How the Russians took Paris, or the Great March to the West

5 947 41
How the Russians took Paris, or the Great March to the West

"Or should we start arguing with Europe again?"
AS Pushkin

Alexander I is perhaps one of the most successful rulers in Russian history. storiesHe not only repelled the invasion of a united Europe, but also made the Great March to the West, triumphantly entering Paris on March 31, 1814.

The Greatness of Alexander I


The successes of the Russian tsars before and after Alexander I were much more modest—none managed to triumphantly enter the capital of a major enemy state. They fought the Swedes, Turks, and Japanese, but their capitals were inaccessible to our armies. We never took Stockholm, Istanbul, or Tokyo. True, we captured Berlin under Elizabeth Petrovna (1760), but Germany had not yet achieved power. In terms of effectiveness, Alexander I can be compared only to Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great, and perhaps Soviet General Secretary Joseph Stalin.

Despite its obvious triumph, historians tend to downplay the significance of the Great March to the West. On Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, the campaign is completely subsumed within the faceless War of the Sixth Coalition. Other reference sources modestly list it as the Foreign Campaign of the Russian Army of 1813–1814.



Meanwhile, an extraordinary event took place, comparable to the campaigns of Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan. The Russian Tsar Alexander I not only repelled the attack but also crushed the powerful French Emperor Napoleon, before whom all of Europe trembled.

How was this possible? By the end of the Patriotic War of 1812, Russia was exhausted. By the beginning of the Foreign Campaign, the Russian army numbered approximately 100 soldiers. The French army had approximately the same number, but Napoleon had virtually all of Europe behind him, with its colossal industrial and mobilization potential.

The Inevitability of the Long March


Studying the history of the Great Patriotic War, no one doubts that Hitler needed not only to be driven out of the country but also to be completely destroyed by the regime he had created. However, after the Patriotic War of 1812, "enlightened" Russian society wavered, and many were opposed to continuing the fighting. Such thoughts were even attributed to Field Marshal Kutuzov. There is even a legend about his curse on Alexander I for the Foreign Campaign. Supposedly, Kutuzov told the Russian Tsar before his death: "I forgive you, but Russia will not forgive you.".

However, Napoleon, defeated at the Berezina, did not seek peace, so Alexander I had little choice. Either give the French army time to rebuild, or seize the window of opportunity. And an opportunity did indeed present itself.

After Napoleon's defeat, unrest began within his multinational army of "twelve languages." The Austrians and Germans (Prussians) wanted out, but while the former sought only neutrality, the latter were inspired by ideas of German national liberation from the French yoke. German nationalism subsequently caused much misery, including to Russia itself, but it would have been a shame not to take advantage of it.

Alexander I believed he was being guided by Providence itself, so he decided not to wait for the revival of Napoleon's army. On January 12, 1813, Field Marshal Kutuzov, guided by the will of the Russian Tsar, addressed his soldiers with the following words:

Let us cross the borders and strive to complete the defeat of the enemy in his own fields.

The Beginning of the Foreign Campaign



The Russian army crossed the border river Neman and entered Prussian territory, which at that time was completely dependent on France. Remarkably, the Russian army was not going to conquer, but to liberate.

In German historiography, the Russian army's overseas campaign is referred to as the Befreiungskriege—the War of Liberation. It was then that the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III instituted the infamous Iron Cross military decoration. It was initially awarded to those Germans who fought on Russia's side.

The Russian army advanced easily where local (East) Germans welcomed their liberators. However, the garrisons of the French fortresses on the Vistula held out until the end of 1813. Danzig (Gdansk) capitulated only on November 29, and Modlin on December 1.

Poland (then the Duchy of Warsaw) was defended by the Austrian corps of Marshal Schwarzenberg, but it was possible to negotiate neutrality with him, and he retreated without a fight to the borders of the Austrian Empire.

Flying detachments (a larger version of sabotage and reconnaissance groups) of the Russian army under the command of Generals Wintzingerode, Tettenborn and Chernyshev, with the assistance of the local population, quickly occupied such German cities as Berlin (March 4), Hamburg (March 17), Dresden (March 28) and Leipzig (April 4).

