Military Review

The position of Russia after the Friedland defeat

53
The position of Russia after the Friedland defeat

Napoleon I on the battlefield near Friedland (Horace Verne, 1836)


"Everything was in alarm, as if half an hour before the end of the world"


After losing to Austerlitz in 1805, Alexander hastily assembled a new coalition in 1806, including Prussia. She suffered crushing defeats at Jena and Auerstedt and could no longer fight against France. Napoleon recalled on Saint Helena:

"Under Jena, the Prussians could not hold out for two hours, and their fortresses, which could defend for more than one month, surrendered after a daily siege."

All hope for the salvation of Europe from the "Corsican monster" henceforth was pinned on Russia.

The winter campaign did not bring decisive results to either side. Russian and French troops stopped fighting, settling in winter quarters.

Alexander pinned his hopes on joining the Austrian coalition, which, despite its shame in 1805, could still oppose Napoleon.

However, there were two reasons why the Austrians hesitated to join the coalition. Firstly, at that moment a war was going on between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, which could lead us into conquests that were disadvantageous for Austria. Secondly, the Austrian government (and especially Emperor Franz) experienced an overwhelming fear of the Emperor of the French.

Of course, the second reason was more weighty, because Austria's pride still suffered at the memory of Austerlitz, high society and the army secretly wanted revenge. A very difficult situation arose: in Vienna they did not want to take our side before the Russian weapon will not receive superiority, and Russia simply could not confidently achieve this without the help of the Austrians.

In this regard, Austrian Foreign Minister Stadion proposes a plan for convening a congress, which should supposedly reconcile both sides. The real aim of the Congress was to join the coalition under the guise of reconciliation. This opportunity could be given either by Napoleon's refusal to negotiate, or unforeseen circumstances that could arise during the negotiations themselves. The second option assumed that during the disputes to the requirements of the coalition, Austria would add its own, which, of course, would be rejected by the emperor of the French.

Napoleon easily guessed this malicious intent. Without violating his principle of never abandoning negotiations, he apparently agreed to the Congress, but ordered his Foreign Minister Talleyrand to play for time. Now Napoleon will be looking for a general battle in order to turn everything in his direction.

Finally, he finds her near Friedland on June 14, 1807. The commander of the Russian army, Bennigsen, committed a fatal mistake in this battle, concentrating a significant mass of his army in the bend of the Alla River, where it was crushed.

Our army lost about 20 thousand people killed, wounded and captured. The French army also suffered heavy casualties of 12 killed and wounded.

The famous partisan Denis Davydov recalled:

“I rode to the main apartment. Crowds of all sorts of people made up her. There were the British, Swedes, Prussians, French royalists, Russian military and civil officials, commoners, alien services both military and civil, parasites and intriguers - in a word, it was a market for political and military speculators who went bankrupt in their hopes, plans and designs ... everything was in alarm, as if half an hour before the end of the world. "


Emperor Alexander I

Could Russia continue the war further?


Let us first dwell on the military situation.

After the defeat, the Russian army turned into a general flight, many soldiers became marauders. This is confirmed by a number of simultaneous testimonies, including from highly informed people.

Interesting, for example, is the observation of the outstanding General Raevsky:

“... We tried to collect ours, but every company or half-battalion that we put forward disappeared (under fire) in the blink of an eye. Finally, yielding to strength, we retreated, but we gave time to take our wagons, our guns and our wounded generals out of the city. 14 guns remained in the hands of the enemy, but we could lose a hundred.

They took advantage of our mistake, but failed to inflict a significant defeat on us, for the two or three thousand whom we lost in this place did not really matter. But the disorder that began in the army after the battle, a huge number of marauders who appeared due to forced marches and a lack of food brought our army into a deplorable state.

