1812-th: nobody but Kutuzov

77
The French, and together with all the allies, were beaten by Kutuzov and his army in just one campaign. Kutuzov in the 1812 campaign of the year did what Napoleon was doing with Napoleon in the year 1805, hoping to retreat to Bohemia to join with the reinforcements of General Buxgevden, and already "collect the French bones there."

The Russian commander, no matter what they say now, showed himself not just equal to Bonaparte - it became clear after Borodino, but surpassed him in all respects as a strategist. More than two centuries have passed since the Russian troops won the unprecedented campaign of the 1812 of the year.




One of the little-known portraits of Kutuzov


First, they managed to survive in the bloody battle at Borodino against the best regiments of the "Great Army" of Napoleon, and then, despite the abandonment of Moscow, and a fierce blow in the battle of Maloyaroslavets, they still fired the French from Russia.

The choice could not be random


With the beginning of the 1812 campaign of the year, Alexander I almost immediately went into the army. At some point, he most likely planned to stand at the head of his troops himself, taking the battle somewhere near the Dris camp. But it seems that already there, when it was not possible to gather sufficient forces not only to “break up the Bonaparte”, but even to simply defend well-strengthened positions, the Russian emperor decided to appoint an independent commander.

Alexander I clearly did not want to repeat the mistakes of Austerlitz and Friedland. The Russian army had to act either according to the “Scythian” plan proposed earlier by the Minister of War Barclay de Tolly, or, having joined forces with Bagration’s army and reserves, would only go on the offensive at Smolensk or even later. However, after a short delay at Drissa, the emperor left the army, which was greatly facilitated by the insistence of Barclay, who insisted everywhere that the sovereign did not have the right to risk himself at the present moment, so difficult for the state.

It cannot be ruled out that the decision to change the cold "Scots", who did not become popular and failed to gain real authority in the army, was born to the emperor already in the Driss camp. Moreover, Barclay allowed himself the unthinkable courage to declare to the sovereign that he fetters his initiative as commander. When, instead of the expected counterattack near Smolensk, everything was limited to a rearguard battle and a new retreat, the fate of Barclay was decided.

1812-th: nobody but Kutuzov

Barclay de Tolly


M.B.Barklay de Tolly led the actions of all the Russian armies only because he was a Minister of War, and he was never appointed commander in chief of the entire army. But we must remember that after the resignation of Barclay de Tolly, which happened, in fact, de facto, Emperor Alexander I had a very limited choice of candidates for commanders.

With accession, he could well count not only on the best generals who advanced under Paul I, but also on many of the “Catherine’s eagles,” one of which Kutuzov was rightly considered to be. But it seemed that Austerlitz had forever divorced him from Kutuzov, and during the first ten years of his reign, almost none of the “eagles” were left in the ranks.

By 1812, there were no field marshals in the Russian army. At the beginning of Alexander’s reign, one by one the old, but reputable field marshals Repnin, Musin-Pushkin, Prozorovsky, Elmt died, who received their wands under Catherine the Great and Pavel Petrovich. In 1809, the eternal rival of the great Suvorov, field marshal Count Mikhail Kamensky, who was very popular among the troops, also died.

Only two survived. 75-year-old N.I. Saltykov, educator of the Grand Dukes Alexander and Konstantin Pavlovich, was no longer fit for anything other than quietly chairing the State Council and the Committee of Ministers. A slightly younger 70-year-old I.V. Gudovich, despite being a member of the State Council and commander in chief in Moscow, completely lost his mind.

For example, he forbade him to come to the reception with glasses and condoned the embezzlement of his younger brother, which was the reason that the noble assembly voted for the candidacy of Gudovich in the election of the commander of the Moscow militia. Incidentally, MI won in those elections. Kutuzov, but he was also elected in St. Petersburg, and unanimously, and he preferred to settle there.

Who will order us to retreat now?


In fact, the first person who could then be represented as commander in chief was rightfully read the brother of the sovereign Konstantin Pavlovich. He did not have time to earn great authority in the troops, no one considered him a master of military art, but in the army he was loved and respected. Any of his orders would be carried out without reservation.

With a good chief of staff, such as Barclay himself, the prince was obviously capable of much. Under Emperor Paul I, a second son was raised with his older brother, preparing for accession to the Greek throne. He underwent military training in Gatchina, like his father, he adored the system and the “shagistika,” and, unlike his older brother, he had rich military experience. Already in 20 years he was a volunteer of the Suvorov army in the Italian and Swiss campaigns.


Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich


The great commander honored the royal offspring with the most flattering reviews and cruel scam for fervor, moreover, in the presence of experienced military generals. Tsesarevich Konstantin fought brilliantly against the French at Austerlitz and in the Polish campaign 1806-1807.

By 1812, he was only 33 years old, he already commanded the guard, and he did not have such problems as "seniority" in service. His appointment as commander in chief would not surprise anyone, although there are doubts that it would bring decisive success. But Alexander not only did not offer Konstantin to the post of commander in chief, but he soon recalled him from the army, leaving the 5th Guards Corps unnoticed by General Lavrov.

However, there are doubts that the reigning brother of Constantine was sincere when, without giving him any appointment in the army, he hastened to express fears for the fate of the heir to the throne. Alexander had two more young brothers - Nikolai and Mikhail, and claiming that Konstantin was not suitable for the role of commander in chief, the sovereign for some reason did not think about whether his brother was suitable for the roles of heir and emperor.

Few historians will recall, in this regard, the December of 1825, but, from the memoirs of contemporaries, the conclusion literally suggests that Alexander was always jealous of his brother's popularity among the officers. The emperor, who himself ascended to the throne as a result of the coup, simply could not but have concerns about this, because the victorious army, in which case, could well have elevated its leader to the throne.

Kutuzov could have another young and talented competitor - 34-year-old Nikolai Kamensky, who fought almost side by side with him in Turkey. He, like Grand Duke Konstantin, was very young in the Swiss campaign with Suvorov, fought at Austerlitz under the leadership of Bagration, defeated the Turks more than once, but died suddenly in 1811.

In the same 1811 year, the authoritative General Buxgeven also died, having repeatedly opposed the French and defeated the Swedes. As a result, in addition to Kutuzov, there were only five other real applicants for leading the Russian army in 1812, and it was their candidacy that was to be considered by the Extraordinary Committee, which was convened by order of Alexander I in early August.

It is characteristic that Alexander, understanding the very special character of the outbreak of the war, which was by no means accidentally called the Patriotic War, did not even propose to the committee for consideration the candidatures of the princes of Württemberg, Oldenburg and Holstein. And this despite the fact that he conducted intensive correspondence about a possible appointment with the disgraced French general Moro, who was in America, and the English general Wellesley, by then not the duke, but only Viscount Wellington.

Bucharest - Peas - Petersburg


So, Barclay formally, no one even dismissed. Leaving the army, Alexander I left him the commander in chief of the 1th Western Army, and at the same time left his Imperial main apartment next to him, where there were the Grand Duke Konstantin, and all the “German” princes, and Prince Volkonsky, along with Count Armfeld and the omnipresent General Bennigsen . All of them intrigued against the “half-commander” and regularly complained to him to the emperor.

Meanwhile, the events with the appointment of Kutuzov developed very quickly. Himself 67-year-old commander, by the way, did for this, almost everything he could. To begin with, even before the war with Napoleon, he, who commanded the Moldavian army at that time, not only defeated the Turks at Ruschuk, but also managed to conclude an extremely necessary peace with them. And he did this literally a few days before Admiral Chichagov came to replace him in Bucharest with two rescripts signed by the emperor.