However, three months after its launch, the Russian army's overseas campaign fizzled out. Napoleon had managed to assemble and lead a large army force of 200,000 men into central Germany (Thuringia), almost twice the size of the Russian army's expeditionary corps. Russia also suffered a heavy loss: on April 28, Field Marshal Kutuzov died suddenly in Silesia (southwestern Poland).

The Russian army was in turmoil. The new commander, General Wittgenstein, though renowned as the savior of St. Petersburg, demonstrated very modest results in his new role.

Battle of Lützen



During the Battle of Lützen on May 2, 1813, Wittgenstein encountered Napoleon's renewed army and decided to attack it on the march to Leipzig (Saxony). However, something went wrong. Napoleon deployed his reserves wisely and won the battle. The Russian army retreated back beyond the Elbe. Saxony, and with it the cities of Leipzig and Dresden, were lost. Wittgenstein blamed General Yermolov for the lack of artillery, and he blamed General Arakcheyev for the lack of horses. This led to the joke that an honest man's reputation depends on his livestock.

The forced retreat of the Russian army to Silesia demonstrated that the problem lay not in unfortunate accidents, but in systemic errors. Napoleon compared Lützen to Austerlitz, which marked a turning point in the military operations, and Alexander I was forced to reassure his colleague, the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III, and promise that all was not yet lost.

Armistice of Pleiswitz


Wittgenstein was replaced as commander of the Russian army by Barclay de Tolly, but on June 4 Napoleon was forced to conclude the Pleiswitz Armistice, which lasted for two months.

When the guns fell silent, the diplomats began to speak. Austria, represented by Ambassador Metternich, tried to persuade the parties to peace, but Napoleon's ambitions made him a poor negotiator. The French emperor demanded obedience, refused to make concessions, and threatened to occupy Vienna by October. Ultimately, Austria defected to Russia, and the Russian army was reinforced by both German (Prussian) and Austrian recruits. Great Britain and Sweden also supported Alexander I.

The summer truce of 1813 significantly increased the size of the Russian army. It was now divided into the Silesian (Russian-Prussian) and Bohemian (Russian-Austrian) armies. For political reasons, Field Marshals Blücher and Schwarzenberg were placed at the head of these groups. The core of these armies consisted of the Russian corps of Osten-Sacken and Barclay de Tolly. The overall command of the Foreign Campaign remained with the Russian Emperor Alexander I, who was stationed at the headquarters of the Bohemian army.

The historian S. M. Solovyov, in the spirit of his time, called the Russian emperor Agamemnon among kings, and V. M. Bezotosny characterized Alexander I as "shadow commander in chief" the entire coalition army of the Foreign Campaign.

The Battle of Germany: The Defeat of Dresden and the Victory at Leipzig



On August 26, after the end of the armistice, the major Battle of Dresden began, but the colossal coalition army led by Alexander I was unable to capitalize on its numerical superiority. The Russian Tsar, mindful of his failure at Austerlitz in 1805, trusted his generals, but there was no unity among them. The loose army had not yet developed combat coordination: the Germans (Prussians) often rushed things, while the Austrians sought to act more cautiously.

However, victory in the Battle of Dresden did not bring the French any significant advantage, as on August 29, in the Ore Mountains near Kulm, the Russian detachment of General Osterman-Tolstoy stopped Marshal Vandamme's corps and completely routed it. The status quo was restored. But time was working against Napoleon, as German national unrest was reaching critical mass.

On October 16, 1813, the Battle of Leipzig began, poetically dubbed the "Battle of the Nations." It involved not only Russians and French, but also Germans, Austrians, Poles, Swedes, Italians, British, Kalmyks, and Bashkirs. It became a turning point in the Foreign Campaign, as it drove Napoleon back beyond the Rhine. The French army numbered 200,000 soldiers, while the coalition army had 300,000. Alexander I's army was not only larger but also had undergone combat coordination. Lessons were learned from the mistakes of Lützen and Dresden.

At the decisive moment of the battle, the German (Saxon) units of Napoleon's army defected to the Russian side in full battle formation. German patriotism prevailed over loyalty to Napoleon, as further trench warfare would only have worsened the devastation of Saxony. The French tend to overestimate this betrayal, while the historian Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky believed that victory was already tilting toward the Russians, and the Germans simply did not want to end up on the losing side.

