Military Review

Kutuzov VS Kutuzov: the courtier against the commander

40
Thunderstorm twelve
It has arrived - who helped us here?

Frenzy of the people
Barclay, winter or Russian god?
A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"

O people! pathetic race worthy of tears and laughter!
Priests of the minute, fans of success!
How often does a person pass by you
Over whom the blind and turbulent age curses
But whose high face in the coming generation
Poet will delight and emotion!
A.S. Pushkin "Commander"


Every person is first of all a person, and only then a collegiate registrar, a field marshal, a sovereign-emperor and the first secretary ... It happens that a person helps an official, and sometimes it interferes. Here is A.S. Pushkin ... The great poet, but ... what about him was written down in the papers of the police department in St. Petersburg? "Famous cashier" - that is, a gambler! And did Pushkin's addiction to the card game prevent Pushkin, the poet, from interfering? Probably even helped in something: he forced me to write, write and write, and we all benefited from it! Although his family, of course, looked at it differently. But did Kutuzov Kutuzov, the commander, help?

Kutuzov VS Kutuzov: the courtier against the commander

A.I. Chernyshev - Russian James Bond of the 19th century.

Not so long ago, IN published Alexander Samsonov’s article “With a general like Kutuzov, Russia can be calm,” in which he views him as a commander, paying minimal attention to everything else. But ... the commander is inseparable from the person, as well as from his environment, so it makes sense to look at other aspects of the life course of this person who really played in stories Russia has a very significant role.

Well, it’s best to start, I think, from the way Kutuzov established himself in a person like Suvorov. Samsonov writes about this in sufficient detail, and there is no point in repeating, except for one Suvorov phrase: “Heather, artful!” That is, this quality caught his eye, but you can use it and not in battle! Carefully studying his biography, it is easy to notice that Kutuzov understood quite early that a career can be made not only on the battlefields, but also on the parquet floor of the Winter Palace, or, more correctly, in the reception room of the Empress's favorite! “And what would be the orders to get, there are different channels. I judge them as a true philosopher, ”wrote Griboedov, and this can also be attributed to Kutuzov, especially in comparison with Suvorov. And it was not for nothing that, in 1822, the same Pushkin, in his Notes on Russian History of the 18th Century, wrote: “We saw how Catherine humiliated the spirit of the nobility. In this case, her pets were zealously helping. It is worth recalling ... about the monkey Count Zubov, about the coffee pot of Prince Kutuzov, and so on. and so on. ”(Pushkin A.S. Complete Works in Six Volumes. T.6. M., 1950. C.9.). And what kind of coffee pot? Yes, he brewed coffee to him and said that he had learned to cook it well from the Turks. A military general and suddenly brewed coffee to the temporary worker? It is clear that the time was so, but still ... Suvorov did not do it like that. “In the 1795 year,” A. Samsonov tells us, “the empress appointed Kutuzov commander-in-chief ... and at the same time director of the Land Cadet Corps. Mikhail Illarionovich entered the narrow circle of persons who made up the Empress’s elected society. Kutuzov did much to improve the training of officers: he taught tactics, military history and other disciplines. Yes, I taught! But the Cadet did not use love! In the same year, 1795, the cadets, who knew about his services to a despised favorite, shouted to their director when he got into the carriage to go to the omnipotent temporary worker: “Scoundrel, Zubov’s tail!” (Glinka SN Notes. St. Petersburg, 1895. S.122.) And he received the post of director of the corps not just “for merits”, but by the protection of Zubov, and even profited from selling land in the capital that belonged to this corps!


Emperor Pavel I. Portrait by V. Borovikovsky.

This ugly story of abuse of his official position surfaced in the light of day already under Emperor Paul I, but under the patronage of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich was hushed up. (“Notes of Count EF Komarovsky. M., 1990. C. 44.) And it is clear that such Exercises have dropped Kutuzov not only in the opinion of him of his cadets, but also of all those who were brought up in the new century , and in fact such people surrounded the young Grand Duke Alexander, who himself adhered to the same convictions.

“Emperor Alexander Kutuzov did not like,” writes A. Samsonov. - But Alexander was always careful, did not make any sudden movements. Therefore, Kutuzov did not immediately fall into disgrace. With the accession of Alexander I, Kutuzov was appointed by the Petersburg and Vyborg military governors, as well as by the civil affairs manager in the said provinces and by the inspector of the Finnish Inspectorate. However, already in 1802, feeling the coldness of the emperor, Kutuzov referred to ill health and was removed from his post. ”

In fact, it was not so at all, but as is well known. Let's start with the fact that he did not go on an expedition to Italy in 1799 with Suvorov, but, nevertheless, already in September 1800 received the Order of Saint Apostle Andrew the First-Called from Paul hands for ... his maneuvers. Suvorov himself received this order for winning the Kinburn Spit, in which he was wounded twice.


Star and badge of the Order of St. Andrew the First Called with diamonds. From the collection of the State Historical Museum.

And such rewarding hardly improved the opinion of now Tsarevich Alexander about Kutuzov. He was present at the last evening at Paul 11 March 1801 of the year. But he knew about the plans of the conspirators or did not know? It seems that he was not informed. But ... was it possible that such a cunning and “sensitive” person, being in the circle of the military, including the same Bennigsen, who went down in history with his phrase: “The nest is warm, the bird is not far”, could not help but feel the danger to his adored monarch? Could But did not take any steps. Sometimes it is also very profitable to be blind and deaf.


