Austerlitz: local battles

Napoleon accepts Mack's surrender at Ulm. Charles Thévenin (1764-1838). Versailles

We are the fighters of the great rati!
Together we will go to battle.
Unafraid of stupid curses
A difficult path to happiness for the brethren
Boldly break through with your chest!
Youth, bright hopes
You are always fulfilled:
There will be many trials
A lot of hard work.
Our forces are young
We must connect
So that dear hopes,
To defend the faith.
(D. Merezhkovsky, August 1881)

Greatest battles stories. So, the Great Army set out on a campaign, somewhere out there, in a foreign land, to fight the armies of Austria and Russia, bought by England for English gold. The organization of the promotion of such huge masses of people was impeccable. So, the corps of Marshal Bernadotte moved from Hanover to Würzburg. Moreover, he had to go through the territory of the principality of Ansbach, which belonged to the jurisdiction of Prussia.

Mediocrity and talents

Marshal Marmont's corps moved from Holland and also to Würzburg. Thus, 60 people were gathered on the left flank of the French army. Now both corps began to move towards Munich.

The other corps surrounded Ulm step by step, where Field Marshal-Lieutenant Baron Mack von Leiberich was waiting for them, with 60 men under his command. Napoleon had the opportunity to meet him in Paris, where he was as a prisoner of war, and spoke about him like this:

“Mack is the most mediocre person I've met. Filled with conceit and pride, he considers himself capable of anything. Now he is meaningless; but it would be desirable to be sent against one of our good generals; then you would have to see enough interesting things. Mac is arrogant, that's all; he is one of the most incapable of people, and in addition he is still unhappy. "

It's amazing how fate still disposes of people: very often at first it raises mediocre people high, so that later ... they can be thrown into the mud. And this is one of the illustrative examples.

J. Rava. Austrian infantry in 1805 Jaegers on the left, grenadiers on the right

Meanwhile, Marshal Ney defeated the Austrians in the battle at Elchingen, for which he later received the ducal title, and this victory made it possible to lock the Austrian army of Mack in Ulm. True, part of the troops escaped from the encirclement, including the cavalry. Murat was sent in pursuit of them. Nevertheless, 25 Austrians still remained trapped in Ulm, and on October 000, Makk's nerves broke down, on October 17 he and his 20 people. capitulated, while Napoleon was handed over 25 guns and 000 banners. True, Archduke Ferdinand and General Schwarzenberg, who were in Ulm, with 60 thousand cavalrymen were able to break out of the encirclement at night and went to Bohemia. Napoleon on October 40, in his address to the troops, wrote:

“Soldiers of the Great Army, I promised you a great battle. However, thanks to the bad actions of the enemy, I was able to achieve the same successes without any risk ... In fifteen days we completed the campaign. "

Mack flees. Print. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford

The disaster that happened was a real shame for the Austrians. Makka Napoleon released, and he returned to his own, was deprived of ranks and awards, sentenced to 20 years in prison. Only in 1819 did he receive a pardon, after which he retired and died in 1828 in St. Pölten.

Another English caricature of Mack. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford

Then Murat overtook General Werneck and forced him to surrender with 8000 men, 50 cannons and 18 banners.

The surrender of Mack's army at Ulm was too resonant an event. So a lot of cartoons were drawn on him. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford

Blow after blow and another blow!

Archduke Johann was overtaken by the French, along with artillery, wagons and a thousand soldiers, and then taken prisoner on October 20 in Furth, near Nuremberg. That is, the Austrian army was melting like spring snow under the sun ...

However, there were some disappointing news for Napoleon. So, on November 1, he learned about the lost Battle of Trafalgar. And then he could not do anything. But, having learned about the surrender of the Austrians in Ulm, the king of Prussia, already very hesitant about choosing which side to take, was completely confused, did not dare to join the anti-French coalition and left all the military preparations that had been started.

Admiral Nelson. Abbott, Lemuel Francis (1760-1802). National Maritime Museum

Meanwhile, Napoleon, continuing to build on his success, sent Ney's 6th corps along with Augereau's 7th corps to Tyrol.

Accordingly, the 1st and 2nd corps of Bernadotte and Marmont, together with the Bavarians, covered his right flank, and in the center were Murat and Davout, Soult and the Guards, who were marching on Vienna.

Meissonier, Jean-Louis-Ernest (1815-1891). Napoleon and his headquarters. Wallace collection. London

As for Lann's 5th Corps, he covered the left flank. The Austrians, retreating, left him the city of Braunau with all the warehouses.

True, the Austrian troops of Kienmeier and Merfeldt remained, which began to move to join with Kutuzov, who, in turn, did not go towards Vienna, but went to Moravia to join the Buxgewden corps.

Napoleon pays tribute to the courage of soldiers after the Battle of Ulm, Debre, Jean-Baptiste (1768-1848). Marmottan Monet Museum, Paris

Persecutor and persecuted

Meanwhile, Napoleon reached Linz on November 4, and already on the 6th ordered Marshal Mortier to take command of the temporary corps created on the left bank of the Danube. Under his command were: Gazan's division, which crossed the Danube at Linz, and the divisions of Dupont and Dumonceau, who were marching down the river towards him. On the left side of the Danube, Mortier thus had 16 people. With these forces he had to cut off the path to the north for Kutuzov. In any case, the road to Vienna was now open for the French, and this was the most important thing for Napoleon.

At that time, Kutuzov had 40 people. under the leadership of Bagration, Dokhturov, Maltitsa, Miloradovich and Essen. The Quartermaster General of his army was the Austrian Field Marshal Lieutenant Schmitt, a highly competent staff officer. Kutuzov, knowing that Mortier had only one division under his command, decided to attack it and destroy it before the main forces arrived. The plan of attack was developed by Schmitt, who suggested that Miloradovich's troops attack Gazan's division from the front, while the rest of the forces had to make a roundabout maneuver, go behind her and cut off all escape routes.

