinate to the feathers of the cabinet; and he has a military council in his head. In actions he is free, like the air that he breathes; he moves his regiments, beats and triumphs according to his will! ...
            Here is my conclusion:
            While General Bonaparte will retain the presence of the spirit, he will
            a winner; Great military talents went to him. But if, on
            his misfortune, he will throw himself into a political whirlwind, if he changes unity
            thoughts - he will perish. ”
            Source: A.V. Suvorov. Letters. M., 1986. - S. 312

            But Napoleon just hit into politics, which Suvorov avoided all his life. Alexander Vasilyevich gave a good mark.
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 15 August 2019 22: 58
              +2
              Very great rating.
    3. Tavrik
      Tavrik 15 August 2019 22: 29
      +5
      The genius of Napoleon is that having accepted the country in complete ruin, with the decaying state. the apparatus, the plundered treasury, the collapsed financial system, with terrible crime, with the popular masses disillusioned with the results of the revolution ("what were they fighting for?"), with the emerging class of "new rich" - the nouveau riche (yes, this word appeared in that era), greedy robbing everything they could reach and attaching their relatives to grain positions in the state. apparatus, he managed to create an Empire in a matter of years. Here he is akin to Stalin. The French believed him and he did not deceive them. Sire selected people for positions according to their professionalism, regardless of political views. Therefore, among the state. employees and in the army were very different people - from extreme republicans to monarchists. All of them were united by the belief that they were working for the good of the Motherland. Cyrus has managed to ignite millions of people with his devotion to France. Plus new legislation. Declaration of the rights of man and citizen. Equality before the law. Clear taxation. Tough fight against crime. The result is a flourishing of science and culture (offhand: Monge, Fresnel, Gay-Lussac, Carnot, Champollion, David, Gros, etc.) and a rapid economic breakthrough that threatened the finances of Great Britain. For the British, this was a mortal enemy. It was necessary to end with him unequivocally. That's the whole background of the Napoleonic Wars.
      In general, Napoleon is usually represented as a successful commander, but is rarely remembered as a statesman, but it's a pity.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 15 August 2019 23: 04
        +2
        And what is the genius of Napoleon? There were victories, almost all of Europe was conquered, but in Russia "got the must" from Field Marshal Kutuzov. So who's more brilliant here? Kutuzov won against the genius. Kutuzov is one of the great commanders, and Napoleon is defeated.
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 15 August 2019 23: 35
          +6
          What is the genius I wrote above. Yes, the Russian campaign turned into a disaster. No wonder Napoleon strongly doubted its expediency ... By the way, what actions of Kutuzov led to victory? The plan to lure the enemy inland was developed by Barclay de Tolly even before the start of the war. By the way, Barclay did a lot to organize Russian military intelligence. Based on the analysis of the conduct of wars by Napoleon, it was concluded that "if something happens" it is better to lure him into the interior of the country.
          If anything - I respect Kutuzov very much. Honored Man! And the politician is unsurpassed!
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 16 August 2019 08: 28
            0
            Quote: Tavrik
            By the way, what actions of Kutuzov led to victory?

            Smart question. I answer. We went to the boxing ring together, they cleaned my "face" and no matter what kind of invincible boxer I was, but the referee raised your hand, you won, and I'm no one looking at titles and awards, but looking at your hand - the Hand of the winner. So in war - there is a winner and a loser (the loser is no one).
      2. Svarog
        Svarog 15 August 2019 23: 04
        +2
        Quote: Tavrik
        The genius of Napoleon is that having accepted the country in complete ruin, with the decaying state. the apparatus, the plundered treasury, the collapsed financial system, with terrible crime, with the popular masses disillusioned with the results of the revolution ("what were they fighting for?"), with the emerging class of "new rich" - the nouveau riche (yes, this word appeared in that era), greedy robbing everything they could reach and attaching their relatives to grain positions in the state. apparatus, he managed to create an Empire in a matter of years.

        If from this point of view, then, yes, he began well. But a genius would not go to Russia, especially since loyal people dissuaded him from this, ruined greed .. And the unification of the nation, I also agree here, Stalin also recreated and united the country from the ruins, but the comparisons end here .. And most importantly this is the final result, Napoleon cannot be compared with Stalin, let alone be called a genius.
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 15 August 2019 23: 28
          +3
          He went to Russia for a reason, like, got up on the wrong foot and decided to conquer. There were reasons. A quick invasion, a quick general battle in the front line, a quick victory and a new world were planned. Twice the Russians and their allies attacked him, twice he won. Hence the mysterious phrase in the appeal to the troops: "Soldiers! The Second Polish War has begun!" From school I did not understand why "the second" (when was the first?) And why "Polish"? In the operational plans of Napoleon, there was no Moscow or Smolensk at all. But then everything went "across the furrow". By the way, the most doubting the expediency of a campaign in Russia was ... Napoleon himself! All the marshals and other associates were eager for another victory. It was with their memoirs "in hindsight" that they dissuaded Syrah.
          I do not want to compare Stalin and Napoleon. Too different people, times, conditions .. but I respect and consider the geniuses of both.
          1. Svarog
            Svarog 15 August 2019 23: 34
            0
            Quote: Tavrik
            I do not want to compare Stalin and Napoleon. Too different people, times, conditions .. but I respect and consider the geniuses of both.

            All the same, in the question of "genius" I will remain with my opinion, but you are telling the story very interestingly. And what about the Second Polish? I haven't heard of this at all ..
            1. Tavrik
              Tavrik 16 August 2019 01: 32
              +7
              Before crossing the Neman, an appeal to the troops began with this phrase. In the Soviet books, they did not comment on it in any way, well, like, what is there to comment on - "the possessed Fuhrer", went to Russia and confused it with Poland. In fact, everything was complicated and rested on the "Polish question", which in Soviet times they tried not to advertise out of respect for the Poles. Essence: once upon a time there was a country called the Commonwealth. Very energetic, rather large, poor and in its own way stupid from the point of view of the state. devices. As a result of three sections (1792, 1793, 1795), it was divided between Russia, Austria, Prussia. Undemocratic, but effective, fast and practical. Moreover, Russia acquired a large part (all of modern Belarus and a significant part of Ukraine). And these lands were cut ... distributed to respected people (including Kutuzov). But the self-awareness of the Poles, who lost their homeland (we remember the Oginsky Polonaise), divided between the invaders, did not go anywhere. As a result, pro-Polish separatist sentiments were strong in the new western regions of Russia. At the same time, the Poles since 1796 faithfully served Napoleon, dreaming that he would restore Poland (where did they get it - HZ). The war of 1807 ended in the Prussian (former Polish) lands with a victory over Russia. The Poles cheered up, they say, lead us, Caesar further, to liberate the lands occupied by Russia. And then Napoleon hit: to go to the Russian (former Polish) lands - absolutely no way! We need to be friends with Russia. Well, they fought twice, it happens. No mortal feud. But the Poles must also be thanked ... But if the Rzeczpospolita is restored, tomorrow there will be an uprising in the Russian regions. Dear people in Russia will suffer losses. Then you can forget about the alliance with Russia. And then he made a compromise - he created the Duchy of Warsaw. It seemed that the state was useless, but the Poles were terribly happy. But in Russia they were very tense ...
              Thus, the first Polish war of 1807, which ended in defeat at Friedland. Therefore, a short trip to Russia in 1812, no further than the former Polish lands, was regarded as the "Second Polish". In detail - OV Sokolov "The Battle of Two Empires 1805-1812".
              1. Svarog
                Svarog 16 August 2019 08: 45
                0
                Thank you. Interesting.
    4. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 15 August 2019 22: 55
      +3
      Quote: Svarog
      I don’t understand, what is the genius of Napoleon?