Be that as it may, Napoleon lost three marshals in this battle (Poniatowski was killed, while Rainier and Saint-Cyr were captured). He also lost Germany (except Hamburg), and its financial and mobilization resources were now devoted to Russia. The defeat at Leipzig led to the capitulation of a number of French fortresses in the rear of the Russian army.

The Rhine Campaign



In November 1813, the Russian army reached the Rhine. Germany ended there, and so did the goodwill of the Germans, who had readily provided forage, recruits, and reconnaissance. Having driven Napoleon back beyond the Rhine, the Austrians felt their mission accomplished and had no desire to fight the nation of Robespierre and the Marquis de Sade. Everyone feared a popular war, which could be sparked by local patriotic propaganda.

Alexander I divided his army into two parts: the Silesian Army crossed the Middle Rhine near Mainz, while the Bohemian Army moved upriver to Basel, Switzerland, and only there entered French territory. The local population was plunged into apathy and despondency, so despite the appeals of the French authorities, no partisan movement was observed. Furthermore, Alexander I strictly ensured that the war was conducted according to the rules, without looting or killing civilians. The Russian army was also assisted by a "fifth column" of French royalists who viewed Napoleon as an illegitimate revolutionary dictator.

However, it was no easy walk through France. Retreating from the border region of Lorraine, Napoleon suddenly attacked the extended positions of the Silesian Army in the Champagne region. At the Battle of Brienne on January 29, the French defeated the advancing Russian army and forced it to retreat. A week later, Napoleon completely routed General Olsufyev's Russian detachment at the Battle of Champaubert (February 10). The Russian army was forced to change tactics and begin maneuvering to avoid being picked off piecemeal. These tactical retreats are sometimes portrayed as the near-defeat of the Silesian Army during the "Six-Day War." However, the Russian army was in no position to stand firm in its captured positions.

Alexander I reinforced the Silesian Army with General Wintzingerode's corps, which allowed the advance on Paris to continue. On March 4, Soissons, 90 kilometers northeast of the French capital, was captured. The defeat (retreat) of the Russian army at Craon on March 7 was essentially a regrouping before the victory at Laon (March 10).

Napoleon retreated southeast to engage the Army of Bohemia, which he now considered his weak link. The Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube on March 20 was the last major battle he fought before his abdication. The French army encountered the main allied forces, engaging in a counterattack. It became clear that the local victories over the Russian generals were due solely to their own missteps. The coalition army had superior numbers and firepower.

Russian cannons on Montmartre


Having suffered a defeat at Arcis-sur-Aube, Napoleon retreated north and advanced toward the Rhine, attempting to divert the Russian army from Paris. However, Alexander I was not fooled by this maneuver. Having united with the Silesian Army at Châlons, he headed for the French capital, crushing the reserve corps of Marshals Mortier and Marmont at Fère-Champenoise (March 25). In the rear of the advancing Russian army, Napoleon was confronted by a screening force composed of Wintzingerode's corps, which successfully accomplished its task at Saint-Dizier. Three days later, the Russians were already on the outskirts of Paris.

At first, the Parisians tried to resist, but the Russian cannons on Montmartre threatened to reduce Paris to rubble. On March 30, the French capital capitulated, and on March 31, Alexander I triumphantly entered the city on a white horse, accompanied by the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III, Austrian Field Marshal Schwarzenberg, and a squadron of Cossacks. Local royalists welcomed the Russian tsar. The French Senate deposed Napoleon and elected a provisional government.

The Great March to the West came to a solemn end.
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 10
    9 June 2026 06: 32
    Comparing Napoleon and Hitler is completely inappropriate. Napoleon did not set out to exterminate and enslave the Russian population, unlike Adolf Hitler.
    And the Foreign Campaign for Russia turned out to be a dud...
    1. +5
      9 June 2026 07: 26
      I completely agree with you. Napoleon is not Hitler! And Russia's foreign campaign turned out not only to be a failure, but also to be followed very quickly by the Decembrist Revolt in Russia, and a little later by the "appearance" of Herzen's Russia...
      1. +1
        9 June 2026 09: 23
        Quote: north 2
        Russia's foreign campaign turned out to be more than just a dud

