Military Review

For whose interests did Russia fight against Napoleon?

160

For a long period of time, Alexander I was exhibited (and is still being exhibited) as the “liberator” of Europe from the “yoke” of Bonaparte.


But was Napoleon really a threat to Russia? Why did Russia join the fight against him, although, at first glance, there was no reason for war between France and Russia?

Did Alexander the "Blessed" fight for the interests of others? We will try to answer these questions in this article.

"France can have only one ally - this is Russia"


"France can have only one ally - Russia."

This is what Napoleon said at the Council of State of the Republic on January 2, 1801.

The first consul Bonaparte, and then the French emperor Napoleon I, always looked at Russia as a natural ally in the struggle against England. Paul I, recently betrayed by England and Austria, was not at all opposed to getting closer to France.
It would seem that the dream of a Franco-Russian alliance that Napoleon cherished has finally come true. Between Paul and Bonaparte, not just an alliance was struck, but a sincerely faithful friendship.

They write to each other almost love letters, flatter each other, and plan great projects. Although the plan of the expedition to India was a deliberately failed project, it brought them closer together, instilled in them confidence and hopes for long-term cooperation.

Soon the British captured the island of Malta (the very island because of which Russia joined the next anti-French coalition). Paul, being the Grand Master of the Order of Malta, took this message to heart. He resumed the policy of armed neutrality introduced by Catherine II in 1780.

For whose interests did Russia fight against Napoleon?
S. Tonchi. Portrait of Paul I in the attire of the Grand Master of the Order of Malta.

Alas, the Franco-Russian union was not destined to pass the test of time. With the financial support of the British during the next palace coup on March 24, 1801, Paul I was killed.

More recently, 3 nivos of the IX year of the Republic (December 24, 1800), the first consul was unsuccessfully assassinated by the royalists, who were also paid for by England. Upon learning of the death of his friend, Bonaparte said bitterly:

"They missed 3 nivos on me, but they hit me in St. Petersburg."

Alexander I Pavlovich ascended the Russian throne.

Alexander VS Napoleon


Since childhood, Alexander has acquired extremely negative qualities.

Alexander's mentor Major Mason wrote:

“Alexander is a man of passive qualities and lacks energy. He lacks the courage and trust to look for a worthy person, and he has to constantly be afraid that someone importunate and cheeky does not seize influence over him.

Suffering too much to other people's promptings, he does not trust his mind and heart enough.

Too early marriage crumpled his energy, and, despite the happy inclinations, he is threatened by a kingdom without glory or the prospect of becoming a prey to the courtiers if years and experience do not give firmness to his noble character. "

Fortunately, years and experience gave him firmness and determination, but in a completely different direction.

In Alexander, in addition to the above-mentioned features, pretense and insincerity prevailed. Most likely, this gave rise to a constant hesitation between Catherine II and Paul I. He had to constantly look around so as not to offend Paul's rough love as a soldier and not to show disobedience to Catherine's velvet-affectionate despotism.

Let us also recall Alexander's terrible envy of other people's successes. He envied all the heroes of the Patriotic War, and Admiral Senyavin supposedly fell into disgrace only because his victories over the French stood out too much against the background of Alexander's defeat at Austerlitz.

And when the young Bonaparte rose from the poor (by the standards of Paris) of the nobles, when the whole of Europe started talking about this Corsican, when he was idolized, put to everyone as an example, Alexander hated him.

There is no other way to explain the subsequent actions of this emperor, because Russia at that time had no reason for a war with France. On the contrary, Napoleon still viewed Russia as an ally and thought to make friends with Alexander the way he made friends with his father.

But Napoleon was deeply mistaken.

Although competent cooperation with France was in Russia's interests, Alexander did not care about them. All his further actions were dictated neither by public opinion, nor by England, but by personal hatred of the "Corsican monster."

On June 17, 1801, Russia restored peaceful relations with England and all previous treaties. Oddly enough, Alexander showed complete carelessness and hastily concluded this convention, agreeing with all the requirements of England. Russian diplomat P.G. Divov wrote:

"Each naming (convention) forever plunged into insignificance all the immortal works of Catherine II."

Alexander sent Arkady Morkov to Paris as ambassador.

The choice of this man, to put it mildly, was not a good one. Morkov was an Anglophile, and under Catherine II was an ardent supporter of Russia's entry into the anti-French coalition. Alexander could not help knowing this. Throughout his embassy, ​​Morkov got on Napoleon's nerves.

In Paris, they wrote about this:

“The Catherine grandee dared to throw angry and harsh words in the face of the first consul and his minister. All Morkov's sympathies are on the side of England.

If the Russian court considers it a duty to keep in London Mr. Vorontsov, who is considered an entirely Englishman, then he should at least order his envoy in Paris to appear a little French. "

Even more surprising is the instruction Alexander himself gave to his ambassador:

“If the First Consul of the French Republic continues to maintain and strengthen his power through the quarrels and unrest that shake Europe ...

If he lets himself be carried away by the flow of the revolution ... the war may continue ...

In this case, my representative in France will only have to observe the actions of the government and entertain their attention until circumstances, more convenient, will not allow me to resort to more effective measures. "

He gave a similar instruction to the ambassador in Berlin Krudener. There we meet the same turns, but in addition to everything else, Alexander calls the presence of French troops in Egypt

"The oppression of the enemy."

Unthinkable! Until recently, France and Russia were in the best and most profitable relations, and very soon the Russian Emperor Alexander wants to quickly move

"Towards more effective measures."

The Russian tsar began these very measures in 1803, starting the formation of a new anti-French coalition.

In July, he wrote a letter to the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm with a proposal to conclude an offensive alliance against Napoleon.

Having received an evasive answer, Alexander wrote a threatening letter to the king on October 5, 1803:

“Of course, it is not for me to advise Your Majesty on what decision to make.

However, I do not want to hide from him that, on the one hand, I see the glory, honor and real interest of his crown, on the other, a general catastrophe and your personal one. "

Friedrich-Wilhelm understood that his country at the moment had no reason for a war with France, so he again answered the Russian emperor as evasively as possible.

On October 18, 1803, on behalf of Alexander, Foreign Minister Vorontsov wrote a secret message to Anstätt, Charge d'Affaires in Vienna:

“His Imperial Majesty, trying not to lose sight of the most urgent, trying to save Northern Germany from its oppressive calamities, now wishes with full power of attorney to explain these issues with the German Emperor ...

You are instructed to start discussions with the Austrian Ministry on the present situation in Europe.

We are anxious to know if it shares our concern and what means it believes to be the right one, how to stem the rush of French power. "

The Austrian emperor at first evaded, but then agreed, however, only to a defensive alliance.

In September 1804 Novosiltsev was sent to London with the aim of concluding a military alliance. British Foreign Secretary William Pitt soon realized that the Russian government had some strange mania for a war with France. He took advantage of this and dictated his terms to this union.

Pitt consolidated the question of Malta, which henceforth remained irrevocably in the possession of the British. The minister rejected Russia's offer of freedom to Italy. He rejected and

"The need for the occupation of some parts of the Ottoman Empire by Russia."

Such corrections were unacceptable, but Alexander did not at all think about the interests of his country, he thought exclusively about the overthrow of Napoleon.

On April 11, 1805, an agreement on a military alliance was signed between England and Russia. In this agreement, it was spelled out that Austria would put 250 thousand people against France.

Still not having secured the consent of Austria itself, Alexander for some reason was sure that she would agree to this war, which was senseless for her.

Very soon, the French Emperor Napoleon I declared himself king of Italy. Austria was extremely scrupulous about everything that concerned this Italy. Under the influence of this factor and pressure from Russia, the Austrian emperor agreed to join the new anti-French coalition.

On December 2, 1805, the fate of the coalition was decided at Austerlitz. The genius of Napoleon triumphed again, and the Russian-Austrian troops, despite brave resistance, were defeated.

But the Russian tsar did not despair. Gathering a new coalition, he again rushed into battle with his sworn enemy.

Jena and Auerstedt decided the fate of Prussia, while Friedland was a disaster for Russia. Alexander asked for the world.

Napoleon triumphed when he concluded the long-awaited alliance with Russia on July 7, 1807 in Tilsit. He went to Paris with confidence in the loyalty and friendship of the Russian emperor.

After Tilsit, Alexander wrote to his mother:

“There is no real alliance with France at all: there is only a temporary adherence to the interests of Napoleon. The fight with him did not stop - it only changed its shape. "

To the Prussian king he said:

“Be patient. We will take back everything we lost. He will break his neck. Despite all my demonstrations and external actions, in my heart I am your friend and I hope to prove it to you in practice. "

We know how Friedrich-Wilhelm "appreciated" the support of the Russian monarch. When Napoleon subsequently decided to go to war with Russia, the Prussian king wanted to get the entire Baltic region from her. Upon learning of this, the emperor of the French said with a sneer:

"But what about the oath over Frederick's coffin?"

Before the conclusion of the Peace of Tilsit, the Russian nobility did not understand the wars with Napoleon and considered them meaningless. Now that the Duchy of Warsaw was created, when Russia was annexed to the continental blockade, the nobility began to speak extremely negatively about France, mainly because of the fear of the restoration of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Napoleon, all the more, could not understand Alexander's behavior and believed that he had fallen under the bad influence of his close Anglophiles.

Napoleon's attempts to resolve the Polish question were in vain, and his attempts to tie the Romanov and Bonaparte dynasty were also futile. Alexander all the time avoided real rapprochement or set unacceptable conditions.

1812 was Alexander's triumph. He broke his enemy. Despite the requests of Kutuzov and other prominent persons of Russia, which were in the interests of Russia, not to pursue Napoleon outside the borders of our country, Alexander still could not be content with a simple victory over Napoleon, he wanted to overthrow him.


Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. Adolph Norten

While Austria, Prussia, England went under their national banners and openly pursued national interests, Alexander presented himself as the benefactor and liberator of the "Universe".

When it came to choosing a successor to Napoleon, Alexander was ready for a republic or the return of the Bourbons, the main thing was for him to overthrow

"Puss in boots".

