Military Review

How the self-confidence of Emperor Alexander and the duplicity of the Austrians led to the defeat at Austerlitz

68

On the eve of Austerlitz, the strategic situation was in favor of the allies in the anti-French coalition. Kutuzov, despite all the efforts of the French and the erroneous instructions of the Austrian high command, retained the army and joined up with reinforcements. Now the allies again had a powerful army. In addition, the approach of the Russian corps of General Essen, the army of Bennigsen and the Austrian army of Archdukes Charles and John from Italy and Tyrol was expected soon. Prussia, which had a strong army, was inclined to the side of Russia and Austria.


The victory of the British was of great moral importance for the coalition and of strategic military importance for England. fleet under Nelson's command over the French-Spanish fleet at Cape Trafalgar. In the depths of the sea, the French idea of ​​invading England was destroyed. From now on and for a long time England became invulnerable to France; the strait separating the British Isles from the continent became irresistible. England finally became the "mistress of the seas", having emerged victorious from a long confrontation with other maritime powers - Spain, Holland, Denmark and France. The naval battle was regarded as the largest event of the military campaign. Nelson's victory overshadowed the defeat of Mack (Mack), Trafalgar eclipsed Ulm and the fall of Vienna. According to European newspapers of those days, after Trafalgar military happiness passed to the Allies. This turned the heads of the Russian and Austrian emperors and their advisers. They again overestimated their capabilities, underestimating the enemy.

As a result, France began to lose the information war. Napoleon clearly understood that the defeat of the French fleet had dropped the imperial standard with eagles in the eyes of the whole world. Trafalgar eclipsed Ulm, Vienna and the retreat of the Austrians from Italy. Napoleon again needed a decisive and brilliant victory that would disgrace and frighten his enemies. Therefore, Napoleon decided to lure the Russian-Austrian army and give it a general battle before the additional armies of Russians and Austrians arrived and Prussia would intervene. The French emperor led a subtle diplomatic struggle to prevent the Russians and Austrians from retreating, further intensifying and prolonging the war. In the protracted war, Russia, Austria and Britain had an advantage over France.

I must say that the cunningly wise Russian commander Kutuzov guessed the enemy’s plan. He proposed to the Russian tsar to continue the departure to the Carpathians. This solved two strategic tasks. First, the Russian troops were replenished with the contingents of Essen and Bennigsen, as well as the Austrian army of Archduke Charles. Russian-Austrian army seriously increased. Secondly, this led to an even greater stretching of the communications of the French army, even greater debilitation of the "Great Army" of Napoleon, who could not receive more reinforcements and who had to keep track of the northern and southern strategic flanks. Later, Kutuzov will brilliantly carry out this strategy during the 1812 campaign of the year.

Indeed, the French were not in the best position. Forced to scatter his troops in order to secure the rear and occupy the occupied territories, Napoleon stopped in the area of ​​the Brunn Fortress, 70 miles from Vienna. He had only 53 thousand soldiers. The closest forces, Davout and Bernadot corps, were in the 2 — 3 transitions from Brünn; after connecting with them, Napoleon could have 75 thousand people. The "Great Army", tired of forced marches and battles, forced to protect the flanks and protect communications, was far from France, in a hostile country. Napoleon knew that Count Gaugwitz was driving to him with an ultimatum from Berlin, whose demands were unacceptable in advance for the French emperor. Prussia could at any time join the war and put in the flank and rear of the French army 180-thousand army. Therefore, it was extremely important for him that the allies did not begin to retreat again and did not prolong the war. Giving orders to Davout and Bernadot to go to him, the French commander led a diplomatic game, demonstrating hesitancy in the face of a strong enemy with all his strength. Although he himself wanted to fight opponents, but skillfully concealed his plans.

Unfortunately, Kutuzov had already decided nothing in the main apartment, the presence of Alexander I deprived the general of the real power of the commander-in-chief. At this time, court generals dominated the imperial headquarters, pushing the young king to "decisive action." They compared Alexander with Peter I and predicted the triumph of the winner. Alexander himself thirsted for military glory and the retreat did not give victory laurels. The Austrians also took decisive action. The quartermaster general of the Austrian army, Weyrother, was a supporter of "decisive action", although he was completely incomprehensible to the strategy and tactics of the French army. In the end, it all ended in disaster and a lost campaign.

Plans of the parties. Attempt to negotiate

8 (20) November 1805, on the day Napoleon entered Brunn, Kutuzov united in Visau with the first column of the corps of Count Buxgevden and marched to Olmutsu, where the rest of the corps were. All in all, there were about 27 thousand people in the Buxhevden building. 10 (22) November Kutuzov joined Olmutz, where Russian emperor Alexander and Austrian emperor Franz were already stationed. Kutuzov was appointed commander-in-chief of the Russian and Austrian forces, although in reality he did not have all the power. Prince Volkonsky became the general on duty of the army, Weyrother was the quartermaster general.