Snuffbox, which according to legend was killed by Paul the First.

And yes, then Alexander appointed Kutuzov to all the above high posts. But how did he show himself to them? Amazingly slow administrator!

So in the spring of 1802, St. Petersburg was shocked by the scandalous death of the famous beauty Mrs. Araujo, who rejected the love claims of Grand Duke Constantine, who was raped by his adjutants so that she died. The shocked spouse of the crown prince went to Germany. Well, the emperor ordered the governor Kutuzov to investigate this crime. And not just to investigate, but so that all "the perpetrators were discovered, despite the persons, ranks and their place." (Volkonsky SG. Notes. Irkutsk, 1991. C. 101.) However, there was nothing open, the criminals did not incur punishment. Further more: the story of a conspiracy in favor of the same Grand Duke Constantine was born with the aim of overthrowing Emperor Alexander, and enthroning Constantine. The history made a lot of noise, reflected in the international prestige of Russia, but Kutuzov again did not discover anyone or anything. (Foreign policy of Russia in the XIX-early XX centuries. Collection of documents. T.1. M., 1960. C.234, 236.) And here it is no longer a question of the emperor’s “coldness”, but of dismissal “For loss of confidence” or even about the incompatibility of the position held. But it’s understandable, but how could he at least accuse Konstantin, who helped him, saved him from revelations when he was director of the cadet corps? “How will you begin to represent the cross to the place ...” So he returned his “duty” to him, but in the opinion of the emperor he fell very much. And then the time of Austerlitz came ...

We read A. Samsonov further: "Contrary to the will of Kutuzov, who warned the emperors from the battle and offered to withdraw the army to the Russian border ... The battle ended in a severe defeat for the Allied army."

It is clear that the young emperor wanted to try himself on the battlefield. And it is clear that he listened to the flattering speeches of those who advised him to do so. And then it was like this: “Our commander-in-chief of human charitable behavior agreed to carry out other people's thoughts, which he did not approve of in his heart” (MA Fonvizin Works and letters. 2. Irkutsk, 1982. C.153.). However, could he act differently, knowing well his reputation in the eyes of his sovereign? But he came at night to the chief of the Grand Marshal Tolstoy and asked him to dissuade the emperor from the battle! He replied that his duty was fowls and wine, but the generals must fight! (Count Joseph de Mestr. Petersburg Letters. SPb., 1995. S.63.) But what such an outstanding military authority of the nineteenth century, as G.A. Leer: “Kutuzov can be blamed not for the lack of art for Austerlitz (which is even better confirmed by his actions in 1811 in Turkey (Ruschuk), and in 1812) and not in the lack of fighting courage, proved by his personal participation in the battle and the resulting injury , but under Austerlitz he lacked civil courage to tell the whole truth to the young emperor so that he could warn one of the greatest calamities for the Fatherland (which explains the cooling of the sovereign to Kutuzov, which lasted until 1812). Such is the personal fault, the great Kutuzov wine. In all other respects, the false position was blamed, which turned him into the commander-in-chief of the powerless and powerless ”(Leer, GA Detailed outline of the 1805 war of the year. Austerlitz operation. SPb., 1888. С.57-58.)

“However, behind the scenes, others were blamed on Kutuzov. Alexander believed that Kutuzov deliberately set him up. " And was he really wrong? Only unconsciously! Just Kutuzov nobleman defeated commander Kutuzov, that's all! He was a good student of the great Suvorov in military affairs, but he did not learn the main lesson, and this was a lesson in citizenship. He was never as blameless as Suvorov, and therefore could not bravely defend his opinion in the face of the sovereign, even though he was right a hundred times, because he understood that the sovereign did not trust him and knew WHY he did not trust him. And the worst thing is that Kutuzov could not say anything to himself in excuse!

Further, it can be said that in the 1812 year, without being embarrassed by the presence of the emperor, he overcame the talents of the court in himself and saved both the army and the Fatherland, insisting on his right to do what he did. Only here, everything turns out, not everything is so simple!

And it was so that, having a great military and military leadership experience, Barclay de Tolly, being in 1810, as Minister of War, did what? Organization of the Secret Expedition, that is, organized a service of foreign intelligence. He reported to the emperor about her goals and objectives, and he approved his idea. As a result, Alexander Ivanovich Chernyshev, Grigory Fedorovich Orlov and Pavel Ivanovich Brozin went abroad, who began to transfer valuable information to Russia from Paris, Berlin and Madrid. And Chernyshev in Paris put himself at all in such a way that he became known as a ladies' man and a womanizer and ... a non-dangerous person who willingly lent money to trusting card players. Remember the lieutenant Rzhevsky and the cornet Azarov (Shurochka Azarova) from the movie “The Hussar Ballad”: “You punt? But no! That is ... yes! Then you will understand without difficulty! I lost a shot, even a bullet in the head! ”So he acted as well, as a result of which copies of the most secret documents of Napoleon himself lay on the table!

True, he made one mistake, which cost him the information channel - his informant was guillotined, and there was no one to supply information, but Chernyshev himself happily escaped. But the information came from other places, as there were enough agents for Russian gold even in abundance. And the messages were written in invisible ink! At that time they were already known! The processing of incoming data was handled by a well-known military writer, Lieutenant Colonel Pyotr Andreyevich Chuykevich, and he also wrote a report in which he suggested to Barclay de Tolly to avoid a general battle with Napoleon, to conduct a partisan war and “not to be afraid of retreating into the country,” for the integrity of the state consists in integrity his armies. " (A written copy is kept in RGVIA F. 494. Op. 1. Unit. Xnumx. L. 14 - 1).