      Great commander - maybe yes. But Kutuzov defeated him to smithereens.
    5. Kronos
      Kronos 16 August 2019 13: 02
      0
      Listen, for example, to the historian Sokolov, what is the genius of Napoleon
    6. Sunstorm
      Sunstorm 19 August 2019 15: 30
      +1
      Quote: Svarog
      Stalin won everywhere and in everything.

      Doubtful statement. 1) recently read the story of the Son of Stalin and his attempt to emigrate to China .. and his strange death .. You do not think that all that after 53 years is the victory of Stalin?
      2) According to the agreements, Stalin handed over West Berlin to the Americans, but did he receive East Tokyo and Rome? 3) Do you think that Stalin did all the good things from the 20th to the 53rd, and all the bad things were "provocateurs and spies"? Stalin, like Napoleon, is only human and both of them could not transfer power of their own accord. Yes, one died at the dacha, possibly poisoned? and the second on the island \ possibly poisoned? Yes, both turned out to be good legislators and organizers, but Napoleon + to everything was also a military officer and commander, which Stalin, in principle, is not observed (although Stalin, of course, had enough personal courage)
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 19 August 2019 15: 41
        -1
        Quote: Sunstorm
        Yes, both turned out to be good legislators and organizers, but Napoleon + was also a military officer and commander, which, in principle, was not observed by Stalin (although Stalin certainly had plenty of personal courage)

        Only Stalin did not attack France ..
        1. Sunstorm
          Sunstorm 19 August 2019 15: 49
          0
          Quote: Svarog
          Only Stalin did not attack France ..

          And to Finland? It's not about who is to blame for the war? And that
          Quote: Sunstorm
          Stalin won everywhere and in everything.
          1. Svarog
            Svarog 19 August 2019 15: 57
            -1
            Quote: Sunstorm
            Stalin won everywhere and in everything.

            Indeed, the result is known, Stalin won the Second World War, Napoleon lost .. and as for the concessions and family secrets, these are trifles, on such a scale ..
            1. Sunstorm
              Sunstorm 19 August 2019 16: 10
              0
              Quote: Svarog
              Stalin won the Second World War,

              Let's say. However, immediately after the victory in the Second World War and the death of the winner in his country .. his former assistants begin to "debunk the personality cult." Yes, this is definitely a "victory". And then his "assistants" begin to lose all the advantages that he acquired .. and in just 50 years .. in the lives of those who still participated in the Second World War, the USSR will disappear. A very dubious victory.
              Maybe WWII did not end in the year 45? And just switched to a different format? just hypotheses .. And look at the Poles the other day .. they declared that they did not recognize the results of the Second World War and WWII .. and the Japanese, too, were grumbling all the time ... Maybe it’s still not finished?
              1. Svarog
                Svarog 19 August 2019 22: 45
                0
                Quote: Sunstorm
                However, immediately after the victory in the Second World War and the death of the winner in his country .. his former assistants begin to "debunk the personality cult." Yes, this is definitely a "victory".

                Shakly even after the death of a lion are afraid of him ..
                Quote: Sunstorm
                And then his "assistants" begin to lose all the benefits that he acquired .. and in just 50 years .. in the lives of those who still participated in the Second World War, the USSR will disappear.

                And what about Stalin? He has already died, and it is about him in comparison with Napoleon.
                Quote: Sunstorm
                Maybe WWII did not end in the year 45? And just switched to a different format? just hypotheses .. And look at the Poles the other day .. they declared that they did not recognize the results of the Second World War and WWII .. and the Japanese, too, were grumbling all the time ... Maybe it’s still not finished?

                Of course it’s not over, we already lost .. look at the elite and remember the words of Brzezinski ..
                1. Sunstorm
                  Sunstorm 20 August 2019 14: 56
                  +1
                  Quote: Svarog
                  Of course it’s not over, we already lost .. look at the elite and remember the words of Brzezinski ..

                  And I tell you the same thing.
                  Quote: Svarog

                  And what about Stalin? He has already died, and it is about him in comparison with Napoleon.

                  1) Despite the fact that Stalin had to suppress fascism, but he could not, did not, did not want to? As a result, the war dragged on for many long years.
                  Why do I say I could not, did not, did not want to? Let us recall at least the "Manerheim", remember "all the Natsiks that fled under the wing of the United States .. if Israel was hunting them everywhere .. what did we do?
                  2) And yes, Stalin, in the years of the Second World War, clearly knew what kind of fruit Khrushchev knew and did nothing .. even after the Kharkov nightmare.
                  3) Stalin did not create a normal system of transfer of power (this is also a defeat)

                  On the other hand, Napoleon died in exile ... but there were Napoleon 2nd and 3rd. Napoleon was stripped of power, but even 100 years after his death was considered an example for military leaders. Napoleon's Code? In fact, after himself for France, he left a huge legacy that no one tried to take away from him or call someone else's name. But we remember the "Cult of personality"
                  1. Svarog
                    Svarog 20 August 2019 15: 09
                    0
                    Quote: Sunstorm
                    ) Despite the fact that Stalin had to suppress fascism, but he could not, did not, did not want to? As a result, the war dragged on for many long years.
                    Why do I say I could not, did not, did not want to? Let us recall at least the "Manerheim", remember "all the Natsiks that fled under the wing of the United States .. if Israel was hunting them everywhere .. what did we do?

