Berezina: a slandered victory

11 799 56
Berezina: a slandered victory


The Berezina's place in the Patriotic War of 1812


The Patriotic War of 1812 can hardly be called a forgotten war. Its artistic projections can be found in such classics of Russian literature as Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov and Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy. Therefore, our perception of those events is inevitably distorted by the prism of literature. The most celebrated battle is Borodino, and Napoleon's ultimate victor is Field Marshal Kutuzov, whose almost Taoist inaction contributed to the enemy's defeat.

However, Napoleon did not suffer defeat at Borodino. Western historians (for example, Stéphane Béraud) even attribute a "Pyrrhic victory" to the French. The Grande Armée's eastward advance continued, and a week after the battle, Napoleon occupied Moscow (September 14).



"The cudgel of people's war," as Leo Tolstoy aptly put it, did indeed cause much trouble for the French invaders, but it did not put an end to Napoleon's Russian campaign. For example, Spanish guerrillas (partisans) resisted the French occupation for nearly six years and only gained the upper hand after Russian troops captured Paris in 1814.

The final battle of the Patriotic War of 1812 was the Battle of Berezina. Academician Tarle attributes this event to the "final demise of Napoleon's army." However, the emphasis on the apparent victory of the Russian army is often shifted to Napoleon's skillful maneuver to deceive the Russian Admiral Chichagov, or to Kutuzov's fear of attacking the remnants of the French army, or (citing the British representative at the Russian court, Robert Wilson) his simple decision to allow the invaders to escape, creating the so-called "Golden Corridor" in order to "wisely" pit them against the British.

In any case, in French, the word "Berezina" became synonymous with complete defeat (C'est la Berezina). It's important to note that this defeat occurred not before, but during the Battle of Berezina.

Background to the battle


Retreating from Moscow, Napoleon occupied Smolensk, but on November 13, 1812, he abandoned it and advanced toward Orsha. The Battle of Krasnoye (November 18) took place on this march, where Field Marshal Kutuzov's Russian forces managed to inflict significant damage on the French army's rearguard. However, comparing the forces of the two sides, Denis Davydov, an eyewitness to those events, still likened Napoleon's army to "a hundred-gun ship among fishing boats." They looked nothing like a pitiful gathering of deserters.

Napoleon was battered, but not defeated. He retreated to Belarus, where the traditions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the strong Polish (or Polonized) gentry remained. There was no significant Russian partisan movement here, and, in Tolstoy's words, the "cudgel of the people's war" could no longer harass the French as much as before.

During the Patriotic War of 1812, the "collaborationist" (as we would now call it) Polish division of Dąbrowski operated in Belarus, besieging the isolated Russian garrison in Babruisk. Dąbrowski's march would later become the national anthem of Poland. In the north, near Polotsk, Marshal Oudinot's 2nd Corps operated, reinforced by Marshal Victor's 9th Corps. In the west, near Brest, significant forces (up to 50,000 men) were concentrated under Marshals Reynier and Schwarzenberg.

In Minsk, as Academician Tarle writes, "enormous food and ammunition reserves awaited Napoleon." Furthermore, Marshal MacDonald's corps could have arrived from Riga, although it would have taken him at least 10 days to do so.


Peter von Hess. Crossing the Berezina

The forces of the parties


Each corps in Napoleon's army consisted of an average of 20,000 men. The French historian Georges de Chambray estimates Napoleon's army at Berezina to have 40,000 combat-ready soldiers out of a total of 70,000. This figure already includes the corps of Oudinot and Victor, but ignores the corps of Reynier and Schwarzenberg, as well as MacDonald.

On the eve of the battle, Napoleon had not yet considered fleeing Russia. While in Orsha (November 19-20), he hastily reorganized his army and increased its combat effectiveness. Napoleon also destroyed the bridges across the Dnieper to slow Kutuzov's pursuing army. With his rear in Minsk, he would have been well-positioned to organize not only effective resistance but also a counteroffensive.

Field Marshal Kutuzov's army, pursuing the French, was exhausted—this explains its "slowness" and reluctance to engage in significant battles in the final stages of the Patriotic War of 1812. Kutuzov's desire to spare his soldiers during the Battle of Krasnoye is more a reflection of limited resources than of his notorious sentimentality.

Kutuzov's main army numbered approximately 50 soldiers. In addition, there was General Wittgenstein's corps, numbering 35 men, which covered the distant approaches to St. Petersburg in the Western Dvina region. His forces were even fewer than Kutuzov's. The slightest misstep or misjudgment, and the capital of the Russian Empire would have been under attack.

All hope rested on Admiral Pavel Chichagov's corps, which at the start of the Patriotic War of 1812 was stationed in Moldova to counter the Turkish threat. Fortunately, the Treaty of Bucharest had been signed with the Ottoman Empire, and Chichagov, on the orders of Emperor Alexander I, moved north to the rear of Napoleon's army, which was then advancing on Moscow. In October, he reached western Belarus.

According to some estimates, Chichagov's army numbered as many as 50 soldiers. This force had to be divided into two equal parts. One, under the command of General Osten-Sacken, confronted the corps of Reynier and Schwarzenberg, while the other, directly commanded by Chichagov himself, prepared to meet Napoleon's army retreating from Moscow.