        +
        to "both your houses"@ !
        :)
      2. +6
        9 June 2026 10: 04
        Quote: north 2
        Napoleon is not Hitler!
        Napoleon was not created by the cunning Anglo-Saxons to be anti-Russian; on the contrary, Napoleon himself represented a threat to Britain, and sought an alliance with Russia, as was the case with Paul I, who was killed by conspirators, and, it must be understood, not without his English ears sticking out.
        The victory over Napoleon and the entry into Paris were achieved not thanks to, but in spite of, the vaunted Alexander I, who was more concerned with whether he was an emperor by blood or not. Frédéric César Legharpe was Alexander's teacher and mentor, instilling in him the ideas of the natural equality of people, the "common good" to which a sovereign should aspire, and political freedom. Despite all this, the student was implicated, albeit indirectly, in his father's murder, and the Russian people remained enslaved, even after fighting off the invaders. The Tsar was also very loyal to England. He granted concessions to Poland and made sweeping gestures in Europe, but not the abolition of serfdom or the momentous reforms in Russia. It was under Alexander I that Russia could have laid claim to global leadership and national development, but everything remained "as it was under grandma." Mysterious death or monasticism, holy elders, still a murky matter, ultimately—the Decembrists, striped booths, censorship, and, the shame of the Crimean War, from "grateful" Europe. A new, strange death, this time of Nicholas I.
        1. -2
          9 June 2026 20: 27
          Well, yes, and how did Napoleon miraculously escape from Egypt? Napoleon was indeed well-fed by the Anglo-Saxons, but how could the well-fed man turn against his benefactors?
          1. 0
            10 June 2026 06: 33
            Quote: Victor Sergeev
            Well, yes, and Napoleon miraculously got out of Egypt?
            If the Anglo-Saxons had "fattened" Napoleon in any way, it would have been with the intention of destabilizing France and sparking civil war. As for Egypt, I'll be very brief.
            Napoleon Bonaparte's Egyptian campaign (expedition) lasted from 1798 to 1801. Its goal was to conquer Egypt, turn it into a French colony, and undermine British dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean.
      3. -1
        9 June 2026 23: 32
        the very rapid emergence of the Decembrist revolt in Russia, and a little later the "appearance" of Herzen's Russia


        The Decembrists awakened Herzen, and Herzen launched revolutionary agitation."

        And so it went on until 1917...
        1. +1
          10 June 2026 08: 45
          Quote from solar
          The Decembrists woke up Herzen,

          He didn't get enough sleep and that's where it all started!
          And freaking out of their daring deed,
          He picked up a terrible world chime.
          What accidentally woke Chernyshevsky,
          Not knowing himself what he did.
          And that one from sleep, having weak nerves,
          Began to call Russia to the ax,
          - What disturbed Zhelyabov’s deep sleep?
          And that Perovskaya did not let him sleep.
          More details on livelib.ru:
          https://www.livelib.ru/quote/47255714-russkie-stihi-19502000-godov-antologiya-pervoe-priblizhenie-v-dvuh-tomah-tom-2-bez-avtora
  2. +3
    9 June 2026 07: 08
    Well, I liked the article. And the hints were clear. laughing
    1. +2
      9 June 2026 08: 39
      Well, I liked the article. And the hints were clear.

      I wonder if Pushkin is still in school? Hasn't he become a foreign agent? laughing
      He assessed Alexander I a little differently. wink
      1. + 10
        9 June 2026 08: 43
        He assessed Alexander I a little differently.
        He wrote this about Gorbachev. laughing
        1. +3
          9 June 2026 12: 22
          He wrote about Gorbachev. laughing

          Yeah, 200 years have passed, and he still wrote like he does today. One word: genius! laughing

          But what a shame in the meantime
          Is Kyiv under siege?
          There, looking at the fields,
          The people, struck by despondency,
          Stands on towers and walls
          And in fear awaits heavenly punishment;
          Timid lamentations in the houses,
          There is a silence of fear in the squares;
          One, near his daughter,
          Vladimir in sorrowful prayer;
          And a brave host of heroes
          With the faithful retinue of the princes
          Preparing for a bloody battle.


          wink
        2. +3
          9 June 2026 13: 00
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          He wrote this about Gorbachev.
          Maybe about the "grandmaster" too...
          1. +1
            9 June 2026 13: 04
            Maybe about the "grandmaster" too...
            The hairstyles don't match yet.
            1. +1
              9 June 2026 14: 48
              Quote: 3x3zsave
              The hairstyles don't match yet.
              How can I say this, and "it's not evening yet."
        3. 0
          9 June 2026 13: 00
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          he's talking about Gorbachev

          Well, and Khrushchev should join the gang too... or vice versa :)
      2. +3
        9 June 2026 08: 51
        Pushkin also spoke unflatteringly of Count Vorontsov, but this does not in the least diminish the Count's services to the country.
      3. +6
        9 June 2026 08: 56
        Quote: Arzt
        He assessed Alexander I a little differently.

