Battle of the Three Emperors

7 837 30
Battle of the Three Emperors
The Life Guards Cavalry Regiment captures the eagle of the 4th Line Regiment, painting by B. Villevalde


prehistory


Napoleon prepared an army for an invasion of England, concentrating his forces on the French coast of the English Channel, in Boulogne. The British were able to pit the Austrian and Russian empires against France. The Austrians were eager for revenge for their crushing defeat in the War of the Second Coalition (1798–1802), when the Habsburg Empire was forced to make major concessions to the French in Germany and Italy.



The Russians were drawn into the war by the young and vain Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, plus the skillful policies of London, which used the continental powers as cannon fodder in its struggle with France for hegemony in Europe and the world. Russian high society, more oriented toward high politics in Europe and especially in the German world than toward domestic affairs and national interests, also played a role.Russian blood for the salvation of "foggy Albion").

The Allies had assembled a massive force: some 500 soldiers, who were to advance from northern Germany to Italy. Britain financed the Allies and dominated the seas, having sunk the Franco-Spanish fleet at Cape Trafalgar.

The arrogant Austrians, overestimating their strength and believing that Bonaparte would not have time to react to their actions, launched offensives before the arrival of the Russian army under Kutuzov. They miscalculated badly. Napoleon executed a well-organized forced march, transferring the Grande Armée (as he called the army intended to invade England) from northern France to Germany. The Austrian command was unable to respond adequately. This led to the Ulm disaster in October 1805. Austria lost its shock army, and Bonaparte seized the initiative in the war.

Kutuzov, during the astonishing 400-kilometer Ulm-Olmütz forced march, saved the army, even though the Austrian high command tried to "bury" it by blocking the capital with Russian troops. Meanwhile, Bonaparte occupied Vienna. He repeatedly attempted to destroy the Russian troops, but Kutuzov and Bagration thwarted his plans.The Battle of Schöngraben: To Die, but to Save the Army).

In November 1805, Kutuzov joined forces with Russian and Austrian reinforcements. Russian Emperor Alexander I and Austrian Emperor Francis II arrived to join the army.


Underestimating the enemy


Bonaparte needed another decisive victory over the Allies. Time was against him. Russian reinforcements were arriving, and an Austrian army, transferred from Italy, was approaching. Prussia was still hesitant, but could intervene at any moment on the side of Austria and Russia. The war party prevailed in Berlin, and the Prussians did not want France to strengthen its position in Germany. Therefore, Napoleon skillfully provoked the Allies into battle.How Napoleon Outplayed Emperors Alexander and Franz).

The cunning Kutuzov easily discerned the great Frenchman's plans. He proposed stalling for time, retreating, stretching the enemy's lines of communication, linking up with reinforcements (the Russian commander had implemented this plan during the 1812 campaign), and then striking. The Prussian army could also enter the war, posing a threat on the enemy's flank.

However, the Austrian court, dissatisfied with Kutuzov's "cowardly" strategy, demanded battle. The Austrians risked nothing—the Russian troops were bearing the brunt of the attack, and the Austrians were already prepared to conclude a separate peace behind the Russians' backs. Tsar Alexander, desiring military glory, and virtually his entire retinue, confident in the superiority of the "invincible" Russian army, also wanted battle.

Alexander's confidence was bolstered by the numerical superiority of the allied forces. The allied army numbered approximately 85 men with approximately 280 guns (60 Russians and 25 Austrians). The enemy's strength was underestimated, with the Corsican believed to have no more than 40 to 50 soldiers and to be wary of battle. In reality, the French numbered more than 73.


Defeat


The battle plan was developed by the Austrian General Weyrother. He proposed outflanking the enemy with the left wing (three columns), where half of the allied forces were concentrated. In the center stood the two columns of Kolovrat and Miloradovich, under the overall command of Kutuzov. Behind them stood the Guards Reserve of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich. On the right flank were the columns of Bagration and Liechtenstein (Austrian).

Ultimately, the allies considered attacking, believing that the numerically weaker French forces would hold the line. Kutuzov opposed this plan, but they ignored him.

