Lazare Hoche: Bonaparte's Failed Rival

5 581 74
Lazare Hoche: Bonaparte's Failed Rival

Among Bonaparte's potential rivals, Jean-Victor Moreau is traditionally singled out, whose military reputation was only slightly tarnished by Suvorov, who defeated him twice in Italy (at the battles of Trebia and Novi). The Russian commander also defeated the future Marshal MacDonald and captured three generals—Gruchy, Pérignon, and Colli-Ricci (two of whom would become marshals). General Barthélemy Joubert, considered a rising star of the French army, was killed at the Battle of Novi.

Moreau was truly a very good commander, and he won the greatest victory of his life, equal to Austerlitz (at Hohenlinden on December 3, 1800), before Bonaparte. Napoleon himself called this battle one of the greatest in storiesHe generally had a very high opinion of Moreau's military talents and wrote to him on May 16, 1800:



I would gladly exchange the purple robe of the First Consul for the epaulettes of the brigade commander under your command.


Jacques Luc Barbier-Walbonne. Jean Victor Moreau

Moreau was arrested for his never-proven connection with the royalists and General Pichegru and was exiled to the United States in 1805.

Jean-Charles Pichegru, the young Bonaparte's former tutor in mathematics, was also considered a rival of this Corsican for a time; it was him, in a conversation with Doctor O'Meare on the island of Saint Helena, that Napoleon called "the most capable of the generals of the time of the Republic."


Charles Pichegru. Portrait by Alexandre-François Caminade

Over time, Pichegru came to sympathize with the royalists. He resigned as early as 1795. He was sent to hard labor after Augereau dispersed the Council of Elders and the Council of Five Hundred on September 4, 1797. He fled and in 1799 found himself in Switzerland with the army of General A. M. Rimsky-Korsakov, defeated by Masséna. Due to Rimsky-Korsakov's defeat, Suvorov was forced to change his route and abandon the march on Paris. Later, in England, Pichegru joined the famous Breton Chouan leader Cadoudal and traveled with him to France. There, he was arrested and found strangled in a cell in Temple Prison on April 6, 1804. We will probably discuss him in a separate article.

And the aforementioned General Barthélemy Joubert had a real chance of becoming a military consul, ahead of Bonaparte, who was stuck in Egypt.


Statue of Joubert on the facade of the Louvre

It was to him that Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, one of the founders of the Jacobin Club and an active member of the Feuillants Club, a former member of the Committee of Public Safety, president of the Convention and the National Assembly, and a high-degree Freemason of the Nine Sisters lodge, proposed to “restore order” in Paris and France.


Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès in a portrait by David

30-year-old Joubert proudly replied to the experienced intriguer:

If I want, twenty grenadiers will be enough to end all this.

By early summer 1799, a plan for a coup d'état had already been drawn up, but the conspirators decided that Joubert needed one more brilliant victory, after which he would return triumphant to an applauding Paris. But the young general's rival, Suvorov, emerged, and Joubert died at the very outset of the Battle of Novi, on August 15, 1799.

However, Bonaparte himself agreed to recognize a completely different general as his equal and his only rival – Louis Lazare Hoche, about whom he said:

If Gosh had crossed my path, I would have had to either retreat or break him.

And he said, upon learning of his death:

In the end, there were two of us, but one was needed.


Lazare Hoche at the Battle of Quiberon in a painting by Charles Porion


Napoleon Bonaparte at the Battle of the Bridge at Arcole in a painting by Horace Vernet

Marshal Emmanuel Grouchy in his memoirs directly calls Hoche "a hero, a rival of Bonaparte and an equally great military leader."
A contemporary of those events, the Belgian Jesuit and encyclopedist François-Xavier de Feller, reports:

Hoche's proud character, as well as his enormous influence on the soldiers, had for some time aroused fear in the Directory and Bonaparte, who saw him as a formidable rival.

And this is the opinion of the French writer Jacques Marquet de Montbreton:

Hoche, a great politician and a great commander, greedy for glory and adored by his troops, was the most dangerous rival for Bonaparte of all the generals of that time.

British historian Richard Holmes called Gosh:

Quick-witted, stern and ruthless... a general of genuine talent whose early death was a loss to France.

By the way, what do you think of this saying from Gosha:

If your sword is short, step forward!

And in the army they said that of all the generals, Gosh had “the longest saber and the shortest speech.”

Quite revealing, isn't it? We'll talk about Lazar Gosha in today's article.

Origin and early military career of Louis Lazare Hoche


The hero of this article was born on June 24, 1768, in the village of Montreuil, located near Versailles and considered a prestigious location for the construction of mansions for the French royal court. From 1783, the estate of Louis XVI's sister, Elisabeth of France, was located here, and in 1787, Montreuil became part of Versailles.

The future general's father, a retired soldier named Louis Hoche, served as a groom on the royal hunting grounds. His mother, née Anne Merlier, died when the boy was only two years old, and he was subsequently raised by his aunt, a fruit seller in the village. The future general was educated by his maternal uncle, a parish priest, and Hoche even served for a time as a choir singer in his church.

In 1782, his father arranged for 14-year-old Lazare Hoche to work in the royal stables, but in October 1784, he opted to enlist in the military. Initially, he wanted to enlist in the colonial troops in the distant East Indies, but ultimately became a quartermaster in a unit of the royal guard. In November 1785, we see him as a guard grenadier, and by May 1789, Hoche had risen to the rank of corporal. It is said that he spent almost all of his salary on books, which he read and became a staunch republican.

