12 defeats of Napoleon Bonaparte. Epilogue of St. Helena


Chandler Lists



In modern Napoleonics, lists of military clashes, as well as their participants, compiled, more precisely, scrupulously systematized by the British historian David Chandler, are considered classical. He prepared them in parallel with an extensive Napoleonic bibliography, free from dummies and outright propaganda, while working on his books, which later became famous: On the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon's Military Campaigns, Waterloo and Napoleon's Marshals.

All apologists of Napoleon Bonaparte rely on them today, analyzing the campaigns and battles of the general, the first consul and twice the emperor of the French, his numerous victories and defeats. Even before Chandler, it was believed that the French commander gave 60 battles, and only 12 of them failed to win.

12 defeats of Napoleon Bonaparte. Epilogue of St. Helena

It is worth recalling in this connection that many generals, and above all the great Suvorov, whom foreign military historians stubbornly do not want to recognize as such, did not know defeats at all. But it is also worth recognizing that too much in that era was against Napoleon, and against France and the French, who were looking for their own path to freedom. The more significant their victories seem, and the more interesting their defeats.

So, 12 defeats of Napoleon Bonaparte - this is a failed siege of Saint-Jean-d'Acra in 1799, Preisch-Eylau in 1807, Aspern-Essling in May 1809, four battles of 1812 - the Battle of Borodino, bloody battles at Maloyaroslavets and Krasnoye as well as the collapse and amazing salvation on the Berezina, the four-day 1813 Leipzig, rightly called the “Battle of the Nations”, La Rottiere, Laon and Arcy-sur-Ob in the French campaign, and finally the epic Waterloo on June 18, 1815.

To these twelve failures on the battlefield, the authors of the cycle decided to add two large military campaigns - the Spanish and the Russian, in which even the repeated brilliant victories of the emperor did not help to change anything at all. Many with certain reasons consider the Egyptian campaign unsuccessful, although to General Bonaparte it, in addition to fame, also brought power.


Napoleon on the Bellerophon sets off for about. St. Helena

In the six years that, after Waterloo and the second abdication, the prisoner of Europe spent on Fr. St. Helena, he did not have time to tell or describe many of his victories, but he did not miss almost a single defeat. The same Egyptian campaign is dedicated to a separate work of Napoleon with a detailed analysis of the reasons for the first failure of a genius. However, he managed to visit Count Las Cazu on the fact that no one even tried in hot pursuit to tell about the unprecedented campaign of 1814.

It was Las Cas, who spent only eight months with the emperor on a distant island, laid the foundation for the creation of the Napoleonic legend. It is hardly possible to take Napoleon’s famous bulletins as such, in which, with tenacity worthy of a better application, he deceived rather than the public, but himself.

Amazing in laconicism, “Thoughts and Maxims”, recorded by the count, are inferior in volume by several times to the memoirs and later works of his overlord and sovereign. Nevertheless, it was in them, it seems, that there was a place for those assessments and emotions that Napoleon experienced in relation to his own failures. And yet, the emperor did not have time in conversations with Las Caz, or, most likely, did not want to speak about most of those who defeated him.

By the way, even among the failures, a truly worthy place was found only for Waterloo, who, according to Napoleon himself, outweighed all his 40 victories. But here, too, the great vanquished did not deny himself the right to voice an alternative, giving at the same time an exceptional compliment to Marshal Pear.

The passage of the Pear from Namur to Paris (after Waterloo) the emperor did not hesitate to call "one of the most brilliant exploits of the war of 1815." “I already thought,” he wrote, “that the Pears with his forty thousand soldiers were lost for me and I won’t be able to rejoin them in my army beyond Valenciennes and Bushen, relying on the northern fortresses. I could organize a defense system there and defend every inch of the earth. ”


The Battle of Preysish-Eylau. thin A. Averyanov

Napoleon also mentioned the battle of Eilau, which, according to him, "was expensive for both sides and had no decisive outcome." And no other way, and no analysis of their own flights and even the mention of General Bennigsen. It is better to broadcast beautifully to the interlocutor about "one of those vague battles when they defend every inch of the earth."

It’s not so important for us that Napoleon decided to note that “he wouldn’t choose such a place for the battle”, the fact that Las Cazu in his extremely lapidary work still had to be reminded of Eilau is important. Hooked, but how could it be otherwise, and here, as with Borodin or Berezin, there is no need to convince anyone of his dubious victory.