In the first, on April 5, Kutuzova was waiting for the resignation and recall to Petersburg to “sit in the State Council” there, in another, awards and honors, already signed on the 9. Kutuzov, who had won the long-awaited peace, received a second from Chichagov, and in order to ratify the agreement signed by him with the Turkish commander Galib Effendi, he went on to deft misinformation.

He presented the Turks with a visit to Vilna by the Adjutant General Napoleon Count Narbonne as a friendship mission, as if the French were ready together with Russia to go on the immediate partition of Turkey. The sultan almost immediately allowed Galibu-effendi to sign the Bucharest peace, and Kutuzov calmly went to his estate Peas in Volhynia. There he received the news of the beginning of the war with Napoleon.

26 June General Kutuzov arrives in the northern capital, awaiting appointment. It is well known that Alexander I did not like Kutuzov, and not from Austerlitz; this general did not like the young emperor as the military governor of St. Petersburg. Kutuzov was not afraid to put the metropolitan police department in its place, allowing almost Jacobin liberties in the city, for which he was immediately sent for a couple of years to an honorary link.

However, Alexander could not do without Kutuzov in the 1805 campaign of the year - his only real competitor, the old field marshal Kamensky, in those days, finished off the Turks in Wallachia. Kutuzov masterfully retreated to Vienna, leading the Russian troops along with the remnants of the Austrians defeated by Napoleon near Ulm from the blow of the superior French forces.

The Russians inflicted several painful attacks on the French in rear-guard battles, and the Mortier corps was generally defeated near Durenstein. The commander-in-chief boldly exposed the entire French army near Schöngraben to the rearguard of Bagration (he, according to Leo Tolstoy, “was truly saved by a miracle”), which saved the army from encirclement.


Kutuzov and Alexander I near Austerlitz


Kutuzov was ready to retreat further, but Napoleon was able to convince the supreme leaders of the allies - the two emperors Alexander and Franz of his own weakness and actually provoked them to battle. The result is known - the defeat of the Russian-Austrian army near Austerlitz was complete, but Kutuzov’s military authority, strangely enough, remained unshakable. However, he was removed "from the eyes of the sovereign out of sight", having directed to deal with the Turks.

Already in St. Petersburg, Kutuzov first receives a somewhat strange appointment as commander of the 8-thousandth Narva Corps. This was followed by the election of the commander of the St. Petersburg militia, which forced Kutuzov to abandon the same honor in Moscow. And for peace with Turkey, he was granted the title of Most High Prince and entrusted with the command of all naval and land forces in the capital.


General Kutuzov - commander of the St. Petersburg militia


But all this in reality is nothing more than regalia. 30 of thousands of militias gathered in a matter of days, the princely title is, of course, wonderful, but very small and not the main advantage when choosing the commander in chief. The fact that such an appointment is about to take place, says the whole of Petersburg.

All this time, Kutuzov, not at all embarrassed, launched his old connections, right up to prominent positions in the Masonic lodge of St. Petersburg and his acquaintance with the tsar’s favorite Maria Naryshkina. A true courtier, by no means without ambition, he understood that the campaign that had opened could become his "high point". Kutuzov no worse than others understood that he did not have many serious rivals for appointment to the highest post.

The committee makes a decision


It seems that members of the Extraordinary Committee, which Alexander decided to collect shortly after arriving from Moscow, understood this quite well. All the most important thing happened in one day - August 5. In the morning the emperor got acquainted with letters in which Count Shuvalov convinced the tsar of the need to appoint a single commander in chief, and Barclay reported on the retreat of the joined armies to Porech. And this is after he was ordered to advance.

Arakcheev was entrusted with assembling the Extraordinary Committee of the most important dignitaries of the empire, and representing the person of the sovereign in it. The chairman of the State Council included the already mentioned elderly Field Marshal Count N.I. Saltykov, Count V.P. Kochubey, St. Petersburg Governor General S.K. Vyazmitinov, Minister of Police A.D. Balashov and member of the State Council Prince P.V. Lopukhin, by the way, is the head of the Masonic lodge “The Great East”.

According to Arakcheev’s report, for some three hours - from seven to ten in the afternoon, a decision was made in favor of Kutuzov. The committee immediately remembered that Mikhail Illarionovich, despite his considerable age, was not only very popular, but also a very active commander. Many of his comrades-in-arms, like Bagration or Ermolov, considered him not very successful, but they obeyed him implicitly. The authority among the officers and generals of Kutuzov was, let's say, quite sufficient.

Prior to Kutuzov, committee members considered the candidatures of generals L.L. Bennigsen, D.S. Dokhturova, P.I. Bagration, A.P. Tormasova and P.A. Palena. And if Friedland was not forgotten by Bennigsen, then Palen was rejected due to his almost complete lack of combat experience. Dokhturov and Tormasov did not arrange a committee, since they were few known and almost never were independent commanders, and Bagration’s candidacy did not literally pass from the words of Alexander I, who wrote to his sister that he “understands nothing in strategy.”

Isn’t it, somehow surprisingly easy and simple Kutuzov was appointed to the post of commander in chief? Remember how in Tolstoy’s novel the visitors of Anna Pavlovna Scherer’s salon were shocked by this? But, apparently, the members of the Extraordinary Committee had, for all that, serious reasons for such a decision. And it is worth remembering how quickly in the same salon Scherer Kutuzov decided to recognize "his".



Despite his immoderate addiction to alcohol and women, in the company of the old commander with good reason was considered courteous, sophisticated and cunning. In the army, under the leadership of Kutuzov, all the officers and the vast majority of generals were ready, the soldiers treated him like a good master. Such, if necessary, he will ask them, if necessary, and will be executed, but they will always be dressed, shod and full, and even if they “work well”, the “master” will not skimp on the awards.

In the end, one cannot help but recall that for some reason today, not only idle conversations, but also Leo Tolstoy’s deep-rooted attitude towards Kutuzov as an “old satyr” is in fashion again. However, in the 1812 campaign of the year, he, with all the visible manifestations of laziness and simply causing sybarism, proved himself to be an exceptionally enterprising commander.



After all, not only his troops were always active, giving the French a respite only for the time that they held Moscow. The 67-year-old commander himself, contrary to the assertions of a number of contemporaries, often spent several hours in the saddle, circling the positions. Meetings on the map almost constantly dragged on at Kutuzov well after midnight.

On the Borodino field, the Commander-in-Chief did not sit out at all in the headquarters in Gorki, but constantly traveled around his positions, although mostly not on a horse, but in a cart. And all this - according to the testimony of those same critics who, in fact, did not skimp on caustic remarks about their commander in chief. One cannot but recall that on the night before the battle Kutuzov participated in a long prayer service in front of the icon of the Mother of God of Smolensk.

We are not the first to say that story He does not know the subjunctive mood, but the choice of the commander-in-chief in World War II could not be accidental, and it was not at all accidental that Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov was given the glory of the “French winner”. For a long time in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union, among historians Kutuzov, as a military leader, without any reservations it was customary to consider at least equal to Napoleon.