In the mind of Emperor Alexander I, a rather beautiful picture was drawn of three Russian armies (Kutuzov, Wittgenstein, and Chichagov), with a total of 135 soldiers, surrounding from three sides and destroying the remnants of Napoleon's retreating army.

However, the reality was different.


Pavel Chichagov


It's often written that Napoleon deceived the "land admiral" Chichagov, but this is undeniable. The French philosopher and writer Joseph de Maistre described Pavel Chichagov as "intelligent and original." The son of the celebrated Catherine the Great admiral Vasily Chichagov, he had a meteoric career, achieving the rank of rear admiral at age 32 (in 1799), and becoming the Minister of the Navy of the Russian Empire at 35.

The future hero of Berezina detested embezzlement and courtly obsequiousness, earning him the reputation of being practically a Jacobin. Russian elite dismissed his marriage to the daughter of an English captain as a sign of his Anglomania. Chichagov was an experienced administrator, capable of soberly assessing the situation and making the right decisions.

Indeed, one might wonder why Admiral Chichagov was appointed commander of the southern group of forces. Was there really a shortage of experienced combat generals of the Suvorov school? It seems that Alexander I, for some reason, distrusted the generals and needed his own reliable man at the head of the army. Perhaps he feared a palace coup, the kind that led to his father's death. French fashion was bringing Jacobin ideals to Russia, and Chichagov's "Anglomania" might have seemed like immunity to them.


January Sukhodolsky. "The Crossing of the Great Army across the Berezina"

The course of the battle


While Field Marshal Kutuzov was harassing the retreating French troops at Krasnoye, on November 16, Chichagov drove General Bronikowski's Polish garrison out of Minsk. In fact, the Battle of Berezina should have begun from this date. Chichagov was catastrophically short of forces to effectively oppose Napoleon's army, which had reorganized in Orsha. 24 men against at least 40. The capture of Minsk by the French would have significantly strengthened Napoleon's army. The only possible line of defense was the Berezina River, northeast of the city.

On November 21, Chichagov's army captured Borisov, a city on the Berezina River, driving out Dombrowski's Polish division. In this fierce battle, the Russian general of French origin, Karl Lambert, was wounded. A day later, on November 23, Pavel Palen's Russian vanguard was caught in a forest clearing. artillery Oudinot's corps fired at him and suffered losses. This moment demonstrates how quickly Napoleon was able to rebuild his forces, although just recently, during the Battle of Krasnoye in the Smolensk region, it seemed the French army had lost all its artillery. However, Marshal Oudinot's corps did not participate in the march on Moscow and, as we know, did not leave Belarus throughout the Russian campaign.

Meanwhile, Chichagov destroyed the bridge over the Berezina at Borisov and took up defensive positions on the western bank. It should be noted that the Berezina, as a tributary of the upper Dnieper, was not a wide river, and there were many places where the French army could ford it. By holding his position near the former Borisov bridge, Chichagov risked being outflanked. Anticipating this, he dispersed his troops over a considerable distance north and south of Borisov. The most likely breakthrough was toward Minsk, south of the former bridge.

On November 26, Napoleon launched a breakthrough, not toward Minsk, but northward near the village of Studenki, toward Vilna (Vilnius). Chichagov also had a screening force there, led by Colonel Pyotr Kornilov, but it was swept away by the 40-gun French artillery of Oudinot's corps and the cavalry that had forded the river. The pontonniers, standing in the frigid water, began hastily constructing a bridge to transport artillery and supply trains.

A day later, after a forced march, Chichagov's advance detachment attacked the French, who had already established a bridgehead on the western bank of the Berezina. In this fierce battle, Marshal Oudinot was wounded and was replaced by Marshal Ney. That same day, November 28, units of General Wittgenstein's Russian army, which had previously crushed Marshal Victor's French rearguard, arrived at the crossing.

The French held the bridgehead on the eastern bank of the Berezina for another day, after which the decision was made to burn the bridges, abandoning the remaining part of the army to its fate.

It was a complete rout. The maneuverable defense gave way to panic and disorderly flight, especially on the part of those who managed to cross to the west bank.

The further pursuit of the enemy was carried out by Chichagov's army together with the Cossack cavalry of Ataman Platov from the vanguard of Kutuzov's army, which had forded the Berezina.


Lawrence Alma-Tadema. "The Crossing of the Berezina"

Stolen Glory


The strained personal relationship between Chichagov and Kutuzov led to a downplaying of the Russian army's achievements. Berezina's hero was accused of "losing" Napoleon. In his reports to the Tsar, Kutuzov constantly pointed out "mistakes," which Chichagov later justified in his memoirs. The Russian public wanted everything at once, so Berezina's hero was practically blamed for "saving" Napoleon.

Particularly depressing was Krylov's popular fable "The Cat and the Pike" (1813), which allegorically blamed Chichagov for his admiral's past, which supposedly prevented him from operating effectively on land. Meanwhile, the modern historian N. A. Troitsky notes that it was Pavel Chichagov who inflicted the greatest losses on the French in the Battle of Berezina.