The monarchs originally planned to remain in Olmütz to rest Kutuzov’s army, wait for the arrival of the Russian guard, the corps of Essen, the troops of Bennigsen and the Archduke Charles. Archduke Karl and the Italian Army announced that on November 14 plans to connect with Archduke John, then with 80-th. army go to the Danube. Waited for good news from Prussia. Berlin was actively preparing for war with France. Home 120-th. the Prussian army had to go through Bamberg to the messages of Napoleon’s "Great Army". On the communication of Napoleon was supposed to go and auxiliary 50-thousand. case. With separate corps and reserves, the Prussian army numbered up to 240 thousand people. Only three circumstances restrained Prussia: disagreements with the British over monetary assistance; disputes over Hanover; and waiting for Napoleon’s response to Prussia’s ultimatum. At the same time, the Prussian envoy sent to Napoleon, Count Gaugwitz, had a secret order to tarry along the way in order to give the Berlin Court time to think and mobilize the army.

Alexander, wishing to defeat Napoleon, was actively preparing to continue the war. Deciding that the Russian troops in Italy from Corfu to Naples could not have a great influence on the outcome of the war, and would be more useful in the main theater, he ordered the corps to be put on ships and go from Naples to Trieste to establish contact with the Archduke Charles. At the same time, Alexander ordered the corps of Essen to speed up the march, to rush Bennigsen from Breslau to Bohemia, to join the Austrians of the Archduke Ferdinand. Rimsky-Korsakov, from the troops in the border areas, was to place the 35 battalions and 45 squadrons between Brest and Brody, so that they could go to the aid of the main forces on demand.

12 (24) of November arrived Russian Guard (8,5 thousand people) under the authority of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich. As a result, the allied army now numbered about 85 thousand people. In addition, under the leadership of the Archduke Ferdinand in Bohemia there were about 10 thousand soldiers. The Russian-Austrian army was located in an elevated position, convenient for defense. Ahead was a river and swamps. Behind you could easily hide the reserves, then bridges were built across the river in case of departure.

Thus, the time factor was on the side of the allies. The Allied forces were approaching everywhere, putting Napoleon on the flanks. Prussia, after entering the war, could cut the message of Napoleon's "Great Army" with France. Soon, Napoleon would have to fight with forces that were incomparably superior to his army and face the threat on the flanks and in the rear.

Having taken up a defensive position east of Brunn, Napoleon, not wanting to stretch his communications any more and attack the Russians in a strong position at Olmuts, sent his representative General Savary to the Russian and Austrian monarchs with a proposal to start peace talks. Austrian Emperor Franz believed that because of its remoteness from France and the threat of war with Prussia, Napoleon would agree to an easy world for Austria. Alexander did not like it, but seeing the desire of the Austrians to begin negotiations with Napoleon, he did not interfere with them. As a result, the Austrians began negotiations with Napoleon for peace.

Emperor Alexander, seeing in Napoleon’s peace proposals a sign of his weakness, and under the influence of the advisers around him, insisted on an immediate transition to the offensive. The Austrians actively supported his desire. A shortage of food has opened up in the Olmjutsk camp. The Austrians planned to attack, and not to retreat to Moravia, therefore, they did not prepare reserves here. The guards were far away and walked slowly. The regulations of the central authorities met with sabotage by local authorities. After the Ulm disaster, Austrian society craved peace. The peasants did not want to supply the army, they fled, and the settlements in the vicinity of Olmutz were empty. It was necessary to do something so that the army was not on the verge of starvation.

Gathered a military council. Kutuzov proposed to retreat further, moving closer to reinforcements and supply bases. However, his opinion was not supported. The action plan drawn up by Weyrother, already approved by Alexander and Franz, was adopted at the military council. The latter proceeded from the idiotic assumption that Napoleon would be passive, take up defense, give the full initiative to the allies and, thus, freely let himself be broken. Once again, strategic theorists were going to attack the same rake. Weyroter's plan was to cut off the French army from Vienna with a flank march, where, according to the assumption of the allied headquarters, the enemy’s main communication, break it at Brünn and drop it towards the Bohemian mountains.

It should be noted that this decision was due to the fact that Austrian dignitaries and generals shared the general opinion that it was necessary to end the war as soon as possible in Austria. The Austrians believed that the continuation of the struggle against Napoleon on the territory of the Austrian Empire led to great losses, and even with the participation of Prussia, the war would be protracted and devastate the country. Therefore, it is necessary to make peace as soon as possible. To do this, you must enter into a decisive battle with the army of Napoleon. And in any case, Austria will win. In the camp near Olmyutz there were only 14 thousand Austrians, mostly recruits, the rest of the troops were Russian. The Austrians did not lose anything even when they were defeated. The sacrifice of several thousand recruits cost nothing. All the burden of battle fell on the Russians.