In his own works, Napoleon somehow recalls almost all the failures that befell him. He will start with Saint-Jean-d'Acre, the description of the siege of which will take more than a third of the book dedicated to the Egyptian campaign. And Napoleon simply does not have time to complete everything by a detailed analysis of the campaign of 1815.


The right of the vanquished


Do not you, dear readers, think that a well-known maxim is that history winners write, is it not an axiom? On the example of the Napoleonic wars, this is felt especially strongly. By the right of the vanquished, Napoleon was able to masterfully place accents both in his personal history and in the history of France and the entire civilized world of that time.

The 30-year-old General Bonaparte, seriously trying on the laurels and the right of power of Alexander the Great, will study his first defeat in Syria, we can say, lengthwise and crosswise. It is difficult to find the best textbook for the commander who is preparing a long siege of the fortress. However, Napoleon himself always subsequently avoided sieges, preferring to solve the matter in open battles.

Napoleon preferred to either go around the fortresses, trying to find other strong points for communications, or isolate them, moreover, in such a way as to immediately make continued resistance pointless. However, he himself, having not yet tried on the imperial crown, began to actively build fortresses in France and occupied countries. And he himself more than once relied on them already in his last campaigns, when he had to retreat much more often than wage an offensive war.

More than once he considered the fortress garrisons as the last reserve. But it is no coincidence that Napoleon began all the wars that he waged right up to the Russian campaign, with a great advantage in strength, following his own rule that in a different scenario it would be better not to start the business at all. Nevertheless, during the siege of Saint-Jean-d'Acre (Acre), the French had no talk of any superior strength, but in the East of Bonaparte it did not bother too much.


Sydney Smith under Acre, 1799

Particular attention to Acre prompted Napoleon not only to the fact that he avoided a protracted struggle for fortresses, but also to a very close analysis of such a struggle. Moreover, in two works at once, which even today can be considered textbook: “On the Defensive War” and “On the Offensive War”.

But let him down under Acre, by and large, just a coincidence that deprived the professional artilleryman of a sufficient number of heavy guns. And no engineering talent of Picard de Filippo, no persistence of the future Sir Sydney Smith would have helped the defenders. Although it is unlikely that even taking Saint-Jean-d'Acre, General Bonaparte really could become the emperor of the East. And the point is not in his talents and ambitions, but in the real possibilities of revolutionary France.

Nevertheless, Napoleon in his memoirs and notes was by no means out of academic interest devoted to Sydney Smith almost the most caustic and lengthy comments. And this is among all who managed to deprive him of the laurels of the winner.

It should also be noted that Napoleon in his works and even working notes minimized everything related to the Spanish and Russian campaigns. In the same way, nothing was awarded to them except for certain critical, and sometimes even insulting, statements that fell into the memoirs and memoirs of his comrades-in-arms, such commanders as Kutuzov, as well as all the Spanish military commanders.


The evening after Waterloo

In fact, the great commander is very stingy with attention not only to his failures, but also to those generals who defeated him. The winner of Waterloo, Duke of Wellington, did not receive any close attention, the emperor emphasized contempt for him quite regularly, although Napoleon most likely simply did not manage to get to him in his memoirs and works.

And for example, Schwarzenberg, in the future the generalissimo, who received the field marshal’s rod actually under the patronage of the French emperor, is mentioned in Napoleon’s writings only twice - in the context of specific events. For Kutuzov, the one who had the army of an elderly prince, as it was said, "face and in r ... oh," did not even have a word. But Admiral Chichagov Napoleon obviously remembered not without pleasure, because he "threw him away for the Berezina."

By the way, if we leave Britain behind the brackets, then the Corsican upstart also did not have time to speak out thoroughly about his main geopolitical rival, Emperor Alexander I. However, even Blucher, who had repeatedly literally infuriated the emperor, could have considered himself deprived of Napoleon’s attention if he had not completed his voluminous research on the campaign of 1813. Regarding Waterloo, Blucher is also spoken mostly simply in the course of the narrative. Without ratings and characteristics, as well as without emotions.