In this regard, the Battle of Berezina can be compared to the Battle of Gaugamela, during which Alexander the Great defeated the Persian army but "lost" King Darius. This moment did not diminish the Macedonian victory in the least. The objectives of an army operation cannot be reduced to the capture of a particular individual.

The slandered victory at Berezina and the stolen glory of Admiral Pavel Chichagov demonstrate that, beyond real battlefield successes, it is important to preserve and protect their memory. Embittered by public opinion, Chichagov, after Napoleon's expulsion from Russia, requested his resignation and went abroad for medical treatment, where he lived a long but inglorious life far from his homeland.

However, when the great Russian explorer and discoverer of Antarctica, Thaddeus Bellingshausen, mapped the Russian Islands (Tuamotu) in 1820, he dedicated one of them (Tahanea) to Admiral Pavel Chichagov.
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    20 May 2026 05: 06
    Thank you for the interesting study of Napoleon's final battle on Russian soil. Regarding the relationship between Kutuzov and Chichagov, it's not yet clear whether it's better to point out mistakes and criticize a subordinate for the sake of victory or to pat them on the head and tolerate failure. Generally, at the pinnacle of power, there are always intrigues and conspiracies. As I understand it, there was a galaxy of generals who were Suvorov's disciples, and there's no escaping this—they were Alexander I's favorites. This can be seen in the current high command and in the last Patriotic War. But the most important thing that remains in history is Victory, and it's the people who achieve it. soldier
    1. -2
      20 May 2026 06: 38
      The slandered victory at Berezina and the stolen glory of Admiral Pavel Chichagov

      Tactically, Chichagov lost to Napoleon and let the last one go, although he fought well.
      No one took away Pavel Vasilyevich's glory, but he was also unable to capture Bonaparte. However, no one from the generals in Russia was awarded for Berezina.
      Apparently, the position of Emperor Alexander I was fundamental.
      The fact that Chichagov resigned, he is no girl, it does not paint him in a good light.
      1. +4
        20 May 2026 08: 40
        You touched upon 2 interesting points:

        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        The fact that Chichagov resigned, he's not a girl, it doesn't suit him.

        I completely agree, it was a rather unusual reaction from a professional soldier, "it left a bad taste in my mouth," you can't argue with that.

        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Chichagov lost tactically to Napoleon and lost the last one, although he fought well


        It's hard to agree with everything here... if we take into account that the capture of Minsk, rich, not devastated and less "oppositional" to Napoleon than Moscow, then this victory is more on the border between operational and strategic, especially taking into account the incredible "survivability" and organization of Napoleon's army, which the French never demonstrated again, either before or after

        As for Napoleon's "omission," there is a view that "so be it," and that it would have been worthwhile to focus on overdue reforms and strengthening Russia's western border (leaving others to "finish things off," i.e., spend their strength and resources), but this categorically could not have satisfied the British, and Alexander himself was not put in charge for that purpose... which, however, still did not prevent the emergence of insinuations such as:
        (referring to the British representative at the Russian court, Robert Wilson) simply allowed the invaders to leave, providing the so-called "Golden Corridor" in order to "far-sightedly" pit them against the British
      2. 0
        20 May 2026 12: 37
        Well, there are various possible theories here. Including one that Bonaparte was deliberately released from Russia so the British could continue to tumble around with him, wasting their resources. Kutuzov clearly disliked the British, and, according to unconfirmed evidence, tried to dissuade Alexander from his "liberation campaign" in Europe and from pursuing Bonaparte. And Chichagov (most likely a Freemason, like Kutuzov), by letting Napoleon out of Russia, was following the will of this secret organization and Kutuzov personally, who held a higher rank within it. And for the public, they staged this farce, showing how the brilliant Napoleon finally escaped the trap, leaving the bungling Chichagov in the lurch.
        It's unprovable, but there's a certain logic to it. Russia really should have washed its hands of Napoleon's expulsion; the British reaped the brunt of subsequent victories anyway, and Russia would only earn additional problems from the "liberation of Europe"...
        1. +4
          20 May 2026 15: 02
          Quote: Illanatol
          It cannot be proven, but there is some logic to it.

          The logic is pure conspiracy theory. And according to Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is always more likely: Chichagov didn't divide his forces to cover all possible crossing points, as his army was significantly inferior to the French. And he had no precise information about the dire state of the Grande Armée. Chichagov concentrated his main force at the most likely crossing point (according to both intelligence reports and Kutuzov's previous instructions).

          Napoleon built a bridge elsewhere and managed to quickly retreat before our main forces arrived. But he abandoned his army and escort. So, essentially, Chichagov simply didn't want to take any risks, even though he was already in a good position. And he didn't lose. But he also didn't maximize his gains. That's what most normal people do, in my opinion. request
          1. +1
            21 May 2026 14: 00
            Yes, of course. But all world history, and the history of wars, is a history of conspiracies, counter-conspiracies, and calculations. And we must strive for the optimal course of action in a given situation, which is not inconsistent with Occam's razor.
            You can consider, if you wish, the consequences of possible scenarios, which would be optimal for Russia’s interests.
            1. Chichagov intercepts Napoleon, takes him prisoner, or Napoleon dies. Who gets the perks (not the glory)?
            2. A real-life scenario. Napoleon leaves, the Russian army follows him, and goes to liberate the Europeans (they'll be very grateful, yeah).
            3. Chichagov lets Bonaparte slip away; after his expulsion, Russia withdraws from the war and focuses on its own problems. Personally, I believe this option is optimal for Russia. Bonaparte would certainly not have set foot in Russia a second time, and the "nasty Englishwoman" could have become bogged down in a long-running dispute with France, which would have only played into Russia's hands.
            Russia's main problem in that situation was the foolish and short-sighted ambitions of Emperor Alexander, who, for the sake of his own vanity, acted contrary to Russia's true interests... perhaps not without the consequences of the conspiracy that made him emperor in his time.
            1. +1
              21 May 2026 14: 30
              Quote: Illanatol
              Russia's main problem in that situation was the stupid and short-sighted ambitions of Emperor Alexander

