"I won the battle with some marches." How Napoleon defeated the III anti-French coalition

I won the battle with marches.
Napoleon



210 years ago, 16 — October 19 1805, the French army under the command of Napoleon defeated and captured the Austrian army of General Mac. This defeat had strategic implications. The Austrian Empire could not recover from this defeat, and Napoleon occupied Vienna. The army of Kutuzov, unable to stand alone against the French alone, was forced to withdraw hastily, with difficulty avoiding the fate of the Austrian army.

The battle is interesting because Napoleon’s victory was achieved not in a general battle, but in a series of successful battles with individual Austrian corps. As usual, Napoleon managed to achieve surprise. “Napoleon was marching unusually fast,” wrote the well-known Russian historian E. V. Tarle, “making a detour from the north of the location of the Austrian troops on the Danube, whose left flank was Ulm Fortress”. The Austrians learned about the appearance of the enemy only when the French had already cut it off from reinforcements and sources of supply. By October 16, Napoleon managed to surround the entire Austrian army near Ulm. The shocked Austrian general asked for a 8-day truce, hoping for the arrival of the Russian army. In fact, Mack capitulated a few days later. The Austrian army was partly destroyed, partly captured, part of it fled.

prehistory

Napoleon planned a war within England, dreamed of "taking London and the Bank of England", but he had to wage a war with England's "hirelings" - Austria and Russia, and end the war not in London, but near Vienna.

The head of the British government, William Pitt, not sparing and not counting millions of gold pounds, was preparing a new coalition. Vienna sympathetic to the idea of ​​a new war. The losses of Austria in the last war were enormous, and most importantly, Napoleon began to arbitrarily control the western and southern small states of Germany. Previously, Austria considered itself the head of Germany, and now has lost this role, and turned into a secondary power, which had to cede to France. The new war for the Austrian Empire was the only hope to return the former positions in Germany and Italy, “put in place” France. And here it was possible to wage war on British gold, and even in alliance with Russia. True, the negotiations were tight, Vienna was afraid of a new war with France. Gradually, however, the thirst for revenge overcame fear. Especially when the Austrian empire was supported by Russian bayonets. 29 July 1805, Austria, with a special declaration, announced its accession to the Russian-English agreement.

Those who did not want war were dismissed from their posts. Thus, the Archduke Charles, the famous commander and supporter of sober foreign policy, was replaced by the militant General La Tours as chairman of the Gofkrygsrat. The Austrian army began to prepare for war. Quartermaster General Duca, a supporter of moderate politics and a man from the "clan" of the Archduke Charles, lost his post. General Mac was appointed to his post.

Almost simultaneously with the development of these secret negotiations with the Austrian Empire, William Pitt led the same negotiations with Russia. At the same time, Russia supported England even before Austria, although Russia and Britain had disagreements on almost all issues, from Malta to the Baltic, where the British constantly urged on Sweden, wishing to discard Russia from the Baltic Sea. In fact, from the point of view of Russia's national interests, war with France was not needed, just as France did not need war with Russia. Both great powers had no common border and their interests lay in different strategic zones. France was a colonial empire and rivaled with Britain for supremacy in various regions of America, Africa and Asia (including India). France was unable to “digest” Austria and Prussia, as well as all German states that were located between Russia and France. France would never subjugate England. The rule of France in Italy and Spain did not hurt Russia. Russia's national interests did not clash with the interests of France. Russia needed accelerated internal development, it was necessary to develop the North, Siberia and the Far East, to reliably connect Russian America with Eurasian Russia. It was necessary to make a lot of effort and spend time for the accession and civilization leap of the peoples of the Caucasus and Central Asia, to solve the problems associated with Persia and the Ottoman Empire. Interesting strategic prospects were opened in Korea and China, there was an opportunity in alliance with the French to oust Britain from India. It was necessary to establish friendly and mutually beneficial ties with the Japanese civilization.