We did not have even 35 thousand soldiers under arms, while the enemy had more than 150 thousand. "

Russian statesman A.B. Kurakin writes to Empress Maria Feodorovna in June 1807:

“We do not have a reserve army, our militia is not armed or trained, new recruitment kits have not been collected or even announced. Our situation has never been so critical, and we can expect our salvation only from God. "

In addition to our military and civil servants, the plight of Russia was also understood by French high-ranking officials. "The bravest of the brave" Marshal Ney reported:

“Every day brings new evidence of the terrible disorder in which he (the enemy) finds himself. Those who know Russia well argue that the misfortunes that it has endured are so strong that it is shaken in its foundations, and that disorder reigns inside it such that a detachment of French troops could even reach St. Petersburg. "

Such disappointing observations are confirmed by a number of other simultaneous testimonies of both one and the other side.

Indeed, this moment was the most suitable for the invasion of Russia! Napoleon could easily catch his enemy by surprise. But the French emperor did not pursue such a goal. He understood that Russia was a potential ally for him in the fight against England. Throughout almost his entire reign, Napoleon cherished the dream of an alliance of the two Great Powers, but Alexander, ascending the throne, began to conduct a hostile policy towards Napoleon (specifically towards him, not towards France), although competent cooperation with him was more than ever responsible interests of Russia.

However, military problems were not the only ones. A much more serious problem was the threat of popular uprisings in the territories of the former Rzeczpospolita, which, as a result of the partitions, went to Russia. When Napoleon entered Prussian Poland in 1806, a movement began in all Polish provinces in Russia.

Mikhail Oginsky, a supporter of the policy of Alexander I, wrote:

“It should be noted that when Napoleon began the campaign in 1806, a great movement arose in all of Lithuania and in all Polish provinces subordinate to Russia. Everywhere people eagerly read Napoleon's appeals to the Poles, the proclamations of Dombrowski and Wybicki that came from Warsaw, and letters that gave hope for the restoration of Poland. "

French prisoners in the territories of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were treated like wealthy landowners. Often they voluntarily gave various goods absolutely free of charge, gave gifts, gave money, etc.

This is confirmed by the striking testimony of Sofia Tiesenhausen:

“The apple and cookie street vendors did not want to take money from the French soldiers. The coachmen descended from their carts to make room for the prisoners ... There were about thirty officers in my father's large mansion. My father laid the table for them in the French manner and in good dishes twice a day ...

On that day, which was appointed for the departure of the prisoners, everything in our house was like a fair of clothes and linen. Things were sent to them from everywhere ... Our large courtyard was filled with a crowd, and here there was a sleigh that was provided to the prisoners free of charge by the Vilna cabs ... My father, saying goodbye to the prisoners, discreetly handed them a heavy bag filled with silver ... At the same time, he prudently also sent money to a Russian hospital.

This did not prevent the governor, Mr. Korsakov, who, in general, is a good person, from reproaching my father for a dangerous trick and threatening him with Siberia. "

Of course, such signs of attention worried the nobility, who feared the restoration of Poland as a fire. Back in November 1806, Novosiltsev, Stroganov and Czartoryski reported to Alexander:

“Russia is in danger, great, extraordinary ... Poland does not expect from anyone except France, as they call it, liberation. The successes of the revolution and the victories of Bonaparte have turned this hope into blind faith; and the real incidents have already filled the measure of this expectation; and at the slightest, from which God forbid, failure of our weapons, one of Napoleon's manifesto, the Diet gathered by him, the strong armies led by him, will ignite a flame that will inevitably spread over the provinces annexed to Russia from Poland. "

Alexander I could not continue the war because of these two decisive factors.

Our troops were exhausted, our nobles were afraid of the restoration of the Commonwealth.

The Russian emperor asked for peace.

The meeting of the two emperors was to take place on June 25, 1807 on a raft in the middle of the Niemen. Russia not only did not suffer territorial losses in the end, but also acquired the Bialystok District, which had previously belonged to Prussia.

Napoleon sincerely believed that his dream of a Franco-Russian alliance would come true. How wrong he was!

Alexander described the Peace of Tilsit, signed on July 7, as

"Temporary respite".

But it is already completely different. история...


