Military Review

Why in 1812 Napoleon moved to Moscow and not to Petersburg

92

History The Patriotic War of 1812 was dismantled a long time ago, as they say, bone by bone. Every step and tactical move of the opposing armies, up to almost the company level, became the subject of detailed study. Nevertheless, to this day, no unambiguous answer has been given to the question of one of the main points that determined the course of this campaign: what was Napoleon Bonaparte, who was at the head of the Great Army, guided by, choosing Moscow as the main target of his offensive not St. Petersburg?


For many generations of our compatriots, accustomed to seeing the Motherland as the heart of their Motherland, such a choice seems quite natural. However, in the XNUMXth century, the capital of the Russian Empire was a city on the Neva, and according to the then laws and rules of war, in order to win the final victory, any conqueror had to strive to capture it, thereby violating the entire system of government both the country and the army, against which the campaign is underway. By the way, the French emperor understood this perfectly. It is a well-known phrase that by capturing Kiev he will “grab Russia by the legs”, entering St. Petersburg, “grab hold of the head,” and by capturing Moscow, “strike in the heart”.

It is because of this statement that there are those who are trying to find conspiracy explanations for the direction chosen by Bonaparte. Like, “carried away by symbolism and wanting to deprive the enemy of the immaterial spiritual core”, Napoleon, invincible up to that moment, gave a blunder and made a decision that ultimately became fatal both for his troops and for himself. It's hard to believe in this. Bonaparte was, unlike many of the then rulers of Europe, a truly professional military man, and also an artilleryman, that is, someone who was used to building their actions on a clear and cold calculation. The reason, of course, was different.

Before I move on to its presentation, let me dwell on two extremely important points. Firstly, it would be fundamentally wrong to assert that the invaders in 1812 did not try to break through to the capital. In this direction, the offensive was carried out by the 10th and 2nd corps of the so-called Great Army under the command of Marshals MacDonald and Oudinot, respectively. The strength at that time was more than impressive, especially if you consider that the Russian army did not have serious military contingents in the North, in the Baltic States and the vicinity of the capital. It was the corps of Oudinot and MacDonald that, having united, were supposed to occupy first Riga, and then Petersburg.

None of these tasks was completed, and in order to stop the enemy offensive, the only one First Infantry Corps under the brilliant command of Peter Wittgenstein (now one of the almost forgotten heroes of the Patriotic War) was more than enough. He managed to do the main thing: he did not allow the French corps to join forces, each of which outnumbered his army both in number and in the amount of artillery, having linked them with bloody battles of local importance. So the French strove to Petersburg, but did not reach ...

But to Moscow, if you adhere to the historical truth, Napoleon categorically did not want to go. He did not intend to invade the depths of the immense expanses of Russia that frightened him at all, dreaming of defeating our army in a general battle somewhere on the territory of present-day Poland. Let's not forget: to occupy Russia, to destroy its statehood as such, to arrange genocide of the peoples inhabiting it, Bonaparte did not plan ... From our country, he, in fact, was required to join the continental blockade of Britain and participate in further campaigns directed against it, in the same India. All this he should have received from Emperor Paul I without any war, but there was a palace coup with a distinct English smell, and Bonaparte had to use it to "convince" Alexander I weapon.

The leader of the huge army that came from the West understood perfectly well that the path into the depths of Russia would become the road to his death. He planned to complete the first stage of the eastern campaign by wintering in Smolensk and Minsk, without crossing the Dvina. However, the invaders did not receive a grand decisive battle in the immediate vicinity of the border: the Russian armies retreated further and further, luring the enemy to where the advantage would not be on his side. Judging by some recollections, it was precisely because of this that Napoleon was at first in confusion for some time, and then decided to attack Moscow, during which he hoped to catch up with the Russians and "finish everything in a couple of battles." We all know how this campaign ended.

The campaign of the Great Army, which entered Moscow on September 14, 1812, turned out to be a road to a trap, to hell, a road to disaster and crushing defeat. In fact, the correct answer to the question regarding the reasons for Napoleon's actions lies in the fact that the Russian commanders managed to impose on their truly brilliant enemy exactly the course of action that ultimately led him to St. Helena, and our victorious regiments to the gates of Paris.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / Patriotic War of 1812
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 15 August 2020 09: 33
    -2
    Nevertheless, to this day, no unambiguous answer has been given to the question: what was Napoleon Bonaparte guided by when he chose Moscow as the main target of his offensive not St. Petersburg?
    Yes, there have already been attempts. Really give, straight uniquely! belay I do not believe. requestFrom our country, he, in fact, was required to join the continental blockade of Britain and participate in further campaigns
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 15 August 2020 10: 01
      24
      Well Duc why Napoleon did not go to Peter, and the author? He asked a question, spoke, spoke, but never answered.
      1. d ^ Amir
        d ^ Amir 15 August 2020 16: 57
        -6
        Yes, because you can CROWN only in Moscow, and some kind of freak is sitting there in St. Petersburg or not, it's not the point
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 15 August 2020 17: 37
          +8
          Quote: d ^ Amir
          Yes, because you can CROWN only in Moscow, and some kind of freak is sitting there in St. Petersburg or not, it's not the point