Napoleon is risen. thin V. Kossak

In addition to Acra, only almost complete defeat under Aspern and Essling, which Napoleon himself stubbornly did not consider failure, was awarded a truly thorough analysis. At the same time, the emperor of France never skimped on compliments to the Austrian commander-in-chief Archduke Charles. We conclude our epilogue with a short quote, citing only two paragraphs from several pages about this battle. They can be considered, without any reservations, the peak of Napoleonic myth-making.

“Was the battle of Esslingen lost because we attacked the center of the enemy line in the columns?” Or did we lose it due to the cunning of Archduke Charles, who tore off our bridges, attacked us in this critical position, having 100000 people against 45000?
But, firstly, we did not lose the battle of Esslingen, but won it, because the battlefield from Gross Aspern to Esslingen remained in our power, the Duke of Montebell (Marshal Lann. - Auth.) Attacked not in columns, but in deployed formation ; on the battlefield, he maneuvered more skillfully than all the other army generals; thirdly, not the Archduke tore off our bridges, but the Danube, which rose 14 feet in three days. ”
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Far B 25 February 2020 06: 14 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    It is worth recalling in this connection that many generals, and above all the great Suvorov, whom foreign military historians stubbornly do not want to recognize as such, did not know defeats at all.
    Well, not so many. And Alexander Vasilich, in my humble opinion, Napoleon merges in full.
    it is also worth recognizing that too much in that era was against Napoleon, and against France and the French, who were looking for their own path to freedom.
    The same Suvorov was repeatedly substituted in large scale by the “allies” (mostly by the Austrians), so it was never easier for him than the Bonaparte. Especially when you consider that you usually don’t expect poddies from your allies, and therefore they are always unexpected and therefore an order of magnitude more unpleasant, if you can say so about the military. "Walking widely, time to calm the fellow." From a purely academic point of view, of course, it would be interesting to look at the "brawl" of the two great commanders.
    1. fk7777777 25 February 2020 23: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The Austrian empire of the Gasburgs, this is generally the first fascist Reich, it was absurd to expect anything more from them
    2. Tavrik 28 February 2020 22: 57 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      It’s very interesting with Suvorov ... No one belittles his merits as an excellent tactic. "Eye measurement, speed, onslaught" - after linear tactics it was new and progressive. When even about 100 Turks are against you, and you have 000 Russians and 7000 Austrians, it worked. But when in northern Italy they faced the French, who were not inferior to ours in morale, energy, the initiative “something went wrong ...” And the heavy, bloody battles at Adda began (18000 of ours and the Austrians versus 43000 of the French), Trebbia (28 against 000), Novi (36 against 000). The Turks at these ratios drove easily. With the French, it went wrong ... Even without Napoleon. Well, it all ended with an epic retreat through the Alps.
      Please note that Suvorov never commanded even 100 people. That would be Alexander Vasilievich commander at Austerlitz, it would be interesting ... Well, this is from the field of alternative history.
  2. mr.ZinGer 25 February 2020 08: 11 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Price-Eilau, Borodino is unclear why the authors attributed to the defeats of Napoleon.
    1. Alexander Suvorov 25 February 2020 09: 10 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      mr.ZinGer (Vladimir)
      Price-Eilau, Borodino is unclear why the authors attributed to the defeats of Napoleon.
      Because both there and there was a pyrrhic victory, akin to defeat. Especially with Borodino. Lose a quarter of the army and achieve absolutely nothing. So even though the battlefield remained behind Napoleon, the battle of Borodino is difficult to attribute to his success.
      1. mr.ZinGer 25 February 2020 09: 18 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yes, the assigned tasks in the battle of not one of the parties were not resolved, but this cannot be called a defeat.
        1. Alexander Suvorov 25 February 2020 09: 21 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Under Borodino, from a tactical point of view, victory was for Napoleon, but strategically, it was a defeat. He was still able to take Moscow, but in fact the battle of Borodino was the beginning of the end of the Great Army. So I would not attribute it to the victories of Napoleon.
          1. mr.ZinGer 25 February 2020 09: 37 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            In my vision, Borodino is the second bell (the first Smolensk), and the turn took place near Maloyaroslavets when Kutuzov began to dictate his will.
        2. Glory1974 25 February 2020 09: 57 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          but this cannot be called a defeat.

          but not a victory. Then how to be?
          1. mr.ZinGer 25 February 2020 10: 03 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            On formal grounds, the French defeated Borodino.
            1. Glory1974 25 February 2020 10: 09 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              On formal grounds, the French defeated Borodino.