        Alexander Sergeevich wrote a lot. request
        Again down to the bottom, drink a drop!
        But for whom? oh friends, guess ...
        Hooray, our king! So! let's drink to the king.
        He is a human! he is ruled by a moment.
        He is a slave to rumors, doubts and passions;
        Forgive him wrong persecution:
        He took Paris, he founded the Lyceum.

        Quote: Arzt
        Haven't you acquired the status of a foreign agent?


        Strictly speaking, Pushkin was quite the turbo-patriot of his time.
        [i]For what then? Answer: for that,
        What is on the ruins of flaming Moscow
        We did not recognize the brazen will
        Who were you trembling under?
        For the fact that they plunged into the abyss
        We are idol over kingdoms
        And redeemed with our blood
        Europe, freedom, honor and peace? ..
        You are formidable in words - try it in practice!
        Or the old hero, deceased on his bed,
        Unable to screw up your Izmail bayonet?
        Is the Russian tsar already powerless to speak?
        Or should we argue with Europe new?
        Il Russian weaned from victories?
        Or a little of us? Or from Perm to Tauris,
        From the Finnish cold rocks to the flaming Colchis,
        From the shocked Kremlin
        To the walls of immobile China,
        Shiny bristles,
        Will not the Russian land rise? ..
  3. +5
    9 June 2026 07: 19
    And I already thought it was Samsonov...
    1. +4
      9 June 2026 07: 56
      Likewise, the same storyteller. )))
      Be that as it may, in this battle Napoleon lost three marshals (Poniatowski died, and Reynier and Saint-Cyr were captured)

      Rainier promoted him to marshal. Saint-Cyr wasn't even present at Leipzig. He remained with his corps in Dresden, and surrendered there after Napoleon's defeat at Leipzig. And not immediately, but after November 11th.
  4. +1
    9 June 2026 08: 07
    Alexander brought peace to blood-drenched Europe and Russia.
    1. +4
      9 June 2026 09: 09
      And well-being for their British handlers...
  5. +4
    9 June 2026 08: 20
    This article is one of those that turns history upside down without a single lie, simply by omitting facts. I understand the author's desire to extol Russia in everything, but one must know one's limits. Austria and Prussia played a very active role in the war of 1813-1814; without them, the Russian army stood no chance against Napoleon. This was demonstrated already during the spring campaign of 1813, when Napoleon managed to halt and defeat the combined Russian-Prussian forces. Austria's entry into the war against the French decided the outcome of the military action. Napoleon was simply overwhelmed by the sheer number of troops. And then there was the Spanish theater of operations, which was drawing off a significant portion of French forces.
    1. -1
      9 June 2026 18: 13
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      Napoleon was simply overwhelmed by the number of troops.

      Just like in the Great Patriotic War))
    2. +2
      13 June 2026 09: 31
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      Austria and Prussia played the most active role; without them, the Russian army had no chance against Napoleon.