Meanwhile, Russian regiments came to the walls of Paris under the leadership of other commanders, and the old Field Marshal Kutuzov died in the Silesian town of Bunzlau shortly after the French left Russia. Nominally, the Austrian field marshal Schwarzenberg was considered the commander in chief, the Russian forces were again led by Barclay de Tolly, but Emperor Alexander I himself became the true supreme leader of the allied forces.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -15
    2 September 2019 06: 21
    Is it like now, or what? Who, if not Putin? Anyway, they would have won, because all the people had risen to defend the Fatherland then. And there it doesn’t matter who is ahead on the white horse-Kutuzov, Chapaev or someone else .. The role of the person in history should not be overestimated. The role of the people is more important, as people decide, it will be so ...
    1. +7
      2 September 2019 07: 45
      It is just important who will be there on a white horse: Rokossovsky or Kulik. You yourself know that a herd of sheep led by a lion is better than a herd of lions under the command of a ram.
    2. -10
      2 September 2019 08: 29
      The people are a big herd! "There are few real violent ones, and there is no leader!" Maybe we will stop lying to ourselves. We lost the battle of Borodino! The battlefield was left to Napoleon and Moscow was left for which Borodino was started!
      1. +3
        2 September 2019 13: 40
        In fact, Napoleon Borodino himself estimated almost as a defeat
        1. 0
          2 September 2019 15: 54
          Well, how else could he evaluate the outcome of the battle?
          To look for battles, to believe in victory for victory, and then such an utss word moral scrapping of the French army
          1. -3
            2 September 2019 17: 46
            Napoleon Borodino did not assess it as a defeat. And there was no scrapping. There was a tactical victory "on points". Results: the Russian army suffered more losses than the French, key positions were captured, and the retreat continued. The task of the French - to defeat the Russian army - has not been completed, the task of the Russians - to stop the enemy is also not fulfilled.
            1. +1
              3 September 2019 17: 01
              Instead of a brilliant victory, a massacre with no apparent result, and it should be noted that the massacre occurred oh how far from the city of Paris.
              In the place of maneuver, a direct attack on strong positions, directly and heroically on artillery!
              What remained of the cavalry at the time of the battle ceased to exist almost as a maneuvering force (the direction of withdrawal of a huge mass of soldiers, horses and artillery somehow missed).
              You can say anything, but the partisan actions of cavalry detachments in the presence of cavalry among the French would be very difficult.
              Huge losses away from their bases were irreparable.
              All these are not obvious trifles that are often looked at briefly speaking about one thing. The battle of Borodino defeat of the Napoleonic army is somewhat stretched in time.
      2. +4
        2 September 2019 14: 12
        Quote: Rey_ka
        Maybe we’ll stop lying to ourselves the battle of Borodino, we lost!

        In addition to black and white, shades still exist. In my opinion, Kutuzov was an outstanding strategist, but a very mediocre tactician. Borodino demonstrated this, but no one has said better than Napoleon about this battle, the French showed themselves worthy of victory, and the Russians gained the right to be invincible ...
        1. 0
          2 September 2019 21: 29
          Quote: qqqq
          Borodino demonstrated this, but no one has said better than Napoleon about this battle, the French showed themselves worthy of victory, and the Russians gained the right to be invincible
          "We are not the first to say that history does not know the subjunctive mood, but the choice of the commander-in-chief in the Patriotic War could not be accidental, and it is not by chance that the glory of the" winner of the French "went to Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov." There is nothing more to subtract here, but also not to add. Glory to the Russian commander MI Kutuzov, who defeated the invincible Napoleon.
    3. +6
      2 September 2019 08: 33
      Quote: Destiny
      All the same, they would have won, for then all the people had risen to defend the Fatherland.

      Won, maybe. But, perhaps, not for the HALF-YEAR, but for several years that would plunge the country into a catastrophe: in the economy, demography, loss of territories, and the strength of the state. Even incomplete half a year of war led to death 100 000 people of only the male sex of the Smolensk province, the destruction of more than half of the houses there!
      What would it be in a year or two? That is the question.
      And in this regard, the role of Mikhail Illarionovich is difficult to overestimate: already in November, the aggressor was thrown out of the borders of the Fatherland, it lives and develops longer
      Quote: Destiny
      Role personality in history do not overestimate. more important is how people decideit will be so ..

      Yeah, well, tell me how, without Napoleon, the people of France would have trampled into Egypt, Spain, Italy, Prussia, Russia, etc.
      1. +2
        2 September 2019 10: 20
        and I would also remember the Macedonian ...
    4. +2
      2 September 2019 11: 08
      Quote: Destiny
      Is it like now, or what? Who, if not Putin? Anyway, they would have won, because all the people had risen to defend the Fatherland then. And there it doesn’t matter who is ahead on the white horse-Kutuzov, Chapaev or someone else .. The role of the person in history should not be overestimated. The role of the people is more important, as people decide, it will be so ...

      No, it’s not so: imagine the same Bennigsen at the head of the Russian army, he’s good, but ... Kutuzov was the only one who could lead, lead both the people and the army, and the merit of the committee and Alexander 1 was that they understood this .. .
  2. +2
    2 September 2019 07: 26
    He was appointed to his place and threw the adversary outside the homeland.
    1. -4
      2 September 2019 07: 55
      All the main work was done by Barclay. Kutuzov could only not make blunders, with which he coped.
      1. +1
        2 September 2019 08: 32
        Here I agree. Barclay took on the unenviable role of the scapegoat due to the cowardice and stupidity of Alexander 1
      2. -1
        2 September 2019 10: 55
        He would have put the remaining soldiers and blew the war.
  3. +8
    2 September 2019 08: 29
    Kutuzov could not lose, rally and lead for which he bowed low. the role of de tolli is underestimated, it’s good that they did not appoint a bagration (spicy, garachiy). Is he equal to Napoleon's military talent or not? Kutuzov drove Napoleon, and not vice versa. to the author respect.
  4. +5
    2 September 2019 08: 29
    Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov won the battle, and Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov won the war!
    Both of them are worthy sons of Russia and Teacher and Student!
  5. -11
    2 September 2019 10: 59
    Russian officers participating in the 1812 campaign wrote dozens of memoirs. And in none of them there is a single mention of the name of Kutuzov.
    Why?
    After the war, veterans agreed: not to write anything bad - do not write anything. Hence the total written boycott.
    1. +7
      2 September 2019 11: 40
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Russian officers 1812 campaigners wrote dozens memoirs. And not one of them not a single mention surnames of Kutuzov.
      Why?
      After the war, veterans agreed: not to write bad things - do not write anything. Hence the total written boycott.

      Do not be ashamed, excuse me, do you write such a BAD? I did not expect .... Yes, and for what? request

      This is not just ignorance, it is a provocation.

      MEMOIRS OF THE RUSSIAN OFFICER F.N. Glinka:

      "Letters of a Russian officer about Poland, Austrian possessions, Prussia and France, with a detailed description of the Patriotic and Foreign War from 1812 to 1814"

      I.
      DESCRIPTION OF THE PATRIOTIC WAR OF 1812 BEFORE THE EXILE OF AN ENFORGER FROM RUSSIA AND TRANSITION ABROAD IN 1813

      18 of August

      Finally, the crowned leader arrived with this laurel and gray hair! Some of the venerable Gzhat merchants brought him themselves to their beautiful horses in the village of Tsarevo-Zaimishche. I just saw the Lightest Golenishchev-Kutuzovsitting on a simple bench near one hut, many generals surrounded him. JOY OF THE MILITARIANS IS UNPRESSIBLE. All faces became brighter, and military conversations around the fires were more joyful. The smoky fields of the bivouacs begin to be revealed in songs.