And on November 11, a fierce battle broke out on the left bank of the Danube. Everything went according to plan, and Gazan's division suffered heavy losses, but then Dupont's division came to her aid. Field Marshal-Lieutenant Schmitt himself was killed in battle, and instead of him another Austrian, Major General Weyrother, was appointed to the post of Quartermaster General Kutuzov.

After that, Kutuzov continued to retreat in the direction of Brunn (present-day Brno), towards the second Russian army marching from Russia.

Joachim Murat. Gerard, François Pascal Simon (1767-1815). Versailles

Meanwhile, Murat approached the gates of Vienna, tricked him into capturing the Taborsky bridge across the Danube. And ... Vienna capitulated! Napoleon entered the city and, together with his guards, settled in the Schönbrunn Palace. Murat was ordered to continue pursuit of Kutuzov, and Marmont to cut the road to Italy, passing through the mountains. As for the booty taken from the arsenals of Vienna, the only thing that could be said about it was that it was simply ... "huge."

Murat, meanwhile, decided to attack the Russian rearguard under the command of Bagration and threw Oudinot's grenadiers and Legrand's light infantry into the attack. At the same time, Oudinot was once again very seriously wounded, it was not for nothing that he was nicknamed the most wounded Marshal of France, and was out of action. Bagration in that battle lost 1200 people, 12 cannons and more than a hundred carts, but managed to ensure the retreat of Kutuzov. This is exactly the very moment that was described by Leo Tolstoy in the novel "War and Peace", where the action of the battery of Captain Tushin near the village of Shengraben was shown. In general, the opponents dispersed and now could prepare for a decisive battle.

Napoleon in front of Austerlitz. Illustration by J. Rav

Napoleon chose the town of Brunn as his headquarters, but both allied emperors, his opponents, settled in Olmutz. Thus, all the conditions were created for the upcoming battle at Austerlitz. And this battle was supposed to be the decisive event of the Great Game, in which only three emperors played with the lives of tens of thousands of people!

To be continued ...

Comments

[apro]

So, the Great Army set out on a campaign, somewhere out there, in a foreign land, to fight the armies of Austria and Russia, bought by England for English gold. 

Sometimes strange things are given out by Mr. Shpakovsky. Both Austrians and Russian mercenaries get it. But what about the interests of the country ?????????????????????????????? ???????????????????
Austerlitz. Is the pinnacle of Napoleon's military leadership. In fact, he won by maneuvering. Leading an offensive on a wide front. And creating an advantage in the right place. And as they say, one head is good ... and two sometimes not very much.

[Hunter 2]

Quote: apro

Sometimes strange things are given out by Mr. Shpakovsky. Both Austrians and Russian mercenaries get it. But what about the interests of the country ?????????????????????????????? ???????????????????

It's not entirely clear what exactly confused you ??? This is one of the main points of view, Alexander was discouraged from this "event" for a long time. Kutuzov (Hero of the War of 1812) was categorically against the battle and the campaign itself in particular.
Nobody begs for Napoleon's talent for leadership ... however, seven years have passed ... and everything has changed.

[apro]

Quote: Hunter 2

It's not entirely clear what exactly confused you ???

So it turns out that Napoleon is not an aggressor. He had no reason to trudge to Austria and give battle. But there were opponents, and they were not at all disinterested.

[Hunter 2]

Quote: apro

So it turns out that Napoleon is not an aggressor. He had no reason to trudge to Austria and give battle. But there were opponents, and they were not at all disinterested.

With his aggressive policy, the French emperor turned the monarchs of the leading European powers against him. In forming an alliance designed to end Napoleon's dominance in the geopolitical arena, they wanted not only to defend their territories, but also to redraw the map of Europe.
In addition to the allies, EVERYONE had their own interests.

[apro]

Quote: Hunter 2

With his aggressive policy, the French emperor

First, the French are attacked, and then they are accused of an aggressive policy. Everything is correct, everything goes, and it should be so.

Quote: Hunter 2

ALL had their own interests.

Of course, the Englishmen gave subsidies to each individual.

Quote: Hunter 2

ALL had their own interests.

When the Emperor Pavel1 calculated these interests, he came to a disappointing conclusion .... but what are the Russians doing there in general ??? fought for Malta .. the British got it. Fought in Italy .. the domination of the Austrians was established. Crushed trade with the French ... they received profits honey agarics still English .. what are we fighting for ??? the most difficult question in history.

[Hunter 2]

Quote: apro

... the Englishmen got honey agarics ... what are we fighting for ??? the most difficult question in history.

the Russian Empire had obligations to protect the sovereignty of Germany, which the British took advantage of. In the spring of 1805, Russia and England concluded a military convention, the Russians were to deploy about 200 thousand soldiers, and the British pledged to pay them a subsidy of £ 2 million and take part in naval battles and the blockade.
Nobody canceled allied obligations.

[apro]

Quote: Hunter 2

the Russian Empire had obligations to protect the sovereignty of Germany,

Yes ??? and for some reason they ended up in Austria. Prussia's sovereignty was violated by Prussia itself. Which declared war on Napoleon.

Quote: Hunter 2

In the spring of 1805, Russia and England concluded a military convention, the Russians were supposed to send about 200 thousand soldiers, and the British were obliged to pay them a subsidy of 2 million pounds sterling

Bought means ... we are fighting for the loot.

[kalibr]

Quote: apro

Bought means ... we are fighting for the loot.

What surprises you? This has happened more than once. Both we and others fought many times for this money and loans. Gold chains are stronger than iron, gold binds stronger than blood! And after Tilsit we became allies of Napoleon and sent troops to help him. An expeditionary force of 32 was sent to Eastern Galicia. And although they did not succeed much in that, they even acquired something in the sense of land ownership. Ternopil seems to be a volost. But not for long.