As a result, the allied offensive failed. The strong allied left wing under Buxhoeveden (29 infantry battalions and 22 cavalry squadrons) advanced in three columns, led by Dokhturov, Langeron, and Przybyszewski, and became bogged down in fierce combat with the French, who, with inferior forces, halted the enemy advance. Buxhoeveden subsequently acted passively: he continued to linger at a minor point in the battle while the enemy broke through in the center, and he was late in withdrawing, resulting in heavy losses.


Napoleon awards a soldier a medal for bravery at the Battle of Austerlitz. British artist Richard Caton Woodville, Jr.

Meanwhile, Bonaparte, having guessed the enemy's plans and seizing the opportunity, struck with his main force (up to 50 soldiers) in the center, attacking the Pratzen Heights. The small Russian center, followed by the reserve (guard), fought desperately, but could not hold back the onslaught of the equally superior but more numerous French regiments. In a fierce battle, the French managed to break through the Russian defenses and struck the rear of the left wing. The allied forces were surrounded on three sides and eventually began to retreat in disarray.

A terrible tragedy unfolded. The Russian regiments were pinned down against the half-frozen Zachansky ponds. Entire regiments were literally gunned down by Bonaparte's well-organized French army. artillery or drowned when the ice collapsed. Other units were forced to surrender. In particular, Przybyszewski's column was unable to break through, and after a desperate resistance that pinned down the French and allowed the other two columns to escape, it surrendered. After his capture, the Russian general of Polish descent was court-martialed and demoted to private.

The right wing of the Russian forces under Bagration held firm, but it meant nothing. The allied forces were forced to retreat along the entire front.

The heroism of Russian soldiers and officers this time could not correct the mistakes of the high command. Thus, the Russian cavalry guards were almost completely destroyed in a clash with the French horse grenadiers. The French commanders were astonished by the heroism and bravery of the Russian troops and the incompetence of the command that had destroyed such magnificent regiments.


Russian cavalry returns after attacking the enemy at Austerlitz. Artist: Nikolai Samokish

The brilliant retinues of Emperors Alexander and Francis, so thirsty for victory and glory, fled. Russian historian Yevgeny Tarle, who wrote one of the best monographs on stories Napoleon noted:

Emperor Franz and Alexander fled the battlefield long before the final catastrophe. Their retinue scattered, leaving both monarchs behind. The monarchs also fled the battlefield and quickly separated, carried off by their horses in different directions. The short winter day was drawing to a close; the sun, which had shone brightly all day, had set, and Alexander and Franz fled captivity in the darkness. Alexander trembled as if in a fever and wept, losing his composure. His rapid flight continued in the following days. The wounded Kutuzov barely escaped capture.

The Allies lost 27 to 35 men in the battle, according to various estimates, including 11 to 20 captured. Russian military historian Alexander Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky estimated that the Allies lost 27 men, with the majority, 21, being Russian. Almost the entire artillery fleet—about 200 guns—and the entire enormous supply train with all its supplies were lost. French losses were 9 to 10 men.


F. Gerard. Napoleon at Austerlitz.

Defeat in the war


It was a decisive defeat. It was one of Napoleon's greatest battles. The war was lost.

Naturally, Prussia refused to enter the war. Bonaparte, in his triumphalist spirit, forced Prussia to enter into an alliance with France, gifting Hanover to Berlin.

The Allied High Command was demoralized. The Austrian Emperor declared further resistance pointless, even though Austria still had the strength to continue the war. On December 26, 1805, the Austrian Empire concluded a peace treaty at Pressburg, ceding Venice, Istria (excluding Trieste), and Dalmatia to Bonaparte, as King of Italy, and acknowledging all its losses in Italy.

Vienna made territorial concessions in favor of Bavaria and Württemberg. Emperor Francis II recognized the princes of Bavaria and Württemberg as kings, thus removing them from the authority of the institutions of the Holy Roman Empire. These German lands became satellites of Bonaparte. This marked the end of Habsburg dominance in the Holy Roman Empire (the German world), which Napoleon dissolved in 1806 and replaced with the Confederation of the Rhine, under his control.

The Austrians also paid a large indemnity. France once again became rich during the war.

Russia remained alone on the continent. Peace negotiations began, but they were unsuccessful. In 1806, the War of the Fourth Coalition began, with Austria replaced by Prussia, dissatisfied with France's rise in the German world.