Napoleon at the Battle of Eylau. Gro (1807)
Author:
Photos used:
en.wikipedia.org
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. apro
    apro 4 January 2021 06: 18
    0
    The confrontation between Napoleon and Ri ... looks unnatural. Russian permanent members of the anti-French coalitions. Austerlitz ... I don’t think that Napoleon perceived it as just a walk, and after that he perceived ri as a neutral, self-sufficient state.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 4 January 2021 08: 16
      +3
      Quote: apro
      The confrontation between Napoleon and ri ... looks unnatural.

      belay Are you ill? repeat Napoleon demanded that Russia join the blockade of England, which undermined our economy based on the export of grain to England.
      1. apro
        apro 4 January 2021 08: 22
        +4
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Napoleon demanded that Russia join the blockade of England,

        And before the announcement of the continental blockade, why did they gallop across Europe?
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        undermined our economy based on the export of grain to England.

        Painfully familiar words ... the last 300 years ...
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 4 January 2021 08: 40
          0
          Quote: apro
          And before the announcement of the continental blockade, why did they gallop across Europe?

          Sorry, we forgot to ask you. request But you were not in the project either ... repeat
          All monarchical Europe was at war with Napoleon and still defeated him.
          But the first fiddle in the struggle, of course, was played by England, she brought down the rival for colonial rule, albeit with the wrong hands.
          1. apro
            apro 4 January 2021 08: 49
            -1
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            Sorry, we forgot to ask you.

            As far as I understand, there were no clear reasons for the economic expediency ...
            1. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 4 January 2021 10: 29
              +6
              Quote: apro
              there was no clear reason ... there was no economic expediency ...

              But there are more than enough political ones.
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 5 January 2021 09: 21
                0
                there was no clear reason ... there was no economic expediency ...
                But there are more than enough political ones.
                just economic was over the roof. Alliance with France - a war with England. With all the ensuing consequences for trade.
                1. Senior seaman
                  Senior seaman 6 January 2021 15: 05
                  +1
                  Quote: sivuch
                  An alliance with France is a war with England. With all the ensuing consequences for trade.

                  And what does the union have to do with it? The absence of war is not yet an alliance.
                  But if I understood correctly, this is not what Apro's colleague was asking.
                  Obviously, he believes that Russia could not interfere in European politics at all and not fight with France, be it revolutionary or Bonapartist.
                  Sobsno, Catherine the Great did just that. In words, she branded the Franks, but did not give a penny to the anti-French coalition, not to mention sending soldiers. But this was much earlier than the events described. the situation has changed.
            2. antivirus
              antivirus 4 January 2021 19: 12
              +2
              then it was not customary to watch "GDP growth".
              the personal preferences of a handful of aristocrats outweighed (apparently) the buns from the volume of trade and the possible buns from trade with FR and its subordinate countries
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 5 January 2021 09: 53
                0
                Do not tell me - and what was exported to France from Russia, otherwise, NYAZ, only horseradish and butter. But they imported a lot of things, mainly luxury goods. Those. the trade balance was unequivocally negative
                1. Senior seaman
                  Senior seaman 6 January 2021 15: 15
                  0
                  Quote: sivuch
                  Don't tell me - what was exported to France from Russia

                  the same as in England.
                  Quote: sivuch
                  But they imported a lot of things, mainly luxury goods

                  The same is very small. The Franks wanted more.
                  one must understand that the sea routes were in the hands of the British, who had their own views on Russian-French trade :)))
                  In principle, there was trade, but through intermediaries, mainly German ones.
                  1. sivuch
                    sivuch 6 January 2021 16: 18
                    0
                    the same as in England.
                    Exactly to England - quite a lot. In the early years of the XNUMXth century, England continued to occupy a leading position
                    in Russian trade. According to F.Kh. Wirst, in 1801-1806. from Petersburg
                    73% of all Russian export grade I hemp was exported to England annually,
                    91% Linen, 77% Lard, 71% Iron, 80% Bristle, 42% Wheat, 43% Flemish Linen1
                    http://rta.customs.ru/nrta/attachments/4290_978-5-9590-0993-9.pdf
                    .
                    1. Senior seaman
                      Senior seaman 6 January 2021 16: 24
                      0
                      And what surprises you?
                      Trade was by sea, and the English sea.
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 4 January 2021 09: 33
          +3
          Painfully familiar words ... the last 300 years ...
          Nevertheless, for that period - absolutely true
          1. apro
            apro 4 January 2021 09: 44
            +1
            Quote: sivuch
            Nevertheless, for that period - absolutely true

            Yes, for Russians even today they are faithful ... why create manufactories, engage in trade, create a highly efficient economy ... simpler than serfs ... and with the money ... a raw material appendage ...
            1. qQQQ
              qQQQ 4 January 2021 11: 39
              +4
              Quote: apro
              Yes, for Russians even today they are faithful ... why create manufactories, engage in trade, create a highly efficient economy ... simpler than serfs ... and with the money ... a raw material appendage ...

