Military Review

Two "Gasconades" by Joachim Murat

79
On 22 on May 1803, England declared war on France, and her ships began to seize the merchant ships of this country (as well as Holland). Napoleon, in response, ordered the arrest of all British subjects located in France, occupied Hanover, which belonged to the English kings, and began preparations for the invasion of the British Isles. A huge military camp was created in Boulogne-sur-Mer, in which troops gathered, by August 1805 their total number reached 130 thousand people, landing ships were gathered around 2300.


Napoleon was now about to put an end to the centuries-old confrontation between France and Britain, destroying English influence on continental countries:
“I only need three days of foggy weather - and I will be the lord of London, parliament, the Bank of England.”


Two "Gasconades" by Joachim Murat

Jean Louis Ernest Meissonier. Napoleon and his headquarters



Boulogne military camp, 1804 year. Engraving by an unknown author.



Maurice Orange. “Bonaparte inspecting the work of the camp of Boulogne in 1804”


The British pretended that everything was going according to plan, and painted funny caricatures:


Bonaparte's landing army swims in bath basins. Publisher W. Holland



What will happen to Bonaparte if he attacks Britain. Publisher P. Roberts



John Bull hits and chases away the French invading Britain with kicks. Unknown author, beginning of the 19th century


However, in fact, in London they perfectly understood that if at least half of Napoleon’s army sailed to the English coast, King George III, together with his cabinet, would have to urgently emigrate to Canada.

In this situation, the British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger acted according to the traditional English scheme, instead of putting up an invincible army of bags of gold instead of soldiers. For the British had to shed their blood subjects of the Austrian Empire and Russia.


John Hopner. Portrait of William Pitt Jr.


But why did Russia need this war, which did not even have a common border with the state of Napoleon? Given that Napoleon would gladly share the world with Russia - at the expense of Britain, which he hates, of course.

One of the motives of Alexander I was his personal hatred of Napoleon, who in one of the letters dared to tell him the truth, very transparently hinting at his participation in the plot against his own father - Paul I:
“If Emperor Alexander knew that the murderers of his late father were on foreign territory, and nevertheless arrested them, then Napoleon would not protest against such a violation of international law”
(response to the note on the execution of the Duke of Engien).

Alexander I, contrary to a liberal legend, was very capricious and masterful, but at the same time a weak ruler. Here is the characteristic M. M. gave him Speransky:
"Alexander was too strong to be ruled, and too weak to rule himself."


But he really wanted to manage - everything and everyone. G. Derzhavin, who at one time looked at Alexander I through the "pink glasses", the emperor replied:
“You want to learn everything, but I am an autocratic king and I want it to be this way and not otherwise.”


The British historian M. Jenkins will later write about him:
“Alexander was just as intolerant of criticism as Paul, and he jealously guarded his power. He was almost manic obsessed with the idea of ​​order and accuracy: nothing caused him such enthusiasm as the command of the parade. "

At heart, Alexander I understood his inferiority - the flaw that Napoleon had a very good understanding of people:
“There is something missing in his character. But I can’t understand what exactly ”
(Metternichu - about Alexander I).

Therefore, Alexander I adored flattery and did not tolerate even the slightest hint of criticism. But Napoleon hit the most painful place - he dared to remind him of the sin of patricide, which nevertheless burdened his conscience. And so Alexander kept his hatred of the French emperor for life.

The second factor was the notorious "bags of gold": British gentlemen paid well for Russian blood - above the "market price" of serfs in Russia. According to the agreement of March 30 1805, the British gave 12,5 million rubles for 100 thousand soldiers (125 rubles per head), and even a quarter of this amount for mobilization. That is, the cost of one soldier reached 156 rubles 25 kopecks. And the “audit souls” in Russia at that time cost from 70 to 120 rubles.

Finally, the third factor pushing Alexander toward an alliance with England was the desire of Russian aristocrats to lead a European lifestyle. And they could get currency for traveling abroad, arranging their city mansions and country estates, and paying for the services of foreign specialists (from cooks and governesses to estate managers and architects) only from trade with Britain.

“At the same time, the young tsar knew to what extent the nobility, selling agricultural raw materials and bread to England, was interested in friendship with England”

- wrote in his classic work "Napoleon" Eugene Tarle.

The autocracy in Russia at that time was very “limited by a noose”, and Alexander did not want to end his life in any “secluded and very pleasant place” like Ropsha.

“More than anyone else, he knew about the organization of the“ apoplexy strike ”that befell his father, especially since he himself played a significant role in preparing for this incident.”

(E. Tarle.)

Alexander’s desire to fight with the “offender”, and at the same time earn money by trading his subjects, was so great that Russian diplomacy made considerable efforts to persuade the Austrians who were terribly afraid of the armies of the “Little Corsican” to join the coalition.

Of course, you know that this war did not bring any glory to Russia; on the contrary, it ended with the unprecedented humiliation of Austerlitz and the vain victims of the subsequent campaign of 1806-1807. Before the Battle of Austerlitz, for almost 100 years (after the Prut catastrophe of Peter I - 1711), the Russian army did not lose a single general battle. And so the disaster in this battle made a terrible impression on Russian society. Sardinian envoy to Russia Joseph de Mestre reported on the mood in St. Petersburg:
“Here the action of the Austerlitz battle on public opinion is like magic. All the generals are asking for resignation, and it seems as if defeat in one battle paralyzed an entire empire. ”


But we will not now examine in detail the course of the 1805 campaign, confining ourselves to its two episodes in which the hero of our article showed both extraordinary resourcefulness and simplicity. And who, unusually accurate and bold, paint before us the image of this outstanding person.

Joachim Murat: the brave "king from the boulevard stage"


Arman de Colencourt called Murat "the bravest of kings and the king of brave men" - and there was no man in the world who would undertake to challenge this statement.


Antoine Grou. Murat’s battle with the Turks at the Battle of Abukir. The picture was painted in 1806. In this battle, Murat entered into a personal battle with the commander of the enemy’s army, Said Mustafa Pasha, and captured him, despite a bullet wound (the bullet entered one cheek and left the other without touching the bone)


Napoleon spoke of him:
"I have never seen a man braver, more resolute and more brilliant than him during cavalry attacks."


And:
"I did not know anyone braver than Murat and Ney."


But he was well aware of Murat’s shortcomings:
“He was a knight, a real Don Quixote on the battlefield. But put him in a chair in his office, and he became a notorious coward, devoid of any common sense, unable to make any decision. "



Antoine Grou. Napoleon on the battlefield of Preisch Eylau. 1808. The Louvre. Paris. Next to the emperor, we see the hero of our article today - Joachim Murat, this is a rider in a headdress with a white plume


Tular wrote:
“When it is necessary to drive the retreating enemy without rest, this indefatigable and incomparable rider no longer remembers himself. Fatigue does not take him. ”


В history Murat’s words from the report to Napoleon entered:
"The fighting ended in the absence of the enemy."



Antoine Jean Gros. Portrait of Murat, King of Naples


Countess Potocka, recalling in her memoirs about the entry of Joachim Murat to Warsaw (November 28 1806), writes:
"With his magnificent appearance, he resembled an actor playing the role of kings."


Kolenkur also recalls his "ill-fated passion for magnificent costumes", which led to the fact that Murat "had the appearance of a king from the boulevard stage."