Meeting of Napoleon and Francis II after the Battle of Austerlitz. Artist Antoine-Jean Gros (
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    2 December 2025 06: 57
    It always angered me that ordinary people die because of the group's mistakes. It seems this will never end...
    1. +4
      2 December 2025 10: 42
      -The British were able to throw the Austrian and Russian empires against France.
      Alexander, PLUS - better, you couldn't say it better.
      The MAIN mistake was Kutuzov’s subordination to Franz.
  2. -3
    2 December 2025 08: 22
    Battle of the Three Emperors
    was lost, but the Battle of the Nations was won.

    It was a disappointing loss, there were chances to win and avoid the OV, but alas...
    ...
    1. -4
      2 December 2025 09: 49
      There is a Russian spirit here, there is a smell of Russia here...

      Quote: Olgovich
      was lost, but the Battle of the Nations was won.

      This is our victory that we need to write about!

      Lost battles can be mentioned, but only in passing, without focusing on them. Those who need to delve deeper will find the time to satisfy their own curiosity.

      By the way, do you remember what flag our Tsar flew when he entered Paris? It doesn't look anything like the tricolor, and you don't see it among the troops...
      1. -2
        2 December 2025 10: 33
        Quote: Boris55
        There is a Russian spirit here, there is a smell of Russia here...

        Quote: Olgovich
        was lost, but the Battle of the Nations was won.

        This is our victory that we need to write about!

        Lost battles can be mentioned, but only in passing, without focusing on them. Those who need to delve deeper will find the time to satisfy their own curiosity.

        By the way, do you remember what flag our Tsar flew when he entered Paris? It doesn't look anything like the tricolor, and you don't see it among the troops...

        Well, our country isn't a monarchy right now. And I hope it never will be.

        London (Carthage) must be destroyed. PROXOR
    2. 0
      2 December 2025 09: 54
      Quote: Olgovich
      Battle of the Three Emperors
      was lost, but the Battle of the Nations was won.

      It was a disappointing loss, there were chances to win and avoid the OV, but alas...
      ...

      There was no chance, just like at Borodino. Napoleon was a tactical genius.
      1. -1
        2 December 2025 09: 59
        The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

        Quote: Panin (Michman)
        Napoleon was a tactical genius.

        Oh yeah. In terms of the number of his fellow citizens he's killed (two-thirds of France's male population), only Zelensky can compare...

        Who else among your losers is listed as a genius: Karl 12, the false Dmitry, Hitler?
        1. -1
          2 December 2025 10: 01
          Quote: Boris55
          The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

          Quote: Panin (Michman)
          Napoleon was a tactical genius.

          Oh yeah. In terms of the number of his fellow citizens he's killed (two-thirds of France's male population), only Zelensky can compare...

          Who else among your losers is listed as a genius: Karl 12, the false Dmitry, Hitler?

          You can write down from the winners.
          27 млн
          1. +4
            2 December 2025 10: 07
            Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

            Quote: Panin (Michman)
            You can write down 27 million from the winners.

            We remember this and we remember it very well!

            The Red Army's military losses amounted to approximately 7 million people, which is comparable to the losses of the Wehrmacht alone, without taking into account the other troops participating in the aggression against us.

            Where did the remaining 20 come from? They were civilians killed by the invaders—children, elderly women. Look at what modern-day fascists did in Kursk and what they're doing in the SVO area—it's the same thing...
            1. -2
              2 December 2025 10: 49
              According to other sources, the Red Army's losses amounted to 13-15 million.
              Napoleon couldn't possibly have lost two-thirds of his male population. Because the losses then were incomparable to those of later periods, and France would not have been able to reproduce itself. Losses in a single battle rarely exceeded 30,000-50,000 men.
              1. +3
                2 December 2025 11: 10
                Dear colleagues, I remind you that after the Napoleonic Wars, France's population failed to recover throughout the 19th century. France only managed to recoup its population losses in the 20th century.
              2. 0
                2 December 2025 11: 53
                Quote: Panin (Michman)
                Napoleon could not lose 2/3 of the male population

                The French suffered irreparable losses of about a million people out of a population of 28 million, plus the sick and crippled.
                Huge number.
                1. 0
                  2 December 2025 12: 14
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  Quote: Panin (Michman)
                  Napoleon could not lose 2/3 of the male population

                  The French suffered irreparable losses of about a million people out of a population of 28 million, plus the sick and crippled.
                  Huge number.