                    Here you need to understand what time it was, namely, after the Second World War, the country needed to be restored, despite the fact that hostile capitalism did not disappear anywhere. Stalin had to balance and I believe that he simply did not want to spoil relations with the West even more ..
                    Quote: Sunstorm
                    3) Stalin did not create a normal system of transfer of power (this is also a defeat)

                    I didn’t have time .. I think he was just not going to die and felt normal .. but apparently they helped him ..
                    In any case, I will remain of my opinion)) Whatever Napoleon is, for me he is primarily an aggressor, which means I cannot call him a destroyer and genius, unlike Stalin, who was a creator. hi
                    1. Sunstorm
                      Sunstorm 20 August 2019 15: 16
                      0
                      Quote: Svarog
                      In any case, I will remain of my opinion)) Whatever Napoleon is, for me he is primarily an aggressor, which means I can’t call him the destroyer and genius, unlike Stalin, who was the creator

                      You have the right to your point of view) as well as I)
                      Quote: Svarog
                      Here you need to understand what time it was, namely, after the Second World War, the country needed to be restored, despite the fact that hostile capitalism did not disappear anywhere. Stalin had to balance and I believe that he simply did not want to spoil relations with the West even more ..

                      Quote: Sunstorm
                      Stalin won everywhere and in everything.

                      See how it all turned out?) It turns out to be balanced, and not only won =) Well, thank God)
                      I’m not really opposed to considering Stalin a symbol of victory or our history) he is quite attractive to me for all its minuses) But I don’t divide the leaders into aggressors / creators or defenders) I share them with those who have changed the history of their people for the better and those who have been forgotten and cursed) and based on this classification, I see the advantages in Napoleon’s activity for France (with all the minuses), and I see the advantages of Stalin for the USSR (with all the minuses). Now take Sarkozy and Yeltsin?) Both are devoted to curse and oblivion. Well, something like this)
  4. Ravil_Asnafovich
    Ravil_Asnafovich 15 August 2019 20: 47
    -5
    In the course of the minus set the flows of ball-skiers belay.
    1. Dym71
      Dym71 15 August 2019 21: 00
      -2
      Quote: Ravil_Asnafovich
      In the course of the minus set the flows of ball-skiers

      Or maybe already tavoyt, the French got to VO? what
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 15 August 2019 21: 13
        +2
        Quote: Dym71
        Quote: Ravil_Asnafovich
        In the course of the minus set the flows of ball-skiers

        Or maybe already tavoyt, the French got to VO? what

        There is not a handful of people who do not look at topics, comments, just minus on the principle that they did not like you once.
        1. Dym71
          Dym71 15 August 2019 21: 17
          +2
          Quote: Svarog
          There is not a handful of people who do not look at topics, comments, just minus on the principle that they did not like you once.

          It’s a pity, I’ve already prepared a small speech crying
          1. Svarog
            Svarog 15 August 2019 21: 19
            +1
            Quote: Dym71
            It’s a pity, I’ve already prepared a small speech

            laughing For what I love VO, there are smart people with a great sense of humor laughing good drinks
            1. Dym71
              Dym71 15 August 2019 21: 28
              0
              You have to be prepared to receive non-Russian guests, have you noticed how many flags for translating VO into foreign languages ​​appeared in the upper right corner of the site? bully
              1. Svarog
                Svarog 15 August 2019 21: 33
                0
                Quote: Dym71
                You have to be prepared to receive non-Russian guests, have you noticed how many flags for translating VO into foreign languages ​​appeared in the upper right corner of the site? bully

                Yes, but in my opinion they have always been laughing Previously, even near the rank, the flag of the country was displayed. Then they decided to remove, because the flag of Israel or America on many commentators acts like a red rag and they do not arbitrarily pass, thereby significantly reducing the number of visitors .. laughing
                1. Dym71
                  Dym71 15 August 2019 21: 51
                  -1
                  Quote: Svarog
                  Yes, but in my opinion they have always been

                  So it’s all Russian-speaking, and more recently, it’s necessary to keep your eyes open, as soon as you don’t relax, you should look like it’s not going to get into an international mess! bully
                  But we won’t admire all of Bonaparte for one, as, for example, by analogy with their Macedonian, it’s true and said in simple words:
                2. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 15 August 2019 22: 34
                  0
                  Quote: Svarog
                  Yes, but in my opinion they have always been

                  No, recently appeared. I clicked a flag for the sake of laughter, and the site in Chinese began to show, along with our comments. laughing Try it yourself, there is an 4 flag, on the top right: Chinese, German, English and Spanish.
                  1. Svarog
                    Svarog 15 August 2019 22: 36
                    0
                    Quote: Mordvin 3
                    No, recently appeared. I clicked a flag like that for a laugh, and the site in Chinese became

                    Ha for sure ... as I understand it, now even a Chinese can leave a comment wassat
                    1. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 15 August 2019 22: 39
                      0
                      Quote: Svarog
                      Ha sure ...

                      Do you recognize?
                      wink
                      1. Svarog
                        Svarog 15 August 2019 22: 48
                        0
                        Horror wassat i don't know chinese laughing
          2. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 15 August 2019 22: 18
            +1
            In, Tatyana Ivanovna annealed .... good And the second passage is excellent. yes
            1. Dym71
              Dym71 15 August 2019 22: 50
              0
              Quote: Mordvin 3
              In, Tatyana Ivanovna annealed ....

              Atomic aunt! good
              1. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 15 August 2019 22: 54
                +1
                Quote: Dym71
                Atomic aunt!

                Yeah, one of my favorite from childhood. And who told Nikulin about Macedon, did not recognize. I do not remember this actor. what
                1. Dym71
                  Dym71 15 August 2019 23: 04
                  +1
                  Quote: Mordvin 3
                  And who told Nikulin about Macedon, did not recognize. I do not remember this actor.

                  Ivan Lapikov - "Eternal Call" - Pankrat Grigorievich Nazarov
                  1. Mordvin 3
                    Mordvin 3 15 August 2019 23: 18
                    +1
                    Quote: Dym71
                    Ivan Lapikov

                    Nda ... I don't really remember. Googled, it turns out he has a medal "For the Defense of Stalingrad". They didn't even need to invent anything in "They Fought for the Motherland", many actors went through the war.
        2. Catfish
          Catfish 15 August 2019 21: 58
          +3
          You are right, Vladimir. There is such a thing. Once someone posted a quote from one of the classics, and he immediately rolled minus. Well, the minus was immediately splashed, and the people made fun of the comments: minus the classics for what ?! laughing
          "Miserable, insignificant people" - as respected M.S. Panikovsky.
  5. E.S.
    E.S. 15 August 2019 21: 03
    +1
    Napoleon was quite different in Russia, so grandiose that out of 600 thousand who had come as much as 50 thousand, she had left Berezena! Moreover, most of them never reached the house, because in wet ports in December you do not run into a lot.
    And Borodino is such a complete masterpiece - a brilliant tactician stupidly burst into the left flank of the Russian position like a ram into a new goal, than doomed himself to a tactical draw and an enormous strategic fiasco!
    1. Ravil_Asnafovich
      Ravil_Asnafovich 15 August 2019 21: 18
      0
      At the same time, "a culinary product", abandoned the army, ran away to collect a new army, and what would have stopped the Russian army on its border? The answer is obvious, they would collect a new, and again the war.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 15 August 2019 22: 56
        +2
        The fact of the matter is that the Russian army could not stop. Alexander was obsessed with defeating Napoleon. This has been his personal war since 1805. After "Napoleon in Moscow", there should have been "Alexander in Paris". No options! At least the entire Russian army would have to be laid down on the way ...
        1. Sunstorm
          Sunstorm 19 August 2019 15: 34
          0
          Quote: Tavrik
          It has been his personal war since 1805.