The Russian tsar did not have a high opinion of the Bourbons. He considered them weak and doomed to death. Alexander bluntly told Lafayette that he did not expect anything good from the Bourbons, because they were full of old-regime prejudices. However, they were forced upon Alexander, and he did not resist.

In Paris, Alexander's behavior raises even more questions. Campaign participant N.N. Muravyov writes:

“The victors were starved to death and kept as if under arrest in the barracks. The sovereign was partial to the French, and to such an extent that he ordered the Parisian National Guard to take our soldiers under arrest when they were met on the street, which led to many fights.

The war for other people's interests did not even make us loyal allies with the powers for which we served as a means to gain benefits. On January 3, 1815, at the Vienna Congress, a military alliance against Russia was concluded between France, England and Austria.

But when Napoleon fled from Elba, the members of this union again ran to ask for help from Russia.

When Louis XVIII fled Paris, he forgot to take with him that same treaty of January 3. Napoleon immediately sent it to Alexander. Summoning the Austrian Foreign Minister Metternich, the Russian emperor demanded an explanation. Confused, the minister could not think of anything.

Then Alexander said to him:

“Metternich, as long as we are both alive, this subject should never be discussed between us. Now we have other things to do. Napoleon has returned, and therefore our union must be stronger than ever. "

Conclusion


All these facts prove that Alexander fought with France for the interests of England, Austria, Prussia, but not for the interests of his country.

He put hundreds of thousands of our brave men in the grave, purely because of his personal dislike for Napoleon.

For all this in Russian historiography, he was awarded the nickname

"Blessed".
Author:
Photos used:
en.wikipedia.org
160 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 10 January 2021 05: 33
    +2
    Eh ... if only it were that simple! Then the English party:

    How did the Catherine grandees from patriots to traitors to the Motherland go over? Or did their descendants write there?
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 10 January 2021 09: 56
      -3
      about the first painting of the artist Bergeret - "Alexander presents to Napoleon Kalmyks, Cossacks and Bashkirs" I have already written more than once in similar topics.



      -Kalmyks and Bashkirs are not Mongoloids.
      - on the one hand, there are the emperors and the French without headdresses and without weapons, and on the other hand, with weapons and in headdresses, i.e. stand as EQUAL.
      -the banner of these "Kalmyks and Bashkirs" is yellow or gold with an eagle. Partially visible.
      -the appearance of these Kalmyks and Bashkirs is very interesting: the noses of the three front characters are Greek -from the forehead, now there are no such people. They wear high headdresses, it is possible that the skulls of these "Kalmyks" are elongated, i.e. -different race.
      - the greeting given by the first Kalmyk is clearly similar to the pioneer SALUT, and the salute is a greeting to the Sun, i.e. Sala Maleikum - Praise to the Sun. By the way, all the soldiers gave their greetings this way or almost so. This is how the military in the Dixie and Yankee armies gave greetings during the Gradzhan war in the USA. This is a frame from the 1927 movie. General with Buster Keaton.



      This is a traditional salute-salute between the military, namely salute-praise to the Sun / Sala Maleyum: the oldest, pre-Christian greeting between people.
      In short, Bergeret clearly hinted that there is a THIRD force in this war, namely the Great Tartary and these are the khans of Tartary / Dardaria.
      1. Astra wild2
        Astra wild2 10 January 2021 11: 01
        +4
        "Sala maleikum-praise to the sun" colleagues, in my opinion, Muslims - "an angel in your home." So I know a Tatar translator. Another option is "peace and wealth in your home". This is what the former political officer, Uzbek by nationality, told me. How in reality?
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 10 January 2021 11: 43
          -9
          Quote: Astra wild2
          "Sala maleikum-praise to the sun" colleagues, in my opinion, Muslims - "an angel in your home." So I know a Tatar translator. Another option is "peace and wealth in your home". This is what the former political officer, Uzbek by nationality, told me. How in reality?


          in our time, when everything around is a lie, it is this greeting that was misinterpreted in the first place. In general, the fact that "familiar Tartars" can know something from history is an extraordinary case. I can give examples of supposedly local or aboriginal etymologies, which are actually easily deciphered by ruski, for example
          -The Aleutian Islands, according to the OI, this is precisely from the aboriginal name alaguk, such as the sea. But of course this is not so
          -aleutian islands-a_l / revut, i.e. The Revut Islands. That's how the cats were howling on these islands.
          -Alaska-type aboriginal name for "big land"
          -Alaska: The prefixes a / anti is a later reworking of Russian words with the addition of this prefix.
          -Alaska-a / anti_l / raska ie ruska / Russia
          -Anadyr-ana_dyr-hole. The hole is at the end of the world.
          -England / Anhalt -anti_Galia
          -Mongolia-mon_upper (mont blanc, montana) -mongalia, i.e. monGalia.
          -lev-l / roar, lion roars
          -pegasus (Greek) -pegiy (Russian)
          -atlantic-a / anti_tl_talia -stretched i.e. tight ocean, and so it is.
          I know a lot of such distorted Russian words.

          Well, Sala Maleikum
          -sala-sun
          -maleikum-prayer
          1. Civil
            Civil 10 January 2021 13: 18
            +3
            If he would free the Russians from serf slavery, he would be good for Napoleon. And so this whole war for the interests of the French-speaking nobles in everything. The Russian people won nothing but ruin and death of loved ones.
            1. Aleksandr1971
              Aleksandr1971 10 January 2021 17: 40
              +3
              In general, I agree with the author of the article. Russia gained practically nothing from the war with Napoleon. And the accession of Poland to Russia did not give anything to the budget of Russia, because taxes from Poland remained in Poland.

              Trade with England was akin to the trade of a backward country and a rich one: bread (a product with a low surplus value) went for export from Russia, and industrial goods went from England to Russia, killing their own Russian industry. In Russia, only landowners were interested in exporting grain - parasites and destroyers of the people. An analogy with the current oil and gas trade.

              Only under Nicholas I did the import customs tariffs increase, which made it possible to sharply increase the domestic industry. So the continental blockade of England in Russia was disadvantageous only to the feudal lords.

              Alexander should not have fought against Napoleon while he was only in Western Europe. And in Eastern Europe, Russia had to beat the French only on condition that the overseas campaign would be financed not from the Russian budget, but from British or Austrian money. And these pseudo-allies Prussia and Austria still had the audacity to demand money from Russia for food for the Russian troops.

              By the way, I believe that for the invasion of Russia, Alexander I had to impose a worthy indemnity on France. But Alexander, as a true feudal lord and enemy of the Russian people, graciously forgave France for the colossal human and property damage that Napoleonic France inflicted on Russia. In fairness, Paris should also be razed to the ground, and the French should be taken to Russia to hard labor to restore everything that was destroyed. And the French women had to be sent to the consolation stations.
              1. zenion
                zenion 10 January 2021 21: 24
                +1
                So after all, Kolya the Second continued what Shurik the First did.
              2. antivirus
                antivirus 10 January 2021 21: 35
                +1
                many confusions in the world live and prosper - fear of the plunder of the country from the Poles - 150 years have passed - already a reason for conclusions against "all democrats and liberators of the oppressed." with England, not for joy, but for minimizing losses, and further not all is well in article ..... alternative history
                1. Elturisto
                  Elturisto 21 January 2021 13: 09
                  +1
                  Aleksashka is bald, was a German in general, the Germans had significant influence on the policy of RI. Independent Poland was a thorn in the eye of the German states of Austria-Hungary and Prussia. Both of these countries included a significant Slavic population, partly already assimilated. The Germanophilism of the Russian elite ended with the capture of Sevastopol, the Berlin Congress and 1914. But history, as we know, teaches nothing, the last of Aleksashka builds gas pipelines to Germany and Austria, at the same time destroying the domestic industry ...
              3. Elturisto
                Elturisto 21 January 2021 13: 03
                0
                England already subsidized all the wars of Russia, Prussia, Austria and Sweden against France. Alexander is German, for him a Russian man is cannon fodder. Forgot to mention the current heir of Aleksashka the bald one, he is also a Germanophile ...
            2. meandr51
              meandr51 10 January 2021 20: 16
              +2
              Well, yes, I had to give up, now they would drink real cognac and Bordeaux (irony).
              1. Civil
                Civil 10 January 2021 20: 35
                0
                Quote: meandr51
                Well, yes, I had to give up, now they would drink real cognac and Bordeaux (irony).

                Surrender to whom? For whom are you laughing? For the French-speaking nobles or for their property - Russian serfs? If for the Russian people, no one asked them. If for the nobles, they fought to the death for their property.
                1. meandr51
                  meandr51 10 January 2021 20: 40
                  +3
                  They suggested "not to fight with Napoleon." It is the same as "not to fight Germany" or "not to fight the United States", "not to fight Japan." It is like proposing a peaceful coexistence of livestock farmers with predators. Peace is guaranteed only by superiority in strength. Otherwise, an attack on Russia is inevitable and you will have to fight.
                  1. Tavrik
                    Tavrik 10 January 2021 22: 17
                    +7
                    The nature of wars in the 17th and early 19th century was different than in the 20th century. Monarchs fought wars for their own interests. Nobles are in the service of monarchs. And nobody asked the peoples at all. Therefore, with rare exceptions, there were no tasks to “enslave”, “destroy statehood”, “eradicate”. And, consequently, there was no such fierce hatred between the belligerents. Those. it is absolutely impossible to compare Hitler's Germany with Napoleonic France. Another world.
            3. Tavrik
              Tavrik 10 January 2021 22: 11
              +4
              Would free Russians from serf slavery - would be good for Napoleon

              He could not do this, because such a step would have led to a final, irrevocable break with Russia, which he did not need. Therefore, he did not release.
        2. Hantengri
          Hantengri 11 January 2021 09: 21
          +2
          Quote: Astra wild2
          "Sala maleikum-praise to the sun" of colleagues, in my opinion, among Muslims - "an angel in your home."