Barclay de Tolly. Portrait brush by J. Doe.

As a minister of war, all intelligence data, including Chuykevich’s report, Barclay de Tolly, of course, conveyed to Emperor Alexander. And he was already much more experienced in military affairs than at Austerlitz and this plan was approved completely! And although he donated to the public opinion “foreigner” Barclay, he did not refuse the plan itself! So, Kutuzov, once in the army, was only strictly following the plan that had been previously thought out and approved by the sovereign, the presence of which was not reported to officers of lower level of awareness, which was clearly shown by the council in Fili.

That is, everything happened, in general, the way it happened with Hitler. An analysis of Germany’s economic opportunities during the war on two fronts shows that he suffered a defeat ... in September 1939, when he began to fight at all, because he simply could not defeat either the Anglo-Saxons or Soviet Russia, no matter what victory he won. And the same was with Napoleon, although, of course, it is usually more pleasant for us to think that victories in war are gained on the battlefield by the heroism of soldiers and officers, and not on silk and scented sheets in the beds of the courtesans and sisters of emperors, but also in dirty ones, smoked shops and coal mines.
As for the battle of Borodino itself, here again Kutuzov showed himself not at all as a student of Suvorov, but only as a consistent executor of the royal will. He was told to take care of the army, so he and her coast! Having a quantitative advantage in artillery (albeit small!) And qualitative (in caliber) and knowing that Napoleon crushes the enemy with large, often stop-gun batteries, he reserved 305 guns in the village of Psarevo, in order to save them. And it turned out that Napoleon everywhere in the directions of his strikes against the Russian troops had a complete advantage over them in artillery. Shooting over the head of his troops, tested in wars with the Emperor Frederick, was not used, although ... he threw prickles (several thousand pounds!) On the flanks, which, in particular, deprived Poniatowski’s corps of the opportunity to enter the flank of the Russian army in the Old Smolensk road.


And this is the same LL. Bennigsen ...

Interestingly, the chief of staff to M.I. LL was appointed to Kutuzov Bennigsen is the first winner of Napoleon at Preuss-Eylau. After all, Napoleon himself said to Alexander at their meeting in Tilsit, "I declared myself the winner at Preuss-Eylau just because you wanted to retreat." And you can not even doubt how Kutuzov, the nobleman and commander in one person resented him because of this. And the king himself, probably thinking about himself: “Well, you took part in the murder of my father, now go, clear up all this mess with the same ...”

So in many respects the opinion of the national about M.I. Kutuzov is based on elementary ignorance and the political conjuncture of Soviet times, when it was not customary to say that the heroes of the Fatherland could also be mere mortals with all their weaknesses, so ... Well, in general, this was so - understandable!
So the figure M.I. Kutuzov in the memory of his descendants really remained legendary and "in many ways mysterious." Although the secrets would be much less if the same AI Chernyshev would leave behind a detailed memoir.

By the way, in the first edition of the poem "The Commander" A.S. Pushkin wrote the following lines:
There, an outdated leader! as a warrior young,
I was looking for you to die in the battle.
Here it is! Your successor has succeeded, hidden
In your head. - And you, unrecognized, forgotten
Hero of the occasion, rested - and in the hour of death
With contempt, perhaps, remembered us!

This caused the displeasure of Field Marshal MI's relative. Kutuzov Loggin Ivanovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov, who found in this the derogation of the merits of his ancestor. And he even printed in circulation in 3400 copies a special brochure with objections to Pushkin.
In response, Pushkin wrote a lengthy “Explanation”, the general meaning of which was reduced to a judgment: “Should we really be ungrateful to the merits of Barclay de Tolly, because Kutuzov is great?”
However, the poem in the end still changed ...
Author:
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. inkass_98
    inkass_98 28 September 2015 07: 51 New
    +7
    The author has not revealed anything new to us; a lot has been written about the talents of Kutuzov the courtier. But it is impossible to completely deny the merits of Kutuzov the commander. You must be able to even fulfill the will of the emperor, anyone who led a team of at least ten people knows that the human herd is very diverse. Someone can do the right thing for the case, and the other will do everything so that it would be better if he touched anything.
    Kutuzov remained in the memory of the people as the winner of Napoleon. Now let him be so. But Barclay de Tolly, Benigsen, Miloradovich, Bagration and many others will stand next to him, shoulder to shoulder, like the defenders of Russia.
  2. venaya
    venaya 28 September 2015 07: 58 New
    0
    An ambiguous figure of our history. We look:
    ... figure M.I. Kutuzova in the memory of descendants really remained legendary and “largely mysterious” ...
    ... "Well, you took part in the murder of my father, now go, dissolve all this mess with the same ..." ...
    ... "Should we really be ungrateful to the merits of Barclay de Tolly, because Kutuzov is great?" ...
    The article is more neutral in style and describes new aspects that are not very well known so far.
    ... As for the battle of Borodino itself, here Kutuzov again showed himself not at all as a student of Suvorov, but only as a consistent executor of the tsar’s will. He was told to take care of the army, here he is and the shore! Having a quantitative advantage in artillery (albeit small!) And high-quality (in caliber) and knowing that Napoleon crushes the enemy with fire of large, often stacked batteries, he reserved 305 guns from the village of Psarevo, in order to save them if something happens. And it turned out that Napoleon everywhere in the directions of his attacks on the Russian troops had a complete advantage over them in artillery. ...