          Maybe because Napoleon reminded Alexander several times that he was a "parricide" in fact ...
          Although not everything is not so simple, economic, national and personal interests were mixed, and from both sides.
    2. bubalik
      bubalik 15 August 2019 21: 25
      +5
      ,,, if we correlate the losses with the total number of armies, then we get 65% for Russians versus 66% for Napoleon, which gives almost complete equality. And in the Russian army there were a lot of dead from cold, hunger and disease.
      1. Kenxnumx
        Kenxnumx 15 August 2019 21: 58
        +2
        The losses of Russians wounded, frostbite and stragglers recovered, warmed up and caught up. But Napoleon’s losses were not compensated. And he did not have any more excellent cavalry and veterans were replaced by recruits. And how many guns left
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 15 August 2019 23: 04
          +2
          Napoleon had about 300 people in Spain and Europe. In order to quickly gather these forces, he left earlier from Russia. As a result, it was bombarded throughout Europe for another year and a half.
          1. Kenxnumx
            Kenxnumx 15 August 2019 23: 15
            +1
            And from France called up to the youngsters. And he screwed up because he was sad to look at the evil frostbitten faces of his glorious army. In Spain, they could have done without him
            1. Tavrik
              Tavrik 15 August 2019 23: 46
              +1
              As for the statistics on conscriptions - who, how much, how they were called, I recommend the fundamental work "Napoleon's Army". And indeed on all questions of the military development of the Napoleonic army. Up to the organization of the service of the headquarters and logistics units.
              He "screwed" because, except for him, no one could quickly, without a telephone-telegraph-Internet, collect and organize troops from all over Europe. Including the organization of all types of security.
              And Spain - yes, this is another fatal mistake ...
              1. Kenxnumx
                Kenxnumx 17 August 2019 11: 41
                0
                Of course you are right in terms of explanation. But from the point of view of motivation of rights, the author of the article. Napoleon molted from everywhere where it smelled fried
            2. sivuch
              sivuch 17 August 2019 16: 27
              0
              Never. In Spain, without the cake itself, the marshals were scared. And from 1812, reinforcements began to be transferred to the Eastern Front with understandable results.
        2. Sunstorm
          Sunstorm 19 August 2019 15: 36
          0
          Quote: Ken71
          But Napoleon’s losses were not compensated.

          I will upset you, the main losses of Napoleon's "great army" are deserters. who shot themselves in the finger or just ran away ... There are a lot of French / English studies on this topic ... those Napoleon in France gathered his deserters into the army ...
          1. Kenxnumx
            Kenxnumx 19 August 2019 21: 01
            0
            If I am not mistaken, according to Mehring, Napoleon withdrew mainly the sergeant staff, due to which he managed to quickly assemble an army. But not from deserters, but from young animals. Deserted mainly attached contingents, all sorts of germanium and other riffraff. You’ll catch them - but I’ll be glad if you give a link to the study to which you are referring
            1. Sunstorm
              Sunstorm 20 August 2019 15: 07
              0
              Quote: Ken71
              But I will be glad if you give a link to the study to which you are referring
              without specifying specific pages:
              Bodart, G. (1916). Losses of Life in Modern Wars, Austria-Hungary; France
              McNab, Chris, Armies of the Napoleonic Wars, Osprey Publishing Ltd., Oxford, 2009
              in one of these two ... I can basically revise and indicate the pages but not earlier than the weekend, although maybe I was wrong (we are all mortal, we need to re-read it in general)
      2. dvina71
        dvina71 15 August 2019 22: 47
        +1
        Quote: bubalik
        it will turn out 65% for Russians versus 66% for Napoleon

        Clausewitz stirred in a coffin ..
    3. Catfish
      Catfish 15 August 2019 21: 54
      +5
      Good evening, Sergey. hi
      In fact, since ancient times it was believed that the winner is the one for whom the battlefield remained. So Napoleon won the Battle of Borodino "according to his terms", but lost the war with Russia. This, if such a comparison is permissible, how the Fritzes won the battle at Prokhorovka (the battlefield is behind them), and the Battle of Kursk was completely lost, and with it the whole war. request
      Averchenko wrote well about Napoleon: “Napoleon, having entered Russia all the time, endured victory, the last“ victory ”he suffered under the Berezina. smile
      1. bubalik
        bubalik 15 August 2019 21: 59
        +1
        Good evening Konstantin yes
        ,,, but I'm not talking about who won the war, but about the losses in the Russian army. They were terrible too recourse
      2. Svarog
        Svarog 15 August 2019 22: 05
        +2
        Quote: Sea Cat
        “Napoleon, having entered Russia all the time endured victory, the last“ victory ”he suffered at the Berezina.

        Very accurate wording for Napoleon! good
      3. Tavrik
        Tavrik 15 August 2019 22: 43
        +2
        Averchenko - standings! Read, neighing like a horse. The joke is that under Berezin, it was really not so simple as they usually imagine.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 15 August 2019 23: 35
          +7
          With splendid malice he noticed how the Europeans know and "understand" the history of the Russian State:

          "... Tsar Ivan the Terrible ruled in Russia, nicknamed Vasilich for his cruelty." (FROM)