          Sentyabrinka khon, greeting "as-salamu alaykum", translated from Arabic means "peace be with you". And about houses, wealth and angels it says nothing. This is the speculation of our homegrown Muslims.
      2. ee2100
        ee2100 10 January 2021 17: 04
        +2
        A very interesting picture "Alexander I presents to Napoleon the Kalmyks, Cossacks and Bashkirs of the Russian army (July 9, 1807)" Pierre-Nolasque Bergeret. The author is a contemporary of those events. On the left side of the picture, two emperors are depicted, they are in headdresses, and their surroundings are without them, and faces also look through the windows without headdresses.
        On the right, everyone is wearing headdresses, which makes them equal in status with the emperors. Ahead of all are people wearing a hat that resembles the headdresses of the modern Royal Guards of Great Britain, the rest have “what we have is what we wear” a complete variety, which allows us to say that they are representatives of different peoples (cultures). The third from the right is generally wearing a helmet. Pay attention to the expression on their faces, it is far from friendly! Someone with a weapon.
        The gesture of Alexander I can be interpreted as: Here, look ..... "
        The picture carries a certain semantic load, but what? And here is the scope for thought!
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 10 January 2021 22: 19
          0
          The picture carries a certain semantic load, but what?

          Judging by Alexander's pose, one can assume that he says: "Well, look for yourself, I, an enlightened European monarch, what Asian savages have to rule!"
          1. ee2100
            ee2100 10 January 2021 22: 46
            0
            Unlikely. It is unlikely that Alexander would speak like that about his subjects. The painting was painted in 1810 i.e. long before the war, according to the events of 1807, Napoleon probably wanted to look at the peoples making up the empire, or Alexander decided to brag.
            But since the "people" in headdresses is the highest nobility of their peoples (khans, princes, atamans (hetmans), etc.)
            Interestingly, this moment made such an impression on the French side. Naturally, Napoleon saw the picture and this scene was known to him, and there are no comments on the portrait resemblance of representatives of the "people".
            The painting weighs in at Versailles.
    2. Proxima
      Proxima 10 January 2021 10: 21
      +2
      How simple it is for the author! Anything can be interpreted about Alexander, but it is definitely impossible to call him a fool. Napoleon, among others, admitted this. When Russia was forced to join the economic blockade of England, losing huge losses - was it in Russia's interests? The same can be said for Paul. Being a Master of the Order of Malta is of course great! good About how he sent Platov to India to conquer - this is also in such direct interests of Russia, there is nowhere else! drinks And then what to do next with this India without having such a merchant and military fleet as the British and French? request It's just that Alexander knew perfectly well that if Bonopart brought Britain to its knees, then Russia’s turn would inevitably come, and then it’s definitely not possible to get rid of losses from trade. recourse
      1. Interlocutor
        Interlocutor 10 January 2021 11: 25
        +1
        How simple it is for the author!

        I assume that this is not the author, this is a "platform". There are enough of them on the site.
      2. Stas157
        Stas157 10 January 2021 12: 43
        -4
        Quote: Proxima
        When Russia was forced to join the economic blockade of England, losing huge losses - did it meet the interests of Russia?

        Can you tell us more about the huge losses? Russia that sold gas to the British ??

        Considering that the then "super dry cargo ships" were wooden and sailed, they could not create huge traffic, as well as huge losses from the lack of trade with the islanders.
        1. evgen1221
          evgen1221 10 January 2021 15: 07
          +4
          Stas157 It should be understood that trade in those days provided 80% of goods for the high society (all sorts of glamorous whistles) and a bit of technology for the country as a whole. In return, we drove there timber, ropes and raw materials for sails with fur (in fact, the same super-profits from gas that are now in the same pocket). England paid more and in return offered more beautiful beads, and the logistics to Arkhangelsk are closer. In general, everything and, as always, because of money. The author is right in the plan that the Russian Empire was in captivity of the nobles (the suite plays as a king if the king does not want to play as a retinue)
          1. Aleksandr1971
            Aleksandr1971 10 January 2021 17: 49
            +5
            That's it. The continental blockade of England in Russia was disadvantageous only for the high society, that is, not beneficial for the feudal landlords - the bloodsuckers of the people.

            The correct ruler had to deal with the high society in a clever way, as, for example, Mohammed of Egypt, a contemporary of Alexander I, dealt with the annoying Mamelukes. And after that create your own faithful elite. But Alexander, being a coward, always looked around at the examples of his unlucky dad and grandfather. Therefore, he himself did nothing worthwhile in his life. The victory over Napoleon is hardly his merit.
          2. Stas157
            Stas157 11 January 2021 19: 17
            +1
            Quote: evgen1221
            trade in those days provided 80% of goods for the high society (all sorts of glamorous whistles) and a bit of technology for the country as a whole.

            I agree. But, would the blockade of trade with England be so critical for the Russian economy, as they are trying to present here?

            We have that the ruble would fall? ̶Б̶е̶н̶з̶и̶н̶ Would oats rise in price? The people would not have noticed it! Russia in those days lived with its product. As for the sensitive technology, other European countries have been. If you mean shipbuilding, then this is the Netherlands.
            1. evgen1221
              evgen1221 12 January 2021 01: 22
              0
              So the fact of the matter is that the people then that unfortunately today lived and lives absolutely separately from the nobles who governed them. The village did not need anything from the city, but all kinds of boyars with princes wanted to show off a lot. They slaughtered the population in principle, otherwise slavery would have been abolished long ago if they wanted to reckon with the people, but they did not want to then and today do not want to.
      3. Olgovich
        Olgovich 10 January 2021 13: 31
        +6
        Quote: Proxima
        was to join the economic blockade of England losing huge losses - was it in the interests of Russia?

        Given that England is the main market for Russian goods
        Quote: Proxima
        About how he sent Platov to India to conquer - this is also in such direct interests of Russia, there is nowhere else!

        And on the way he ordered, walking like this, .... Subdue Wed Asia. belay

        Just like in "Ivan Vasilievich ..." the "tsar" said:
        "And on the way back, let them take Kazan!"
      4. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 10 January 2021 17: 45
        +1
        Alexander I was not, but a clever man, trembling only for his own skin (for which there were reasons and examples). But he was not a patriot, caring for the interests of the people.
      5. Tavrik
        Tavrik 10 January 2021 22: 42
        +3
        how he sent Platov to India to conquer - this is also in such direct interests of Russia, there is nowhere else to go!

        Here, the main thing is not to pass off as the interests of Russia the interests of a group of oligarchs profiting from trade with England. And the losses incurred by the Vorontsovs and others from the blockade are their problems. Losses, for example, Rotenberg, you do not associate with losses of the Russian Federation? But there were other groups of oligarchs who cheerfully traded with other countries, with France in the first place. But Alexander knew and remembered that it was the "pro-English" party in St. Petersburg that had liquidated his daddy. And it was weak for him to liquidate it for the sake of the real interests of the empire and rely on other business structures.
        It is clear that the Indian campaign is not the most urgent task, but feasible. The British could do it alone? And ours reached the Far East even when. Our fleet is not so hot, but the French have a very decent one. And joint business projects of Russian and French entrepreneurs would be quite real. Through mutual funds, securities, shares ... Especially with the blessing of their monarchs.
        It's just that Alexander knew perfectly well that if Bonopart brought Britain to its knees, then Russia’s turn would inevitably come, and then it’s definitely not possible to get rid of losses from trade.

        Alexander knew perfectly well that France did not pose a threat to Russia, but fierce envy and hatred of the "upstart" did its job. Nenuache? He's not, he's a monarch. Absolute. Without any restrictions in the form of parliaments and states general. His will is the law!
    3. Proxima
      Proxima 10 January 2021 10: 47
      +5
      The author, like many others, exaggerates the topic of Alexander's personal hostility to Napoleon and, as a result, this hostility ran counter to the interests of Russia. Is it so? Let's reason. Recall how Napoleon responded to Alexander's protest in connection with the execution by the French of the Duke of Enghien. This answer, which Alexander never forgot or forgave Napoleon, because it was the worst offense in his entire life. The meaning of the answer was as follows: if Emperor Alexander found out that the murderers of his late father were on foreign territory, and nevertheless arrested them, then Napoleon would not protest against such a violation of international law. It was impossible to call Aleksandr Pavlovich publicly and officially a paricide more clearly. Now let's ask ourselves a question: if you value your potential ally and want to enter into a long-term strategic relationship with him, then why wipe your feet like that? There is only one answer, Russia for Napoleon was a bargaining chip and in the long term the French emperor planned to slam it, and of course Alexander knew about it very well.
      1. Monsieur bonapartiste
        10 January 2021 13: 05
        +6
        Good day, Sergey.

        Indeed, Napoleon's allusion to Alexander's involvement in the murder of his father strengthened his hatred of Bonaparte, but was not a decisive factor in this matter.
        The assassination of the Duke of Enghien was only a pretext for war, because since 1803, Alexander began to form a new anti-French coalition.
        Napoleon, really wanting an alliance with Russia and doing everything for this, exploded. He wrote Talleyrand: "Explain to them well that I do not want war, but I am not afraid of anyone. And if the birth of an empire is to be as glorious as the cradle of revolution, it will be marked by a new victory over the enemies of France."
        The emperor of the French cared primarily about the interests of France. Naturally, he exploded when he learned that the power, which he regarded as an ally, was going to war against him, and for what reasons it is not clear!
        Alexander himself hardly developed such a burning hatred precisely because of this incident. Many told him about involvement in parricide, but they were all subjected only to disgrace, such as Yashvil.
        Can you cite at least one synchronous document that would confirm that Napoleon wanted to "slam" Russia at this time? I doubt you will find it.
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 10 January 2021 14: 26
          +2
          Quote: Monsieur bonapartiste
          Can you cite at least one synchronous document that would confirm that Napoleon wanted to "slam" Russia at this time? I doubt you will find it.