      20 of August

      How easy it is for a soldier to please! It should only show him that you care about his fate, that you delve into his condition, that you demand from him what is necessary and nothing superfluous. When the Most Serene Prince visited the regiments for the first time, the soldiers began to fuss, began to clean, stretch and build. "Do not! None of this is necessary! - said the prince. “I came only to see if you are healthy, my children!” A soldier on a campaign is not to think about panache: he needs to rest after work and prepare for victory. ” Another time, when he saw that a general’s convoy was preventing the regiments from going, he immediately ordered to clear the road and said loudly: “Every step of the road is on the way for a soldier, he’ll come soon — he will have more rest!” Such words of the commander in chief filled the whole army with a power of attorney and love for him. “That's what our“ father ”came! - said the soldiers, “he knows all our needs: how not to fight with him”; at in his eyes, "every one is glad to lay their heads." Be a great battle!

      Etc.
      1. -9
        2 September 2019 12: 25
        This does not look like a memoir, but a late insertion ...
        I'm not trying to do any provocation.
        Suvorov was definitely a genius in military affairs, but Kutuzov was not. Pushkin did not in vain mention Barclay, but not Kutuzov in his poems (Barclay, winter or Russian god?)
        1. +5
          2 September 2019 13: 01
          Quote: voyaka uh
          This does not look like a memoir, but a late insertion ...

          Yes? And how did you determine this? You, by the way, the FIRST doubted the authenticity, the others are still unknown ....

          Is this also "inserts"?

          Denis Davydov:
          : ... "less than five days have passed since the occupation of Moscow by the French army, as its message was already in danger skillful movement of Kutuzov from the Ryazan road to Kaluga, - traffic, exciting throughout the army of our delight and surprise,


          Ermolov:
          News of the appointment of a general from the prince's infantry Golenishchev-Kutuzov Commander all active armies and about his imminent arrival from St. Petersburg. Almost after the news, Prince Kutuzov arrived in Tsarevo-Zaimishche and took command over the 1st and 2nd Western armies. If unity of command could not completely stop the disagreement between the commanders of the armies, at least it was already harmless and went on under the best forms.

          No "mentions" in the memoir, yeah
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Suvorov was definitely a genius in military affairs, but Kutuzov was not.

          And Kutuzov, yes: Where is Napoleon after him? request
          At the same time, look how in the SAME 1812 Kutuzov genius won the war with the Turks, just a few days before the invasion of Napoleon, saving Russia from the 2nd front.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Pushkin did not in vain mention Barclay, but not Kutuzov in his poems (Barclay, winter or Russian god?)

          Well, what are you .... How can you? request

          Pushkin - M.I. Kutuzov:
          Before the tomb of the saint
          I stand with a drooping head ...
          Everything is sleeping all around; some lamps
          In the darkness of the temple
          Pillars of granite bulks
          And their banner is the looming row.

          Under them lies this ruler,
          This idol of the northern squads
          The venerable guard of the land of sovereign,
          The suppressor of all her enemies
          This rest of the glory
          Catherine eagles.


          The delight lives in your coffin!
          He gives us the Russian voice;

          He repeats us about that year
          When the popular faith voice
          Appealed to your holy graying:
          “GO, SAVE!” YOU GOT UP AND THANKS ...

          ...


          Here you have Barclay ....
        2. +1
          2 September 2019 13: 28
          Warrior, well, found a "military genius" - Pushkin ??? I look from Atalef you are typing anti-Russian poison.
          1. -5
            2 September 2019 14: 05
            I respect Pushkin very much. I especially love his prose.
            And I love Leo Tolstoy. Especially War and Peace. At the time of Leo Tolstoy, Borodino and the campaign of 1812 were still the main events of Russian history (as is now the Great Patriotic War).
            And his descriptions of both Kutuzov and Napoleon are not sucked from the finger. Kutuzov talked and was friends with children, those who fought on the Borodino field. And he himself had combat experience, which is important. He understood what he was writing about.
            1. +3
              2 September 2019 15: 55
              Dear Voyaka, you were a little mistaken: "Kutuzov talked and made friends with the CHILDREN OF THOSE WHO Fought on the BORODINSK FIELD" after all, Kutuzov died on April 28, 1813, and the novel was written fifty years later.
            2. +1
              2 September 2019 16: 07
              The warrior, actually L.N. Tolstoy had a negative attitude towards Napoleon and he generally denied the role of commander
            3. 0
              2 September 2019 17: 51
              Now musical compositions and pictures "on the theme" will be used. No, after all, if we are discussing historical events and characters, let's appeal to the works of historians and synchronous documents (diaries, orders, orders, notes) that were written during the events, and not 20-30 years later.
            4. 0
              3 September 2019 12: 33
              That is, we rely on artistic literature? Okay, Pikul, the novel "Unclean Power". By the way, there is also a fact-based Jewish-German conspiracy. Let's say what was it?
    2. +1
      2 September 2019 12: 30
      Well, why didn’t anyone write about Kutuzov? Just a couple of weeks ago I read the memoirs of Levenstern, who in 1812 was first an adjutant of Barclay, and then Kutuzov. So he speaks very cool of Kutuzov, as of a commander, and very good of Barclay.
      1. +2
        2 September 2019 13: 02
        Just a couple of weeks ago I read the memoirs of Levenstern, who in 1812 was first an adjutant of Barclay, and then Kutuzov.

        perhaps this is a reference to "who worked on which team." I repeat, Kutuzov brought his fellow staff officers from the Danube army. Why would Barclay's adjutant like that? request
        1. +2
          2 September 2019 13: 24
          It's not about “liking”. Just Levenshtein had a great relationship with Kutuzov, was a member of his family, enjoyed his patronage. This is now Kutuzov’s icon, then his attitude was different.
          1. +1
            2 September 2019 13: 26
            will need to read ... what thanks for the tip! hi
            1. +2
              2 September 2019 16: 09
              https://kpole.ru/catalog/vospominaniya-dnevniki-pisma/
              Glad I helped.
              1. +1
                2 September 2019 16: 18
                Glad I helped.

                in the evening I will draw a link to the home computer drinks
                Then I remembered Pikul, "To each his own." That, they say, the braids in our army were canceled only after Austerlitz. And Valentin Savvich sometimes compromised history to please the style and plot. Yes He began to check - yes, our army entered the Austerlitz field already in shakos, but with braids! request He did not lie .... hi but seems to have been canceled even later ...
                1. +2
                  2 September 2019 18: 36
                  The braids were shortened in April 1801 and completely canceled in December 2, 1806, the shakos were introduced from August 19, 1803. This is the most numerous among musketeer regiments. Information from Viskovatov.
                  1. +1
                    2 September 2019 19: 20
                    Information from Viskovatov.

                    there was a great man! who else would record the history of Russian uniforms, if not he hi
                  2. +1
                    2 September 2019 19: 31
                    I note, meanwhile, you two, comrades, will find a common language.
                    1. +1
                      2 September 2019 21: 55
                      why not, Anton? drinks with a smart person and chatting is nice. Moreover, I speak from memory, and Sergei refers to sources hi
    3. 0
      2 September 2019 21: 06
      In a Jewish school - that’s damp in butter, -
      The old teacher procrastinated the lesson ...)))
      Clever children - like a middle part -
      Like one grenadier set ...

      You can safely leave alone -
      The brain that the computer - worked for them ...)))
      Any topic - like a walnut, -
      Children pricked without seams and holes ...

