About the circumstances of Napoleon's flight from Russia

Z. Rozvadovsky. Napoleon in Smorgon.

There is a common belief that on the Berezina, that is, at the end of November 1812, Napoleon abandoned the remnants of his “great army” and ran away from Russia.

In fact, Napoleon dictated his last order in Russia on December 5 in the town of Smorgon, located approximately halfway between Minsk and Vilna (currently Smorgon is a city in Belarus).

Note that this last order should not be confused with the last bulletin (No. 29) about Napoleon’s campaign in Russia, compiled by Napoleon in Molodechno on December 3.

We know the contents of the order of December 5 from the memoirs of the ex-ambassador to Russia and close associate of Napoleon Armand Augustin Louis de Caulaincourt (not to be confused with his brother Auguste Jean Gabriel de Caulaincourt, the general who died at Borodino). These memoirs were published and republished in Russian in the part relating to Napoleon's Russian campaign (Caulaincourt A. Napoleon's campaign in Russia. M., 1943; 2002; 2016; 2022 / Smolensk, 1991 / M. – Tallinn, 1994; 2002). It is noteworthy that Caulaincourt’s memoirs were first published in our country in 1943.

It is also noteworthy that none of the titles of all nine chapters of this publication contains the word “Berezina”, which for a well-known reason has become a meme in the French language (fortunately, the stress in the Russian name falls on the last syllable), and the word “Smorgon” is contained twice: "Chapter VI. Retreat. From Krasny to Smorgon" and "Chapter VII. In a sleigh with Emperor Napoleon. From Smorgon to Warsaw."

So, an excerpt from Chapter VI:

“He (Napoleon - author's note) called me and dictated his last order:

“Smorgon, noon on December 5th. The Emperor leaves at 10 pm. He is accompanied by 200 members of his guard. After the transfer point between Smorgon and Oshmyany, he is accompanied to Oshmyany by a marching regiment located four leagues from here; convey orders to this regiment through General van Hoogendorp.

150 selected guards cavalrymen will be sent to a distance of one league from Oshmyany. The headquarters of the marching regiment and the squadron of guards lancers will be located at the stages between Smorgon and Oshmyany. The Neapolitans, who spent the night tonight between Vilna and Oshmyany, will place 100 horsemen in Medniki and 100 in Rumzhishki.

General van Hoogendorp will stop where he meets him the marching regiment, which should arrive on the 6th at Vilna, and order him to station 100 horsemen halfway to Kovno. He will order that 60 escort men and post horses, necessary for the chief of horsemen from Smorgon to the area beyond Vilkovishki, be ready in Vilna.

General van Hoogendorp will immediately return to Vilna and tell the Duke of Bassano to immediately go to the emperor in Smorgon.

The Emperor will travel with the Duke of Vincenza in His Majesty's carriage; in front is Mr. Vonsovich, behind is the court footman; the chief master of ceremonies, Count Lobo, one court footman and one worker - in a carriage; Baron Feng, court footman Constant, the keeper of the briefcase and one clerical servant are in a carriage.

The Chief of the Horse will warn the King of Naples, the Viceroy and the marshals to report to headquarters at seven o'clock. He will receive from the Chief of Staff a warrant to travel to Paris with his secretary Reineval, his couriers and his servants.”

(M., 1943, pp. 275–276).

The Polish artist Zygmunt Rozwadowski dedicated his painting “Napoleon in Smorgon” (oil, canvas, 100x209), painted in 1930 (at that time Smorgon was part of Poland), to such a significant event as the departure of the French emperor from the army.

The painting is currently on display in the Lodz Museum. It depicts the departure scene: in addition to the assembled troops, an orderly preparing a sleigh for the emperor, and an escort ready for the trip, one can see a snow-covered plain and an illuminated very decent house, on the porch of which Napoleon stands.

The picture became prophetic: just as the French left Smorgon, the Poles would have to leave here nine years after the painting was painted.

In this regard, one cannot help but recall that the author of the picture was the younger brother of General Tadeusz Rozwadowski, who was subjected to repression by Józef Pilsudski in 1926.

It is noteworthy that this was the second time that the French emperor abandoned his army and went home.

This first happened during the campaign in Egypt: on August 22, 1799, having transferred command of the expeditionary force to General Kleber, Napoleon sailed from Alexandria to France. This plot is still awaiting the brush of its artist...