In general, the European showdowns were beneficial to Russia. Allowing her to focus on her affairs. However, St. Petersburg with his head got into European affairs. Alexander's personal motives, the dynastic interests of the Romanovs, which were connected by many threads with the houses of Germany, the secret calculations of the emperor’s confidants, many of whom were associated with the West, were common to high society and nobility, including heated by economic interests, made the British decision difficult. tasks. Russia turned into an enemy of France, contrary to its national interests.

The Russian emperor Alexander Pavlovich interrupted all accessions to Napoleon, initiated by his father Pavel, upon accession to the throne. He stopped all measures against England. Alexander knew that the nobility selling agricultural raw materials and bread to England was interested in friendship with London. In addition, the "enlightened" Russian nobility, high society, out of habit, considered France to be a peddler of a revolutionary contagion, and Napoleon - a "Corsican monster."

When the shooting of the Duke of Enghien, in the whole of monarchical Europe, which was already hated by Napoleon, began a violent storm. Began an active campaign against the "Corsican monster", who dared to shed the blood of the Prince of Bourbon house. At the protest of Russia, Napoleon responded with a famous note, where he touched the secret of the death of Paul. Alexander was insulted. Personal hatred for Napoleon, which broke out in Alexander, was supported by the mood of the Russian court and nobility. In addition, St. Petersburg hoped that a broad coalition would take part in the coalition and Paris would not be able to confront the whole of Europe. Britain, without hesitation, agreed to finance Russia. In April, 1805 was an alliance with the United Kingdom.

It is clear that Napoleon knew that England was counting on a war in which Austria and Russia would fight for it. He also knew that it was Vienna, irritated and frightened by defeat, that very attentively listened to the advice of Britain. Already in 1803, he said that he did not consider victory over England secured until her possible continental allies, or “hirelings,” as he called them, were crushed. “If Austria intervenes, it will mean that it is England that will force us to conquer Europe,” said Napoleon to Talleyrand.

Napoleon knew about the diplomatic game of his opponents, but hoped to replay them. As the historian A. Z. Manfred noted: “... he again led a risky game, a game on the knife edge, when victory and defeat are separated from each other by the thinnest edge.” First of all, Napoleon had set himself on solving all the problems with one swift blow — to strike the British lion at the very heart. The landing operation should have led to the collapse of all plans for England. With the inherent ability of Napoleon to briefly express the most complex thoughts, he defined his plan in a few words in a letter to Admiral Latush-Treville. Reporting the awarding of Admiral Order of the Legion of Honor, Bonaparte wrote: "Let us become the masters of the world for six hours!" In these words was the main strategic idea of ​​Napoleon - domination of the Channel for several hours and the problems of European and world politics will be solved. British lion capitulates.

Secondly, Napoleon saw that the anti-French coalition was knocking down, despite the best efforts of Britain, slowly. It seemed to Napoleon until the very autumn of 1805 that Austria was not yet ready for war. In Germany, Napoleon has achieved some success. Prussia did not want to fight and hoped with the help of France to expand their possessions. Berlin claimed Hanover, which was the personal possession of the English king and captured by the French. The Prussian king Frederick William III dreamed of the title of emperor. The monarchs of Bavaria, Württemberg and Baden became allies of Napoleon. The French emperor made the monarchs of Bavaria and Württemberg kings, and the Baden Elector, the Grand Duke.

Therefore, Napoleon, on the one hand, continued to actively prepare for the landing in England, and on the other, acted as if there was no one else in Europe apart from him. He wanted to give a whole number of small German lands to his German vassals — he gave them away; wanted to become an Italian king - became; annexed the Ligurian Republic and Piedmont to France, etc.

"I won the battle with some marches." How Napoleon defeated the III anti-French coalition

Napoleon is crowned King of Italy 26 May 1805 in Milan. Italian artist Andrea Appiani

Coalition plans and forces

England promised Austria five million pounds and as a final payment for participation in the war territorial acquisitions - Belgium, Franche-Comté (part of the former Burgundy) and Alsace. London promised all members of the coalition to be co-sponsored full financial funding for military spending. England undertook to pay for each 100 thousand soldiers 1 million 250 thousand pounds annually. Thus, the division of labor was strictly regulated: England supplied gold and blocked France with the help of fleet, Austria and Russia exhibited "cannon fodder". True, England promised to land small landings in Holland, Italy and even in France.