      As if on a yellow strip of snakes, -
      They knew great Jewish husbands ...)))
      Smart, cold - a piercing look -
      A sharp sting is a destructive poison ...

      The cunning cobra and the evil gyurza -
      Hard curls - like coal, eyes ...)))
      The teacher thought - that for thousands of years -
      Yahweh was turning this skeleton ...

      Sarochki, Evochki - Helmets and Lions -
      Boys, girls with the blood of an owl ...)))
      White skin and cockatoo beak -
      Red apples in the Garden of Eden ...

      The mournful Holy Talmud, -
      Dropping the plebeian collar from the Jews, -
      In Heaven high Prophet Moses -
      He was a chronicler of the history of the whole ...

      Sour teacher in the textbook looked -
      The teacher’s brain - like a gadfly, buzzed ...)))
      In order to break their height -
      Thought hard - what to catch ?!

      He remembered Russia - rose and sat down -
      I remembered the portrait - that hung in the museum ...)))
      Right handkerchief covers her eye -
      Who is it? - shouted belligerently to the class ...

      Moysha Dayan! - he heard in response ...)))
      Lips twisted sarcastically - no-no!
      Left covered --- it is - Moisha Dayan! -
      Moisha Kutuzov! --- Field Marshal of the Slavs !!!
  6. +1
    2 September 2019 11: 16
    In 1809, the eternal rival of the great Suvorov, field marshal Count Mikhail Kamensky, who was very popular among the troops, also died.

    about the popularity of Mikhail Fedotovich it is necessary to clarify. But his example says one thing - "leave the stage" must be on time. The last campaign only "somewhat spoiled" the field marshal's service. hi
    However, in the campaign of 1805, Alexander could not do without Kutuzov - his only real competitor, the old field marshal Kamensky, in those days, finished off the Turks in Wallachia.

    hmm ... as far as I imagined, the war with the Turks began in 1806 .. and the old man Kamensky did not participate in it .. his son Nikolai participated! hi correct if wrong! with respect, hi
    In fact, the first person who could then be represented as commander-in-chief was the sovereign's brother Konstantin Pavlovich. <.........> With a good chief of staff, such as the same Barclay, the crown prince was obviously capable of much. <.........> He underwent military training in Gatchina, like his father, he adored formation and “shagistika”, and unlike his older brother, he had rich military experience. Already at the age of 20 he was a volunteer for the Suvorov army in the Italian and Swiss campaigns.

    Hmm ... hardly Konstantin had such a great experience. Nevertheless, in the troops of Suvorov, he hardly went on the attack, or fought on his own. request Konstantin was also distinguished by another quality - he stubbornly did not want to be a "great leader." This can be seen both in his words after the assassination of Paul (Constantine sincerely believed that he himself would not have coped with the kingdom), and in the example of the subsequent events of 1825. He could be a good general - but not a commander. hi
    1. +3
      2 September 2019 12: 33
      Constantine as a commander was a dummy, but at the same time a notorious soldier and intriguer. It was intrigue that served as the reason for his recall from the army in 1812.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +2
          2 September 2019 13: 26
          It's like that. And there was Yermolov, not the last person in the army and on the intriguing front.
          1. +1
            2 September 2019 13: 31
            And there was Yermolov, not the last person in the army and on the intriguing front.

            well, at least that is how he appears in Rakovsky's novel "Kutuzov" request by the way, the feeling that Pikul in "To Each His Own" "retold" this novel with might and main in the part of Austerlitz ... what but this is my personal! And Ermolov, with all his character, was a remarkably outstanding personality. But so were many of our generals! soldier it was not for nothing that the "Military Gallery" was drawn later ?! drinks
  7. +1
    2 September 2019 13: 57
    "The role of the people is more important, how people decide so and will be" aha, as it were not so.
    A few examples from history: when Vladimir "Prelate" introduced Christianity to Russi, 2/3 of the population then were pagans, and why did Christianity not take root and we remained pagans?
    When Peter 1 introduced a shaving beard and smoking, again 2/3 he was considered the Antichrist, but obeyed
    Nikonianism or Old Believers prevailed for the Nikonians.
    And the last example: 2/3 of the people in a referendum voted to preserve the Union, but the Union ruined the authorities



    к
  8. +1
    2 September 2019 15: 21
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    Constantine as a commander was a dummy, but at the same time a notorious soldier and intriguer. It was intrigue that served as the reason for his recall from the army in 1812.

    Actually, the conclusion suggests itself from the text that Alexander was afraid that Constantine would not "press him out".
    1. +2
      2 September 2019 16: 07
      Konstantin Alexandru was not a rival from the word “completely”. But he was an internal political heavyweight, relying on which it was possible to intrigue fearlessly against Barclay, and during the fighting this is fraught with losing the war.
  9. +1
    2 September 2019 15: 38
    The main merit of Kutuzov is not in the outstanding talents of the commander. The Russian army had enough excellent generals. But there was one huge problem - all these generals hated each other and did everything to "annoy" the rival, even to the detriment of the common cause. And it was the old courtier and diplomat who managed to direct the whole tangle of these intrigues and hatred into a general channel, which led to the victory over Napoleon, where, by the way, there was also no special love between the generals.
  10. +1
    2 September 2019 15: 42
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    It's like that. And there was Yermolov, not the last person in the army and on the intriguing front.

    At that time, as always, there were many intriguers. Mikhailo Ilarionovich Kutuzov: “at the same time, Kutuzov, not at all embarrassing, let his old connections enter, right up to prominent positions in the Masonry, too, of St. Petersburg”, also showed that he was not cheated by cunning. Indeed, he could not openly say in the same Masonic: "I am the smartest" for this it was necessary to show that the opponent is worse.
    1. +2
      2 September 2019 16: 32
      well, you can criticize the "old kunktator" for a lot of reasons. soldier Another thing is important - he really turned out to be the right person at the right time. Here again, fate: someone wrote about the young general Nikolai Kamensky that, they say, he was talented, and they could appoint him against the French. And he would have rushed against Bonaparte, and would definitely have been defeated - well, suppose, even if only because of the numerical superiority of the French at the beginning of the campaign. hi But fate wished that Kamensky died ... and yes, Barclay and Kutuzov adhered to a completely different plan, which led to the destruction of the "Great Army". request
  11. 0
    2 September 2019 16: 43
    The Russian commander, no matter what they say now, has shown himself not just equal to Bonaparte - it became clear after Borodino, but surpassed him in all respects as a strategist.