For this passion for theatrical effects and magnificent costumes, contemporaries also called him "a cross between a peacock and a clown."

Marshal Lannes, without any shyness, called Murat “a rooster,” “a jester,” and said that he “looked like a dog who was dancing.”


Jean Marie Gaston Honfre. In Naples, 1808 year. Murat was King of Naples from 1 August 1808 to 3 May 1815


But the desperate courage of the charismatic Gascon was recognized by everyone - both friends and enemies.

Segur spoke of him:
"Murat, this theatrical king in the sophistication of his outfit and a true monarch in his extraordinary courage and ardent activity."


Let's get back to the 1805 military campaign of the year.

“If I don’t be in London in 15 days, then I should be in Vienna in mid-November”,

Said Napoleon, and his army marched out of the Boulogne camp.

"Caesar's campaign" of the Russian army


On August 13, the so-called “Caesar’s campaign” was launched by the Podolian army of M. Kutuzov (about 58 thousand people), to which the Volyn army of Buksgevden (48 thousand soldiers) and the guards of the Lithuanian army of Essen I joined. The Russian troops with six “echelons” moving on at a distance of one day’s passage from each other, they marched with the Austrian army, which was nominally commanded by Archduke Ferdinand, but the quartermaster General Karl Mack actually had power.


Karl Mack von Leiberich


Napoleon, who later became better acquainted with Mac in Paris, left such a review about him:
“Mack is the most mediocre person I have ever met. Full of conceit and pride, he considers himself capable of everything. Now he is without any meaning; but it would be advisable to be sent against one of our good generals; then I would have to look at interesting things. ”



Napoleon and General Mac. Illustration for the book of William Milligan Sloan Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, 1896


It was Mack who made the fateful decision: without waiting for Kutuzov’s army, to move to Bavaria, to the Iller River. Napoleon, whose army made a model transition from the Bois de Boulogne (from the English Channel to the Danube, the French reached 20 days), took full advantage of Mac's mistake. The first to approach Ulm were Ney's corps, Lanna and Murat's cavalry. On October 15 Ney and Lannes took the heights surrounding Ulm, which made the position of the surrounded Austrians almost hopeless. Napoleon demanded surrender, threatening not to spare anyone in the event of an assault.

On October 20 of 1805, almost the entire army of Mac (32 thousands of people) and the Ulm fortress with all military supplies, artillery (200 cannons), and banners (90) were surrendered to the French. In addition, Murat’s cavalrymen captured 8 of thousands of soldiers outside the fortress. Mack was released as unnecessary, and his soldiers were sent to France as a free labor force: it was necessary for someone to replace the men who served in the French army.


Charles Thevenin. Surrender in Ulm, October 20 1805 of the year Napoleon I accepts the surrender of General Mac


Only two units of this army with a total number of 15 thousand people managed to break out of the encirclement. The first, led by Ferdinand (about 5 thousand), went to Bohemia, the other, under the command of Kinmeier (about 10 thousand), later joined the Kutuzov army on the Inn River. Napoleon also went there, and Kutuzov moved to Vienna, hoping to meet reinforcements from Russia and Austrian units coming from Italy and Tyrol on his way.

On 28 on October, the Russian army crossed the Danube at Mautern, destroying the bridge behind them, and having fired a blow at the Mortier corps, which appeared on the left bank of this river. According to Napoleon’s plan, this building was the first to approach the bridge, blocking the way for the Russians, but was late.


Edouard Adolphe Casimir Joseph Mortier


In the battle of Krems, which is also called the Battle of Dürrenstein (October 30), the Russian army failed to completely defeat the French, the Mortier corps, although it suffered heavy losses, managed to cross to the right bank. Now Kutuzov, whose army was separated from the French by the deep Danube, had three options: he could give his troops rest, staying at Krems, he could go east - towards the army of Buxgevden, who was in a hurry to help, he could move towards Vienna. He chose the first option, which turned out to be the worst. However, the Russian commander, of course, could not predict the incredible events that will now be discussed. And now it's time to appear on the scene the main character of our article - Joachim Murat.


Francois Pascal Simon Gerard. Portrait of Joachim Murat


Murat, who commanded the cavalry of Napoleon’s army, received an order, together with the corps of Lann, Sult and the grenadier division of Udino, to go to Vienna, strategically capturing two important bridges across the Danube: Taborsky, about 100 meters long, and Shpitsky, whose length was 430 meters. The capture of these bridges allowed the French to enter the rear of Kutuzov’s army.

The defense of the bridges seemed a very simple task, since they were mined in time, covered by artillery batteries and protected by the 13-thousandth Austrian corps. The Austrian units were given the strictest order to destroy the bridges at the first appearance of enemy soldiers. But the French were commanded by a very hot rootless Gascon Joachim Murat, the Austrians - by the arrogant aristocrat, Prince Karl Auersperg von Mautern, who was previously the commander of the "toy soldiers" of the court guard.


Karl Auersperg von Mautern


And therefore, everything went completely different from what the Austrian Emperor Franz I and M.I. Kutuzov.

The first "Gasconade" of Murat


In the novel by L.N. Tolstoy's “War and Peace”, adjutant Kutuzova Bilibin describes these events in this way:
“The French are entering Vienna, as I told you. Everything is very good. The next day, that is, yesterday, gentlemen of the marshals: Murat, Lannes and Béllard, sit astride and go to the bridge. (Notice all three Gascons.)
“Gentlemen,” one says, “you know that the Tabor bridge is mined and counter-contaminated, and that in front of it is the formidable tête de pont and fifteen thousand troops who are ordered to blow up the bridge and not let us in.” But our sovereign Emperor Napoleon will be pleased if we take this bridge. Three of us go and take this bridge.
- Come on, others say;
and they set off, and take the bridge, cross it, and now with the whole army on this side of the Danube are heading towards us. ”


How did all this actually happen?

On October 31, French parliamentarians came to Tabor Bridge, notifying that Marshal Murat would arrive here soon to negotiate with Auersperg. Generals Henri-Gracienne Bertrand, the adjutant of Napoleon (and the Gascon, concurrently), and Moissel (who was not a Gascon, but was an artillery commander of the Murat corps) soon appeared.


Henri Gracien Bertrand


The brave generals “covered themselves” with them the four cavalry regiments (two hussar and two dragoon regiments) moving behind them, the grenadier division, and at the same time also three guns. The "parliamentarians" had a friendly conversation with the Austrian lieutenant, and their subordinates at that time insolently broke locks on the lowered bridge grate. Ordinary Austrian soldiers opened fire, and everything would have ended quite safely - if Colonel Goeringer had not been nearby. Bertrand “on a blue eye” told him that France and Austria had signed an agreement on the cessation of hostilities, but the main condition for further peace negotiations is the safety of the Tabor and Spitz bridge. The stunned Goeringer let Bertrand and Moissel "to his side" for negotiations with Auersperg. The deputy prince - General Kinmeier (the one who managed to withdraw 10 of thousands of his soldiers from Ulm), begged him, without entering into negotiations, to order the destruction of the bridge, but Auersperg was above reasonable arguments. He appeared on the bridge (where he was kindly greeted by another Gascon - General Augustin-Daniel de Béllard, chief of staff of the cavalry reserve of the Murat’s corps) and quite graciously listened to Bertrand’s complaints about the lack of discipline of his subordinates, who almost wrecked negotiations on peace through unauthorized actions. The last person who could save Vienna and the honor of Austria was an unnamed corporal: he shouted to the commander that the French were deceiving him, and, frustrated by such disrespect, Auersperg ordered his arrest. A few minutes later, the first French platoon had already burst on the other side of the bridge and began to mine it. The following French troops engaged in Austrian cannons.