    This last paragraph explains a lot from what was not very publicized before. I mean the absolute reluctance of Muscovites to erect a monument to Kutuzov in Moscow, as the culprit in the destruction (burning) of Moscow in 1812. I would like to consider this fact in more detail, from the point of view of both tactics and strategies of conducting the battle itself, this can give an answer rather unexpected answers to the rehearsals of our history. The fact of the burning of the Kremlin and especially the entire library of the Russian Empire allowed the French freemason Kara-Murse, known to us by lit. to the pseudonym Karamzin, to invent the "Tatar-Mongol yoke", which, in the future, has repeatedly helped to smash our country. I would like to continue this important topic for us, it is painfully relevant now.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 28 September 2015 08: 06 New
    +1
    A good article, without the Masons, the last commanders of Tartaria .. smile I agree with the inkass_98, in principle, nothing new, but nonetheless ...
  4. Aleksander
    Aleksander 28 September 2015 08: 30 New
    +2
    An article-collection of gossip, rumors, speculation, which with the same probability can be interpreted in the opposite sense.
    1. kalibr
      28 September 2015 08: 39 New
      +2
      Well begins! No wonder they say that history repeats itself. Do you also want to write and publish a brochure in 3400 copies in the “defense” of Kutuzov? Just not from Pushkin ... Sugar-leaf images are closer to you? Should a hero be without fear and reproach? But now, even Hollywood heroes have begun to experience doubts, they are trying to think, and not just wave their fists. And, I hope, you noticed that all the examples are references to the literature. Including the 19 century. And why could people of the 19 century know all these details, but can’t modern Russians?
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 28 September 2015 09: 14 New
        +3
        Quote: kalibr
        Should a hero be without fear and reproach?

        Of course not. But this article is from a series of conjectures. For example,
        Author:
        he received the post of director of the corps not just “for merit”, but with the patronage of the same Zubov
        .
        Where is the evidence? Only the author’s speculation. On the other hand, is it not logical that the most experienced military leader received this post? Of course, it is logical.
        To begin with, he did not go on a trip to Italy in the 1799 year with Suvorov,

        What does it mean - "did not go"? Is military service something- "wanted to go somewhere, wanted not to go"? Nonsense.
        !
        could such a cunning and “sensitive” man, being in the circle of the military, including the same Bennigsen, who went down in history with his phrase: “The nest is warm, the bird is near,” could not but feel the danger to his beloved monarch? Could! But did not take any steps. Blind and deaf sometimes also be very profitable.
        So, according to the author, Kutuzov could know, could not know, but still to blame, because did not "take steps." How is it known that he "knew"? From the author’s fabrications?
        According to Austerlitz, Kutuzov is to blame because of the mythical lack of civic position. How does the author know how it was? Officially, it was Alexander 1 who commanded and lost. What does Kutuzov have to do with it?
        And the whole article is in that spirit. I repeat, a collection of rumors and personal (unconvincing) assessments of Kutuzov.
        1. kalibr
          28 September 2015 11: 46 New
          +1
          You are reading inattentively. Assessment of the activities of Kutuzov at Austerlitz was not given by me, but by Leer. That is, it was not me who invented it. I didn’t come up with his visit to Tolstoy either. And the proof of Zubov’s good attitude towards him is the same notorious coffee pot. A lot of people wrote about him. And about the plot ... It wasn’t the conspiracy that no one knew about it. "The idea was in the air." And I didn’t write what I knew, I wrote that it’s strange that I didn’t know and that somehow I could not believe it. Otherwise, why would there be such antipathy on the part of the young monarch.
          And he didn’t go, it’s wrong. Could write a report! But ... did not write!
        2. dmb
          dmb 28 September 2015 14: 37 New
          +3
          You are right, the author, another "tear-off of veils" and "subverter of the foundations." Especially thoughtful is the conclusion that Kutuzov is an ordinary executor of the monarch's will, and indeed without Chuykevich, Russia would have disappeared. In general, the article is another vivid example of how amateurs, even after reading a dozen memoirs, are trying to discuss topics that have no idea (I mean martial art). Actually, the title of the article itself says that the author intended to rummage through Kutuzov’s dirty underwear (a very fashionable trend in modern journalism), but due to the limited material, he decided to supplement it with his own “knowledge” in military affairs. And of course, given the author’s past, he couldn’t help but curse the damned Soviet time, which unreasonably exalted Kutuzov and belittled the unearthly wisdom of the sovereign anti-emirator.
          1. kalibr
            28 September 2015 15: 33 New
            -2
            As you did not fail to kick my, huh? And by the way, where did I make a mistake specifically in military affairs, did I name something, list it? And where about the unearthly wisdom of the king? Maybe the essence of your dissatisfaction is different? You have 6 publications here, but I have 156? And since when and from what time do I have? Here, as they say, every bast will go to the line ...
            1. dmb
              dmb 28 September 2015 18: 49 New
              +2
              So do not lie down for no reason, and the Soviet past is out of place and you will not be touched. Why once again confirm their adaptability, everyone believes so. Judging by the fact that you do not deny the fact of shaking the dirty linen of Kutuzov, the point of the article was this, and then everything is clear (including the abundance of publications as a style of self-affirmation). If you were going to evaluate Kutuzov’s leadership gift, then at least it was worth bringing not only the opinion of Leer, but also other SPECIALISTS.
              1. kalibr
                28 September 2015 19: 18 New
                -2
                Do you offer me to write a monograph about Kutuzov? Volume does not allow you to cram everything into an article, and why. To beat you off? Haha! Or did you really like Samsonov’s article that you’re crazy about her? The meaning of the article — and most understood it quite rightly — to show — it is impossible today to write so ambiguously and in pink about such ambiguous figures. And I cited the opinion of not only Leer, but also Pushkin - “the genius of Russian literature”. Or do you have something against him? Me not! And about the past ... did you like everything there so much? Well, lick with him. But I didn’t like very much there and I have every right to write about it. Like you about your inescapable love for him. Just something your articles, as I watched, did not find much approval from VO readers, except perhaps one. And why would it?
                1. Aleksander
                  Aleksander 28 September 2015 22: 04 New
                  +1
                  Quote: kalibr
                  Do you offer me to write a monograph about Kutuzov?