              I don't share your opinion. In my opinion, the period after the victory over Napoleon and before the Crimean War was a golden age for our country at all times. And the so-called "quartet of powers," where a few large countries (including Russia, of course) control Europe and most of the world, is precisely what we should strive for today.

              In my humble opinion, options 1 and 2 would be isolated instances of what actually happened in our history. A slight improvement would have been if Napoleon had been captured in good condition and a negotiated settlement had been reached with him regarding the shared interests of Russia and France. In that case, the Crimean War would have been postponed, and perhaps even merged with World War I, and it's not a given that Russia and England would have been on the same side.

              Scenario 3 – isolationist, the worst, IMHO. Russia is stewing in its own juices, falling further and further behind global technological leaders. The risk of repeating the fate of the Sublime Porte is very high. And it's not a given that we would even have found our own Atatürk. sad
              1. 0
                22 May 2026 08: 35
                The reign of Nicholas II was an era of missed opportunities. It was during this period that we began to lag technologically behind the Western powers. We rested on our laurels, and instead of initiating real reforms and modernization, we began to spend resources on maintaining order in Europe, for which we were repaid with "goodwill" during the Crimean War.
                I believe that first of all we need to put our own house (country) in order, and not try to help those from whom we will not expect reciprocity and who themselves perceive order differently.
                Foreign policy should serve domestic policy, not the other way around.

                The Crimean War would never have happened if the Romanovs hadn't become fascinated with the mirages of Pan-Slavism and tried to seize the straits (the Bosphorus and Dardanelles). They asked for it, it must be admitted.

                Nonsense. What makes you think that refusing to participate in other people's squabbles is isolationism? On the contrary, "armed neutrality" would have allowed us to focus more on domestic development and even expanded foreign economic contacts. Didn't we trade well during Catherine's time?
                What does Porta Turkey have to do with this? It was, in fact, quite active in foreign policy, though more as an object, a tool in the hands of others, than a subject.
                Isolation is more typical of Sweden and Switzerland, and the United States is also worth mentioning. But they weren't exactly lagging behind; on the contrary, their neutrality toward European affairs actually benefited them.
                1. 0
                  22 May 2026 09: 28
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  It was during this period that we began to lag technologically behind Western powers.

                  Why this particular period? They had lagged behind before; for example, Napoleon's army had a clear advantage in the quality of its artillery and small arms. request

                  Quote: Illanatol
                  The Crimean War would not have happened if the Romanovs had not become carried away

                  In my opinion, the main reason for the Crimean War was the imbalance. Russia was technologically inferior, yet had great influence and ambitions. This, naturally, caused resentment and a desire to take a bite out of its competitors. And one pretext or another would always be found.

                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Why do you think that refusing to participate in other people's squabbles is isolationism?

                  The point is that development requires not only resources (of which Russia had plenty), but also motivation. When you see your competitors pulling ahead, pecking at your ass, and potentially destroying you altogether, it's a bummer. Otherwise, no one cares. Leaders are complacent, and subordinates send glowing reports to their superiors so as not to upset them.

                  And it seems we have somewhat different definitions of "isolation." I'm not at all in favor of wasting resources on abstract little brothers. But I do advocate being extremely active in both Europe and the world. And not sitting on your ass, supposedly busying yourself with settling things. Occasionally giving your opponents a beating, and maybe even getting a beating from time to time. Being a jack of all trades, and as a result, always in shape. Incidentally, Catherine the Great's policies were extremely active and aggressive. She's a worthy example. Yes
      3. +2
        20 May 2026 19: 42
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Chichagov lost tactically to Napoleon and lost the last one, although he fought well

        I don't mean to diminish Chichagov's achievements on the Berezina, but the author has made him seem too sweet and rosy. Chichagov, to put it mildly, wasn't perfect. Here's an example: Napoleon, in addition to the main crossing, made a false oneChichagov fell for this hoax. By the time it all came to light, time had already been lost. By the time the artillery began working on the real crossing, according to various estimates, between 20 and 30 men had already crossed. Naturally, these were the most combat-ready units, the guards, and so on. For some reason, the author omitted this delicate detail. recourse In general, the triumvirate Kutuzov-Chichagov-Wittgenstein did not act in a completely coordinated manner. request And this isn't an unfortunate series of mistakes; it's the rule. It couldn't have been any other way. Each of the three had their own instructions and their own vision of the situation. Conversely, Napoleon naturally had unity of command.
    2. +3
      20 May 2026 09: 57
      I'd like to thank the author for a wonderful article. I live in Borisov myself, but some of the facts were unknown to me. Sincerely. hi
    3. 0
      21 May 2026 15: 23
      Quote: V.
      Thank you for the interesting research into the final battle with Napoleon on Russian territory.