                  But not 2/3
                  1. -2
                    2 December 2025 12: 24
                    Quote: Panin (Michman)
                    But not 2/3

                    no, of course not, but the best ones
      2. +3
        2 December 2025 15: 48
        In principle, Austerlitz could have at least been avoided. And Kutuzov himself understood that he didn't need to descend from the Pratzen Heights to achieve that. An indecisive outcome of the battle would have been extremely unpleasant for Napoleon. In principle, Mikhail Illarionovich understood how to fight him, and if he had been given the authority of a real, rather than nominal, commander, everything would have ended in 1805. Not brilliantly, without any super-meat grinders, but quite effectively.
  3. +9
    2 December 2025 11: 36
    It's not just about Napoleon's military talents.
    Our historiography has always shamefully kept silent about the fact that the Russian, Austrian, and Prussian armies of that time were essentially still of a feudal type - discipline was maintained by spitzprutens, soldiers who were former serfs were forced to run the gauntlet and beaten to death with sticks.

    The generals were all princes and counts, aristocrats, "their high honors," i.e., essentially the same feudal lords who commanded the serfs. They flogged them just like they did on their own estates...

    Napoleon's army was a fundamentally new type of army, formed based on the experience and principles of the revolutionary wars of the French Revolution. The Old Guard, in fact, was almost entirely from there...
    Serfdom has long been abolished. Corporal punishment is prohibited in principle. Soldiers are judged not by "commanding officers" with a whip, but by a panel of distinguished, respected veteran soldiers or a traditional court-martial.
    They can shoot, but not beat!

    The Marshals of France started out as simple soldiers, many of them from the common people. Ney's father was a cooper, a barrel maker. Murat's father was an innkeeper. Bernadotte was the son of a lawyer, not a nobleman. Bessières was the son of a common surgeon. And so on and so forth. All the participants in the revolutionary wars started out there... They all became princes and counts by Napoleon's will, solely for their military successes.

    Due to the depletion of France's human resources, Bonaparte was forced to increasingly dilute his once Grand Army with all sorts of foreign European rabble, who were interested only in plunder or revenge for national humiliation, or both inextricably together, like Poniatowski's Poles.
    All this manifested itself in the most catastrophic way for Napoleon in Moscow...

    At the bottom:
    1) the retreat of the Grand Army from Moscow
    2) Modern icon Kutuzov and Tsar Alexander, 1812
    1. -1
      2 December 2025 11: 49
      Quote: Timofey Charuta
      The generals were all princes and counts, aristocrats, "their high honors," i.e., essentially the same feudal lords who commanded the serfs. They flogged them just like they did on their own estates...

      And they also created a legend about a partisan movement. The peasants were simply fighting foragers and marauders for their own property, not for the Tsar and others. If they had known that one of Napoleon's goals was to abolish serfdom, it's unclear whose side they would have taken.
      1. +1
        2 December 2025 12: 09

        It was called "great" because of its numbers. But in reality, no country could have fielded more than 300 soldiers on its own. The budget wouldn't have been able to handle it, and GDP would have fallen.
      2. +4
        2 December 2025 12: 13
        Quote: Konnick
        Quote: Timofey Charuta
        The generals were all princes and counts, aristocrats, "their high honors," i.e., essentially the same feudal lords who commanded the serfs. They flogged them just like they did on their own estates...

        And they also created a legend about a partisan movement. The peasants were simply fighting foragers and marauders for their own property, not for the Tsar and others. If they had known that one of Napoleon's goals was to abolish serfdom, it's unclear whose side they would have taken.

        You seriously underestimate the patriotism of the people. Would the peasants have supported Hitler if he had promised to disband the collective farms, distribute the land to everyone, and serve them Bavarian beer?
        1. +1
          2 December 2025 12: 22
          Quote: Panin (Michman)
          You seriously underestimate the patriotism of the people. Would the peasants have supported Hitler if he had promised to disband the collective farms, distribute the land to everyone, and serve them Bavarian beer?