[apro]

Quote: kalibr

What surprises you?

And the cries are surprising. That we are doing a holy deed. We defend the saint. And we justify the relative lack of principle. Russians can attack Napoleon, but he cannot.

[kalibr]

Quote: apro

we are surprised by the cry. that we are doing a holy deed. we defend the saint. and we justify the relative lack of principle. Russians can attack Napoleon, but he cannot.

You, Oleg, sometimes write very sensible things. I already told you this once yesterday. Now I repeat. Bravo! I'll tell you one more secret: Suvorov wore an Austrian, not Russian uniform during the Italian campaign. The uniform of an Austrian general ... Not patriotic at all, right?

[apro]

Quote: kalibr

Not patriotic at all, right?

No, it’s okay for those times. The king sent him under the command of the Austrians. And they gave him a uniform ... to observe the chain of command.

[Tavrik]

Napoleon needed land

There were probably several reasons for wearing the Austrian uniform:
1. Security. Not every Austrian soldier knew what a Russian uniform looked like, they could have taken for a Frenchman at forward posts, and Suvorov loved to travel everywhere. A sort of recognition "friend / foe".
2. Expression of respect for allies.
3. Well, yes, the observance of the chain of command.

[Bar1]

Quote: kalibr

Suvorov in the Italian campaign wore not a Russian, but an Austrian uniform

and why was it not known in Soviet times? We didn’t talk about it.
"We are Russian, what a delight," and he himself is in someone else's uniform, here is a kozel. And Russian lives are not put right and left for other people's interests.
However, what to expect from him, from this suppressor of the Polish, Pugachev wars, Suvorov carried out the genocide of the Crimean population of the Crimea, so this "Russian" was still the same.

[3x3zsave]

Perhaps Suvorov was partially responsible for the "Prague massacre", but he saved Warsaw from the fate of the "Magdeburg wedding".

[Catfish]

Hi, hello.

Perhaps Suvorov is partially responsible for the "Prague massacre"

The commander is always responsible for the actions of his subordinates. But, in that situation, it is unlikely that Suvorov had any other choice.

[3x3zsave]

But, in that situation, it is unlikely that Suvorov had any other choice.
I think so. The units that broke into Prague lost control even at the company level. The brutality of the soldiers, according to eyewitnesses, was akin to that of Izmail.
Hi Uncle Kostya!

[Catfish]

The brutality of the soldiers, according to eyewitnesses, was akin to that of Izmail.

Well, apparently the Poles have tried very hard. I don’t know the details, but our peasant needs a special talent to lose his temper.

[3x3zsave]

We tried. Googled "Warsaw Matins" ...
When entering Warsaw, Suvorov refused to take people who served under Ingelstrom.

[Catfish]

I vaguely remember something, I will definitely look.

[VLR]

So I wrote about this here - and about the "Warsaw Matins", and the "Prague Massacre". Very popular articles - the first has more than 107 thousand views, the second has more than 124 thousand.
And he also wrote about the "invincible army of English golden sacks" - in the article "Two Gasconades of Joachim Murat" (this article, by the way, supplements this one by V. Shpakovsky)

[Catfish]

Hello Valery.
So I just got into the Internet, so I immediately remembered what could be done if there was cyclrosis.

[gsev]

Quote: 3x3zsave

Perhaps Suvorov is partially responsible for the "Prague massacre"

Some kind of humane slaughter. Several hundred prisoners were taken, and almost all of them were released a few days after the surrender of Warsaw in response to the request of the Polish king to release his officer. It seems that Suvorov answered this request something like this. "Why one, letting go of a hundred, is not 300, but all 500, let it be 100 for even counting, why waste time on trifles, all freedom!"

[astra wild2]

Good day. Colleague Bar, who do you think is good Russian: Fomenko or Pyzhykov, or maybe you forgot someone else?

[Witness 45]

It is very stupid to evaluate from today's concepts in the moral aspect of Suvorov's actions at that time, he was in the service of the Russian state, any actions against the authorities, the state at all times and everywhere were suppressed by force, did I discover America?

[Bar1]

Quote: Svidetel 45

It is very stupid to evaluate from today's concepts in the moral aspect of Suvorov's actions at that time, he was in the service of the Russian state, any actions against the authorities, the state at all times and everywhere were suppressed by force, did I discover America?

it is from your point of view that any action can be assessed from any position, but let me remind you that already in those days there were such concepts as Fatherland, Motherland and the honor of the uniform, and the war of 1812 was 1 Patriotic War. It seems that for Suvorov these concepts were empty words, as well as for you.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Bar1

and why was it not known in Soviet times? We didn’t talk about it.
"We are Russian, what a delight," and he himself is in someone else's uniform, here is a kozel. And Russian lives are not put right and left for other people's interests.
However, what to expect from him, from this suppressor of the Polish, Pugachev wars, Suvorov carried out the genocide of the Crimean population of the Crimea, so this "Russian" was still the same.

About the fact that Alexander Vasilyevich, during the Italian campaign, did not shy away from wearing an "Austrian camisole", I read just in the ZhZL of the Soviet era. The same is written even in a children's book (the crimson cover, I forgot the title of the series). However, he was awarded the title, pension and title of the Austrian Empire.
Now about the genocide of the Crimean Tatars. So for the sake of erudition, I will remind you that the last descendants of the Goths on the Crimean land were massacred by the "good Tatars" two weeks before it was taken. Is this also a humanitarian action?
For all his features, being reputed to be an eccentric, Suvorov showed a rare flair in national politics with nomadic peoples. The opposition between the Krymchaks and the Nagays and the North Caucasian peoples had a long-term positive result. Since the "Krymchaks" themselves had a "bad" glory.
The Pugachev uprising, you completely dragged it into the wrong topic. Alexander Vasilyevich did not manage to "suppress" the riot. Cope with his active participation.
On the other hand, your "paradigm" to try on modern "tolerance" or "humanity" to the events of two centuries ago is touching. Then everything was simpler the Kazan Tatar was already his own, the Crimean - a stranger, the Nagai even worse - the devil knows whose!