After the outbreak of the Revolution, the royal guard was disbanded, and Hoche took an active part in many of the events of the time, including the storming of the Bastille. He then served in Lafayette's detachment during his march on Versailles on October 5, 1789, and the following day accompanied King Louis XVI and his family during their forced move from Versailles to Paris.


Jacques François Joseph Swebach. Louis XVI enters Paris on October 6, 1789.

In September 1789, Hoche joined the new National Guard as a sergeant, and on January 1, 1792, he was transferred to the 104th Infantry Regiment, where he became a senior sergeant. Finally, on May 18, 1792, he received his first officer rank – he became a lieutenant in the 58th Infantry Regiment.

Hoche in the army of Republican France


Hoche's baptism of fire took place in August 1792, during the defense of the city of Thionville, besieged by Austrians and French émigrés. During this siege, in response to a demand to surrender, a wooden fairground horse was placed on the city wall with a haystack at its feet and the inscription:

Thionville will give up when this horse eats the hay.

Having distinguished himself here, Hoche received the rank of captain on September 1, 1792, and was sent to the Army of the Ardennes, where he became adjutant to General Alexis Leveneur de Tillières, with whom he developed a very good relationship.


Alexis Le Veneur in a portrait by an unknown artist

On March 18, 1793, Hoche took part in the Battle of Neerwinden, an unsuccessful battle for General Dumouriez's French army. In August of that year, following Dumouriez's betrayal and flight, Hoche and General Leveneur were arrested on suspicion of treason, but were soon (just 12 days) released. Once in Paris, Hoche presented a plan for a new military campaign, which received high praise from Lazare Carnot. Resigning his position as a battalion commander, Hoche returned to his duties as Leveneur's aide-de-camp, but was soon appointed chief of staff of General Souham's division and commander of the Dunkirk garrison. For his successful defense of that city against superior British forces (two thousand to 40 thousand), he was promoted to brigadier general on September 13, 1793. On the 22nd of that month, he became chief of staff of the Army of the Ardennes. A month later, on October 23, he was promoted to divisional general. And already on November 2, 1793, he was appointed commander of the Moselle army.

A comparison with the young Bonaparte might be instructive here. Napoleon was born a year before the subject of this article. Unlike Hoche, he received a professional military education and, before the revolution, already held the rank of officer—a junior lieutenant. However, we then see Hoche catching up and then overtaking the famous Corsican. They both achieved the rank of brigadier general in the same year: Hoche in September 1793 at the age of 25, Bonaparte at the end of 1793 after his triumph at the siege of Toulon—a little later, but still at the age of 24. However, just a month later, Hoche became a division general and almost immediately an army commander. Bonaparte, on the other hand, achieved the rank of division general only in 1795, at the age of 26 (after the suppression of the royalist rebellion), and command of the army in 1796.

So, Lazare Hoche became a general in September 1793 at the age of 25 and died four years later, on September 19, 1797. He spent almost four months in prison, released after Robespierre's fall. What did Lazare Hoche accomplish in those less than four years?

Republican Army General Lazar Ghosh



François Gérard. Portrait of Republican General Lazare Hoche.

On November 17, 1793, at the head of the Army of the Moselle, Hoche successfully fought the Prussians at Bitsch and Blieskastel, but on November 28, 1793, after crossing the Saar River, he was defeated at Kaiserslautern. However, in the second half of December, Hoche's Army of the Moselle and Pichegru's Army of the Rhine were able to go on the offensive again.

A few more words about the character of the article's hero.

As Hoche was giving his final orders before the Battle of Wörth-Fröschwiller, a cannonball split the tree trunk under which the general stood, and then a stray enemy bullet killed his horse. Rising from the ground, Hoche calmly said:

Apparently, these gentlemen want me to serve in the infantry.

He then ordered the soldiers to be told that he would buy the captured artillery guns, and kept his promise: he paid for 18 of them.

Thus, Hoche defeated the Austrians at Wörth-Fröschwiller, the Austrians and Prussians at Geisberg, and, building on this success, the French besieged Landau on December 27 and liberated it on December 31. Ultimately, the Austrians were forced to retreat across the Rhine, while the Prussian troops retreated to Oppenheim and Bingen. Finally, on January 17, 1794, the French occupied Fort Louis.

Meanwhile, the Army of the Rhine was placed under the operational control of Hoche, which greatly displeased Pichegru, an influential member of the Convention and people's representative in the Army of the Rhine, Louis Antoine Léon de Saint-Just.


The most famous portrait of Saint-Just (by an unknown artist) from the Musée Carnavalet, 1793. Note the "slave ring" on his ear (there is a second one on the other ear).

Wanting to see Pichegru as the commander-in-chief of the two united armies, Saint-Just secured Hoche's transfer to the south.

The vicissitudes of fate


On March 11, 1794, Hoche married 16-year-old Anna Adelaide Deshaux, who bore him two children: a daughter, who lived until 1867, and a son, who died in infancy.


Anna Adelaide Hoche with her daughter, 1798

On March 10, the day before his wedding, he was appointed commander of the Army of Italy. However, following a denunciation by Saint-Just and Pichegru, he was dismissed from this post just ten days later. On April 1, 1794, Hoche was arrested in Nice and transported to Paris, where he was first imprisoned in the Carmelite monastery, then in the Carmes prison in Paris. On May 16, he was transferred to the Conciergerie. Even Lazare Nicolas Margaret Carnot, a member of the Committee of Public Safety, who sympathized with the young general and served as acting president of the Convention from May 5 to 19, 1794, and a future member of the Directory, was unable to secure his release. One can imagine the grief of Hoche's young wife.

