Military Review

England vs Russia. Drawing into war with france

38

210 years ago, in 1805, Russia made an alliance with England and Austria, and opposed France. The Russian-Austro-French war of 1805 of the year (or the war of the Third Coalition) ended in the defeat of Austria and Russia. All the benefits of this war received England.


In fact, the British skillfully used the Russian Empire and Austria. Napoleon to plan an invasion of England. By the summer of 1805, his 180-thousandth army ("Army of the Shores of the Ocean") stood on the French coast of the English Channel, in Boulogne, in preparation for landing in England. This ground force was quite enough to bring England to its knees. England traditionally did not have a strong land army, preferring to use other countries as cannon fodder. At this time, the British managed to incite Austria and Russia, the two most powerful land powers of Europe, against France.

Napoleon had to abandon the landing operation against England and abandon the army against new enemies. With a lightning cast, he transferred the main forces to the eastern borders of France and was able to crush the enemies separately. First, he dispersed self-confident Austrians, who began fighting, not waiting for the Russian troops, not yet reached the theater of operations. Then the best commanders of Napoleon almost surrounded the weaker Russian army. However, Kutuzov, giving successful rearguard battles, slipped out of the trap and saved the army.

The Russian Emperor Alexander I and the Austrian Emperor Franz II, as well as their self-confident environment, having a slight advantage over the French army, decided to give a decisive battle to Napoleon. Kutuzov was opposed, offering to withdraw and join up with reinforcements. However, the heads of state insisted on it. The battle ended in complete defeat. In the battle of Austerlitz, the Allied army suffered a heavy defeat and retreated in disarray. Austria concluded with France the Presburg Peace, in which it lost a number of territories. The third coalition collapsed. Russia continued to struggle in the framework of the Fourth Coalition.

Thus, England brilliantly solved the main tasks. France was distracted from the fight with the main enemy, the landing in England was postponed, and in fact canceled. The British destroyed the French-Spanish fleet at Cape Trafalgar. France and Spain forever lost sea power. Napoleon abandoned his plans for landing troops in England and invading the Neapolitan kingdom. Great Britain finally acquired the status of the mistress of the seas.

The British managed to spark a big war in Europe. The main European powers locked themselves together, wasting resources and strength, while England calmly watched the situation overseas, podzuzhivaya opponents with gold and fighting in secondary theaters, at the same time capturing strategic territories on the planet. Russia once again fell into the trap from which the emperor Paul led her. Having no fundamental contradictions with the French, Petersburg, contrary to national interests, got involved in a long and costly and costly confrontation with France. This confrontation, with some interruptions, continued until March 1814, when Russian troops entered Paris. But before that there will be a lot of blood, the colossal expenditure of resources necessary for the internal development of the empire, heavy defeats, the invasion of the pan-European hordes led by Napoleon into Russia and burned Moscow.

prehistory

War of the second coalition 1799 — 1802 ended in victory for France. The second anti-French coalition was created at the initiative of England in order to limit the influence of revolutionary France and the restoration of the monarchy in France.

The Russian armed forces under the command of Suvorov and Ushakov won a number of victories in the Mediterranean Sea and in Italy. However, the British and Austrians, alarmed by the success of Russia, for their actions held down the strategic initiative of the Russian forces. Napoleon himself noted that all the Russian troops operating in Italy, Switzerland and Holland were combined and used together under the command of Suvorov on the Rhine, then with great probability one could assume that the great Russian commander, with complete freedom of action, would lead anti-French coalition to a quick and decisive victory. The French Directory showed inability to lead such a broad strategic front, various theaters of hostilities, and the French commanders made a number of strategic miscalculations. Napoleon himself was associated unsuccessful campaign in Egypt. With a more skillful concentration of forces, France was doomed to failure. The British and Austrians, solving only their problems, failed the campaign.

After the Swiss campaign of Suvorov, the emperor Paul, angry with the actions of Vienna, broke the alliance with Austria and returned the army to Russia. It makes peace with France and signs an alliance with Prussia against Austria and at the same time with Prussia, Sweden and Denmark against England. Moreover, Paul was ready to conclude a strategic alliance with France and start a war with England (the Indian campaign was being prepared). However, the conspiracy of the aristocracy, created with the help of the British and their gold, led to the death of the Russian emperor.