              Favorite activity of non-brothers to designate all their problems as ours. With this approach, you will always have eternal civil war and devastation. And on the subject, RI has always strived for self-sufficiency, at different times with varying degrees of success. A large territory, many nationalities with their customs and religions have imposed and are still imposing their approach different from the Western one, which determines the inertia in making decisions and implementing them.
              1. apro
                apro 4 January 2021 11: 50
                -5
                Quote: qqqq
                Favorite activity of non-brothers to designate all their problems as ours

                I do not understand. This is about what ???
                Quote: qqqq
                ... With this approach, you will always have eternal civil war and devastation.

                Who do you have ???
                Quote: qqqq
                and now impose their own approach different from the Western,

                What is the interesting difference ??
                1. qQQQ
                  qQQQ 4 January 2021 13: 44
                  -1
                  Quote: apro
                  I do not understand. This is about what ???

                  This is about the fact that the citizens of Ukraine, for some reason, believe that all the nonsense (very mildly) that is going on with them must necessarily be with us.
                  Quote: apro
                  Who do you have ???

                  at you - at our dear non-brothers.
                  Quote: apro
                  What is the interesting difference ??

                  Everyone, hasn't history shown this? I do not presume to assert whether this is good or bad, just differently.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. qQQQ
                      qQQQ 4 January 2021 14: 01
                      +3
                      Quote: apro
                      .рф is rapidly flowing into the family of European capitalists. as a bring poday. went to .... and do not bother.

                      I won't argue with the fact itself. But he just shows the difference, ours want to be on an equal footing, as everyone in the West has joined, and they are ready to accept only as a fetch or serve.
                      1. apro
                        apro 4 January 2021 14: 10
                        -1
                        Yes .. deleted again ..
                        Quote: qqqq
                        our

                        The key word ... only the capitalists have no homeland, and they will sell the country as soon as possible.
                      2. qQQQ
                        qQQQ 4 January 2021 19: 24
                        0
                        Quote: apro
                        Only the capitalists have no homeland, and they will sell the country at the first opportunity.

                        I completely agree with this, but only there is a nuance, the West also treats us in the same way, not counting us as people, but with this I strongly disagree, and judging by the previous wars, our ancestors too.
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 5 January 2021 09: 56
            0
            Yes, for Russians even today they are faithful ... why create manufactories. To engage in trade
            It was for trade that an alliance with the Brits was required. And everything else is from the field of demagoguery.
            During the war, create manufactories. when money is needed here and now, yeah, you create a lot.
            1. apro
              apro 5 January 2021 13: 29
              -1
              Quote: sivuch
              During the war, create manufactories

              Russians always have war. Always someone is in the way. Yes, and just hands do not reach ... and why ??? and so normal ..
            2. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 6 January 2021 15: 17
              +1
              er ... as far as I remember, just at the time of joining the "continental blockade" we had an industrial boom. manufactories were opened. trade revived ...
    2. Tavrik
      Tavrik 4 January 2021 13: 02
      +3
      The blockade undermined not the empire's economy, but the super profits of specific oligarchs. The empire's economy was undermined by the constantly growing military spending on the wars of 1805, 1807, 1812.
      1. Ryazan87
        Ryazan87 4 January 2021 14: 03
        -5
        Wouldn't it be difficult for you to briefly describe the structure of RI's exports at the beginning of the 19th century, name the key foreign trade partners and suggest alternative options for reorienting trade flows based on the results? And, accordingly, obtaining sources of financing for any domestic projects: the development of education, industry.
        I don’t ask a comrade who “lives well in the USSR”, except that the orderlies should enter into a discussion there.
  2. qQQQ
    qQQQ 4 January 2021 11: 30
    +5
    Quote: apro
    and then a surprised exclamation ... but what for us ????