          And rightly so! How do you imagine this document, which reveals the secret thoughts of Napoleon calculated for the future? He's clearly not critical to testify on paper like that. Only one thing can be said in the affirmative, that sooner or later, the two empires (French and Russian) would still collide. But Russia would have fought alone, without Britain's resources. I dare to remind you that only in Spain, against Wellington's expeditionary force, France kept a 300-strong contingent! fellow Not a bad help on the "Eastern" front, isn't it? hi
          1. Aleksandr1971
            Aleksandr1971 10 January 2021 17: 53
            +3
            You, Proxima, have a strange logic. Why would Alexander hate Napoleon for hinting at the nature of his father's death? After all, Alexander I did not show any hatred towards a participant in the conspiracy against Paul I.

            Moreover, some of these participants later became judges in the trial against the Decembrists (at the same time, the Decembrists themselves sometimes made fun of their judges about this) ..
          2. meandr51
            meandr51 10 January 2021 20: 22
            0
            I agree about French "friendship"! There are parallels with the 2 front of the Anglo-Saxons in 2 MV and the "friendship between Hitler and Stalin"!
            1. Tavrik
              Tavrik 10 January 2021 22: 53
              0
              There is no need to look for parallels where there are none. Different centuries, different situations, different people.
            2. Proxima
              Proxima 11 January 2021 00: 21
              0
              Quote: meandr51
              I agree about French "friendship"! There are parallels with the 2 front of the Anglo-Saxons in 2 MV and the "friendship between Hitler and Stalin"!

              Absolutely right! Only the economic level of Russia during the times of Alexander the Great and the USSR during the times of Stalin is incomparable. Only a madman can stay in the forefront against all industrial Europe (including England). Alexander understood this perfectly.
        2. Astra wild2
          Astra wild2 10 January 2021 15: 09
          +3
          "many told him about involvement in parricide" I do not know what Alexander knew, but from the point of view of logic, he could guess a lot, but he preferred not to be interested in it.
          Alexander was not directly involved in the conspiracy "this is not a tsarist business", it is not difficult to know about the conspiracy. It is necessary: ​​1) to know well the situation at that time.
          2) know the characters of the first nobles. Agree that nothing complicated
      2. Tavrik
        Tavrik 10 January 2021 22: 51
        +3
        Let's remember how Napoleon responded to Alexander's protest in connection with the execution by the French of the Duke of Enghien.

        And why was Alexander so worried about the fate of the French emigrant duke, who, I recall, was sitting abroad and organizing attempts on the First Consul? How did it concern him in St. Petersburg? What interests of Russia were affected by Engiensky's death? Only an excuse to intervene in other people's "showdowns" and show their coolness.
        ... and in the long run the French emperor planned to slam her

        Can you elaborate on the mechanism of "slapping" Russia? He never even slammed Austria or Prussia, although he won several times.
    4. A1845
      A1845 10 January 2021 11: 12
      0
      Diagnosis as usual - personal idiocy of the autocrat
      1. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 10 January 2021 17: 55
        +4
        Not idiocy. Alexander I was not an idiot. But he was not a patriot and was not a defender of the country and people entrusted to him by the fate.
        1. A1845
          A1845 10 January 2021 22: 46
          0
          Let me disagree.
          If the emperor's personal envy of a more successful Corsican is above the interests and even elementary benefits for his own empire, then how else can this be called if not idiocy?
    5. bk0010
      bk0010 10 January 2021 13: 39
      +3
      Quote: pmkemcity
      How did the Catherine grandees from patriots to traitors to the Motherland go over?
      Duc, they sold grain to England and bought all sorts of luxurious nishtyaks from England. And here - the continental blockade ... They got into their pocket, one might say.
  2. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 10 January 2021 05: 44
    -11%
    Everything is very simple - Alexander agreed to the murder of his father, and therefore the Angles firmly held him by the balls with this compromising evidence. If the people knew about this, they would curse him as a parricide. No wonder he faked his death in 1825, went to Siberia, where no one knew him, and began to live under an assumed name. Apparently, his conscience still tortured him, and he himself saw the complete failure of his foreign policy, England, after the overthrow of Napoleonic France, became a world hegemon and already directly threatened Russia.
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 January 2021 08: 42
      -12%
      England, after the defeat of Napoleon's empire, really became a hegemon. Empire.
      This only happened after the defeat of the empire of Napoleon III. The only one of the Napoleons - emperors.
      Napoleon the First is a literary character. And the prototype for the appearance of Napoleon the First was Prince Napoleon Pom-Pom, a participant in the Crimean War. Photos are available.
      The fact that the "Englishwoman" always "crap" Russia is understandable from the point of view of astrological theory.
      There are vector pairs: master - servant. In this pair: Great Britain - Russia, Great Britain (Rat) - the master, and Russia (Horse) - the servant. This does not mean that the master will always control the servant, but will always strive ... And the servant will always obey ...
      1. Bar1
        Bar1 10 January 2021 09: 32
        +2
        Quote: ignoto
        Napoleon the First - a literary character

        What is your evidence for this statement?
      2. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 10 January 2021 09: 44
        0
        Quote: ignoto
        This only happened after the defeat of the empire of Napoleon III. The only one of the Napoleons - emperors.

        Don't write nonsense. Napoleon the Third was himself a puppet of England, since it was thanks to the support of England that he became president in 1848 and then emperor of France. Therefore, by the way, Napoleon the Third supported England in the Eastern War, better known in our country as the Crimean War. The debt had to be paid, so he paid England with tens of thousands of his soldiers. Do you know where he lived before becoming President of France? And where did he go after his overthrow in 1878? That's right, he lived in London and left for London.
  3. lucul
    lucul 10 January 2021 06: 05
    -10%
    Napoleon was a terrible anti-Semite - here are the reasons.
    And Suvorov's Italian campaign was only to prevent the French, to the financial capitals of that time - Venice and Genoa.
    1. apro
      apro 10 January 2021 06: 29
      -8
      Quote: lucul
      Napoleon was a terrible anti-Semite - here are the reasons.

      Yes .. yes .. he still talked with Muslims on equal terms. And he himself was from come in large numbers .. not a Frenchman.
      Quote: lucul
      And Suvorov's Italian campaign was only to prevent the French, to the financial capitals of that time - Venice and Genoa.

      ???? on the outskirts of Europe .. looked in the wrong direction .. he long ago moved to the foggy albion.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 10 January 2021 07: 28
        -6
        Quote: apro
        Yes .. yes .. he still talked with Muslims on equal terms. And he himself was from come in large numbers .. not a Frenchman.

        Napoleon was not French, he was a Corsican, in 1300 Corsica became the territory of the Republic of Genoa, until it was ceded to France in 1769.
        The native language of Napoleon was the Corsican dialect of Italian. He learned to read and write Italian in elementary school and only started learning French when he was almost ten years old. All his life he spoke with a strong Italian accent.
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 10 January 2021 09: 24
          +3
          And the Corsicans to this day do not get along very well with the French. According to national and cultural traditions, the Corsicans resemble the Sicilians 300 years ago, and already the 21st century
      2. Cartalon
        Cartalon 10 January 2021 09: 22
        -2
        A bunch of minuses for an absolutely sensible answer, alternatively gifted majority now?
    2. mr.ZinGer
      mr.ZinGer 10 January 2021 07: 16
      +3
      [/ quote] Napoleon was a terrible anti-Semite [quote]

      Yes, so terrible that as soon as he went out into the street, the Jews immediately fled. There is not even anyone to borrow money, I had to go to fight Genoa and Venice.
      This is a topic for Daniil Kharms.
      1. unknown
        unknown 10 January 2021 08: 52
        -14%
        Actually, the words "Jew" and "European" are synonyms. They have one meaning "" person ".
        Europe is a country, from the word "side", "Jews", that is, people.
        Nobody fled from Napoleon the First.
        For the simple reason that he was a literary character invented by the real-life Napoleon III.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 10 January 2021 10: 13
          -2
          Quote: ignoto
          Actually, the words "Jew" and "European" are synonyms. They have one meaning "" person ".

          the way it is. Europe is a Jewish country, and European values ​​are Jewish values: lack of morality, bargaining, lack of principle, everything is bought and everything is sold.
          1. A. Privalov
            A. Privalov 10 January 2021 11: 45
            +8
            Quote: Bar1
            the way it is. Europe is a Jewish country, and European values ​​are Jewish values: lack of morality, bargaining, lack of principle, everything is bought and everything is sold.

            That's right!
            What they didn't buy, they sold.
            What is not sold is managed.
            Volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and earthquakes - everything is in their hands! Not to mention the production of shaving brushes in Zimbabwe!
            Yes, they should have dealt with them a long time ago for just drinking water in the tap!
            But such, if I may say so, "authors", alter History and already everywhere, absolutely Russophobic, claim that the Slavs drank the water in the tap. Can you imagine the Orthodox ?! wassat
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 10 January 2021 12: 49
              +2
              Quote: A. Privalov
              What they didn't buy, they sold.