Eugene Louis Charpentier. The capture of the bridge over the Danube by the French


In Austria, this tragicomic incident was called the "miracle of the Vienna bridge."

Later, the military tribunal sentenced Aursperg to be shot, but the emperor had mercy on him. When those responsible for failure and catastrophe avoid punishment only because they are aristocrats and representatives of ancient deserved families, empires and kingdoms are doomed, you can turn on the “countdown timer”. But the "old monarchies" lack the instinct of self-preservation, nothing can be done.

On 1 (13) on November 1805, French troops entered Vienna, where they captured just an indecent amount weapons (guns around 2000 alone), ammunition, equipment and food.


The entry of French troops into Vienna. Engraving from the album Military Campaigns of France during the Consulate and the Empire. Paris, 1834 year



Jean Auguste Dominic Ingres. Napoleon takes the keys to Vienna


Thus ended the first "gascon" of Joachim Murat.

The second "Gasconade" by Joachim Murat.


After the loss of the Danube bridges, the troops of Kutuzov found themselves in a very difficult situation. Now it was necessary not even to go, but to run towards the army of Buxgeden. On the night of November 2 (14), Kutuzov’s army set in motion. There were roads every hour and therefore all sick and wounded were left in Krems. To cover the right flank, Kutuzov singled out a rearguard, commanded by Major General P.I. Bagration.


P.I. Bagration


At his disposal were the following regiments: Kiev and Little Russian Grenadiers, Podolsky and Azov Musketeers, 6-th Jaegers, Chernigov Dragoons, Pavlograd Hussars, two Cossacks. Also, his detachment was given an artillery company from the 4 th artillery regiment and the Austrian hussar regiment under the command of Count Nostitz.

On 3 (15) on November 1805, these units occupied positions north of the city of Hollabrunn - at the villages of Schöngraben and Grund. Murat came up here too soon. The loud success at the Danube bridges turned his head, and he decided to repeat the same "Gascon trick" with another enemy. The first part of the “trick” he succeeded: having discovered the regiment of Nostitz in front of him, Murat informed the Count that peace had been concluded between Austria and France. And as evidence, he spoke about the free passage of the French army through the Danube bridges to Vienna. To believe that the French could capture them without a fight was, indeed, difficult. P. Bagration tried in vain to dissuade the Austrian count - Nostitz left, leaving the Russian allies.

Let us digress briefly to draw attention to how easily Nostitz believed in the very possibility of concluding a separate peace with France. And let us inform you that Emperor Franz I, before fleeing Vienna, indeed proposed such a treaty to Napoleon, but he, realizing that the campaign had already been practically won after Ulm, decided to end the war with a spectacular blow that was supposed to break the morale of the opponents and destroy their will to resist. Therefore, he then refused to negotiate. With regard to the Austrians, his calculation was correct.

Now back to Murat, who made a mistake by accepting the rearguard units for the entire Russian army. Not a bit embarrassed, he decided to deceive the Russians too: “pull the time” until the corps of Marshal Sult approached - under the pretext of peace negotiations, of course. Kutuzov and Bagration gladly played along with him: Adjutant General F. Wincengerode (Thuringian German in Russian service) was sent to Murat as a parliamentarian, who, as it turned out, knew how to “blurt out” no worse than the Gasconians.


George Dow Portrait of Ferdinand Wincengorod, Hermitage


Even a certain ceasefire document was signed, copies of which were sent to Kutuzov and Napoleon. And the Russian army during the negotiations managed to break away from the French at a distance of two crossings.

Napoleon was simply amazed and enraged by the suspension of Murat’s movement. He sent him a severe reprimand ordering him to immediately attack Bagration. On November 4, the 20 thousandth French corps attacked the 7 thousandth Russian detachment. It was the famous Schöngraben battle, from which Bagration came out, losing a third of the personnel and 8 guns that got stuck in the mud.

Images from the Soviet film “War and Peace” (directed by S. Bondarchuk):



Bagration before the battle of Shengraben



Episode of the Battle of Shengraben


On November 6, Bagration’s detachment joined Kutuzov’s army in Pogorlitsa. The commander met him with famous words:
“I do not ask about loss; you're alive - that's enough! ”


In November this year, Bagration received the rank of lieutenant general.

And the troops of Kutuzov on 7 on November 1805 in Wichau safely connected with the army of Buxgevden (27 thousand people). Ahead was the battle of Austerlitz, a story about which is beyond the scope of this article. You can read a short story about him in the article. Damn general. Nikolai Kamensky and his nickname Suvorov - The chapter "1805-1807 Military Campaigns."
Author:
Articles from this series:
Ryzhov V.A. Field Marshal Kutuzov in 1812 year
Ryzhov V.A. Field Marshal Kutuzov in the 1812 year. The ending
Ryzhov V.A. Damn general. Nikolai Kamensky and his Suvorov nickname
79 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dalton
    Dalton 18 October 2019 05: 51
    +7
    One of the best cavalry commanders in history. Even the name has become a household name)
    1. heavy division
      heavy division 18 October 2019 06: 22
      +7
      And there was a time like this, personal talents can achieve a lot
      Recall who the marshals of Napoleon were
  2. Catfish
    Catfish 18 October 2019 06: 22
    +18
    And Prince Suvorov said that Napoleonic marshals without Napoleon are worthless. request

    Great article, luxurious selection of illustrations. good The author has all the possible number of advantages, friends, do not skimp on everyone and good morning. hi
    1. Phil77
      Phil77 18 October 2019 06: 40
      +5
      Let Konstantin join you! And about the wish of everyone good morning, and about the article by Valery. Word is a great article! Segur certainly perfectly described Murat, but ... He certainly was the way he was, so he remained in history .
    2. Pane Kohanku
      Pane Kohanku 18 October 2019 10: 49
      +9
      Join, oh, gorgeous article! I bow to Valery, pleased! good "Bravo, French, bravo!" (Prince P. Bagration, Battle of Borodino). True, he said so about the Davout corps, and I will say about Valery. drinks
      Marshal Lannes, without any shyness, called Murat “a rooster,” “a jester,” and said that he “looked like a dog who was dancing.”

      There is a feeling that there was a grouping of marshals that Bonaparte, as an emperor, "did not accept." Bernadotte is understandable. McDonAld is interesting, who throughout the war of 1812 languidly trampled under Riga, and did not even try to help the beaten Oudinot several times. Much like silent sabotage! what "Brave" Augereau did not show any particular initiative after Preussisch-Eylau. hi
      Jean Lannes also condemned Napoleon. But at the same time he honestly served and fought. Well, and his death is, of course, heroic, it must be admitted, as are his sincere last words addressed to Bonaparte. soldier
      1. Phil77
        Phil77 18 October 2019 11: 06
        +6
        My respect, Nikolai! Ek, you are careless about the marshals! wassat They are marshals! laughing Sorry, the mood is Friday, although at work.
        1. Pane Kohanku
          Pane Kohanku 18 October 2019 11: 29
          +7
          Ek, you are careless about the marshals!