    I've never heard this in Russia, unlike in Ukraine. The situation between RI and France was always very soberly assessed, and even from the times of the USSR I remember that the reason for Napoleon's invasion was the unfulfilled obligations of Alexander 1. Again, the rejection of Napoleon by Alexander was of a personal nature and went against the interests of RI.
    The sovereign is weak and crafty,
    A bald dandy, the enemy of labor,
    Unintentionally warmed by glory,
    Reigned over us then.
    1. apro
      apro 4 January 2021 13: 35
      -2
      Quote: qqqq
      and more from the times of the USSR

      Times are different .. and the interpretation of the situation is somewhat different.
      1. qQQQ
        qQQQ 4 January 2021 13: 54
        +1
        Quote: apro
        Times are different .. and the interpretation of the situation is somewhat different.

        I agree with this, but lately I am more and more convinced that the interpretation of history in the USSR was closer to the truth.
  3. Tavrik
    Tavrik 4 January 2021 13: 07
    +4
    Napoleon really saw Russia as a natural ally: there are no territorial claims at all, they have never fought with each other, but they fought together against Prussia in the Seven Years. In general, RI is a very powerful power. Therefore, Napoleon perceived all the escapades of Alexander with bewilderment "and what does he want?", Trying to build allied relations and bumping into the participation of RI in new anti-French coalitions.
    1. Ryazan87
      Ryazan87 4 January 2021 14: 10
      +5
      no territorial claims at all
      - especially in the Balkans and the strait zone. Complete solidarity. For most of the 18th century - Mother Catherine won't let you lie.
      In general, RI is a very powerful power.
      - which, for example, at that time all lead imported from England.
      Napoleon was perplexed
      - and even joked about his participation in parricide. Then, however, he was even more perplexed.
      France was really interested in removing the Russian army from the European theater of operations. But Russia was viewed exclusively as a "vassal" state.
      It is polemical how favorable such a policy would be in the long run, but it certainly cannot be called great-power.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 5 January 2021 22: 35
        +1
        And we that in the 18th century we fought with France for the Balkans and straits? I don’t remember that, but you never know ... In any case, everything changed under Napoleon. Napoleon offered Alexander joint ownership of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, which would be a guarantee of taking into account mutual interests. Napoleon looked at the Russian-Swedish war and the annexation of Finland by Russia with complete indifference, even though he could "raise the banner" of the fight against the "aggressive policy of the Republic of Ingushetia". On the contrary, he wrote to Alexander something like "Swedish guns should not bother the ladies of St. Petersburg." Why should Napoleon look so indifferently at the strengthening of his supposedly potential vassal from Stockholm to Constantinople? Only if it is not a vassal, but an ally. If interested, I can tell you the sources.
        What the Russian army was doing in Europe is a big question ... But twice he removed it from there.
        1. Senior seaman
          Senior seaman 6 January 2021 15: 19
          0
          Quote: Tavrik
          And we that in the 18th century we fought with France for the Balkans and straits?

          they did not fight, but they supported the Ottomans.
          Quote: Tavrik
          Napoleon offered Alexander joint ownership of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles

          Promising and getting married are fundamentally different things :)
  4. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 4 January 2021 22: 16
    -1
    It is unnatural to try to sit on the sidelines when a huge monster grows up at your gate, devouring neighbors and preparing to devour you. The empire of Napoleon had to constantly expand and absorb new lands, otherwise it would have suffered the fate of any empire. Russia and Napoleon had an enemy and England, as in 1941, and it goes through to choose direct evil by negotiating with the hidden.
    The main fear of Napoleon is in his revolutionary ideas.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 4 January 2021 09: 35
    +10
    Alexander I could not continue the war
    ... The late grandmother and the murdered papa were smarter ...
  • Operator
    Operator 4 January 2021 09: 47
    +2
    I still do not understand the author of the article - and the 660 thousandth army of the whole continental Europe was defeated by the British in 1812? bully
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 4 January 2021 10: 00
      0
      Quote: Operator
      I still do not understand the author of the article - and the 660 thousandth army of the whole continental Europe was defeated by the British in 1812? bully