          why should Napoleon be crowned?
          1. d ^ Amir
            d ^ Amir 15 August 2020 18: 15
            -3
            how else to include Russia in the great French empire ??? what is the general purpose of the invasion ??? to wash off with blood the allegedly inflicted insult by calling "dear friend" instead of "royal brother" ??? or is it something more serious ???
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 15 August 2020 19: 25
              +4
              Quote: d ^ Amir
              how else to include Russia in the great French empire ??

              propose to Napoleon to be crowned in Moscow to wash away some kind of insult? Are you all right there?
              1. d ^ Amir
                d ^ Amir 15 August 2020 19: 47
                -2
                I'm fine ... how do you imagine the goals of the great army's campaign against Russia ??? do not replace warm with green !!! in the then legal system, what could have made Napoleon the legitimate ruler of Russia ??? only coronation in the CROWN capital ... i.e. in Moscow ... it was for this reason that this gang with a crowned Corsican carried it across the whole of Russia
                1. cost
                  cost 15 August 2020 22: 47
                  +6
                  only coronation in the CROWN capital ... i.e. in Moscow ... it was for this reason that this gang with a crowned Corsican carried it across the whole of Russia

                  Well, okay, the coronation of Russian tsars and emperors always took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, that's understandable. But who would crown him there? Who would conduct the rite of "chrismation for the kingdom"? After all, the entire Holy Synod was in St. Petersburg. And the imperial regalia necessary for anointing to the kingdom were also in St. Petersburg. yes
                  French or Vatican priests - you will answer. Also not accepted. For this, there was no need for Napoleon to go to Moscow. They could just as well have crowned him right in Paris. At least for the Russian kingdom, at least for the Martian laughing
                  So that I totally agree with Bar1... There is no answer to the question "why Moscow and not St. Petersburg".
                  1. d ^ Amir
                    d ^ Amir 16 August 2020 08: 18
                    -1
                    once again, what do you think is the goal of Napoleon's campaign against Russia ???
                  2. Normal ok
                    Normal ok 16 August 2020 15: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: Rich
                    only coronation in the CROWN capital ... i.e. in Moscow ... it was for this reason that this gang with a crowned Corsican carried it across the whole of Russia

                    Well, okay, the coronation of Russian tsars and emperors always took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, that's understandable. But who would crown him there? Who would conduct the rite of "chrismation for the kingdom"? After all, the entire Holy Synod was in St. Petersburg. And the imperial regalia necessary for anointing to the kingdom were also in St. Petersburg. yes
                    French or Vatican priests - you will answer. Also not accepted. For this, there was no need for Napoleon to go to Moscow. They could just as well have crowned him right in Paris. At least for the Russian kingdom, at least for the Martian laughing
                    So that I totally agree with Bar1... There is no answer to the question "why Moscow and not St. Petersburg".

                    It is important to note that Napoleon was an atheist))
                    1. hjvtp1966
                      hjvtp1966 20 August 2020 19: 40
                      0
                      Yes, that doesn't really matter.
                    2. Mikhalych 70
                      Mikhalych 70 29 August 2020 00: 27
                      0
                      When along the roads "the dead with scythes stand" (c) you will believe both our Father God and the life-giving trinity ...
                  3. akunin
                    akunin 17 August 2020 08: 29
                    +2
                    Quote: Rich
                    After all, the entire Holy Synod was in St. Petersburg. And the imperial regalia necessary for anointing to the kingdom were also in St. Petersburg.