          The outskirts were supported...not a single farmstead was burned down, unlike in Belarus. And they happily went to the Fatherland...the sluts. Read Guderian's account of how the Germans lost the outskirts.
      3. +3
        2 December 2025 12: 41
        Here is a question about the abolition of serfdom by Napoleon in Russia.
        Yes, wherever the French army arrived, feudal duties were abolished and Napoleon's Civil Code was introduced - a code of a market economy for free people, not for serf-owners and their serfs...
        But sometimes local national specifics were overlooked. In Spain, the Inquisition was abolished, a civilized European court was introduced, feudal relics were abolished, and clergy and monasteries began to be discriminated against—the result was a large-scale guerrilla war and a popular uprising against the occupying authorities in Madrid. Apparently, the Spanish peasants really enjoyed the Inquisition with its torture and the extortions of their clergy. For some reason, I remembered Afghanistan and our participation in that adventure: we gave them hospitals, schools, tractors, and food for free, while they gave us the dushmans...

        I agree that the abolition of serfdom, with the opportunity to "divide everything" on the former lords' estates, obtain long-awaited land, and, on this basis, negotiate a normal supply agreement for the Grand Army, could have influenced the Russian partisans, even led by the brave hussar landowner Denis Davydov. However, in reality, all this could have ended God knows how, perhaps like in Spain...

        Moreover, even after the outbreak of the 1812 war, Napoleon had been trying to reach a peaceful agreement with Alexander, sending negotiators like General Lauriston through Kutuzov. Clearly, the abolition of serfdom was not the best start for such negotiations with a tsar who held serfdom.

        At the bottom:
        1) Napoleon's negotiator, General Lauriston, asks Kutuzov to let him into St. Petersburg to see Tsar Alexander; the war is just beginning...
        2) No good deed goes unpunished - the uprising (knife fight) in Madrid against the French and their reforms in 1808
        1. 0
          2 December 2025 13: 02
          Quote: Timofey Charuta
          The result was a large-scale guerrilla war and a popular uprising against the occupation authorities in Madrid.

          Napoleon's army was simply self-sufficient, meaning it was supplied from local resources. Foragers carried out a strict food tax, thereby turning the local population against it. And all these guerrillas were the work of the devil, i.e., the clergy.
        2. GGV
          0
          2 December 2025 19: 56
          As for me, Napoleon was just a common thief and counterfeiter (it was said about him: "In words he's Leo Tolstoy, but in reality he's a simple f...k." As far as I remember, at first, the peasants willingly sold everything to Napoleon's army foragers, until they realized they were simply being ripped off, paying counterfeit money for their food. That's how guerrilla warfare began. How can you come to a foreign country with a slogan about the people's freedom and then immediately start robbing them, paying them counterfeit money for their goods?
    2. -2
      2 December 2025 12: 38
      Quote: Timofey Charuta
      Our historiography has always shamefully kept silent about the fact that the Russian, Austrian, and Prussian armies of that time were essentially still of a feudal type - discipline was maintained by spitzprutens, former soldiers serfs were forced to run the gauntlet and beaten to death with sticks.

      on the contrary, it emphasized it.

      But the Russian serf army destroyed the army of free revolutionaries and among the Russian princely commanders were brilliant commanders.
      Quote: Timofey Charuta
      , like Poniatowski's Poles

      fought well until the end of Napoleon
      1. +3
        2 December 2025 12: 44
        And no less wonderfully in Russia they robbed, especially churches, raped, killed the civilian population... The illustrious have always been like that...
        1. +1
          2 December 2025 12: 46
          Quote: Timofey Charuta
          And no less wonderfully in Russia they robbed, especially churches, raped, killed the civilian population... The illustrious have always been like that.

          There is no dispute about that...
    3. +1
      2 December 2025 16: 11
      ".. the Russian, Austrian, and Prussian armies of that time were armies, armies, in essence, still of a feudal type - discipline was maintained by spitzprutens, soldiers who were former serfs were driven through the gauntlet and beaten to death with sticks."

      A regular army supplied by the state cannot be a feudal army. Incidentally, the very existence of an institution of military discipline encompassing the entire army is a sign of a non-feudal army. The specifics of the penal system are secondary.
      That is, essentially the same serf-owning lords who commanded the serfs. They flogged them, just like they did on their own estates...