At a meeting in Vienna, where the high command of the Austrian army and envoy of the Russian tsar, Adjutant-General Wintzingerode, took part, a plan of war with France was adopted. The Allies were going to put up huge forces to fight Napoleon. Russia and Austria were supposed to expose the main forces. The convention between Austria and Russia defined the forces of these powers intended for the campaign: 250 thousand Austrians and 180 thousand Russians. The Allies are also committed to attracting Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, the Kingdom of Neapolitan and various German states. Total going to put more than 600 thousand. People. True, it was in theory. In practice, neither Prussia nor the small German states that were afraid of Napoleon did not fight.

Therefore, the plan outlined in Vienna on July 16 1805 of the year suggested an offensive in four directions:

1) The 50-thousandth Russian army, the command of which will later be transferred to General Kutuzov, was to gather on the south-western border of the Russian Empire near the town of Radzivils and move into Austria to join the forces of this power. Later, the second Russian army was to come (according to the original plan - through the territory of Prussia). Austria exhibited 120-th. Danube army of General Mack, to which the troops of Kutuzov were to join. The Austro-Russian army was to operate in southern Germany. The total strength of the Allied forces, after the unification of all contingents, was supposed to reach 220 thousand soldiers.

2) Approximately 90-ths. the Russian army was to gather on the western borders of Russia. Petersburg was going to demand that these troops pass through Prussian territory and thereby force Prussia to side with the anti-French coalition. Then, after entering the Prussian territory, a part of this army was to be sent to connect with the Austrians, and the other part - to go to the north-west of Germany. As a result, the Volyn army under the command of General Buksgevden was concentrated on the western borders of Russia in 30 thousand people, which was supposed to strengthen the army of Kutuzov, and in the Grodno region 40-thousand were deployed. Northern army of General Bennigsen.
In the north-west of Germany, in Pomerania, 16, thousands of Russian soldiers (Tolstoy corps) and a Swedish corps were to arrive by sea and land. The Russian and Austrian command hoped that the Prussian army would join them. This army was to operate in the north of Germany, capture Hanover and defeat the French troops in Holland.

3) In Northern Italy, 100-thousand should have come. Austrian army of the Archduke Charles. The Austrian army was to knock out French troops from Lombardy and begin the conquest of southern France. To ensure communication between the actions of the two main attack groups in southern Germany and northern Italy, the 30-thousandth army under the command of Archduke John was concentrated on the land of Tyrol.

4) In the south of Italy, they planned to land a Russian (20-thousand expeditionary corps from Corfu) and the English corps, which were to unite with the 40-thousand. Neapolitan army and act against the southern flank of the French group in Italy.

Thus, the Allies planned to attack in four main areas: in northern and southern Germany, in northern and southern Italy. Planned to expose more than 400 thousand people. With the Prussian army, the strength of the allied army grew to 500 thousand people. In addition, Austria and its German allies already in the course of the war had to put in addition about 100 thousand soldiers. The core of the anti-French coalition was entered by Austria and Russia, which put forward the most numerous troops. In the autumn of 1805, huge coalition forces began to move towards the French border.

The Allies hoped to use the fact that the main and best forces of Napoleon were distracted by the preparation of the landing operation. They thought that Napoleon would not have time to quickly regroup and the allies would launch a decisive offensive at that time, be able to solve the tasks of the first stage and prepare for the invasion of France itself. France will have to conduct heavy defensive battles in several directions. Austrian Army Quartermaster-General Mack and the Vice-President of the Gofkrygsrat Schwarzenberg drew up a campaign plan against France, according to which they intended to rapidly invade Bavaria and force it to go over to the Allies, and at the same time launch an offensive by large forces in Italy. These operations were supposed to begin even before the approach of the Russian army, and with its arrival to move the fighting on the territory of France. Proceeding from the interests of Vienna, the North Italian theater of military operations was considered the main one. As a result, the Russian troops were to fight again, as during the Second Coalition, for the interests of London and Vienna.