Napoleon, who had returned from Egypt, seized power in France during the Brumaire 18 coup. The commander personally led the French troops in Italy and in June 1800, at the battle of Marengo, won a decisive victory over the Austrian troops. After new defeats, the Austrian Empire signed the Luneville Peace. Vienna was completely crowded out from the left bank of the Rhine, and this territory completely passed to the French. France acquired the Netherlands ownership of Austria - Belgium and Luxembourg. The Austrians recognized the independence of the Batavian and Helvetic Republics (Holland and Switzerland), which came under the control of France. Austria lost much of its influence in Italy, which came under French control.

The conclusion of the Luneville Peace meant the end of the Second Anti-French Coalition. Of the countries that originally belonged to this coalition, only England continued the war. The British had to go to the world. 25 March 1802 of the year in Amiens between France, Spain and the Batavian Republic on the one hand, and England - on the other, peace was concluded. It was a compromise world, but on the whole more profitable to France, since it fixed its main gains. England had to go to the world, as she had lost all the main allies and suppliers of cannon fodder. France, on the other hand, was tired of a long war and needed a break.

New war. Creation of the Third Coalition

The world of Amiens became a short respite in the long standoff between England and France. Between the two leading European predators existed too strong fundamental contradictions that were not overcome, but only postponed. They had to be the basis of war sooner or later. With goodwill, they could be postponed until a later time. But there was no goodwill on both sides, and there could not be. Two capitalist predators claimed dominance in Europe, and hence throughout the world. It was a confrontation within the Western project - between the Anglo-Saxons and the older Romanesque elite. Political and economic (the struggle for colonies, markets and spheres of influence) the rivalry between the two powers, claiming to be the “king of the mountains”, could only be decided by force. Both powers were aggressive by their very nature and could not agree peacefully. Someone had to be defeated and take the position of a slave in the western project.

It is worth noting that the world of Amiens was more beneficial to France than to England. No wonder in France he was greeted with universal joy. And in England he was considered an infamous, bad world. The world made France stronger. Napoleon conducted a series of reforms that strengthened France. England, to crush France, and to bleed the whole of Europe, to put it in a dependent position, needed a war.

England from the very beginning began to provoke France into war. After the conclusion of the Peace of Amiens, the head of the British government, Addington, sent Whitworth as an official envoy to Paris. For France and personally for the First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte, this came as a surprise, since Whitworth did not hide his open hostility towards revolutionary France. In addition, Napoleon believed that Whitworth, being ambassador to Russia, was the organizer of the murder of the Russian emperor Paul, to whom he felt sympathy and pinned great hopes on the union of France and Russia. The question arose why Whitworth was sent to Paris. Arrange the murder of Napoleon? Napoleon, like all Corsicans, was superstitious and disgusted with Whitworth.

Under the terms of the Peace of Amiens, England was obliged to exempt Malta from its presence and, according to the agreements, to return the island to the knights of the Order of Malta. However, the British did not do this and systematically dragged time. 13 March 1803, Napoleon summoned Whitworth to make a final decision on the status of Malta. Whitworth shied away from a direct answer, Napoleon interrupted the audience and with quick steps left the hall, shouting: “Malta or war! And woe to those who violate the treatises! ”

In April, Whitworth presented an ultimatum to the British government to Napoleon, where Britain offered to retain Malta for another 10 years. The answer to the ultimatum presented should have been given within seven days. Napoleon agreed with the conditions, but offered to reduce the period of stay of the British in Malta. England rejected the offer. 12 May 1803, Ambassador of England Whitworth left Paris. Four days later, 16 May, England officially declared war on France.

Obviously, Malta was only a pretext for the start of a new war. There was a struggle for supremacy in the world. Napoleon possessed strategic thinking and challenged the Anglo-Saxons. During the execution of the peace treaty with England, Napoleon Bonaparte sent an army under the command of his relative Charles Leclerc to the island of San Domingo (Haiti). This island was of key importance in the Caribbean. Almost simultaneously, Napoleon was exploring the possibility of a new conquest of Egypt, sending General Sebastiani’s mission to the Levant. A mission of General Dean was sent to India to organize the joint struggle of the French and Indian rulers against the British. It is also worth remembering the special relationship of Napoleon to Russia. He understood the great significance of Russia for the future of Europe and the world, and tried to attract it to his side.