          I didn’t say anything like that! drinks nothing, Anton will come in the evening, and will distribute it to everyone. Hello, hello! drinks
          I'm interested in Augereau. After all, during the revolutionary wars he proved himself a brave officer. What happened then? Bribery and alcoholism? what And how did Eilau influence him, where his corps was destroyed, and the marshal was injured? what
          1. Phil77
            Phil77 18 October 2019 12: 24
            +5
            Well, even before Eilau, he suffered from rheumatism, and at that moment he was apparently perfectly twisted (he was even tied to a horse so that he didn’t fall off the saddle). But, as they recalled, he became a completely different person after the Spanish company, his Russian 11th building was in Berlin. Yes, and age must have played a role, 55 years old, but it’s individual. Some in the 70-hearty! Which by the way, and I wish you! laughing good
          2. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 19 October 2019 00: 55
            +4
            Anton came too late when the spotlights went out and the audience dispersed.
            1. Phil77
              Phil77 19 October 2019 06: 53
              +3
              Nothing! Today we will meet again! Cool article, decent people. Why not a reason to meet? good
              1. 3x3zsave
                3x3zsave 19 October 2019 15: 31
                +3
                No, Sergey. In this topic, I'm just a reader. Well, and the buffoon, as always
                1. Phil77
                  Phil77 19 October 2019 16: 14
                  +3
                  It’s a pity! I walk, wander, sad, lonely. I don’t want to go to Africa. Vlad-cat is not on the branch. recourse
                  1. bubalik
                    bubalik 19 October 2019 16: 37
                    +5
                    Phil77
                    Today, 1

                    People sad ay, where are you? crying (C)
                    1. Phil77
                      Phil77 19 October 2019 16: 39
                      +4
                      We’ve dispersed on other topics, I welcome Sergey! You should search in Africa, where Vlad is heroic, but just below, Konstantin appeared on the horizon like a lonely sail.
                      1. bubalik
                        bubalik 19 October 2019 16: 42
                        +4
                        Africa, there Vlad is heroic.
                        ,,, pirates with mulattos?
                      2. Phil77
                        Phil77 19 October 2019 16: 57
                        +3
                        Yeah, if only! So no, warriors of sultry Africa are discussed, already from the 11-14 centuries.
                      3. Pane Kohanku
                        Pane Kohanku 21 October 2019 09: 41
                        +3
                        ,, pirates with mulattos?

                        I’ll write this phrase for myself! shshshikarno! good
                    2. Korsar4
                      Korsar4 19 October 2019 17: 12
                      +5
                      The joke about the bear is recalled:
                      "- Well, I heard. Did you feel better?" (from).
    3. sivuch
      sivuch 18 October 2019 11: 25
      +5
      I agree with the assessment. That's just the traditional conception of the weak Alexander and the treacherous Albion here is just superfluous
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 18 October 2019 16: 32
        +2
        Forgive me, Igor, but you seem to be addressing me. In that case, let me ask you, where did you read anything from me about "weak Alexander and the intrigues of the insidious Albion"? If you meant someone else, so tell me, I have something to do with it? request
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 18 October 2019 22: 44
          +3
          Well, not really for you. You just gave the article a very high rating, with which I generally agree, but with this reservation.
          1. Nikolai Korovin
            Nikolai Korovin 19 October 2019 19: 40
            +2
            About Alexander's weakness. It is unlikely that Tarle should be considered a very great authority on this issue. After the Erfurt meeting, Napoleon said to Caulaincourt: "This Byzantine man seems to have deceived me. But in what?" I do not guarantee 100% accuracy of the quote, it is necessary to raise Caulaincourt, but the meaning is just that. Well, there were much more Gallomania in the Russian nobility than Anglomaniacs, who were looked upon as eccentrics. "How a dandy London is dressed" - this is already later. So Alexander, quite possibly, followed in the knightly footsteps of his father, and from the very beginning set the restoration of the Bourbons as his main goal.
            As for his participation in patricide - not proven. Mr. Landau is probably not worth trusting in this regard, but there is no reliable evidence. As for Paul himself, the total betrayal of the Austrians on all fronts simply forced him to reconcile with Bonaparte. It is unlikely that he was delighted with this. But all the same - the conspirators nevertheless missed, and in particular (the quick resignation of Palen), and globally - the real influence of Britain on European affairs for a long time did not correspond to the glory of the Duke, as the winner of the evil Boni (as usual, the Anglo-Saxons were also largely pocketed someone else's). It must be assumed that even here, without the undercover intrigues of the bald dandy, it still could not have done.
            In general, the main question of the Napoleonic wars is far from being reduced to the question of the continental blockade in the form in which it is usually interpreted.
            By the way, according to the Atlas Officer of the 1947 edition, 1805 thousand troops were concentrated in the Boulogne camp in 220, and not 130 thousand. I would like to know the origin of the figure 130 thousand. The difference is very significant. In the first case - really real preparation for the invasion. In the second - more likely a demonstration.
            And so, of course, in general, the article is just wonderful.
    4. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 23 October 2019 23: 01
      +1
      Quote: Sea Cat
      And Prince Suvorov said that Napoleonic marshals without Napoleon are worthless.

      By the way, he was right! And the campaigns that most marshals conducted without Napoleon’s direct participation ended in defeat! (from the Spanish Wars to the Hundred Days)
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich 18 October 2019 06: 54
    -2
    But why did Russia need this war, which did not even have a common border with the state of Napoleon?

    The answer to this naive question is given by the St. Petersburg Union Treaty of March 30, 1805:
    - the establishment in Europe of a procedure guaranteeing the future independence of ALL European states
    - restoration of independence of the Netherlands and Switzerland


    By this time, Napoleon had already occupied Holland, Italy, Switzerland, trying to subjugate himself all of Europe. This madman, who had organized endless aggressive aggressive wars, needed to be stopped.
    Given that Napoleon would gladly share the world with Russia

    What are "would" values ​​in history? Nothing.
    One of the motives of Alexander I was personal hatred of Napoleon, who in one of the letters dared to tell him the truth, very transparently hinting at his participation in the conspiracy against his own father - Paul I

    About hatred in 1805 of Alexander to Napoleon, I would like to see evidence / evidence from Alexander himself, and not empty fabrications.
    Which was deeply spit on what the hardened traitor and conspirator Napoleon thought of him.
    At heart, Alexander I understood his inferiority - that flaw

    Where and to whom did Alexander discover this "depth of his soul"? Where does this mysterious attorney tell about this?
    The second factor was the notorious "bags of gold": British gentlemen paid well for Russian blood - above the "market price" of serfs in Russia. According to the agreement of March 30, 1805, the British gave 12,5 million rubles per 100 thousand soldiers (125 rubles per head), and even a quarter of this amount for mobilization. That is, the cost of one soldier reached 156 rubles 25 kopecks.

    The losses of England in the Napoleonic wars EXCEED the losses of Russia: 311 thousand against 289 thousand. Who and how much paid ..... England for one head of an English soldier? The losses of Austria and Spain were much larger.
    In the fight against a common and universally recognized world aggressor, the Allies shout at each other: weapons, money. So it was in WWII and WWII from the USSR.