      I didn’t understand, where the author attributed the victory to the monkeys (monkeys sit on a tree and shit on everyone, the British sit on the island and do the same)?
      Article title Read carefully! request
  • Operator
    Operator 4 January 2021 10: 06
    -1
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    I didn’t understand

    It is noticeable.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 4 January 2021 13: 54
    +6
    The usual bullshit of a pseudo-historian who translated another propaganda paper and received a bag of silver as a reward (isn't it a national trait?).
    French information about 12 thousand prisoners is refuted by the testimony of the inhabitants of Friedland. According to local residents, the French were so furious with the desperate resistance of the Russians and the fact that the Russian army was able to cross to the other side from a hopeless situation that their rage fell on the Russian wounded. So, General Nikolai Mazovsky, carried by the grenadiers to the city, was left at house no. 25 on Melestrasse street. After the capture of Friedland, the French stabbed the general and other wounded with bayonets, and their bodies were thrown into the streets of the city. Only after the French left, local residents of Prussia were able to bury the Russian general in the local cemetery of their city of Friedland.
    Tired of march and battle, the French army was unable to pursue the Russians. As L. L. Bennigsen recalled:
    "How much the enemy was deprived of the desire to fight with us by the battle of Friedland, it can be seen from the fact that even on the next day he did not pursue any of our rearguards."

    The French lost about 10 thousand people, and the Russians - about 12 thousand.The French announced the capture of 80 Russian cannons, which is not confirmed by the data of A.P. Ermolov, who commanded the Russian artillery:
    “While Gorchakov's rearguard was repelling the fierce attacks of the French cavalry, his columns were hurrying to Friedland, already occupied by the enemy. They desperately invaded the burning suburb and the city engulfed in flames, and after a bloody massacre they drove the French out of Friedland. The feeling of Russian revenge was such that some of them rushed to pursue the enemy. While some were clearing the city of the French, others hurried to the river.
    The bridges were gone; order collapsed. People rushed into the river, trying to swim across to the other side. Officers were sent out in all directions to look for the fords. Finally they were found. The troops rushed into the river to the roar of the French and Russian batteries installed on the right bank of the Allais. The soldiers in their arms rolled the field guns. It was impossible to ferry only twenty-nine battery guns because of the ruined slopes to the river; under the cover of the Alexandrian hussar regiment, they were taken by the left bank of the Allais to Allenburg, where they joined up with the army. Only five guns were lost, their carriages were hit or their horses were shot down. "

    Also, the information of the French about the capture of 12 thousand is not confirmed. captured Russian soldiers. According to the memoirs of A.P. Eromolov:
    “The Battle of Friedland was nothing like the defeat at Austerlitz: about ten thousand were killed and wounded in the Russian army, and over five thousand were among the French.
    In the troops, a new battle was expected from Bennigsen: having recovered, the Russian army forgot the Friedland failure. Meanwhile, the 17th division of Lobanov-Rostovsky approached the Neman from Moscow, and the 18th division of Gorchakov of the 2nd was in two transitions from the army. The news of the signing of a preliminary truce with Napoleon on June 8 in Tilsit was perceived as a bolt from the blue, as an injustice of fate. The campaign of 1806-1807 ended ingloriously for Russia, and primarily because of the inept and timid actions of the commander-in-chief, who unjustifiably hastened the conclusion of peace. "