[gsev]

Quote: Bar1

, Suvorov carried out the genocide of the Crimean population of Crimea, so this "Russian" was still one.

Probably just Suvorov forced the former slave-raiders to learn peaceful coexistence with their former victims.

[Pane Kohanku]

I'll tell you one more secret: Suvorov wore an Austrian, not Russian, uniform during the Italian campaign. The uniform of the Austrian general ...

I can't say for the campaign, but during his return to Russia, he repeatedly expressed the idea that he intends to appear before Paul in the uniform of an Austrian field marshal, which finally pissed off the monarch. It seems that with all the negative attitude towards the Austrian allies (including towards Archduke Karl), Suvorov still intended to continue the war. It seems that he even conducted some kind of behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Austrians about this. But after Zurich, Paul was no longer eager to wage war, disappointed in the actions of the "allies". In general, the speeches of Alexander Vasilyevich played the role of the last nail in the coffin of the relationship between him and the emperor. Suvorov tried and tried to "bring" Paul, and finally he succeeded ...
Interesting caricature. As far as I understand, the dressed-up Mack on the left, in the center the Frenchman is going to swell the Russian (judging by the color of his uniform), on the right - a red-haired and fat-faced Englishman withering over gold, a kind of John Bull.

[Korsar4]

As a matter of fact, in War and Peace it is brilliant and shown.
And the words are simple. And they are remembered - you can't cut it out.

[Hunter 2]

I immediately remember the monologue of Prince Andrew of their "War and Peace"
Excellent, who analyzed in detail the prerequisites created before the battle, we are waiting for the continuation!
Shpakovsky Firm Five for the article, special Respect for the published cartoons!

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

I join Alexey - the article was a success!
On my own note.

However, there were some disappointing news for Napoleon. So, on November 1, he learned about the lost Battle of Trafalgar.

The defeat from the emperor was hidden for a long time!

[Catfish]

Vlad, welcome and join.

However, there were some disappointing news for Napoleon. So, on November 1, he learned about the lost Battle of Trafalgar.
The defeat from the emperor was hidden for a long time!

Trafalgar, this is not even a defeat, but a real pogrom. Napoleon had excellent marshals, but he was clearly unlucky with admirals.

"The allies (France and Spain) lost 18 ships (one was sunk, the rest were captured) and about 15 thousand people killed, wounded and surrendered. The British captured or sank almost the entire allied fleet, without losing a single ship. Losses in killed and wounded amounted to they have about 2 thousand people. Many English ships were damaged "(c)

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Sea Cat

Napoleon had excellent marshals, but he was clearly unlucky with admirals.

Good day!
The opposite can be said about the British. Who had admirals, but did not have worthy generals.

[Catfish]

So, probably, this is the difference between continental and island powers.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

The opposite can be said about the British. Who had admirals, but did not have worthy generals.

What's wrong with Sir Arthur Wellesley?

[vladcub]

Good afternoon. Kostya, by and large, there are no good frogs and admirals. In addition to La Perouse, others do not immediately remember

[Catfish]

Glory hi .
Yes, and in my memory, besides La Perouse, only Jules Sebastien César Dumont-D'Urville comes to my mind, but although he was an admiral, he was still a traveler and explorer.

[vladcub]

I forgot about him

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Not guys, the French had in history worthy admirals and gallant captains, but Napoleon is not corny with them "pearl"!

[Catfish]

The captains were, I do not argue, Jean Bar, for example.

But honestly, I don’t remember the admirals. Well, except for the aforementioned ones, but they are not famous for battles. Yes, there was also Admiral Coligny, but he also became famous not by sea battles.

[Korsar4]

Doesn't Bougainville count?

[Catfish]

Quite right, Comte Louis Antoine de Bougainville. But he is also a "combat" admiral, a traveler and explorer.

[Korsar4]

Of course he is remembered for the first French trip around the world.
Both Bougainville Island and the Bougainvillea plant are reminiscent of it.

But in the war for the independence of the United States, he was noted.

[Catfish]

Kosciuszko, bastard, also checked in there. Another stupidity that Paul I did
there was a pardon for this "national hero" and inspirer of the "Warsaw Matins".

[gsev]

Quote: Sea Cat

it is not even a defeat, but a real pogrom.

Among the French, Robert Surcouf was able to develop effective tactics against the English fleet, combining a long-range duel with rapid boarding. French ships had more long-range artillery, the British more powerful in close combat corona. However, Napoleon was unable to convince him to join the Navy. Apparently Surkuf insisted on changing tactics and switching to cruising semi-partisan operations. Napoleon did not dare to entrust his fleet into the hands of a man who had not completed his career and was not recognized and not certified by his admirals. Surkuf apparently had a low opinion of these admirals. For some reason, the Teaching Law comes to mind. How will recognized administrators certify the new Landau and Vavilovs? Especially if they, like the old ones, are noticed in the organization of opposition propaganda and close contacts with the West.

[Catfish]

Napoleon did not dare to entrust his fleet into the hands of a man who had not completed his career and was not recognized and not certified by his admirals.

And geniuses have mistakes. You are right, the French admirals, numb in their ignorance, have turned from naval commanders into banal administrators.

[vladcub]

Namesake, V.O. it is interesting to read this undeniably.

[Korsar4]

All the same, "some primers" affect. And there is no way to get away from this. And that's not bad.