    Finally, the third factor pushing Alexander toward an alliance with England was desire of Russian aristocrats lead a European lifestyle. And the currency for overseas trips, the arrangement of their urban mansions and village estates

    It was the desire of RUSSIA to conduct a very FAVORABLE trade with its TRADITIONAL trading partner, England, which consumed the largest number of goods produced by Russia. A successful trade is one of the main conditions for the development of countries.
  4. Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 18 October 2019 11: 56
    +5
    Great article, Valery - interesting, vibrant, lively. good
    But still, I would like to ask you one question.
    You write:
    But why did Russia need this war, which did not even have a common border with the state of Napoleon? Given that Napoleon would gladly share the world with Russia - at the expense of Britain, which he hates, of course.

    My impression is beginning to begin that, starting with Peter the Great, whoever Russia fights against, it fights against the wrong people, but it was always the other way around. smile Really our governors and their environment were so short-sighted that from time to time they could not correctly determine their and other people's interests, constantly stepping on the same rake? Or maybe they were corrupt and carried on a hard currency (English, of course smile ), carried away by momentary benefits to the detriment of strategic interests? And so from year to year, from generation to generation, not seeing the mistakes of the predecessors (or not wanting to see), and therefore not analyzing them?
    Some kind of bleak picture turns out, if you look at it with your eyes.
    The historical period described in the article seems to me interesting and instructive also in that it, in fact, shows us an alternative history. It is possible to deal with your opponents so quickly and effectively, as Napoleon was able to do, only on the pages of an alternative history of the lowest level - in reality this could not and should not have been. In this regard, the question is: how quickly would Napoleon’s empire reach the borders of the Russian Empire if Alexander I did not make constant attempts to stop him? How quickly did Napoleon openly, from a position of strength, begin to dictate to Russia with whom to make friends and trade, and with whom to fight (including when and where), regardless of the economic interests of the latter?
    Nevertheless, it seems to me that England (Great Britain) is the natural and most consistent (until the middle of the 20th century, of course), Russia’s partner and ally in all global conflicts, simply because neither England nor Russia, by virtue of their own, for everyone reasons, they could not claim pure sole domination in Europe, but in the union they were invariably able to resist the attempts to establish such dominance by those who really had such an opportunity. And in this pair, the death in an armed struggle with a strong continental enemy of one ally, whether England or Russia, there is no difference, would mean only one thing - the speedy and inevitable death of the second.
    It seems that Alexander I and his entourage thought about the same. wink
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 18 October 2019 12: 50
      +4
      In this regard, the question is: how quickly would Napoleon’s empire reach the borders of the Russian Empire if Alexander I did not make constant attempts to stop him?
      These are really "constant attempts". 1805 - 1807 - III and IV anti-French coalitions.
      1808 - turn on 180 degrees and the signing of an alliance agreement with Napoleon.
      1812 - 180 degree turn again - war with Napoleon.
      And in this pair, the death in an armed struggle with a strong continental enemy of one ally, whether England or Russia, there is no difference, would mean only one thing - the speedy and inevitable death of the second.
      With the means of warfare and the economic and financial resources that were available at the end of the XNUMXth and beginning of the XNUMXth centuries, not one of the continental powers could conquer either England or Russia, unless the rulers of these countries recognized themselves defeated.
      England was guarded by the English Channel, Russia - by the size of the country.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 18 October 2019 12: 57
        +7
        So let us praise those who promoted the expansion of our state to the east! They knew that the taiga would cover (feed, warm) all the refugees from the densely populated European part of Ingushetia! That's why we tried! And let the riches of the eastern lands have not yet been fully explored and used. But not all the forests have burned out yet, there is a lot of room for "partisan actions"!
        1. Mikhail Matyugin
          Mikhail Matyugin 23 October 2019 23: 04
          +1
          Quote: hohol95
          So let us praise those who promoted the expansion of our state to the east! They knew that the taiga would shelter (feed, warm) all refugees from the densely populated European part of the Republic of Ingushetia!

          Yes, the movement to the gigantic and weakly populated spaces of the East was intended for Russia by nature itself, while attempts to climb into densely populated Europe were always accompanied by great blood for us without any major result.
      2. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 18 October 2019 13: 50
        +4
        Quote: Undecim
        1808 - turn on 180 degrees and the signing of an alliance agreement with Napoleon.

        You probably mean the Russian-Swedish war 1808-09 years. But there, Russia acted purely in its own interests - Napoleon received nothing from her victory. Yes, formally, Sweden joined the continental blockade, but actually did not support it. Russia got Finland, both legally and in fact.
        In my relations with Napoleon, Alexander showed, in my opinion, striking duplicity (an excellent and very necessary quality for a politician) - we say and sign one thing, we do the exact opposite. So, even after the military defeats of the III and IV Coalitions, forced to enter into peace negotiations, he did not stop putting Napoleon into the wheel, remaining his perhaps the most consistent and stubborn opponent. This, in fact, led to the invasion of 1812.
        As for the fact that
        Quote: Undecim
        not one of the continental powers could conquer either England or Russia

        then, this is by no means certain.
        If we talk about the conquest of Russia, then, perhaps, it is so. And not even because it would be archly difficult, but simply because no one needs it. It would have been enough to crush her army once and take away the outlets to the sea. This would throw Russia back in pre-Petrine times a hundred years ago and it would simply cease to pose a threat to anyone. And what was going on there in these desolate cold deserted lands (and from the point of view of Europeans it was so) no one worried if these "barbarians" did not begin to poke their noses into the affairs of civilized countries.
        With England, the question is more complicated, in my opinion. Under certain conditions (for example, isolation from Russia), an invasion of the island could become a harsh reality and a fatal reality for it. It was these conditions that Napoleon tried to create.
        It seems to me that he saw his main enemy in England, but he could not get to it directly, and the blockade did not work. All his actions from a certain moment were aimed precisely at crushing England. Actually, even when invading Russia, he most likely thought about a "friendly visit" to Albion and mentally prepared to cross the English Channel in a couple of years.
        In any case, I understand the political realities of that time as follows. hi
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 18 October 2019 14: 05
          +4
          The question is - why were the provinces of Finland granted broad rights, like the provinces of Poland?
          What guided Alexander 1!
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 18 October 2019 14: 15
            +4
            Quote: hohol95
            What guided Alexander 1

            Common sense. Not all at once, no one shoves a whole loaf of bread in their mouths - they cut it into pieces and eat it gradually. Over time, they would lead everyone to a common denominator. To this or that.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 18 October 2019 14: 17
              +4
              Common sense. Not all at once, no one shoves a whole loaf of bread in their mouths - they cut it into pieces and eat it gradually.

              From his ancestral lands, he means "afraid" to start an experiment? It was safer from the democratic outskirts. And then their own elite could prepare a new scarf ...
            2. Tavrik
              Tavrik 18 October 2019 22: 52
              +3
              That's how interesting it turns out ...
              Napoleon, who, as a result of victorious wars, establishes his protectorate over the defeated European countries, often preserving their monarchies, is a crazy aggressive conqueror.
              Russian tsars and queens, "eating gradually" their neighbors, are gentle examples of Christian humility.
              Are there double standards here? repeat
        2. Pane Kohanku
          Pane Kohanku 18 October 2019 14: 18
          +4
          You probably mean the Russian-Swedish war of 1808-09. But there, Russia acted purely in its own interests - Napoleon received nothing from her victory.

          one way or another, we not only grew territorially, but also finally got rid of the enemy with which we had been competing in the Baltic for hundreds of years - Sweden. A secondary (albeit somewhat unexpected) consequence of the war was Bernadotte's calling to the Swedish throne. And the former Marshal of Napoleon immediately began to show Alexander his friendly intentions. After their meeting in Abo in 1812, part of the Russian troops from Finland was transferred to the north-west of Russia, and strengthened the Wittgenstein corps, which affected the battles near Polotsksoldier Bernadotte himself led us allied Swedish forces in 1813, to get even with his ex-wife, Bonaparte angry Since then, Russia no longer waged wars with Sweden ... hmm ... except that the Swedes during the Great Patriotic War supplied the Nazis with ore and volunteers to the SS troops, and our submariners accidentally drowned several Swedish ships in the Baltic. hi
          In Turku (then Abo) in 2012, a monument was erected to mark the 200th anniversary of the historic meeting between Alexander I and Jean-Baptiste (already Karl Johan) Bernadotte. drinks the king is on the right; the Gascon is on the left.

