Military Review

Napoleon in Russia. The pursuit of fear

108

Antichrist and his buddy


12 failures by Napoleon Bonaparte. At the very beginning of the negotiations between Alexander I and Napoleon in Tilsit in June 1807, the Russian emperor addressed his French colleague with the words “Sovereign, I hate the British as much as you do!” “In that case,” Napoleon answered, smiling, “that's all will be settled, and peace will be consolidated. ”


Napoleon in Russia. The pursuit of fear


Indeed, a peace treaty was signed, two rival empires became allies, only Napoleon smiled in vain: far more than the British, the Russian Tsar hated the French emperor himself. It was truly an all-consuming passion, which erupted only in communication with especially trusted persons.

So, his sister, Grand Duchess Catherine Pavlovna (to whom, by the way, Bonaparte unsuccessfully wooed), the sovereign brother admitted that there is only one place for them on earth. However, the excellent lyceum Alexander skillfully hid his feelings, and, exploiting the natural charm, tried in every possible way to win over the French monarch.

And although Napoleon suspected acting of an opponent, it seems that he did not solve the simple riddle of the Russian “Sphinx”. To paraphrase the conventional wisdom, Bonaparte’s relationship with Russia can be described as “only politics, nothing personal.” Alexander proceeded from exactly the opposite motives: "no politics - only personal." The reasons for such an attitude are a fascinating subject, but lying beyond the scope of our topic and already dismantled at Military Review.

However, at the beginning of the 19th century it was precisely subjective factors that dominated relations between Russia and France. All attempts to overcome Russia are unique in some ways, but similar in some ways. In 1812 and 1941, the continental Europe considered the war with our country only as a stage (albeit the most important) in the defeat of England.

But if fascist Germany and the Soviet Union looked at each other as mortal enemies, fully aware that a military defeat would turn out to be a national catastrophe for the confrontation, then Napoleon’s attack on Russia was clearly inadequately assessed in the official propaganda and public opinion of Russia of that era.


Nowadays, this kind of caricature of Napoleon is a rarity. At the beginning of the XIX century - the norm


Napoleon did not plan any “invasion” of Russia. His military plans corresponded to political tasks - rather modest. First of all, the Corsican intended to tighten the continental blockade against England, create a buffer state on the territory of the former Commonwealth and enter into a military alliance with Russia for a joint campaign in India - this mega-project from the time of Paul I continued to occupy Bonaparte’s imagination.

The main point of the war on the part of the future adversary was “coercion to cooperate”. Russia was required to strictly follow previous allied obligations and take on new ones. Yes, it would be an unequal alliance, covering up vassal dependence, but still an alliance.

Such an approach was fully consistent with the views of the emperor, whom numerous victories over Prussia and Austria did not encourage to encroach on the state sovereignty and internal structure of these countries. Moreover, Napoleon did not harbor such radical plans regarding Russia.

Unusual war


For the emperor of the French (as well as soldiers and officers of the Great Army), this was, let’s say, an ordinary “Central European” war. Unusual can be considered the size of the army, exceeding half a million people. Bonaparte gathered under his banners almost the entire Old World, which had not only military, but no less political significance, demonstration of unity and power - in front of Alexander, England and the rest of the world.

The invasion of the “twelve languages” in Russia was perceived quite differently, which was facilitated by official propaganda. After the beginning of the 1807 year, Russia opposed France as part of the so-called Fourth Coalition in order to arouse hatred of the enemy as a citizen, the clergy after each mass day read out to the parishioners the appeal of the Holy Synod, in which Napoleon was declared by none other than ... the Antichrist.



Note that in letters (for example, in a message from March 31 of 1808 of the year), Alexander called his French counterpart "dearest friend and brother." It is clear that the requirements of etiquette and political considerations prevail in diplomatic correspondence, but such an appeal by the Orthodox monarch to a person who was officially declared an enemy of the human race a year ago is at least amusing.

As the historian S.M. noted not without sarcasm Soloviev, "the war undertaken solely for the salvation of the perishing Prussia was turned into a popular war directed against the persecutor of the Orthodox Church, who dreamed of declaring himself the Messiah." Then a decree was issued on the collection of the people's militia. It is not surprising that five years later, the war against Bonaparte, which invaded Russia, was declared Patriotic.

The approach of the enemy to the heart of the country, unprecedented since the Time of Troubles, in itself caused shock in different sections of society. Moreover, after the rapid expansion of the country's borders to the west and south during the reign of Catherine, such a development of events seemed incredible. Let us add the regular rise of patriotism, hatred of the invaders, anxiety for the fate of the Fatherland, the pain of losses, the reaction to robberies and violence, and it becomes clear why the Patriotic War became such not by name, but in essence.

But, again, for Napoleon, the Russian campaign differed only in the scale and theater of operations. About the pathological hatred of Alexander, who at the beginning of the war came in unison with the moods at the top and bottom of Russian society, the ruler of Europe had no idea and hardly took such categories into account. In a letter from the burnt down Moscow, Napoleon will tell Alexander that he "waged a war without bitterness." But these were, as they say, his problems - no one promised the aggressor to take into account his "vindictiveness."

It is generally accepted that Russia was pushed to confrontation by the humiliating Tilsit world, which forced to curtail trade and grain exports to England, dealt a significant blow to the Russian economy. As for the "humiliation", it is appropriate to talk about it only if you take into account that the contract was concluded with the "Antichrist" and under its dictation.

As for the economic problems allegedly generated by Russia's accession to the Continental blockade, then, as Chancellor N.P. informed Alexander Rumyantsev, "the main cause of the financial crisis is not at all a break with England, but incredible military spending."



In 1808, treasury losses from a reduction in trade amounted to 3,6 million rubles, while military expenses amounted to 53 million rubles. In 1811, they more than doubled - to 113,7 million rubles, which amounted to a third of the total state budget. Such large-scale preparations were obviously not made to get out of the Continental blockade, otherwise it would be akin to trying to nail a fly with a crystal vase.

On the whole, the development of any relations with England, the most consistent and ardent opponent of Russia, obviously contradicted national interests. Alexander had much more reasons to be friends with Napoleon against the British than vice versa.

It was this consideration that Bonaparte took into account. Moreover. The French emperor probably knew that Russian landowners, including many influential metropolitan nobles, suffered from joining the Continental blockade. In this case, the successful invasion of the Great Army in Russia could “help” the tsar to cope with the internal opposition and, without looking at it, strictly follow the agreements in Tilsit.

But, as we know, Alexander (at least in this matter) was guided by completely different motives. He may have hated the British, but do not forget that the plot against Paul was inspired by London and knew very well the background of his son’s accession to the throne. And in 1807, Russian troops fought the “Antichrist” for Prussia with English money.

Scythian games


Napoleon intended to achieve his goals by winning a large frontier battle. However, the real scenario of the Russian campaign immediately and decisively diverged from these plans. Moreover, it seems that this script was written in advance and written in St. Petersburg. This is fundamentally at odds with the current view of the course of the 1812 campaign of the year, in which the retreat of the Russian troops appears to be a forced decision and almost impromptu, but the facts speak for themselves.



To begin with, the whole experience of previous anti-French coalitions prompted similar tactics. As S.M. noted Soloviev, all the best generals considered the best means of fighting Napoleon to avoid decisive battles, retreat, drag the enemy deep into the territory.

It’s another matter that in the constrained conditions of the European theater of operations, there was nowhere to retreat and “drag out”, so Napoleon and his marshals resolutely stopped such attempts - but the Russian open spaces opened up exciting prospects for such maneuvers. The scorched earth tactics cannot be considered the same domestic know-how - it was successfully applied in Portugal by the Duke of Wellington when retreating to the Torres-Vedras lines in 1810. And the effectiveness of the guerrilla war against the French Spanish guerillos demonstrated quite clearly.

The strategy of the "Scythian war" is attributed to Barclay de Tolly. But the Russian Minister of War, in search of worthy examples, hardly needed to go so deep into the past. In 1707, on the eve of the invasion of Charles XII, Peter the Great formulated the following course of action for the Russian army: “Do not fight the enemy inside Poland, but wait for him on the borders of Russia,” according to Peter, Russian troops had to intercept food, obstruct the crossing, and “exhaust” the enemy transitions and constant attacks.



Having in mind a similar strategy, Alexander directly pointed out to Barclay: "Read and re-read the journal of Peter the Great." The minister, of course, read, read, and drew conclusions from his aides, such as Ludwig von Volzogen, the author of one of the plans for a "retreat" war against France.