Hoche remained in the Conciergerie until July 27, 1794, when, during the Thermidorian coup d'état, "scoundrels rid France of fanatics."

Drawing parallels with Bonaparte's career, it's worth noting that Napoleon, by contrast, was on excellent terms with Robespierre's brother, Augustin, and was arrested just after the dictator's fall. But he was soon released—though without his position. Accompanied by his friends Junot and Marmont, he returned to Paris. Marmont recalled this time:

The three of us (he, Bonaparte, and Junot) found ourselves in Paris. Bonaparte without a position, I without a legal leave, and Junot as an aide-de-camp to a general the government refused to recognize. We spent our time at the Palais Royal and the theaters, despite having almost no money and no prospects for the future.

But on October 5, 1795, Bonaparte, summoned by Barras, suppressed the royalist rebellion in half a day, earned the nickname “General Vendémiaire” – and said to Junot:

If these fellows (the rebels) had given me command over them, how the members of the Convention would have been blown away!



Execution of rebels on 13 Vendémiaire, 4th year. Church of Saint-Roch, Rue Saint-Honoré. Etching by S. I. Helman based on a drawing by Charles Monnet.

However, another republican general was completely unlucky – Hoche’s friend and former commander of the Army of the Rhine, Alexandre de Beauharnais, who was executed on July 23, 1794 – a few days before the fall of Robespierre.


Jean-Louis Victor Vigée du Vignaud. Josephine de Beauharnais's Visit to Her Husband Alexandre, Detained in the Luxembourg Palace.

Hoche provided financial support for his friend's widow and consoled her as best he could, becoming her lover. However, some claim that Hoche and Josephine's affair began as early as April 1794, in a Carmelite convent that housed prisoners of both sexes and apparently had a lax regime. Thus, the subject of the article beat Bonaparte to the bed of this amorous Creole.

Finally, on November 3, 1794, Hoche was appointed commander-in-chief of the armies of Brest and Cherbourg, tasked with suppressing the rebellion in Vendée and Brittany. His aide-de-camp was Josephine de Beauharnais's 13-year-old son, Eugène, who would later become Bonaparte's stepson and Viceroy of Italy. Josephine now began to console herself alone, along with her friend Thérèse, a shameless "socialite" whose rescue from the guillotine by Jean-Lambert Tallien led him to deliver a speech in the Convention that brought down Robespierre, Saint-Just, Couthon, and many other ardent Jacobins.


Jean-Lambert Tallien

Their fate was decided by a short note from Teresa to Tallien:

I die because I belong to a coward.


Thérèse Tallien in a portrait by Marie-Guillemine Benoist

Ultimately, three members of the Committee of Public Safety, 10 members of the Committee of Public Safety, 13 deputies of the Convention, and 71 functionaries of the rebellious Parisian communes were executed. And, as some authors claim, the "Madonna of Thermidor" was released at the hour of Robespierre and his comrades' execution.


The execution of Robespierre on 10 Thermidor (28 July 1794)

Returning from Vendée, Eugène Beauharnais learned that after the suppression of the royalist rebellion in Paris on October 11-13, 1795, everything had been confiscated from the townspeople weapon, and went to Bonaparte, who had issued this order, with a request to return his father’s family sword.

In this drawing by Achille Devéria, we see Napoleon returning Eugène de Beauharnais's father's sword:


Napoleon did indeed return the sword, and some, incidentally, claim it was the first sword they came across that more or less matched the description, taken from the Arsenal. However, Eugène was in no position to quibble. Then Eugène's mother, the 32-year-old "merry widow" Marie Rose Josepha de Beauharnais, came to thank Bonaparte. On March 9, 1796, this Creole woman married this relatively unknown general, who was six years her junior, 11 years older than her stepson Eugène, and 14 years older than her stepdaughter Hortense.

In the next article, we'll continue our story about Lazare Hoche. We'll discuss the war in the Vendée, Hoche's triumph on the Quiberon Peninsula, the attempted landing in Ireland, further victories at the head of the Army of Sambre-et-Meuse, and the general's unexpected death.
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    4 July 2026 05: 55
    Interesting parallels with Bonaparte's fate. Looking forward to more.
    1. 0
      4 July 2026 07: 12
      At least two were more worthy than Napoleon to become dictator of France: Joubert and Moreau. Suvorov put Joubert to rest in battle, while Moreau's reputation was tarnished. negative also in battle. Meanwhile, Napoleon was "practicing" in battles with the Arabs during the Egyptian campaign. And to hell with his reputation, Moreau didn't have such an ambitious drive for power. fellow like Bonaparte.
      1. +5
        4 July 2026 08: 59
        Joubert, after all, hadn't yet had a chance to truly prove himself—he died at the height of his career, though he could have gone far. And Moreau, it seems, refused to become dictator when he was asked. Moreover, he himself recommended Bonaparte for the position—to his own detriment.
        1. VLR
          +3
          4 July 2026 10: 53
          Sieyès was a highly experienced and sophisticated intriguer; he was looking for a "sword," believing that the general he chose would be solely concerned with military affairs, while he himself would govern the state and "play big politics." This "trick" didn't work with Bonaparte, but with Joubert—if he had remained in Paris and not gotten into a fight with Suvorov—it might have worked.
          1. +1
            4 July 2026 21: 06
            "He fled and in 1799 found himself in Switzerland with the army of General A. M. Rimsky-Korsakov, who had been defeated by Massena."