          With England, the question is more complicated, in my opinion. Under certain conditions (for example, isolation from Russia), an invasion of the island could become a harsh reality and a fatal reality for it. It was these conditions that Napoleon tried to create.

          Michael, recalls Hitler’s one-on-one plan! request
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 18 October 2019 14: 48
            +4
            Quote: Pane Kohanku
            Hitler's one-in-one plan!

            It seems, on the contrary, that Hitler had the Soviet Union as its goal No. 1, he always tried to reach an agreement with Britain.
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 18 October 2019 20: 05
              +2
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              he was trying to negotiate with Britain all the time.

              Not all the time. Germany started fighting England with England earlier, if you remember.
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 18 October 2019 21: 06
                +3
                Quote: Ingvar 72
                Germany with England started earlier if you remember

                I remember.
                And what kind of war it was, "strange", I also remember. And about Dunkirk and about Hess. In full force, Hitler began to fight with Britain that way from the 42nd, when it was already necessary to defend, and not attack. Before that, he tried to force them to surrender, not destroy.
                1. Ingvar 72
                  Ingvar 72 18 October 2019 21: 21
                  +1
                  It’s clear with Dunkirk, but there are some speculations about Hess. But the battle for Britain was not in the 42nd. wink There was no smell of any "agreements" at all. It seems to me that it was after this defeat that Hitler decided to finally decide on the choice of the enemy. Before that there was a "swing". hi
                2. VLR
                  18 October 2019 21: 43
                  +2
                  Hitler had a very high opinion of the British Empire and its "civilizing mission". He didn't like France and the French, about which he wrote in Mein Kampf, but he really wanted to come to an agreement with the British. And, yes, stopping German tanks in front of Dunkirk was a "peace proposal": Hitler allowed the British to leave, hoping they would appreciate the move and negotiate.
                3. Tavrik
                  Tavrik 18 October 2019 22: 42
                  +2
                  And what means did Hitler fight at full strength and destroy England? Landing on the island - nothing. There are no such funds. In Norway, barely landed, the kriegsmarine losses were impressive. Only aviation and submarine could do something. See the explosive increase in the number of submarines. But this is not enough.
                  So there is a complete analogy with Napoleon in the part: "You can only win by landing, but the Royal Nevi gets in the way and nothing can be done about it."
                  And since August 42, parts of American aviation began to arrive in England. Germany had to urgently strengthen air defense.
          2. Catfish
            Catfish 18 October 2019 21: 05
            +2
            Michael, recalls Hitler’s one-on-one plan!


            I thought the same thing, well, word for word. And both climbed into Russia, and both have a bummer and a disaster.
          3. Tavrik
            Tavrik 18 October 2019 22: 33
            +1
            Cool monument to the traitors of their homeland.
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 18 October 2019 12: 59
      +2
      With the British "we", after all, MOTHER ...
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 18 October 2019 13: 54
        +3
        Quote: hohol95
        With the British "we", after all, MOTHER ...

        In what sense?
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 18 October 2019 13: 56
          +3
          And on the royal line. Or I'm wrong?
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 18 October 2019 14: 11
            +5
            Quote: hohol95
            on the royal line

            Yes, there were all relatives, and if not relatives, then relatives. To the British - no more than to the Germans and "any other Swedes." So everything is equal here. smile
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 18 October 2019 14: 15
              +4
              However, with the French from the Empire of Napoleon, "we" were not relatives. Here is the "reason" for "waving checkers"!
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 18 October 2019 14: 18
                +3
                It's like a cherry on a cake. In itself, the dynastic kinship of the rulers or the absence thereof did not practically influence political decision-making.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 18 October 2019 14: 22
                  +2
                  In itself, the dynastic kinship of the rulers or the absence thereof did not practically influence political decision-making.

                  The British did not influence. But ours ... The question is dark ...
                  On the other hand, where would RI take weapons during Napoleon's invasion of RI if Great Britain weren’t there. As usual, there was not enough RI to mobilize guns.
                  I had to lead from Misty Albion! Rusty Muskets.
              2. Pane Kohanku
                Pane Kohanku 18 October 2019 14: 45
                +5
                However, with the French from the Empire of Napoleon, "we" were not relatives.

                yeah, but there was a chance! wink Bonaparte got married to Ekaterina Pavlovna! drinks
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 18 October 2019 14: 59
                  +4
                  Bonaparte got married to Ekaterina Pavlovna!

                  Looks like he just "did not come out in height." Or else "what" did not like ... We will not know about it!
                  1. Phil77
                    Phil77 18 October 2019 18: 09
                    +5
                    Oh well. It’s simpler: * You’re more artistic, you’ve thought up! Go away. * Like that, we are Romanovs, and who are you? What kind of Buonaparte?
                    1. Tavrik
                      Tavrik 18 October 2019 22: 30
                      +5
                      And therefore, they urgently issued the princess for a small-local German monarch.
                      In general, the story of the matchmaking of Napoleon vividly characterizes Alexander. First, humiliating delays, then failure, then issuing a sister for a dumbass.
                      1. Phil77
                        Phil77 19 October 2019 06: 45
                        +1
                        Hello Eugene! Yes, they got married, but just don’t * know who *, but for the representative of the completely respected royal court of Württemberg. I respect Napoleon, but he is no match for Romanov, again the origin is not that!
                      2. Tavrik
                        Tavrik 19 October 2019 21: 11
                        +2
                        Sergey, this is where snobbery and neglect of the interests of the state begin. From a pedigree point of view, yes, a respectable family. From the point of view of geopolitics - what are the benefits of such a marriage? How could Württemberg help Russia? There were about 300 such Wurttembergs on the map of Germany. Either France is the European leader. Make friends with her - and trade will be, and the western borders are safe. You can deal with Turkey calmly and other Asia.
                        Well, okay, not a ride ...
                      3. Phil77
                        Phil77 20 October 2019 08: 48
                        +1
                        Good morning Eugene! Factor of personal hostile relations. crying But Alexander’s father was more experienced in the European * politician *! This is probably why the Angles took part in the conspiracy.
                      4. Pane Kohanku
                        Pane Kohanku 21 October 2019 09: 38
                        +3
                        But Alexander’s father was more experienced in European * politician *!