    Left like a carnation, by the very hat :)))))
    With all due respect to Kutuzov - I don't see behind him a strategic genius, all the more so equal to Napoleon. Kutuzov followed the "Scythian tactics", but, in fact, Barclay suggested using it. In short, it turned out like this:
    1) Napoleon miscalculated greatly, thinking that the war in Russia would end after he either broke up the Russian army or threatened to take Moscow. It has always been like this in Europe - as soon as the first or second was executed, Napoleon’s opponents asked for peace.
    2) Alexander decided not to give up and fight against all odds. This is not the merit of Kutuzov. So, it was Napoleon who beat strategically the Russian sovereign.
    3) Kutuzov believed, and quite rightly, that Napoleon would be destroyed by remoteness from bases, so his strategy was to retreat without battles in which the Russian army could be defeated. Kutuzov did not harbor hopes that he could confront Napoleon in the open field (and correctly), as a commander he was noticeably weaker than Napoleon. In principle, he reasoned correctly, but how, on the basis of the foregoing, can we assume that Kutuzov surpassed Bonaparte as a strategic genius?
    4) The undoubted merit of Kutuzov is that he did not allow the Russian army to be routed at Borodino. In general, Borodino was a French victory "on points" - our losses were greater, and the Russian army was forced to retreat. But strategically, it was a French defeat, because Bonaparte was unable to destroy our army, which means that Alexander could continue the war.
    In the future, Kutuzov made both very successful (Maloyaroslavets) and frankly unsuccessful decisions
    1. +2
      2 September 2019 18: 45
      According to 4. Kutuzov was phenomenally lucky that Napoleon did not use the guard under Borodin. Yes, and a day later reserves approached him, from memory two divisions. So Kutuzov could very likely suffer a crushing defeat.
      I agree completely with the rest.
      1. +1
        2 September 2019 19: 39
        Kutuzov was phenomenally lucky that Napoleon did not use the guard under Borodin.

        Probably, there is often an element of "some randomness" in the battle. what Dese's division returned to Marengo, the corps of the "daredevil Augereau" accidentally went to the Russian battery at Preussisch-Eylau, Napoleon did not dare to use the guard at Borodino (hmm ... but under Marengo he unsuccessfully sent the consular guard to attack! ... what ), and the Cossacks began to rob the enemy convoy under Tarutino, rather than cutting off the French withdrawal ..... It was not by chance, but somehow ... in general, how it happened, it happened! request Story! hi
        1. +1
          2 September 2019 21: 59
          If we recall the memories of Pele, then the guard, in view of the fact that the French rested against the Semenovsky ravine and the battery standing there, would have been crushed. He did not want to risk it without any meaning. Therefore, he decided to stop the battle and clear the field, which remained for the Russians.
          1. 0
            2 September 2019 22: 05
            Konstantin, I will assume that Bonaparte’s attitude was influenced by the raid of Uvarov and Platov. hi The raid, although it did not bring much success, but perhaps made him hold onto the reserve. soldier But Kutuzov reacted extremely negatively to both cavalry commanders for weak achievements! request They were not even presented for the awards for Borodino ... recourse
            1. +1
              2 September 2019 22: 18
              Only in terms of the threat of circumventing its left flank by certain reserves of the right flank of the Russians. The attack, and obviously a failure, with light cavalry, and on an unsuitable terrain for this, hardly impressed Napoleon. Although he certainly spent time. But in any case, when he decided to end the battle it was still quite light, and if he had seen at least some prospects, he could well have realized them. But the situation was already stalemate. Having pressed the left flank, he ran into the fortifications. On the right, Ponyatovsky tortured Utitsky Hill, and the first army in his trenches hung on the left. Instead of beautiful maneuvering - a dumb meat grinder.
              1. +1
                2 September 2019 22: 33
                Instead of beautiful maneuvering - a dumb meat grinder.

                Well, yes .... hi The emperor repeated many times that he could not understand how the redoubts and positions that were seized with such courage and which we so stubbornly defended, gave us only a small number of prisoners. Many times he asked officers who arrived with reports where the prisoners were to be taken. He even sent to the appropriate points to make sure that other prisoners had not yet been taken. These successes without prisoners, without trophies did not satisfy him ...(A.Kolenkur)
                but it’s interesting .. but would it be maneuvering there at all? Well, this is not Austerlitz with one clear calculated strike! what
                1. +1
                  2 September 2019 22: 44
                  Kutuzov left Napoleon a weakly fortified left flank. There was simply nowhere else to attack. From the word in general - to the left and right mounds and fortifications covered by the river and forests, the assault of which ended in nonsense. Napoleon was not able to recognize the relief and other pleasant features of the Russian position. But Kutuzov could conduct a full reconnaissance. And most importantly - he could sit in defense for as long as he wanted. He would even have lost less than Napoleon if Barclay had not suddenly decided that he was the smartest and would not have withdrawn part of his forces directly under the French guns.
    2. +1
      2 September 2019 21: 18
      1) So you didn’t break it. And moreover, he ditched all his cavalry, which determined his supply problems. And the capital was Petersburg - they might know.
      2) Kutuzov would destroy the army and it would not matter what Alexander decided there.
      3) Better write about ships. Kutuzov gave one of the largest battles of the era before the fall of Moscow and somewhat after. Barclay did not go into battle. And the genius of Kutuzov was that he gave battle when it was necessary, and did not consider that battle is a means of final victory like Napoleon.
      4) Kutuzov perfectly prepared Borodino and Napoleon with all his tactical genius got into a trap, at the end of which there was a Semenovsky ravine and a battery of 200 heavy guns behind it. Therefore, he did not introduce the guard and cleared the battlefield by 17 p.m., when it was still quite light.
      1. +1
        3 September 2019 17: 09
        Quote: Ken71
        Better write about ships.

        When I need your advice, I will ask you for it.
        Quote: Ken71
        And the capital was Petersburg - they might know.

        Thanks Captain Obvious. Perhaps, at the same time, will you quote in what specific place I called Moscow the capital of Russia? I will even help you a little
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        1) Napoleon miscalculated greatly, thinking that the war in Russia would end after he either broke up the Russian army or threatened to take Moscow. It has always been like this in Europe - as soon as the first or second was executed, Napoleon’s opponents asked for peace.

        Where?
        I mistakenly believed that I was dealing with an adult who did not need to explain that, although Moscow was not the capital of Russia, nevertheless its significance was approaching that. That is why I compared Moscow and the capitals of European powers.
        Quote: Ken71
        So you didn’t break it.

        Didn't break
        Quote: Ken71
        And moreover, he ditched all his cavalry, which determined his supply problems.

        I won’t even ask how you managed to link the cavalry and supplies. I can assume that the death of the horses was meant, but for the person who managed to accuse me of calling Moscow the capital of Russia in 1812, you are incredibly inaccurate in the wording.
        Quote: Ken71
        Kutuzov would destroy the army and it would not matter what Alexander decided there.

        Of course, I can answer in your style - Alexander would order to fight, and do not care what Kutuzov decides there, but I won’t do it. Instead, I repeat that the retreat according to the Scythian version is not the idea of ​​Kutuzov, although he fully shared and supported it. However, it existed before Kutuzov became commander in chief.
        Quote: Ken71
        Kutuzov gave one of the largest battles of the era before the fall of Moscow and somewhat after.

        And so what? The genius of the commander is not evaluated by the size of the forces that he entered into battle.
        Quote: Ken71
        Kutuzov perfectly prepared Borodino and Napoleon with all his tactical genius got into a trap, at the end of which there was a Semenovsky ravine and a battery of 200 heavy guns behind it.