          Neither reduce nor add. request laughing
          1. Ehanatone
            Ehanatone 30 October 2019 22: 56
            +2
            "... Tsar Ivan the Terrible ruled in Russia, nicknamed Vasilich for his cruelty." (FROM)
            + + +
    4. Kenxnumx
      Kenxnumx 15 August 2019 22: 00
      0
      Napoleon did not have helicopters to get around Russian positions, so he hollowed into the weak spot that Kutuzov had left for him.
    5. Tavrik
      Tavrik 15 August 2019 22: 53
      +3
      It actually took much more. The guard is almost all. Many regiments that receded not from Moscow also retained a significant share of the personnel and obscenities. part. Denis Davydov has a colorful description of how they met the guard column and to no avail tried to tear anyone out of the ranks.
      About Borodino, you are wrong. The left flank of the Russians stormed the incomplete first army corps of Davout (five out of six divisions). Against him is the entire army of Bagration. Center - Raevsky’s battery was taken before 12.00:XNUMX. It is good that Napoleon did not give the command to introduce the guard, otherwise everything would have fallen. Do not forget that before that there were Austerlitz, Preisisch-Eylau, Friedland. Not the most successful battles for Russians ...
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 17 August 2019 16: 31
        0
        Price-Eilau can be removed from the list. The French themselves did not believe that the emperor won
    6. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 16 August 2019 16: 16
      +1
      But E. Ponasenkov in the FIRST scientific work on the war of 1812 claims that Napoleon won AT ALL! And left undefeated, because He loved peace, not war. Well, winter again happened at the wrong time .... request
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 16 August 2019 22: 19
        0
        Fi! In decent society, Ponasenkov is not remembered. A stunning specimen. One of his statements that Sokolov appropriated his research almost sent me under the table ... The trick is that I met Sokolov in 1986. I was a teenager, and Oleg Valerievich was already an authority then (the respectful reference to him "Sir" was already in use). Citizen Ponasenkov, being younger than me, used to go under the table then ... And suddenly such revelations!
      2. podymych
        19 August 2019 10: 47
        0
        Strange Zhenya is an outspoken speculator on the mistakes and forced silences of traditional historians. He has Kutuzov in general - the last, a lecher, a lazy dog, a ladies' and a tsar’s saint ... It’s not clear at all how he forced the ARMOR out of Russia ... And really, this subject is not worthy of such a profound trial
  6. E.S.
    E.S. 15 August 2019 21: 27
    +1
    Quote: bubalik
    ,,, if we correlate the losses with the total number of armies, then we get 65% for Russians versus 66% for Napoleon, which gives almost complete equality. And in the Russian army there were a lot of dead from cold, hunger and disease.

    And where did the war end in the end do not remind?
    1. bubalik
      bubalik 15 August 2019 21: 39
      +4
      ,,, World War 1812 ended in December, the liberation of Russian territory from Napoleon’s troops. And the capture of Paris 1814. (war of a coalition of European powers against Napoleonic France and its allies), a little different.
      1. E.S.
        E.S. 15 August 2019 22: 03
        0
        Dachshund, then the war ended definitely not in Moscow and not in St. Petersburg, it’s already not bad
    2. Catfish
      Catfish 15 August 2019 22: 04
      +1
      Hello Sergey! hi
      I answered not to your post, but to colleague E.S. (Sergey), you just do not understand. And I completely agree with you, the losses were monstrous on both sides.
  7. whack
    whack 15 August 2019 21: 49
    0
    And what about the medal of those years with the phrase "not for us, not for us ...." no one knows?
    1. podymych
      19 August 2019 10: 44
      0
      Not to us, not to us - this is more like A-1 games with Orthodoxy. The fact that it was almost omnipotent in Russia at that time, you are unlikely to dispute, but the sovereign was not very good at giving credit to the common people for the victory over Buonapartii. So they used the formula of a miracle from "Our Lord Almighty" - not to us, not to us, but to your name.
      1. whack
        whack 19 August 2019 12: 23
        +1
        I agree with you!
      2. Sunstorm
        Sunstorm 19 August 2019 15: 46
        +1
        Quote: podymych
        but to pay tribute to the common people for the victory over the Buonaparty, the emperor was not very comfortable.

        I disagree with you. The fact is that after 12 years the sovereign "so did not want to pay tribute to the common people" that he bought entire villages from landowners and released them ... In this case, I personally am a descendant of the inhabitants of one of these villages. This is if you look at the deeds, and if according to the words, then here is a quote from the manifesto of Alexander the 1st “What an example of courage, courage, piety, patience and firmness Russia has shown! The enemy, who had broken into her chest with all unheard-of means of ferocity and fury, could not reach the point that at least once she sighed about the deep wounds inflicted on her from him. It seemed with the shedding of her blood the spirit of courage multiplied in her, with the fires of her hailstones, love for the fatherland was inflamed, with the destruction and desecration of the temples of God, faith was established in her and irreconcilable revenge arose. people, in a word, all State ranks and fortunes, sparing no one’s property or life, made up a single soul, a courageous and pious soul together, only a burning love for the fatherland, only love for God. "
  8. boriz
    boriz 15 August 2019 22: 27
    +5
    "... but in those great years, without the rare persistence of the sovereign, she would still hardly have reached Paris."
    And what the hell carried it there? Vanity!
    But Kutuzov told him that it was not necessary to finish off Napoleon! This is probably why Kutuzov died like this "in time" (from the point of view of the British).
    Here in the Crimean War we were "thanked" by both the British and the French.
    But there would be no headache to Europe in the form of Bonaparte! The mind was not enough for Sasha No. 1.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 15 August 2019 23: 32
      0
      From a security point of view, it was necessary to finish off. It was certainly tempting to leave England a headache, a competitor, but what would insure against a repeated invasion after a few years, when new mobilization resources would grow? Logic completely eliminate the potential threat worthy of a wise ruler. The Englishwoman, in contrast to the continental power, was not capable of invading, her lot to spoil
      1. boriz
        boriz 16 August 2019 00: 05
        0
        You contradict yourself. So, Sasha Bonya finished it off, time has passed, what you are talking about (resources have grown) and now they are French in Crimea.
        The British are smarter than Sasha and Bonnie. They fight mainly with the wrong hands.
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 16 August 2019 00: 09
          0
          Well, for all that truncated France was able to accomplish, coupled with the Englishwoman and sixes, it’s the war years to overcome half a city on the periphery of the Empire. You do not find that it is simply ridiculous, against the background of Napoleonic France, which crushed the states like house of cards and reached Moscow?
          The dog whose teeth were knocked out is not so much biting
          1. boriz
            boriz 16 August 2019 00: 14
            0
            So the dog had to knock out teeth, but not kill her at all. France has already found its former borders, mobresource has been exhausted, the economy has been torn. But, with Napoleon at the head, France would remain a problem for close neighbors.
            Without Napoleon, France ceased to be independent. They ordered to fight for the interests of England - she went and began to fight. Under Napoleon this would not have happened.
  9. Tavrik
    Tavrik 15 August 2019 23: 02
    +4
    Nice article, thanks. Napoleon is an amazing personality. With his brilliant achievements and fatal mistakes. And the "code of Napoleon" is best guessed from the works of Oleg Valerievich Sokolov.
  10. Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 15 August 2019 23: 08
    +3
    To Russia would be such an emperor. Active, courageous, energetic and smart. If he had sat on the throne for thirty years in the middle of the year before last, maybe now they would have lived with the kings, but would have gone to Britain only to look at wild, unkempt men in skirts, and to drink local beer. smile
    Personally, it seems to me that Napoleon is the last monarch of the planet, which without a stretch can rightly be called great.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 16 August 2019 06: 34
      0

      To Russia would be such an emperor. Active, courageous, energetic and smart.