[Free wind]

With whom did Nelson become an admiral? So he's a vice admiral. He did not have his right hand. We often wrote that Nelson wore an eye patch. He was wounded in the eye, but he seemed to be left with an eye. Maybe the eye hurt, maybe the salt was eating away at the wound. Napolemon may be a commander, just for me, he is on a par with Hitler, and all sorts of khans.

[apro]

Quote: Free Wind

Napolemon may be a commander, only for me, he is on a par with Hitler,

Can you explain why?

[Free wind]

They came to our land, to seize our land, destroying our people.

[apro]

Quote: Free Wind

They came to our land, to seize our land, destroying our people.

Napoleon needed land ... or maybe it would force the Russian ruler to fulfill his obligations. Russians for 10 years constantly got involved in wars with Napolon for Angian loot.

[Free wind]

The Germans scattered leaflets, "We have come to free you from the Bolsheviks." So the guardians could happily explain. That your king is not behaving like a boy, he is not responsible for the market, and so on. We will knock him on a pumpkin and leave in peace. However, they robbed, and killed, and raped, and burned.

[apro]

Quote: Free Wind

However, they robbed, and killed, and raped, and burned.

Just like the Russians in Europe before the year 12, so then wars were fought on all sides.

Quote: Free Wind

The Germans scattered leaflets, "We have come to free you from the Bolsheviks."

The Russians eventually freed themselves from the Bolsheviks, albeit with the same material losses.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Free Wind

The Germans scattered leaflets, "We have come to free you from the Bolsheviks."

About leaflets!
Proclamations, bulletins and leaflets were used very, very successfully during the Napoleonic Wars.
At least during the capture of the Bonaparte (Bourbon) and Ile-de-Franz islands, the British distributed leaflets and cartoons among the local militia and Irish rebels (the latter were part of the army defending the island).

[Tavrik]

Napoleon needed land

Need not. Do not believe me - look what happened to the land of Austria or Prussia, which repeatedly suffered defeats from France. In some cases, even the ruling dynasties remained in power.

[kalibr]

Quote: Free Wind

With whom did Nelson become an admiral?

Alexander! Since then, he became one, as in this material he turned out to be a minor character. In the description of minor characters, accuracy is not required.

[Free wind]

I understand you perfectly.

[vladcub]

The wind, today I "aggravated" a little and therefore I do not cut in: what do Nelson, Napoleon and Hitler have in common?

[Cartalon]

Too frivolous tone of presentation, unacceptably categorical statements, biased in favor of one side, in short, weak.

[faterdom]

The Austrians, of course, those "generals" turned out to be, apparently, some kind of negative selection went on for several decades.
But there was someone to learn from: Suvorov had many successful campaigns with them side by side, Napoleon was an enemy, but why not learn? Pride?
All the more unexpected 60 years later, the complete and effective defeat of the French by the German generals of Bismarck - it was a surprise for everyone.

[Sergey Valov]

The Austrians were a very worthy opponent, another question is that the French had Napoleon. However, in 1809 he also had a hard time.

[Trilobite Master]

I don’t know how to whom, but for me so, Alexander, choosing which side he to take - Napoleon and Britain - made the right choice. And in general, he played his game in this game beyond praise, skillfully over and over again turning Napoleon's victories on the battlefields into zilch, and eventually inflicting a military defeat on him.
Why was it necessary to support Britain? Yes, simply because the interests of the British and Russian empires overlapped much less than the Russian and French.
Let's imagine for a second that Napoleon and Alexander in an alliance finished off Britain. London is taken, a mighty fleet is deprived of bases in Europe, Napoleon reigns and directly controls all of Europe from Edinburgh and Lisbon to the Russian borders.
I'm scared. It seems that Russia in this situation could hardly claim even symbolic equality in tandem, the Russian tsar would simply become a vassal of the French emperor. In fact, it would have turned out even worse than during the negotiations in Tilsit, after the hardest military defeats, when Napoleon imposed his conditions on Russia, with the only difference that there would no longer be Britain, a potential ally of Russia.
The current Anglophobia, which is so popular in our time, is simply a tribute to fashion. Seen calmly and impartially, Britain has been Russia's most loyal and consistent ally in Europe over the past three hundred years. All the others were much worse. Yes, like everyone else, we periodically bit each other's heels and threw buttons into our shoes, but who is without sin? But when it was necessary to resist a serious, real threat, we did it always in alliance with Britain. They did their job at sea, we are on land.
In the case of Napoleon, to be honest, I don't really even understand how you can not see in him a more dangerous and close threat for Russia, for its development, prosperity, and maybe even for existence, than the same Britain.
Russia simply consistently and harshly destroyed its most dangerous enemy in the world political arena, skillfully using English gold for this.

[vladcub]

Misha, plus. We have the old-fashioned way: all kings are bad, only Peter is good, and Alexander is still cunning

[Trilobite Master]

Yes, it is "cunning".
It is generally accepted that the sequence with which Alexander finished off Napoleon was due to the personal insult that Napoleon inflicted on Alexander, hinting at his involvement in the murder of his father, but it seems to me that this reason could only be an excuse or an additional incentive, nothing more ...
Alexander, who, apparently, was a good strategist, saw his main task in eliminating a dangerous competitor on the European continent.
Russia was a continental empire, as was France, which was a direct competitor to Russia for influence in Europe. Unlike France, Britain was a maritime empire, its interests lay on a different plane, and until Russia advanced in the East (Near, Middle and Far) to such an extent as to come into contact with the spheres of influence of Britain in these regions, with She had nothing to share with Britain. But trade with her was very profitable.
Hence the choice of Alexander and this choice was the only correct one. And the persistence and consistency with which he followed this choice deserves only praise.
Anglophobia is very popular now, and there are significant reasons for this, but there is no need to project the current relations between Russia and Britain onto the political realities of two centuries ago.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Trilobite Master

It is generally accepted that the sequence with which Alexander finished off Napoleon was due to the personal insult that Napoleon inflicted on Alexander, hinting at his involvement in the murder of his father, but it seems to me that this reason could only be an excuse or an additional incentive, nothing more ...