In general, the plan of the anti-French coalition was designed so that their opponent would not be Napoleon, but the head of a different warehouse and contained major miscalculations. There was no single command of all the Allied armies. The forces of the allies were dispersed, it was proposed above all to solve the tasks of Austria. Even during the previous campaign, Suvorov offered to focus on France. The Austrians overestimated their strength and confidently intended to begin active hostilities before unification with the Russian troops. Although Kutuzov recommended to refrain from military actions until the unification of all Russian and Austrian forces, not to split them into small parts. However, Alexander I did not heed this advice and decided to adhere to the Austrian plan.

The third coalition was different from the first two: both politically and militarily it was stronger than the previous ones. The new coalition did not officially act under the banner of the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty, did not present itself as an open counter-revolutionary force. In their program documents, coalition members emphasized that they were fighting not against France, not against the French people, but personally against Napoleon and his aggressive policy. Here, the flexibility of the policy of the Russian emperor Alexander Pavlovich, who as a diplomat and political figure, turned out to be the most intelligent and anti-French union leader who understands the spirit of the times, affected. True, the secret clauses of the treaties became the former goals: the change of the French government, the liquidation of the consequences of the French revolution, the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy and the rejection of a number of territories. The vassals of the French Empire were going to be liquidated and divided "fraternally."



Napoleon turns the army east

In the summer of 1805, Napoleon still put on a swift dash to cross the English Channel and bring England to its knees. The army was ready, only suitable weather and cover for the French fleet were required. 26 July 1805, Napoleon wrote to Admiral Villeneuve: "If you make me three days master of the Pas-de-Calais ... then with God's help I will put an end to the fate and existence of England."

The squadron of Villeneuve exited Toulon 29 March 1805 of the year. The French were able to avoid a collision with the squadron of Admiral Nelson and passed through the Strait of Gibraltar 8 April. In Cadiz, the French joined the Spanish squadron of Gravina. The combined fleet sailed to the West Indies to divert the British fleet from the straits, reaching Martinique on May 12. The combined French-Spanish fleet managed to avoid meeting with the squadron of Nelson, which pursued the French and, as was intended, went back to Europe. Villeneuve had to go to Brest to connect with the local French squadron.

The British, having learned that the Franco-Spanish fleet headed for Ferrol, sent Robert Caldera's squadron to meet him. Opponents saw each other on July 22. Although the French had a quantitative superiority - the 20 of the battleships against the 15 - they could not win. Two Spanish ships were badly damaged and surrendered to the British. The British two ships were badly damaged. 23 July neither Calder nor Villeneuve did not dare to continue the battle. Calder did not want to again attack the superior forces of the enemy, fearing to lose the damaged ships and seized prizes. He also feared that the fleet of Villeneuve would strengthen the French squadrons from Rochefort and Ferrol, in which case his fleet was doomed. Villeneuve also decided not to risk it and eventually returned to Cadiz. The battle ended with an uncertain result, both admirals, and Villeneuve and Calder, declared their victory.


Fight off Cape Finisterre 22 July 1805 of the year. William Anderson

The departure of Villeneuve to Cadiz destroyed all hopes of Napoleon for organizing the invasion and the landing in England. True, he put on until the last moment. On August 22, he informed Admiral Gantom, commander of the Brest squadron: “Go and move here. We must repay six centuries of shame. ” Then he wrote to Villeneuve again: “Go, do not lose a moment, and with my connected squadrons enter the English Channel. England is ours. We are ready, everything is in place. Show up only twenty four hours and everything will be over ... ". But the indecisive Villeneuve never came. In late August, the emperor learned that the fleet of Villeneuve was thoroughly blocked in the bay of Cadiz by the British.

In the meantime, the emperor received alarming news that a grave danger was approaching from the east to France. By the summer of 1805, the Austrian forces concentrated on the border with Bavaria and Italy. Napoleon saw it and, waiting for the approach of his fleets in Boulogne, followed the Rhine border with alarm. The French emperor tried to reason with the Austrians, but nothing came of it. Then Napoleon told her ambassador in Paris, Cobenzell: "The emperor is not so mad to give the Russians time to come to your aid ... if your master wants war, then say that he will not celebrate Christmas in Vienna." The Austrians were not afraid. 8 September 1805, the Austrian forces crossed the River Inn and invaded Bavaria. The war has begun.