Thus, Napoleon Bonaparte tried to establish control over key regions of the planet that have great military-strategic and economic importance. America, Egypt, India and Russia were key to the future of humanity.

In London, everyone saw it and perceived it very sharply. In Europe, Napoleon also challenged England. In 1802, Piedmont was incorporated into France. Napoleon did everything to ensure the primacy of the French industrial and financial bourgeoisie in the European market. He resolutely opposed all attempts to conquer the goods of France to the French market and its dependent countries. It also caused strong irritation in London, as British capital relied on enslaving the world through finance and economics. That is, the fundamental contradictions of London and Paris were based on military-strategic, political and economic interests.

The problem was that England was an island and did not have a strong army, and France had a strong land army, but its fleet was inferior to the English. One on one they were unattainable for each other. It was possible to fight in overseas possessions, to make raids on the sea, as the British did, but to win the war, thus, it was impossible. The two great powers were in a state of war, but there was no great war, battles, battles and victories. Both powers closed their ports, harbors, imposed an embargo on enemy ships and goods; waged the war of kings, captured the court. The economic war was in full swing. It was all but the real fighting.

England needed to "cannon fodder" on the continent. Particularly acute question arose when Napoleon began to prepare the landing army. Napoleon needed a calm rear in Europe to focus on England. Therefore, at the first stage of the war, diplomacy decided everything. London and Paris fought for continental allies. Austria was the old enemy of France and was eager for revenge. Therefore, the key role was played by the position of Russia.

In 1803 in Paris, they were optimistic about the outcome of this struggle. Napoleon still gave priority to relations with Russia. He hoped that he would be able to get along with the new Russian Tsar Alexander. Napoleon sent his best diplomat Duroc to Petersburg. Alexander at that time did not want to make any sudden movements, therefore in the autumn in Paris a peace treaty was signed between France and Russia. Almost simultaneously, a secret agreement was signed, which provided for joint concerted action on the problem of Germany and Italy. It was the success of France.

Calculations on the support of Russia gave confidence to Napoleon. He seemed to be right. After all, Alexander had to fear England, after the death of his father. Napoleon came up with the idea of ​​a powerful tripartite coalition - France, Russia and Prussia. This idea had support in Russia. Such a union could stop the encroachments of England.

However, Napoleon apparently overestimated the possibility of such a union. Petersburg at that time improved relations not only with France, but also with England and Prussia. Alexander did not want a confrontation with England. It is possible that the Russian tsar, frightened by the murder of his father, even feared England and that part of the Russian aristocracy that was oriented toward London.

To be continued ...
Author:
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. venaya
    venaya 6 October 2015 06: 56 New
    +1
    Balanced Article. Much puts in its place, I advise you to carefully read. I’ll add a little: as a result of the Napoleonic wars, the “Holy Roman Empire” was finally defeated, founded not so much by Charlemagne, but also the earlier Merovingian dynasty from the Frankish tribe. Then began a new era in history.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 6 October 2015 08: 27 New
    +5
    ended with the defeat of Austria and Russia. All the benefits of this war received England. Characteristically, there was no war, so that England would not benefit ... For example, Russia, dragged into the Seven Years' War, Russia, received nothing but military experience and moral satisfaction, the Russian troops stormed Berlin in 1760, the capital of Prussia .. England acquired Canada and most of the overseas possessions, France ...
    1. venaya
      venaya 6 October 2015 09: 48 New
      +3
      Quote: parusnik
      ended with the defeat of Austria and Russia. All the benefits of this war received England. Typically, there was no war, so that England would not benefit ..., the Russian troops stormed Berlin in 1760, the capital of Prussia .. England acquired Canada and most of the overseas possessions, France ...