And victory and defeat led to the desired world. The victory of the allies forced Napoleon to leave Vienna and most of Austria. It was possible to begin peace negotiations or at least conclude an armistice. The defeat caused damage to the Russian army. Alexander will have to agree with the opinion of the Austrians to make peace. From the Russian side, only the cunning Kutuzov guessed both Napoleon’s desire to fight in a general battle and the maneuver of two-faced Austrians, but he was not listened to. The remaining advisers of Alexander and the generals were also eager to fight the French.

15 (27) November 1805, the Allied army left the Olmuch position and moved in five columns on the way to Brünn. 16 (28) On November, the advance guard of Bagration attacked the French in Visau. The equestrian French detachment located in Visau did not accept the battle and retreated. Only one squadron hesitated and was captured during the rapid invasion of Russian troops. Murat, located in Rauznitsa, sent help to the retreating and began to prepare for the defense. Prince Bagration was on the heels of the French, not giving them time to reorganize and prepare for defense, twice successfully attacked with cavalry. Noted on the offensive of the Russian-Austrian army, Napoleon went to the forward units, and Murat ordered not to persist in the defense of Rauznitz, to retreat.

The allied army is located near Visau, 30 versts from Brunn. A collision with the French became inevitable. At first, the Allies wanted to go the main road and attack Napoleon’s army at Brunn. But then they decided to leave the Olmücke Road and go to the left with a side march, cutting off the French army from Vienna, and approaching the army of the Archduke Charles.

Meanwhile, on November 16 a Prussian envoy arrived at Brunn with an ultimatum. Immediately accepted by Napoleon, Count Gaugwitz, did not dare to immediately present all demands and at first confined himself to general words about the need for calm in Europe and offered Prussia's mediation for general reconciliation. Napoleon, knowing about the real purpose of the Prussian envoy’s mission, did not aggravate, but said that he had no time to engage in diplomacy at the sight of the advancing Russian army. He suggested that Gaugwitz go to Vienna and begin negotiations there with Talleyrand. Thus, the threat of a rupture of France and Prussia was postponed.

Napoleon again decided to offer Alexander peace. It is worth saying that Napoleon all the time stubbornly sought to make peace with Russia. At night, he sent Savary to Wisaw, offering Alexander a personal date, stopping the fighting for a day. Alexander himself refused to direct negotiations, but sent to the headquarters of Napoleon his Adjutant General Prince P. P. Dolgorukov. 17 November Allied army continued to move. The vanguard of Bagration stood at Rausnitz, and Kinmayer stood at Austerlitz.

Napoleon received Prince Dolgorukov and talked with him intentionally carefully, modestly and peacefully. I must say that the words of Napoleon were very reasonable: “What do they want from me? For what is the emperor Alexander fighting with me? What does he require? Let him spread the borders of Russia at the expense of his neighbors, especially the Turks, then all his quarrels with France will end. ” Indeed, in this war Petersburg did not solve national problems. Russia had no fundamental contradictions with France, becoming the "cannon fodder" of England and Austria. Dolgoruky on this could only argue with general words that Alexander "armed himself for the independence of Europe." The prince said that the Russian tsar could not indifferently look at the seizure of Holland by the French, the calamity of the Sardinian king. Napoleon reasonably noted that “Russia needs to follow a completely different policy” and “think about its own benefits.”

A great actor, the French emperor played the role of a man, preoccupied with increasing difficulties and seeking a path to peace. Napoleon was restrained with the prince and pretended not to notice his swagger. Later, the French ruler noted: "This young boaster spoke to me as a Russian boyar, who was exiled to Siberia." Napoleon carried this arrogance and this arrogance. The conversation ended in nothing, but Dolgorukov, returning to the headquarters, reported to the Russian Tsar that Napoleon was most afraid of battle, he was looking for peace and did not count on his troops. According to him, despondency reigned in the French army, “one has only to go ahead and the enemies will retreat, just as they retreated from Visau. His words were believed. Once the French emperor is afraid, he must be attacked.


Napoleon among the soldiers on the eve of Austerlitz. 19th century engraving

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
War of the Third Coalition

England vs Russia. Drawing into war with france
England vs Russia. Getting involved in a war with France. Part of 2
"I won the battle with some marches." How Napoleon defeated the III anti-French coalition
The catastrophe of the Austrian army near Ulm
How England became the "mistress of the seas"
Trafalgar defeat
Ulm-Olmutsky march maneuver Kutuzov
"Kremskoy massacre"
How the "squad of heroes" of Bagration saved the Russian army
Battle of Caldiero
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Patriot C
    Patriot C 19 November 2015 06: 21 New
    +2
    Why did the author call the complete total defeat and declassification of the Russian-Austrian army by the French just "defeat"? recourse the French completely defeated the superior enemy, capturing all the artillery and about 20 thousand prisoners in just a few hours. in fact, the Russian-Austrian army as such ceased to exist, the remnants of the army simply fled, including the commanders themselves, the color of the Suvorov army ceased to exist, the soldiers brought up by Suvorov, the famous "miracle heroes" were killed or taken prisoner.
    The Austerlitz defeat was the end of the war, Napoleon dictated his terms of the peace treaty as a winner, and the Russian and Austrian emperors agreed to these conditions, because they no longer had an army. and from hundreds of Russian guns captured on the battlefield, the famous Vendome column was cast - a landmark of Paris. It is worth paying tribute to the enemy. After Austerlitz, the French army was rightfully and unconditionally considered the strongest in the world.
    By the way, many soldiers captured near Austerlitz settled in France forever, not wanting to return to their homeland where serfdom was waiting for them, because Tsar Alexander 1 did not want to liberate the people during his reign, nor did the people liberate Nicholas 1.

