Military Review

How Russia defeated Sweden and annexed Finland

40
Russian-Swedish War 1809-1809 became a consequence of the European wars of the end of the XVIII — XIX centuries, as well as the long-standing confrontation of Russia and Sweden in the Baltic and Finland. After the revolution in France, several coalitions of European states tried to suppress revolutionaries and restore the monarchy, and then fought against the "illegal" Napoleon's empire. Russia, although it did not have fundamental contradictions with either monarchical, or revolutionary, or with Napoleonic France, got involved in this great war. As a result, for a considerable period of time, Russian soldiers shed blood for the interests of Austria, England, and partly Prussia.


The basis of the war was a conflict of interests between England and France, and France and Austria. At the same time, England and France have long fought in the framework of the Second Hundred Years War. England fought for decades with Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI. The “Restoration War” was just a cover for England’s global and national interests. France was the main enemy of England in Europe, there was a struggle for markets and colonies, for leadership in Europe and the world. British the fleet could only challenge the French fleet (before Trafalgar). England needed a weak, led France, which could not challenge Britain in Europe and the world, and would serve its interests. France and Austria were rivals in the dominance of fragmented and weak Italy. Their interests also clashed on the Rhine, fragmented into dozens of German states. It was a power struggle for leadership in continental Europe.

Russia began to climb into these European clashes in the time of Catherine II. However, a sensible German woman, verbally cursing the revolutionaries and calling for a struggle against the Jacobins, in fact continued to resolve the national interests of Russia. At a rapid pace, they mastered Novorossia, strengthened the young Black Sea fleet, and decided the centuries-old problem of the aggressive Polish bridgehead of Western civilization. At the same time, the original Russian lands were returned, and the ethnically Polish lands went to Prussia and Austria, which did not stand on ceremony with the Poles. It is quite possible that if Catherine had lived for several years, then Russia would have solved the problem of the straits with Constantinople-Tsargrad.

Emperor Paul I, at first, in spite of his mother, wanted to refuse to interfere in European affairs and wars altogether, so that it would be a very wise step. But then he let himself be convinced that without Russia, order could not be restored to Europe. The Russian squadron of Ushakov in the Mediterranean Sea and the army of Suvorov in Italy achieved serious success. However, Pavel, contrary to leisure myths and gossip, was not a fool and soon realized that he was being deceived, that England and Austria were using Russia as “cannon fodder”, solving purely their own problems.

The angry Russian emperor Pavel stopped the war with France and began negotiations with Napoleon on a strategic alliance. The policy of rapprochement with France was in the interests of the Russian Empire, so the two great powers did not have a common border and fundamental contradictions. The expansion of France, for example, in Italy and Spain, its struggle with England for the colonies, the weakening of Austria, did not hurt Russia. On the contrary, the weakening of England, Austria and Prussia was beneficial to Russia, reducing the military thunderstorm in the western strategic direction and allowing to solve various tasks in the south-western, southern and eastern directions (the Balkans, the Straits, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Far East and Russian America), and also focus on internal development.

However, this did not suit England, where at that time the “command center” of Western civilization settled, which led globalization aimed at creating a slave-owning, caste world order. As a result, the British organized the elimination of Paul by the hands of representatives of the degenerate Russian aristocracy. Many Russian aristocrats and dignitaries were unhappy with the “knight” Paul, who tried to restore the beginnings of discipline and service in the Russian nobility. Pavel took on a huge burden, trying to stop the degradation of the Russian nobility, which increasingly turned into a parasitic class of the people, almost completely divorced from the Russian “soil” culture, having German, French and English as the main language. In his opinion, the nobles should have been a genuine elite (a kind of ideal knightly order), leading society along the path of development.

From union to confrontation

After the death of Paul, his son Alexander I came to the throne. He needed to solve the problem: continue the course of an alliance with Napoleon or re-join the anti-French camp. Alexander for a number of reasons, including for personal reasons, chose to enter into an alliance with England against France. The ambition of the young king, who wanted to defeat the "Corsican monster" and the interests of the "German" and "English" parties were above national interests. The Romanovs were connected by thousands of threads to Germany. Alexander's relatives and the “Russian Germans” demanded intervention in the affairs of Germany, and therefore of Europe. Alexander himself was ambitious, offended by Napoleon, was eager for military glory. He even decided to personally lead the army, which moved on Napoleon.