            The French surname Massena is not declined, the stress is on the last syllable.
            1. 0
              5 July 2026 10: 29
              We live in Russia, not France, and we shouldn't mangle our language to please the French. Otherwise, we'll have to write Murat instead of Murat, Pauline instead of Polina, Paris instead of Paris, Canet instead of Cannes, Niçois instead of Nice, and so on.
              1. 0
                5 July 2026 13: 40
                Quote: vet
                We live in Russia, not in France, and we shouldn't distort our language to please the French.

                You're wrong. This is my opinion and conviction. I'm talking about the name Massena.
              2. 0
                12 July 2026 11: 51
                We live in Russia, not in France, and we should not distort our language to please the French.


                Here are the rules of the Russian language:
                Surnames of French origin are indeclinable: Dumas, Thomas, Degas, Lucas, Fermat, Gamarra, Petipa, etc.

                Surnames of other origins (Slavic, from eastern languages) are declined according to the first declension, i.e. the stressed ending -a is isolated: Mitta - Mitty, Mitte, Mittu, Mittoy; these include: Skovoroda, Kocherga, Kvasha, Tsadasa, Khamza, etc.

                (https://gramota.ru/poisk?mode=spravka&query=%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B8%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20-%D0%B0&simple=0&page=10,

                https://gramota.ru/spravka/vopros/300378#question)
    2. +2
      5 July 2026 08: 00
      I think this is a case where necessity drives people forward. Historical inevitability. No accidents. If it hadn't been Bonaparte, there would have been someone else. Society created the demand.
  2. 0
    4 July 2026 08: 59
    I think that if Bonaparte had been instead of Moreau, Suvorov would have tarnished his reputation, if he hadn’t killed him.
    Although there are those who like to belittle the genius of our commander, on the ground, this has not been proven by anyone, and will not be proven posthumously.
    Yes, he had a “flaw” - he was openly and loudly proud of being Russian, and this still bothers many people today.
    1. 0
      4 July 2026 19: 14
      Quote: faterdom
      I think that if Bonaparte had been instead of Moreau, Suvorov would have tarnished his reputation, if he hadn’t killed him.

      A very interesting detail. Napoleon was a passionate lover of evaluating other commanders of his era, as well as commanders who made history. In particular, Bonaparte spoke very highly of Saltykov (after all, he defeated Frederick at Kunersdorf). But here's the problem! Napoleon did not say a word about Suvorov.! Ignore this! fellow a block like Suvorov!? request What is it for? winked
      1. 0
        4 July 2026 20: 01
        But Suvorov had heard about him.
        And again, without Bonaparte’s assessment, Suvorov is not a military leader?
        Well, he did defeat Kutuzov, according to Western historical tradition, but it all ended strangely for the victorious appraiser. He barely escaped with a handful of confidants. It's a good thing he didn't have a boss, being a usurper, otherwise those at the top would have misunderstood Napoleon's plans and wouldn't have praised him for the result.
      2. +3
        4 July 2026 20: 12
        Quote: Proxima
        Napoleon didn’t say a word about Suvorov!

        Is it?
        There are quotes floating around the internet, but I don't know how true they are.
        "A barbarian drenched in the blood of Poles"
        "Marshal Suvorov had the soul of a great general, but not the head. He was endowed with a strong will, great energy, and fearlessness in the face of any challenge. But he had neither genius nor knowledge of the art of war."
        1. +1
          5 July 2026 08: 09
          Well, regarding his knowledge of the art of war, Napoleon may be right in the sense that he was the only one who combined the qualities of commander and sole ruler in one person. He could design a war from beginning to end, unconstrained by anyone or anything. And his mind was capable of developing plans that entire General Staffs later developed. But even here: neither the Spanish nor the Russian campaigns can be classified as art of war. Rather, they were the follies of war. But Napoleon also lacked his own historical experience. He had to do everything himself. "From the sublime to the ridiculous is only one step." His words.
          1. +1
            5 July 2026 08: 37
            Quote: MCmaximus
            He is the only one who combined in one person the qualities of a military leader and a sole ruler.

            At that time, perhaps. Although there had been Swedish monarchs before him, from Gustavus Adolphus to Charles XII, and our own Peter Alekseevich.
            Rather, his disdain was based on the fact that Suvorov's main adversaries were the Turks and Poles, who were no longer taken seriously. Although there was sympathy for the latter.
            Quote: MCmaximus
            But here too: neither the Spanish nor the Russian campaigns can be classified as the art of war.

            As said classic
            "You are so eager to judge the sins of others; start with your own, and you won't get to those of others."
            1. +2
              5 July 2026 14: 22
              Well... I wouldn't say that about those monarchs. Only Peter the Great had any strategic thinking. But fighting Sweden for 21 years doesn't exactly qualify him as a good strategist. And yes, he was a slightly overblown commander. The rest were just ordinary feudal princelings who knew how to win battles.
              And Napoleon really built a new Europe.
              1. 0
                5 July 2026 15: 18
                Yes, how to say.
                Gustavus Adolphus transformed an ordinary and rather poor state into a regional power that was, in one way or another, taken into account by many.
                About Peter, it's generally true. But he was persistent, consistent, and enterprising.
                He knew how to find the right solutions, even after trying all the wrong ones))) And as a result, he built a state that people listened to.
                Quote: MCmaximus
                And Napoleon really built a new Europe.