              I will give you the formal signs by which the Russians won. And we will argue until hoarseness.
              But Napoleon has already set all points, and so that there is no debate, let's recall his words about the Battle of Borodino: "The French fought like lions, and deserved victory, but the Russians fought no worse, and deserved the right to be not defeated."
              That is, Napoleon himself believed that a draw.
              1. mr.ZinGer 25 February 2020 11: 36 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                In my opinion there was a tale
                "Another such victory and I will be left without an army"
                1. albert 25 February 2020 18: 25 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  This was said by King Pyrrhus, not Napoleon, after the battle with the Romans.
                  1. mr.ZinGer 25 February 2020 19: 13 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Probably yes, thanks for correcting.
    2. Viktor Sergeev 26 February 2020 10: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The battle is considered to be won if achieved what was desired by the winner. Napoleon wanted only one thing: the complete destruction of the Russian army (this was his goal from the moment of crossing the border of the Republic of Ingushetia) and forcing the Emperor to an honorable world. Kutuzov’s goals are more prosaic: to give battle, since it was demanded by everyone, from the soldier to the Emperor, to stop Napoleon (maximum) and save the army.
      Napoleon did not reach the goal, lost time, a large piece of the army, slowed down the movement. The loss of pace and time affected further. After Borodino, Napoleon did not dare to go to Peter and simply did not know what to do, especially after the capture of Moscow.
      Kutuzov: gave the battle, caused damage to Napoleon and delayed him, did not allow to destroy the army.
      Question: So who won the battle?
      The battle is part of the war, only the course of the war determines who won the battle. Retreat is part of the war, the most difficult maneuver. The battle, after which one of the parties finds itself in a deliberately losing position, and the second in the winning cannot be considered the first won.
      Napoleon lost this battle, even as he lost, he only realized it in Moscow, where he realized where he got, actually surrounded, without supplies, with a weakened army.
      If there wasn’t Borodino, Napoleon would have appeared in Moscow much earlier, with a stronger army, without a bunch of wounded, plus Muscovites would not have time to prepare Moscow for surrender.
    3. Tavrik 28 February 2020 22: 58 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Because I want it so much. We interpret everything controversial in favor of the winners of the entire era. Even if after the "lost" battle, the "winners" leave the capital.
  3. Boris55 25 February 2020 08: 11 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Next month we will celebrate the next significant date for the victory of Russian weapons - the surrender of France (March 31, 1814) and, as usual, no one in the media will remember ...

    1. Viktor Sergeev 26 February 2020 11: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      We are not interested. To mark, if it is necessary, it is necessary the date of the battle on the Berezina, the expulsion of Napoleon from Russia.
    2. Tavrik 28 February 2020 23: 04 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Because these are the things of bygone days and nobody’s imagination does not excite. Only ours.
      I do not think that France or England are celebrating the victory in the Crimean War. They have a worthy present, so as not to look for great victories in the past.
  4. Olgovich 25 February 2020 09: 37 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    It should also be noted that Napoleon in his works and even working notes minimized everything related to the Spanish and Russian campaigns.

    Still, he was extremely proud and conceited, and then he was SO bent ....

    But what he wrote about the image of Napoleon M.Yu. Lermontov:

    In the wrong hour, between day and darkness,
    When the fog turns blue over the water
    In the hour of sinful thoughts, visions, secrets and deeds,
    Of which the beam I would not want to see
    And cover the darkness, whose shadow, whose image is there,
    On the shore, looking down to the waves,
    Stands near the Cross
    He is not alive. But also not a dream:
    This sharp look with an elevated forehead
    And two hands folded with a cross.

    Waves babble before him, and run,
    And again they come, and they hit the rocks.
    Like light sails, clouds
    Rushing over the sea from afar.
    And an unknown shadow is looking
    To the east, where a new day squeals, -
    There is France! - there is the edge of her native
    And glory trail, perhaps hidden by the mist;
    There, in the midst of the war, her days were rushing ...
    ABOUT! why did they end so! ..

    Sorry, glory! cheated friend
    You are dangerous, but a wonderful, powerful sound;
    And the scepter ... Napoleon forgot about you.
    Although long dead, he loves
    This small island thrown in the seas
    Where it rotted and the dust was eaten by a worm,
    Where he suffered, abandoned by friends,
    Despising fate with the pride of old days,
    Where did he stand on the sea
    How sad now, clenching his hands with a cross.