The third anti-French coalition included Sweden. She was dragged into the war by King Gustav IV. He also unbearably thirsted for military glory and suggested that Sweden could again become one of the great military powers of Europe. And the Swedish nobles were not averse to war, and even the gold of Britain. There was Sweden and a territorial target. Sweden still preserved the remnants of its empire and hoped to seize land in Pomerania.

2 January 1805 was an alliance between Russia and Sweden. Sweden was to deploy troops for action in Northern Germany. However, the 1805 campaign ended in a crushing defeat for the anti-French coalition. In October, the Austrian army was destroyed and captured near Ulm, and in November, Napoleon dispersed the combined Russian-Austrian army led by the Russian and Austrian emperors near Austerlitz. The Swedes tried to start fighting in Pomerania, but were soon forced to retreat.

December 26 1805 Austria signed a peace treaty with France in Presburg. And Prussia, without entering the war, as hoped in Russia, concluded an allied treaty with Napoleon. Thus, the Russian Empire, not counting England, which had decided to defend the island in the Battle of Trafalgar, was left alone in front of Napoleon’s victorious empire. It would seem that Alexander should make peace with Napoleon. After all, Russia was the only European power that fought with France not for its national interests. Napoleon, despite the fact that Petersburg in 1805 opposed it, was not hostile to Russia and did not make plans for its dismemberment. Russia received a unique chance to go about their business.

However, Alexander did not want to put up. In 1806, the fourth anti-French coalition was created. June 19 and July 12 signed secret union declarations between the Russian Empire and Prussia. In the fall of 1806, a coalition was formed consisting of England, Sweden, Prussia, Saxony and Russia. England, like during the previous unions, gave money. Russia and Prussia fielded soldiers. Prussia replaced the battered Austria, which this time did not dare to speak out against France. I joined the coalition and Sweden. However, the Swedes took the English money, but did not rush to send troops to Western Europe.

This war ended again with the defeat of Napoleon’s opponents. The scenario of the war resembled the 1805 war. Self-confident Prussians did not wait for the Russian army and engaged the French. October 14 The Prussian army ceased to exist in the battle of Jena and Auerstedt in October. The Prussian kingdom collapsed and was occupied by French troops. Russia had to fight the French alone. At the same time, the Russian army was connected with the war with the Ottoman Empire. 1806 June 2, the Russian army was defeated near Friedland and retreated beyond the Neman. The French occupied Berlin and Warsaw and for the first time reached the Russian border on the Neman River. Alexander had to put up. 1807 June was a meeting of two emperors on a raft in the middle of the Neman River opposite the city of Tilsit.

Napoleon, despite the victory, did not demand anything special from Alexander. He only asked to meddle in the affairs of Germany and break the alliance with England. He did not insist on a military alliance, he only wanted Russia's strict neutrality. In return, Napoleon untied Russia's hands on the most important historical and strategic directions - in the north and south. Petersburg could freely solve its problems with Sweden and the Ottoman Empire with the approval of Napoleon. In addition, at the request of Alexander, Napoleon retained Prussia as an independent kingdom.

True, if on the problem of Finland and Sweden Napoleon was sincere and offered to join these territories to Russia, then on the Turkish issue the French emperor was cunning. France itself had strategic interests in the Middle East, in Turkey, and did not want to give Russia the Straits and Constantinople, since this greatly strengthened the Russian position in the Mediterranean. This also included the interests of Austria, which Napoleon was tied to France at that time.

However, Alexander had the opportunity to seize the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, Constantinople, if he followed the path of his father and concluded a true strategic alliance with France. For example, Napoleon wanted to intermarry with the Romanovs. It was possible to give him one of the sisters of Alexander. As a result, it was easy to divide the Ottoman Empire into spheres of interest: France - Egypt, Palestine, Syria, perhaps, Mesopotamia, which added gunpowder to relations between England and France; Russia - Straits, Constantinople with the region, the Transcaucasus with Greater Armenia. At the same time, France and Russia could together restore the Balkan states that were under the Turkish yoke. Given the fact that France was forced to fight England, it gradually became tied up in Spain, it was forced to control Italy, and look at Austria with Prussia, Russia could freely solve its tasks. Napoleon needed a calm rear to concentrate on fighting England and "digesting" the occupied territories. Napoleon would sooner or later die or die, and his heirs would hardly be so talented statesmen and military leaders. Another European empire would not survive its creator.