                I think it was a comfort to him on those long, dreary evenings on St Helena. request
                1. +1
                  5 July 2026 20: 00
                  He couldn't stop in time. He gambled for everything.
                  1. 0
                    6 July 2026 11: 15
                    Quote: MCmaximus
                    He couldn't stop in time. He gambled for everything.


                    One of his marshals said: if he stops, he will fall.
                    1. +2
                      6 July 2026 13: 39
                      Here Napoleon himself said that hereditary monarchs can afford defeat, but not he.
                      But he could stop.
              2. +1
                5 July 2026 23: 13
                Quote: MCmaximus
                But fighting with Sweden for 21 years does not characterize him as a good strategist.


                How many years did the Caucasian War last? Should we, on that basis, also label General Yermolov as a moron? Or not?
                1. 0
                  6 July 2026 08: 34
                  Yermolov wasn't the tsar. There were many others there besides Yermolov. And it wasn't he who ended the war. And the history of the Caucasian Wars is long. We needed things to remain calm there. When things calmed down, the war went so-so. There was no interest in pinning everyone down and committing genocide. A fairly reasonable policy simply clashed with local customs and foreign influence.
                  1. 0
                    6 July 2026 10: 01
                    Quote: MCmaximus
                    Ermolov was not a tsar.


                    What does it have to do with being a tsar or not? We're talking about strategists.
                    1. +1
                      6 July 2026 10: 07
                      Alexander the Great – although he was, frankly, a lousy strategist, his empire immediately fell apart. Caesar in his later years. Frederick Barbarossa. Cromwell.
                      1. +1
                        6 July 2026 10: 14
                        Quote: vet
                        Alexander the Great - although he was, frankly speaking, a lousy strategist, his empire immediately fell apart.


                        Anything can happen. Our empire didn't fall apart after Peter the Great, but things no less astonishing happened. As soon as Peter the Great died, an ordinary train prostitute ascended the Russian throne—not our own native Russian one, but an imported one.
                      2. +1
                        6 July 2026 10: 38
                        And then there's the impostor declared great—a German harlot who corrupted and debauched the nobility and instituted such slavery in Russia that American blacks from cotton plantations would have been horrified.
                      3. 0
                        6 July 2026 10: 52
                        Quote: vet
                        And then there is the great impostor declared


                        Catherine the Great, though a harlot, accomplished much for Russia. She elevated the country to a position of global leadership and expanded it with new territories. It was under Catherine the Great that Russia began to be not only heard but also listened to in Europe.
                      4. +1
                        6 July 2026 10: 55
                        Russia was on the rise; without Catherine, Rumyantsev, Suvorov, and Ushakov would have been nowhere. Everything would have been roughly the same, but without the horrors of serfdom and the monstrous expenditures on slick favorites.
                      5. 0
                        6 July 2026 10: 59
                        Quote: vet
                        Everything would have been roughly the same, but without the horrors of serfdom and the monstrous spending on slick favorites.


                        There were various favorites. For example, the favorite Potemkin, who practically created Taurida for Russia from scratch. And, no less important, the Black Sea Fleet.
                      6. +1
                        6 July 2026 11: 01
                        There wasn't just one Potemkin in all of Russia. Another capable administrator would have been found. Duke Richelieu and Langeron raised Odessa and Novorossiya without the manic-depressive Potemkin. Without regularly turning into a "vegetable" for months at a time, like Potemkin.
                      7. 0
                        6 July 2026 11: 07
                        Quote: vet
                        Duke Richelieu and Langeron


                        Local administrators. Odessa is not all of Russia.
                      8. 0
                        6 July 2026 11: 05
                        Quote: vet
                        Rumyantsev, Suvorov, and Ushakov would not have gone anywhere without Ekaterina.