                    and all the rulers of Russia were Orthodox (after the yoke), would the synod want to smear a Catholic with peace?
        2. Charlie
          Charlie 16 August 2020 17: 00
          +5
          What is incomprehensible. He followed the Russian army. I wanted to impose a general battle. And the army retreated towards Moscow
          1. georgiigennadievitch
            georgiigennadievitch 20 August 2020 17: 58
            +3
            Quite right. To give a general battle. To smash the enemy army and then do whatever you want with the conquered country, this was Napoleon's strategy. But there was still no general battle. Therefore, he went stubbornly behind the Russian army, hoping for a victory. Finally, Borodino. But then a misfire. Although the battlefield, and then Moscow, fell to the French, but the defeat of the Russian army did not happen. It retained its core, retreated in an orderly manner and only by order. Again, the Russian army was at Moscow. A-1, contrary to Napoleon's plans for peace. In such conditions, it was madness to go to St. Petersburg, having in the rear the Russian army, partisans destroying the carts with food, and even on the eve of the slushy autumn and cold winter. Kutuzov outplayed Napoleon by the fact that the French army was weakening day by day, and Napoleon realized this and decided to spend the winter in Ukraine, but Kutuzov did not let him go there and the French had to retreat along the same path along which they came - along the ruined old Smolensk road ...
        3. Limpopo
          Limpopo 17 August 2020 19: 39
          0
          For Napoleon to be crowned, he had to convert to Orthodoxy. What was the problem with Poland? They invited the son of the Polish king to the throne, but he agreed, but refused to accept Orthodoxy. The result was a turmoil, a change of dynasty.
      2. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 15 August 2020 22: 16
        10
        They told you clearly: Napoleon had to crush the army, and she rushed to Moscow, Bonaparte to the Russian army, the army would go to Peter, Napoleon would go to Peter. I hope it's clear?
      3. Normal ok
        Normal ok 16 August 2020 15: 43
        +1
        Quote: Bar1
        Well Duc why Napoleon did not go to Peter, and the author? He asked a question, spoke, spoke, but never answered.

        Indeed, the topic is very generous, but there was no answer to the question posed in the title.
  2. carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 15 August 2020 09: 41
    19
    in my opinion there everything lies on the surface. Napoleon needed a general battle and forcing Russia after him to peace on his terms. the army was retreating towards Moscow. which means he was following our army. this in my opinion has always been his tactic-general battles.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 15 August 2020 10: 02
      +1
      Everything is not simple, but very simple, but vice versa. Is Napoleon a genius? So he understands perfectly well that in 1812. do not bury yourself. But the excitement .....
      From the military side, the ideal solution was to stay for the winter in Smolensk; Napoleon discussed these plans with the Austrian diplomat von Metternich. Bonaparte declared: “My enterprise is one of those whose solution is given by patience. The triumph will be the lot of the more patient. I will open the campaign by crossing the Neman. I will finish it in Smolensk and Minsk. I will stop there. "
      These plans were voiced by Bonaparte and according to the memoirs of General de Suguer. He wrote down the following words of Napoleon, said by him to General Sebastiani in Vilna: “I will not cross the Dvin. Wanting to go further during this year means going towards your own death. "
      It is obvious that the campaign against Moscow was a forced step for Napoleon.
      Everyone is rooting for Napoleon, well, I would have gone to the left, and not directly, and there would have been a victory.
      request Englishwoman smacks recourse
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 15 August 2020 11: 54
      +1
      Quote: carstorm 11
      in my opinion there everything lies on the surface. Napoleon needed a general battle

      after the capture of the government in the capital, there is no need for a general battle.
      1. georgiigennadievitch
        georgiigennadievitch 18 August 2020 10: 09
        +2
        But Kutuzov thought differently. As long as the Russian army exists, the war has not yet been lost. And who was right?
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 18 August 2020 10: 43
          0
          Quote: georgiigennadievitch
          But Kutuzov thought differently. As long as the Russian army exists, the war has not yet been lost. And who was right?

          Well Duc Napoleon did not seize the government in St. Petersburg, so the management of the army and the state was not violated.
          As for Kutuzov, it was not he who determined the strategy of the war.
    3. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 16 August 2020 06: 44
      +5
      carstorm 11 (Dmitry), absolutely right. The rest of the versions are stupid. I will only add that in St. Petersburg the Napoleonic army would have died of hunger immediately from a lack of food, despite the fact that the sea was controlled by England, and in the surrounding area there was nothing but mushrooms. And in Moscow, Napoleon, even for a few months, was able to feed the army with stolen food.
      1. Bar1
        Bar1 16 August 2020 13: 08
        +1
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        carstorm 11 (Dmitry), absolutely right. The rest of the versions are stupid. I will only add that in St. Petersburg the Napoleonic army would have died of hunger immediately from a lack of food, despite the fact that the sea was controlled by England, and in the surrounding area there was nothing but mushrooms. And in Moscow, Napoleon, even for a few months, was able to feed the army with stolen food.