      According to Kutuzov's plan, Chichagov was to defend the western bank of the Berezen River. To achieve this, it was wise to destroy the bridges. But Chichagov threw his troops into a counter-battle, during which they were routed by Napoleon. Afterward, demoralized, he went into a defensive stance and even abandoned intensive reconnaissance by the Cossacks. As a result, Napoleon was able to cross the Berezen River and build a bridge. Chichagov's main mistake was underestimating Napoleon. To destroy the Grande Armée, even after its successful crossing of the Berezen River, it would have been sufficient to continue fighting on the small rivers, forcing the French cavalry to ford them and then fight the Cossacks, wet and hungry. But Chichagov failed to prepare the bridges over the small rivers west of the Berezen River for destruction and did not burn or blow up a single one. Had he done so, the French would have been forced to ford them, wet and then frozen, in temperatures around 0°C and below. Immediately after the battle, the rivers broke up and flooded, making crossing them for hungry soldiers mortally dangerous. Kutuzov and Chichagov had a complicated relationship. Chichagov considered Kutuzov more foolish than himself and convinced Alexander I to replace Kutuzov at the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812, citing his inability to decisively defeat the Turks with his small forces. Chichagov convinced Alexander I to give him two letters. The first accused Kutuzov of failing to conclude peace and dismissed him for it. The second simply dismissed him. Kutuzov, realizing that Chichagov would demand too much from Turkey and prolong the war with the Turks until Napoleon's invasion, made concessions. Chichagov failed to firmly control his troops at the Battle of Vyborg, aiming them at capturing the king. As a result, while pursuing the king, the Russians missed the opportunity to inflict heavy losses on the Swedish rowboat fleet at Vyborg. Seeking to restore his authority after the unconvincing victory at Vyborg, relatively close to Kronstadt, Chichagov sent a rowboat fleet to the shores of Sweden, where the Russians, exhausted by the crossing, suffered a terrible defeat.
      1. +2
        21 May 2026 15: 33
        You have united father and son into one person.
  2. + 13
    20 May 2026 05: 07
    I wonder why "a long but inglorious life"? The man simply lived a quiet life and that was it. Why the need to get involved?
    1. Fat
      +8
      20 May 2026 10: 20
      In 1834, Pavel Chichagov was stripped of all ranks, awards, and wealth for refusing Emperor Nicholas I to return to his homeland.
      Indeed, up until this point, the admiral had lived and traveled throughout Europe while on indefinite leave, but no official resignation had been issued. Refusing to comply with the Emperor's demand to return to his homeland left P. Chichagov a penniless "relocant." It was precisely this refusal that made this defector, a former admiral who became a scapegoat, famous.
  3. +4
    20 May 2026 06: 18
    Kutuzov's desire to spare his soldiers during the Battle of Krasnoye is more a reflection of limited resources than of his notorious sentimentality.

    The author is kicking the "Old Fox", would you like to read his arguments?
    Researchers of M.I. Kutuzov's "military art" generally note that he cherished his "little soldiers." He always preferred to employ intricate tactical maneuvers or fight in positions rather than thoughtlessly lay waste to his subordinates on the battlefield. I don't think the Field Marshal betrayed himself at Krasnoye.
  4. +4
    20 May 2026 06: 32
    The audience probably remembered how the Swedish king left the lyrical hero's father near Vyborg, so questions arose.
  5. +8
    20 May 2026 08: 39
    I've never understood why Borodino is considered a great victory. The battlefield is in the enemy's hands, and the defenders suffer greater losses. It was useful and heroic, but it was still a defeat.
    1. +9
      20 May 2026 09: 42
      Well, no one seems to be talking about a great victory. A great battle, yes. And definitely not a defeat. Because Napoleon failed to fulfill his combat mission—to defeat the Russian army. But Kutuzov did—to prevent himself from being defeated. In football terms, Napoleon was only satisfied with a victory in the form of a rout of the Russian army, while Kutuzov was satisfied with a draw. That's why Kutuzov has a weakened left flank and an overloaded right, so he can immediately retreat along the Mozhaisk road if something happens.
      1. +2
        20 May 2026 09: 59
        Quote: alovrov
        Therefore, Kutuzov has a weakened left flank and an overloaded right one, so that if something happens, he can immediately retreat along the Mozhaisk road.