      At this point, the "money" finally moved from Holland to London, and accordingly all the bonuses flowed to the British, which is not surprising.
    2. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 6 October 2015 10: 10 New
      -3
      Quote: parusnik
      For example, Russia, dragged into the Seven Years' War, Russia, received nothing but military experience and moral satisfaction, the Russian troops stormed Berlin in 1760, the capital

      In this regard, the descendants' claims to Peter III, who simply stopped this nonsense, are completely incomprehensible. After all, Elizabeth fought with Frederick because of personal hostility ...
      1. Belousov
        Belousov 6 October 2015 12: 30 New
        +1
        It was necessary to end the war, definitely. Just fix your achievements, and not cowardly return everything to the enemy.
      2. Belousov
        Belousov 6 October 2015 12: 30 New
        0
        It was necessary to end the war, definitely. Just fix your achievements, and not cowardly return everything to the enemy.
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 6 October 2015 12: 58 New
          -2
          So they would have given the soyuznichki to fix it - but in fact they remained with their own. Why was East Prussia inhabited by the Germans still needed? And so they got an ally for more than a hundred years, until William I climbed onto the throne
          1. venaya
            venaya 6 October 2015 14: 46 New
            +2
            "Why was East Prussia inhabited by the Germans still needed?"- These" Germans "then still half spoke Russian, a Western dialect that was finally banned for use in the German Empire only in the 1914th year.
  3. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 6 October 2015 08: 52 New
    +2
    Why do Russians constantly become not a subject of politics, but an object. We were once again used. First, they drag them into another coalition, and then we take offense for everyone. So in Syria now they are trying to fasten us to the next coalition. I hope we have enough intelligence, do not fight for the interests of others!
    1. Turkir
      Turkir 6 October 2015 13: 45 New
      0
      Because the top consists of non-Russians.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  4. V.ic
    V.ic 6 October 2015 09: 13 New
    +1
    "Englishwoman shits" from under the silence, and the Americans "open" and those and other "arrogant Saxons."
  5. Nikolay K
    Nikolay K 6 October 2015 09: 27 New
    +1
    The clash between Russia and Napoleonic France was inevitable, since the latter in spirit and aggressiveness resembled Hitler Germany. But indeed, in both cases, the main burdens of the war fell on us, and most of the bonuses were received by the British.
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 6 October 2015 10: 12 New
      +1
      Well, you already said. Napoleon never intended to colonize the eastern lands, following the example of the possessed Fuhrer, who generally built his strategy on this. Napoleon was always the main enemy of England, even his corresponding statue is.
  6. robbihood
    robbihood 6 October 2015 11: 14 New
    +3
    The war of 1812 was unleashed by the Russian emperor Alexander I. Back in 1805, he put together the Third Anti-French Coalition. Then he headed for intervention in France through Austria, but the French drove the Russian army from their borders, and then defeated at Austerlitz on December 2.

    Then on November 30, 1806, Alexander announced the convening of a militia (he demanded as much as 612 people!). The landowners were obliged to separate the peasants beyond the recruitment set, not in order to protect their huts and fields, but for a new campaign across Europe through another intervention in France due to the tsar’s paranoid ambitions (by the way, Alexander deceived the nobles: they didn’t return the serfs - they wrote down to recruits). As in 000-1804. the Russian emperor persuaded the Austrian, also in 1805, he persuaded the Prussian king Frederick William III to reunite in a coalition and declare war on France. War declared. Napoleon was again forced to defend his country. Thanks to his genius, the French emperor was able to defeat the superior in numbers of the Prussian and Russian armies.