                  You are invited not to delve into DIRTY UNDERWEARbased on messages YELLOW the press of that time. Kutuzov was VALUE of that time, and, accordingly, had a lot of envious and slanderers, like any QUALITY at any time and with any system.
                  I read everything carefully and Leer was brought by you only to prove your point. The point of view is absolutely unconvincing and shocking, IMHO.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  5. Mantykora
    Mantykora 28 September 2015 08: 42 New
    -1
    A good article complements the previous one. It is bad when a person is only praised or only scolded. Any person, even the so-called "great", is first of all just a person with his own strengths and weaknesses. One and the same person in one situation may turn out to be a scumbag, and in another - a hero. Man is a fickle creature.
  6. Mantykora
    Mantykora 28 September 2015 09: 28 New
    0
    Of course, I’m not a military man, but I would also like to add the thought: usually everyone shouts Borodino - a great battle, we won! Moreover, both the French and Russians - in the style of "and you are also right."

    But if you think about it - why is Borodino so great? - right - the number of corpses per unit of time, terrifying for contemporaries. And what is the result? Given the approximate equality of the parties in numbers (the Russians still had a militia, essentially unshooted) and the superiority of the Russians in artillery, the battle ended in absolutely nothing. Not counting the corpses.

    I do not think that according to the results of this disgrace, we can call Kutuzov a worthy student of Suvorov. Yes, both Kutuzov and Suvorov beat the Turks, very much inferior to them in numbers. But Suvorov went further - he beat the French in Italy. Kutuzov was not there. And if you consider all the battles of Kutuzov against the French, you get:
    - Austerlitz, complete defeat - even if Kutuzov did not want a battle, he was still the commander in chief of the Russian army;
    - Borodino, draw, surrender of Moscow.
    - Maloyaroslavets, the city of 8 once passed from hand to hand and by the end of the day remained with the French, tactical victory of the French, strategic victory of the Russians, approximately equal losses. The city is completely burned.
    - Berezina is a Russian victory, but let's be honest over an exhausted enemy, deprived of normal supply. Napoleon was allowed to leave.

    Yes, Kutuzov defeated Napoleon, but above all exhausting the enemy, and not with martial art, straining the resources of the whole empire, but Russia still had more of them than France. And this, of course, is an alternative story, but Suvorov would have defeated Napoleon in battle, even with the numerical superiority of the latter.

    Kutuzov's glory is exaggerated, as is Napoleon himself. Napoleon could tactically win the battle, but strategically he constantly lost and he had to give new battles over and over again. He won the battle, but lost the war. But Napoleon did not want to be just a general and became emperor. And the emperor should often think not how to win, but how to avoid war.
    1. kagorta
      kagorta 28 September 2015 10: 24 New
      +4
      I do not agree for many reasons.
      1) The battle of Borodino was given as an answer to the requirements of Russian society. Kutouzov’s position was not satisfied; he wouldn’t have fought there;
      2) It is unrealistic to win battles without winning a war. So you lost the last battle;
      3) Berezina is not a battle, this is reckoning);
      4) Napoleon had more resources, because the first European Union came to us;
      5) I will not discuss the tactical and strategic genius of Kutuzov and Napoleon;
      6) "Emperors" are different, but the mistakes are the same. Do not FIG climb into Russia without understanding Britain in the rear.
    2. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 28 September 2015 10: 40 New
      +8
      Martial art is tactics and strategy. Suvorov did not have more than 30 thousand soldiers under his command, and all his victories are tactics. Kutuzov was recognized as the founder of the strategy. I do not want to argue with you, you are superficial. About at least Maloyaroslatsa. The city changed hands 8 times and by the evening of the day remained with the Russians. Approaching Kutuzov with the main forces, he ordered to leave the city and will be strengthened across the river on a high bank. Napoleon entered the city as a winner, for a long time examined the completely impregnable Russian position on the high bank and in the morning gave the order to retreat. And that says it all.
    3. Selevc
      Selevc 28 September 2015 18: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Mantykora
      Of course, I’m not a military man, but I would also like to add the thought: usually everyone shouts Borodino - a great battle, we won! Moreover, both the French and Russians - in the style of "and you are also right."