        He simply forgot about the right flank, and Barclay de Tolly himself came to Bagration's aid; otherwise, there would have been no one to flee. Kutuzov, after Kutaisov's death, also forgot about his artillery. Had Barclay de Tolly been in Kutuzov's place, it's unclear who would have won.
      2. +1
        20 May 2026 13: 10
        Battle goals are set before the battle, not devised afterward. Can you imagine a scene where Kutuzov sets the goal, the objective of the upcoming battle, as "not to allow ourselves to be routed"? Kutuzov defined the battle's objective somewhat differently:
        On August 19, Kutuzov wrote to Field Marshal N.I. Saltykov and the Tsar himself, promising to fight Napoleon "to save Moscow." On August 20, he wrote to Chichagov: "My real objective is the salvation of Moscow."
        M.I. Kutuzov T.4, part 1. From 97, 106, 113.
        On August 24 (2 days before the battle), I. I. Morkov (the commander of the Moscow militia) conveyed to Rostopchin from Kutuzov: "We cannot allow him (referring to Napoleon) to reach Moscow. If we let him there, all of Russia will be his."
        People's militia in the Patriotic War of 1812. Collection of documents. Moscow, 1962. Page 71.
        Well, yes, he did it, he saved Moscow. There were such fireworks in honor of the rescue that they had to rebuild it from scratch.
    2. +3
      20 May 2026 09: 45
      Quote: El123
      I've never understood why Borodino is considered a great victory. The battlefield is in the enemy's hands, and the defenders suffer greater losses. It was useful and heroic, but it was still a defeat.

      From a strategic perspective, losing the army would have been more disastrous, which is why Borodino was abandoned.
      Napoleon based his strategy on a decisive battle. After winning, he received a contribution, incorporated the enemy's troops into his army, and so on.
      Napoleon didn't achieve his goal at Borodino. Essentially, this marks the beginning of the end, or the apogee, of the "Scythian War."
    3. +2
      20 May 2026 11: 11
      Strongly disagree.
      The word "Victory" in Russian has two meanings:
      Narrow military, defeat, destruction of the enemy;
      Achieving the set goal.
      So, Kutuzov’s goal was to prevent the defeat of the Russian army and to weaken the enemy as much as possible.
      Napoleon's only goal was the complete and final defeat of the Russian army. This was the only thing that could save him.
      So which of them achieved their goal?
      1. +1
        20 May 2026 13: 33
        prevent the defeat of the Russian army

        Well, back then, they could have avoided giving Napoleon a chance and played on his field (literally and figuratively), avoiding a decisive battle and retreating further, without losing half their army. Borodino cannot be considered a victory. It was a battle that created uncertainty for both sides.
        1. +2
          20 May 2026 13: 56
          In fact, Kutuzov wasn't planning a general battle. He was forced to defer to the Army's wishes. It seems this has long been known...
          1. 0
            22 May 2026 08: 47
            Actually, I might as well not give in.
        2. +3
          20 May 2026 14: 00
          This "goal" was invented after the fact. Kutuzov had voiced the battle's objective beforehand, several times in fact. The battle brought no uncertainty. Napoleon obviously expected it to be like after Wagram—an armistice and peace, on his terms. The uncertainty set in later, when the armistice didn't work out.
    4. +1
      20 May 2026 20: 10
      Quote: El123
      The battlefield is the enemy's

      Have you been reading too many new wave historians? What makes you think that? By the end of the battle the French returned to their original positions to regroup. What's the point of holding them back? request The French needed the previously occupied positions to develop their success and defeat Kutuzov’s army, but there was no defeat (victory) in sight.
      1. 0
        22 May 2026 08: 49
        Well, what happened next? Did the dispute over the field continue?
    5. 0
      20 May 2026 20: 49
      Quote: El123
      the defenders suffer more losses

      Where did you get that from? The opposing side naturally understates its losses, while exaggerating those of the enemy. Napoleon himself wrote in a letter to Louise that the Russians lost 30000 men. One can downplay one's own losses, attributing them retroactively to the retreat from Moscow and so on. But here's the problem: the losses of marshals, generals, and officers cannot be concealed. And the losses were horrific: 49 marshals and generals, 25 (!!!) of whom were killed. Officer losses exceeded two thousand! Knowing the proportion of French soldiers lost per officer, historians long ago came up with a figure of 35000 men. In any case, The losses of the Grand Army at Borodino were clearly comparable to the losses of the Russians! What is not surprising at all is that Napoleon did not make any flanking maneuvers, hit in the forehead, respectively – the right flank, the center, and the left flank. The Russian troops were protected by flèches and redoubts. Let me remind you, the French were the attacking side. Kutuzov had more cannons, showering the enemy with grapeshot and cannonballs. So why, in your opinion, such an imbalance in losses? request I will answer you: French historians and ours, who create them, are simply replaying this battle on paper.
      1. +1
        20 May 2026 22: 38
        The French actually suffered far fewer losses, almost 1,5 times fewer. This can be explained by the Russian troops' extremely poor (dense and deep) formation. As a result, the French artillery fired almost perfectly. However, the majority of the Russian artillery did not participate in the battle. Participants in the Battle of Borodino recalled that when the French artillery ceased firing and the attack began, the troops felt a sense of relief. Two Russian Guards regiments, Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky, remained in reserve in the second or third line throughout the battle, but suffered significant losses from the artillery.
        "The Russian troops were covered by flèches and redoubts" - you apparently didn't see these "flèches and redoubts"; a battalion could only be placed inside them as a crowd.
        The French suffered heavy losses in generals because of their habit of personally leading attacks.
        Incidentally, the casualty and strength records of both armies after the battle have been preserved. Take a look at them.
      2. 0
        20 May 2026 22: 51
        The Russians had more artillery, but Kutuzov used less than half of it in the battle - the rest was not even in reserve, but was withdrawn further away so as not to be left without artillery in the event of defeat.
        1. +1
          21 May 2026 15: 52
          Quote: Melior
          The Russians had more artillery, but Kutuzov used less than half of it in the battle - the rest was not even in reserve.