                        By the way, maybe you could share. It's still unknown whether we would have had Suvorov and Rumyantsev if Peter III had ruled the country. And Ushakov is a pure Potemkin protégé.
                      9. VLR
                        +1
                        6 July 2026 11: 17
                        Rumyantsev was already a "president"—and a staunch supporter of Peter III, at that. At the time of the conspiracy, he commanded the Russian troops in Prussia, which Peter III had no intention of withdrawing. On the contrary, he was strengthening his forces and rashly decided to send the Guard there as well. This became the main reason for the conspiracy: the Guardsmen were unwilling to fight against either Prussia or Denmark. Minich advised Peter III to go to Rumyantsev, and no one could stop him: throughout Russia, he was the legitimate emperor. Only in St. Petersburg were drunken Guardsmen rowdy. They would soon wake up and, upon seeing Rumyantsev's army approaching—the real thing, not the toy capital—would crawl on their knees to Peter and Rumyantsev, dragging Catherine, Dashkova, the Orlovs, Baryatinsky, Potemkin, and others along with them by ropes. After news of Peter III's assassination, Rumyantsev resigned, and another general withdrew troops from Prussia on Catherine's orders. Rumyantsev later returned to service at the personal request of Catherine II.
                        Suvorov and Ushakov, by virtue of their character, would have proven themselves in any situation and under any government. Like many other true combat officers and generals.
                      10. 0
                        6 July 2026 11: 22
                        You see, Peter III had a Prussian guardianship, and Rumyantsev was superfluous in their scheme. It was only thanks to Potemkin that Ushakov wasn't pecked to death by Mordvinov and Voynovich. The Germans wouldn't have given either Ushakov or Suvorov a break.
                      11. VLR
                        +1
                        6 July 2026 11: 39
                        Catherine II, in fact, was under Prussian tutelage! The impoverished daughter of General Frederick the Great was happily married off to Russia by this king and, until his accession to power, maintained a secret correspondence with him, receiving instructions and directions. She wrote to him:
                        "Be assured that I will consider it glorious for myself only when I have the opportunity to convince you of my gratitude and devotion."
                        .
                        Can you see the difference? The heir to the Russian throne, Peter Feodorovich, merely openly admires Frederick II's talents (and he's not alone; Frederick is a very bright, strong, and extraordinary personality, with many admirers across Europe). Meanwhile, his wife is sending Frederick II secret letters pledging to be "grateful." Which is worse, more frightening, more dangerous?
                        Having come to power, Peter III treats Frederick as an equal: he agrees to return Prussia, but not immediately, but someday—when the situation in Europe is favorable. Meanwhile, he demands a corps of thousands for the war with Denmark—Frederick agrees. Meanwhile, Catherine immediately withdraws her troops from Prussia—unconditionally, effectively betraying the interests of her son, who is now the legitimate and universally recognized Duke of Schleswisch-Holstein.
                        And later, realizing that she has no right to the Russian throne, she is terribly afraid of a new conspiracy, and indulges the nobles in everything, who in just a few years transform patriarchal serfdom into classic slavery in its most disgusting form - with harems of underage girls, torture in stables and even specially equipped torture chambers, forcing peasant women to breastfeed puppies.
                        And we must also recognize the corrupting influence Catherine's reign had on Russian society, the depths to which morals had sunk. Imagine: some handsome young fop enters the bedroom of the already elderly and unattractive empress in public, and half an hour later emerges a wealthy landowner with a hoard of medals and the rank of general. And no one despises him or condemns him! On the contrary, everyone envies him, dreaming of being in his place. And Kutuzov comes every morning to the insignificant Zubov to make him coffee.
                      12. 0
                        6 July 2026 11: 42
                        Valery, you're worried. I've never seen you make so many mistakes in my life. belay
                      13. VLR
                        +1
                        6 July 2026 11: 54
                        Oh, come on, there's not a single mistake, it's all true. I've already written about all of this in detail, with plenty of supporting quotes from contemporaries of those events and later historians, and arguments.
                      14. 0
                        6 July 2026 12: 07
                        Quote: VlR
                        Oh, come on, there's not a single mistake, it's all true. I've already written about all of this in detail, with plenty of supporting quotes from contemporaries of those events and later historians, and arguments.


                        I'm talking about the spelling errors that you have corrected so far.
                        As for the historical facts, I don't generally disagree. It's simply bad policy to see only the good in one person and only the bad in another. You're the author, and an author should be impartial and evaluate both sides, the good and the bad.
                        Yes, Catherine was initially guilty of espionage and intrigue, but later, having firmly established herself on the throne, she pursued an exclusively pro-Russian policy. For a long time, only one Prussophile remained under Catherine's rule—Panin—but even he received a kick in the ass.
                      15. The comment was deleted.
                      16. 0
                        6 July 2026 11: 51
                        There is no point in arguing, each of us has our own established opinion.
                        But the fact is that Catherine appointed intelligent and patriotic people to high positions, unlike Peter III, whose first act was to appoint a moron relative on his wife's side as a Russian field marshal. He also dragged other Prussian scum into Russia and coddled them.
                      17. VLR
                        +1
                        6 July 2026 12: 10
                        During the Russo-Turkish War of 1787–1791, under Catherine II, the sailing ships of the Liman squadron were commanded by the Scottish-American privateer Jones, and the rowing ships by the European adventurer Nassau-Siegen. wink
                        Who would later destroy the Russian squadron in the Baltic in the Second Battle of Rochensalm and would be awarded for this, when peace was concluded with Sweden, a gold sword with diamonds, a silver service, a promotion to full admiral and the appointment of chief commander of the rowboat fleet.
                        Even under "Mother Russia" there were plenty of foreigners in high positions in Russia.
                      18. 0
                        6 July 2026 12: 21
                        Quote: VlR
                        During the Russo-Turkish War of 1787–1791, under Catherine II.


                        Once again, you only see the negative. Forgetting that Nassau-Siegen would have had nothing to command if Catherine hadn't created the Black Sea Fleet.

                        Quote: VlR
                        Even under "Mother Russia" there were plenty of foreigners in high positions in Russia.


                        Those who didn't consider themselves foreigners. De Ribas, the builder of Odessa, openly called himself Russian.
                      19. VLR
                        +2
                        6 July 2026 13: 42
                        Yes, Valery, this is certainly one of the more controversial figures in our history: she has both merits and "dark spots." And therefore, opinions vary widely. It's curious that in pre-revolutionary Russia, historians had a very reserved attitude toward Catherine the Great, while ordinary people regarded her more as the heroine of dirty jokes. But already in the USSR, attitudes toward her began to improve, with Pikul playing a major role. In modern Russia, it's even more so. The Financial Times even wrote in February 2023 (citing a conversation between Lavrov and some oligarch) that Putin had three main advisers: Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, and Catherine the Great. It's hard to say how reliable this is; there has apparently been no confirmation or denial.
                        It is curious that in the comments about this news, many wrote in the spirit that Stalin alone would have been enough as an advisor.
                      20. +1
                        6 July 2026 13: 56
                        In pre-revolutionary Russia, historians had a very reserved attitude towards Catherine II, and ordinary people treated her more like the heroine of dirty jokes.