    L. L. Bennigsen confirms this data:
    “We captured an eagle and 87 prisoners from the French, but we ourselves lost five guns, which, after being shot down, remained on the battlefield. As a result of the destruction of our bridge, built on ships on the right side of the city, four guns got stuck in the river, from where it was impossible to pull them out. The number of soldiers captured by the French in various attacks is very small. At the end of the battle, many of ours, too badly wounded to follow the army, fell into the hands of the enemy. "
    1. Monsieur bonapartiste
      4 January 2021 15: 11
      +6
      Hello Paul!
      In my article I gave synchronous testimonies when people wrote what they thought at that moment. Unfortunately, the memoirs written after the events described are of little value.
      Especially, the memoirs written after the war of 1812 cannot be considered as proof of this or that fact. After this war, the consciousness of people turned upside down. Let me give you an example.
      The Russian diplomat Divov wrote in September 1807: “So rich in amazing events in 1807, he brought Russia out of her humiliating dependence on England. It should be noted, however, that the British did everything to speed up this unusual outcome, by their all kinds of oppression and rough treatment of Russian foreign trade, as well as by their violence against the most peaceful nations. "
      The same Divov writes in his ripe old age, that is, after the war of 1812: “... The defeat of the Russian army at Friedland ... gave rise to the shameful Peace of Tilsit ... This disastrous treaty is and will be the culprit of all Russia's misfortunes ".
      There are a lot of such examples. I'll give you my favorite. Napoleon once allegedly said: "In five years I will be the master of the world, only Russia will remain, but I will crush it."
      Alas, this phrase does not belong to the emperor of the French, but to the Abbot de Pradt, who wrote this after the fall of the Empire under the Bourbons, when the slander against his former ruler was well paid.
      Synchronous evidence shows that the state of the army after the battle was catastrophic, and further struggle meant disaster.
      1. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 4 January 2021 16: 14
        +3
        Quote: Monsieur bonapartiste
        In my article, I cited synchronous testimonies when people wrote what they thought at that very moment.

        "The victory of the pygmies over the giants" is also the words of a contemporary about the attack of the Russian guard at Friedland. The one who first shouted "Vivat!" Did not win. If you carefully read about the Patriotic War, you will be surprised to find that "battles" of this magnitude took place almost every day. And even when Napoleon had already fled from Moscow, his memories, and the memories of his accomplices, are full of messages about "another victory", "defeat", thousands of prisoners and hundreds of guns. Paris was far away and there was no one to check this lodge. But when, in the 14th year, the Parisians saw the Cossacks in Montmartre with their own eyes, no one believed Napoleon. And you don’t believe.
        1. Monsieur bonapartiste
          4 January 2021 16: 45
          +4
          Can you give examples of such "battles" that "happened almost daily"?
          And what does "the memories of his accomplices" mean? The Great Emperor is not a criminal to have accomplices.
          Of course, bulletins and reports of victories in Paris cannot be regarded as one hundred percent reliable source. Napoleon understood that his soldiers would read these bulletins, so it was important that at the same time they would read about what would exalt their own image in them.
          First of all, by the way, you need to read his correspondence.
          1. pmkemcity
            pmkemcity 4 January 2021 16: 56
            -4
            Quote: Monsieur bonapartiste
            The Great Emperor is not a criminal to have accomplices.

            Napoleon was tried ... and sentenced! Court decision is law. Or do you think otherwise?
            Read ... but at least Popov or Tarle, the same Clausewitz. I understand - long words "only upset" (Mr. Winipuh), but still:
        2. Kronos
          Kronos 5 January 2021 12: 07
          0
          So Napaleon continued to win battles, there is no contradiction here. Only he could not replenish the losses, unlike the Russian army, and therefore lost.
          1. pmkemcity
            pmkemcity 5 January 2021 12: 25
            -1
            Quote: Kronos
            So Napaleon continued to win battles, there is no contradiction here. Only he could not replenish the losses, unlike the Russian army, and therefore lost.