Napoleon addressed the army: “Brave soldiers! You will not go to England! The British gold seduced the emperor of Austria, and he declared war on France. His army violated the limits to be respected. Bavaria captured! Soldiers! New laurels are waiting for you on the Rhine. Let's go and smash the enemies we have already beaten. ”

The French emperor responded quickly and decisively. Napoleon intercepted a strategic initiative and launched an offensive himself. The Army of England (Army of the Shores of the Ocean) was renamed the Great Army and in September 1805 crossed the Rhine and invaded Germany. Napoleon as an excellent strategist easily revealed the plans of the enemy and acted in Suvorov style - “an eye, speed, onslaught”. He destroyed the numerical superiority of the enemy with the rapid movement of the French army and the crushing of the enemy’s armies one by one. He dismembered the forces of the enemy and struck them blow by blow.

To be continued ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vadim12 16 October 2015 07: 08 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    It turns out that Alexander Pavlovich was a short-sighted monarch, he set personal interests above state interests. So I got into the European showdown. He allowed the British to manipulate Russia.
    1. Stirbjorn 16 October 2015 09: 31 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      At the same time, the far-sighted Pavel Petrovich in our country considered the official history almost crazy hi
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Hort 16 October 2015 12: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        the far-sighted Pavel Petrovich was an ardent fan of Friedrich, a fierce drill and summer dress uniform for soldiers. So goose is good too
        1. busido 16 October 2015 14: 12 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          You don’t please everyone. And what's wrong with the drill? The spirit of a fighter (warrior) is important, the form in this also matters .... Although, of course, there are no germs and germs, reptiles die)))). "Kirza", name , then it was different ... But! Fritz always cherished the appearance. And what is bad for a German does not happen, for a Russian it’s definitely not death. We give, they take, we take, they give. Community rule!)
          1. Rastas 16 October 2015 19: 38 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            "Powder is not gunpowder, bukley is not guns, a scythe is not a cleaver, and I am not German, Your Majesty, but a natural Rusak!" - Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov once said to Pavel.
    2. chunga-changa 16 October 2015 11: 58 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Now the story is repeating itself. In those days, instead of running around Europe, you could throw all your strength into the defeat of Turkey and the capture of the Black Sea straits. Russia has never had such a favorable situation. France is fighting with England, the rest against this background, Turkey does not care, in Turkey itself riots, forces are scattered. But the army was engaged in a "fight against French terrorists." Now, instead of defeating and capturing Ukraine, we are running through the Middle Eastern deserts, I wonder in whose interests?
      1. Predator 16 October 2015 20: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What are you talking about? At this time, Suvorov A.V. smashed the French in Italy, Usak Pasha with the Turks drove the French fleet and took their fortresses and all with the permission of Paul ...... But he died and Napoleon came to Russia, but could strangle ....
    3. Rastas 16 October 2015 19: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In monarchies, dynastic interests always prevail. Only ordinary people disguise the interests of the dynasty as state interests.
    4. Libra 16 October 2015 23: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      and what did the author want to say? don't trust england?

      and the meaning is to rip off the story, which was written by Miller and Shletszer, she is not even friends with logic:

      such as a noble and free Europe, flourished, and England could buy everyone with giblets, because we are all poor and there was no gold in the wild country, and then the trouble is - Napoleon “almost” captured us, epat and somehow lost, or rather won, and then immediately lost (a logical ending for brainless Germans with romantic inclinations),
      but if there were America at that time, then Napoleon would definitely lose from the landing of the Marines in Normandy, who would carry exceptional democracy in their star-striped airships ....
  2. blizart 16 October 2015 07: 28 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    One of them was hinted at by the dad’s death, the other was struck by a student with a saber on the head, and each time the Russian regiments made a heavy step. So that overcoming everything, in the mud, in the blood, it is not clear why it is necessary to fight. I consider the whole recent history of our country to be the history of “fraud” by politicians - the army. And finally, in this war, the allies of the Russians were the so-called "middle peoples." At first they fought with Napoleon, when he shamefully “lowered” them (you cannot say otherwise), they recognized that he was Grand ... went with him (albeit unofficially) to a former ally and burned Moscow. When the Russians Vlas and Karp debunked his Grand, they clung to the conqueror and entered Paris. Painfully familiar gestures of the old prostypoma of Europe. “No European capital is worth the life of a Russian soldier” - these are the words of a true patriot of Russia Kutuzov.
    1. xan
      xan 16 October 2015 11: 48 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: blizart
      At first they fought with Napoleon, when he shamefully “lowered” them (you cannot say otherwise), they recognized that he was Grand ... went with him (albeit unofficially) to a former ally and burned Moscow. When the Russians Vlas and Karp debunked his Grand, they clung to the conqueror and entered Paris.

      This is if you look primitively at external relations. And if you understand without snot, then the actions of Alexander 1 have a logical explanation from the point of view of Russian interests. One example is the surrender of the pro-Russian, with the arms in its hands, expelled the French occupation corps, but not really bearing the weight of Dolmatia for a seemingly ghostly nishtyak - the preservation of Prussian statehood, although in the form of dependence on France. As soon as Napoleon stumbled, the Prussians immediately stuck a knife in his back. And so you can disassemble every step. No matter how great the merit of the Russians, and it is undoubtedly the most important, the coalition actually defeated Napoleon. And the fact that Alexander was able to defeat Napoleon not only with Russian blood, but also with a fair share of the blood of the Allies, is a great honor and praise to him. Another fact - to draw Austria into the coalition, he no doubt agreed to the high command of the Austrian commander, but he remained in the army, shamelessly intervened in military plans and even sent orders to non-Russian troops on behalf of the high command. Figuratively speaking, he simply dragged Schwarzenberg along with the entire coalition to Paris. And who used whom after that. Russian emperor worthless commander (when the smell of fried ceased to interfere with the actions of these warriors), but simply an outstanding diplomat, and an unsurpassed hypocrite and schemer. Where are the contemporaries of Talleyrand and Meternich, but the truth is that he certainly has much more weight, the emperor is after all.
      In the epic work of the Englishman Chandler "Napoleon's Company" under the portrait of Alexander 1 it is written "a completely incomprehensible historical character." And this characteristic in the context of the book is clearly complementary. And here I recently learned that Switzerland is still living according to the constitution, written by Alexander at the Vienna Congress.
  3. parusnik 16 October 2015 07: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    However, St. Petersburg got into European affairs. Personal motives of Alexander, the dynastic interests of the Romanovs,..Personal prevailed over the interests of the state .. Yes, and English money had to be worked out .. Dad, they killed him with English money ..
  4. npzh 16 October 2015 09: 49 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    St. Petersburg had reason to get into European affairs. France was already one of the hegemons, and the defeat and subjugation of Austria made it even stronger.
    Well, they would not have entered the war in 1805, they would have had the situation of 1812 5-6 years earlier.
    Another thing is that England won more than others.
  5. Alekst 16 October 2015 11: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It’s a little incomprehensible that the author wanted to say whether or not Russia was worth interfering in European affairs, throughout the 18th century, for one reason or another, Russia intervened, waged wars and entered into various alliances with different groups of European countries, well, we can say that since in the 18th century Russia became an empire, interfering in European affairs, it intervened in world affairs, thus defending its geopolitical interests, at that time! so what could France offer, as an ally of Russia? a trip to India, or what else was there in the head of the searchlight Paul I? it’s not necessary to consider people in that era as the leading actions of the country, it’s more stupid than “couch experts”, I’m not talking specifically about Alexander I, if there had been anything sensible in Paul’s projects, the British could not push the then elite to the palace coup, as much as the Sahara don’t fertilize, the forest will not grow there. And what can be assumed, as the same couch expert, what would happen if France, in alliance with Russia, broke the hegemony of colonial England? well, a strong continental power would simply have arisen, without a counterweight to the British Empire, and Russia, in spite of the help in this, would remain practically with a united Europe, and not a tangle of warring unions and groups, and so everything would remain in a certain status quo, and Britain would be straightened with another continental competitor, after some time she switched to another, Germany.
    1. Stirbjorn 16 October 2015 13: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      So what was the point in such a large-scale war with Napoleon? What did the Russian Empire gain from this? France also had no interests ... It was quite reasonable to do business in the East - the same Alaska. The article says the same thing. The seven-year war with Frederick was also incredible stupidity. Britain has always been cunning for our natural enemies at that time - Turkey and Sweden
      1. xan
        xan 16 October 2015 15: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        That's right!
        We must also pay attention to a simple fact - which Russia entered the 18th century, and which it emerged from. It came in with a dashing baby-sucker, and really came out a monster.
        And so yes, they were engaged in some kind of nonsense.
  6. npzh 16 October 2015 14: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In Europe there were 5 great powers, England, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia (with reservations). In some ways, their interests coincided, in some they did not. But the sharp increase in one of them (France) completely broke the balance. This caused a series of coalition wars.
    Engaging in such conditions in Alaska, and even closer lands is a bad decision.
    1. Stirbjorn 16 October 2015 15: 53 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      This Louis XV had such logic, which was worn with the balance of "Europe", as with a crystal egg. Moreover, the basis of this balance was a weak Russia and a strong Ottoman Empire. Strengthening Russia did not suit anyone in Europe, never.
  7. Sargaras 16 October 2015 14: 59 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Whatever they say about Napoleon, but this was still one of the greatest generals in history, who really made only one mistake, known to everyone. And the British have always been a rare bastard and the worst enemies of Russia.
    1. Rastas 16 October 2015 19: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The British, or rather the ruling class in the person of the bourgeoisie, simply pursued their interests. They did not need a strong France, which sought to deprive the English monopoly of trade in the Mediterranean, and there the French would look at the colonies too. All these wars, in essence, were about money.
  8. bandabas 16 October 2015 18: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Great commander, but lost to Kutuzov. It is interesting what would happen in a clash with Suvorov. Which said, "Walks far. Time to calm down." And all these generals knew and cherished for their soldiers. Unlike non-current.
    1. Cap.Morgan 16 October 2015 20: 49 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Napoleon did not lose to anyone. He lost to Kutuzov due to a combination of circumstances that led to the collapse of the Empire. But he did not lose a single battle.
      1. Roman 11 16 October 2015 21: 23 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        not lost a single battle.