      Borodino is the great battle !!! And the great one is that Napoleon wanted a general battle - and he received it ... He usually defeated Austria, Prussia, etc. - the general battle, the seizure of the capital and the enemy is defeated both morally and naturally and asks for peace ... It used to be like this in Europe, but it didn’t work in Russia ... Napoleon, without waiting for the Russian embassy from the world, probably fell into a rage and gloom ... And what did the French get after the capture of Moscow? Winter is coming, resources and soldiers are melting, the enemy will fight endlessly, the distance to their bases is growing dangerously ... The Great Army was clearly not ready for the winter offensive, the troops were very thin and tired, weighed down by trophies and wounded - Napoleon simply risked getting lost somewhere sometime in these vast expanses of Scythia ...
      Hence the conclusion of the Battle of Borodino and the abandonment of Moscow is a tactical victory for the French but a strategic victory for Russia !!! Further there was only the retreat of the great commander to the very walls of Paris !!!
  7. Riv
    Riv 28 September 2015 09: 36 New
    +2
    If you follow the logic of the author, then after the accession of Paul, Suvorov should have raised his division, forced march to St. Petersburg and take the emperor under guard. At the same time, he ensured vigilant control so that he would not accidentally sign the wrong piece of paper. Would the soldiers follow him? Yes, no questions asked. When Pavel Alexander Vasilievich was dismissed, Suvorov built his soldiers and read out an order in front of them. The division listened in grave silence, and when the order was read, a voice came from the ranks of the soldiers: "Our father, where you will lead, there we will follow you!" Suvorov accepted the resignation, remaining faithful to the oath.

    And from the author’s point of view, Kutuzov in front of Austerlitz should have told the emperor everything he thinks about the upcoming battle and proudly relinquish his command along with responsibility. Wash hands. Despite the fact that there was no better commander, and even if defeat is possible, it is unlikely that Kutuzov would better cope with its consequences.
    1. kalibr
      28 September 2015 11: 51 New
      -1
      I wouldn’t say “by” anywhere; “by” is an alternative. What they should I do not know.
  8. Turkir
    Turkir 28 September 2015 09: 38 New
    0
    The article is not so against Kutuzov as against Samsonov ...
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 28 September 2015 10: 35 New
      0
      Quote: Turkir
      The article is not so against Kutuzov as against Samsonov.

      And as a result, along with the dirty water, the child poured ...
  9. X Y Z
    X Y Z 28 September 2015 10: 08 New
    +2
    So in many respects the opinion of the national about M.I. Kutuzov is based on elementary ignorance and the political conjuncture of Soviet times, when it was not customary to say that the heroes of the Fatherland could also be mere mortals with all their weaknesses, so ... Well, in general, this was so - understandable!


    Yes, this is all ours. A hero is something monumental, without a single speck, with a crystal biography and attractive appearance. And the fact that this is a living person with his habits, quirks, weaknesses and even sometimes vices and passions is not taken into account. And besides, they were people of their era and our constant desire to judge them by the norms of modern morality and customs looks simply ridiculous and unscientific.
  10. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 28 September 2015 10: 10 New
    +4
    For me, the article did not reveal anything new and did not lift the mysterious veils. Mikhail Illarionovich is also a man, not a monument if that. Kutuzov was the son of his time, a representative of the nobility, born and living in the gallant age. He did nothing indecent from the point of view of the then public opinion. Read the memoirs of the conqueror of the Caucasus Ermolov, you will find out a lot of interesting things about manners.
    Well, there are spots on the Sun, not without it, but we value it for the life-giving warmth, and we know about spots. From which the sun is no less beloved by us.
    Pushkin ... a gambler ..., Turgenev ... borrowed money ... Yesenin ... a drunkard and a bully ... etc .. They are people just people, not elves eating a rainbow and pooping daisies.
    I personally knew wonderful commanders who were lost in front of their bosses and were afraid of him to the hell, because of this they did not cease to be crew favorites.
    The article left an impression of such a plan ... it is written: astronauts and pido ... sys ..., it seems they did not call me, but the sediment remained. You won’t throw words out of a song-Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov the great Russian commander. Under the leadership of which the victorious Russian army, in the composition of which all of the above-mentioned heroes fought, stopped and threw back the cross-ording of the then united Europe. Real life and real people living in it are generally far from ideal. The history of your country should be presented in such a way that you can be proud of it and learn from examples, and not turn its study into shoveling dirty laundry.
    1. kalibr
      28 September 2015 11: 56 New
      +1
      That is, everything that you do not like should be deleted from history and turned into a fairy tale for children, which the cat reads to them at night. And they all lived happily ever after. In my opinion, this was already in some kind of now defunct country. And for children, in addition to reading fairy tales at night, cats are vaccinated. It hurts, scary, unpleasant. But then they grow healthy ...
  11. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 28 September 2015 10: 32 New
    +1
    This is just one of the opinions. I read a dozen others. Difficult time, conflicting people. It is a shame to assign laurels of victory to a man who was sitting far from the army in St. Petersburg and praying that Napoleon would not go to him along winter roads. Alexander could ask for peace from Napoleon, but did not, fearing the wrath of the Russian nobility. Thunderstorm is 12 years old, one of the few periods in Russian history when its elite united and corresponded to the moment, discarding all personal predilections. Kutuzov knew the whole situation in St. Petersburg, understood that he was given carte blanche by the Russian nobility and the Russian people, and at the moment Alexander could not stop him from doing anything, and brilliantly took advantage of this carte blanche. Kutuzov died a year later and apparently felt it. On the verge of death, officials are not looking.
  12. Artyom
    Artyom 28 September 2015 12: 52 New
    +9
    The article is somewhat superficial, nothing is said about his merits as a diplomat (a trick came in handy) for which Catherine II valued him. Using the harem of the Turkish Sultan, he managed to conclude a profitable peace with the Ottomans. Kutuzov is often blamed for not completely destroying Napoleon, when he had the opportunity and did not allow it, to do this to other Russian commanders. This angered the British envoy at headquarters and ours too. Kutuzov was not going to completely destroy the French, he was primarily a politician, and he needed Napoleon as a counterweight to the British in Europe! The old man was smart and shrewd, looking to the future.
  13. VSkilled
    VSkilled 28 September 2015 13: 39 New
    +4
    “And - on the Sun, if desired - spots can be found. True, from this, the Sun - does not cease to be the Sun. ”©

    Article - it smells bad.