Russia had no shortage of competent experts. The former Napoleonic Marshal, and at that time the Crown Swedish Prince Bernadotte, in a letter to the Russian Tsar, gave extremely clear instructions:
“I ask the emperor not to give general battles, to maneuver, to retreat, to prolong the war - this is the best way of acting against the French army. If he comes to the gates of Petersburg, I will consider him closer to death than if your troops were standing on the banks of the Rhine. Especially use the Cossacks ... let the Cossacks take everything from the French army: the French soldiers fight well, but lose their spirit under deprivation. "


The emperor praised Bernadotte's authority, to the extent that he suggested that he lead the Russian army after Kutuzov was appointed commander in chief. Undoubtedly, the king listened to his advice and used them in making decisions.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Russians have the right not to consider Borodino a defeat
1812-th: nobody but Kutuzov
108 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. polar fox
    polar fox 18 September 2019 05: 21
    +2
    so everything is interesting, but still: why did Napoleon go to Moscow? the capital, it seems, was in the other direction? the compass was faulty? but how did it happen that the monument to the "great" Kutuzov was never erected, and the French, as much as they wanted?
    1. Basil50
      Basil50 18 September 2019 07: 28
      -6
      Napoleonic Europe went to RUSSIA only for slaves and lands. And the war was planned in the spirit of colonial wars in Asia and Africa. when they defeated the native army and then forced the king of the Papuans to serve. This was then carried out the selection of the local nobility for loyalty to the colonialists. In all the captured colonies, the capture strategy was one.
      THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE was considered only as a future colony, and nothing else. In the RUSSIAN EMPIRE, the nobility began to be calibrated with the import nobility. Those who grew up and did not consider themselves RUSSIAN and saw their future only in Europe. The worship of the * enlightened ...... * * was so great that neither poverty, nor ignorance, nor outright racism, which flourished in Europe then, were noticed.
      However, today in RUSSIA there are similar (...) eccentrics. The brightest representative (Sytin) even on TV openly and loudly expressed everything he wanted. He was not interrupted, and even the prosecutor's office did not say anything, although his curses and calls for the destruction of all of us, citizens of RUSSIA, and especially RUSSIAN people, were voiced loudly and broadcast on TV.
      Listen to those who are most dissatisfied with RUSSIA, it is either frankly bought * individuals * or those who thinks they are * elite * and are offended by the very fact of living in RUSSIA.
      1. wolf20032
        wolf20032 18 September 2019 09: 19
        +4
        Funny fantasy - slaves and lands.
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 18 September 2019 10: 02
          +5
          Well, of course! Napoleon personally had twenty million slaves and did not have enough land. That is the whole reason for the year 1812. laughing
          What to blame on the victims of the exam? Here adults give out such pearls - you will swing!
      2. Ehanatone
        Ehanatone 27 October 2019 01: 58
        +2
        Bullshit of the mare - gray-haired!
    2. mark2
      mark2 18 September 2019 07: 45
      +2
      How was it set? Kutuzovsky Prospekt in Moscow, the large artillery cruiser Mikhail Kutuzov in Novorossiysk. And this is just a shot. And there is the monument itself in Moscow.
    3. Phil77
      Phil77 18 September 2019 08: 14
      +1
      * If I take Kiev, I will take Russia by the legs, if I take Petersburg by the head, if I take Moscow, I will hit Russia in the very heart. *. Napoleon Bonaparte. Approximately so.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 18 September 2019 09: 53
        +5
        A well-known phrase that Napoleon did not pronounce. This is also one of those invented in the context of the political situation at the time of the Restoration.
        1. Phil77
          Phil77 18 September 2019 10: 46
          +2
          Sorry! This phrase * came * from the memoirs of da Pradt (confessor of Napoleon). Why Napoleon could not pronounce it?
          1. Tavrik
            Tavrik 18 September 2019 11: 48
            +2
            Because Pradt was never Napoleon's confessor. "Napoleon" and "confessor" are mutually exclusive concepts. Now I don't have a book at hand, I'll look at it in the evening and be sure to report it. But the history of the appearance of this phrase is very interesting ...
            1. Phil77
              Phil77 18 September 2019 18: 18
              +2
              However, they were intriguing! I’m waiting! Well, according to de Pradt, the figure agrees * intriguing *. The memoirs published in 1816 could flatter the new owners. But the emperor could say that, the phrase sounds beautiful! hi
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 18 September 2019 17: 22
        0
        feel What the hell is Russia?
        However, at the beginning of the 19th century it was precisely subjective factors that dominated relations between Russia and France. All attempts to overcome Russia are unique in some ways, but similar in some ways. In 1812 and 1941, the continental Europe considered the war with our country only as a stage (albeit the most important) in the defeat of England.
        So maybe England threw this pebble into their boots? feel And they say "Great things are seen at a distance." feel
    4. Prometheus
      Prometheus 18 September 2019 08: 24
      +4
      Napoleon did not need a capital. There were no plans to conquer; From the first day of the campaign he sought to defeat the 1st and 2nd Russian armies. And they retreated and lured him inland. As a result, instead of a quick summer walk, the Great Army went further and further east. They took a bunch of warm clothes with them, because it’s cold in Russia ... and they were met by summer heat and heinous.
      In pursuit of the Russian armies, the enemy went further and further wink
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 18 September 2019 17: 51
        +1
        Quote: Prometheus
        Napoleon did not need a capital. There were no plans to conquer; From the first day of the campaign he sought to defeat the 1st and 2nd Russian armies. And they retreated and lured him inland. As a result, instead of a quick summer walk, the Great Army went further and further east. They took a bunch of warm clothes with them, because it’s cold in Russia ... and they were met by summer heat and heinous.
        In pursuit of the Russian armies, the enemy went further and further wink
        You don’t know stories. Napoleon was going to destroy the possibility of the revival of the Rurikovich, these are archives, bit books that were successfully destroyed. As it always happened in history, we see a shell, but inside the order of the Vatican and Napoleon went there and, lo and behold, this coincides with the interests of England, in principle, Alexander is not against sabotage.
        1. Hantengri
          Hantengri 18 September 2019 22: 08
          +5
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          You don’t know stories. Napoleon was going to destroy the possibility of the revival of the Rurikovich, these are archives, bit books that were successfully destroyed.

          And why the hell did all these Rurikovich surrender to Bon, along with bit books and the probability of their disintegration tending to zero?
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          and inside the order of the Vatican and Napoleon visited there

          Yeah! After the Vatican, Napoleon was not a cake at all, or rather, a cake! Frowning demons. wassat
          The question is: For which Ben did the Vatican need all of these Rurikovichs, along with bit books and the probability of their occurrence tending to zero?
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          and lo and behold, this coincides with the interests of England,

          And these, too, Rurikovich confused? And what kind of geshevt is it?
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          in principle, Alexander is not against sabotage.

          Sat like that, Alexander | for days on the throne and kept thinking: "What kind of bastard prevents me from quietly reigning ??? A-ah! Got it! Rurik and bit books !!!" wassat
          Yes, Mauritius?
          PS "It's hard to find a black man in a dark room, especially if he has escaped." (from)
    5. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 18 September 2019 10: 05
      +5
      Because in the direction of Moscow the main forces of the Russian army retreated. Napoleon wanted to impose peace on Russia by defeating its army in a general battle, as was the case with Prussia and Austria. And to attack St. Petersburg, having on the flank and, potentially in the rear, the combined forces of Barclay and Bagration ... Well, Bonaparte wasn’t so to be substituted. lol
    6. Tavrik
      Tavrik 18 September 2019 10: 10
      +4
      Because capture (siege, assault, bloodthirsty, destruction, capture of slaves laughing ) Peter led to a complete and final break with Russia. Napoleon needed Russia as an ally. Two previous wars with Russia were seen as annoying misunderstandings. In 1812, a quick victory over the army and a quick peace with an unreasonable ally were needed. And the army retreated to Moscow, and not to Peter.
      The article is correct. The reasons of 1812 are fairly objectively considered. And if you still described where such a rabid increase in military spending in the years 1810-1811 came from, it would have been indicative in general.
    7. Proxima
      Proxima 18 September 2019 12: 12
      +3
      Quote: polar fox
      so everything is interesting, but nevertheless: why did Napoleon go to Moscow? the capital, it seemed to be on the other side? the compass is faulty?
      Napoleon went to where the main forces of the Russian Imperial Army were. It was planned to destroy the armies of Barclay and Bagration in parts, but they joined in the Smolensk region. Then Bonopart went to Smolensk. Then the army went to Moscow, followed by Napoleon. The Corsican needed not cities, but the defeat of the Russian army and, as a result, the guaranteed winning of the company. In fairness, it is worth noting that there was a certain interest in the seizure of cities by Napoleon. In particular, to capture St. Petersburg were highlighted two corps (Udino and MacDonald), which were utterly defeated by Wittgenstein’s inferior corps at the Battle of Klyastitsy. fellow Here is the answer to why Napoleon did not go to Petersburg. He then “went”, but his legs broke him! lol
      1. Pane Kohanku
        Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 15: 14
        +5
        The Corsican needed not cities, but the defeat of the Russian army and, as a result, the guaranteed winning of the company.

        exactly! good if in Europe Napoleon could recruit an army quickly, we would in Russia in that case recreate the army for several years - logistics, sir! hi
        two corps (Udino and MacDonald), which were utterly defeated by Wittgenstein’s inferior corps at the Battle of Klyastitsy.