    Russia and France did not have geopolitical, historical or economic problems. Being in the grip of his personal ambitions and painful complexes, Alexander I unleashed a war against Napoleon not only for ideological reasons. This aggression was paid well to Alexander. As you know, for every one hundred thousand soldiers of the Continental Forces, Britain paid Russia a huge amount of £ 1 (in terms of 250 million rubles) - which for the serf regime, which was incapable of efficient economic development, was very “opportune”. England waged an active war against France with large-scale ground forces and agents-provocateurs in Spain, and the fleet - everywhere at sea; sent 000 rifles to Russia under Lend-Lease (in Russia, as usual, only wood and hemp could be constructed), and wrote off Russian loans (including a huge Dutch loan of 8 million guilders). Russia's victories in the campaign of 150 and in foreign campaigns of 000-87 were won largely due to the British supply of military materials (gunpowder, lead and guns), as well as direct British help with money. Russia imported gunpowder from England: in the years 1812-1813 it was imported 1814 tons. British supplies covered up to 1811% of the volume of gunpowder received by the army and navy in 1813. The Russian Empire imported lead for bullets in large volumes until the end of its existence. And here, the help of England was indispensable. In the summer of 1100, the British, under a special secret agreement, delivered 40 tons of lead to Russia after a long interruption of such supplies because of the continental blockade. This should have been enough for the conduct of hostilities by six Russian corps for several months. Thus, the Russian army fired bullets cast from British lead - there simply was no other. Probably the supply of 1812 tons of lead in 1811 saved Russia from defeat in 1000. England also actually paid for the entire military campaign of Russia. So, in 1000-1811, England provided Russia with subsidies totaling 1812 million rubles, which more than covered all military expenses (according to the report of the Minister of Finance Kankrin, the Russian treasury spent 1812 million rubles on the war in 1814-165). And this is not counting the "humanitarian" English assistance. Thus, the British merchants donated 1812 thousand pounds sterling (about 1814 million rubles) to Russia for the restoration of post-fire Moscow. In total, private donations from the English society of Russia amounted to about 157 thousand pounds (more than 200 million rubles).
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 6 October 2015 13: 47 New
      +3
      Russia and France did not have any geopolitical, historical, or economic problems. Being at the mercy of your personal ambitions and painful complexes


      Is that one - Napoleon claimed complete domination in Europe.
      The existence of an independent Russia with an independent foreign policy did not fit into its plans.
      Sooner or later the collision was inevitable. For Napoleon, Russia is a "barbarous kingdom" in the east .. A potential colony.

      Then 30 November 1806, Alexander announced the convocation of the militia (demanded as many 612 000 people.). The landlords were obliged to allocate peasants in excess of the recruitment not in order to protect their huts and fields, but for a new campaign across the whole of Europe with regular intervention in France


      The paradox is incomprehensible to some strategists - it is better to fight in a foreign territory.
      Then all the destruction of misfortunes and fires is not really your problem.
      If there is an ally - Austria - it must be supported. Fighting next to their burning huts is not a good idea.

      In the summer of 1811, the British delivered a special secret agreement to Russia 1000 tons of lead to Russia
      So, in the 1812 – 1814 years, England provided Russia with subsidies totaling 165 million rubles.


      The success of Russian diplomacy ..
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. robbihood
    robbihood 6 October 2015 11: 18 New
    +2
    Napoleon was proclaimed emperor by the will of the Senate on March 18, 1804 - moreover: he was elected (!!!) by popular vote (a record low number of votes: 0,07%), and then he was crowned by the Pope on December 2! Reinforced concrete rights from the legal, human, historical and religious sides! And this was his reward for saving the Fatherland and the great transformations (the Civil Code, according to which Europe today lives, the French Bank, which saved France from inflation, the reform of all areas of government, legal documents on property rights issued to all citizens, dozens of highways, recovery of all spheres of life, etc.).

    Alexander gained a scepter as a result of a coup d'etat, which was organized by the enemy state - Britain (and the money was transferred by Ambassador C. Whitworth through his mistress to the socialite OA Zherebtsova, a relative of the Zubov conspirators). Decembrist Nikita Muravyov wrote bluntly: "In 1801, a conspiracy led by Alexander deprives Paul of the throne and life without any benefit to Russia." And his ancestors themselves, starting (and continuing) with the grandmother Ekaterina who eliminated her husband, were, in turn, illegal. From the "merits" to the fatherland: drawing into a bloody military conflict and the complete failure of reforms, and as a result - Arakcheevschina. The parents of this “Russian soul and Orthodox Tsar Alexander” were: his father Pavel is the son of a German (Catherine the Second: Sophia Augusta Frederic von Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg) and a German (Peter the Third - Peter Karl Ulrich Duke of Holstein-Gottorp), and his mother ( “Maria Fedorovna”) - Sofia Maria Dorothea Augusta Louise von Württemberg. And the wife of Alexander (with whom he, however, was not close): Louise Maria Augusta of Baden.
    History is an instructive thing.
    1. Turkir
      Turkir 6 October 2015 13: 46 New
      0
      History is an instructive thing.