        Yes, it's funny, to look not where you lost, but where it is lighter, under the lamp.
        War begins ALWAYS with one goal to WIN. And the shortest path to victory is the capture of the government of the state. Then resistance becomes impossible, because the leadership of the state and the army ceases. Therefore, the path to victory for Napoleon was of course through Petersburg.
        In general, it is strange that there are so many false opinions on such a simple question. This says only one thing, that in this story they do not tell us something, that something important, and these comments, including yours about food, are an obvious attempt to divert opinion from true picture of the past.
    4. Normal ok
      Normal ok 16 August 2020 15: 49
      +4
      Quote: carstorm 11
      in my opinion there everything lies on the surface. Napoleon needed a general battle and forcing Russia after him to peace on his terms. the army was retreating towards Moscow. which means he was following our army. this in my opinion has always been his tactic-general battles.

      They took it off the tongue. Napoleon could not leave the main enemy army on the flank and go to Peter. At the same time, stretching communications and substituting the unprotected right flank under the blow of Kutuzov.
    5. Limpopo
      Limpopo 17 August 2020 19: 43
      +1
      That. is Napoleon started the war without goals, objectives and plans for running the company. His only goal was to chase the fleeing army, moving further and further from the capital, where, it is logical to assume, and should have been his goals?
  3. Kwas
    Kwas 15 August 2020 09: 41
    18
    Well, yes, that's right, but there is no answer to the question "why not St. Petersburg"! What prevented you from sending there not 2 corps, but 4? And the answer is simple - logistics and tactics. There were few decent roads from the border to St.Petersburg, and there was even less food on the way, obviously not for the "Great Army". But there would be a flank threat of a fatal force to cut these roads. That's all!
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 15 August 2020 14: 05
      +2
      "What prevented you from sending there not 2 corps, but 4?" - and where to get them? And Napoleon was tense with the bosses who knew how to fight independently.
      “And the answer is simple - logistics and tactics” - I don’t know what logistics is, but as far as tactics is concerned, there is clearly a strategy.
      "But there would be a flank threat of a fatal force" - a fatal force also needs roads, and alternative ones, because the main ones will be occupied by the enemy.
      And the answer to the question why St.Petersburg is not lying on the surface and has already been voiced more than once - to win the war, the defeat of the enemy army is needed, but it retreated to Moscow.
      1. Kwas
        Kwas 16 August 2020 09: 09
        +3
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        And the answer to the question why St.Petersburg is not lying on the surface and has already been voiced more than once - to win the war, the defeat of the enemy army is needed, but it retreated to Moscow.

        I completely agree. I wrote my comment with this in mind. That is, if our army retreats to Moscow, then going as a Great Army to St. Petersburg is stupidity precisely because it means being exposed to the flank threat of a fatal force for all its communications. Very bad communications along the edge, where there are few roads and food.
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        "What prevented you from sending there not 2 corps, but 4?" - and where to get them? And Napoleon was tense with the bosses who knew how to fight independently.

        In total, the Great Army had, it seems, 12 corps, not counting the guard, individual units and divisions. And with independent generals, yes, there were problems, but not so fatal. Let's just say that the French generals were on average no worse than ours. Perhaps even better, since they were the children of the revolution, definitely closer to the soldiers, not separated by the class barrier.
        1. Sergey Valov
          Sergey Valov 16 August 2020 21: 33
          +1
          To send additional 2 buildings to St. Petersburg, it means to pick them up from another direction. Napoleon had everything calculated in advance, there were no extra troops. In addition, very often the numerical
          One of the main problems with the command staff of Napoleon was that the generals, and even more so the marshals, commanding the corps categorically did not want to obey each other, which sometimes led to catastrophic consequences.
  4. andrewkor
    andrewkor 15 August 2020 09: 53
    +7
    In my declining years, I fell in love with the genre of alternative history.
    The Germans write about the victory of the Second and Third Reichs, the Jews about the Great Israel, the Russians "drown Togo" and win the Second World War in May 1944.
    The well-known Valerie Giscard d-Esten also noted his opus "Victory of the Great Army". Amused!
  5. Free wind
    Free wind 15 August 2020 10: 54
    +2
    About the fear of Russian expanses, it is said loudly. Out of fear of the Russian expanses, Napoleon applied for his admission to the Russian army. Napoleon fought very successfully in Africa, the expanses there are not at all small. Like many generals, Napoleon knew that the Russian armies needed to be defeated before they united. Of course, our people knew it and retreated to join. Well, in fact, everyone knew this, it is easier to destroy small detachments than a large army. Why didn't you go to the capital? And what to take there? St. Petersburg did not produce anything, in the area there were little fertile lands. The noblemen had no desire for summer cottages, to grow onions with radishes. Moscow was much preferable. As for Pavel and Alexander, for 10 years such a super-genius Napoleon, he could probably figure out that Alexander does not want war with England, and that he does not care about Napoleon.
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 15 August 2020 11: 50
      +1
      Quote: Free Wind
      Why didn't you go to the capital? And what to take there? Petersburg did not produce anything

      you either chatter unknowingly or deliberately mislead the people.
      In the 18th century in St. Petersburg and the region there were the Admiralty shipyards, the Sestroretsk arms plant, textile manufactories, copper mines, an iron foundry in Kronstadt, glass, porcelain and a huge number of small factories and factories for the manufacture of rigging for ships.
      Trade routes from the central regions of Russia went through the Volga-Ladoga Canal-Petersburg, and trade from Europe to Russia went back.