        Sergey, I’ll clarify a little. drinks Under the Klyaschitsy was only Odino. Near Polotsk, already in October - Saint-Cyr. The bridge in the center of Polotsk is called Red from the battle that took place on it and near it during the Second Polotsk battle. MacDonald, on the whole, EMNIP, languidly grumbled about the whole war near Riga. He didn’t do anything heroic, and left, hiding behind York .. who concluded a ceasefire agreement with our people, but in fact he joined ours after a short time! drinks
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 18 September 2019 15: 36
          +1
          Thanks for clarifying hi . There will be an opportunity, I’ll raise the material, I’ll figure it out in detail, and I think you “misunderstood” something, or maybe I'm wrong! what
          1. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 15: 41
            +3
            I will be able to, I’ll raise the material, I’ll figure it out in detail and I think you have “misunderstood” something, or maybe I'm wrong!

            in mutual refinement, truth is born, both for you and me, Sergey, and for the rest of your colleagues in the forum! drinks of course! if I'm wrong about something, I admit!
          2. Ivan Petrov_9
            Ivan Petrov_9 18 September 2019 23: 48
            +1
            MacDonald’s 10th Corps did not participate in the Battle of Klyastitsy. The battles of the Russian 1st Separate Corps of Lieutenant General Count Wittgenstein with the 2nd Army Corps of the French Army under the command of Marshal Udino, which took place from July 30 to August 1 (July 18-20) at Yakubovo Manor, in the towns of Klyastitsy, Boyarschina and Golovshtitsa our troops lost 1195 people killed, 2502 wounded and 504 were missing. The French lost from 3000 to 4000 thousand people.
    8. The comment was deleted.
    9. forcecom
      forcecom 18 September 2019 15: 46
      +1

      Is such a monument to Prince Kutuzov suitable?
    10. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 18 September 2019 19: 35
      +2
      Quote: polar fox
      why did Napoleon go to Moscow? The capital, it seems, was on the other side?

      But you yourself think. smile
      Let's ignore the fact that the main goal of Napoleon was precisely the defeat of the Russian army, and not the seizure of territory, and we will discuss how he would act if he planned to seize large territories from Russia and establish his own administration on them, well, that is, to capture.
      Try to answer a few questions:
      1. Which goal is easier to achieve - Moscow or St. Petersburg in terms of their geographical location, communications and environmental conditions?
      2. Capturing which target will cause greater damage to Russia as a military adversary and to the benefit of Napoleon himself?
      In my opinion, the answers to these questions are quite obvious.
      It’s more difficult to get to St. Petersburg, despite the shorter distance — you'll have to make your way through the swamps, narrow defile, force numerous rivers, mainly in their lower reaches, in short, there are much more difficulties, because on the way to Moscow the terrain is much more suitable for troop movement and maneuver, less natural obstacles. In addition, large combat-ready armies remain from the south, capable of completely intercepting communications in a short time ...
      Further. Let's say they captured Petersburg. What's next? The king with the government and the court had long moved. As a base for wintering, our places (I’m from the Leningrad Region) are not suitable - since the time of ancient Novgorod, we have been dependent on food imports since the weather is bad, cold, winter comes a week, or even two earlier. Barclay and Bagration hang from the south, Alexander feels great in Moscow. Where to go next - to Vologda? To Novgorod? A real trap.
      At the same time, the seizure of Moscow actually tears the country in half, isolating the south from the capital region, in addition, the Moscow region is much richer both in terms of food and in terms of population, in short, in all respects. In addition, advancing strictly to the east, Napoleon would, in the worst case scenario, push the Russian armies in front of him, while advancing to the northeast, he would inevitably leave them in his rear.
      In short, Bonaparte did not have much choice. smile
      1. Beringovsky
        Beringovsky 18 September 2019 20: 53
        0
        In my opinion, the answers to these questions are quite obvious.

        No.
        advancing to the northeast, would inevitably leave them in his rear

        Why would the Russian armies sit in the rear of Napoleon? Would they give up the defense of Petersburg?
        What is the meaning of such a sitting in the rear?
        In addition, large combat-ready armies remain from the south, capable of completely intercepting communications in a short time ...

        Well, in the campaign to Moscow, they were from the south and north.
        In addition, troops in St. Petersburg can be supplied by sea.
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 18 September 2019 22: 03
          +1
          Quote: Beringovsky
          Why would the Russian armies sit in the rear of Napoleon? Would they give up the defense of Petersburg?

          You look at the disposition of the Russians on the eve of the invasion. They there (to the rear of Napoleon) would simply remain if he moved to the northeast. Even if this made no sense (and there is always a reason to block the enemy’s communications), they simply wouldn’t physically have time to block his path.
          Quote: Beringovsky
          Well, in the campaign to Moscow, they were from the south and north.

          And Napoleon between them threatened to crush them one by one, as a result of which they were forced to march east to get connected as early as possible. In the case of Napoleon’s march to St. Petersburg, no one would interfere with him in the rear. Don't you feel the difference?
          Quote: Beringovsky
          In addition, troops in St. Petersburg can be supplied by sea.

          Something went wrong with Napoleon with the sea. request
          But seriously, who would carry food, on what and how would they defend themselves from hostile fleets? I'm not saying that in order to ensure communications across the Baltic, Napoleon would need to take not only Petersburg, but also Vyborg with Helsingfors, as well as Kronstadt, which would be extremely difficult to do without sea dominance. And then winter would come, and the Baltic at this time of year, let it be known, is usually covered with ice ...
          I got the impression that you mind just to argue, without bothering to test your own arguments for strength before putting them up.
          1. Beringovsky
            Beringovsky 18 September 2019 22: 31
            0
            I got the impression that you mind just to argue, without bothering to test your own arguments for strength before putting them up.

            This time you are mistaken. You can refute the points.
            You look at the disposition of the Russians on the eve of the invasion.

            Let's say. What follows from this? What did the Russian command know where Napoleon would move?
            It is possible, but this does not explain Moscow as a goal.
            In the case of Napoleon’s march to St. Petersburg, no one would interfere with him in the rear.

            And what would they do when connected? Have you watched Napoleon manage in St. Petersburg? Or would they give him a fight on the outskirts of the city? Well, that’s exactly what Napoleon wanted, a general battle.
            As for the possibilities of the French in the Baltic, I do not know anything, this is a question for specialists. The Baltic of course freezes in winter, but in winter it is not hot in Moscow either, and on the way to it. Although, apparently, Napoleon did not expect to winter in Russia.
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 19 September 2019 09: 05
              +1
              Quote: Beringovsky
              What follows from this? What did the Russian command know where Napoleon would move?

              Quite the opposite. It is unknown, therefore, they tried to cover all directions by spraying troops. You make strange conclusions, it seems, from clear premises. request
              Quote: Beringovsky
              And what would they do when connected?