    you need to know the story!
    1. erg
      erg 19 November 2015 07: 22 New
      10
      And why the hell were the soldiers returning from captivity waiting for "serf slavery"? You probably do not know that taken from serfs to soldiers, they became free. At the end of the service, they themselves chose what to do. Moreover, many remained on long-term service, and this after 25 years of service. It was during the reign of Nicholas 1 that chevrons were introduced for overtime. Well, and the fact that an ordinary former serf, taken as a soldier, could rise to the rank of an officer and receive the nobility (it took about 12-16 years, with less participation in hostilities), you probably do not know. Again, it was during the time of Alexander and Nicholas that the Russian nobility was replenished to a large extent with the serfs who had won their favor. We have many legends about serfdom in Russia. Serfdom appeared in Europe, Asia did not know a subtle phenomenon. Serfdom lasted most of all in France, from about 8-9 centuries AD and until the French Revolution. In Russia from about the 16th century until 1861. In the same time period, serfdom developed in central and eastern Europe (Germany, Poland, etc.). Moreover, in Russia the government limited the rights of landowners. The landowner in Russia has never had power over the life of a serf, unlike, for example, Poland, Denmark and other European states. By the time serfdom was abolished, quite a few peasants had already bought themselves out. By the way, it was precisely these who made up the stratum, which already in those years was called kulaks. This was facilitated by the practice adopted in Russia - to allow peasants to engage in "waste trades", that is, in modern terms, to engage in any business. There were times when serfs became richer than their masters. Interestingly, and the French and other foreigners who remained in Russia after the company of 12 years also escaped from serf slavery? You need to know the history.
    2. Mairos
      Mairos 19 November 2015 15: 26 New
      0
      There was a defeat in a particular battle. Of the 85 thousand Russian-Austrian army with 280 guns, losses (killed, wounded and captured) amounted to about 25-27 thousand and 180 guns. Yes, defeat.
      where are you there hundreds of Russian guns dug up.
      No one argues that Napoleon is a military genius, but he and Suvorov did not converge in battle and Suvorov successfully beat the "invincible" French army before that. So you shouldn't be jerky. And as for the strategy. Hitler also defeated everyone and reached Moscow, but the result is the same - defeat in the war.
    3. Devildog85
      Devildog85 21 November 2015 02: 03 New
      0
      because of this, industry stagnated and then got a revolution, and before that another unnecessary war
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 19 November 2015 07: 16 New
    +2
    Dolgorukov, returning to headquarters, reported to the Russian Tsar that Napoleon was most afraid of battle, he was looking for peace and did not count on his troops.... started the desu ...
  3. Patriot C
    Patriot C 19 November 2015 07: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: erg
    Never a landowner in Russia was dominant over the life of a serf, unlike, for example, Poland, Denmark and other European states.

    ehh, read at least the classics. Pushkin for example. As a master, he traded thoroughbred puppies for greyhounds and hounds for peasant girls. and a good puppy cost several families of serfs. in Muscovy, and then in the Russian Empire, there was the most slavery, where 5% of the nobles owned the rest of the population. Spanking and beating soldiers in the Russian army was a matter of course, often a soldier was flogged to death.
    Ever heard of the Ural breeders Demidov? but how many of their serf workers did they rot in the pits and mines? - no one counted, but very much, by the thousands. In the 18th century, in the Southern Urals, the Demidovs were sovereign masters and almost gods for their factory slaves.

    ps but this article is not about serfdom in Russia, but about Austerlitz defeat. everything else is off topic.
    1. anip
      anip 19 November 2015 13: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: PatriotC
      ehh, read at least the classics.

      Something minus you, to see the classics do not read.

      Quote: PatriotC
      Pushkin for example.

      And also Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Gorky, Fonvizin, but who knows.
    2. Down House
      Down House 19 November 2015 16: 04 New
      -1
      Quote: PatriotC
      where 5% of the nobles owned the rest of the population.

      Doctors
      In addition to the noble serfs, there were also other estates, in fact, and the "landlord peasants" themselves made up 35-55% of the total population in different years in different years
      And the nobles for the most part were not oligarchs, the bulk owned at most a couple of households and took care of them as the main "family value".
      Quote: PatriotC
      As a master, he traded thoroughbred puppies for greyhounds and hounds for peasant girls. and a good puppy cost several families of serfs.