      https://fundamental-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=41245
      St. Petersburg has always been a major industrial and commercial center of Russia.
      So do not lie.
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 15 August 2020 13: 55
        +4
        The secret of porcelain, discovered in Russia in the year 1830-1840, Napoleon did not have time to learn much about the porcelain factories. As if died by that time.
        There have never been any copper and iron ores around the capital. Why else would Peter the Great ordered the bells to be melted down into cannons. Napoleon was not particularly interested in shipbuilding.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 15 August 2020 14: 53
          0
          Quote: Free Wind
          The secret of porcelain, discovered in Russia in the year 1830-1840, Napoleon did not have time to learn much about the porcelain factories. As if died by that time.
          There have never been any copper and iron ores around the capital. Why else would Peter the Great ordered the bells to be melted down into cannons. Napoleon was not particularly interested in shipbuilding.

          you don't even want to lament the link.
          Connoisseurs like you should be killed with a slingshot.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 August 2020 12: 04
      +6
      Quote: Free Wind
      About the fear of the Russian expanses, it is said loudly.

      Normally.
      Quote: Free Wind
      Napoleon fought very successfully in Africa, the expanses there are not at all small.

      And much less than in Russia. In Africa, then all life was drawn to the coast of the Mediterranean
      Quote: Free Wind
      As for Pavel and Alexander, for 10 years such a super genius Napoleon could probably figure out that Alexander does not want war with England, and that he does not care about Napoleon.

      He wanted to force Alexander to a continental blockade, not out of fear but out of conscience. So Napoleon's plan is to defeat the Russian army and force Alexander to obey, he was not going to capture Russia
  6. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 15 August 2020 11: 59
    0
    Why in 1812 Napoleon moved to Moscow and not to Petersburg
    My first attempt failed, it failed. We could not extract a quote from the article. hi So you all said it right, right, but completely ignored a few defining things. St. Petersburg and Moscow cannot even be compared in importance for the war. St. Petersburg - the government, the General Staff, communications with England and that's it! + fleet base. "This is a bead, I will close it with my palm like this, and it is not there" (2 comrades) In the economy of the country, St.
    With the loss of S-Pg, the government went into exile in England, or to itself in Finland. And the war will continue.
    Army management fool I am begging you. There will be no one to stick in her wheels. "If a lady gets out of the car, the car will go faster."
    Napoleon would receive supplies from the sea. fool Now. The English Navy will give it to him. The British want to eat themselves.
    And the march itself of a half-million army, with no roads to the north. It also needs a sheaf of roads in one direction.
    But Moscow is a logistics center, all roads lead to it, there are all military and merchant warehouses and shops. The fact that his army disposed of them so peculiarly .... And he could have spent the winter.
    Smolensk. Here the armies seriously collided, but we began to withdraw and the pursuit began. And even then to say, the half-million army has inertia, it will not stand still. hi
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 15 August 2020 12: 50
      -6
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      With the loss of S-Pg, the government went into exile in England, or to itself in Finland. And the war will continue.


      from England, of course, it is more convenient to manage the war in Russia. Probably pigeon mail would send telegrams from London to Moscow, however, of course, the pigeon will not fly.
      Of course, Napoleon would not have thought of taking Finland after Peter, he would have stopped at the border of Vyborg and not a step further.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Command the army I beg you. There will be no one to stick in her wheels. "If a lady gets out of the car, the car will go faster."


      This is your level of understanding of history. Managing an army and waging a war and driving a car is the same for you.
    2. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 16 August 2020 09: 25
      0
      Mavrikiy, yours is not true.
      The main thing that Napoleon wanted was a general battle. And in St. Petersburg he would not have received food by sea, including because Denmark was already defeated by the British, Copenhagen was in ruins, and the British fleet dominated the Baltic. The British, of course, wanted to eat themselves like everyone else, but the French would not be allowed to eat.
      As for Moscow, you are wrong again. Moscow became a logistics center only towards the end of the 19th century, when railways appeared. And at the beginning of the 19th century, instead of roads, there were primers and directions.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 August 2020 12: 01
    +3
    From our country, he, in fact, was required to join the continental blockade of Britain and participate in further campaigns directed against it, in the same India. All this he had to receive from Emperor Paul I