      Only for those who can think.
      --
      It was you who pointed out dynastic ties to the place.
      Many simply don’t know or attach importance.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  9. Olezhek
    Olezhek 6 October 2015 13: 51 New
    +3
    Moreover, Paul was ready to conclude a strategic alliance with France and start a war with England (the Indian campaign was being prepared). However, the conspiracy of the aristocracy, created with the help of the British and their gold, led to the death of the Russian emperor.


    I hesitate to ask - why does Russia need a "trip to India" ??
    1. venaya
      venaya 6 October 2015 14: 31 New
      0
      Quote: Olezhek
      I hesitate to ask - why does Russia need a "trip to India" ??

      Useful question. In this case, a state like Afghanistan could not have arisen, a buffer territory between two great empires, the Russian and British, inhabited by various peoples and tribes, such as Tajiks, Pashtuns, etc. And in India itself with a freedom-loving people (genetically and linguistically close to Russian) it was possible to organize a national liberation movement. At that time, India was the richest colony of Britain, giving Britain the main income. Such a course of history made it possible to rise above the Angles by the French and Russian empires, and the course of history would have gone the other way, more beneficial for Russia and the continental states.
      1. Olezhek
        Olezhek 6 October 2015 14: 41 New
        +1
        In this case there could not be such a state as Afghanistan, the buffer area between the two great empires, the Russian and British, inhabited by various peoples and tribes, such as Tajiks, Pashtuns etc. And in India itself with freedom loving people


        Just imagine - I am Alexander I and Unique.
        You are the envoy of Napoleon I go - try to convince me.
        Monsieur geu woo zekute! (listening)
        1. venaya
          venaya 6 October 2015 15: 02 New
          0
          Quote: Olezhek
          Just imagine - I am Alexander I and Unique.
          You are the messenger of Napoleon I - try to convince me. ...

          Alexander I is the same laying of the English as today's Poroshenko. A conversation with him is meaningless and therefore hopeless, Napoleon had no illusions about it.
          1. Olezhek
            Olezhek 6 October 2015 15: 04 New
            +1
            Alexander I is the same strip anlicy,


            A lot of surprised. belay
            1. venaya
              venaya 6 October 2015 15: 13 New
              -1
              Quote: Olezhek
              Alexander I is the same gasket ...
              A lot of surprised. belay

              Indeed, now all these nuances are not taught at all, in the XNUMXth century it was not at all surprising, now it is completely hushed up.
              1. Olezhek
                Olezhek 6 October 2015 15: 31 New
                +1
                Indeed, now all these nuances do not teach


                You know, not a fan of "alternative" stories.
                History is nothing at all - science, not journalism.
                1. venaya
                  venaya 6 October 2015 15: 45 New
                  0
                  Quote: Olezhek
                  You know, not a fan of "alternative" stories.

                  How to understand you? What kind of history is "alternative", and in relation to what, is the history of the XNUMXth century, in relation to today or vice versa. Understand the super-foggy concept itself, such as an “alternative story”. Is this something that is not familiar, or that today's "historians" are trying to hush up, as, for example, the Yankees are diligently hiding the USSR’s contribution to the victory over Nazi Germany. The approach is striking: all that I do not know is by definition "alternative"!
                  1. Olezhek
                    Olezhek 6 October 2015 19: 24 New
                    +1
                    How to understand you? What kind of story "alternative

                    You wrote

                    Alexander I is the same strip anlicy,


                    Where did the woods come from?
  10. napalm
    napalm 6 October 2015 14: 03 New
    0
    Thanks for the article, we look forward to continuing.
    How could history change on a global scale, defeat the alliance of France, Prussia and Russia of the Anglo-Saxons.
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 6 October 2015 14: 26 New
      +3
      1 France has already bent over and occupied Prussia (most). Something like this.
      2 after a theoretical victory over England, you can predict a war - France-Russia.
      Well, or "hybrid war" turning into the usual.
      1. venaya
        venaya 6 October 2015 14: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Olezhek
        1 France has already bent over and occupied Prussia (most). Something like this.
        2 after a theoretical victory over England, one can predict a war - France-Russia. ...