            And the Russians, what a billion, how are the Chinese? Napoleon, like Hitler, had all of Europe under a bayonet. The forces of Napoleon and Russia in June 1812 were incomparable. The total population of the Russian Empire was 41 million people. At the same time, she had a total armed forces of 400-500 thousand people. The population of France (with vassal states) in 1812 is 71 million people. Since, together with the Great Army, practically all of Europe opposed Russia, only Napoleon's reserve, intended in case of a failure of the campaign, was 1 million 940 thousand people. Virtually all the combatants of France and Italy, a total of 4 million people, were put under arms under the so-called National Guard. According to some estimates, about a million people have crossed our border! These are not only troops and reinforcements, but also various rabble - marketers, lyadis, just thieves ... Million, Karl! How many horses and other taxes were there? Since the offensive zone was narrow, in this territory lived ten times less than the population - men, women, old people and children. Can you imagine what a similar European locust invasion could look like in the eyes of the Russian inhabitants? Everything was devoured, burned and trampled!
            1. Monsieur bonapartiste
              5 January 2021 13: 14
              +2
              Of course, I understand that your opinion about the Patriotic War was formed exclusively from the works of Tarle, Zhilin (who proudly declared that he did not use "enemy" sources), Beskrovny and other propagandists (although, I confess, Tarle is largely objective, but his works cannot be considered historical, since they were written on a political order).
              In 1811, Napoleon actually had a total of about 825 men. Of these, 260 thousand (active soldiers, with 300 thousand inactive) were in Spain. Also 333 thousand people for the most part guarded the coastline from possible enemy landings. At that moment, against Russia, he could only send 140 thousand troops of Davout + Poles. A gigantic regrouping had to be done.
              And yet, regrouping was a dangerous business, because it was necessary to significantly weaken the grouping in Spain, which would cause an even greater disaster. And it was extremely dangerous to shoot a large number of soldiers from the coastlines due to the possible landing of the British.
              Conducted calls. Now the number reached almost a million people. And these almost a million people were not intended for Russia, they were the armed forces of the Empire!
              In short, at the beginning of March 1812, the Grand Army numbered 420.
              By the beginning of hostilities, the group of 10 corps, which will take part in the war, numbered 440 thousand people. Russian troops 340 thousand. The difference is 100 thousand people. The difference is big and serious, no doubt.
              1. pmkemcity
                pmkemcity 5 January 2021 15: 33
                -1
                Of course, I understand that your opinion about the Patriotic War was formed exclusively from the works of Tarle, Zhilin (who proudly declared that he did not use "enemy" sources), Beskrovny and other propagandists (although, I confess, Tarle is largely objective, but his works cannot be considered historical, since they were written on a political order).

                When this topic was interesting to me, I even read the statutes and instructions, which I wish to do for you. And when I was fifteen I read the volume of "Napoleon himself", and in view of the complete uselessness of the information contained in it, he used it as a catcher of air rifle bullets.
                And it was extremely dangerous to shoot a large number of soldiers from the coastlines due to the possible landing of the British.

                Did the British have an army?
                at the beginning of March 1812, the Great Army numbered 420 thousand people

                Grande Armée translates to "Big Army". Truly "Great" was only one army, and it was Russian!
  • Tavrik
    Tavrik 5 January 2021 22: 39
    +1
    Quote: Victor Sergeev
    It is unnatural to try to sit on the sidelines when a huge monster grows up at your gate, devouring neighbors and preparing to devour you.

    Are you talking about RI in the late 18th - early 19th century? Then they ate Poland, then Finland. And in 1810-12 serious military preparations. After two lost wars far abroad, Alexander brought down the economy of the empire for the sake of a new big war.
  • Tavrik
    Tavrik 5 January 2021 22: 42
    0
    Quote: pmkemcity
    Did the British have an army?

    Believe it or not, "an empire is only worth something when it knows how to defend itself!" (Didn't I confuse anything? wink ) The French clashed with the British army in Spain and Belgium.
    1. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 6 January 2021 14: 05
      0
      Quote: Tavrik
      Believe it or not, "an empire is only worth something when it knows how to defend itself!" (Didn't I confuse anything?

      Do not disgrace yourself! Any REVOLUTION is worth something only if it knows how to defend itself - there was such a king in ancient times, and his name was Lenin.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 7 January 2021 23: 11
        0
        I hope you understand my joke? wink
        And Lenin was not a tsar, but a pharaoh! Only pharaohs were buried in the pyramids. Here he is in his mastaba and lies on the square.
        1. pmkemcity
          pmkemcity 8 January 2021 09: 10
          +1
          Quote: Tavrik
          Here he is in his mastaba and lies on the square.

          And that is great! You can always come and see with your own eyes whether he is there, otherwise they say that "Lenin is alive."
  • zenion
    zenion 5 January 2021 23: 13
    0
    While Napoleon was a general, everything went well with him. As soon as he became emperor, then everything went on for him, like the Russian emperors.