      It was, but it was REPRODUCED by society, the bulk of it never did.
      Quote: PatriotC
      and how many of their serf workers they rotted in the pits

      And Saltychikha herself, for example, was "rotted away" - the landlords de jure were not omnipotent over their people.
      Quote: PatriotC
      but this article is not about serfdom in Russia,

      And the initial comment was about the fact that in Europe "slaves" lived even worse - and this is absolutely true - our landowner was essentially a local "official", and not a slave owner as in the West.
      1. Rastas
        Rastas 19 November 2015 19: 06 New
        +2
        Was the Russian landowner not a slave owner? Read Saltykov-Shchedrin's "Poshekhonskaya antiquity" at least. Or Nekrasov's lines about his children's estate - "where a swarm of suppressed and quivering slaves envied the life of the last master's dogs." But Austerlitz became the victory of the army of the new order, created as a result of the Great French Revolution, from which all the marshals of France came out. In fact, it was the zenith of France's military glory. Then there were Jena, Auerstedt, Wagram, and then the natural decline of Napoleon's empire began.
        1. Down House
          Down House 19 November 2015 20: 37 New
          -2
          Quote: Rastas
          Read Saltykov-Shchedrin's "Poshekhonskaya antiquity" at least. Or Nekrasov's lines about his children's estate - "where a swarm of suppressed and quivering slaves envied the life of the last master's dogs."

          Well, you watch the "film" of the Cuckoo about the Soviet-Finnish war, or the TV series "brigade", and then make a "conclusion" - that all Russian bandits, and Soviet soldiers are traitors.
          Or you can conclude that the artist poets illuminate the extremes of being, and the whole society for the most part lives in the world of statistics and the bulk of Russians are not bandits, and the bulk of Soviet soldiers are not traitors!
          1. Rastas
            Rastas 19 November 2015 21: 45 New
            +2
            You too do not confuse God's gift with fried eggs. The works of classics are time-tested, and these films will be forgotten in 100 years.
            1. Down House
              Down House 20 November 2015 14: 07 New
              -2
              Quote: Rastas
              You too do not confuse God's gift with fried eggs.

              But I don’t confuse anything, you don’t confuse artistic fiction (albeit with real prototypes) with objective statistics.
  4. bober1982
    bober1982 19 November 2015 08: 29 New
    +1
    if you were given this slavery in Russia, everything about rotten tsarism and backward Russia was compiled! If so, then history should be studied from the harrowing history of Dubrovsky and Masha Troekurova, or the terrible adventures of Saltychikha.
    Speaking about Austerlitz: everything came together here - the genius of Napoleon, the venality and cowardice of the Austrians. In war, as in war, there are defeats. I would not say that the Russian army ceased to exist.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 19 November 2015 09: 18 New
      -4
      And what was the corruption of the Austrians? On the contrary, they were the first to speak. Stop rinsing allies all the time. With this attitude, being an outcast is Russia.
      1. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 19 November 2015 09: 51 New
        0
        Read the sequel, find out
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow 19 November 2015 18: 32 New
          0
          Yes, I read these baby snot. Austria did not want this war at all in 1805. She was seduced by Alexander, who said that the Russians knew how to beat the French and promised an easy victory, projecting the successes of Suvorov.
          1. Rastas
            Rastas 19 November 2015 19: 07 New
            0
            Everyone wanted a war. And Austria, and Russia, and Prussia, and England, and France.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. bober1982
        bober1982 19 November 2015 10: 11 New
        +1
        Morrrow, I give you a "+" for your comment, although I do not agree with you. All our allies were always the first to speak, but we had to disentangle ourselves. With any attitude of Russia to be an outcast, there is nothing wrong with that. It is still unknown who is considered outcast.
      4. serg2108
        serg2108 19 November 2015 17: 53 New
        0
        such allies and enemies are not necessary fool
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow 20 November 2015 09: 33 New
          0
          Which ones? Austria was an ally with Seven Years.
  5. erg
    erg 19 November 2015 08: 37 New
    +6
    Studying the history of the classics is necessary with caution. Writers deliberately stick out one or another problem in order to draw public attention to it.
    Flogging soldiers is a common practice in all the armies of the time. In the British army, if a soldier could not hold out for two days without sleep, he was punished with a whip. Read the recollections of the pupils of the cadet corps, how their noble children were raised there with rods. Moreover, no one set the task of hammering to death, which happened just not often. Corporal punishment was strictly regulated and applied for special misconduct, and not for every little thing. Read the military legislation of those years.
    Yes, Muscovy never existed. Was Russia, Russia. Sometimes the term Moscow kingdom was used in documents, but not Muscovy, so that foreigners would not write there.
  6. Morrrow
    Morrrow 19 November 2015 09: 16 New
    +1
    Trafalgar overshadowed Ulm, Vienna and the retreat of the Austrians from Italy.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aw, author! The fall of Vienna is the end. Everything else is just agony. The Prussians could not have performed in 1805. They are corny not ready for the winter campaign and crossing the mountains.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 19 November 2015 12: 11 New
      +2
      I must say that England in the 19th century led an exceptionally smart and successful policy on the continent. Adhering to the Pitt doctrine, the British constantly clashed among themselves the strong states of continental Europe mutually weakening them. More often they acted by bribery and intrigue rarely resorted to extreme measures - but also very effectively, as for example in the case of Pavel ... Alexander as a whole acted in a pro-English channel and was afraid to go on a sharp aggravation with England - he was afraid of a dagger in the back (the fate of his father probably sat tightly in his memory). In companies against Napoleon 1805-07 Russia, Austria and Prussia acted separately, carelessly and sometimes stupidly, and therefore were defeated one by one ...
      It would be extremely interesting to investigate the remains of three Russian rulers for the poisoning of Peter 1, Nicholas 1 and IV Stalin ... I think that many secrets in European geopolitics will remain secrets - this is too serious even after many years ...
      1. Morrrow
        Morrrow 20 November 2015 13: 00 New
        +1
        The essence of English politics: always support the second continental power against the first.
  7. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 19 November 2015 09: 33 New
    +1
    Russia fought for European interests, the arrogance of Tsar Alexander, who craved the Lavra of Peter, the intervention of him and his court clique in military command, and this is the result. I wish that we did not step on this rake today.
  8. marinier
    marinier 19 November 2015 11: 16 New
    +2
    Good time of the day!
    In my opinion, I would like hypothetical 4eski to be proposed by the Union of Russia and France, 4th
    UTB could dates of Russia? In my view, much is freedom of action in the Balkans,
    The possibility of capturing the straits in Turkey. Free hands in the Indian and Asian Pacific,
    region. No wonder Brita Boyalis Union of Russia and France.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 19 November 2015 11: 43 New
      +2
      Emperor Paul the First (father of Emperor Alexander the First) was killed only for timid attempts at rapprochement with France, while, as always in our history, it could not have done without the British. And an alliance with France could prevent the subsequent European massacre.
  9. V.ic
    V.ic 19 November 2015 11: 30 New
    +1
    Here it is did not like:
    cunningly wise Russian commander Kutuzov