    «
    Petrarch was a bore
    And Sartre is a communist,
    And Presley was a sexot -
    He pounded on the Beatles.
    The masoch was a masochist
    Marquis de Sade - a sadist.
    And they all thumped!
    And Mussorgsky thumped!
    Einstein tortured the violin
    Beethoven tortured loved ones
    Turgenev was cruel -
    He shot bunnies! ” ©
  14. Milana
    Milana 28 September 2015 13: 46 New
    +2
    "" "That is, everything happened, in general, just as it happened with Hitler. An analysis of Germany’s economic opportunities in the war on two fronts shows that he suffered his defeat ... in September 1939, when he began to fight at all, how simple he could not defeat either the Anglo-Saxons or Soviet Russia, no matter what victories he won. "" "

    So simple! Hitler lost in the year 39, and millions and millions died during the Second World War.
    Now again they begin to write badly about everyone, to dispute the Great Victory.
    Well, all of ours were bad, bad: after all, it’s written in someone’s notes, then they’ll write other notes.
    Watch on business.
    1. kalibr
      28 September 2015 15: 38 New
      0
      Nobody disputes the victory, but you look how many tanks the Germans produced in the 39 and how many the USSR. Tanks are heavy industry! The Germans reached our level only in the 1944 year. But there was also England and the USA. Millions of the dead are one thing, and the economy of Victory is something else. And in the notes it’s not written “someone’s”, but A.S. Pushkin, so I think he knew what he was writing!
  15. Olezhek
    Olezhek 28 September 2015 15: 32 New
    +3
    oh everything happened, in general, the way it happened with Hitler. An analysis of Germany’s economic opportunities during the war on two fronts shows that he suffered a defeat ... in September 1939, when he began to fight at all, because he simply could not defeat either the Anglo-Saxons or Soviet Russia, no matter what victory he won.


    An interesting article BUT here I can not help but argue - if Hitler had not gone to the east - then German
    to date, the garrisons would have stood in Paris and Prague ..
    Who would drive them out of there?
    Omerika? How ?
    Hitler could live for himself - to live, to exploit Europe, to build a fleet .. To strengthen the power of the Luftwaffe ..
    For Britain, the war Hitler - Stalin was the last hope ..
    Otherwise - a dead end ..

    By the way, Napoleon also had some good options without going to Moscow ..
    And he could build a fleet ...
    BUT after the ostentatious swing to Britain - both ran to Moscow ...
    1. kalibr
      28 September 2015 17: 54 New
      -1
      But that is the point. Wrong ideas give rise to wrong actions, and those lead to the death of millions of people. Hitler himself didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t smoke, he was a vegetarian ... Well, just an example of high morality, right? He “only” made the state racial theory and began. He did not have to start a war at all, and then he would have remained in the memory of the Germans as a builder of highways. But then why racial theory? How to explain that gentlemen do not have what subhumans have? Then he would have to leave. I don’t want to leave. Therefore, a war when you can’t change leaders! First victorious, due to surprise. Then the failure ... He would remember that you can not conquer China, India and Russia. But ... he did not think about it, education was not enough, and as a result, the death of millions. It seems that here I already wrote about the punctures of German propaganda, connected precisely with this - the divergence of word and deed! But the swing to Britain is shown at the core - there are no fossils, the island lives as a parasite. Capturing it does not give anything, except for the response of the USA and the naval blockade and ... why is this? One thing remains - a trip to the East for resources. So he went or he would have been "gone."
  16. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 28 September 2015 19: 12 New
    +1
    "Kalibr RU Today, 11:56 ↑
    That is, everything that you do not like should be deleted from history and turned into a fairy tale for children, which the cat reads to them at night. "
    Not a bedtime story, not at all. The truth must be said, and the article often contains controversial points and assumptions of the opponents of an outstanding commander. Well, digging in dirty linen is generally a meanness. I don’t care who and how the coffee was brewed. I also do not care about the opinion of envious people (... every darned gan. ..n, imagines himself an airship ...). In this case, I judge by the results, by the way in that gadyushnik that was a high society and the court had to be a thin politician and courtier. There was no alternative. They don’t make history in white gloves, just don’t have to stoop to gossip and underwear.
    1. kalibr
      28 September 2015 19: 32 New
      -1
      Maybe you offer your own version of the story about the same without "digging"? Try why not. I personally with pleasure (sure that everyone else too) will read about it with pleasure! And then you write about the lack of an alternative. There is always an alternative. Example - Suvorov! Didn’t you read this in an article?
  17. Kharkov0892
    Kharkov0892 28 September 2015 21: 14 New
    +2
    As usually happens here, comments are much more interesting than the article itself. Each commentator is worthy (and simply obligated) to write his own article with his own vision of this topic. Thank you all for an interesting discussion!
    1. kalibr
      28 September 2015 21: 41 New
      -1
      How well did you understand the subject of our communication ?! But will we just wait for the real fulfillment of your wishes, and if we wait, with what quality?
  18. Kharkov0892
    Kharkov0892 28 September 2015 22: 14 New
    +2
    Quote: kalibr
    How well did you understand the subject of our communication ?!