              and more defamation ...
            2. Catfish
              Catfish 10 January 2021 14: 02
              +6
              Alexander hi You have forgotten that "you tortured, you bastards, an elephant in the zoo", it is unforgivable, I am already silent about trams and "the harvest of the past year." laughing
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 10 January 2021 13: 45
          +2
          Quote: ignoto
          Actually, the words "Jew" and "European" are synonyms. They have one meaning "" person ".
          The Jew is on behalf of the antediluvian righteous man who remained faithful to God.
    3. unknown
      unknown 10 January 2021 08: 48
      -18%
      Both Napoleon the First and Suvorov are literary characters.
      Only Napoleon III was real.
      He invented the story of Napoleon the First to substantiate his claims to the throne.
      And the prototype of Suvorov was Frederick the Great.
      The ties between Germans and Russians are much deeper.
      Even by the beginning of WWI, St. Petersburg was a German city.
      Perhaps that is why, after the so-called "Great Socialist Revolution", the city was cleared of the population. From the word at all.
      Yes, and the expression "East Prussia" may not refer to a small enclave, but to what we used to call "the Russian Empire".
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 10 January 2021 09: 29
        +12
        Hard case. Even the exam is resting here.
        1. Avior
          Avior 10 January 2021 10: 30
          +6
          It's time to tie. New Year's Eve dragged on smile
          1. vladcub
            vladcub 10 January 2021 13: 32
            +4
            So we have 10 days to sleep and get drunk
        2. Catfish
          Catfish 10 January 2021 14: 05
          +6
          Glory hi hi , and suddenly the tovrishchch is just joking, well ... the sense of humor is not that in the next room.
          1. vladcub
            vladcub 10 January 2021 15: 20
            +2
            Kostya, hello. So who knows: "why is he blinking."
            Thanks for the picture.
            1. depressant
              depressant 10 January 2021 23: 12
              0
              About a couple of months ago I had a chance to watch a video about old large-block stone walls in the vicinity of St. Petersburg. It was said that no one knows the story of their origin. And so, the other day, I happened to read that ...
              "On the site of the Northern capital, back in 1611, the Swedes built the Nyenskans fortress, near which the city of Nyen began to develop."
              Apparently, what the tourists are shown are the remains of the walls of Nyenskans. Or what curious tourists find themselves. The walls are impressive.
          2. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 10 January 2021 18: 33
            +9
            Checking in a madhouse.
            Checker: - Who is in this ward?
            Director: - Immortal Duncan Macleod from the Macleod clan.
            P: - What an interesting case!
            D: - And do not say, judging by the documentation, we have been watching him for almost two hundred years.
            tongue
        3. antivirus
          antivirus 10 January 2021 21: 50
          0
          through ter-rn-n-n-eee to the stars .. without needy and everything negative, just take it to a new galaxy?
      2. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 10 January 2021 17: 59
        +4
        You, ignoto, are also only a character, but unlike the literary Napoleon, you do not exist.
    4. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 10 January 2021 17: 57
      +5
      Napoleon was not an anti-Semite.
      It was under him that the Jews began to seize economic power in France.
      Most likely, Napoleon's views on the national question, in contrast to his contemporaries, were closest to modern views.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 10 January 2021 22: 59
        +1
        Of course. Napoleon is the conductor of the ideas of the French Revolution: "Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood!" And religion in general is a side.
  4. Crowe
    Crowe 10 January 2021 07: 15
    +14
    He put hundreds of thousands of our brave men in the grave, purely because of his personal dislike for Napoleon.

    What a savagery, it has already warped ... Author! You probably forgot that in 1812 hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers of "twelve languages" came to our land with weapons in their hands, and I dare to believe that our soldiers died for it, and not for someone's personal dislike of someone there, ..
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 10 January 2021 07: 30
      +2
      Quote: Crowe
      What a savagery, it has already warped ... Author! You probably forgot that in 1812 hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers of "twelve languages" came to our land with weapons in their hands, and I dare to believe that our soldiers died for it, and not for someone's personal dislike of someone there, ..

      Don't write nonsense. If Alexander had not become at enmity with Napoleon, and would not have been an obedient puppet of London, then there would have been no Napoleon's invasion of Russia. It is Alexander who is to blame for the fact that the Patriotic War of 1812 took place.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 10 January 2021 08: 06
        +7
        Yes Yes. That would have made a revolution in Russia from above and would have entered into an alliance with advanced France, and not with ossified monarchies, and life was like a fairy tale. Probably. good
        1. unknown
          unknown 10 January 2021 08: 33
          0
          There is also such a point of view in historiography.
        2. Tavrik
          Tavrik 10 January 2021 23: 00
          0
          To do this, he had to be Catherine or Paul. Those were the statesmen!
          1. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 11 January 2021 17: 13
            0
            Better by Peter I. He arranged social elevators not only for the nobles. And even better, Ivan the Terrible - for the revolution from above it was necessary to crush the nobles and other bourgeoisie so that they could not utter a word against "giving free rein to the peasant."
      2. Crowe
        Crowe 10 January 2021 08: 44
        +14
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        If ... would not be

        If only if only ... If Adam and Eve had not tasted the forbidden fruit, then we would now live in the Garden of Eden, where joy and complete peace would reign without wars and suffering.
        then there would be no Napoleon's invasion of Russia.

        "History does not know the word" If ". And in history it was precisely the invasion of the enemy armies that" is innumerable to adversaries. "
        People were dying for Russia at Borodino, no matter how pretentious it may sound to you.
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 10 January 2021 13: 43
          +2
          It's like Daddy Mueller used to say: scouts must be specific. I looked for a long time and I do not remember literally.
          Actually, strictly speaking: the 4th department of the RSHA is more likely counterintelligence
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 10 January 2021 13: 56
            +1
            Quote: vladcub
            Actually, strictly speaking: the 4th department of the RSHA is more likely counterintelligence

            Which management of the RSHA? There were seven of them, each department had its own departments.
            1. vladcub
              vladcub 10 January 2021 15: 25
              +2
              Sorry, poorly taught the biography of Mueller. Won't you tell him about it?
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 10 January 2021 15: 33
                +2
                Quote: vladcub
                Sorry, poorly taught the biography of Mueller. Won't you tell him about it?

                Mueller, this is just a literary character - a joke of course.
      3. Cartalon
        Cartalon 10 January 2021 09: 24
        +1
        Of course, Russia would not simply become a vassal of the invincible Emperor
      4. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 10 January 2021 18: 02
        +4
        Kuzya the cat, I object to you.
        I suppose that no matter what Alexander I did, the war with Napoleon would still have happened. Napoleon just went with a roof. Give him the whole world. Napoleon in this respect was akin to Alexander the Great, Timur and other crazy conquerors (including Hitler). You can negotiate with psychos for a while, but not for long.
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 10 January 2021 23: 08
          +2
          Shaw, again ?? wassat
          Do a simple experiment. Open Wikipedia and read about the Napoleonic wars of 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809, paying attention to who was their initiator. To broaden the horizons, one can also talk about earlier anti-French coalitions. In short, Napoleon's problem is that each of his victory over the next anti-French coalition brought him to the enemy's capital, and the formation of a new coalition. Then a new victory, a new capital, and ... a new coalition! And in the mass consciousness formed by the victors, of course, Napoleon is a mad conqueror.
    2. apro
      apro 10 January 2021 07: 41
      -2
      Quote: Crowe
      You have forgotten that in 1812 hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers of "twelve tongues" came to our land with weapons in their hands,

      And before that. How many anti-French colites did Ri participate in ??? and in which countries did she roam?
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 10 January 2021 23: 12
        0
        And there are two universal phrases that justify any impartial or just aggressive actions:
        1. "Russia, faithful to the allied duty ...".
        2. "XXX posed a threat to Russia's borders that could not be ignored."
        Under this sauces, you can sell any aggression with subsequent indignation in case of failure: "but what about us?"
    3. unknown
      unknown 10 January 2021 08: 55
      +1
      Actually, it is considered a million.
      How, at that time, was it possible to assemble, equip, arm, supply with transport, provide logistics?
      Did the productive forces and technologies of that time allow?
    4. Avior
      Avior 10 January 2021 10: 31
      +3
      The author writes about why and why they came there.
      hi
  5. Radiator
    Radiator 10 January 2021 07: 58
    -2
    That's a wondrous wonder and wonderful wonders.
    Even 30 years ago, any Soviet schoolchild knew well - for whose interests a soldier dies under tsarist and bourgeois regimes, and then everyone suddenly became ignorant.

    "There were people like people, and suddenly they all became nerds" (c)
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 January 2021 08: 57
      -1
      The answer is simple.
      The modern historical concept, unfortunately, is not part of a scientific discipline, but part of fiction, a section of unscientific fiction.
  6. bober1982
    bober1982 10 January 2021 08: 25
    +4
    The author of the article, in my opinion, of course, is too straightforward and categorical in his judgments and conclusions.
    Alexander Pavlovich is a sphinx, unsolved to the grave. This was stated back in those days.
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 January 2021 09: 02
      -6
      Apparently, the real first emperor of Russia was Nikolai.
      And the first real war, in which technology and logistics corresponded to the level of development of human society, is the so-called Crimean War.
  7. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 10 January 2021 08: 28
    +1
    It is true that it was Alexander I, contrary to the interests of his country, who began the war against Napoleon in 1805, after which both powers began to gradually be drawn into the conflict, every day of which he created a reason for the escalation of this conflict ...
    I dare to note that the author's work clearly stands out from the framework adopted at VO for years. hi
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 10 January 2021 09: 25
      0
      Yes, it is for this reason that such articles are published with enviable regularity.
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 10 January 2021 09: 51
      +5
      "clearly stands out from the years adopted on the VO framework" you can not argue with that. The author decided to take a fresh look at history. It is up to everyone to agree or disagree with his point of view.
      In my opinion, this is somewhat simplistic: "the English woman always muddies the waters"
  8. Olgovich
    Olgovich 10 January 2021 08: 34
    +9
    Conclusion

    All these facts prove that Alexander fought with France for the interests of England, Austria, Prussia, but not for the interests of his country.

    Not a single fact of this kind is presented.

    Alexander fought against the aggressor and invader of Europe, trying to stop him even BEFORE he came to Russia.

    Likewise, the USSR in 1938 tried to stop Hitler in ChSlovakia
    there was no reason for war between France and Russia
    Yeah, that's why the Poles put up a TWENTY-THOUSAND army as part of Napoleon's Great Army against Russia, which bravely fought against us not only in 1812 but also in 1813,1814, 1815, and the last Poles died for Napoleon in XNUMX at Waterloo.