        Well, let's figure out who got where and where.
        1) Apparently, Kutuzov perfectly understood that he was absolutely no match for Napoleon in military talent. Therefore, he did not even try to give Bonaparte a classic battle in the field, and try to replay the latter at the expense of various tactical maneuvers. Instead, Kutuzov was looking for a place where Napoleon’s tactical genius would have nowhere to turn around, and he found one - Borodino.
        2) The whole Kutuzov plan was not based on achieving victory, but on preventing defeat, that is, to prevent the French army from circumventing the Russian military formations. The essence of Kutuzov’s tactics was to force the Russian and French troops to fight head-on without any tactical frills, while on the Russian side there should have been an advantage of a strengthened position, and on the French side - the opportunity to concentrate forces where they consider it necessary.
        In other words, Kutuzov deliberately refused a contest of minds, relying on the strength of spirit and the stamina of Russian soldiers. This was, of course, correct, because the stamina of our troops was not inferior to the French, which could not be said about Kutuzov’s military skill.
        3) And now, having an excellent defensive position and all its advantages, Kutuzov .... suffers greater losses in battle than the French. Of course, it can be argued that if Barclay or someone else had done or did not do something, then the Russians would have lost much less, but these are just guesses. And in any case, the commander was still Kutuzov, so there was demand from him. This is not Tsushima, in which the equipment was tragically behind the Russians; Napoleon did not have such an advantage.
        Well, Kutuzov's deliberate refusal to confront Napoleon and the translation of the battle into a chest-to-chest plane cannot be passed off as the triumph of Kutuzov's military genius over Napoleon's. It can and should be said that Kutuzov, yielding to Napoleon as a military leader, chose the only tactics that would allow him to save the Russian army from defeat. But talking about the superior genius of Kutuzov ...
    3. +1
      6 September 2019 07: 17
      Andrei, then in the Second World War, when they created general awards, did you need the order not of Kutuzov, but of Alexander 1? Probably, then there were people who knew history, but they chose Kutuzov, and not another person
      1. +1
        6 September 2019 14: 09
        Quote: Astra wild
        Andrei, then in the Second World War, when they created general awards, did you need the order not of Kutuzov, but of Alexander 1?

        Well, why? It is Kutuzova :)
        Quote: Astra wild
        Probably, then there were people who knew history, but they chose Kutuzov, and not another person

        Well, secondly, Alexander could not be chosen in the USSR during the Second World War - to award a medal in honor of the king would be at least strange. But this is secondly, and firstly, it was Kutuzov who was the general. And he, whatever one may say, has achieved very, very much.
        The fact is that I do not dispute the presence of a military genius in Kutuzov, but only that the military genius of Kutuzov was higher than Napoleon. But you need to understand that Napoleon was probably the best commander of all times and peoples, and at least they managed to draw a battle with him in a draw ... but very few succeeded.
        Kutuzov did not make a single strategic mistake under Borodino. The price of his decisions was extremely high, this could not but put pressure on him, but still he managed. Recognize the intellectual superiority of the enemy and come to terms with this, come up with a battle plan that will allow the weakest to stand against the strongest, talentedly bring it to life (although the latter has questions) and still achieve the goal when so much is at stake ... Kutuzova’s talent great, no doubt, this is one of the greatest commanders of his era. So purqua wouldn’t be na?
        1. 0
          6 September 2019 21: 03
          Andrei, I perfectly understand that in the Second World War they could not award the Order of Alexander 1.
          There were ORDERS, not medals, but this is in passing. Regarding the fact that Napoleon: "was the best commander of all times and peoples" I was not specifically interested in this, but how many at school and then read, something did not meet such an assessment. Some also flashed on the site, they believe that he had a team of excellent marshals: Duroc and also called someone, but I don't remember
          1. +1
            7 September 2019 08: 49
            Quote: Astra wild
            Regarding the fact that Napoleon: "was the best commander of all times and peoples" I was not specifically interested in this, but how many at school and then read, something did not meet such an assessment.

            I can refer to the famous "Napoleon" Tarle. By the way, Tarle is not just a wonderful historian, his works are distinguished by a magnificent style, reading his books, you get real pleasure.
            As for Napoleon himself, he fought many more major battles in his life than any other military leader, and in almost all cases he was successful. He introduced many innovations into military science. He understood the power of artillery, and relied on it, he introduced a detour of enemy battle formations with part of his forces, which were supposed not only to reach communications, but to attack the enemy from the rear, used new formations (open and mixed, assault column), used " flying "artillery.
            Often Napoleon began battles long before those — he collected information about enemy commanders and tried to intrigue to his advantage — he had his own intelligence service, using bribes and provocations. There is a known case when Napoleon purposely wrote laudatory reviews about an Austrian general who, incidentally, was beaten by him several times, and through the agent network gave these fabrications to reach the Vienna office. As a result, a commanding post was taken by a man with very mediocre leadership qualities. Subsequently, his army was easily defeated, and the general himself was captured. Also known is the case when, during the Egyptian campaign, Napoleon ordered the unit commanders to indicate in the daily reports one-third more stocks distributed than it was in reality, thereby creating a false idea of ​​the number of troops in the enemy. To mislead the enemy is his hobbyhorse (brilliantly, by the way, worked in front of Austerlitz). The second - even if the enemy had a general superiority in strength, Napoleon searched and found ways to smash him in parts: “To win, you must be stronger than the enemy at this point and at the moment.” Suvorov, by the way, usually ignored this aspect. Napoleon, on the other hand, taught his army to quickly and skillfully maneuver and destroy individual enemy forces. And finally, he had a great sense of position - he did not allow the enemy to look out or shoot, as well as flank and sweep his troops, leaving this advantage to himself.
            Let us recall the famous "In the knapsack of every soldier lies the marshal's rod." In European armies, the soldier is the same serf, and Napoleon awakened a sense of honor in his soldiers. He understood the importance of the consciousness of an ordinary soldier, and skillfully played on this, creating in his army a completely unique (at that time!) Fighting spirit, his soldiers fought not for fear, but for conscience. I am not saying anything about the Russian soldier - the fighting spirit of our ancestors who defended the Motherland was traditionally the highest, but you still understand that this is a little different.
            Quote: Astra wild
            Some flickered on the site, believe that he had a team of excellent marshals

            Which was created by Napoleon himself :)))) At the same time, Tarle quite rightly notes that his marshals in his absence lost half of their combat value. In addition, there were few real, independent commanders among them - most of them were, as it were, "in their place" as an element of Napoleon's Great Army
            1. +1
              7 September 2019 16: 50
              You almost convinced me. Probably, a definition would be appropriate for Napoleon: a talented manager. Although now this word is not liked by colleagues.
              When I was studying, they told us that his army was not defeated while there was a revolutionary spirit. Until he took the title of emperor and from 1807 (?) The Army begins to lose its spirit and Napoleon begins a period of bad luck, and the company of 1812 dispelled the myth of invincibility.
              Textbooks have always emphasized the role of partisans. Something about the "club of the people's wrath" (I forgot the exact quote). Relatively recently I read that Caulaincourt did not have a high opinion of the partisans, but he valued the Cossacks. But how in reality?
              1. +1
                7 September 2019 17: 41
                Quote: Astra wild
                Probably, a definition would be appropriate for Napoleon: a talented manager.

                Nuuu, he was an extremely talented leader of the country, many of his innovations far outnumbered him.
                Quote: Astra wild
                When I was studying, they told us that his army was not defeated while there was a revolutionary spirit.