              If we cut communications and stuck Napoleon in the Courland or Ingermanland swamps without supplies and bases - there would be no need to fight with him. The Baltic states are not Central Russian highlands, of all that the army needs there, water is abundant there, it’s wet above, and it’s dirty from below. smile There are many forests, swamps and rivers with marshy shores, few roads and bridges, no room for maneuver. And Petersburg in general is surrounded by a ring of impassable swamps from the south, east and west, through which there were four roads - to Revel, to Pskov, to Moscow and Arkhangelsk, and the last two did not fit Napoleon. The width of the swamp zone is up to 150 km. Even if he had captured Pskov or Revel, which Tallinn would have run into these swamps, the passages in which could be protected by relatively small forces without fear of circumvention, and even a delay of one month in these impoverished lands, given the presence of a combat-ready army in the rear, would be a disaster .
              Quote: Beringovsky
              By the way. Next to St. Petersburg in my Finland and Sweden, emnip?
              As you know, they were always anti-Russian and Napoleon probably in St. Petersburg could count on them.

              Yes, you would at least be a little worried about checking your own theses ... In the article, there are a few words about Bernadotte. Sweden was an ally of Russia in that war. Well, about Finland there are no words at all. She could not be anti-Russian simply because she was a province of the Russian Empire, torn away from Sweden in 1809.
              Well, how to argue with you? request
          2. Beringovsky
            Beringovsky 18 September 2019 22: 46
            0
            By the way. Next to St. Petersburg in my Finland and Sweden, emnip? winked
            As you know, they were always anti-Russian and Napoleon probably in St. Petersburg could count on them.
            1. Warrior2015
              Warrior2015 22 September 2019 01: 01
              0
              Quote: Beringovsky
              By the way. Next to St. Petersburg in my Finland and Sweden, emnip?
              As you know, they were always anti-Russian and Napoleon probably in St. Petersburg could count on them.

              Well, shortly before that, Russia chopped off Finland from Sweden just being an ALLIANCE of Napoleonic France, therefore Finland will be a province of the Russian Empire in 1812 and 100 years. But Sweden has always been against France and an ally of Britain, and in the 1812 year it became an ally of Russia.
      2. Tavrik
        Tavrik 19 September 2019 01: 50
        +2
        The only trouble is that there are no documents that at least somehow confirm Napoleon’s intentions to chop off at least a piece from Russia. Even the former Polish lands to the Poles, he did not plan to return. What for? Why tear, for example, Smolensk and Pskov provinces and what to do with them? Create a republic? Give the Poles? Make a department of France? What is the purpose of this? Russia was needed as an ally! A potential ally must not be offended by blood. You can only win a little as a preventive measure. So, in 1807 they fought, and then they made peace and alliance. The plan for 1812 was the same.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 19 September 2019 08: 58
          0
          That's just not an ally, but a vassal
        2. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 22 September 2019 01: 06
          0
          Quote: Tavrik
          The only trouble is that there are no documents that at least somehow confirm Napoleon’s intentions to chop off at least a piece from Russia. Even the former Polish lands to the Poles, he did not plan to return.

          Yah ? Will the facts of the establishment of the Franco-Polish administration in the occupied extreme western regions of the Russian Empire and preparation for their transfer to the duchy of Warsaw suit?

          what did not have time - well, it happens, but Napoleon did not plan his collapse. By the way, he did not plan much at all, and what he planned, he often succeeded poorly. For example, he "on his knees" outplayed a 2-year plan of a campaign against Russia into a one-year one, considering that he "would spend only a few tens of thousands of extra soldiers."

          Quote: Tavrik
          Why tear, for example, Smolensk and Pskov provinces and what to do with them? Create a republic? Give the Poles? Make a department of France? What is the purpose of this? Russia was needed as an ally! A potential ally must not be offended by blood.
          First, it is precisely that a submissive vassal, or even a subordinate, an occupied protectorate. The revival of Greater Poland "from walrus to walrus" was one of the projects, with a plan to transfer all the territories that were part of the wound in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

          Secondly, look at Spain - the nearest provinces are chopped off to France, a little further - puppet republics or vassal states are formed, and then - the country is preserved as if its natural government, even the old dynasty remains, but under full French control.
      3. sivuch
        sivuch 19 September 2019 08: 55
        +1
        Michael, where exactly do you live in the Leningrad Region?
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 19 September 2019 09: 10
          +1
          There is the city of Luga
          Petersburg district
          Worse
          Towns in mind,
          If it weren’t in the world
          Novorzhev my

          Pushkin smile
          What countrymen?
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 19 September 2019 09: 20
            +1
            now send in PM
    11. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 19 September 2019 08: 33
      0
      with this, everything is simple in the first place, if you go to St. Petersburg, the Russian army remains in the rear! and secondly, well, Napoleon had no plans to capture Russia. there was a plan to finally force peace and that Alexander keep his word!
  2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 18 September 2019 05: 39
    +7
    Thank you!
    Although to be honest, the first who described the "Scythian war" was the ancient Greek historian Herodotus! Aristotle, Plutarch, and other Greek and Roman Authors have lines about this Scythian tactics.
    So, “a prose writer of the scorched earth tactics Wellleton” is a “trend”, but not ours! I am inclined that Barclay de Toli and Bagration, retreated before the Great Army not by design, but by banal necessity (otherwise impromptu)! Already all this is intricate, it turned out !!!
    Regards, Kote!
    1. Pane Kohanku
      Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 11: 18
      +3
      Vladislav, the brave Bagration, just did not accept this plan. Barclay almost called a traitor! request but reconciled after a mortal wound ..
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. midshipman
    midshipman 18 September 2019 08: 31
    +9
    In St. Petersburg, after the publication of my story "The Forgotten Governor-General", a monument to Miloradovich (Savior of Russia) was erected. It is installed on Moskovsky Prospekt near the Moscow Gate. Even the President of Serbia came to its opening. There was a guard of honor parade, I also spoke at the opening of this monument. Then a prayer service was held in the convent, and a big concert in the Hermitage Theater in the evening.
  5. Olgovich
    Olgovich 18 September 2019 08: 50
    0
    All attempts to overcome Russia are unique in some ways, but similar in some ways. And in 1812, and in 1941-m Continental Europe considered only war with our country.to the stage (albeit the most important) in the defeat of England.

    Something new in history: the author is not aware of Mein Kampf, Drang nach Osten and Barbarossa and the Ost plan?
    Napoleon’s attack on Russia was clearly inadequately assessed in the official propaganda and public opinion of Russia of that era.

    Wow, "inadequate": an army of more than half a million enemy soldiers has come to Russia! this has never happened, and in world history such armies can be counted on one hand
    Napoleon did not plan any “invasion” of Russia. His military plans corresponded to political tasks - rather modest. First of all, the Corsican intended to tighten the continental blockade against England

    So he and the invasions of Spain, Italy, Austria, Prussia, Holland, Egypt, "did not plan": so, it happened. Not out of malice.
    This psychopath, who was planning to take over the whole world, needed to be stopped.

    For the emperor of the French (like the soldiers and officers of the Great Army), this was, let’s say, normal "Central European" war. Unusual can be considered the size of the army, exceeding half a million people.

    And how does "ordinary" combine with ... "unusual"? belay No way! Or ordinary - with ordinary, or - unusual with - unusual, which was in reality: it was not an ordinary war at all, in scale, bitterness, losses.
    In a letter from burnt down Moscow, Napoleon will tell Alexander that he “waged war without bitterness”

    Spruce-burned while blown up. looted Kremlin, stables in the Assumption Cathedral, the loss of only Smolensk province in ... more 100 men onlyis "no bitterness" ?!
    In 1808, treasury losses from a reduction in trade amounted to 3,6 million rubles, while military spending was 53 million rubles. In 1811, they more than doubled - to 113,7 million rubles, which amounted to a third of the total state budget. Such large-scale preparations were clearly undertaken not for the sake of breaking the Continental blockade

    Of course not: in addition to Napoleon, Russia had other equally important directions - the same Port, the Balkans, the Danube, Bessarabia, etc.
    This fundamentally diverges from the prevailing view of the course of the campaign of 1812, in which the retreat of the Russian troops appears to be a forced decision and almost impromptu, but the facts speak for themselves.

    The facts show that Russia did not have comparable forces to fight Napoleon at the borders and she was forced to retreat.
    1. Pane Kohanku
      Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 11: 42
      +5
      Spruce-burned while blown up. looted Kremlin, stables in the Assumption Cathedral,

      Andrei (excuse me, I don’t know how about the priest), can you make a sad joke?
      In this case, Bonaparte could say: "It's not me, it's all Mortier!" - and point with your finger.