    A bit incorrect. Paul had an apoplectic blow on the head with a snuffbox in 1801, and Bonaparte announced the continental blockade in 1806. That is, the historical logic is correct, but the continental blockade was mentioned prematurely - Napoleon did not think about it in 1801
  8. pyc.arpeccop tornado 150
    pyc.arpeccop tornado 150 15 August 2020 12: 17
    +1
    You can't see face to face. Only now a lot is seen that was hidden before. More than two hundred years after Borodin and then the periodic repeating military campaigns of the West in the East, you come to the conclusion that the periodic collision of the two worlds did not occur spontaneously, but were deeply thought out and felt events. Therefore, a private decision of one, albeit a great commander, did not in any way affect the decision in which way to act in a particular situation. Heart, legs, head, in fact, did not play any role, it was necessary to bleed. It is a mistake to divide the West into good and bad. The West has been monolithic since the time of self-realization in the historically foreseeable period. The Roman Empire, when it was strong, always divided the western and eastern provinces. When it weakened, Byzantium, until the formation of the Catholic world, was a stranger in the former metropolis. Well, and even when she began to rise from her knees, she did everything so that the former eastern vassals washed themselves in blood in the following crusades. Richard the Lionheart and former Vikings traded in Asia Minor together. And, after that, the "god" himself, in the person of the same popes, ordered to conquer the infidels in the new lands together. Well, the English West Indies and East Indies campaigns competed with the corresponding Dutch and Portuguese and Spanish monarchies, but did a common cause to advance the West into the "uncivilized world".
    Russia, for the time being, until the time when, in fact, Muscovy was, was not interested in, as a source of application of forces for the withdrawal of material resources. But after the conquest of Siberia and the subsequent exit to the Pacific Ocean, the ruling Russian dynasty is taken under supervision and now we are marching together under their tune right up to Emperor Paul the First.
    Here the author of the commented article mentioned the ensuing intrigues of the British intriguers in the fate of the future great march on Moscow, but these were just particulars of the general strategist of the same united West in the march to the East.
    They hammered the entire subsequent century intensively tightly, until the subsequently collapsed Russian colossus appealed to one of its debris for the new invaders that followed to the east from the Third Reich, and in fact the same united West.
    Moscow, this is because here for them, figuratively speaking, Koscheev's needle, and St. Petersburg is their window to our Russia. Well, why ruin your own safe house.
  9. Operator
    Operator 15 August 2020 13: 01
    +5
    The military company of 1812 developed exactly according to the plan of the Minister of War of the Russian Empire Barclay de Tolly from 1811, based on luring the enemy as deep as possible into Russian territory in order to stretch his communications, deteriorate supply, encirclement and defeat.

    In 1811, Emperor Alexander I boasted of this plan to the Danish ambassador, about which he reported to his Foreign Ministry.
  10. Cartalon
    Cartalon 15 August 2020 13: 53
    +7
    Napoleon did not go to Moscow, but pursued the Russian army, so the dispute is generally pointless. And yes, it was impossible not to step on St. Petersburg or retreat, because there was nothing to eat there.
  11. sergo1914
    sergo1914 15 August 2020 21: 06
    +1
    I have worked with the French for several years. Good people. To the question - a fig to Moscow? - is this the capital? What kind of person stood there nearby and said that the capital was in Moscow? Bond is resting. But why didn't Khabarovsk or Magadan say? There would be a bomb.
    1. pyc.arpeccop tornado 150
      pyc.arpeccop tornado 150 16 August 2020 15: 59
      +1
      You come to Paris, everyone is so cute (and in this sense too), good. You leave and then "touched" for a long time, how did you get "kindly, delightfully" thrown up there.
  12. mr.ZinGer
    mr.ZinGer 15 August 2020 21: 32
    +3
    The author has a tendency to ask a question, beg without specifics and quietly step aside, about which the article is again not clear.
  13. vlad kave
    vlad kave 16 August 2020 08: 53
    -1
    We are still undersized to figure out this move of Napoleon.
  14. Diviz
    Diviz 16 August 2020 09: 25
    0
    Probably a fleet was needed to withdraw troops to St. Petersburg. But the sea route was too long and difficult and still passed through the territories of other countries. If he knew that Alexander has a super bomb, he probably did so.
  15. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 16 August 2020 13: 51
    +1
    = Before I move on to its presentation, let me dwell on two extremely important points. Firstly, it would be fundamentally wrong to assert that the invaders in 1812 did not try to break through to the capital. In this direction, the offensive was carried out by the 10th and 2nd corps of the so-called Great Army under the command of Marshals MacDonald and Oudinot, respectively. =
    The allocation of only two buildings for the capture of the capital suggests that St. Petersburg was not the main goal for Napoleon. One can agree that the main goal for Napoleon in the war with Russia is to "knock" Russia out of the alliance with Britain. But for this it was necessary to take Petersburg. Besides, as you yourself noticed, it is poorly protected. So why is it Moscow?
    = received: the Russian armies retreated further and further, luring the enemy to where the advantage would not be on his side. Judging by some recollections, it was precisely because of this that Napoleon was at first confused for some time, and then decided to attack Moscow, during which he hoped to catch up with the Russians and “in =
    By virtue of what? Due to the fact that the Russian armies were retreating, Napoleon decided to march on Moscow?
    All this is somehow unconvincing.
    Everything that you wrote, everyone has known for a long time, but to the fundamental question - why Moscow, and not St. Petersburg, you, in my opinion, did not answer.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 16 August 2020 14: 13
      0
      There is a version that Napoleon did not want to drive Alexander into a corner.
      And this is exactly what the attack on Petersburg would have turned out to be.
      And so, as Napoleon believed (erroneously, as it turned out), he thought
      that on the way to Moscow he would receive a dispatch from Alexander, approximately:
      "I changed my mind, stop the offensive, let's be friends against England together."
      But the fact is that Alexander generally fell into a stupor and could not
      say no-A, no-B. What helped Russia.
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 16 August 2020 14: 31
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh

        0

        There is a version that Napoleon did not want to drive Alexander into a corner.
        And this is exactly what the attack on Petersburg would have turned out to be.

        But that was the offensive.
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And so, as Napoleon believed (erroneously, as it turned out), he thought

        I am always touched by people who believe that they know what they were thinking: Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Macedonian, etc.
        Quote: voyaka uh
        But the fact is that Alexander generally fell into a stupor and could not
        say no-A, no-B.

        And do you have irrefutable evidence of this "stupor"?
  16. Gato
    Gato 16 August 2020 16: 06
    +2
    It is a well-known phrase that by capturing Kiev he will “grab Russia by the legs”, entering St. Petersburg, “grab hold of the head,” and by capturing Moscow, “strike in the heart”

    Interesting associations with anatomy. If Kiev is the legs, Moscow is the heart, then why did he send Latour-Mobourg with the Poles near Bobruisk? repeat
  17. Olddetractor
    Olddetractor 16 August 2020 17: 24
    0
    If you do not take into account (at least temporarily) the excessively inflated greatness of the emperor of all the French, as well as the numbers and the only correct conclusions of historians, it will become clear that Bonaparte was manipulated. It was done somehow intuitively, on the verge of possibilities, but it was done. And how it was done! Napoleon invaded at the moment when he was expected, was recognized as the aggressor, violated all his plans, chased armies, constantly waited for something and did not receive. A brilliant commander, he won battles, dominated everywhere and lost the whole company. The war is just a continuation of politics. And as a politician Napoleon was defeated.
    Since then, he has not been a rider to Moscow ...
  18. Lew
    Lew 17 August 2020 09: 12
    -1
    it has always been that way, the top was sold to the Anglo-Saxons, and Russian peasants died
  19. pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 17 August 2020 18: 58
    0
    Let's not forget: Bonaparte did not plan to occupy Russia, destroy its statehood as such, arrange genocide of the peoples inhabiting it ...