    ABOUT! as in his face are still visible
    Traces of worries and internal warfare
    And a quick look, a wondrous weak mind,
    Though alien to passions, everything is full of former thoughts;
    This gaze penetrated the thrill of the heart
    And secret desires recognized.
    He is the same all, and with the same hat he
    A fellow traveler of life, autumn.
    But - look - the day has flashed in jets ...
    There is no ghost, everything is empty on the rocks.

    Often a resident of these bregas hears
    Wonderful stories of fishermen.
    When a thunderstorm riots and makes a noise
    And lightning shines, and thunder booms,
    The instant beam often lit up
    A sad shadow standing between the rocks.
    One swimmer, no matter how great the fear,
    Could distinguish motionless dark face,
    Under the hat, with a frown
    And two hands folded in a cross
    .


    Amazingly beautiful poem .....
  5. Glory1974 25 February 2020 10: 06 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    all the wars that he waged right up to the Russian campaign Napoleon started with a great advantage in strength, following his own rule that in a different scenario it would be better not to start the business at all.

    As Napoleon himself said: "Luck is always on the side of large battalions."
    Everything is relative.
    Suvorov A.V. - More than 60 battles, not a single defeat. With all this, basically without the numerical superiority of their forces over the enemy
  6. Zymran 25 February 2020 10: 59 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The article is written so that one would think that Chandler himself added Borodino and Preisisch-Eylau to the list of Napoleon's defeats. As for Borodino, this is definitely a tactical victory for Napoleon, but the decision not to use the guards did not allow this victory in the battle to become a victory in the war, just like the battle of Aspern-Esling is a tactical victory of the Austrians and a strategic victory of the French.
    1. fk7777777 25 February 2020 23: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There was no point in it, but the chips were removed from the French, the personnel were thinned, and, in principle, Bonn had to immediately open a pile of their Estonian Moldovans and set sail on their own. But the question arises of what he was expecting in Moscow. His actions show that there were agreements, but to whom and with whom? The official version is complete nonsense; according to it, Bonya is simply a second-hand merchant in Cherkizovsky.
    2. Viktor Sergeev 26 February 2020 10: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Tactical victory? Are you sure?
      And what is this victory?
      In the loss of a third of the army, in getting a bunch of wounded, in the fact that he was forced to continue crawling into the depths of Russia mother?
      The battle is considered to be won if achieved what was desired by the winner. Napoleon wanted only one thing: the complete destruction of the Russian army (this was his goal from the moment of crossing the border of the Republic of Ingushetia) and forcing the Emperor to an honorable world. Kutuzov’s goals are more prosaic: to give battle, since it was demanded by everyone, from the soldier to the Emperor, to stop Napoleon (maximum) and save the army.
      Napoleon did not reach the goal, lost time, a large piece of the army, slowed down the movement. The loss of pace and time affected further. After Borodino, Napoleon did not dare to go to Peter and simply did not know what to do, especially after the capture of Moscow.
      Kutuzov: gave the battle, caused damage to Napoleon and delayed him, did not allow to destroy the army.
      Question: So who won the battle?
      The battle is part of the war, only the course of the war determines who won the battle. Retreat is part of the war, the most difficult maneuver. The battle, after which one of the parties finds itself in a deliberately losing position, and the second in the winning cannot be considered the first won.
      Napoleon lost this battle, even as he lost, he only realized it in Moscow, where he realized where he got, actually surrounded, without supplies, with a weakened army.
      If there wasn’t Borodino, Napoleon would have appeared in Moscow much earlier, with a stronger army, without a bunch of wounded, plus Muscovites would not have time to prepare Moscow for surrender.
      1. Zymran 26 February 2020 10: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        The battle is part of the war, only the course of the war determines who won the battle.


        Yeah. If the Second World War won the USSR, then the defeats of 1941 and 1942 are actually victories, not defeats.

        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Napoleon lost this battle, even as he lost, he only realized it in Moscow, where he realized where he got, actually surrounded, without supplies, with a weakened army.