However, the crafty Alexander began a double game with Napoleon and did not stop interfering in German affairs. This predetermined the cautious attitude of Napoleon to St. Petersburg and the future conflict between France and Russia.

How Russia defeated Sweden and annexed Finland

Swedish king Gustav IV Adolf

Danish question. The beginning of the war with Sweden

Meanwhile, the British continued to solve their national problems. “Enlightened” Britain considered any state its enemy, whose fleet could potentially be used by France and neutral states that tried to trade on their own. So, in August 1807, the British fleet attacked the Danish kingdom, which tried to remain neutral in this confrontation.

July 26 1807 was a powerful British fleet from England with 20-thousand. landing troops. August 1 British ships appeared in the Great Belt Strait. 8 August 1807 British ambassador Jackson went to Crown Prince Regent Frederick and said that Britain reliably knew that Napoleon wanted to force Denmark into an alliance with France, that England could not allow this, and therefore demands that Denmark give Britain its entire fleet . In addition, the ambassador demanded that British troops be allowed to occupy Zealand, the island on which the capital of Denmark is located. The prince refused.

The British landed on August 14 on the island of Zealand and defeated a detachment of the Danish army near the city of Køge. In a few days, General Wellesley’s corps took Copenhagen to its surroundings. The Danish army at that time was concentrated on the southern border with Prussia in order to counter the possible invasion of Napoleon. At the same time, the metropolitan area, along with Copenhagen, were poorly protected. From 2 to 5 September, the British fleet carried out artillery shelling of the Danish capital: 5000 volleys on the first night, 2000 volleys on the second night and 7000 - on the third. At the same time hundreds of civilians died, every third building of the Danish capital was destroyed. September 7 Danish General Payman signed the act of surrender. The surviving ships of the Danish fleet were transferred to the British. The British took the Danish fleet, burned the shipyards and the naval arsenal, destroying the naval potential of Denmark.


English ships in Copenhagen harbor

The Russian Imperial House (after the death of Peter II, the last Romanov in the male line, the Romanovs were de facto rather the Holstein-Gottorp dynasty) had family ties with the Danish and Holstein families. In addition, Denmark since the time of Peter the Great was Russia's ally in the struggle with Sweden. Therefore, the seizure of Copenhagen in St. Petersburg caused great discontent. In October, 1807 Russia submitted an ultimatum to England - a break in diplomatic relations until the fleet was returned to Denmark and all losses were compensated. In March, Alexander 1808 imposed a ban on the import of British goods to Russia. The Anglo-Russian war of 1807 — 1812 began.

Russia and England did not have a common border, so the fighting between the British and the Russians had a local character and was conducted at sea. Emperor Alexander I demanded the assistance of Sweden in order to keep the Baltic Sea closed to the fleets of other powers on the basis of the 1780 and 1800 contracts. Gustav IV rejected these demands and headed for rapprochement with England. 16 November 1807, Petersburg again turned to Stockholm with a proposal for assistance, but for about two months did not receive any response. Finally, the Swedish king said that the execution of the 1780 and 1800 contracts could not be started, since the French occupied the ports of the Baltic Sea. Then it became known that Sweden is preparing to help England in the war with Denmark. The British promised to give Sweden, which belonged to the Danes, Norway.

At the end of 1807, the emperor Napoleon strengthened the continental blockade of England. 2 February 1808. Napoleon sent Alexander a letter in which he proposed “to remove the Swedes from their capital; on this side you must extend your borders as far as possible. I am ready to help you in this with all my means. ” 5 February Napoleon declared to the Russian ambassador in Paris, Count Tolstoy, that he agreed that Russia would acquire all of Sweden, including Stockholm.

Meanwhile, in February, England 1808 entered into a contract with Sweden, under which it pledged to pay Sweden 1 million pounds monthly during the war with Russia. In addition, London promised to put an auxiliary 14-th. corps to protect the western borders and ports of Sweden, so that Stockholm could throw the entire army east to fight the Russian Empire. As a result, Britain began to fight Russia with the hands of Sweden.

Thus, the Russian-Swedish war 1808-1809's. was caused by the desire of Russia in the context of its accession to the continental blockade and the beginning of the confrontation with England to solve the Swedish issue, including the security problem of the capital of the empire. Russia needed to establish full control over the Gulf of Finland and the Bothnian bays and ensure the safety of St. Petersburg. The Tilsit world of 1807 put Sweden before the question: either to join the continental blockade and thus jeopardize its naval trade in the English fleet and abandon the British market, or to preserve the traditional alliance with England and go to conflict with Russia, trying to take historical revenge. King Gustav IV Adolf set out to break with Russia, relying on gold and the fleet of Britain, although Sweden was not prepared for war.