    But something went wrong ... Burned Smolensk, Moscow and countless carts with stolen goods. A million men crossed the border !!! With a population of 41 million in Russia, one million men with guns is a third (!) Of the entire male population of draft age (families were large). Everything was trampled in the offensive zone, all dogs, cats and possibly even mice were eaten. Moscow with its suburbs, with centuries-old noble estates, farms that had not been plundered for 200 years was robbed and burned down. This, perhaps, is equivalent only to the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders, on the looted treasures of which, Europe built its Renaissance (and not only values ​​were exported, but also the stones of temples).
  20. Limpopo
    Limpopo 17 August 2020 19: 28
    0
    The author, apparently, believes that Napoleon did not have a military action plan for this company. So he went out for a walk with a huge army without plans to conduct a company, political goals and objectives began to chase the fleeing army, moving further and further from the capital through impassable forests and narrow roads .. To be crowned in Moscow, Napoleon had to first convert to Orthodoxy. Let us recall the story of Sigismund, after which the Hohenzollerns (Romanovs) came to power in Russia. And he (Napoleon) needed it?
  21. Ilya Aksyonov
    Ilya Aksyonov 11 September 2020 15: 22
    0
    During the African campaign to Egypt, Napoleon seemed to either spend the night, or simply visit the pyramid of Cheops. And there he supposedly found out his future ..., in short, it is not known for certain what happened there, but much later, already in captivity in Malta, he was asked about this case and what he learned in the pyramid. To these questions, he replied that it was now pointless to talk about it.
    Adding two and two and drawing a historical parallel, it can be assumed that Hitler was also always interested in occult disciplines, and, they say, had a very close relationship with the monks of Tibet, who, perhaps, also predicted his future.
    So, based on the fact that the parallel worlds of our energy world are quite accessible to some people with paranormal abilities, it can be assumed that in the case of Napoleon, and in the case of Hitler, they were driven mainly by disbelief in information from the ARES, that is, from the parallel the world. So their desire to refute it with their energetic influence, so to speak, the "dictates of fate" became the main motive of their frantic, deranged and inappropriate actions.
    But they failed to interrupt the energy flows and change the oscillatory process of the fractals of the universe - not their level!
    Therefore, they received what they should have received from the Russians, from the children and grandchildren of the Gods and the descendants of the inhabitants of Hyperborea and Tartaria.
    In the essence of the structure of the universe, the main thing is to observe the levels of the universe and then everything will turn out at the level at which you are. So, let's live together! Happiness and joy to you people!
  22. Polar Bear
    Polar Bear 16 September 2020 20: 18
    0
    It was Kutuzov who went to Moscow. Napoleon did not attack either Moscow or St. Petersburg, he followed Kutuzov.
  23. Lew
    Lew 18 September 2020 14: 25
    0
    most likely he went to Moscow, because there was no point in conquering the village of Peter.
  24. Petrik66
    Petrik66 23 September 2020 10: 05
    0
    Collecting a huge army for such a vegetarian goal as "joining Russia to the continental blockade" is, in my opinion, a strong saying. I think that in 100 years, the topic of how the army of the comerad Adik tried to persuade the USSR to join the blockade of England will be discussed. There were of course excesses, Adik and his brilliant marshals did not want to go to Russia, but ..... And in the first and second cases, the villainess brought them to Moscow, where, due to the frost, they could not realize their peaceful idea. But, you must admit, England is to blame for everything, because of her both Adik and the man after whom the brandy was named, were forced to climb into Russia with its frost, Buryats and Mongols. Along the way, the Englishwoman shits!
  25. antonowich
    antonowich 26 September 2020 07: 51
    0
    YES! and what is the problem ???? ask Napoleon! he is in the 7th ward!
  26. Iskazi
    Iskazi 10 October 2020 03: 34
    0
    you can agree with the author on something ... maybe the real goal of the campaign was not Moscow or St. Petersburg ... and not even India, who knows? This adventure of the Emperor is too mysterious, on the other hand, the Petersburg regime and its versions do not inspire confidence ...
  27. andrew42
    andrew42 22 October 2020 15: 06
    0
    On the one hand, it is correctly noted that Napoleon was forced to pursue the Russian army. But why then the question is not asked, but WHY did the Russian army stubbornly cover the Moscow direction, and not St. Petersburg? The fact that Napoleon could not turn his main forces on Peter, having Russian troops united in Smolensk in the rear (glory to Barclay!) Is already a consequence. It turns out that BOTH sides considered Moscow to be the main strategic prize - and ours initially, and the "French" - partly forcedly. And here comes the guess why Napoleon convinced himself of the priority of taking Moscow: Moscow is really the heart, moreover, in the understanding of the widest masses of the Russian people, and then Peter is just the "office" of the Emperor, he is dear only to nobles and bureaucrats. But the capture of Moscow - this is a colossal moral blow to the morale of soldiers / recruits / peasants - a possible bitter disappointment in the entire power of the Russian Empire, as it was in the Time of Troubles, when the authority of the tsarist government and the boyar duma fell below the plinth. I believe that this is what Buonaparte amused his mind with. But ... it turned out differently, even after the capture of Moscow - the resistance only intensified, and there was not enough strength for the "second hare" (Peter).
  28. swyatoslav
    swyatoslav 24 October 2020 09: 03
    0
    The author contradicts himself: either Napoleon perfectly knew and understood all the perniciousness of the campaign inland, or else he was bred like a sucker, not giving a general battle and dragged along like a heifer on a leash.
    As other readers have already noted, the author did not give an answer to his own question.
    If this question was addressed to the readers, then they should have finished, and so - the topic remained unsolved, the question is suspended .... an empty article.
  29. serggb
    serggb 29 October 2020 21: 21
    +1
    Napoleon did NOT advance on Moscow, but pursued on the heels of the Russian Army, which was retreating, without taking a battle, towards Moscow. If Napoleon managed to defeat the Army of Russia in a border battle, then it is not yet known in which direction he would start to advance after that.