                        Incidentally, Barkov's poem "About Mr. Orlov and Catherine II" used to be very popular, and even circulated in manuscript form in the USSR:
                        I'll tell you the truth without embellishment.
                        How Grishka found mercy...
                        Once I saw it at a parade
                        Orlova Grishka for the first time,
                        Empress at heart... (expletive)
                        Came into a painful ecstasy.
                      21. 0
                        6 July 2026 17: 15
                        Quote: VlR
                        One of the most controversial figures in our history: he has both merits and "dark spots." And therefore, opinions are widely divided.


                        You know, my colleague, Senior Seaman, whom I sincerely respect, recently quoted a brilliant quote that is attributed to Shakespeare, but not necessarily: You are so eager to judge the sins of others, start with your own - and you won’t get to those of others.
                        Judging Catherine by her lovemaking is foolish, to say the least. The woman wanted love, but never received genuine affection... except perhaps Lanskoy. And Potemkin, her husband. Everyone has their weaknesses.
                        But at the same time, one cannot deny that under Catherine, Russia enjoyed the highest level of authority in Europe, and not only there. As Seigner wrote: "No one doubts the might of the Russian infantry."
                        Russia has never been as powerful in the world as it was under Catherine. And it probably never will be again.
                        Catherine's merit is not that she was smart, but that she brought smart people close to her and gave them full scope of power and initiative.
                      22. 0
                        6 July 2026 11: 29
                        Quote: VlR
                        which Peter III did not even think of removing from it


                        Incidentally, historically, there is a different opinion. But it is a historical fact that, under Peter III, Chernyshev's corps fought for Prussian interests in Frederick's army.
                      23. VLR
                        +1
                        6 July 2026 12: 02
                        Chernyshev's corps, the general who had captured Berlin, was at that time part of the Austrian army. Peter III recalled it and attached it to the Prussian corps that Frederick had allocated for a joint campaign with Russian troops in Denmark, with the goal of recapturing Peter III's occupied possessions of Schleswig and Dithmarschen. This corps never saw action after this, and was recalled by Catherine along with other troops. After receiving the Manifesto of Catherine II's accession to the throne, Rumyantsev long refused to swear allegiance to the empress, so eager was he to verify the truth of the reports of Peter III's death. He then submitted his resignation, handing over command to Count P.I. Panin.
                      24. 0
                        6 July 2026 12: 10
                        Quote: VlR
                        The corps of Chernyshev, the general who took Berlin, was at that time part of the Austrian army.


                        Chernyshev's corps was part of the Prussian army under Peter III. And it fought against the Austrian army. Yes, it was recalled by Catherine. Chernyshev took Berlin and fought in alliance with the Austrians under Elizabeth.
                    2. +1
                      6 July 2026 13: 37
                      Read the opening paragraph. Yermolov carried out the policy he was tasked with implementing. With the resources he was given. He was an executor. Suvorov was also an executor. Napoleon, Peter the Great, or Frederick were sole rulers. They decided everything. And they understood the meaning of war. Even Hitler understood it. Unlike his generals.
              3. 0
                10 July 2026 11: 16
                Quote: MCmaximus
                Well... I wouldn't say that about those monarchs. Only Peter the Great thought a little strategically. But fighting with Sweden for 21 years doesn't exactly characterize him as a good strategist.

                What could you suggest? Russia had neither the men nor the money for foreign campaigns. It's enough to remember how churches were plundered and bells melted down for cannons. If Charles had never set foot in Russia, we would have been fighting halfheartedly for another 21 years.
                1. 0
                  11 July 2026 10: 23
                  There was no point in entrusting command to such idiots at Narva. And the monasteries themselves donated their copper reserves for bells. Not the bells themselves. Bell alloy was no good for cannons.
                  Otherwise, you'd think Sweden was incredibly rich. I remember Klyuchevsky estimating it at 1 to 10.
                  1. +1
                    11 July 2026 20: 28
                    Quote: MCmaximus
                    Otherwise you'd think Sweden was very rich.

                    The Swedes received contributions from the defeated, weapons, and plundered the conquered territory.
                    In general, it turned out to be about the same as at the beginning of WWII.
                    As for commanders, preparing a commander is not a quick task. Training troops is also not a quick task.
                    1. 0
                      12 July 2026 13: 51
                      Peter simply destroyed his own army and started from scratch. The number of regular troops in the early 18th century under Peter was lower than before. And he hired all sorts of crooks without vetting. Ogilvy is essentially the culprit behind the defeat at Narva. A complete zero. Putting someone like that in charge was Peter's own fault.
          2. +1
            5 July 2026 22: 58
            Quote: MCmaximus
            Napoleon is right in the sense that he is the only one who combined in one person the qualities of a military leader and a sole ruler.


            The man with whom Napoleon often drew historical parallels, isn't he Frederick the Great?
            1. 0
              6 July 2026 08: 31
              It rolls. But the scale is not the same.
              1. 0
                6 July 2026 09: 59
                Quote: MCmaximus
                It rolls. But the scale is not the same.