    It would be better to call Mikhail Illarionovich simply: WISE.
  10. Patriot C
    Patriot C 19 November 2015 11: 39 New
    -2
    Quote: erg
    Flogging soldiers was a common practice in all armies of the time.

    In the Napoleonic, French army, soldiers were not flogged or beaten. in the Republican Army of the North American states the same thing - corporal punishment was not used. In these armies, officers were put on trial for violence against the rank and file: with demotion for simple beatings and the death penalty if a soldier was killed by an officer. besides, the officers themselves in these armies were from the people. as Napoleon himself said about his soldiers: "in the knapsack of every private lies the marshal's rod."
    1. erg
      erg 19 November 2015 12: 32 New
      +2
      Officers from the people were in any army. In Russia, the commoner way to the officers was opened since the time of Alexei Mikhailovich, since the creation of the regiments of the new system. And during the Napoleonic Wars, there were many such officers in the Russian army. And then the nobles also belong to the people. Another class, but the people are one. Do not confuse violence and legalized corporal punishment. And in the Russian army for the violence of an officer over a subordinate they did not stroke the head. And to the St. George cavaliers, even the legalized punishment could not be applied. Regarding the American army, I happened to watch an American documentary film about the Civil War. Among other things, it also mentioned corporal punishment adopted in the army of that period, namely whipping. I can’t bring the source now, but if I remember or find it, I will unsubscribe. And why Napoleon, who was so proud that his officers came from the common people, becoming emperor, began to invite back the old aristocracy, driven out by the revolution, and he began to favor his titles. There is such a historical anecdote (the term anecdote is not understood in its modern meaning). Once, such a descendant of an ancient family chided Napoleon that he favored so many titles. Say, here we are the descendants of the great clans, and your type is not real. To which Napoleon aptly remarked - that’s the whole point, that you are descendants, and mine are ancestors.
    2. Down House
      Down House 19 November 2015 16: 09 New
      -1
      Quote: PatriotC
      In the Napoleonic, French army, soldiers were not flogged or beaten

      They beat so that only the bones cracked!
      Read a PR story about Napoleon and the sleeping soldier.
  11. Patriot C
    Patriot C 19 November 2015 12: 22 New
    +1
    Quote: Morrrow
    Trafalgar overshadowed Ulm, Vienna and the retreat of the Austrians from Italy.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aw, author! The fall of Vienna is the end. Everything else is just agony.