Comments

[Mikhail Ivanov]

The circumstances are known to everyone - he came with an army of thousands, barely carried off his legs with several thousand companions and died on the island of St. Helena. Since then, the common noun “Napoleon” has appeared; it is mentioned in all comedies if a psychiatric hospital is shown.
Conclusion, contacting the Russians ended badly. Now we are resetting the next “Napoleon”...

[Aerodrome]

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

Everyone knows the circumstances

the circumstances are unknown to anyone, history has been rewritten and blotted out more than once by foreigners, the Germans in particular, what they give us is not history, but ersatz.

[Cartalon]

Why did they do this and how do you know this?

[Dmitry Ivanov_1991]

Since school, I have been tormented by the question - why Napoleon went to Moscow if the capital of the Republic of Ingushetia was St. Petersburg.
In those days, if the enemy entered the capital, capitulation was signed almost immediately. It got to the point of ridiculousness - the army and the people were ready to fight, but the dukes were already surrendering, because they could not hold the capital. And the already ready and motivated army disperses before the battle, abandoning its allies - it all... surrendered.
But Napoleon sent only one weak army to St. Petersburg, which got stuck without fighting
did not make further progress in the Latvian-Estonian lands. When he darted back, she also moved away. Those. at the time of his imprisonment in Moscow or before that, she did not even make attempts to go to St. Petersburg and end this war. There were no amphibious landings in St. Petersburg either.
That's what's strange.

[Cartalon]

Because there is nothing to feed the army near St. Petersburg, neither the Russian nor the French, and a fleet is needed for landings; France did not have a fleet in the Baltic

[Dmitry Ivanov_1991]

They made a trap for themselves.
did the Hansa not have a fleet? What about Poland? and in other German principalities, especially, Napoleon started seculization there and broke and appropriated borders and lands left and right.
what about Holland?
was still French (or under French rule) at that time.

[Cartalon]

What Hansa, what Poland, you should learn at least a little about the era before writing, at the beginning of the 19th century, Russia had a fleet in the Baltic, Denmark was burned by the British and Sweden, in 12 the main force in the Baltic was the British fleet.

[Kmon]

Swamps. British fleet. Leaving the Russian army in the rear with the threat of the enemy cutting off the few roads. Well, there is no reason to believe that the capture of St. Petersburg would have led to an outcome different from the capture of Moscow. Yes, it was the official capital, but Moscow was more important from a logistical and strategic point of view.

[denplot]

Not weak. Three buildings. Macdonald, Oudinot, Saint-Cyr. Have you heard about the battles of Polotsk, Klyastitsy, Riga?
Napoleon simply followed our main forces, which were retreating to Moscow.

[Zagrebun]

There are a lot of money in the capital, all logistics are tied to the capital, and the main production facilities are there, or nearby. Fight without money? The whole meaning of war is lost.

[Andobor]

Napoleon followed the Russian army, hoping to defeat it, where he and he went.

[S.Z.]

IMHO, Napoleon did not march against Moscow, but against the Russian army, after the destruction of which he hoped to conclude a profitable peace.

And our army was retreating to Moscow, and that’s how he ended up in Moscow.

The capture of the capital did not mean the end of the war, but the defeat of the army in a general battle did. For example, in 1809 the Austrians lost Vienna, but the war continued until they lost the Battle of Wagram, in which Napoleon snatched victory with great difficulty.

[Kmon]

However, after 1812 they fought with Napoleon for almost two more years as part of a grand coalition. Do not forget about the Prussian and Austrian allies, the Spanish partisans, and English gold. Russia could not have dealt with it alone, as previous attempts to defeat it in Europe convincingly show. Just defend within your own borders.

[Aviator_]

Russia could not have dealt with it alone,

Did Russia need this? Until his death in April 1813, Kutuzov believed that our troops had nothing to do outside their territory. However, the predecessor of Gorby the Marked, Alexander I, thought differently.

[Cartalon]

Well, if we stopped at our borders, then what? Napoleon would have raised a new army in a year.

[Aviator_]

Napoleon would have raised a new army in a year.

Against whom - against Russia? He was not a fan of running around in the rake; he and Great Britain needed to get along. Kutuzov was a great diplomat; just before Napoleon’s invasion, he “with a kind word and a revolver” neutralized Turkey, much to the displeasure of the English.