      Why do we need a man who brought his power to collapse? We already had two of these, the Bloody and Tagged cliches, we no longer need such
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 16 August 2019 09: 19
        +4
        Quote: Pissarro
        Bloody and Tagged

        Well, it’s impossible to compare with anyone with whom, and with these nonsense of Napoleon. Comparison with Peter I is more suitable for him, only the latter did not have such a bright general talent.
        The reluctance to repeat the numerous works in which Napoleon’s achievements, his reforms, the fruits of which Europe has successfully used so far, his victories, his undoubted successes in almost everything he did, are listed. Such are born once in a millennium and change the face of the world forever. As an example, Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan can serve. Maybe the examples are not entirely successful, but the scale of the personality is conveyed completely.
        I am okay with the attempts of contemporaries to revise and evaluate the well-known historical facts in a new way. Of course, in the event that these attempts are based on an objective and impartial analysis of all the available facts, and are not the fruit of primitive inversions based on biased material. Many commentators here are guilty of precisely this - in the heat of a "new vision", rethinking, etc. the baby is thrown out with the water.
        Denying the greatness of Napoleon as a historical person means, among other things, humiliating our own ancestors, who repeatedly suffered defeats from him, and who fully participated in the victory over him.
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 16 August 2019 09: 47
          -2
          Do you deny the simple fact that this man ended badly and destroyed the empire he created? What France forever with his politics went to second roles?
          What is the role of the French language in the world as a means of communication only between blacks after him, and before him it was the main world language?
          How can it be compared with Macedonian, Genghis Khan, Peter? They died at the head of their great empires, and not on a distant island captured by enemies, completely defeated
          1. Kronos
            Kronos 16 August 2019 13: 22
            -1
            In general, after the death of Alexander the Great, his empire broke up in a couple of years
          2. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 16 August 2019 14: 12
            +3
            Quote: Pissarro
            How can it be compared with Macedonian, Genghis Khan, Peter?

            With many (with almost everything) of what you wrote, I do not agree, but I will not analyze it point-by-point - there is no time and desire. I can only say that it was Napoleon who not only formulated, but demonstrated in practice the principles of public administration and military art, which are, in many respects, used now. Yes, as a person, he lost. But this is the same as considering a loser, for example (again, with these incorrect examples, but let me don’t want to strain my brain and write a lengthy text), Pushkin, since he did not receive even a thousandth of the publishing fees from his works, yes, to he also caught a bullet at the end of his life. The comparison is so-so, but the general meaning of my thesis partially conveys.
            I repeat once again - this is one of those people who have changed the world, the whole world, irrevocably and forever.
          3. Tavrik
            Tavrik 16 August 2019 22: 57
            +1
            The tragedy of Napoleon is that a powerful France that threw off the fetters of absolutism, went through the mess of the revolution and steered onto the path of planned development was not needed by anyone in Europe. Even dangerous. With the ideas of Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood, with the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen" among the monarchist powers like a bone in the throat. Hence the anti-French coalitions. One by one. Russia, Austria, Prussia, and others, using the money of the City of London, start one war after another. Each ends in their defeat. As a result, France is strengthening even more, which causes irritation and anxiety of these same neighbors. And again a coalition, again a war, again a defeat, France as the winner receives indemnities, surrounds itself with allied states (Bavaria, Saxony, etc.), pulling them into its orbit. And all over again ... Companies of 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809 end in victories, but no one is able to constantly fight with all of Europe. Realizing that France needs a strong ally, Napoleon with all his might from the very beginning of his reign is seeking an alliance with Russia - a great country with which there are no common borders, territorial claims, wars between us have never even been ... Isn't it an ally? Napoleon rightly believes that such an alliance is beneficial to both countries. Naive Corsican youth! He always did what was in the interests of his homeland, he thought that Alexander was doing the same, but not ...
            In short, with such a position of Russia, it does not matter who is in power: Napoleon or not - France was doomed. The first EU failed ...
            And Napoleon remained a symbol of the emperor who built the First Empire in France. A state with the rule of law, a clear administrative system, legislation, a system of higher and secondary education, advanced science and culture. A state that has implemented the principles of social justice. Therefore, he is remembered. As the great Russian poet wrote to him: "Praise, he showed the Russian people a great lot and bequeathed to the world eternal freedom from the darkness of exile."
      2. Ehanatone
        Ehanatone 30 October 2019 22: 49
        +2
        "Why do we need a man who brought his state to collapse? We already had two of these, Bloody and Marked klikuhi, we no longer need such"
        You would at least occasionally revered the thread of history, or else putting insignificance on a par with genius is somehow apolitical, however, valuantarism, so to speak ..!
    2. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 30 October 2019 22: 51
      +2
      "There would be such an emperor in Russia. Active, courageous, energetic and intelligent. If I sat on"
      + + +
  11. E.S.
    E.S. 15 August 2019 23: 15
    -3
    Quote: Tavrik
    It actually took much more. The guard is almost all. Many regiments that receded not from Moscow also retained a significant share of the personnel and obscenities. part. Denis Davydov has a colorful description of how they met the guard column and to no avail tried to tear anyone out of the ranks.
    About Borodino, you are wrong. The left flank of the Russians stormed the incomplete first army corps of Davout (five out of six divisions). Against him is the entire army of Bagration. Center - Raevsky’s battery was taken before 12.00:XNUMX. It is good that Napoleon did not give the command to introduce the guard, otherwise everything would have fallen. Do not forget that before that there were Austerlitz, Preisisch-Eylau, Friedland. Not the most successful battles for Russians ...