      Landowners constituted (at least as of 1812) less than 10% of the Russian army's officer corps. Titled nobility was also comparatively rare among the military. Corporal punishment, like any other punishment, was administered in accordance with regulations such as the Military Articles. By 1812, a number of new statutes and regulations had been adopted, such as this one:
      https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000200_000018_v19_rc_2105688/?ysclid=miol97n7uw319126877
      Soldiers are not judged by "commanding fathers" with a stick in their hand,

      Do you think that there were no field courts in the Russian or Austrian army?
  4. +3
    2 December 2025 13: 24
    Quote: Olgovich
    But the Russian serf army destroyed the army of free revolutionaries and among the Russian princely commanders were brilliant commanders.


    The "Russian serf army" did not destroy the "free revolutionaries" alone; for another two years they had to do this with varying success in the company of other "serf" armies - Austria, Prussia, and then the free Swedes arrived.

    But already in 1813, first at Lützen and Bautzen, then at Dresden, Napoleon again successfully defeated them all with fewer numbers.
    Incidentally, the far-sighted Kutuzov, shortly before his death, foresaw all of this and suggested stopping at Russia's borders and not going into Europe...

    In October 1813 alone, the allies assembled a massive army of over 300 bayonets (with another 100 reinforcements quickly arriving) against the French's 210, with 1400 allied guns against Napoleon's 700. Incidentally, the entire allied army was commanded by an Austrian, not Russian, Field Marshal Schwarzenberg.

    During the three-day battle near Leipzig, Napoleon's allies finally finished him off and he was forced to retreat.
    Then, already in France in 1814, he managed to win several more victories (Champaubert, Montmiral, Chateau-Thierry, Vauchamps, etc.), fighting against 500 thousand allied troops, of which the Russian “fortress” army had only 175 thousand.
    Napoleon had approximately 74 soldiers and 350 guns between the Seine and Aube rivers. With these forces, he successfully held off the allied armies, which numbered an estimated 150.

    But in the end, Napoleon, skillfully maneuvering around France and confusing the vastly superior Allied forces, overreached himself and became confused himself. The Allies and the Russian army, among others, triumphantly entered Paris, Bonaparte abdicated, and Russian Cossacks flirted with Parisian women and watered their horses from the Seine...
    1. 0
      2 December 2025 16: 21
      The "Russian serf army" did not destroy the "free revolutionaries" alone; for another two years they had to do this with varying success in the company of other "serf" armies - Austria, Prussia, and then the free Swedes arrived.

      At the start of the 1813 campaign, the French, to put it mildly, were not alone; the Saxons, even as far as Leipzig, were with them. A "fortress" army of Prussia after Scharnhorst's reforms? Bgg...
      Incidentally, the Swedes were the first to introduce the gauntlet punishment in its classic form, and Peter learned from their practice.
      But already in 1813, first at Lützen and Bautzen, then at Dresden, Napoleon again successfully defeated them all with fewer numbers.

      In all of the battles listed, Napoleon outnumbered his allies by about 1.5 times. And the battles' outcomes weren't particularly favorable—the French suffered enormous losses and achieved mediocre results (except, perhaps, at Dresden).
      And then Kulm, Dennewitz, Gross Behren, Katzbach... and a huge number of French troops locked in German fortresses, which came back to haunt Napoleon at Leipzig.
      Then, already in France in 1814, he managed to win several more victories.

      Yes, fighting against Blucher's inferior army, establishing local superiority. Meanwhile, the Allies took Paris. That's it, the end.
    2. 0
      2 December 2025 19: 19
      Quote: Timofey Charuta
      The "Russian serf army" did not destroy the "free revolutionaries" alone.

      She completely destroyed the great army in Russia and set out in 1813 alone, the victories brought her an ally, Prussia.
      Quote: Timofey Charuta
      But already in 1813, first at Lützen and Bautzen, then at Dresden, Napoleon again successfully defeated them all with fewer numbers.

      And how many battles did he lose and how many fortresses did he surrender? An order of magnitude more.
      Quote: Timofey Charuta
      Napoleon had approximately 74 soldiers and 350 guns between the Seine and Aube rivers. With these forces, he successfully held off the allied armies, which numbered an estimated 150.

      and... surrendered Paris.