[Cartalon]

Napoleon would never have made peace with anyone after his defeat, so that in another year on the Neman, there would again be 600 thousand, the Great Emperor never spared meat.

[Aviator_]

The Great Emperor never spared meat.

This is true, but Russia was on his side, since it didn’t work out right away, it’s unlikely that he would hit the wall with his forehead. He had a super task - to deal with the Angles. It didn’t work out here; I went to an island in the South Atlantic to ride on a turtle.

[Kmon]

And in order to deal with Britain, he needed to defeat Russia in order to carry out his Continental blockade (since after Trafalgar he could not put pressure on Britain by other methods). Which Russia could not comply with - it was too unprofitable for the merchants and nobility (and Alexander knew well, from the example of his father, what happens to a monarch who goes against the interests of his circle). Therefore, a new war would be inevitable. And you are right that Napoleon would not have stepped on the rake a second time. Instead, he would have acted according to an alternative, slower and more reliable plan, which, by the way, was offered to him initially, with wintering in Smolensk.

[ivan2022]

Quote: Aviator_

.... Did Russia need this? Until his death in April 1813, Kutuzov believed that our troops had nothing to do outside their territory. However, the predecessor of Gorby the Marked, Alexander I, thought differently.

Wow.... You know what Russia needs and what Tsar Alexander thought.. I wonder where? We would like to share great secrets, if we have already started.....

[Aviator_]

You know what Russia needs and what Tsar Alexander thought.. I wonder where? We would like to share great secrets, if we have already started.....

Yes, right now... As the Scripture says: “By their deeds you will know them..” And the deeds - here they are. in plain sight.

[Kmon]

Comparing Alexander with Gorbachev is not even funny. Alexander, of course, was not an angel, but he pursued a fairly reasonable policy in the interests of Russia. And yes, preventing a new war with France was in Russia’s interests, and why it was inevitable - see above.

After Alexander, a long peace was established in Europe until the Crimean War, and until the inept foreign policy of Nicholas, Russia was respected and feared - isn’t this an achievement?

[dump22]

After Alexander, a long peace was established in Europe until the Crimean War

What are you saying?
The Spaniards already staged a revolution in 1820 and France invaded there to restore Bourbon to the throne again.
And the war of the Greeks against the Turks for the independence of Greece in 1821-1829.
And the war between Russia and Turkey in 1828-1829.
And the civil war in Spain 1833-1839, where England and France immediately intervened.
And the war between Austria and Italy in 1948.
And the revolution of 1848, which Russia helped Austria suppress.
And there were also a bunch of little things, like the war between Turkey and Montenegro in 1852.

There were plenty of wars in Europe at that time.

[Kmon]

I'm talking about major serious wars, not petty squabbles. And Türkiye is more Asia than Europe.

[dump22]

I'm talking about major serious wars, not petty squabbles

Well, for example, the war between Austria and Italy in 1848-1849 was not such a “minor squabble”.
Although of course it’s not “global” in any way, it’s true.

But in 1948, all of Europe suddenly went into revolutions and civil wars.
France. Germany, Italy, Austria (and within it Hungary), Romania, Denmark, Sweden.

And Türkiye is more Asia than Europe.

It is now.
And in the 19th century, Turkey had very extensive possessions in Europe; in fact, all of the Balkans and Greece were theirs.

[depressant]

Nach Frankreich zogen zwei Grenadier',
Die waren in Russland gefangen.
Und als sie kamen ins deutsche Quartier,
Sie ließen die Köpfe hangen.

Two grenadiers to France
Wandered from Russian captivity
And they both became depressed
Having reached German soil...

Heinrich Heine.

I remember poems from school, in German. About how two grenadiers grieved over the tragic fate of captured Napoleon. Neglecting the tragedy of their own destinies.

[cpls22]

Backs, backs, backs, and horse butts, and a pale early sunset, promising the cold of the night. And the absence of the main character, for whose sake the described action unfolded. He seems to still be here, but he is no longer visible. A good landscape, reflecting the mood of the collaborators watching the departure of their patrons. The artist seemed to want to draw a parallel with recent events, and intuitively guessed a lot.
“The conclusion of the Soviet-German Treaty “On Friendship and Neutrality” in April 1926 after the failure of the March (1926) session of the League of Nations and the fact that France had lost its weight in Europe and could no longer be a guarantor of the preservation of the state sovereignty of Poland motivated Poland to seek protection from Great Britain"
But the British didn’t help them much either. Although the “government in exile” was bungled.