    With Napoleon, his Polish threat to Russia was destroyed
    1. Monsieur bonapartiste
      10 January 2021 13: 10
      +6
      Since you think that Napoleon wanted to come to Russia, would you be so kind as to demonstrate any synchronous document that would confirm that the Emperor of the French really wanted this? I doubt that you will find anything other than some memoirs written after the war of 1812, and therefore of little value.
      Napoleon never seriously thought about the restoration of Poland, because it meant forever embroil himself with Russia, Austria and Prussia, which they received from the Commonwealth as a result of the division of the land.
      He never directly told the Poles that he would restore their homeland, but only instilled in them faith in this.
      Russia proposed to Napoleon a project that would finally resolve the "Polish question". Here are its main points: “Art. 1: The Kingdom of Poland will never be restored. Art. 2: The High Contracting Parties undertake to ensure that the words "Poland" and "Poles" are never used in relation to any part of this former kingdom, nor in relation to its inhabitants, nor in relation to its troops. Art. 5: Established as a principle that the Duchy of Warsaw has no right to receive any territorial expansion at the expense of lands belonging to the Kingdom of Poland. "
      Napoleon agreed with all points, but their wording raised questions. The emperor of the French considered them humiliating for himself and the Poles, and proposed to reformulate them, but without changing the meaning.
      Article 1 Napoleon proposed to reformulate as follows: “His Majesty the Emperor of the French undertakes not to support any restoration of the Kingdom of Poland, not to give any assistance to any state that would have such intentions, not to give any assistance, either direct or indirect, to any uprising or indignation of the provinces who made up this kingdom. " He also drew up the subsequent paragraphs in a softer wording, but keeping the sense of the project.
      Its edition was rejected by Russia. Our government insisted on rougher wording, although the meaning did not change. This can only be explained by the fact that Alexander did not want to solve this issue, but wanted to use it for the future cause of the war with France.
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 12 January 2021 11: 27
        0
        Quote: Monsieur bonapartiste
        Since you think that Napoleon wanted to come to Russia, would you be so kind as to demonstrate any synchronous document that would confirm that the Emperor of the French really wanted this? I doubt you will find anything other than some memoirs,

        Ok, you, too, please provide "any synchronous document" (at the time of the partition of Czechoslovakia), which would confirm that Hitler wanted to attack the USSR. But no one doubts this, just as the correctness of the behavior of the USSR, which offered assistance to Czechoslovakia to repel the aggression of Germany, does not raise doubts.
        You can talk long and hard about the "stupidity of Alex1" and "the wisdom and friendliness of Boni", but from the facts you will be contradicted by burnt Moscow and plowed with cannon balls Borodino. You explain to them how Napoleon loved Russia.
    2. Astra wild2
      Astra wild2 10 January 2021 17: 08
      +4
      Olgovich, in fairness, the Poles were guided by the principle "my enemy is an enemy." Some were caught up in the halo of the French Revolution. Agree, it's hard to get used to it right away: the first consul, and then the emperor. The Poles were united by the desire to free themselves from Russia, and then: the republic according to the French version, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the times of Bohdan Khmelnitsky, or what other dreams they had. The main thing is to get rid of Russia, and then it will be seen
  9. Cartalon
    Cartalon 10 January 2021 09: 28
    +7
    Gentlemen, fans of the great Emperor, what would this indefatigable genius do if he managed to conquer the insidious Albion?
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 10 January 2021 09: 58
      0
      Quote: Cartalon
      Gentlemen, fans of the great Emperor, what would this indefatigable genius do if he managed to conquer the insidious Albion?

      Napoleon would never have been able to conquer the insidious Albion, since the Royal Navy was many times stronger than the French fleet, after the Trafalgar defeat, France could not compete with England at sea, the reason was not even that France had fewer ships, they could not be built a big problem. The problem was the lack of a sufficient number of experienced and competent sailors - sailors, boatswains, midshipmen and officers. During the French Revolution, many naval officers were killed, and the Battle of Trafalgar only finished off the naval officer corps. It is in the army of an infantryman and an infantry officer that you can quickly train to own a drill, sailors and naval officers need to be trained and trained for a long time, it was not for nothing that it was impossible to buy an officer's patent in the navy, it could only be obtained by passing a commission exam.
      1. apro
        apro 10 January 2021 10: 12
        +1
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Napoleon could never have conquered the treacherous Albion,

        Well, not a fact of the continental blockade. It cut off the Angles from serious markets for colonial goods. And this is a blow more terrible than sea battles. And gradually killed the Anlic industry. Trade.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 10 January 2021 10: 26
          -3
          By that time England had the "pearl of the British crown" - India, from where they pumped huge resources. Well, let's not forget about the United States, with which England traded quite successfully.
          1. apro
            apro 10 January 2021 10: 33
            +3
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            By that time England had the "pearl of the British crown" - India, from where they pumped huge resources. Well, let's not forget about the United States, with which England traded quite successfully.

            And how to use them? These resources. For their own consumption of the small bourgeoisie and the poor population. Money was in europe. So for them the delivery of colonial goods was profitable. About America it is not necessary. There was not everything calm at that time. Yes, and the population was not compare with European. small. and what is worse low-paying.
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 10 January 2021 11: 02
              -2
              Quote: apro
              And how to use them? These resources. For their own consumption of the small bourgeoisie and the poor population. Money was in europe. So for them the delivery of colonial goods was profitable. About America it is not necessary. There was not everything calm at that time. Yes, and the population was not compare with European. small. and what is worse low-paying.

              India was a source of enormous wealth, the same Robert Clive in the 18th century stole 700 thousand pounds for himself, this, with a gold content of a pound sterling of 7,8 g, is 5,5 tons of gold, this is 330 million dollars in modern money. That is, it can be assumed that a much larger amount went to the treasury of England than this money stolen by Clive, especially considering that Clive was not alone.
              1. apro
                apro 10 January 2021 11: 44
                -2
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                India has been a source of immense wealth,

                And also demanded resources ... to support the colonial regime ...
                Gold on bread cannot be smeared .. without European trade. Anglam is the end.
              2. Khibiny Plastun
                Khibiny Plastun 10 January 2021 12: 10
                +2
                The gold content of the pound is 7.32g. gold, not 7,8. do not confuse a gold guinea with a pound.
        2. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 12 January 2021 11: 29
          0
          Quote: apro
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Napoleon could never have conquered the treacherous Albion,

          Well, not a fact of the continental blockade. It cut off the Angles from serious markets for colonial goods. And this is a blow more terrible than sea battles. And gradually killed the Anlic industry. Trade.

          The continental blockade hit all countries with a hammer. Including France itself. And as for Russia, which was tied to exports to England, it was categorically contraindicated.
      2. vladcub
        vladcub 10 January 2021 13: 57
        +3
        Cat, to add to this, that the French did not have a maritime culture. The British have been accustomed to the sea since childhood, but the French did not need it
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 12 January 2021 11: 36
          +1
          Quote: vladcub
          Cat, to add to this, that the French did not have a maritime culture. The British have been accustomed to the sea since childhood, but the French did not need it

          Can I disagree with you? It was France that was a direct competitor to England at sea for several centuries in a row. And the French fleet several times managed to win brilliant victories at sea, and the actions of the French privateers were simply amazing (although in general privateering as a strategic line did not justify itself absolutely, but this does not negate the courage and talents of the French).
    2. Olddetractor
      Olddetractor 10 January 2021 10: 20
      +6
      Would you attack Russia with all your imperial hatred? Yes, it would be so. War was inevitable and it was one of those rare wars for which Russia prepared. And that the Blessed One did not love anyone, it is true, except for the sister of Ekaterina Pavlovna, of course. He used those around him, brought him closer and further away, covering his deeds and plans.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 10 January 2021 23: 31
        +1
        it was one of those rare wars for which Russia prepared

        I will reveal a terrible secret: Russia began to prepare for the war of 1806 immediately after the defeat of 1805. But the Prussians "merged" so quickly that ours simply did not have time to participate. Then we started the 1807 campaign. After the defeat in 1807, we really began preparations for a new war in advance, from 1810, “killing” our budget. But that war was supposed to be offensive. And there is no fantasy: three (!) Times in 10 years (1799, 1805, 1807) went to Europe, so why not go to the fourth? And the fact that all three times failed, Duc it only encourages "they tear us up, but we grow stronger."
  10. BAI
    BAI 10 January 2021 10: 28
    +2
    Alexander is a man of passive qualities and lacks energy. He lacks the courage and trust to look for a worthy person, and he has to constantly be afraid that influence over him will not be captured by someone importunate and cheeky.

    For all this in Russian historiography, he was awarded the nickname

    "Blessed".


    Well, actually, it is better known as:
    The sovereign is weak and crafty,
    A bald dandy, the enemy of labor,
    Unintentionally warmed by glory,
    Reigned over us then.

    Someone A.S. Pushkin
    1. A. Privalov
      A. Privalov 10 January 2021 11: 21
      -1
      Quote: BAI
      Someone A.S. Pushkin

      With him, everything is clear.
      His real name is Pushkind. lol

      See, it says so: Pushkind.
      This facsimile of his handwritten signature is often reproduced, so that anyone can verify it anywhere with their own eyes.
      In addition, his brother's name was Leo, his great-grandfather was Abram, and his grandmother was Sarah.
      Anything not clear? hi
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 10 January 2021 14: 11
        +4
        And the ancestor's name was Adam. Anyone who reads the Bible can be convinced of this.
      2. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 11 January 2021 03: 27
        0
        Why not Pushkinzon? fool
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 10 January 2021 13: 23
      +1
      Quote: BAI

      Someone A.S. Pushkin

      Pushkin A.S. about Alexander 1:
      He is a human! he is ruled by a moment.
      He is a slave to rumors, doubts and passions;
      Forgive him wrong persecution:
      He took Paris, he founded the Lyceum
      .


      And he is about him:


      You, our brave king, praise, thanks!
      When the enemy shelves covered the distance,
      Riding in armor, laying down a feathered helmet,
      Kneeling before the high altar,
      You took a swearing sword and took an oath to the saint
      Protect your native country from the yoke
      .
      1. A. Privalov
        A. Privalov 10 January 2021 14: 19
        -1
        Quote: Olgovich
        You, our brave king, praise, thanks!
        When the enemy shelves covered the distance,
        Riding in armor, laying down a feathered helmet,
        Kneeling before the high altar,
        You took a swearing sword and took an oath to the saint
        From the yoke to protect his native country.