Formal reason for the war gave the Swedes themselves. 1 (13) February 1808. Swedish king Gustav IV informed the Russian ambassador in Stockholm that reconciliation between Sweden and Russia was impossible as long as Russia held East Finland. In response, the Russian troops 9 February crossed the border. On February 18, Count Bucksgueden joined Helsingfors, Swedish troops took refuge in Sveaborg. The formal declaration of war from the Russian side was followed only by 16 in March 1808, when newsthat the Swedish king, upon learning of the crossing of the Russian troops across the border, ordered the arrest of all members of the Russian embassy in Stockholm.


The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian troops in 1808, during the Russian-Swedish war, Fedor Fedorovich Buksgevden

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Barboskin
    Barboskin 27 October 2015 06: 52 New
    +1
    And where is Kulnev ?!
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 27 October 2015 07: 49 New
      +2
      Kulnev will be in the second part, this is a preface ..
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 27 October 2015 15: 20 New
      +3
      The cunning arrogant Saxons first destroyed the French empire in the hands of Russians in 1812, then pitted Russians and Prussians between themselves in 1914, and now there are no French, German, Russian empires, and only the Anglo-Saxon empire remained, the fools emperors did not predict this, except for Napoleon, he knew who an enemy, and Stalin incidentally knew, but Hitler was dumb, like Alexander at one time.
      I hope now that a resurgent Russia will finally destroy this arrogant, cunning, dodgy hydra empire that can wage war on its own.
      1. ALEA IACTA EST
        ALEA IACTA EST 27 October 2015 19: 12 New
        +1
        Quote: Max_Bauder
        Hitler was stupid like Alexander at one time

        Or faithfully served the "cunning arrogant Saxons" ...
      2. Spnsr
        Spnsr 27 October 2015 21: 37 New
        +1
        Quote: Max_Bauder
        The cunning arrogant Saxons first destroyed the French empire in the hands of Russians in 1812, then pitted Russians and Prussians between themselves in 1914, and now there are no French, German, Russian empires, and only the Anglo-Saxon empire remained, the fools emperors did not predict this, except for Napoleon, he knew who an enemy, and Stalin incidentally knew, but Hitler was dumb, like Alexander at one time.
        I hope now that a resurgent Russia will finally destroy this arrogant, cunning, dodgy hydra empire that can wage war on its own.

        as well as ruined, and again by the hands of the Russians the "Ottoman Empire" ...
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 27 October 2015 07: 51 New
    +3
    After the death of Paul, his son Alexander I entered the throne.After the murder of Paul I, by Russian nobles who were not happy with his policies ... more precisely ..
  3. Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 27 October 2015 08: 01 New
    -1
    The trouble has just been that England was the forge of the world. Russia supplied many types of raw materials for this forge.
    The confrontation with England caused serious problems for the Russian economy.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 27 October 2015 10: 12 New
      +3
      France was rapidly gaining economic power and sooner or later Napoleon would go on to build a fleet. Russia could supply raw materials to him.
  4. Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 27 October 2015 08: 09 New
    -7
    Somehow the author is sick with Anglophobia.
    We do not need a war with France, we fought in Europe for the interests of others ...
    Only then, having failed to defend these “other people's interests”, we received Napoleon already in our house. Here we already fought for our interests and the hated England helped us in this.
    Something nowhere a word about it.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 27 October 2015 10: 11 New
      +4
      But hasn't Russia ruined relations with France? We had a Russian-French offensive alliance. Even despite the year 1799. And what good did the Anglo-Saxons give Russia? Crimean war? Slow motion mine - Duchy of Warsaw and a donut hole.
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow 27 October 2015 10: 15 New
      +1
      Napoleon did not dream of any Europe in 1805. This is the blatant lie of the Anglo-Saxons. The only contradiction with the British was in Malta. Napoleon demanded to reduce the presence of the British there from 10 to 5 years.
    3. V.ic
      V.ic 27 October 2015 10: 45 New
      +3
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      Something nowhere a word about it.