        You can predict anything, but Britain would no longer be able to cripple Russia as it would later, if they didn’t have such financial resources.
        1. Olezhek
          Olezhek 6 October 2015 19: 27 New
          +1
          but Britain would no longer be able to spoil Russia as it later happened, they would not have such financial resources.


          We have problems without having England ...
          As a staunch fan of alternative-fiction history development options (this is fantasy, not Fomenko.)
          I can say that the alternative is not always gutt.
  11. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 6 October 2015 18: 26 New
    +2
    And why did we climb into this pan-European scuffle? what
    Perhaps it was worth giving Bonaparte a chance to deal with the English ... winked
    1. venaya
      venaya 6 October 2015 18: 47 New
      0
      Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
      And why did we climb into this pan-European scuffle? what
      Perhaps it was worth giving Bonaparte a chance to deal with the English ... winked

      For Russia, this option would be truly the best. Apparently, Alexander III made the right conclusions from the mistakes of his ancestor, for which he received in full (undermining the tsar’s train, followed by an unknown, rapidly developing disease and naturally sudden death).
    2. Turkir
      Turkir 17 November 2015 11: 58 New
      0
      We did not climb, climbed Alexander I.
      Kutuzov did not want to help Austria finish Napoleon. He wanted to use Napoleon as a counterweight to England.
  12. Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 6 October 2015 20: 30 New
    +2
    I will support the point of view that, firstly, France was Russia's rival on the continent. And in this sense, England and Russia were allies, England, where she could have fought with France but she could not defeat the military genius - Napoleon. However, it defeated France in the New World and opposed the French in Spain and Portugal. And of course on the seas.
    Was Russia an enemy of France? At that time, in the era of Napoleon, certainly yes. After all, everything seemed to wander Napoleon’s campaign in Moscow.
    Accusing England of inciting the continental powers against France is incorrect.
    It was a common struggle.
    The second, of course, is the acquisition of invaluable combat experience. Several years of war with Bonaparte created an invincible Russian army.
    1. Horly
      Horly 6 October 2015 22: 57 New
      0
      So invincible that after 40 years, despite the heroism of the Russian Warriors, she was defeated in the Crimea ... Before that, 10 years after the Paris campaign, she shot her officers, most of whom stood under French kernels, and did not dance in Versailles with Josephine ... Plus, Russia has stalled its development for 70 years - right up to Alexander III ... So do not distort the merits of Shchegol ...
      1. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 6 October 2015 23: 16 New
        +2
        Look at the situation from a different perspective.
        Russia waged the Crimean War against the two most developed countries of the world - Britain and France. According to the results and the losses suffered, this war could be called a big stretch. The Russian fleet died, but it was sailing and wooden, the fate of this fleet was already a foregone conclusion. The losses of our army were great, but the army was not defeated.
        On the other hand, the Allies lost thousands of soldiers from dysentery, cholera, elementary from the cold weather - the British Quartermaster did not bother to bring their overcoats to the front. Two dozen large modern ships went to the bottom as a result of storms.
        And what in return? Even Sevastopol remained with us.
        Decembrists, with negligible exceptions, did not participate in the company of 1812.
        They just decided to arrange a guerrilla revolt. Such riots were a feature of Russian political life - almost all the kings in the 18th century came to power through coups.
        1. Olezhek
          Olezhek 7 October 2015 12: 46 New
          +2
          They just decided to make a Guards mutiny. Such revolts were a feature of Russian political life - almost all the kings in the 18 century came to power through coups.