      Marshal Eduard Mortier, Duke of Trevis. By order of Napoleon, but without much hunting, the Kremlin sluggishly blew up. The irony of fate ... Having left Moscow last with his people, he turned out to be one of those who surrendered Paris to ours in 1814! hi
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 18 September 2019 12: 42
        +1
        Quote: Pane Kohanku
        Marshal Eduard Mortier, Duke of Trevis. By order of Napoleon, but without much hunting, the Kremlin sluggishly blew up. The Irony of Fate..

        Why "without a hunt"? He gave the order and the Polish officer Kos-with pleasure fulfilled it exactly.

        Here is what eyewitnesses write:
        even in the houses surrounding the Kremlin, ceilings and walls collapsed, people were literally thrown out of bed. Half-dressed, wounded by fragments of glass and stones, Muscovites rushed in terror in the streets. But despite the panic, many fled to the Kremlin - put out fires that have begun. Impenetrable darkness enveloped Moscow; cold autumn rain poured in streams. Wild cries, screeching, moans of people crushed by falling buildings were heard from everywhere. There were calls for help, but there was no one to help. The Kremlin was lit by an ominous flame of fire. One explosion followed another, the earth did not cease to hesitate. Everything reminded, seemed the last day of the world

        The Kremlin was saved by heavy rain, Muscovites and Cossacks, many at the cost of their lives ...

        The Corsican psychopath gave the order to blow up the Novodevichy Convent (one church, however, was blown up), which was saved by a nun who put out the wicks ...

        In general, what the French have done in Moscow is not amenable to common sense — tens of thousands of corpses of people and horses, hundreds of looted temples, etc., etc.

        And remember how OURS treated Paris ... hi
        1. Pane Kohanku
          Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 13: 20
          +4
          And remember how OURS treated Paris ...

          compared to how they are with Moscow - ours just went a la tourists .. request But, EMNIP, there were many good cartoons about how Parisians walk with our Cossacks .. what
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 18 September 2019 13: 40
            +2
            Quote: Pane Kohanku
            But, EMNIP, there were many good cartoons about how Parisians walk with our Cossacks ..

            So after the "great" deeds of Bonaparte, there were no men in France .... there were no more ...
            1. Pane Kohanku
              Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 13: 45
              +3
              So after the "great" deeds of Bonaparte, there were no men in France .... there were no more ...

              as far as I understand, they began to "run out" after Friedland. At least in the following battles, he began to massively use the Germans and others. I could be wrong! Well, on the other hand .. if there are a bunch of representatives of other nationalities, why kill the French? request He acted, on the one hand, rationally, on the other - no. what As multinationality played against the Austrian army, so it later played against the French. This is a low mood, and a massive transition to the side of the enemy in 1813. It all started with General York! soldier
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 18 September 2019 14: 04
                +1
                Quote: Pane Kohanku
                as far as I understand, they began to "run out" after Friedland. At least in the following battles, he began to massively use the Germans and others. I could be wrong! Well, on the other hand .. if there are a bunch of representatives of other nationalities, why kill the French?

                So in 1813 there were practically no foreigners left. This year, he has already called ... 16-17 year old BOYS fool and old people ...
                Women after Napoleon were very hard in France, I read about it somehow. Literally a disaster!
                1. Pane Kohanku
                  Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 14: 11
                  +4
                  Women after Napoleon were very hard in France, I read about it somehow. Literally a disaster!

                  so with us .. after the Great Patriotic War, I think, too, any man was on the account ... recourse
        2. Tavrik
          Tavrik 19 September 2019 01: 56
          -1
          Well then, let's remember who removed the fire extinguishing equipment from Moscow .. It seems that Governor Rostopchin? And at whose instigation fires were organized? Why did the French neither burn Madrid, Vienna or Berlin, but decided to burn Moscow on the eve of winter? To freeze nafik? Some kind of nonsense ... In fact, the Patriots set fire to Moscow, and the guards engineers extinguished it. Here the shock was strong! Nowhere else in Europe did the French see residents setting fire to their capital. Even in Spain.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 19 September 2019 06: 44
            -1
            Quote: Tavrik
            Why did the French neither burn Madrid, Vienna or Berlin, but decided to burn Moscow on the eve of winter? To freeze nafik? Nonsense.

            Vienna, Berlin French exploded? No? And the Kremlin, Novodevichy-blew up. They robbed Cologne Cathedral or Holy. Paul? No? And the Assumption Cathedral and even 200 cathedrals and churches of Moscow-DA and stables were arranged there.

            Again, the difference is not visible?
            1. Tavrik
              Tavrik 19 September 2019 18: 44
              +1
              Did the Venets and Berliners burn their capitals? Also no. Here I found a scythe on a stone. The Russians themselves burn their capital. The French respond with punitive actions. Plus, disappointment in the results of the capture of the capital and it is not clear what to do next. War enters a new level of cruelty and bitterness on both sides. And away we go ... Partisans, planting the French on pitchforks, the French, exploding cultural monuments ... I do not condone the French, then what happened, it happened ...
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 20 September 2019 09: 11
                0
                Quote: Tavrik
                Did the Venets and Berliners burn their capitals?

                So for this ... they blow up the Kremlin and rob ?! belay
                They were offended by the Russians for the burnt Russian throne and blew up in revenge ... Russian shrines ?!
                Interesting logic! belay
              2. Warrior2015
                Warrior2015 22 September 2019 01: 16
                +1
                Quote: Tavrik
                Did the Venets and Berliners burn their capitals? Also no.

                Well, look at the examples of Madrid and other large cities of Spain for a change that you have clung to these Germans, besides a lot of people in Europe.

                Quote: Tavrik
                The Russians themselves burn their capital. The French respond with punitive actions.


                Quote: Tavrik
                Partisans planting the French on pitchforks, the French exploding cultural monuments ...
                Do you rightly think that at first the peasants put them on a pitchfork - and then the good Frenchmen began to blow up cultural monuments? and nothing so that the army of "twelve languages" in 1812, as before in Spain, retained the same Robespierre-republican spirit of hatred for religious shrines, supplemented by the contempt and hatred of soldiers from Catholic and Protestant countries towards Orthodoxy?

                And then what about the fact that it was Napoleonic soldiers who, when they came to Russian villages, were the first to desecrate churches by setting up stables there, and often mocked the priests, sometimes brutally killing them? Was it not after these "eccentricities" that the people's war broke out?

                And the Dutch, Italians and Western Austrians (in particular the Tyroleans), who met the troops of the French Republic! And their cute eccentricities "in the form of almost total plunder by one of the first in Europe, can well tell about the attitude of" godless French women "to cultural history monuments ...
                1. Tavrik
                  Tavrik 22 September 2019 18: 31
                  0
                  And only the godless French were engaged in the export of cultural property? It seems that this normal practice of winners persisted into the 20th century. "White" and "fluffy" Austrians or Italians were not observed there.
                  About the attitude towards priests: the soldiers of the country that defeated prejudices, disconnected religion from the state, brought up on the ideas of "freedom, equality, brotherhood", "Declaration of the rights of man and citizen" really treated churches and priests without reverence, no matter what denomination they belong to belonged. In short, like the Red Army after 1917.
            2. Warrior2015
              Warrior2015 22 September 2019 00: 37
              +1
              Quote: Olgovich
              Vienna, Berlin French exploded? No? And the Kremlin, Novodevichy-blew up. They robbed Cologne Cathedral or Holy. Paul? No? And the Assumption Cathedral and even 200 cathedrals and churches of Moscow-DA and stables were arranged there.