          Russian cannon carriages had wooden axles, while French ones had metal ones. This made Russian cannons more difficult to maneuver. Russian slashing weapons were much inferior to French ones at the time. Sabers would sometimes break at the point of impact or at the base of the blade after striking a French saber, unlike French ones. Napoleon was considered a master of artillery. Furthermore, Kutaisov died early in the battle, leaving no equally successful successor to replace him. Kutuzov underestimated the militia's fighting ability, keeping them in the rear as reserves. At Polotsk, Peterburk's militia held its own against French artillery fire and fought successfully in bayonet combat.
  6. +5
    20 May 2026 08: 43
    Thanks to the author, for those "simply interested" it is clear that the common view of Napoleon's army running headlong and drowning in the Berezina River with almost a "flick of the wrist" is not entirely correct.

    In French, the word "Berezina" became synonymous with complete defeat (C'est la Berezina)

    and is still a living and quite frequently used figure of speech :)
    1. 0
      20 May 2026 11: 12
      Those who are simply interested can pick up Bezotosny’s ​​books.
      1. +1
        20 May 2026 15: 07
        Quote: Grossvater
        Those who are simply interested can pick up the books

        Well, "everyone" these days is on their phones like they're wearing silk, and books are only seen in museums of vanished civilizations... but that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to know at least something :)
  7. +6
    20 May 2026 09: 59
    Chichagov, I think, is the main hero of the battle - he took Minsk, the huge warehouses there and prisoners, he took Borisov, blocking the main road and, most importantly, destroyed the capital Borisov bridge, forcing Napoleon to rush along country roads, losing precious time on reconnaissance and building bridges.

    With the Borsovsky bridge and road, Napoleon would not have had any problems with evacuation.

    Could it have been better? Probably. But Kutuzov could have been hasty, too...
  8. +3
    20 May 2026 11: 15
    In my opinion, this is a rather weak article; even Wikipedia's is much better. Not a word about the capture of Partuno's division or the heroic Swiss fight. The true reasons for the catastrophic French losses are barely mentioned. There's hardly a word about the weather conditions (the thaw) that dramatically worsened the French position.
    Sometimes you come across completely absurd words like “Each corps of Napoleon’s army consisted of an average of 20 thousand people”, and this was in November!
  9. 0
    20 May 2026 11: 18
    The article is an excellent example of criticizing the participants in the events from a position of hindsight. In other words, there's no trace of historical research here.
  10. +1
    20 May 2026 12: 13
    Victory is the achievement of a desired outcome. The French didn't win Borodino because their goal—the destruction of the Russian army and its forced peace—was not achieved. Kutuzov won because he fought under duress, and his goal—not to destroy the army or prevent its defeat—was achieved. Only French ignoramuses can consider it a victory that the enemy withdrew from the battlefield and did not continue fighting.
    Question: Who won the battle between Suvorov and Masséna after they descended from the Alps? Our troops withdrew after the battle, so let the French talk about their victory.
    1. 0
      20 May 2026 13: 41
      Provide documentary evidence of the goal of "not destroying the army." A goal or objective is set before an event, not invented after the fact, based on what happened. I'd really like to see documentary evidence of the "battle objective" you've outlined.
      1. 0
        20 May 2026 14: 09
        Viktor Mikhailovich Bezotosny
        "All battles of the Russian army 1804-1814. Russia against Napoleon."
        Read on and you'll find all the answers to your questions. I won't retell the book, sorry.
        P.S. Isn't Kutuzov's repeated reluctance to fight Napoleon documented? And what happened next?
        1. 0
          20 May 2026 14: 44
          So I'm not asking for a retelling of the book. A quote from the original, a document, a link, a page. That's enough for me.
        2. 0
          20 May 2026 14: 58
          Kutuzov's reluctance to fight Napoleon speaks only of his reluctance to fight Napoleon. Several possible reasons can be conjectured. Fantasy is a thing.
          But there are Kutuzov's dispatches before the battle, from the moment the location was being chosen. And in them, he clearly states to the Tsar, Saltykov, and Chichagov his purpose for giving battle.
          1. 0
            21 May 2026 16: 03
            Quote: Vagabung
            Kutuzov's reluctance to fight Napoleon only speaks of his reluctance to fight Napoleon.

            This was reasonable in 1812 and even in 1814. The Russian army wore Napoleon down with small wars and battles against troops led not by Napoleon personally but by his Marshals: at Polotsk, Tarutino, and Krasnoye. At Borodino, Smolensk, and Maloyaroslavets, the Russians were forced to retreat after battles. In 1814, Napoleon won about a dozen victories over the Russians, Germans, and Austrians before Mortier, losing the battle and surrendering Paris, capitulated, ending the war.
            1. 0
              22 May 2026 09: 06
              You're off topic. You're right that this tactic was reasonable, but the point of discussion here wasn't the reasonableness of the tactics, but the goal (objective) of the general battle (Borodino).
    2. 0
      20 May 2026 15: 07
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Question: Who won the battle between Suvorov and Masséna after they descended from the Alps? Our troops withdrew after the battle, so let the French talk about their victory.