      For Russia, this was a distant theater of war beyond the country's borders. For Napoleon, it was a matter of survival. One way or another, the outcome was the same—in Russia's favor, and disastrous for Napoleon. This suggests that Emperor Alexander's chosen tactics and strategy were correct.
  6. -5
    9 June 2026 12: 31
    Alexander should not have fought Napoleon for Britain's interests, but rather continued Paul's policy and, together with the French, put the British in a bind.
    But alas, everything went as it did.
    1. 0
      9 June 2026 13: 05
      Do you think the campaign in British India would have brought greater glory to Russian arms? Or wouldn't Alexander have ended his life, like his father, in yet another conspiracy?
  7. +5
    9 June 2026 13: 50
    I am still amazed by some of the commentators.
    Fighting for Britain's interests, in their opinion, is bad. And then, with a straight face, they suggest fighting for Napoleon's interests!
    Excuse me, but what's the difference?
    The British, by the way, were our main trading partners at the time. Well, at that point in time, there was no other buyer in the world for Russian wheat, hemp, and timber! Therefore, trade with them no alternative.
    Here some people complain, like, Alexander is behind British money fought. What if he did this? for free Would it have been better? Have you ever heard of Napoleon giving subsidies to his allies?
    No, he only benefited from them, ensuring a high standard of living for the "old departments" of his empire. That is, France itself.
    Here's another brilliant argument. As a result of the Foreign Campaign, Russia received "Russophobic Poland".
    And if we had gone to India, what would we have gained, besides moral satisfaction? Bollywood and Sri Lanka? Unlikely. At most, the northern part of Persia, that is, southern Azerbaijan. And only if the campaign had been successful, which, to put it mildly, is unlikely!
    And if you think the Azerbaijanis "love" us more than the Poles, I hasten to disappoint you. Absolutely not! Yes
    But maybe we shouldn't fight at all? Like, let the Europeans simmer in their own cauldron without us...
    I'm afraid it won't work. For the same reason that 1812 happened. Napoleon, if you didn't know, didn't need Russia's black soil or the vast expanses of Siberia. He simply wanted us to join the Continental Blockade and become his satellites. The collapse of our economy didn't interest him much. Because the sheriff's Indian problems weren't... well, you know. feel
    And finally, regarding the comparison of Napoleon Karlovich and Adolf Aloisovich.
    In 1813, there was no Ost plan, no concentration camps, no siege of Leningrad. And no one could have imagined such a thing possible.
    But the devastated Russian provinces, the burning of Moscow, and the desecrated churches were certainly real. That's why our ancestors treated the Corsican dwarf much the same way we treat the Austrian one. And they had every reason to.
    1. 0
      9 June 2026 14: 00
      And if we had gone after India, what would we have gotten, besides moral satisfaction? Bollywood and Sri Lanka? Unlikely. At most, the northern part of Persia, that is, southern Azerbaijan.

      The Russian army would have entered Afghanistan 150 years earlier, but the benefits would have been the same.
      1. +3
        9 June 2026 14: 08
        The Russian army would have entered Afghanistan 150 years earlier,
        She simply wouldn't have reached him.
    2. +3
      9 June 2026 21: 10
      Good evening!
      Excellently said, there's nothing fundamental to add.
    3. +2
      10 June 2026 09: 03
      Ivan Valerievich, everything is described perfectly!
      As the saying goes, he who has ears to hear, let him hear. good
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. +2
    9 June 2026 23: 25
    I wonder where the image in the article's intro came from? The Arc de Triomphe in Paris was completed only in 1836, during the reign of King Louis-Philippe, more than 20 years after Napoleon's abdication.
    1. +1
      10 June 2026 07: 34
      The illustration is based on a painting by A.D. Kivshenko from 1880. Watercolor on paper.
    2. 0
      10 June 2026 09: 02
      Quote from solar
      The Arc de Triomphe in Paris was completed only in 1836, during the reign of King Louis-Philippe, more than 20 years after Napoleon's abdication.

      Maybe a layout?
      In 1810, when Napoleon's second wife, the newly-minted Empress Marie-Louise, was to make her solemn entry into the capital along the Champs-Élysées, a "decoration" of the future arch was hastily erected on the stone foundation, made of planks and rough canvas.
      But it is likely that the artist did not bother to depict the three arches of the Porte Saint-Martin
      1. 0
        10 June 2026 09: 17
        It is unlikely that the canvas would have stood for three years.
    3. 0
      10 June 2026 09: 18
      But the specific picture is already the work of the contemporary artist Troshin (2009)
      1. 0
        10 June 2026 09: 20
        Apparently, the student didn't bother to delve into historical accuracy.
        1. +1
          10 June 2026 09: 27
          He's an artist, that's how he sees it))
          1. +1
            10 June 2026 09: 30
            German artists painted less epically in 1815
            1. +1
              10 June 2026 10: 52
              This is probably a different arch; there are two in Paris. The one near the Louvre has three entrances at the front. The Arc de Triomphe on the Champs-Élysées has one central entrance. They are relatively close to each other, within walking distance.