      So write an article! State your theses. Justify with an indication of the sources. Draw conclusions, and we will read and evaluate.
      1. Morrrow
        Morrrow 27 October 2015 10: 54 New
        +2
        Yes, he can’t. There was no reason to fight the French either in 1799 or in 1805. Catherine understood this perfectly. Russia had two antagonists in Europe - Turks and Swedes. They had to deal with them. What did the French of Russia do wrong? On the contrary, they were very loyal to Russia. Pushkin, for example, was taught by French governesses, introduced him to rich French literature, which predetermined the development of the Russian language and Russian literature. Our nobles were brought up by the French elite. Even Alexandra was taught by a French Republican !! Lagarp. The war between Russia and France is the greatest stupidity. It was our natural and powerful ally in the West.
        1. THE_SEAL
          THE_SEAL 28 October 2015 13: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: Morrrow
          It was our natural and powerful ally in the West.

          They tell you idiots, they say. Russia has two allies - the army and navy. France has its own interests. And governesses for some reason dragged. Some kind of stupidity
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow 28 October 2015 17: 32 New
            0
            This was said when Russia was isolated and ceased to be a great power? Well, did the army and navy help a lot in 1854?
    4. ALEA IACTA EST
      ALEA IACTA EST 27 October 2015 21: 31 New
      0
      The campaign against Russia was not aggressive, but punitive.
      Bonaparte wanted to isolate Britain, all his politics, all his actions and thoughts were aimed at curbing Albion. To stop the trade of Russia with England - that is what Napoleon I wanted to achieve with this campaign.
  5. sherp2015
    sherp2015 27 October 2015 10: 01 New
    +1
    Western lice have always tried to use Russia in their interests and involved in any adventures ...
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 27 October 2015 10: 36 New
      +1
      Strongly against such a definition. The West has never been united. The French, after Seven Years, making an analytical review of the geopolitical situation, came to the conclusion that Russia could be the only ally in Europe - it did not have common borders with France, and therefore no significant contradictions.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 27 October 2015 10: 47 New
        +2
        Quote: Morrrow
        The French, after Seven Years, making an analytical review of the geopolitical situation, came to the conclusion that Russia could be the only ally in Europe - it did not have common borders with France, and therefore no significant contradictions.

        Interesting case! Why, then, France supported the Magnificent Port, considering it a counterweight to Russia on the Black Sea theater?
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow 27 October 2015 11: 03 New
          +2
          What period? Before the Russian-French war, they did not seem to support much. And after that, the French were serious about Egypt.
  6. kvs207
    kvs207 27 October 2015 10: 08 New
    +2
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    We already fought for our interests and hated England helped us in this.

    England, never fought without having its own interest, let alone for strangers, all the more so.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 27 October 2015 10: 32 New
      +1
      Moreover, she always betrayed her allies. A more vile nation in the world did not exist. During the Anglo-French 1804-1814 betrayed Denmark, during the Russo-French - in 1854 Russia. During the Franco-Prussian in 1870 - France. During Franco-Prussian, the English full-time lords said that the leadership of the Prussians in Europe would be much better than the French and therefore it was worth supporting Prussia. In the 1930s they supported Hitler, again betraying France, although they understood what kind of destruction Germany had brought in northwestern France. This is a hyena, not a nation.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 27 October 2015 10: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: Morrrow
        during Russian-French - in 1854 Russia.

        Yes, not betrayed, but directly fought in the Crimea, having allies in the French, Turks and Sardinians.
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow 27 October 2015 11: 01 New
          -2
          The conflict had a Russian-French character. Napoleon 3 wanted to take revenge and punish Nicholas for 20 years of anti-French politics. Before this conflict, the British were an "ally" of Russia. In 1813, the British called the Russians almost brothers.
  7. xan
    xan 27 October 2015 12: 37 New
    +2
    I have long read the memoirs of an old Russian soldier recorded by an officer after the Crimean War. He met on the battlefield with all the nations with whom Russia fought in turbulent times of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. He considered Swedes to be the best soldiers, I don’t remember why. I remember that for the French he had no compliments and comments, ordinary soldiers, and the Turk considered weaklings.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 27 October 2015 12: 53 New
      +2
      You probably made a mistake. By the end of the 18th century, the Swedes were nothing. If you remove the French from the brackets, then the Russians had the best infantry, the Austrians had the best cavalry. In the mid-19th century, the French took the lead at sea and again on land. The French marines, armed with Chaspo rifles, ran far ahead. Only, the Prussians overtook by 1867 the French in artillery. This is due to the fact that the French made the main investments in the fleet in the 60s, overtaking the British in shipbuilding, simultaneously reducing ground forces. The reduction of ground forces (150 thousand against 300) and the ban on retreat led the French to Sedan. But before that, another 20 years.
      1. xan
        xan 27 October 2015 21: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: Morrrow
        You probably made a mistake. By the end of the 18th century, the Swedes were nothing.