[odometer]

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

Now we are resetting the next “Napoleon”...

What a discreditor you are... Why don’t you honor our GDP, for many years to come?

[dump22]

But it’s really similar - he also raised the country from its knees and expanded its borders through successful wars!
And also talented in many areas at once and also lucky.

And even their rise to power is similar.
First, revolution and the overthrow of the old system.
And after a few years there was a turn towards authoritarianism.
And events bring them to the top.
Napoleon was brought to power by the unprincipled and corrupt Directory and military success in Italy.
GDP brought EBN to power and military success in Chechnya.

It’s curious, but will the similarities continue further?...

[odometer]

No. Then there was a real confrontation between states, now they are dancing to the same tune... And, really, it’s interesting who plays the tune so skillfully?

[Sertorius]

What's wrong with the "History" section on VO? What is this article about? Who is the author even discussing with?

There is a common belief that on the Berezina, that is, at the end of November 1812, Napoleon abandoned the remnants of his “great army” and ran away from Russia.

In fact, Napoleon dictated his last order in Russia on December 5 in the town of Smorgon,

.
The author seems to be trying to prove that Napoleon abandoned the army not in November, but in December. And what style? December 5th according to the new style is November 23rd according to the old style. So what is the article about then? The author read Caulaincourt and saw a picture that he did not even bother to post here as an illustration. This is called - the author shared his impressions.

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote: Sertorius

Who is the author even discussing with?

The author finally does not discuss with anyone, but makes statements.

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote: Sertorius

The author seems to be trying to prove that Napoleon abandoned the army not in November, but in December. And what style? December 5th according to the new style is November 23rd according to the old style. So what is the article about then? The author read Caulaincourt and saw a picture that he did not even bother to post here as an illustration. This is called - the author shared his impressions.

Sertorius, You finally don’t understand anything.

First of all, I'm not proving anything here.

Secondly, Caulaincourt would not use the old style.

Thirdly, the picture is present both on the screensaver and as an illustration.

Quote: Sertorius

What's wrong with the "History" section on VO? What is this article about?

Sertorius, I’m saying that you finally don’t understand anything...

[Sertorius]

First of all, I'm not proving anything here.

Since in your historical article you outlined the difference in approaches to the question (November or December), this already implies that something will be, if not refuted, then at least preferable for you. And this already requires argumentation, that is, proof. Otherwise, why write that “someone” considers November to be the month of Napoleon’s flight?

Secondly, Caulaincourt would not use the old style.

Exactly. And this “someone” who is talking about November - what style is he talking about?

Thirdly, the picture is present both on the screensaver and as an illustration.

For this - sorry.

[Moore]

I remembered ...

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote: Sertorius

Since in your historical article you outlined the difference in approaches to the question (November or December), this already implies that something will be, if not refuted, then at least preferable for you. And this already requires argumentation, that is, proof. Otherwise, why write that “someone” considers November to be the month of Napoleon’s flight?

Sertorius, the end of November is Berezina, and December 5 is Smorgon. What is there to prove here?

[dump22]

Napoleon sailed from Alexandria to France. This plot is still awaiting the brush of its artist...

Touching care for the perpetuation of every step of Napoleon.
Meanwhile, the famous flight of Alexander 1 near Austerlitz, when his own retinue abandoned him to the mercy of fate, still awaits its artist:

“The confusion that gripped the allied Olympus was so great that the entire retinue of Alexander I scattered in different directions and joined him only at night and even the next morning. In the very first hours after the disaster, the tsar rode several miles with only a doctor, a groom, a groom and two life hussars, and when the life hussar remained with him, the tsar, according to the hussar, got off his horse, sat down under a tree and began to cry.”
(c) From the stories of an old life hussar, Russian archive. 1887. No. 3. P. 193

[lukash66]

These inventions of Lisapeds and attempts at all sorts of excuses are simply annoying. Napoleon entered the Republic of Ingushetia with an army of 600 thousand recruited from all over Europe, and God willing, he crawled out, keeping the guard in combat-ready condition. And all these heroic epics are very reminiscent of the same excuses, but from the 20th century - everything broke down on its own, hordes of Russians in felt boots and with balalaikas, filled with corpses, etc.

[lukash66]

And what orders he gave there, on the fifth, tenth, twentieth - it makes no sense to discuss. The fact is obvious.