    So you started telling how glorious Napoleon would have won if he had not fought on the left flank like a ram into a new gate from noon to evening :-)
    And do not confuse the "departed" and surrendered Eurotourists, who moved to Petoburg and whom Peter Wittgenstein naughty to such an extent that they shied among the aspens, hanging around the trees until Napoleon finally shrank.
    And yes, I almost forgot, this beautiful Frenchman once went to Egypt, but the all inclusive did not succeed, and then he abandoned his army and shed home. Just like after Berezena :-)
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 15 August 2019 23: 36
      -2
      Throw everything and topple in the face of difficulties - the signature of Corsican. By the way, it is very common among residents of the Mediterranean
    2. Tavrik
      Tavrik 16 August 2019 00: 01
      +4
      Adapting to the vocabulary available to you, I bring it: the guys who were going to St. Petersburg were standing on a skater. Picking the St. Petersburg huckster the leader was finally zapadlo.
      In Egypt, at the time of Bonaparte's departure, everything was in order.
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 16 August 2019 00: 16
        -2
        In Egypt, at the time of Bonaparte's departure, everything was in order


        Napoleon was still wiser than you. He calculated that if the army was transferred from point A to point B, and his fleet then left to feed the fish, then in point B everything was already in order, there was no supply and it was probably time to bring down. You won’t refuse “genius” here, I foresaw both in Egypt and on the Berezina)
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 16 August 2019 00: 23
          +2
          Have you forgotten that at the time of the Egyptian expedition Napoleon was a general and not an emperor or first consul? Those. he was fulfilling the task set by the government. When it became clear that the government did not care about this Egypt, it was busy dividing financial flows, it had to return. At the same time, the situation really did not inspire fear.
          If you want to find out what was really there, I refer to OV Sokolov’s cycle of lectures on oper.ru.
          There was no French fleet on Berezina either. Yes, there is a complete analogy with Egypt! laughing
          1. Pissarro
            Pissarro 16 August 2019 00: 35
            -1
            he performed the task set by the government


            Even so, did you complete the task?)

            Since the government did not give him the command to bring down from Egypt, there is clearly an unauthorized abandonment of the army entrusted to him. What, however, is normal for the nation of d'Artagnans)
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 17 August 2019 16: 44
        0
        What ? Is it after Abukir?
  12. E.S.
    E.S. 16 August 2019 00: 26
    0
    Quote: Tavrik
    Adapting to the vocabulary available to you, I bring it: the guys who were going to St. Petersburg were standing on a skater. Picking the St. Petersburg huckster the leader was finally zapadlo.
    In Egypt, at the time of Bonaparte's departure, everything was in order.

    Yes, yes, they came out purely like mushrooms, to stand on the nix with a group that is one and a half times larger than the opposing Russian. But "nishmagla"
  13. The comment was deleted.
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 16 August 2019 23: 00
      0
      Thank you, enlightened ... And then I would have vegetated in the darkness of ignorance smile
  14. Minato2020
    Minato2020 16 August 2019 03: 14
    0
    A bit of an alternative story (to fans of A. Bushkov)

    There are several facts in history that are considered immutable. That is, no one doubts them and is not going to check. One of these facts is the fire in Moscow in 1812. At school, we were taught that Kutuzov had set fire to Moscow on purpose, so that the French would get a completely burnt out city. That Kutuzov prepared a trap for Napoleon’s army. As a result, the official story remained at that point of view ...

    The French were least interested in the destruction of Moscow. An army entering a large, wealthy city will never destroy it, remaining in the ashes. It is enough to recall numerous memoirs and archival documents indicating that the French soldiers in the initial period of the fire took part in extinguishing along with the locals, forming fire brigades ...

    However, the version of the death of Moscow at the hands of French soldiers was actively used by the Russian government for propaganda purposes. Already in a government message dated October 29 (17, old style), 1812, all responsibility for the fire was assigned to the Napoleonic army, and the arson was called a "mind-damaged" affair. But in one of the imperial rescripts from 1812 addressed to the Governor-General of Moscow, Count Rostopchin, it was already indicated that the death of Moscow was a saving feat for Russia and Europe, which was supposed to glorify the Russian people in history, the result of God's providence, and in another rescript the culprit was named fire - the French. In other words, the Russians did not know what position they should take after all ...

    In order to understand that Moscow at the beginning of the 1812th century was by no means wooden, it is enough to familiarize yourself with the work "Stone construction in 1812th century Moscow". There are many interesting things in it. A hundred years before the events described, wooden construction was prohibited in the city center, with the result that by XNUMX most of the buildings in Moscow, not counting the outskirts, consisted of stone and brick houses, which significantly increased the city's fire safety. At the same time, after a fire in a stone building, the walls remain intact, and only the interior rooms burn out. While, according to the descriptions of that time, after the fire of XNUMX, practically nothing remained in the center of the capital ...

    As for Rostopchin, in 1823 the count wrote the essay "The Truth About the Fire in Moscow", where he described in some detail the far-fetched accusations against him, and cited specific facts on which the destruction of Moscow was at least inexpedient. In particular, he spoke about the insolvency of such reasons for arson as the destruction of food supplies and housing stock for the accommodation of soldiers. In addition, the Russians made no attempt to evacuate the civilian population, or even warn them about the need to leave the city anytime soon. It is difficult to imagine that the governor would give the order to set fire to a city in which there are several tens, or even hundreds of thousands of inhabitants ...

    ... the diary of a certain Charles Artois, lieutenant of the Napoleonic army, who was lucky enough to return home. The diary described the Moscow events and the details of the return of the army from Russia.
    "... I was standing in the courtyard of a large Russian house. The low sun flooded Moscow with golden light. Suddenly a second sun lit up, bright, white, dazzling. It was located twenty degrees higher than the first, true, and shone no more than five seconds, but managed to scorch the face of Paul Berger, who was resting on the balcony. The walls and roof of the house began to smoke. I ordered the soldiers to pour several dozen buckets of water on the roof, and only thanks to these measures it was possible to save the estate. In other estates located closer to the newly appeared luminary, fires began. a mysterious heavenly flash caused a terrible fire that destroyed Moscow ...
    ... a new attack hit our ranks. Rotten Russian water, intemperance in food or some other reason, but all our people suffer from the most severe bloody diarrhea. Weakness in all limbs, dizziness, nausea, turning into indomitable vomiting, add to the misfortune. And we are not alone in this situation - all the battalions of our regiment, all the regiments are in Moscow. Doctors suspect dysentery or cholera, and recommend to leave the inhospitable city as soon as possible ... "


    https://wod-1958.livejournal.com/3675592.html
    1. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 30 October 2019 22: 33
      +1
      Tenis knows that - an avid bomb in 812 is not even an alternative, but just the gloom of a dumbfounded crap ...
      The rest, in particular, that Moscow was not very necessary for the French to burn Moscow, was quite reasonable ...
      Much more destructive would be to give free peasants ...
  15. smaug78
    smaug78 16 August 2019 11: 11
    +1
    Quote: Pissarro
    England and France did not achieve a single goal in the Crimean War. For a maximum of ten years, Russia did not have a fleet on the Black Sea. At the same time preserving the Nikolaev shipyards. And since the sailing fleet rested at the bottom, sunk by the Russians themselves, and the steam still had to be built from scratch, but this ban is ridiculous.