          And Nicholas I made them shortened !! soldier
    2. andrew42
      andrew42 17 November 2015 12: 00 New
      0
      Sorry, I can’t agree. Since when has France been designated the main geopolitical adversary of Russia on the continent in the 18-19 centuries? Where is it sucked from? The only thing that infuriated the Russian autocrats was the “war on the palaces”, but under Napoleon it subsided to the level of contempt for the upstart of “base” blood. Russia and France had nothing to share - completely different areas of influence. Further, the German principalities of Russia in Europe did not matter at all, and the scourge of the German principalities was the Austrian Empire, not France (at least the kingdom, even the republic, even the Napoleonic empire). Russia's interests were in the Balkans, where Turkey was supported by Britain, and Austria puffed up to maintain control of Serbia and neighboring areas. The confrontation between Russia and France is an unnecessary myth, imposed on both monarchs from the side. The mechanism is similar to drawing Peter the Great into a war with Sweden for the interests of Saxony and Denmark, which ended in the defeat of Narva. But Peter even knew the true long-term goal - the Baltic! And what was the geopolitical goal of Alexander? - Yes, no. Hang out beautifully, pretended that in the death of Paul is not at work. Not a single monarch in Russia suited the image of a peacock like that. I exaggerate, but there is something in it. And if he went to the old men, it was so much to beg, not everyone in life was destined to wash their hands, giving their own father into the hands of the murderers. AND ONE MORE IMPORTANT THING: you so playfully talk about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, as if it were a tourist walk. It was an INVASION! The most dangerous in the history of Russia since the death of the Rurikovich and Troubles of the early 1th century. Batyev’s parish, even if it was in nature, even if it was described by Karamzin with accomplices, this one did not stand next in terms of danger to the national state. Almost ALL EUROPE has hit upon Russia! With all its resources. With a diplomatic grunt of Britain. Only the tension of all the forces of the state allowed expelling the French from the country, without a direct decisive military victory, mind you. From here came the power of the Russian army, which you so easily noticed. This power of blood paid a hundredfold. And the profits - tend to zero, they just saved the country. By golly, it just jerked. It feels like the operetta "Hussar Ballad" looked.
  13. allian
    allian 6 October 2015 23: 41 New
    +2
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    And what in return? Even Sevastopol remained with us.

    Russia returned the city of Kars with a fortress to the Ottomans, receiving in exchange Sevastopol, Balaklava and other Crimean cities seized from it.
    The Black Sea was declared neutral (that is, open to commercial and closed to military courts in peacetime), with the prohibition of Russia and the Ottoman Empire to have military fleets and arsenals there.
    Navigation along the Danube was declared free, for which the Russian borders were moved away from the river, and part of Russian Bessarabia with the mouth of the Danube was annexed to Moldova.
    Russia was deprived of the protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia and the exclusive patronage of Russia over the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire, granted to it by the Kuchuk-Kainardzhiyskoy world 1774 year.
    Russia pledged not to erect fortifications on the Åland Islands.
    The war led to the disruption of the financial system of the Russian Empire, in fact, more than double the depreciation of the ruble.
  14. Aleksander
    Aleksander 7 October 2015 14: 07 New
    +1
    England vs Russia. Drawing into war with france


    Yeah, according to the author, England is insidious and smart, and all the rest are stupid fools dancing to her tune. The position is too simplistic and straightforward. each the country pursued in the first place their interests, including Russia. Napoleonic France captured almost all of EuropeIs it not logical that England, Austria and Russia (in many respects enemies to each other) united against a strong aggressor in the name of elementary self-preservation 7 Is it not through the combined efforts of the allies that, as a result, already after many, many years it was barely able to cope with this conqueror of Europe? If Napoleon were defeated at Austerlitz, would there be a terrible invasion of 1812? So they correctly tried to break it earlier, on a foreign land, and not on their own, but if it failed in 1812, they had to fight at home ....
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 17 November 2015 11: 39 New
      0
      The strength of the British Empire was primarily at the headquarters of banking families, the Rothschilds and other smaller ones, which created a symbiosis with the descendants of the aggressive Norman knights, which were the British nobles and the new royal dynasty. From the 17th to the 20th century, Britain's most powerful tool was political pressure, money, and agents of influence. The fleet is not the first advantage, but only a necessary condition for securing the financial power of the trading empire serving the BANK. yes, exactly the opposite. It is not the bank that serves trade, but war / robbery / trade is the way the BANK exists. In recent times, from the late 20s, the new headquarters of the “masters of the world” moved to the United States, however, the old nest is functioning, and is the second leg.
  15. Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 9 October 2015 11: 39 New
    0
    War continuation of diplomacy by other means! And diplomacy defends the country's national interests! It makes no sense to chew if yes! Look who was the main importer of Russian goods! To whom the Russian landowners were selling bread, flax and hemp !! And all questions will disappear !! And the British, as always, respect for the ability to defend their own and only their interests !!