    The end of that war was precisely the Austerlitz defeat, where 71 thousand Russian troops + 15 thousand Austrians were defeated by a seventy thousandth French army. in this battle, the color of the Russian guard, the Guards Cavalry Regiment, was killed. By the way, Leo Tolstoy described the death of the cavalry guards quite accurately in "War and Peace", described from the words of eyewitnesses who were in that battle.
    1. erg
      erg 19 November 2015 12: 53 New
      0
      I found information - corporal punishment in the American army was officially abolished in 1861. But according to some researchers, they were actively used during the civil war.
      But with regard to the death of the Cavalier Guards, it is not surprising, considering that since the time of Elizabeth Petrovna, the Guards have not "stained" themselves with participation in hostilities. Experience was not enough.
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow 19 November 2015 18: 36 New
      0
      Even without Austerlitz, the campaign was lost, as reported by the Russian ambassador in Vienna. Occupying Vienna, Napoleon could dictate his will to the allies.
  12. Patriot C
    Patriot C 19 November 2015 12: 51 New
    0
    Quote: erg
    Officers from the people were in any army. In Russia, the commoner way to the officers was opened since the time of Alexei Mikhailovich, since the creation of the regiments of the new system. And during the Napoleonic Wars, there were many such officers in the Russian army.

    soldiers recruited from serfs only to non-commissioned officers. and since the time of Elizabeth, the officer corps of the Russian army of the 18th-first half of the 19th century consisted of noblemen by 99%.
    The fact of the matter is that in the Russian imperial army, beatings (i.e. corporal punishment) were legalized, and in the French, Napoleonic and North American, republican, any beatings were illegal.
    1. erg
      erg 19 November 2015 13: 16 New
      +1
      Do not write nonsense. Read the charters of that time - from the time of Peter to the revolution. 5 years of immaculate service - non-commissioned officer. 8-12 years of immaculate service after this - an officer and personal nobility. Unless, of course you pass the exams. But this also applied to the nobles. But training at RIA was established. There were special model companies where soldiers were trained, and even special signs on shoulder straps were relied upon by those who graduated from these educational institutions. Corporal punishment was an official punishment in the RIA, in the British Army, and in the US Army. In France, yes, it was canceled back in 1791.
      1. Down House
        Down House 19 November 2015 16: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: erg
        There were special model companies where soldiers were trained,

        Also, if I’m not mistaken, the Institute of Soldier’s Wives and Soldier’s Children was in RI.
        I do not think that in other armies it was like that.
  13. Aitvaras
    Aitvaras 19 November 2015 13: 49 New
    +1
    Then, during this battle, Napoleon very effectively applied innovation for those times, that is, army corps. Despite the personal courage of the Russian guard or the Moscow cavalry regiment. Lastly, almost all lay down on the battlefield. Alexander I then praised this innovation in military affairs.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 19 November 2015 18: 38 New
      +1
      Napoleon generally created operational art. This is his greatest contribution to military affairs. Turenne created a maneuvering war, and Napoleon completed this with operational art.
  14. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 19 November 2015 17: 46 New
    +1
    Again, the Russians died for the interests of some Angles and sausages ...
  15. Truth-lovers
    Truth-lovers 19 November 2015 20: 22 New
    +1
    Quote: erg
    8-12 years of immaculate service after this - an officer and personal nobility. Unless, of course you pass the exams.
    These are generally provisions of the end of the 19th century only. In the 18th century, and even under Alexander I, this was impossible, the production of a simple soldier as an officer was solely by special orders of the tsar and high military commanders; starting from about the era of Nicholas I, the situation began to change.

    Quote: erg
    And why the hell were the soldiers returning from captivity waiting for "serf slavery"? You probably don't know that those who were taken from serfs to soldiers became free. At the end of the service, they themselves chose what to do.
    Well, well ... Have you really not heard about the abolition of the reduction in the service life of the lower ranks introduced under Paul I, for which his simple soldiers simply idolized? The fact is that quite a few of the prisoners after Austrelitz (and others) really settled in France, having received the rights of a free citizen. I will say more, some of them fought at Waterloo in 1815 ... On the side of the French.

    Quote: erg
    And then the nobles also belong to the people. Another class, but the people are one
    Let me disagree. I would say that the nobility was largely a different people - a different culture, a different language (French or German), and even by blood they were half the Germans (including the Baltic) and the Tatars, and not the Russians ...