              in fact, even in Europe there were several more countries - where the French, yes, robbed and desecrated the cathedrals, and blew up shrines, for example, Spain and Italy, not to mention Egypt.
              1. Tavrik
                Tavrik 22 September 2019 18: 36
                0
                Can you imagine a list of blown up? Together with the circumstances of the bombing. If the enemy holds defenses in the monastery, can it be removed or not?
                I do not want to whitewash the Great Army. Robbery, harassment of ordinary people, home occupation under billets, etc. etc. - everything was. Especially when you consider the Polish Corps, which had its own personal accounts with Russia.
  6. Cartalon
    Cartalon 18 September 2019 09: 26
    0
    Again the nonsense about the eternally hostile England is repeated, the most hostile state to Russia in Europe was France in every possible way supporting Turkey and Poland, and the Polish question was the main one for Russia.
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 19 September 2019 02: 27
      +1
      The reasons for the hostility of France to Russia sound? In Poland - I understand, in Turkey - I understand. The territories that we chopped off from them. And France, why quarrel with us? Between us, a bunch of states were ... The financial and economic competitor of France was England. We traded with both.
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 19 September 2019 08: 09
        +1
        Russia tried to weaken and conquer, Poland and Turkey, the clients of France, do you not know about the huge number of French advisers in Turkey and Poland?
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 19 September 2019 18: 31
          +1
          Russia "sawn" Poland and what is the reason for France to start a war with Russia ??? France was deeply indifferent to both Poland and Turkey. These are not the first players on the European stage. Unlike Russia, England, Austria. Do not forget that during the storming of Corfu, Turkey was our ally against France. French advisers had been there much earlier. With the king still.
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon 19 September 2019 22: 15
            0
            It speaks of the centuries-old enmity between Britain and Russia, and you stick out one incident, the French advisers were before Ushakov’s company and appeared after her again, and in Poland it’s not like the advisers even the French troops appeared
            1. Tavrik
              Tavrik 19 September 2019 22: 23
              0
              In what year and for what purpose did French troops appear in Poland? By chance, not in 1807?
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 20 September 2019 12: 44
                0
                Yes, they stuck there almost constantly. since at least 1734
                1. Cartalon
                  Cartalon 20 September 2019 16: 36
                  0
                  Our troops didn’t always stick out there, so that the French would not stick out
              2. Cartalon
                Cartalon 20 September 2019 16: 35
                0
                1737 if memory serves, google the siege of Danzig, by Minihom
        2. Ivan Petrov_9
          Ivan Petrov_9 20 September 2019 22: 17
          0
          Until 1809, France helped Persia. The French trained the Persian troops in a European way, organized the production of weapons, in particular the casting of guns, and improved fortifications.
      2. Rey_ka
        Rey_ka 19 September 2019 08: 46
        +2
        opponents still forget that Bonopart and Paul 1 were allies. For which the Russian sovereign paid for English money
      3. sivuch
        sivuch 19 September 2019 09: 03
        +1
        Find what Lui15 wrote about Russia and Russian barbarians there? That's where subjectivity is in its purest form.
        And who, what and who chopped off - this is a moot point.
      4. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 22 September 2019 00: 36
        0
        Quote: Tavrik
        The reasons for the hostility of France to Russia sound? In Poland - I understand, in Turkey - I understand. The territories that we chopped off from them. And France, why quarrel with us? Between us, a bunch of states were ...

        For the period 1810-1812 years - there were no heaps of states, the French Empire came to the shores of the Neman and the Bug.
  7. sivuch
    sivuch 18 September 2019 09: 48
    +4
    To paraphrase the conventional wisdom, Bonaparte’s relationship with Russia can be described as “only politics, nothing personal
    Yeah, and so he carefully poked Alexander into his complicity in the murder of Paul.
    As for the Continental blockade, in addition to direct losses to the treasury, there were also losses to private individuals - landowners who did not sell grain, merchants who did not sell timber, canvas and hemp. This is not to mention the fact that the English fleet could arrange its continental blockade of Russian trade. What, Alexander did not have to take these factors into account?
    1. Pane Kohanku
      Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 11: 16
      +3
      Yeah, and so he carefully poked Alexander into his complicity in the murder of Paul.

      yes, Alexander did not forgive him for this ... soldier
  8. Tavrik
    Tavrik 18 September 2019 09: 58
    +4
    Quote: Olgovich
    So he and the invasions of Spain, Italy, Austria, Prussia, Holland, Egypt, "did not plan": so, it happened. Not out of malice.
    This psychopath, who was planning to take over the whole world, needed to be stopped.

    You will understand who declared war to whom in 1805, 1806, 1807. Why did the wars of 1808 and 1809 begin. If different enemies declare war on you one by one, you defeat them one by one, some twice - Are you a psychopath and strive to conquer the whole world?
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 18 September 2019 10: 25
      +4
      Can I quote Ernest Lavis?
      The inevitability of the war of 1809 was due to the Presburg Peace. Having mutilated Austria, but not crushing it completely, Napoleon inspired her with a passionate thirst for revenge. Without asking her, he robbed Prussia, created several new states in Germany for his brothers and vassals, finally subjugated Italy to his power, appropriating Tuscany and papal lands, deposed the kings of Portuguese and Spanish and bought an alliance with Russia with the promise of the Danube principalities.
      And I would like more details - how did Napoleon declare war on Spain and Portugal?
  9. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 18 September 2019 10: 01
    -2
    Bonaparte gathered under his banners almost the entire Old World, which had not only military, but no less political significance, demonstration of unity and power - in front of Alexander, England and the rest of the world.
    Swedes, Poles, Lithuanians, Germans also went to Russia in wars, but these were separate states or kingdoms. Only once did the Polish-Lithuanian state unite with the Germans, and the Swedes took advantage of this and pinched Ivan the Terrible, but the defeat of Russia did not follow. But already from the Napoleonic times, expansion began in Russia. Since 1812, the war against Russia has been ongoing all the time.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 20 September 2019 18: 11
      +2
      Quote: tihonmarine
      But already from the Napoleonic times, expansion began in Russia. Since 1812, the war against Russia has been ongoing.

      What nonsense. Poor Russia, everyone offended her. Here are the wars of the 18th century - the Northern War - Russia declared war on Sweden, but Charles XII was the aggressor.
      Seven Years War - Russia declares war on Prussia, and suppresses East Prussia for a short while. But Frederick II is the aggressor, although the Russian regiments trample the Prussian lands. Oh well.
      1799, Russia's entry into a series of conflicts against France. Until 1812, there was not a single foreign soldier on the border with Russia, and her armies would not come out of the European battlefields. But Russia is again a victim of aggression.
      Russia, in fact, was subjected to aggression only during the Crimean War and in 1941. All other wars were of a colonial type and the sovereignty of the country was never threatened.
  10. Pane Kohanku
    Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 10: 28
    +3
    Alexander proceeded from exactly the opposite motives: "no politics - only personal."

    forty years later, Napoleon III thought in a similar way, entering the Crimean War with Russia. All in all, his hatred of Nicholas I began with congratulations to Louis Napoleon when he ascended the French throne. Nikolay wrote a congratulatory letter, began it with the words "Dear friend", although it was customary to turn to the royal person "Dear brother". yes By this, Nikolai Pavlovich seemed to emphasize that the son of Hortense Beauharnais to him not equal. And personal hatred for this insult played a role in decision making. request Nevertheless, my friends, sometimes global global affairs are accomplished under the influence of personal emotions! hi
    Former Napoleonic Marshal, and then Crown Swedish Prince Bernadotte

    This marshal achieved the largest of Napoleon’s entire entourage. All that was needed was to do one good deed - to release the captured Swedes. request Bernadotte arouses a sense of respect for his subsequent actions. soldier
    But his wife, Desiree Clari, Bonaparte's former fiancee ... Is this not the origin of the Gascon's hatred of the "great emperor"? drinks
    1. Kronos
      Kronos 18 September 2019 10: 33
      0
      Yes, he managed to make pity on the arrogant Nikolai 1
      1. Pane Kohanku
        Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 10: 35
        +4
        I think Louis himself was no less arrogant, on which he was burnt with shame. hi
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 18 September 2019 13: 56
      +3
      But his wife, Desiree Clari, Bonaparte's former fiancee ... Is this not the origin of the Gascon's hatred of the "great emperor"? drinks
      It is unlikely - it’s not so scary. smile
      1. Pane Kohanku
        Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 14: 07
        +4
        It is unlikely - it’s not so scary.

        as for me, she is more beautiful than Josephine and Maria Louise wink Igor, I’m talking about "but did the" Corsican girl "have time to" spoil "... feel to promise, after all, does not mean to marry .. drinks
  11. Tavrik
    Tavrik 18 September 2019 11: 57
    +2
    Quote: sivuch
    he robbed Prussia, created in Germany several new states for his brothers and vassals

    Well yes. Prussia started the war in 1806. Stupidly and quickly lost it. The winner "cut off" it. Duc, after the victory over Germany we did the same. And they took out a lot of things, and created a belt of allied states. Are we aggressors too? No - this is the right of the winner.
    The Italian states (including Sardinia) fought against France since 1796. As allies of Austria. Lost. Well, they got it ... As a result, a chain of republics was created in northern Italy: Tsizalpinskaya and others. By the way, instead of aggressive monarchies starting war, is it bad to create republics?
  12. Tavrik
    Tavrik 18 September 2019 12: 01
    +1
    Quote: Pane Kohanku
    Bernadotte arouses a sense of respect for his subsequent actions

    What are these? The fact that being a Frenchman joined the ranks of the anti-French coalition? There also was an exile of Moreau.
    A muddy type ... If it weren’t for his wedding with Desiree, I think the emperor would give him to the court according to the results of the 1806 campaign. But Napoleon was sometimes sentimental ...
  13. Undecim
    Undecim 18 September 2019 12: 07
    +8
    Nowadays, this kind of caricature of Napoleon is a rarity. At the beginning of the XIX century - the norm
    By the way, that the British lack a sense of humor.
    1807 British caricature.