    not 10, but 20 and not just the fleet, but the military. The emperor died of chagrin, all Black Sea fortifications were torn down, Russia was reduced to the level of a secondary power. But everything is fine with you. Stalin and Tarle laugh at you.
  16. Operator
    Operator 16 August 2019 11: 30
    -2
    the Corsican clan Buonaparte may have been no less ancient than the Bourbons, and certainly the ancient clan of the Romanov boyars

    Why would the Buonaparte farmers (who also belong to the Berber, and not the Celtic ethnos) with the sullen Corsica be older than the Romanov noble family? laughing
    1. podymych
      19 August 2019 10: 25
      0
      Yes, with just that, they started to count earlier, that's all ... But generosity is generally a strange thing - every prostitute in Romania has its own kind from Byzantine emperors
  17. Operator
    Operator 16 August 2019 14: 57
    +1
    Quote: Tavrik
    Guard almost all

    24 June 1812 years invaded Russia 675thousandth army of Napoleon, 26 December 1812 year, the last Napoleonic soldier from the border of the Duchy of Warsaw 65 thousand returned.

    Guard, speak? bully
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 17 August 2019 00: 44
      0
      The entire Guard in 1812 - about 18 people, including artillery, engineers, Poles. So there is no contradiction. And the fact that the disaster was impressive - Duc, no one denies. At the same time, the morale was very high. As one young officer wrote after 000 (I can be a little mistaken, I am writing from memory): "For the first campaign I got pretty bad, but this makes my desire to start a new one no less."
  18. karabass
    karabass 16 August 2019 18: 24
    0
    Too many timpani! I do not beg his valor and his talent that history has already proved it — I refuse to consider him a genius. The genius was Lenin. If Bonaparte instead of Moscow went to Kiev, his army would have increased by another 500 thousand people. And if he had shouted out the Lenin slogan “LAND OF PEASANTS” and had declared a will, then all of Russia (EXCEPT DVORYAN) would stand on his side
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 16 August 2019 23: 09
      +1
      If Napoleon "slept and saw" how to conquer Russia, he would have finished off the remnants of the Russian army the next day after Austerlitz, and Alexander would have taken prisoner and sent to hard labor in Guiana (in, damn it, alternative laughing ) But his goal was completely different ...
      By the way, in the course of the movement of Napoleon’s army in Russia there were many peasant riots against the landowners. And many expected it from him with hope. Especially in the western provinces.
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 16 August 2019 23: 50
        0
        There are many facts about peasant partisans. But about the peasants supporters of Banaparte they are not at all. Given that he did not proclaim any release of the peasants, then where did they come from?

        In general, it is strange that the western lands were only part of the empire for 40–20 years. Napoleon could proclaim them part of liberated Poland, would find a bunch of supporters among the local Poles. Could proclaim the liberation of the peasants probably found supporters from the peasants. No, he stupidly climbed into Russia, stretching communications and losing strength. Doomed hike. If he is such a genius of war, did he not understand how this would end?
        Rather, he did not understand Russia. I didn’t understand that this was not Europe, not a European war, you won’t win by points.
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 17 August 2019 00: 07
          0
          He did not need a defeated, humiliated, torn, occupied Russia. This is not Hitler! Any political movements, such as the liberation of the peasants, the restoration of the Commonwealth, etc. would lead to Russia becoming an eternal enemy to France. Napoleon didn’t have to!
          And he didn’t understand not Russia, but one person - Alexander I. Which had fatal consequences.
          1. Pissarro
            Pissarro 17 August 2019 05: 17
            +1
            That is, he thought that the Russians would react to a direct military invasion otherwise?
  19. Artashes
    Artashes 16 August 2019 22: 17
    +1
    Russia was able to defeat SIMULTANEOUSLY: Turkey, Iran and almost all of Napolenovsky Europe in 1811-13! And in 1809 - pro-French Sweden, depriving it of vast Finland. These UNIQUE facts never mark. Apparently, they are still envious ...

    And why is not the theme of such a detailed continuation?
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 17 August 2019 00: 30
      0
      Recall in 1811 whom we defeated? With Turkey in 1812 Kutuzov deftly made peace before the outbreak of war with France. By the way, the tsar was so angry with Kutuzov that he did not make peace that he sent Wittgenstein to replace him. The cunning Mikhailo Illarionych, having learned about this, immediately made peace. Not very beneficial for Russia.
      In 1809, Russia was an ally of France and with the diplomatic support of Napoleon ("Swedish guns should not bother the ladies of St. Petersburg") conquered Finland. Let's leave the moral and ethical aspects. In Sweden, there really were pro-French sentiments (in 1810 Marshal Bernadotte was invited to the throne). But Napoleon was more important an alliance with Russia, and not the opinion of the Riksdag.
      In 1813, were we alone Napoleon? Austria, Prussia, Sweden where were you? Or did they count the small German allies of Napoleon, but forgot about our large ones? So it turns out that simultaneity is lame, and the facts are not entirely unique ....
  20. Operator
    Operator 19 August 2019 10: 46
    0
    Quote: podymych
    began to count earlier

    Do not understand - decrypt.
  21. Tavrik
    Tavrik 19 August 2019 20: 36
    0
    Quote: Sunstorm
    Maybe because Napoleon reminded Alexander several times that he was a "parricide" in fact ...

    Yes, once transparently hinted ... And this also played a role. I touched a sensitive string. In general, Alexander, like many young people of that time, was brought up in the spirit of the ideas of freedom, equality, fraternity, justice, the general happiness of peoples ... That's just all this was considered in a theory divorced from his own country. And now here: what the tsar and his young dreaming friends in Russia and some progressive people in Europe dreamed about in France began to come to life. This offended not childishly.
  22. andrew42
    andrew42 26 September 2019 10: 41
    0
    So did Napoleosha have a chip in his head, or is Corsica the birthplace of geniuses? - And then a year and a half ago I slipped in the "running line" (figuratively) that when examining the remains of the skull, a certain foreign professor discovered traces of the implant, which was incredibly amazed. Meowed, and broke off. The topic was no longer raised.
  23. Ehanatone
    Ehanatone 30 October 2019 21: 49
    +1
    With what fright did A1 become blessed, who blessed him and for what ...
    And again, what vegetable are attributed to this underdog laurels of the conqueror of Europe, as if he personally did not win a single battle, but only lost, and with huge losses ...
    A very strange ode is deduced by the author, by no means the best politician a1, who, for the sake of PERSONAL ambitions, climbed into Europe, and did not present a showdown with Napoleon to what thread the naglitsy with the Austrians, and do something more useful:
    well, for example, by punishing the murderers of his father Paul 1, well, at least to give the appearance of decency, he is by no means a very good person ...