As for a personal insult, I will smile a little comrades.
Both emperors took advantage of the "presence of the Prussian king on the hunt and the favor of Queen Louise." But the mate was put by Alexander, who was seen in the boudoir of the disgraced Josephine after the defeat of Napoleon.

[vladcub]

What a not good "boy" Alexander Pavlovich. He put horns on the Prussian king. Otherwise, I didn't think: my grandfather was better: he looked into his mouth, and his grandson defecates in his mouth.

[vladcub]

Misha, if we remove the projection on the past, what will the Samara artel and Kharluzhny say then? And hamsters, what to "eat"

[Tavrik]

Alexander, who, apparently, was a good strategist, saw his main task in eliminating a dangerous competitor on the European continent.

What is the competitor? For influence in Europe? Why do we need this influence? They didn’t influence before Peter the Great and nothing, they didn’t suffer.
Well, we got rid of a competitor in '14, so what? Really the heyday of RI happened? Not. It's just that Alexander could show off at the Vienna Congress and enthusiastically deal with the affairs of the small German principalities. This, of course, was more pleasant to him than to sort out the problems of Russia with murdered finances, peasant slavery and destroyed Moscow and other cities. To the development of industry, trade, etc. RI had no relationship. No strategy, just the personal ambitions of the monarch-autocrat.

[Sergey Valov]

Rather, France is Russia's natural ally. Between us, the German lands and Poland, there are no territorial disputes and claims and cannot be. And England, with its naval claims to dominance, was just pushing the Republic of Ingushetia and France to an alliance. But alas, the human factor intervened, and what happened happened.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Sergey Valov

Rather, France is Russia's natural ally. Between us, the German lands and Poland, there are no territorial disputes and claims and cannot be

At the time of the reign of Alexander - Rzecz Pospolita (Duchy of Warsaw), no one needed a stub. I am afraid that it was precisely our mistake to join it as a result of the Napoleonic Wars. Germanic lands are a jumble of kingdoms, duchies and free cities. It was Napoleon's invasion that gave impetus to the formation of the national German idea.
So the alliance was logical between a strong Prussia and a strong Russia within the borders of 1914. But alas, it was not possible. We know what this led to.

[3x3zsave]

So the alliance was logical between a strong Prussia and a strong Russia within the borders of 1914.
But could Germany trust RI after December 1877?

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

As we are to them Anton!
For 14 years, we had no geopolitical claims to each other. Do not take Poland seriously. Which in its entirety was needed by both empires as "the fifth leg of a dog"!

[3x3zsave]

Vlad, at the beginning of December of the mentioned year, the government of the Republic of Ingushetia frankly threw Germany and Austria, which were considered allies at that time.
We know what this led to.

[Hunter 2]

Anton Vladislav on the other hand, the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856 provided for guarantees of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire from Great Britain and France. Direct participants in the war. The openly hostile position taken by them ... Of the great powers, Russia only maintained friendly relations with Prussia. So that everything could be.

[3x3zsave]

Alexey!
So that everything could be.
It could, but it did not. Because of the petty vindictiveness of the highest administrative caste and the general social "spectacle" of the "war against all".
As a result: "Russia has only two allies: its army and its fleet" (c)
As it turned out later, the navy and the army were in the same state as foreign policy.

[Hunter 2]

Anton, as they say, History has no subjunctive mood, but too many factors were intertwined at that moment (all the main World players). In my opinion, the industrial revolution in Russia began earlier, we were completely indifferent to any unions.
I'll go to discuss salting caviar in the subject of Suvorov porridge.

[3x3zsave]

With salting of caviar and red fish, it is always easier than with geopolitics ...
There was a case of early childhood, 30 years ago, a bucket of salmon was badly salted ...

[Sergey Valov]

“No one needed a stub” - for Napoleon, this stub supplied quite good soldiers and was a buffer against Russia after the establishment of hegemony in Central Europe.
“The mistake of its annexation following the results of the Napoleonic Wars” - I also consider it a mistake, it would be better if the borders remained after the third partition of Poland.
As for a strong Prussia, I do not agree, it is safer to have weak neighbors. This is without an afterthought about the united Germany. All of Europe the mishmash in the German lands was beneficial, but alas, the process of their unification was inevitable.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Sergey Valov

Rather, France is Russia's natural ally.

“Was,” you probably mean. It seems to me that exactly the opposite. It was precisely for the influence on Central Europe that the struggle was going on.

Quote: Sergey Valov

England with its maritime claims

she could not push Russia to do anything, since the main interests of the Russian Empire lay very far from the seas and oceans.

[Sergey Valov]

“It was precisely for the influence on Central Europe that the struggle was going on” - that's all true, but the struggle between France and England. What did Russia need there?
“I couldn’t push Russia to do anything” - Are you kidding? But what about the good old proverb - "rowing heat with someone else's hands"?

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Sergey Valov

What did Russia need there?

In Europe, then? Lands, people, money. Weird question. Alexander, for example, has tidied up Finland for himself.

Quote: Sergey Valov

But what about the good old proverb - "rowing heat with someone else's hands"?

There is a proverb. And there was no situation to which it could be applied. Russia decided their problems for English money.

[Sergey Valov]

"Here, Finland has cleaned up for himself" - we would, harmfully, talked a little about another Europe
“Lands, people, money” - they occupied Berlin and East Prussia, and then returned them, because problems are more profitable.
"Russia solved its problems for English money." - In the Napoleonic period, exactly the opposite.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Sergey Valov

we, harmfully, would talk a little about another Europe

Okay, let's talk about that one.
1807 - annexed the Bialystok district, which was formerly in Prussia.
1809 - Tarnopol district was torn away from Austria
1812 - Bessarabia is taken from Turkey
What Russia got there following the results of the Vienna Congress - see for yourself.