                        Paul was simply more direct and emotional. Moreover, he was extremely suspicious, and did not tolerate betrayal. angry And the behavior of the Caesarians, of course, could not please him. Therefore, he acted as an honest man. Moreover, it was then that it was more profitable for him to agree with Bonaparte, as the most powerful European figure of that time. soldier
    3. VLR
      18 October 2019 14: 21
      +5
      It seems to me that in the future a strong and distant France would be preferable for Russia to a relatively close strong Germany. Russia, in general, was outside the sphere of Napoleon's interests. England was the main enemy for him. Even in 1812 he did not intend to go deep into Russia, in general, and he called the war, which we call the Patriotic War, "Polish". Poland was the limit of his eastern ambitions. And he had to give him this Poland - there would be much less problems later. In 1812, Napoleon hoped to give a border battle, win, and force Alexander to comply with the conditions of the Continental blockade, which was very unprofitable not for all of Russia (government products, which were not so much, she could easily sell - not to Britain, but to other countries), namely Russian aristocrats who wanted to be not "old-world landowners", but British lords, to be able to live in their palaces and estates, "as in Europe." They did not want to invest in industry, import not luxury goods, but means of production, create competitive enterprises. But it is stupid to drive raw materials for export - this was the very thing for our aristocrats. This situation persisted in the Russian Empire even at the beginning of the twentieth century: in 1907, income from the sale of grain abroad amounted to 431 million rubles. Of these, 180 million were spent on luxury goods for the aristocracy, and 140 million were left abroad by the Russian nobles (Paris, Nice, Baden-Baden, etc.). Only 58 million returned to Russia in the form of investments or free funds. But at the end of 1812 Napoleon, in exchange for peace, probably would have forgotten about the Continental blockade, just to get out of the war with Russia. And the second time would not have climbed under any circumstances. In addition, after the death of Napoleon, his empire, in any case, would have "crumbled". That is, all the same, in the end, the borders of large European countries would acquire similar outlines, unless there probably would be no artificial Belgium. Poland would also be "taken away", and it would be very good for Russia not to create any "Polish kingdom", not to enter purely Polish lands. As a result, in the process of the collapse of Napoleon's empire (it had no chance to survive then, the time of the current European Union had not yet come), Europe would have been bogged down in its problems for 50 years, without preventing Russia from solving its problems with the same Turkey, in Central Asia, in the Far East.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 18 October 2019 14: 33
        +4
        It seems to me that in the future a strong and distant France would be preferable for Russia to a relatively close strong Germany.

        I read a lot of fabrications about alternatives, but my general impression was that the rise of Germany was inevitable. The nation was too strong and talented, and the leaders who implemented reforms and unification were both more capable and, most importantly, more purposeful than the French and Russian counterparts.
        1. VLR
          18 October 2019 14: 40
          +5
          Quite right, I write: the borders of large states would be the same. But Germany would unite much later and at the beginning of the twentieth century it would not have the resources to unleash the World War.
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 18 October 2019 14: 45
            +2
            I think that plus or minus five years
            The allies grew right before their eyes and learned to fight Napoleon, and after Russia this process would be speeded up anyway.
            Well, do not forget that who Napoleon has the most stubborn, persistent and powerful enemy. These would not calm down.
        2. Elturisto
          Elturisto 24 October 2019 21: 37
          0
          what a monstrous stupidity. There are no strong and talented nations. The German empire is the brainchild of the British. What is the 2 Reich without the Silesian and Rhine coal and metallurgical basins? The German empire is a political superstructure over the North German Union, an economic entity - financially sponsored by Britain. France and RI.
      2. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 18 October 2019 14: 45
        +4
        Regarding our nobility - I agree. Most of them were short-sighted and lazy townsfolk, from birth accustomed to luxury and not accustomed to work. Reckoning did not come soon, but the interest flowed considerable.
        As for Napoleon and the alternative course of events, when, after expelling him from Russia, our armies stop at the border, then you can argue endlessly.
        And if Napoleon lived that way until seventy - seventy-five? For a quarter of a century, under his continuous rule from the Pyrenees to the Carpathians, Europe would be so transformed that "even I am a point" ... smile
        And somewhere in the year 1841, in June, how she would approach us with the whole engine with rifled rifles and guns, smokeless gunpowder and shrapnel ... It would be hard for us ...
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 18 October 2019 15: 00
          +5
          Yes, hardly. While Bonnie toured Russia, he was almost kicked out of Spain. And if he pulled there to personally restore the situation (and without the marshals it did not work out), then the kingdom of Poland would be covered. And such a swing - to infinity
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 18 October 2019 16: 49
            +4
            Quote: sivuch
            the kingdom of Poland would be covered

            Yes, he would give this Poland to Alexander, he would not refuse. laughing Two birds with one stone: here is my gratitude to you, and at the same time crap for a long time. How is it, "arrogant lyakh is worse than a woman with low social responsibility" laughing
            Yes, and Spain, too, a suitcase without a handle, no offense to Artem be told ... smile
            In short, there are many versions of what could be built. But for some reason I like most of them less than what came out in reality. The French empire has been destroyed, Europe has been divided into rags, Russia's international prestige is as great as never before or since (if we do not take into account the USSR) - the most direct path to a brighter future. I believe that Alexander very successfully "rebounded", having got off, if not with a minimum of losses, then, in any case, he did not drag too much. He performed quite well in the foreign arena, especially considering who opposed him. smile
            It’s another matter that I didn’t work on the inside ... But there is another question, another discussion.
      3. Tavrik
        Tavrik 18 October 2019 22: 20
        +2
        Thank you for the article. I agree with the stated in the article and in the commentary. It is advisable to bring more sources that were used when writing the article. So that those interested could read for themselves.
        I’ll add from myself: it’s a pity that they did not extradite one of the two great princes to Napoleon. That would be a strong move! There would be no war of 1812, but there would be an heir in which Russian blood would flow. And Russia could claim the French throne. Oh, forgot about our peace winked
    4. Captainvp
      Captainvp 19 October 2019 23: 53
      +1
      It still seems to me that England (Great Britain) is the most natural and most consistent (until the middle of the XNUMXth century, of course), partner and ally of Russia in all global conflicts


      And again I must remind the Crimean War of the "Great Game". This is the XNUMXth century. Or is it just a typo? But even at the beginning of the XNUMXth century there were episodes. For example, the extremely unfriendly demonstration of the British fleet in the Baltic during the Great Northern War. During the Seven Years War, countries fought on the side of opposing coalitions. There were no direct hostilities, but it is difficult to call such relations allied. Further, during the American War of Independence, Catherine quite successfully organized a coalition against England, which in a peculiar way interprets the law of the sea (by the right of the strong, of course). Well, that's right "the most consistent partner and ally." Of course, allegations of the eternal "Anglo-Saxon conspiracy against Russia" give off folk-history, but one should not rush to the other extreme either.
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 20 October 2019 12: 59
        0
        Quote: Captainvp
        Of course, allegations of the eternal "Anglo-Saxon conspiracy against Russia" give off folk-history, but one should not rush to the other extreme either.