        An old soldier of a simple warrior, he talked about his impressions of the battles face to face. And I still remember his impression of the meeting with Suvorov. Yes, actually there was a simple review of the troops. He is a young recruit, still not in battle, who had never seen Suvorov, was amazed at the mood and preparation for the viewing of ordinary soldiers. Suvorov, even among veterans, was almost a god. He approached the ranks and shouted: "Great eagles!". In response, they shouted so that it became clear that everyone would go to death without hesitation on his orders. Something like this in my retelling.
      2. THE_SEAL
        THE_SEAL 28 October 2015 13: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Morrrow
        You probably made a mistake. By the end of the 18th century, the Swedes were nothing. If you remove the French from the brackets, then the Russians had the best infantry, the Austrians had the best cavalry. In the mid-19th century, the French took the lead at sea and again on land. The French marines, armed with Chaspo rifles, ran far ahead. Only, the Prussians overtook by 1867 the French in artillery. This is due to the fact that the French made the main investments in the fleet in the 60s, overtaking the British in shipbuilding, simultaneously reducing ground forces. The reduction of ground forces (150 thousand against 300) and the ban on retreat led the French to Sedan. But before that, another 20 years.

        The sedan happened in the 1870s. Not at all for 20 years. The French never overtook the British in shipbuilding. Still, maritime power number 1 was England. Let's not forget that the French had a brilliant commander.
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow 28 October 2015 17: 18 New
          0
          Overtake. Ships of the Napoleon type and emnip, Solferino surpassed all English ships in TTX, and in 1865 they caught up with the number. The fact is that in the French army from the end of 18 to 1870 was the strongest on the continent.
  8. Karabanov
    Karabanov 27 October 2015 13: 10 New
    +3
    The topic is very entertaining. Continued waiting with great interest.
  9. andrew42
    andrew42 27 October 2015 16: 23 New
    +3
    I won’t understand why break spears in comments? - To be with England, or France. Yes, no one can be trusted in politics. Napoleon, making a bastard to Paul, also sought only to use Russia, as did the British. Paul was right only in one thing, the threat of world British hegemony is much stronger than that of France. There was an attempt to oppose the "knighthood code" (as the author noted) to the wildly growing usurious order of Britain. And in this regard, an alliance with any sane and powerful European monarchy was in demand. And since Austria compromised itself in the eyes of Pavel Petrovich (he respected Prussia too much, but he breathed more evenly for the Austrians), the alliance with France was the lesser of evils. The article is beautifully written, without excesses. But there’s a paradox: from the time of Peter the Great, England beat Russia on adventures (I don’t think British mediators), and century after century, right up to Nicholas I, Russia stepped on the “British rake”. After the sobering up of the Crimean War, everything seemed to fall into place, but Nikki the 1nd again managed to get into the same pardon d..mo, thanks to the French barkers. Anti-Britishism was supposed to be the natural leitmotif of Russian politics since Charles the 1st lost his head. Instead, everything happened quite the opposite. Yes, the power of agents of influence and British gold is great. Britain is a symbiosis of the robber baron and the Jewish moneylender. And this hybrid still works.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 27 October 2015 21: 13 New
      0
      The fact of the matter is that, had France been on horseback, the Prussians would not have conquered Germany. France would never surrender the pro-French to Bavaria and Wuotemberg. And there would be no empire, just like WWII. Because WWI stemmed from Franco-Prussian and Austro-Russian contradictions. The initiators of the alliance of France and Russia was Russia.
  10. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 27 October 2015 18: 51 New
    +1
    Only once in the history of the Anglo-Saxons decided to openly fight with Russia - in the Crimean War.
    And the rest of the time - the killing of leaders unfavorable to them, support for anti-Russian and even Russophobian forces like the Swedes. And all this disgrace takes place under a plausible pretext: "suppression of the French Revolution", "destruction of the Corsican monster", "prevention of the alliance of Denmark and France", "elimination of the terrible Russian Tsar Paul", "fight against the Bolsheviks", "support for democracy in Russia." ..
    Englishwoman crap, crap and will crap.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 27 October 2015 21: 23 New
      0
      Open on French shoulders. The main contribution was made by France. The Britons are only disgraced. The initiator of the conflict was Napoleon 3, who wanted to take revenge on the then hegemon of Russia, to legitimize his coup and again make France the main one in Europe. The English only knew how to intrigue and deceive. Therefore, they took control of themselves. But for all their demands for dismemberment of Russia or reparation, Napoleon 3 sent them to hell.
  11. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 27 October 2015 19: 25 New
    +2
    Finland is Russia !!!
    A. Samsonov wrote a wonderful article!
  12. samarin1969
    samarin1969 27 October 2015 23: 27 New
    +1
    The article is good. especially the subtleties of relations with Sweden and Denmark.