Quote: Sergey Valov

“Lands, people, money” - they occupied Berlin and East Prussia, and then returned them, because problems are more profitable.

The problems are exclusively foreign policy. Would take away anyway. It is not good when someone alone is amplified too sharply, which, by the way, Napoleon felt so well in his own skin. Or Nicholas I during the Crimean War. Or Alexander II during the Russian-Turkish war, when they almost took Constantinople.
You have a kind of oversimplified understanding of politics.
In Napoleonic times, the main problem in Russia was called Napoleon Bonaparte. Do you really think that Europe, united under his scepter, would suddenly become sharply kinder and cease to be selfish and predatory, allowing Russia to develop calmly? I don't believe you can be that naive.
Defeat Napoleon England - Russia would be the next target, and very soon. Fighting a superpower such as a united Europe without allies is absolutely rotten, all the advantages would be on the side of Europe. We would be rolled back a hundred years ago, again depriving us of access to the sea, as in the time of Ivan the Terrible, turning, at best, into vassals and a raw material appendage, and at worst - by establishing direct control over us from Paris, or wherever Bonaparte would arrange the capital of the new Empire.
Alexander, apparently, understood this perfectly, in contrast to modern Anglophobes.

[Sergey Valov]

Napoleon was not able to unite Europe by crushing it under himself. Leaving England aside, Austria and Prussia remain of the major players. How many times has Austria lost wars, and what? Recovered very quickly. After the pogrom of 1806, Prussia resisted for another year together with Russia. And in 1813 she fought very well. The trouble for the coalitions until 1813 was the disunity of Napoleon's opponents, and in 1813 he was stupidly crushed in numbers. And to defeat England, it was necessary to land on the island, which the French did not shine from the word at all. And why did Napoleon have to go to Russia with so many problems?

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Sergey Valov

Why did Napoleon have to go to Russia with so many problems?

No, do you really think that two empires could exist peacefully, having a common long land border?
In my opinion, making such assumptions is the height of naivety.

[Sergey Valov]

And where does the common border come from?

[Trilobite Master]

Yes, that's the one along the Neman.
Bonaparte, fighting against numerous coalitions, by 1807 controlled Europe up to the borders of Russia. Spain ... Well, Spain for France was then like Poland for Russia - a suitcase without a handle. Sweden wagged "like a stock boat" and was ready to lie under anyone - the one who was stronger. Austria with all the German lands by 1807 lay under Bonaparte, already starting to enjoy this.
There would be no England - the border of Russia and France would quickly form from the Danube to the Baltic ...

[Sergey Valov]

Do you really know the story?
"A suitcase without a handle" - about half of the fleet that fought against the British at Trafalgar belonged to a "suitcase without a handle"
“By 1807 he controlled Europe” - see below.
"Austria with all German lands by 1807 lay under Bonaparte" - read about the 1809 campaign.
"England would not be" - but how "would not be?" Only without fantasies, taking into account the British fleet.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Sergey Valov

Do you really know the story?

No, I'm just not that naive and I look at certain events more broadly than you do, apparently, I just know more.
The conversation was initially about the fact that at the beginning of the XIX century. France was Russia's natural enemy on the European continent, and Britain was a natural ally. Do you continue to argue with this?
Do you think that Napoleon saw Russia as an equal partner and not a competitor for influence in Europe?
Do you think that the hypothetical (and possible) defeat of England in the fight against France, in the event that Russia took the side of the latter, would bring Russia any benefit?
Try to answer these questions before continuing to argue.

[Sergey Valov]

Be in your way.
"Britain is a natural ally" - I think the opposite.
"An equal partner, not a competitor for influence in Europe?" - rather, yes, because Russian influence in Europe was scanty, as were interests.
"England's defeat in the fight against France" - rather not, because for the balance of power in Europe, the more players, the better.

[Tavrik]

You wrote a noble nonsense. Continue ... About "Britain - the most loyal ally of Russia" especially delivered ...

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Tavrik

You wrote a noble nonsense. Continue ... About "Britain - the most loyal ally of Russia" especially delivered ...

Dear Tavrik, believe me, thinking in clichés is far from productive. Especially not knowing the realities of the events of days gone by. Taking part in the continental blockade, Russia inflicted damage on its industry and agriculture. We literally - economically at that time you were the only one jamming Britain and France. Being on the side of England, we fed, supplied and armed her at their expense. During this period, the second flourishing of the metallurgical industry began in the Urals, which poured cast iron and iron for the British fleet. Hemp, timber, potash were purchased in large quantities. We developed as a grain state.
Alexander's mistake is only one, there was no need to finish off Napoleon. But here it is a matter of honor for the company of 1812!

[Tavrik]

Taking part in the continental blockade, Russia inflicted damage on its industry and agriculture

Losses were borne by individual oligarchs, such as the Vorontsovs, but not the empire's budget. I can give you specific figures.

During this period, the second flourishing of the metallurgical industry began in the Urals, which poured cast iron and iron for the British fleet. Hemp, timber, potash were purchased in large volumes. We developed as a grain state.

Trade went not only with England, but also with France. And other countries. And the frenzied increase in military spending for the wars with Napoleon led to the disruption of the empire's finances.

Alexander's mistake is only one, there was no need to finish off Napoleon

There was only one mistake: there was no need to fight Napoleon at all. There were no contradictions between our countries. Generally. But, here Paul went to an alliance with France and was liquidated by the English lobby. Alexander was quick-witted and did not take risks.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Tavrik

You wrote a noble nonsense.