                But we are not talking about scale now, but about a man who combined in one person a military leader and a sole ruler.
                1. +1
                  6 July 2026 13: 46
                  What did Friedrich's talents decide? The interests of backwater Prussia. He got out of it, yes. But Napoleon turned all of Europe upside down. He was its ideological unifier long before Hitler and the European Union. This Europe turned out to be so far beneath him that it realized it long after Napoleon.
                  As they said: the entire 19th century passed in Europe under the banner of Napoleon.
                  1. +1
                    6 July 2026 13: 56
                    Quote: MCmaximus
                    Interests of provincial Prussia.


                    Not so insignificant. At the time, one of the most powerful countries in the world. Prussia is the core of Germany. The Germany responsible for two world wars.
        2. +2
          5 July 2026 22: 55
          Quote: Senior Sailor
          There are quotes floating around the internet, but I don't know how true they are.


          I've also heard that Napoleon simply copied Suvorov's tactics. That would make Suvorov his teacher, and Napoleon's words about Suvorov weren't entirely sincere.
    2. +1
      4 July 2026 19: 22
      Quote: faterdom
      I think if instead of Moreau there was Bonaparte

      As in the legendary comedy: “I should be in his place!” - You’ll get drunk drinks - you will!!" lol
  3. +3
    4 July 2026 12: 05
    And in his honor, the French named an unusually ugly battleship request
    1. +1
      5 July 2026 23: 26
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      And in his honor, the French named an unusually ugly battleship


      Sunk during training exercises at the age of 27. Thank you, colleague.
  4. 0
    5 July 2026 06: 15
    These are the times!
    And yet - Osh. The letter G is not readable there.
    1. +1
      5 July 2026 09: 56
      It's exactly the same as Murat, not Murat. And Paris, not Paris. But that's just the way it is. Why create confusion?
      1. +1
        5 July 2026 10: 13
        I agree about Murat. Not about Paris. We call it whatever we want here.
        You can always make a disclaimer: here we usually call it Gosh, but in reality it’s Osh, etc.
        Geography and countries are up to each individual to call their own. Germans even call Germany "Deutschland."
        Personally, I still believe that there was Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, and so on. And I'm not going to distort my language to please local nationalists.
        1. 0
          12 July 2026 13: 55
          Quote: MCmaximus
          Personally, I still believe that there was Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, and so on. And I'm not going to distort my language to please local nationalists.

          In that case, are you forcing yourself to pronounce "Russia"? Because the full name is the Russian Federation, and it was formed in 1991. Before that, it was the RSFSR, part of the USSR.
          And before that there was the Russian Empire.
          And no one disputes the fact that Moldova, Belarus, and Kyrgyzstan existed.
          1. 0
            12 July 2026 18: 22
            Look at the constitution. Russia and the Russian Federation are equivalent names.
            1. 0
              12 July 2026 20: 56
              Quote: MCmaximus
              Look at the constitution. Russia and the Russian Federation are equivalent names.

              Well, why isn't it the RSFSR then, if you're a fan of the old names? That's rabid chauvinism and nationalism, sir. You'd get a bad grade in geography for that these days. And if you happen to be in those parts, you might even get beat up.
              1. 0
                13 July 2026 08: 31
                Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and Belarus have always been called by these names in Russian. As have Germany and the like. What they call themselves now is their own business.
                The RSFSR was invented in the USSR or a little earlier. So that people wouldn't call it Russia. Until the mid-30s, you could end up in a camp for saying that word, if you didn't include it with abusive epithets.
                But that didn't change anything. The word "Russia" survived the Bolsheviks and will survive the rest.
                I have no intention of mangling the language in place of an established geographical name. "Kyrgyz" isn't our language, just like "Moldova." We haven't reached the other countries yet. Why not bring the Russian language into line? As one Englishman who was fascinated by the Russian language once said: you can't cover the sun with your finger.
                I once had to explain to Russian-speaking Chinese why China is called that in Russian. They laughed and didn't take offense. Well, let's call it Dzhongua. Although we still wouldn't be able to pronounce it correctly.
    2. +1
      5 July 2026 23: 37
      Quote: MCmaximus
      And yet - Osh. The letter G is not readable there.


      It's not readable, but it's vaguely audible. It's like saying "Gosh" or "Fosh" with a bucket of strawberries in your mouth: in both cases, the "Osh" is clearly audible, but the first "G" or "F" is vague, respectively.
    3. 0
      5 July 2026 23: 45
      Vous me comprenez? Ou ne parlez pas francais? )))))))
      1. 0
        6 July 2026 08: 37
        What? laughing laughing laughing
        These languages ​​have a lot of unnecessary letters. But surprisingly, French is somehow so easy to read.
        1. +1
          6 July 2026 10: 04
          Quote: MCmaximus
          In these languages ​​there are a lot of unnecessary letters.


          There are no extra letters there, colleague. You simply haven't studied French and don't speak it. request
          1. +2
            6 July 2026 13: 33
            Yeah, I'm a poor fool. But that H isn't pronounced at the beginning of a word in many places in Europe. Italians are getting on my nerves trying to speak English. The Germans, on the thirtieth try, got me this "aase" - hare.
            But I won't argue. Here, the French, for example, note the speech of the 50s and 60s as having a distinct pronunciation. I'm not in a position to judge from the cellar.
            1. +2
              6 July 2026 17: 22
              Quote: MCmaximus
              Yes, I'm so sorry.


              No offense, colleague. I'm not very good at French either. It's just that when we were discussing this, Tanya was sitting on my lap, and she's fluent in translating technical texts into Russian, and she speaks French just as well as Russian. She was the one giving me some pointers.
              Although I know French quite well at a conversational level.