    Is this a question, sarcasm or rudeness? Personally, the article also seemed to me somewhat superficial and one-sided - and, judging by the majority of commentators, they also noticed this and pointed out the flaws. There, literate people are going to and will not forgive mistakes.
  19. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 28 September 2015 22: 25 New
    +2
    kalibr
    That's just about Alexander Vasilyevich is not necessary. Suvorov, both in life and posthumously, had enough claims.
    And he was such a fighter with the regime, but he would hardly have received a generalisimus. As Stanislavsky used to say, “I don’t believe”. Once again I affirm that these undoubtedly outstanding people were children of their time and did not differ personally from their contemporaries of the nobles, and it’s not for us to judge them from the point of view of mores 200 years ago. The main thing is that they are forever inscribed in the history of Russia as great military leaders .
    Well, the article, well, another overtone window.
  20. istoler
    istoler 28 September 2015 23: 14 New
    +2
    The author of the article decided to judge Kutuzov for acting as a courtier. The courtier is translated from Russian as a person engaged in higher domestic politics. Then Kutuzov should not be evaluated from the position of morality, but from the position of those goals and opportunities to which he sought in the internal politics of the empire.
    This is where the sad picture that happened after the murder of Paul is only revealed, and this is practically the conquest from the inside of the country by the Anglomans. This led to the pulling of Russia into the war with Napoleon for British interests for the whole 15 years, the loss of most of Russia's linear fleet, the buildup of external dalg, etc.
    In this regard, the actions of Kutuzov, Arakcheev, Shishkov and other figures, in spite of everything, are kept in the highest echelons of power and gradually ousted the Anglomans from their dominant positions.
    Here it was possible, or rather how much it was possible to do it, and it is necessary to evaluate Kutuzov and other patriots of that time, and not to recall any trifle such as a "coffee pot" or a memorable "wall-stick".
  21. Selevc
    Selevc 29 September 2015 10: 21 New
    +1
    One can argue endlessly about the great commanders - Suvorov and Kutuzov have no doubts about the brightest personalities of their time ... It is foolish to compare them or put one above the other - because they are both great and too different from each other ...
    Talented personalities usually have a heavy character, strange habits and too often behave "wrong" and this annoys the crowd of people around them "right" - the same Alexander Vasilievich was still that "pepper" ...)))

    The fact that Kutuzov complied with the plan of guerrilla warfare and did not immediately give Napoleon a general battle - this strategy brought the victory of Russia !!! And if you look at the situation from the other side? If Napoleon arranged for Russia a second Austerlitz somewhere near the border ??? The Patriotic War and the whole history of the 19th century would obviously go in a different scenario !!!

    It is a pity that Napoleon and Suvorov did not have to meet directly on the battlefield ... Both two geniuses of improvisation and maneuver are the result of such a hypothetical battle, it is almost impossible to foresee but the fact that both would have to sweat is a fact !!! But what about Kutuzov? Yes, probably many generals and marshals of the 19th century would willingly change all their titles and awards to one "modest" title of Napoleon's Winner !!!
  22. Velizariy
    Velizariy 29 September 2015 16: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Mantykora
    Of course, I’m not a military man, but I would also like to add the thought: usually everyone shouts Borodino - a great battle, we won! Moreover, both the French and Russians - in the style of "and you are also right."

    But if you think about it - why is Borodino so great? - right - the number of corpses per unit of time, terrifying for contemporaries. And what is the result? Given the approximate equality of the parties in numbers (the Russians still had a militia, essentially unshooted) and the superiority of the Russians in artillery, the battle ended in absolutely nothing. Not counting the corpses.

    I do not think that according to the results of this disgrace, we can call Kutuzov a worthy student of Suvorov. Yes, both Kutuzov and Suvorov beat the Turks, very much inferior to them in numbers. But Suvorov went further - he beat the French in Italy. Kutuzov was not there. And if you consider all the battles of Kutuzov against the French, you get:
    - Austerlitz, complete defeat - even if Kutuzov did not want a battle, he was still the commander in chief of the Russian army;
    - Borodino, draw, surrender of Moscow.
    - Maloyaroslavets, the city of 8 once passed from hand to hand and by the end of the day remained with the French, tactical victory of the French, strategic victory of the Russians, approximately equal losses. The city is completely burned.
    - Berezina is a Russian victory, but let's be honest over an exhausted enemy, deprived of normal supply. Napoleon was allowed to leave.

    Yes, Kutuzov defeated Napoleon, but above all exhausting the enemy, and not with martial art, straining the resources of the whole empire, but Russia still had more of them than France. And this, of course, is an alternative story, but Suvorov would have defeated Napoleon in battle, even with the numerical superiority of the latter.

    Kutuzov's glory is exaggerated, as is Napoleon himself. Napoleon could tactically win the battle, but strategically he constantly lost and he had to give new battles over and over again. He won the battle, but lost the war. But Napoleon did not want to be just a general and became emperor. And the emperor should often think not how to win, but how to avoid war.

    That's right, only ours exceeded the French in artillery, they have somewhere around 585, we have 640. But! thanks to the genius Kutuzov, half of the artillery in our country did not take part in the battle!
    And Kutuzov passed Moscow without warning Rastopchin, hours before the advent of the French, and in every way prevented Rastopchin from evacuating the population and valuables, as a result, thanks to Rastopchin, the inhabitants were evacuated and provisions were left ... well, not small.