    "On June 2, 1807, the Russian army was defeated at Friedland and retreated behind the Neman."

    Still, the big battle at Preisisch-Eylau was worthy of mention before Friedland. This was the first land battle that Napoleon had difficulty drawing in a draw. The Russians forced themselves to respect and negotiate. The marshal and future Swedish king Bernadotte emotionally declared: "Napoleon never favored happiness like under Eilau. If he had hit Bennigsen in the evening, he would have taken at least 150 guns under which the horses were killed."
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 28 October 2015 10: 26 New
      0
      Eilau is a positional part of the war. The transition to the maneuvering phase allowed the French to win.
  13. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 28 October 2015 05: 37 New
    0
    I well remember the school story: these - there, others - here. But the meaning of their actions was not in their thoughts either.
    Thanks so much for the article.
  14. Aleksander
    Aleksander 28 October 2015 11: 05 New
    -1
    The policy of rapprochement with France was in the interests of the Russian Empire, so the two great powers there was no common border and fundamental contradictions

    An interesting logic is that with England, Russia did not have a common border and, accordingly, there were no fundamental contradictions. yes Although, according to the author, England was a true enemy of Russia.
    To expose all countries to obedient fool dolls manipulated by England is, in my opinion, a wrong and too simplistic position. If England was then so omnipotent and everything worked out for her, then for a long time the whole world would lie at her feet, but this was not the case.
    Russia and other countries in all conflicts pursued, first of all,OWN interests (economic primarily and political). And Alexander I acted as wise politician and head of statetrying to stop Napoleon beforehow France became a monster, conquering and subjugating the entire continent, and before it had to fight already with all of Europe and already on its territory and with huge victims. It is not his fault that the allies were weak and weak-willed. Alexander’s brilliant military and diplomatic victory was that he managed to defeat Porto and Sweden by peace in the 1812 year and free up almost all forces to fight the European invaders. Despite all the efforts and anger of Napoleon, he never managed to move them to a simultaneous attack against rRussia (although this was promised to him). This largely predetermined the victory in World War II over the "twelve languages" of Europe.
    Alexander’s rightness is also pronounced in numerous enthusiastic plaques in Italy and Switzerlandwhere Russian troops are glorified as Liberators from the French invaders.
    Everything Russia did right, based on its strengths, economic and political interests, and the then realities of Europe.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 28 October 2015 17: 29 New
      0
      England was for Russia as an older brother. What Russian interest was breaking the Russo-French alliance 1800-1803? Napoleon did not want to conquer all of Europe. It was about the border on the Rhine and the buffer states on the border. Russia was a pure aggressor in 1799 and in 1804 whatever you might say. The Crimean War and the difficult situation of Russia after it is a consequence of the Russian-French wars.
      I do not see here the benefits and advantages of Russia from hostility with the French. Name at least one.
  15. Urri
    Urri 3 November 2015 15: 00 New
    0
    It seems to me that the author of the article unnecessarily ennobles and politicizes Paul's aspirations. Kings are also people, and often their aspirations are much more down to earth than it seems to historians after centuries.

    Maybe I don’t know the story, but young Victoria had an affair with young Alexander I, who was at the time at the embassy in London. The novel, from Victoria, must be said quite sincere. It should be noted that the future emperor was fully consistent with the then ideas of "the man of her dreams." And only the intervention of Paul, who found out about the novel, almost forced the young Alexander to leave London, without even saying goodbye, put an end to these relations. As a result, the noble, but overly straightforward Paul made in the face of the undoubtedly talented and smart Victoria a mortal enemy. And the death of Paul, and the change in relations between Russia and Napoleon after the transfer of power to young Alexander clearly indicate that Victoria did not forgive such an insult.