      It was a completely different situation. Masséna, caught in an ambush, received a good slap in the face, and retreated. The Russian army, however, didn't retreat immediately, but feigned an offensive, even making slight advances at times, misleading Masséna. He had already begun preparing for defense. And only then did Suvorov withdraw. At Borodino, Napoleon was ready to continue the battle the next morning, but there was no one left to fight.
  11. +1
    20 May 2026 13: 08
    Interesting facts and comments.
  12. BAI
    +1
    20 May 2026 17: 01
    In 1942, the partisan detachment where my father-in-law served as a scout (at age 13) was pinned down by the Germans at the Berezina River, also in Belarus. This happened in late November or early December. Three-quarters of the detachment perished during the crossing.
  13. +2
    20 May 2026 17: 33
    The only thing I can say is that for the French, the very word "Berezina" became synonymous with complete and final defeat.
    Well, that's all, actually. hi
  14. 0
    20 May 2026 19: 15
    The author correctly writes that Napoleon dumped all the ballast in the form of civilian convoys and "various other Swedes" from the conquered peoples and left with the guard
    1. 0
      20 May 2026 22: 48
      "Napoleon dumped all the ballast in the form of civilian supply trains and 'various other Swedes' from the conquered nations and fled with the Guard" – that's not true. All combat-ready French troops crossed the Berezina under orders and in an organized manner. But almost half the men, consisting of those separated from their units and having abandoned their weapons – an unruly mob – failed to cross in time to settle down for the night. And it was the next morning that disaster struck.
      1. 0
        21 May 2026 15: 00
        When the bulk of the Grand Army's combat-ready units had crossed the river, Victor began withdrawing his troops to Studenka, where he occupied the nearby heights. When Wittgenstein launched another attack, the marshal staunchly repelled all his attacks.
        That night, when the fighting died down, the crossing was deserted. Marshal Victor himself walked among the fires, urging the crowd to cross. But they ignored him; they sat by the fires and roasted the meat of their fallen horses. At dawn on November 29, the last soldiers of the 9th Corps' rearguard, having completed their task, crossed the bridge to the opposite bank. Then Wittgenstein's artillery began shelling the enemy's positions, but only the same unruly crowd remained. They rushed toward the crossing, crushing each other, and falling into the water. That's how the catastrophe occurred.
        1. 0
          21 May 2026 17: 34
          Marbot, a participant in the Battle of Berezina, wrote in his memoirs that he and his hussar regiment (at the time, it had over 500 horsemen!) were crossing the Berezina slightly off the main crossing and found a ford there about a meter deep. It was quite possible to drive carts into the river, lay planks on them, and the bridge would be ready. With this information, he went to the army command; the marshals listened to him and didn't even order him, merely advising him: "Well, if you want to, go ahead." Naturally, Marbot crossed his regiment and did nothing. So much for that small glimpse into the period.
  15. 0
    20 May 2026 21: 18
    I recently attended a lecture (it's a quick search on YouTube) by historian B. Kipnis on this very subject, so everything I'm writing below is from the lecture:
    Firstly, the analogy with the "hundred-gun ship and fishing boats" from D. Davydov is not about the army as a whole, but about Davydov's impressions from the meeting of his detachment with Napoleon's guard - he was very struck by the composure and power emanating from the guardsmen surrounding the Emperor.
    Secondly, Kutuzov's approach was to "grind down" Napoleon's army using space, climate, and Russian troops. In that order. And yes, Kutuzov believed Napoleon should leave to spite England.
    Thirdly, the Russian army let Napoleon escape in what seemed like a completely advantageous situation: the river was ours on both banks, north, east, and west—it was surrounded everywhere. But no, he managed to escape. Napoleon was able to withdraw his most combat-ready troops, and the supply train was the one that suffered the most.
    Fourthly, the Emperor really pulled off a clever trick - not only through maneuver, but also through disinformation - the unfortunate Jews, who were first tortured about the road to the southern fords, were then allowed to escape to Chichagov's headquarters and deliver the necessary information to the right ears, and then, when Chichagov realized that the majority of the army had been sent to the wrong address, in the heat of the moment he gave the order to shoot the "liars."

    My personal impression of the war of 1812 was a complete victory for Russian arms, with defeat or a draw in almost all tactical battles.
    However, no matter what Western historians say, it is impossible to call a war victorious when you came with an army of 650,000 and withdrew, at best, 100,000 people, without achieving the main goal - forcing a continental blockade of England.

    Berezina is, of course, a missed "clean" victory, but it does not in the least diminish the glory of Russian arms.
    I think so.
  16. 0
    20 May 2026 21: 42
    Chichagov assumed command of Kutuzov's former army in the Turkish theater of operations and knew full well—or, if he didn't, his fellow soldiers who had participated in the victory over the Sultan could explain—that Kutuzov was a master of encircling large forces with small ones. Napoleon was encircled not by Admiral Chichagov's initiative, but by orders from his superiors, namely, Kutuzov. Or was it different in the army then? Kutuzov is perhaps one of the few strategists fortunate enough to encircle two different emperors—the Turkish and the French—in the short space of his life.