        He lost the war, he won the battle, but he was careful. If he activated the guard, it is very possible that he could not defeat, but defeat the Russian army. In general, I agree with you that, of course, the victory turned out to be pyrrhic.
        1. Essex62 26 February 2020 12: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The army of M.I. Kutuzov is possible, but Russia is immense, reserves are not exhaustible. Even taking Petersburg did not defeat Russia "the great shorty." I would like to understand why this invader is great? Everywhere he was piled and rotted in exile. And rightly so!
          1. Tavrik 28 February 2020 22: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            1. Not at all shorty. His height is slightly above average for his army. Exact data is, but too lazy to look. This topic has already been discussed.
            2. Great because he created a just state that prompted the Russian nobles to think that something in the fatherland was wrong ... If you exaggerate: Napoleon woke the Decembrists laughing
            3. There were victories, there were defeats ... Nobody could fight alone with all of Europe, which was crushing on you. Even he.
            1. Essex62 29 February 2020 09: 06 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              A fair state, where the mass is hunchbacked and the new "elite" is chewing, capturing neighboring and not so countries, having sunk in the blood of the previous ones? Ndya, there are no words ... he woke the Decembrists. An ordinary coup d'etat, which is not measured in the Russian Empire. Progressor,. The bourgeois are the same burials, meaner only, because they are greedy.
              1. Husit 29 February 2020 09: 09 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Essex62
                He woke the Decembrists. An ordinary coup d'etat, which is not measured in the Russian Empire. Progressor,. The bourgeois are the same burials, meaner only, because they are greedy.

                Speak the truth .. hi
              2. Tavrik 1 March 2020 15: 40 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And the new elite - who became it under Napoleon? As he wrote: "Who is a rich man? A buyer of national wealth, a supplier, a speculator. In short, a thief. How to base nobility on wealth?" Having come to power, the elite were outstanding military, scientists, cultural figures, talented administrators. At the same time, there were social elevators, through which people at the expense of their talents could become famous and wealthy.
                “The masses are hunchbacks, and the elite are eating, capturing the adjacent territories” - this is more about the Russian Empire with its millions of serf slaves and the annexation of what is “badly lying”.
                Yes, in France everyone was hunchbacked. But every peasant, artisan, city dweller knew that the provisions of the "Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights" apply to him. Starting with freedom of movement and ending with the possibility of protecting your rights in court. Precisely because Napoleon’s domestic policy reflected the interests of the broadest masses, he so easily managed to return to power in 1815.
                Neighboring states were captured almost exclusively because of their aggressiveness according to the scheme: "declaration of war in France - loss of war - indemnification to the winner and his garrisons on the territory of the loser, declaration of a new war ..." and so on.
                The usual guard coup is when person X is changed to person Y. Without changing the structure of the empire. The Decembrists had slightly different ideas ...
                1. Essex62 1 March 2020 16: 01 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  The slave-owning Russian Empire is not considered in this context. The naturally bourgeois Napoleonic France is more progressive in comparison. But social inequality and exploitation is even more pronounced in the bourgeois system. It seems that the sweet carrot of freedom looms, but in fact the bulk of the population is also lawless and oppressed. What is the defense in court? A money bag is always a winner and is not subject to confrontation with a commoner. So same as now in the Russian Federation.
                  The goal of the Decembrists to abolish serfdom is good and progressive, but from a modern point of view is not sufficient, and not all conspirators supported this program. To many, the emperor’s displacement seemed to be quite a goal. To arrange the likeness of the French Republic, so that as a result again get an empire with a more brutal and greedy bourgeoisie in power.
  7. Krasnodar 25 February 2020 11: 05 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    As for Acra, there is even a song in Israel - you said that you would be mine when Napoleon conquered Acre (the modern name of the city), meaning “when the cancer hangs on the mountain” laughing
  8. wolf20032 25 February 2020 13: 11 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Quote: Far In
    "Walking widely, time to calm the fellow."