And you wrote a wretched one. So, as usually happens in disputes with ignoramuses, I won.

[Tavrik]

Well, Duc, "you can't praise yourself - you walk around like spit all day."

[depressant]

The fame of Admiral Nelson's connection with Emma Hamilton aroused interest in the portrait, and in the portrait, in turn, he was extremely interested in the plume)))
And here is what an extremely interesting story of this plume I learned on chips.net (user Varvara Lyutova).


"The diamond plume of Admiral Horatio Nelson became a legend during the life of the legendary naval commander. Nelson received this military insignia from the hands of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire after defeating the French fleet at the Battle of Aboukir and has never parted with it. The diamond plume became for Nelson a talisman. But for his descendants, he turned into a curse: each of their owners was in great trouble.
The three-day battle between English and French ships in the Gulf of Aboukir near the Nile, which took place from August 1 to 3, 1798, was the decisive battle of the powerful powers for influence in the region. Thanks to Admiral Nelson, the victory remained with the British: only 4 of the 17 French ships that participated in the battle remained afloat. For this victory, Nelson received an award not only from the British government, but also a high mark of military distinction from the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire - a diamond plume on his hat, which, according to rumors, the Sultan personally removed from his own turban and attached to the headdress of the British admiral.

The diamond plume was the size of a child's hand and decorated with 13 "feathers" - the number of French ships sunk by the admiral's squadron. In total, it was decorated with about 300 white diamonds. All his life, Nelson did not part with the plume, refusing to sell it even in the most difficult times. After the death of the admiral, the plume eventually ended up in the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, from where it was stolen shortly after World War II. Fortunately, the plume became part of Nelson's heraldic legacy after being awarded the peerage, and, like all such items, was carefully sketched. This detailed drawing, displaying the precious relic in every detail, was recently discovered in the museum's archives. From the drawing, an exact copy of the famous plume was made, which was shown at two exhibitions - in Portsmouth and in London.
The restoration of the plume caused a surge of interest in it from historians and publicists. A recent UK book on Nelson's Turkish Award reveals the dark side of the story. According to the author, Martin Downer, the plume played a grim role in the fate of its owners, including Nelson. According to Donner, it was he who became one of the reasons for the admiral's premature death.
Nelson adored the Sultan's award and did not miss a single opportunity to appear with her in public. However, Nelson was generally not indifferent to brilliance and usually came to official events, literally hung with his numerous awards. As the wife of one of the diplomats, who more than once met the admiral at social receptions, said, "the world has never seen a person so vain." Subsequently, Nelson made a copy of the famous plume and wore it even on the ship. According to some contemporaries, his death was indirectly connected with the Turkish award: an enemy sniper noticed him during the battle of Trafalgar because of the sparkling of diamonds on his hat.

The fascination with the Turkish premium plume, as well as the romance with the beautiful Emma Hamilton, and even with a living wife, cost Nelson the coldness and sharp rebuke of King George II - neither wearing foreign awards, nor, even more so, open adultery were not welcomed at the royal court. The apostasy to his wife and the extravagance of Emma cost the admiral dearly, but he categorically did not want to part with his plume. However, in the fall of 1805, he still thought about selling the jewelry - Nelson's money was frankly bad. But in October 1805, the admiral died in the Battle of Trafalgar. And his jewel, having remained with the heirs, soon acquired a fateful fame.

The first owner of the plume was Nelson's brother, William. Two years after receiving it, William lost his 19-year-old son to typhus. William himself lived long enough, but still died prematurely and not by his own death: he was hit by a horse. The jewel passed to William's daughter, Charlotte, and her son Alexander, who soon went bankrupt and had to sell the admiral's diamonds. The next owner of the plume, the banker Ayr Matham, quickly went bankrupt. The next owner of diamonds, Lady Sarita Barclay, apparently decided to end the curse by donating the plume to the National Maritime Museum. From there, she was stolen in 1951 by a professional burglar, George Chatham. The criminal was caught, but the plume could not be returned: according to Chatham, he sold it to an unknown person immediately after the robbery for a small amount. No traces of the fatal jewel have been found so far. "

[kalibr]

Great comment! Thank you, Lyudmila Yakovlevna. I read a lot about Nelson in both Russian and English, but I haven’t heard anything about this.

[depressant]

Yes, I was surprised when I saw this plume. Clearly oriental motives. And when I read his story, I decided that I should share it. I saw the photo. The thing is extremely intricately made, beautiful! And in the picture it looks primitive. Obviously, the photo was taken with the jewelry restored from the drawing. And it is unlikely that diamonds were used in the restoration. 300 natural - that's what the price would be! The Sultan was generous))))

[kalibr]

Quote: depressant

used diamonds. 300 natural - that's what the price would be! The Sultan was generous))))

Countless diamonds in stone caves, countless pearls in the midday sea ...

[3x3zsave]

"When I had mountains of gold,
And the rivers are full of wine "
(G. Nelson "To Emma")

[depressant]

Well, you can do it, Anton! I laughed for a long time, especially about this:

(G. Nelson "To Emma")

[Korsar4]

"The month was painted crimson"

(The same series of stamps).

[3x3zsave]

"Stamps" color life with new colors.

[Korsar4]

“Don't you confuse your personal coat with the state one” (c).

[vladcub]

V.O., when I read: "mediocrity and talents" I thought that there would be an analysis of abilities, but no. Only about Mac is said and that's it.
In my opinion, it would be better to write: "Loser Mac" or else, but closer to the text. And so the misleading turned out

[vladcub]

Q. O knows how to select epigraphs.

[Ryaruav]

as they wrote that the Italians were beaten by the eternally beaten Austrians

[Tavrik]

Author, you would at least bring a map of the campaign of 1805! There were so many interesting things. Not perceived without a card.