        This is 1825 and the praises of Tsar Alexander Sergeevich did not help him avoid exile.
        The sovereign is weak and crafty,
        A bald dandy, the enemy of labor,
        Unintentionally warmed by glory,
        Reigned over us then.

        And this is after the exile, in 1830. hi
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 10 January 2021 14: 21
          -1
          Quote: A. Privalov
          And this is after the exile, in 1830

          The first word is "more expensive" than the second hi
          1. A. Privalov
            A. Privalov 10 January 2021 14: 44
            +1
            Quote: Olgovich
            The first word is "more expensive" than the second

            Class! I just remembered the kindergarten!
            "The first word is more expensive than the second", and in response: "The first is out, the second is law." lol
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 10 January 2021 14: 52
      +2
      Quote: BAI
      Well, actually, it is better known as:

      Quote: BAI
      Someone A.S. Pushkin

      If you read the current "lovers of literature" and their characteristics to the same Stalin, Brezhnev or Putin, then we can safely say that Pushkin almost praised Alexander.
      But the current denunciators of the "kings" and our greatest poet are united by one thing - they themselves have never ruled even a collective of several thousand people and have no idea what state power is from the point of view of a normal manager. But they learned to speak beautifully and flaunt words, since our language is so multifaceted ...
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 10 January 2021 15: 04
        +3
        Quote: ccsr
        But the current denunciators of the "kings" and our greatest poet have one thing in common - they themselves have never ruled even a collective of several thousand people and have no idea what state power is from the point of view of a normal manager.

        The site had a manager of hundreds of thousands of people who had an extremely negative attitude towards Gorby and Yeltsin.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 10 January 2021 15: 06
          +2
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          The site had a manager of hundreds of thousands of people who had an extremely negative attitude towards Gorby and Yeltsin.

          And I didn't mention them - they were just nonentities, from the point of view of even ordinary human morality.
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 10 January 2021 15: 12
            +2
            Quote: ccsr
            And I didn't mention them - they were just nonentities,

            Nevertheless, they were "kings", one lives on 40 minimum wages a month under the protection of the FSO, another is erected.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 10 January 2021 15: 19
              +1
              Quote: Mordvin 3
              Nevertheless, they were "kings", one lives on 40 minimum wages a month under the protection of the FSO, another is erected.

              And let them live, it's sickening to hear about them. But when they begin to remember and evaluate the past based on the poetry of a poet, even a great one, then it tempts me to ask - will the present time be assessed from the words of Shnurov or some other current songbook?
              I would still take other personalities for this, and first of all those who make up the intellectual elite of our time, and not financial or political.
              1. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 10 January 2021 15: 27
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                I would still take other personalities for this, and first of all those who make up the intellectual elite of our time,

                And who is this, for example? Will Prilepin fit? Or Mikhalkov? Sobchak, or this one, like her ... Buzova? Soloviev, or Kiselev?
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 10 January 2021 15: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: Mordvin 3
                  And who is this, for example? Will Prilepin fit? Or Mikhalkov? Sobchak, or this one, like her ... Buzova? Soloviev, or Kiselev?

                  Do not be ridiculous - this is just a plebs against the background of those who are engaged in science and work in the field of high technologies.
                  1. Mordvin 3
                    Mordvin 3 10 January 2021 15: 34
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    who is engaged in science and work in the field of high technology.

                    And will they write memoirs? Completely objective?
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 10 January 2021 15: 47
                      +2
                      Quote: Mordvin 3
                      And will they write memoirs? Completely objective?

                      Most of them are decent people than from other walks of life. Well, and "objectivity" is generally a subjective concept - this is a fact, so I do not exclude that they will not present the whole truth.
                      1. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 10 January 2021 16: 06
                        +3
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Most of them are decent people than from other walks of life. Well, and "objectivity" is generally a subjective concept - this is a fact, so I do not exclude that they will not present the whole truth.

                        Take the mathematician Perelman. She lives on her mother's pension and wears a tattered coat. He is engaged in science and is not interested in anything else. If only he was given a pension, or something.
                      2. ccsr
                        ccsr 10 January 2021 16: 17
                        0
                        Quote: Mordvin 3
                        If only he was given a pension, or something.

                        Contact the social security agency, this is on their line. But the fact is that, with all due respect to his mind, he hardly sees the world as other citizens see it. This means that his assessment will be biased even because of this.
                      3. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 10 January 2021 16: 18
                        +1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Contact the social security agency, this is on their line.

                        Yeah, the whole country knows about him, except for social security.
                      4. ccsr
                        ccsr 10 January 2021 16: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Mordvin 3
                        Yeah, the whole country knows about him, except for social security.

                        We have pensions for old age or health. Perhaps he does not fit in these categories in order for the social security officer to take care of him.
                      5. Mordvin 3
                        Mordvin 3 10 January 2021 16: 25
                        +2
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Perhaps he does not fit in these categories in order for the social security officer to take care of him.

                        He definitely does not fit. He generally does not fit anywhere, since he refused a million dollars. And from membership in the RAS.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 10 January 2021 16: 14
    +1
    The site had a manager of hundreds of thousands of people who had an extremely negative attitude towards Gorby and Yeltsin.

    Are you talking about the respected Shatrakov?
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 10 January 2021 16: 15
      +2
      Quote: Aviator_
      Are you talking about the respected Shatrakov?

      About him. Not seen for a long time.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 10 January 2021 16: 16
        +1
        Yes, it's a pity that I haven't written for a long time. His opinion is very lacking here.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 10 January 2021 16: 11
    +2
    But the current denunciators of "kings" and our greatest poet have one thing in common - they themselves have never ruled even a collective of several thousand people

    Well, where there are thousands, they did not manage a dozen. Of course, I appreciate Pushkin as a poet, but if you remember how he failed Vorontsov's assignment to combat locusts in the Odessa province, then you can see his complete failure in public service. Although the same Chekhov, during the cholera epidemic, fought with it in Lopasna near Moscow, it is true that Anton Pavlovich's main specialty was a doctor, and he applied his knowledge. And Alexander Sergeevich had no specialty at all - so, a free artist, where did he get the managerial experience?
  • Unknown
    Unknown 10 January 2021 10: 57
    +6
    Whatever one may say, he was considered a paricide, and is considered. The British are also very much involved in this matter. About the role played by the Ambassador Lord Charles Whitworth, contemporaries in Paris and London spoke in eliminating Paul. Yes, Count Palen and Panin in their memoirs directly speak of Alexander's awareness of the conspiracy. Pushkin also revolved around the court, and everyone is familiar with the characteristics of the tsar ... The ruler is weak and crafty,

    A bald dandy, the enemy of labor,

    Unintentionally warmed by glory,

    Then reigned over us ...... Nobility in R.I was well aware of what Alexander was. Whether Napoleon called him a patricide, in a private conversation, as Talleyrand claims, or not is not known, but the fact that Alexander had not just disgust, but pathological hatred of Napoleon, to the detriment of R.I. - fact. Hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers lost in Europe, and at Smolensk, Borodin, Maloyaroslavets, Tarutin and Berezina were in vain, with the adoption of the decisions of the Vienna Congress of 1815. Union of Emperors - medieval nonsense in the 19th century. Not to deal with their country, to abolish serfdom, which is no longer in the same Europe, to introduce universal primary education, as in Prussia a hundred years ago, got into the European showdown. And this is what catches the eye, the worse things are in your country, the more active useless rulers of Russia, climb into world affairs, be it Alexander, or Gorbachev with world disarmament, and the current guarantor, too, to the world that he offers something, but in the country ....... I will not speak. Created for R. And for some reason the Kingdom of Poland, and the principality of Finland, the first muddied the waters, arranged wars, uprisings, the entire 19th century, and is still always not happy with Russia, and with the second, later, I had to fight four wars, which they would not be quiet, for the time being. Here are the results of Alexander's reign. Not to wage war, not to conclude peace. And how can I not remember ....... Stalin said more than once that Russia wins wars, but does not know how to use the fruits of victories. Russians are fighting great, but they do not know how to make peace, they are bypassed, not given enough. And what we did as a result of this war, I think, we did great, strengthened the Soviet. state.
  • Moskovit
    Moskovit 10 January 2021 11: 50
    +7
    Once you know the answer, it is very easy to tailor the solution to it. The author worked out this technique perfectly. I forgot a little about the fact that Russia was an active participant in the first and second anti-French coalition before Alexander.
    1. Unknown
      Unknown 10 January 2021 18: 53
      +1
      Quote: Moskovit
      I forgot a little about the fact that Russia was an active participant in the first and second anti-French coalitions before Alexander.