    Suvorov never said anything like that. But his nephew Gorchakov wrote something completely different - "" Oh, how this young Bonaparte is walking! He is a hero, he is a miracle hero, he is a sorcerer! He conquers both nature and people. He walked around the Alps, as if they were not there at all. He hid their formidable peaks in his pocket, and hid his army in the right sleeve of his uniform. It seemed that the enemy then only noticed his soldiers, when he shot them like Jupiter his lightning, spreading fear everywhere and striking the scattered crowds of the Austrians and Piedmontese. Oh how he strides! As soon as he embarked on the path of military leadership, he had already cut the Gordian knot of tactics ..... "
    1. Viktor Sergeev 26 February 2020 10: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Are you sure that Suvorov did not say this? Did you go after him and record everything?
      1. wolf20032 26 February 2020 10: 49 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        There is a document, a letter written by Suvorov himself, in which he expresses his opinion about Bonaparte, it makes no sense to argue with this. Everything else is the imagination of poorly educated citizens.
  9. Operator 25 February 2020 14: 29 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The recollections of Napoleon (like the French agitprop during his reign) are a thoroughly false attempt to self-justification. It is ridiculous to seek objectivity in them.
    1. fk7777777 26 February 2020 07: 40 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Maybe, but his civil code is still valid in France, and here ... Besides the "abolition" of slavery? ... What is valid ...
      1. Viktor Sergeev 26 February 2020 10: 16 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        We have sheep like you. There has never been slavery in Russia. Napoleon’s Code does not apply, but it has become the foundation of civil law. You are so talented that you cannot formulate a thought clearly enough, but the main thing is to emphasize your wretchedness and admiration for them.
        1. Essex62 26 February 2020 15: 45 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          In Russia, slavery bloomed in a double color for many centuries.
      2. Operator 26 February 2020 12: 30 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Unlike the paddling, we still have Soviet law in the field of jurisprudence - a direct inheritance of Roman law.

        "Moscow is the third Rome" (C), however.
  10. stroybat ZABVO 25 February 2020 16: 31 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    B7 Hi
    The French “breaks not childishly” when you explain to them where the word French “Bistro” came from.
    Probably, if Hitler were sent to St. Helena, and he would also reflect on his defeats ... I’m sure that he would never admit that the USSR had beaten and defeated him.
    This is already a "diagnosis."
    All with the past 23!
  11. fk7777777 25 February 2020 23: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    He, as a professional art painter, obviously did not take place, almost everywhere he had fluffs in his pope, but he could use cool-caliber, well, he didn’t really respect technical progress, the basis of all muddy was hand-to-hand walking and walking.
    1. Tavrik 28 February 2020 22: 25 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It seems that you are too far from the topic of conversation ... Artillery under Napoleon was "on top". Both in quality and quantity. Indeed, the emperor himself is an artilleryman. Favorite brainchild.
      A large caliber is clumsy and requires more horses. In the Russian army, the largest field caliber is 12 pounds (battery companies). And there were very few of them. Mostly six-pound.
      Progress Napoleon was very respected. For example, telegraph communication. Shap's optical telegraph was used as far back as 1805.
      And again: make an effort and master the Russian language ... it's worth it.
  12. Levsha71 26 February 2020 06: 19 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    What nonsense! Lost Eilau and Borodino? What are the criteria? A stupid "cheers-patriotic" article that has nothing to do with real history. Authors should be ashamed to publish such a pseudo-historical fake.
  13. fk7777777 26 February 2020 07: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Bonya had number one with Paha, quite real agreements, within the framework of which he acted, in fact, and therefore destroyed the first fascist Reich (Austrians), and then after the cannibalistic coup and the coming to power of the Sanka the number of times, he began to misunderstand, could not, or didn’t want to stop during the time, although completely internal agents of influence could have been dirty, and he could not adequately assess the situation.
  14. Doliva63 26 February 2020 19: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The fourth photo from the end - is he sitting with a mobile, or what? belay
  15. Tavrik 28 February 2020 22: 41 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Victor Sergeev
    The battle, after which one of the parties finds itself in a deliberately losing position, and the second in the winning cannot be considered the first won.

    Those. the abandonment of the battlefield, the abandonment of the capital with thousands of wounded, the heavy losses of the army, followed by its decomposition, desertion, robberies of local residents - is this a winning position? The battle, after which some left their capital, while others entered it is what?
    Do not “pull by the ears" the outcome of the war. It is only about battles.
  16. Tavrik 28 February 2020 23: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Victor Sergeev
    And what is this victory?
    In the loss of a third of the army,

    The losses of the French killed and wounded - about 20. About 000 people participated in the battle alone, without taking into account other corps and garrisons. Is it a third?
  17. Lieutenant 5 March 2020 16: 09 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Suvorov never fought a worthy opponent. Turks, yes Poles can not be called serious warriors. Alpine trek is the only vivid episode in the biography of the commander, and even then it looks more like an escape. And Napoleon is a military genius whom the soldiers sincerely loved. Vive l'empereur!