    In the caricature are two Prussian grenadiers and three Parisians - a grandmother and granddaughters.
    Grenadiers: "Ladies, there is an order to disgrace all Parisian women! No offense, nothing personal."
    Granddaughters: "We beg you! Take us, but spare our grandmother!"
    Grandma: "Shut up, idiots! The soldiers have orders!"
    1. Pane Kohanku
      Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 12: 21
      +3
      yes, then caricature art was even sharper than it is now, perhaps .. what
      Tilsit. As I understand it, everyone will get the size of a knife. And under the table - the king of Prussia collects fragments. There are more crude caricatures, but I will not post them for reasons of censorship. hi
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 18 September 2019 12: 41
        +5
        It's a pity I don't know the art of drawing, otherwise I would also draw an obscene caricature. I see what kind of "from under the table" to my yesterday's comments stuck cons on the sly. Here are still interesting motives of such actions.
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 18 September 2019 13: 04
          +4
          And this man says that I offend Gremlins! request
          Hello, Victor Nikolaevich!
          1. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 13: 28
            +4
            And this man says that I offend Gremlins!

            ohhh, brave Murat rode off! (call, Anton, there were no tanks at that time) wink I found here an article with a bunch of cartoons of that time, including rather vulgar ones - like Alexander "Bonnie's friend", excuse me, kisses in the ass. No. I will not publish, take a look yourself.
            http://polzam.ru/index.php/istorii/item/495-napoleon-malenkij-kapral

            Apparently, this is an allusion to the Napoleonic division of Europe. I don’t understand who is second from the right with a flute? Bernadotte, how is the Swedish crown prince? At least it looks like .. what only then "good people" at the edges united .. and crushed the Corsican! request
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 18 September 2019 14: 04
              +5
              This is not a division of Europe, this is Napoleon's abdication, Johann Woltz's German caricature "The Beginning of the End".
              Alexander I, Franz II, Frederick William III, Jean Baptiste Jules Bernadotte, Napoleon.
              1. Pane Kohanku
                Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 14: 10
                +4
                I was sure about the first three, but about the fourth, it turns out, I guessed right too - thanks! drinks Well, you see, your French is still stronger than mine wink Then why does Bonaparte have such a cunning face, Viktor Nikolaevich? like a quiet playful? lol
                1. Undecim
                  Undecim 18 September 2019 14: 15
                  +4
                  I wrote a little wrong, not a renunciation, but a finish or something. That is why the name "Beginning of the End". Caricature of 1813. Evidently Napoleon still hopes to outsmart his opponents.
                  1. Pane Kohanku
                    Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 14: 17
                    +4
                    Obviously Napoleon still hopes to outwit his opponents.

                    Why not? there is always the hope that a coalition made up of very different people with their own interests will break up! hi thank you very much! good Hmm .. you look, and learn French from my submission, Viktor Nikolaevich! wink otherwise it’s somehow worthless, worthless, Monsignor ... drinks

                    by the way, here is Marshal Louis-Nicolas Davout, the most talented Marshal of Bonaparte. soldier
                    1. Warrior2015
                      Warrior2015 22 September 2019 00: 45
                      +1
                      Quote: Pane Kohanku
                      by the way, here is Marshal Louis-Nicolas Davout, the most talented Marshal of Bonaparte

                      Yes, the most STRATEGICALLY talented marshal, yes. Under Borodino, for example, the fact that it was his plan that Napoleon rejected prevented the rout of our army. But it was Daust who was one of the most cruel marshals of Bonnie and blasphemous, if I may say so. It was he who loved to arrange stables in Orthodox churches from Smolensk to Moscow.
        2. Pane Kohanku
          Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 13: 17
          +4
          Here are still interesting motives for such actions.

          Remember Freud, about a little German boy whom the nanny promised to tear something for disobedience? hi just such motives. Under "Polotsk" and "Petershtadt" I, you, Cat were also stuck with minuses, no way, they just walked along the branch. To each his own. Nekhai sculpts. wink
          1. bubalik
            bubalik 18 September 2019 13: 55
            +3
            ,,, and there they stuck to everyone. tongue
            ,,, by caricature
            Undecim Today, 13: 07
            as in a modern way what
            Grandmother, shaking a machine gun: A LITTLE LITTLE, WILL LITTLE!
            1. Pane Kohanku
              Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 14: 05
              +5
              and there everyone stuck.

              oh, we offended someone terrible, bad! I pray and repent already. belay
              like in a modern way what
              Grandmother, shaking a machine gun: A LITTLE LITTLE, WILL LITTLE!

              People do not change, Sergey! drinks you know, here I found an article by one researcher about such a phenomenon as "daughter-in-law" in the Central Black Earth Region in the 19th century. what so, we both understand that now inter-gender manners are far from the best ... But then in the villages our bearded spiritual-cathedral ancestors were no better! request was it better to know? all these figures of the "Silver Age", or ministers who put their wives under Rasputin for the sake of a career? no .. people don't change ... unfortunately .. hi drinks
            2. Pane Kohanku
              Pane Kohanku 18 September 2019 14: 43
              +4
              by the way, here is this article. http://www.tstu.ru/book/elib/pdf/2012/bezgin.pdf
              can be downloaded and read calmly. hi
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. Prometey
    Prometey 18 September 2019 18: 44
    +3
    In the war of 1812, there are so many oddities that are still inexplicable.
    How did the French concentrate the half-million army (was it really available), and Russia missed it?
    What general frontier battle with such numbers is real? The concept of the front line was not then, and to concentrate on a small area a mass of infantry and cavalry is unrealistic. I would have to stretch the front (again, there was no such thing then) for tens of kilometers - and this is not a battle, but a series of chaotic battles. There were no means of communication then and it would be impossible to control such a mass of people in real time.
    The French army crossed the Neman - as they say in textbooks. What did the Russian army do at this time? There are no clear explanations.
    Then the retreat of the Russian army began in order to unite, but the French advanced quickly and did not allow them to unite. Oh well - 500 thousand soldiers go faster than 100 thousand? Come on.
    In the battle of Borodino, approximately 130-140 thousand soldiers participated on both sides. Wait a minute, where are the remaining 400 thousand soldiers of the Great Army? Fled, left in the occupied territory? Was Napoleon to approach Moscow with only 1/3 of the available army?
    Why were all participants from the Russian side stubbornly silent about the battle of Borodino? In their memoirs, did everyone write about the foreign campaign in their memoirs, but only mentioned in passing about Borodino? Its popularization began under Nicholas I, and with a poem by Lermontov.
    Why, not long before the battle of Borodino, the desperate hussar and grunt D. Davydov suddenly asks Kutuzov for permission with the cavalry detachment to raid the rear of the French when such a mess is ahead - the dream of any hussar. What is wrong here. Cowardice? Hardly.
    Why was Russian artillery silent at Borodino, allowing the French to knock out Russian orders up to reserves? Raevsky’s battery is just babble against the concentration of French batteries from hundreds of guns. I don’t know, I can’t understand what was really happening there. Yes, and there is still no intelligible picture of the battle and the actual role of Kutuzov in it, which, in fact, did not lead the battle (yes, the very lack of communication facilities when controlling a huge mass of troops - he did not have a clear picture of what was happening that day) .
    You can still ask a lot of questions and not find clear answers.
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 19 September 2019 02: 19
      +3
      I answer on points.
      1. "How did the French concentrate an army of half a million (and was there really such an army), and Russia missed it?"
      Russia missed nothing. In 1811 Russia was actively concentrating its armies on the border for a war that was by no means defensive. But when Napoleon began to concentrate his army, ours fell into confusion: what to do? Either to continue preparations for the invasion of the Duchy of Warsaw, or to prepare for the defense, or to retreat deep into the territory and not "pull the tiger by the mustache." This confusion continued until the outbreak of the war of 1812.
      2. In order to put 100 people into the general battle, a much larger army must be assembled. The rear, flank cover, reserves, garrisons, sanitary losses ...
      3. "The French army was crossing the Niemen - this is what they say in textbooks. What was the Russian army doing at that time? There are no intelligible explanations." See point 1. All top management tossed about in confusion about what to do? They don't like to remember this ...
      4. "Why were all the participants from the Russian side stubbornly silent about the Battle of Borodino? Everyone who was not lazy wrote about the foreign campaign in their memoirs, and only mentioned Borodino in passing?" Because everything was not too victorious. And there was no point in “puffing out your cheeks”. Everyone understood everything. And then, when the number of veterans became less and less - well, there is already propaganda and started working in full force.
      5. "Why, not long before the Battle of Borodino, the desperate hussar and grunt D. Davydov suddenly asks Kutuzov for permission to raid the rear of the French with a cavalry detachment, when such a mess is coming ahead - the dream of any hussar. What is wrong here. Cowardice?" Of course not! It is much more pleasant to just partisan without obeying anyone, to rob wagons, to collect gesheft, than to act as part of a formation and follow the orders of the not always competent command.
      6. "Why did the Russian artillery keep silent under Borodino, allowing the French to knock out the Russian orders up to the reserves? Rayevsky's battery is just childish talk against the concentration of French batteries of hundreds of guns. I can't figure out what really happened there. Yes and no. there is still a clear picture of the battle and the actual role of Kutuzov in it, who, in fact, did not lead the battle (yes, the very absence of communication equipment when controlling a huge mass of troops - he did not have a clear picture of what was happening that day). " There are many questions to Kutuzov about the disposition and organization of the battle. The stretched right flank, from which the reserves did not keep pace with the center .... The obscure raid of Platov and Uvarov ... However, name at least one general battle won by Kutuzov? Do not offer division-to-division junctions. Ruschuk and Maloyaroslavets too.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 20 September 2019 17: 55
        -1
        Quote: Tavrik
        I answer on points.