                And strangely enough, she kept this revolutionary spirit until the fall of Napoleon
                Quote: Astra wild
                Until he took the title of emperor and with 1807 (?) The army begins to lose its spirit

                Not at all. Think back to 100 days of the emperor. He landed with a battalion of soldiers, a regiment was sent against him. He alone goes to the formation of soldiers, approaches, the soldiers tremble, cry, cannot raise their weapons. He unbuttons his tunic: "Who wants to shoot their emperor?" That's all, the curtain: the line breaks down, the soldiers, throwing their weapons, rush to him, the regiment goes over to his side. The next, more powerful unit, too. And the next one. The people leave in delegations, Napoleon and the soldiers are just not being carried to Paris in their arms, his troops are accompanied by monstrous crowds of commoners. Everyone is delighted.
                As a result, the king of France sends with the army Marshal Ney, after Bonaparte - the commander beloved by the soldiers. Ney was sure that Napoleon was evil for France and was really going to stop him. But he soon realized that the soldiers ... were not that unreliable, but TOTALLY not ready to fight against Bonaparte. And then Napoleon handed him a note ... And that’s it, the whole army goes under the command of Napoleon. Everyone is happy - well, except for the king’s family, of course :))))
                This process was remarkably covered in the press of those years: "The Corsican monster landed in the Crane Bay"; "The man-eater is going to Graass"; "Bonaparte has occupied Lyon", "Napoleon is approaching Fontainebleau", "His imperial majesty is expected today in Paris devoted to him": )))))
                Why is that? First of all, because the French people were not so much for the revolution as they were against the king and royalists (the land issue - I did not want to return it to the feudal lords). Napoleon was also against the king, and that was enough for everyone. Well ... almost everyone :)))))
                By the way, the French soldiers on the same Borodino showed simply miracles of valor. They were in no way inferior to ours, and, as you understand, to correspond to a Russian soldier, when he defends his home, this is ...
                Quote: Astra wild
                Textbooks have always emphasized the role of partisans. Something about the "club of the people's wrath" (I forgot the exact quote). Relatively recently I read that Caulaincourt did not have a high opinion of the partisans, but he valued the Cossacks. But how in reality?

                IMHO right and those and others. Cossacks as a fighting force were much more efficient than partisan detachments. But the true meaning of the people's struggle was in passive resistance: it was not possible to take away - destroy, not to give the French anything, to take away food and horse feed. It was the lack of supply that so terribly reduced the strength of Napoleon’s army on the way to Moscow, and made it possible to more or less balance the forces in the Battle of Borodino. Thus, the Cossacks, of course, are stronger than the partisans, but both of them had such a great influence on the events (although the raids of both of them were extremely unpleasant), but any refusal to cooperate with the invading army it is much stronger. hi
                1. +1
                  7 September 2019 18: 24
                  It turns out that they told us not quite rightly in history?
                  1. 0
                    7 September 2019 20: 21
                    Quote: Astra wild
                    It turns out that they told us not quite rightly in history?

                    Simplified, of course :))) The bottom line is that, in the then understanding of the French, the concepts of France, republic, emperor quite unexpectedly woven together :)))) You understand that it’s unrealistic to stick such intricacies into a history textbook.
  12. 0
    2 September 2019 18: 02
    The Russians inflicted several painful attacks on the French in rear-guard battles, and the Mortier corps was generally defeated near Durenstein

    The rearguard skirmishes were serious, but Kutuzov's task was to withdraw the troops from the attack and connect with the main forces, which he did with brilliance. There was no defeat of Mortier's corps. The battle, like the entire campaign of 1805, is described in detail in "Austerlitz. Napoleon, Russia and Europe. 1799-1805".
  13. -3
    2 September 2019 20: 00
    Alas, Kutuzov, although he was not deprived of talents, but he certainly was not great. Especially in light of the fact that in the Russian army the highest composition was appointed on the basis of titles, as in Europe as a whole, and not according to abilities and talents, so the end is a little predictable.
    1. 0
      2 September 2019 21: 09
      Kutuzov’s grandfather is a captain. Dad is a general, but not all of God. And Kutuzov himself is a field marshal. And you - read books and carefully
  14. -2
    2 September 2019 21: 25
    Quote: Ken71
    Kutuzov’s grandfather is a captain. Dad is a general, but not all of God. And Kutuzov himself is a field marshal. And you - read books and carefully

    I don’t want to upset you, but you need to read books, although this is unlikely to help with such and such logic. Intelligence does not shine yet.
    1. +2
      2 September 2019 21: 49
      Of which titles has Kutuzov been appointed to the highest staff? Maybe Barclay, the son of a lieutenant, had some special titles? Read books and maybe you can say something other than stupid things. Kutuzov is not great for him, damn it. By the way, your Nadir Shah is also not a countess
  15. -3
    2 September 2019 22: 48
    Quote: Ken71
    Of which titles has Kutuzov been appointed to the highest staff? Maybe Barclay, the son of a lieutenant, had some special titles? Read books and maybe you can say something other than stupid things. Kutuzov is not great for him, damn it. By the way, your Nadir Shah is also not a countess

    We didn’t drink at the Brudershaft so that you would poke me, but to hell with you, goldfish, as expected. So, if you also had brains to be aware of what was written, you would know that in the armies of Europe at that time there was no place except for the lowest ranks, and that you could only become a general and field marshal (all the more) exclusively in the presence of a rich and ancient pedigree. If you weren’t a schoolboy, you wouldn’t be writing nonsense, you wouldn’t know such common truths ... by the way, Nadir Shah, about suddenness, not a European. Amazing right? the Turks have their own rules and traditions, and the main thing is that he seized the supreme power by force and do not care that the rootless - who has the army, is well done, and all dissatisfied died from wounds incompatible with life.
  16. +1
    3 September 2019 09: 15
    At some point, he most likely planned to stand at the head of his troops himself, taking the battle somewhere near the Dris camp.
    ------------------
    But it’s hard to imagine a worse nightmare than the battle at the Dries camp.
  17. Cry
    +1
    4 September 2019 07: 44
    In the First and Second Patriotic Wars, when Moscow is behind us, and these are holy words, it is defended by Kutuzov and the Russian people in the First and, accordingly, Zhukov and the Kirghiz in the Second, namely, two regiments of the Semirechye Cossacks and one Kyrgyz regiment of the division of General Panfilov, formed in the city of Frunze (now Bishkek). The Kyrgyz fought to the death in the direction of Riga, and the seven-riders in the west of Moscow, where the main blow fell on the Dubosekovo junction. Marshal Zhukov himself noted that the Battle of Moscow instilled confidence in the Victory over Nazi Germany, which is confirmed by the strict reports of German generals who fled to their winter quarters until the summer of 1942. Therefore, remember forever "The deeds of the ancestors is a red line, washed with blood, which runs through history and hearts.
  18. 0
    6 September 2019 06: 11
    Here I watch the warriors gathered. Judging by the type of warfare, Kutuzov was precisely a strategist, and yes, with Scythian tactics. In all wars, he stretched the forces of the enemy and sought to achieve at least parity in power with him. Moreover, he never sought to defeat the enemy in battle, but gave him the opportunity to decompose himself. So it was with the Turks, so it was with Napoleon. Who else defeated Napoleon with equal forces in a direct battle. Only Kutuzov, broken bridges under Vienna does not count. And how many generations should be grateful to Kutuzov that he went near Krasnoye, did not get involved in a meat grinder near Smolensk. Yes, there were obvious mistakes (more mistakes of subordinates), Napoleon and his marshals made even bigger mistakes. As a result: Napoleon’s loss of 610 thousand people, all supplies, artillery, horses, ammunition, carts, etc. For about 150 thousand of the dead Russians - 4/1 losses - study, sons. This is a complete rout, bro, well-trained army. Thanks to one admiralty, Wittgenstein and their subordinates, such as Chaplits, who simply did not guess to burn a kilometer-long gat, Napoleon left. And so, by and large, Ruschuk should have repeated with a prisoner of war camp.
  19. 0
    20 September 2019 19: 31
    When was a little Kutuzov,
    he had seven nannies ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"