      Yes, it was. But for what devil, you had to get into the European showdown? What R.I. gained from the Italian campaigns of A.V. Suvorov? Katerina was consistent in foreign policy - the main thing is the complete defeat of Sick Europe, as the Ottoman Empire was then called. And straits, straits again. This is the goal she pursued. She tried not to get into the showdown of the monarchs, if they were not forced to, as with Sweden and Poland. We must not forget that she is Sophia Augusta Frederika of Anhalt-Zerbst, a German-born woman, a child of that European civilization, later Russified in Russia. She firsthand represented all that political, "cuisine" of European states, she has a German mentality, and she deeply did not care about Louis who brought his country to revolution. In words, solidarity with the monarchs, but in fact the opposite. Another thing is Pavel, he is German by mother, and who is the father, only the empress knew, who took him to the grave. He was brought up by FD Bekhteev In June 1760, Bekhteev was replaced by Count NI Panin, a diplomat and a prominent statesman. Pavel's mentor was also S. A. Poroshin, who, under Catherine II, until the beginning of 1766, was among the permanent "knights" under Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich. Poroshin was one of the most enlightened Russian people of that time. They then hammered into Pavel's head the ideas of monarchs' solidarity, which he later put into practice, rushing from one extreme to another in foreign policy, missing out on Russia's chance to forever resolve the issue of the Straits when Europe was fighting among themselves. Alexander was brought up by a supporter of educational ideas, a staunch Republican F.S. Laharpe who admired Britain, hence following that in the mainstream of British politics. At the same time, the tsar did not realize that in the 19th century rapidly growing capital, the bourgeoisie, began to rule the world. In England, for example, representatives of the aristocracy did not disdain to be related to the bourgeoisie, and the degenerating noble class in R.I. considered such kinship beneath their dignity. So, Alexander created all the prerequisites for the future Crimean War, and for the Great Endings in our country.
      1. Moskovit
        Moskovit 10 January 2021 23: 11
        -1
        So you yourself answered your own question. Paul's folly and resentment devalued all our victories and losses. It’s a pity that we didn’t get the best from Britain. And the arrogance of the Russian nobility led to 1917 and the Civil War with all the consequences.
  • Khibiny Plastun
    Khibiny Plastun 10 January 2021 12: 30
    +3
    The author writes nonsense. Russia, like other European powers, was not satisfied that Holland, Italy, Switzerland, part of the German lands were already France. Alexander perfectly understood that the First Consul, who had jumped to the imperial throne, did not know a sense of proportion. Napoleonamans, remind you about the Bois de Boulogne? That "peace-loving" Bonaparte, not having time to become emperor, immediately began to prepare for war. And it is better to stop it in an alliance with other European countries, and not alone.
    And to those who believe that this is not our business, then why the hell did France actively interfere in our showdown with the Turks?
    Russia was quite happy with Europe with independent countries, but not at all in Russia's interests EuropeFrance under Napoleon's control.
    1. A. Privalov
      A. Privalov 10 January 2021 13: 38
      +1
      Quote: Khibiny Plastun
      The author writes nonsense. Russia, like other European powers, was not satisfied that Holland, Italy, Switzerland, part of the German lands were already France. Alexander perfectly understood that the First Consul, who had jumped to the imperial throne, did not know a sense of proportion. Napoleonamans, remind you about the Bois de Boulogne? That "peace-loving" Bonaparte, not having time to become emperor, immediately began to prepare for war. And it is better to stop it in an alliance with other European countries, and not alone.
      And to those who believe that this is not our business, then why the hell did France actively interfere in our showdown with the Turks?
      Russia was quite happy with Europe with independent countries, but not at all in Russia's interests EuropeFrance under Napoleon's control.

      For this, on June 27, 1807, Alexander I awarded Napoleon with the highest award of the Russian Empire - the Order of the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called?

      By the way, on the same day, in addition to the highest order, Napoleon received the 3rd most important award of the Russian Empire - the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky.
      By the way, in addition to Napoleon, the Russian emperor awarded his brother Jerome, two marshals and diplomat Talleyrand.
    2. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 10 January 2021 18: 10
      +3
      Quote: Khibiny Plastun
      The author writes nonsense. Russia, like other European powers, was not satisfied that Holland, Italy, Switzerland, part of the German lands were already France. Alexander perfectly understood that the First Consul, who had jumped to the imperial throne, did not know a sense of proportion. Napoleonamans, remind you about the Bois de Boulogne? That "peace-loving" Bonaparte, not having time to become emperor, immediately began to prepare for war. And it is better to stop it in an alliance with other European countries, and not alone.
      And to those who believe that this is not our business, then why the hell did France actively interfere in our showdown with the Turks?
      Russia was quite happy with Europe with independent countries, but not at all in Russia's interests EuropeFrance under Napoleon's control.


      I think you are right. But of course there is a rational grain in the article. Namely, that Russia should not unconditionally follow the trajectory indicated by the pseudo-allies in countering France.

      Russia had to more rigidly defend its own interests. And Alexander I did not do it. In particular, he: 1) fought in Europe at the expense of Russia, not at the expense of the allies; 2) he did not achieve the weakening of the obviously dangerous Austria and Prussia; 3) he did not impose a huge indemnity on defeated France (as Bismarck later did in favor of his German people). You can still enumerate after Alexander I for a long time everything that characterizes him by no means as a patriot of his country.
    3. Tavrik
      Tavrik 10 January 2021 23: 39
      +2
      We remember about the Bois de Boulogne. Read better about Britain's role in anti-French coalitions since the French Revolution.
      And to those who believe that this is not our business, then why the hell did France actively interfere in our showdown with the Turks?

      And how did she interfere with Napoleon? Rather, the Turks and I intervened in anti-French coalitions. "Ships storm the bastions" remember?
      Later, Napoleon proposed to Alexander to establish control over the straits together in order to maintain a balance of interests of both empires. By the way, he did not remember about Turkey.
  • vlad.baryatinsky
    vlad.baryatinsky 10 January 2021 14: 25
    0
    Author!
    Thank you!
  • A_Lex
    A_Lex 10 January 2021 14: 49
    +1
    I always looked at Russia ... the dream of a Franco-Russian alliance ... They write to each other almost love letters, flatter each other, and plan great projects. ... they hit me in St. Petersburg ... like a soldier's rough love ... the terrible envy of Alexander ... Alexander hated him ... thought to make friends with Alexander ... Morkov got on Napoleon's nerves


    A typical article from the "Story for Housewives" series. Dreams, emotions, psychology, secret meetings under the moon, languid glances, affectionate strokes. All actions, as in any high-quality melodrama, are strictly subordinated to one goal - a wedding, after which the lovers live happily ever after. And here we have a melodrama exactly the opposite. Because Alexander and Napoleon did not get married, but on the contrary, they quarreled in a splash, the brilliant union did not take place, the housewives are indignant.

    In general, for the bourgeois point of view of any social science, the exaltation of emotions and psychology is typical. The result is a feeling that the people, like a child, are told an exciting tale of love and hate... RF this the brain-composting effect of treating an adult as a child of course, he did not pass and expressed himself in the constant practice of interpreting the perlitz pose, hints of perlitz, the movement of the perlitz eyebrows, the position of the laces on the shoes of the perlitz and other extremely important details and subtleties that can tell a lot of secret things. Just as much as, for example, a lot of useful things can be told by Uranus, who recently moved to the sign of Taurus, with the obligatory indication that the Moon during this period is certainly in a state of exaltation, and Venus, of course, is in the fall, which of course is just as important for a full analysis of the situation, as well as the selected color of the perlitz tie.

    The reality is that Europe has always had a racist worldview, which determines its foreign policy. The notorious "Europe of two speeds" is not a phenomenon of the present time, but its typical, constant state. And within the framework of this paradigm, Russia for Europe has always been, is and will be a third world and third-rate country, with all the ensuing attitude towards it. And no fabulous alliances are able to reverse this trend. Therefore, for Russia, not a united Europe is beneficial, which is at enmity with each other. In this configuration, a divided Europe simply has less power left over to Russia.
    1. Moskovit
      Moskovit 10 January 2021 23: 14
      -1
      Good comparison)). But our leadership still repeats the words about "Western partners" like a mantra. He thinks that Germans, French, Italians (emphasize the right) love us.
      1. A_Lex
        A_Lex 11 January 2021 02: 20
        0
        our management


        Ours are those who in fact share our point of view on how the world should work.
      2. Fat
        Fat 14 January 2021 10: 14
        0
        Alexey, while the confrontation is within the "framework", all opponents are partners. Be it chess, checkers, poker or preference. It is not at all necessary to love "partners". They become enemies only when already "a chessboard over the ears" or "a candlestick over the faces" ... laughing
  • Xenofont
    Xenofont 10 January 2021 16: 08
    +4
    The characters of both Pavel and Alexander were formed, among other things, as a result of family troubles and a difficult childhood. Catherine treated her son badly, seeing in him the features of her husband and tried to protect her grandson from the influence of Paul, in fact depriving Alexander of his parents. This is why both father and son have such a psychological breakdown, self-affirmation as an end in itself.
    1. Petr Vladimirovich
      Petr Vladimirovich 10 January 2021 18: 05
      +3
      Someone scolds Pavel, someone Alexander. And in vain our Great Pugacheva Katya decided ...
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 10 January 2021 18: 03
    +3
    Quote: bober1982
    The author of the article, in my opinion, of course, is too straightforward and categorical in his judgments and conclusions.
    Alexander Pavlovich is a sphinx, unsolved to the grave. This was stated back in those days.

    It depends.
  • populist
    populist 10 January 2021 18: 13
    +2
    There is a very good book on this topic by the historian N. A. Troitsky "Alexander 1 and Napoleon".
  • vladcub
    vladcub 10 January 2021 20: 03
    +1
    Comrades, I invite you to the next "branch": interesting material on Albania
  • Tavrik
    Tavrik 10 January 2021 22: 08
    0
    Good article. That was how it was. We are waiting for an article about Alexander's military preparations for a new war, after Friedland.
    In general, the trip to India was exotic, but not unpromising.
  • Igor Litvin
    Igor Litvin 11 January 2021 10: 54
    +1
    Quote: Stas157
    Quote: Proxima
    When Russia was forced to join the economic blockade of England, losing huge losses - did it meet the interests of Russia?

    Can you tell us more about the huge losses? Russia that sold gas to the British ??

    Considering that the then "super dry cargo ships" were wooden and sailed, they could not create huge traffic, as well as huge losses from the lack of trade with the islanders.

    From 1809 to 1812, as a result of the termination of trade with England, the deficit of the Russian budget increased 4 (!) Times. The reason for this is that Russia was essentially a platform through which the European powers supplied the "sanction system" bypassing Napoleonic bans and vice versa. Prior to that, the export of RI to England accounted for 90% of all Russian exports, and the export of England to RI - 45% of all British exports. RI - was essentially an offshore, of course earning on this "contrabass". The price paid for this was the catastrophic devastation of the western provinces.
  • Sychev Vitalii
    Sychev Vitalii 14 February 2021 13: 03
    0
    Definitely, like boobies, they fought for the interests of Britain ...
  • Illanatol
    Illanatol April 7 2021 08: 54
    0
    For whose interests?
    Not for the interests of Russia. And not even for the interests of England or Prussia.
    Because in a class society "national interests" exist only as a fiction. There are only the interests of the elite (financial, mainly), which it passes off as "national" more or less successfully.
    For the elite, their own people are just two-legged cattle. What can we say about other peoples.