        And Leipzig, Berezina, Waterloo, flight from Egypt ?? I think after Tilsit, his military talent rolled downhill. I think it happened from a good prosperous life, not motivating anything - everyone obeyed! Already in Austria in 1809 he was not the one, but in the battle of Borodino Murat threw a cue - the emperor forgot his craft. And only in 1814 he became the same, which is understandable - everything acquired was put on the line.
        1. Rastas 16 October 2015 22: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Leipzig and Waterloo are, after all, coalition victories over France. Berezina - this was not a battle, but the flight of a decomposed army. In Egypt, Napoleon could not only take one fortress of Accra, and he won all the battles. In fact, the defeat of the fleet under Abukir put the land army in a hopeless situation. In 1809 he won one of his most brilliant victories - at Wagram. But I agree that Napoleon won the most brilliant victories until 1807, after which his army carried only enslavement.
  9. ALEA IACTA EST 16 October 2015 20: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The British bought almost all of Europe to destroy a single man ...
  10. Roman 11 16 October 2015 21: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I won the battle with marches aloneIn 1812 Kutuzov repeated. True, Barclay and Bagration helped a lot before that ....... in military affairs, correct marches and positions play a big role.
  11. Evgeniy popov 16 October 2015 22: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Good article. Once again, it shows how to conduct foreign policy and to observe the interests of Russia and not overseas states. What Putin is doing now. That's why he infuriates America and Europe. Russia is now engaged in itself and defends its interests