        Thank. I share almost entirely your point of view.
      2. Ivan Petrov_9
        Ivan Petrov_9 20 September 2019 23: 18
        0
        Quote: Tavrik
        This confusion continued until the outbreak of the war of 1812.
        On March 2, 1812, information was received from our ambassador to Sweden, Baron Nikolai, and, at the same time, from the Swedish Foreign Minister Engstrom that Napoleon was preparing a large squadron of gunboats to enter the Baltic Sea. Sweden proposed preventing the entry of the French fleet into the Baltic Sea through joint action. It was proposed to Alexander I to unite the fleets, and then to land about 45 thousand people in Pomerania with a joint naval landing. From February 20 to April 2, 1812, 60 sailing-rowing gunboats were laid at the Galernaya Shipyard in St. Petersburg. By June 15, 1812 they should have been ready. The armament of each consisted of three 24-pound guns. By the opening of navigation in the Baltic, the Baltic Fleet had 306 armed sailing-rowing vessels in the ranks of the Baltic Fleet. And this, apart from a sailing squadron of 13 ships, 12 frigates and several dozen bombardier ships, corvettes, sloops, brig, etc. The Russian squadron of sailing ships, intended for landing in Pomerania under the command of Admiral Theta, almost immediately after being cleared of ice the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland (June 11) left Kronstadt and on June 15 arrived in Sveaborg, where it remained until August, waiting for a joint landing operation with the Swedes. In anticipation of the campaign and landing from spring, 38 ships stood almost hopelessly in Sveaborg, 31 in Abo and 38 in Aland. A Swedish squadron was ready in Karlskrona (eight battleships, three frigates, three brig and transport ships), but the crew they did not receive landing troops and access to the sea.
      3. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 22 September 2019 00: 47
        0
        Quote: Tavrik
        Ruschuk and Maloyaroslavets too.

        I agree with Maloyaroslavets, but what does Ruschuk not suit? It is such a significant victory.
  16. Tavrik
    Tavrik 19 September 2019 02: 31
    +1
    Quote: Beringovsky
    In addition, troops in St. Petersburg can be supplied by sea.

    Unreal. At sea, the British fleet dominated.
    In general, in this thread, a number of people correctly described the reasons for Napoleon's movement to Moscow. Everything else from the series: "If my grandmother had a mustache, she would be a grandfather."
  17. Ehanatone
    Ehanatone 20 September 2019 04: 04
    0
    Sphinx, svinks, what a vegetable, sphinx - more like a pig, not a sphinx ...
    to put the prosperity of his state for the sake of his petty pride - where is the sphinx! ...
    The ruler is weak and ....
    bald
  18. Ehanatone
    Ehanatone 20 September 2019 04: 16
    +1
    An enormous plus for the article, at least at least someone clearly stated that the war of 1812 was never domestic, and the war happened only because of the petty insignificance of the emperor, only his own passions a1 ...
  19. Tavrik
    Tavrik 21 September 2019 17: 20
    0
    Quote: ivan petrov_9
    Napoleon is preparing a large squadron of gunboats for their entry into the Baltic Sea.

    Any more or less thinking person could not take such news seriously, because sailing on gunboats across the Baltic, which was dominated by the fleets of opponents - England, Russia, Sweden - is a kind of suicide. I strongly suspect that it was already invented "retroactively". In reality, on March 5, 1812, Russia entered into an alliance with Sweden. And preparations began for a joint Russian-Swedish landing in northern Germany (the Pomeranian project). A similar landing was planned in the south - the "Dalmatian Project", within the framework of which the Russian army led by Chichagov, through Serbia, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Croatia, was to create a threat to Italy. Both of these projects failed. These ideas were exactly the same as in 1805, when the main Russian-Austrian armies were moving in the center, and auxiliary strikes were on the flanks in Northern Germany and Italy. In the north - the Anglo-Russian-Swedish army, in Italy - the landing of the Russian-British troops. These flank battles, which ended in 1805 with nothing, are usually not remembered at all.
    1. Ivan Petrov_9
      Ivan Petrov_9 22 September 2019 23: 35
      0
      Quote: Tavrik

      Any more or less thinking person could not take such news seriously, because sailing on gunboats across the Baltic, which was dominated by the fleets of opponents - England, Russia, Sweden - is a kind of suicide. I strongly suspect that it was already invented "retroactively".

      The French had a solid rowing fleet, built for landing in England. He could be transferred from the English Channel via the inland waterways and the Holstein Canal to the Baltic Sea to assist the left flank of the enemy forces. On August 19, 1811, the Russian ambassador to Sweden P.K. Sukhtelen reported to St. Petersburg: “There are 80 gunboats in Danzig, most of which were built in various places in Denmark; Napoleon expects to use them in case of war with us. " French gunboats, using shallow water, covered by coastal batteries, made large transitions with almost impunity, often in view of the strong English naval fleet. In the proposed Napoleonic campaign in the Baltic, gunboats off the coast of the Baltic Sea in Prussia would be easily covered by French batteries. But in connection with the preparations for the Russian fleet, Napoleon was forced to abandon this project.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 23 September 2019 12: 28
        0
        Count the carrying capacity of the rowing fleet, consider the need to carry ammunition, horses, guns. What could give an landing even in 5000 people in the Baltic? Throwing landings on the coast under superior enemy forces without further supply is not Napoleon's style.
        But the most important argument: how would a landing force defeat the Russian army in a general battle? To divert part of the Russian forces? So at the same time, the death of the landing with enormous moral losses (remember the Bailen disaster) would be guaranteed. Sheepskin is not worth the candle.
  20. Tavrik
    Tavrik 22 September 2019 18: 49
    0
    Quote: Warrior2015
    Will the facts of the establishment of the Franco-Polish administration in the occupied extreme western regions of the Russian Empire and preparation for their transfer to the duchy of Warsaw suit?

    There is still a need to figure out who occupied whom and who freed whom ... Let me remind you that the last partition of Poland took place only 17 years before 1812. All witnesses are alive and well. Everything is fresh in memory.
    As for the transfer ... let's get the facts to the studio. Order-Decree-Rescript of Emperor Napoleon on the transfer of something there to the Duchy of Warsaw. Reports of officials to the General Staff on the implementation of tasks. Official documents, not the enthusiastic memories of some gentry who slept and saw Napoleon revive their Poland. It was nothing more than their fantasies.