        I agree, it should not. But you must admit, it was with the British that politics most often laid us in one bed.
        "The most consistent (until the middle of the twentieth century, of course), partner and ally of Russia in all global conflicts" means only what is written, and not at all a "loyal friend" or "brotherly people". I was simply stating the fact that it was with Britain that we entered into alliances and fought against common enemies more often than with others. Try to find a more consistent Russian ally in Europe if you think I'm wrong.
        1. Captainvp
          Captainvp 21 October 2019 07: 34
          +1
          It seems to me that in response to my arguments, backed up by concrete examples, it would be a good form to respond in the same way. However, you preferred to repeat your thesis that is not justified. I will consider.
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 21 October 2019 11: 07
            0
            Quote: Captainvp
            you preferred to repeat your thesis

            I can repeat the third time, if the first two were not enough for you to understand what was at stake.
            I didn't think I would have to explain it, but "most consistent" means the others are even less consistent.
            According to your "arguments".
            In the Northern War, the Russians and the British did not exchange a single shot and did not officially declare war on each other.
            In the Seven Years' War, Russia and Britain were part of different coalitions, but at the same time, the 1741 treaty was not denounced, and in fact England and Russia did not fight against each other and did not declare war on each other, continuing to trade.
            During the war for independence with the United States, Catherine did not create any coalition against England - she simply refused to help the British. In any case, I am not aware of any document - an agreement, treatise or declaration, which could even indirectly testify to this. If you can bring it, I will be grateful.
            The only war England waged against Russia was the Crimean. In alliance with France and Turkey with friendly neutrality on the part of Austria and Prussia.
            Shitting each other in slippers, as well as showing a fist from around the corner, is normal and absolutely acceptable in politics. Everyone is always engaged in this, not only the British and not only in relation to Russia. But as soon as it came to the present, Russia and England for some reason found themselves on one side of the barricades. And if you think a little, then it is quite possible even to understand why.
            Now, count in how many wars Russia and England acted as allies and find in Europe a state that during the indicated period (XVIII - first half of XX centuries) fought in alliance with Russia against a common enemy more often than Britain.
            1. Captainvp
              Captainvp 21 October 2019 18: 33
              0
              During the war for independence with the United States, Catherine did not create any coalition against England - she simply refused to help the British. In any case, I am not aware of any document - an agreement, treatise or declaration, which could even indirectly testify to this. If you can bring it, I will be grateful.


              You can not thank:
              http://rushist.com/index.php/russia/3795-vooruzhjonnyj-nejtralitet-1780

              In addition to the Crimean war, there was also the Anglo-Russian 1807-1812, which I hinted to you in the comments on your first statement about "loyal allies".

              And now count in how many wars "the same Austria fought in alliance with Russia against a common enemy".

              My main idea, which I am trying to convey to you, is that the very formulation of the question of "allied" England is devoid of any sense. Alliances between countries are ad hoc. Britain was friendly to Russia only a few times, in very short periods by historical standards, at moments of mortal danger to its statehood. Most of the time, attitudes ranged from indifferent to outright hostile to the Cold War. What we, in fact, are seeing at the present time.
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 21 October 2019 19: 36
                0
                The Anglo-Russian war ... Yes, I forgot about it, to be honest. In general, and no wonder, the war was, quite frankly, more formal than real. Two states for which peace with each other is much more profitable than war, but one of them was forced to fight, and the other admonishes him so gently: either they will release the sailors honestly, then instead of breaking the enemy squadron in a neutral port, as they would do with any other enemy and did more than once, politely disarm them, and then also the ships are returned. It seems to me that this war just more confirms my theses than yours.
                As for the article on armed neutrality, here, excuse me, there is no talk of any coalition. And Russia did not show any hostility towards England. It simply acted in its own interests, which at that time somewhat diverged from the interests of England, with no political, and especially military consequences in relations between England and Russia, this declaration did not entail. I would never have thought that the European countries' approval of the declaration of armed neutrality could be regarded as creating a coalition.
                Tales about the "Englishwoman" who "crap" I personally have already set my teeth on edge. Everybody shits on everyone and the same Englishwoman shit much more France, Spain and Germany than Russia. And how many "French", "German", "Turks" and "Poles" shit on Russia with no "Englishwoman". Let's look at history not through the prism of today's political realities, but objectively and impartially.
                1. Captainvp
                  Captainvp 21 October 2019 23: 49
                  +1
                  Let's. First, let's ditch subjective assessments like Most Consistent Allies. This judgment is as unhistorical as the complaints about the "ever-shitting Englishwoman."
  5. Free wind
    Free wind 18 October 2019 12: 01
    +2
    Oh, if Aleksandr Vasilyevich Suvorov would have lived another 20 years, nobody would have heard about napalimon and his gang.
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 18 October 2019 22: 23
      +3
      Yes, something very interesting could have happened. Here I am only embarrassed that Alexander Vasilievich: 1. Never commanded large formations. 2. Almost always fought with the Turks, who did not differ in outstanding fighting qualities. As soon as he ran into the French in Italy, heavy "validol" battles began, albeit successful.
  6. Tavrik
    Tavrik 18 October 2019 22: 10
    +2
    Quote: Olgovich
    - the establishment in Europe of a procedure guaranteeing the future independence of ALL European states
    - restoration of independence of the Netherlands and Switzerland

    Was the restoration of the independence of Holland and Switzerland vital for the Russian Empire? Is it so necessary to organize a new war when no one threatened Russia? This is called "digging" or "finding a reason."
    This madman, who had organized endless aggressive aggressive wars, needed to be stopped.

    An endless list of wars organized by Napoleon: 1. Spain 1808. 2. Russia 1812.
    Minor misunderstandings organized by the meek and peace-loving Russian monarch in Europe: 1. Austria 1805 2. Germany 1807. 3. Finland 1808. Plus participation in the war of 1799, when no one attacked us.
    The war with France, launched by Prussia: 1. Prussia 1806
    The wars with France, organized by England and Austria: 1. 1792-93 (England, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Sardinia, the Kingdom of both Sicilies participated). 2. 1798-1799 (participants are England, Austria, Russia, Turkey, the Kingdom of Naples). 3. Austria 1809
    Total, in Europe, England, Prussia, Russia during the reporting period organized 7 wars, Napoleon 2.
    But crazy, of course, Napoleon.
    If, missed something, add.
    1. Oleg Kolsky 051
      Oleg Kolsky 051 19 October 2019 22: 21
      0
      Yes? What about the Egyptian campaign? Which was entirely a Bonaparte project is not considered?
      The Egyptians were crazy about "happiness" that the Corsican carried them on French bayonets.
      And Russia is "to blame" for the invasion and Bonaparte has nothing to do with it. And how Murat and all sorts of Jeromes became kings outside the brackets.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 19 October 2019 23: 00
        0
        The decision about the Egyptian campaign was made by the Directory. Bonaparte was then only a general. Although the idea was his.
        Jerome became king of Spain as a result of the Spanish War. Why did Napoleon go to Spain? To secure our western borders (we chopped off Finland for the same purpose). Yes, pretty aggressive. Therefore, above, in the list of wars launched by Napoleon, I noted 1808. By the way, check out the Russian governors-general of Finland. There was even Barclay. In short, I do not blame either Napoleon or Alexander. Everyone was expanding their possessions as best they could. If it was possible, it would join the territories and plant its leaders. Normal practice, what then, what now.
        Yes, Murat became king of Naples. So the kingdom of Naples actively participated in the anti-French coalition of 98-99, for which it paid. What they did not sit? The export revolution feared? Well, got the result.
  7. Elturisto
    Elturisto 24 October 2019 21: 18
    0
    Excellent article. At the same time concise and informative. Interesting emphasis on ethnic Gascons in the army of Napoleon. In the Spanish fleet, for example, the Gascons also ran the show, which is not the topic for a separate article ...