    Quote: Down House
    Institute of Soldiers 'Wives and Soldiers' Children was in RI.
    I do not think that in other armies it was like that.
    It was in almost every army in Europe ...
    1. erg
      erg 19 November 2015 22: 33 New
      0
      Instruction of the infantry regiment to Colonel dated December 8, 1764 according to the old style. The reign of Catherine. Non-noble non-noble officers should be certified by officers no earlier than 12 years of their service ..... According to the instructions, the nobles had an advantage, but the ordinary colonel could introduce non-nobles to officers. And the production itself, even of nobles, at least of nobles, was carried out only by the sovereign or sovereign. The same instruction from 1766 gave the right to represent non-noblemen from the church, who had been working up in 8 years, soldier children, voluntarily determined - 4 years of service in non-commissioned guilt. According to the charter of 1796 - the reign of Paul 1 - no nobles should be promoted to officers after 12 years and immediately to second lieutenants, while noblemen only to ensigns, but after 3 years. True, under Pavel, they still covered this shop, but under Alexander the production of officers resumed, the terms were constantly changing, but by 1822, the orders again included a term of 12 years.
    2. bober1982
      bober1982 20 November 2015 07: 56 New
      -1
      that the nobility was a different people, you are right. But it was the Russian nobility, and your statement that they were half the Germans by blood (and the Tatars?) was wrong. From the times of Peter the Great, a flood of foreigners who willingly accepted military service, as servants, teachers, farm managers, shopkeepers. From that moment, the degradation of the Russian nobility began: disgust for all Russian (even for their native language), neglect of Russian traditions and customs. As a result, they received a shameful end to imperial Russia.
      1. Morrrow
        Morrrow 20 November 2015 09: 24 New
        0
        Why such an assessment? We are all Caucasians. And the merits of the French and Germans are simply enormous to Russia. What are Russian customs on the battlefield? And how did they show themselves under Narva?
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 20 November 2015 10: 02 New
          -1
          You are probably a big fan of France, but of course it’s your business, by the way, there was no great French literature: Jules Verne’s children's books, the fun stories of Alexandre Dumas and the Maupassant bastard — all this enriched France with world literature.
          Paris already two centuries ago became the world capital of debauchery and slaughter, in France itself by that time a million respectable citizens had been sent to the guillotine.
          The brilliant commander Napoleon organized a senseless massacre throughout Europe. He led Russia to Europe's first united campaign against wild Russia.
          And you about Narva! And what kind of Caucasians are we? (Well, they picked up a word) We (Europe) are not on the way.
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow 20 November 2015 12: 03 New
            +1
            French literature is 150 years older than Russian. What are you speaking about?
            Google: "The Song of Roland and Its World Significance"; "Cornel, Racine and Molière in the world drama", "French theater", "poetry of trouvers", "French troubadours", "J.J. Rousseau - the founder of romanticism". "New Eloise" - an incredible success ", works by Voltaire, etc.
          2. Morrrow
            Morrrow 20 November 2015 12: 05 New
            0
            And whoever arranged there, I advise you to read carefully the series of articles by the author.
    3. Morrrow
      Morrrow 20 November 2015 09: 29 New
      0
      I would say that the nobility was largely a different people - a different culture, a different language (French or German)
      You want to say that the English nobility is not a part of the English people?
  16. Patriot C
    Patriot C 20 November 2015 11: 42 New
    0
    Quote: bober1982
    by the way, no great French literature existed: Jules Verne’s children's books, the fun stories of Alexandre Dumas, and Maupassant’s abomination were all that enriched world literature in France.

    If you are ignorant and you "know" the Great French literature only to the scanty amount of the Soviet educational program, then these are your problems.
    Francois Rabelais
    Cyrano de Bergerac,
    Jean de Balzac,
    Voltaire
    Moliere,
    Didro
    Charles Pierrot
    Jean Jacques Rousseau,
    Pierre Beaumarchais,
    Prosper Merimee
    Alexander Dumas father
    Alexander Dumas the son,
    Great Honore de Balzac,
    Great Victor Hugo,
    and no less the Great Stendhal,
    Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

    If you have never read and know nothing about these writers, then this is only your ignorance and your personal problems. angry
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 20 November 2015 12: 03 New
      0
      Dear PatriotS, I received a brilliant Soviet education at school, and no less brilliant education at a Soviet military school. I am proud of that.
      As for the list that you have cited: I’ll say a short, God forbid!
      Who included:
      -Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Russ-crazy thinkers, philosophers, lovers of freedom, fraternity and equality.
      -tellers and authors of silly short stories (Pierro, Merime)
      -all of these authors amused stories about the adventures of the musketeers
      -Antoine de Saint-Exupery, a good pilot, a decent man, nothing more.
      authors of cheap plays
      -and also, as you write, no less great Stendhal, and his great.
      1. Patriot C
        Patriot C 20 November 2015 12: 25 New
        -1
        Soviet education is not an indicator. very little time was intentionally devoted to foreign literature in the Soviet educational system, but even in the Soviet literature textbooks were mentioned about: Hugo, Stendhal, Balzac, Dumas. therefore, all the abominations that you write here about the Great French literature in pseudo-patriotic frenzy only indicates your inferiority or ordinary senility.
        I'm sorry, I'm not going to deal with the elimination of your ignorance here. sad

        and yes, Freedom is the greatest wealth for any self-respecting person and people. there is nothing more expensive than Freedom.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 20 November 2015 12: 41 New
          -1
          why do you constantly write the word sovetsky with such a gross mistake? And if it was once, you can take it for a typo. And you talk about uneducation! I’m 55 years old, still far from insanity, where did you go to school? it is necessary to drive in the neck.
      2. Morrrow
        Morrrow 20 November 2015 12: 44 New
        +1
        Why then did Pushkin primarily read the poems of Cornel and Racine? In fact, what you write even for Hitler would be blasphemous, not to mention the whole world nobility! Do you know that the entire nobility as an estate appeared largely due to French drama and poetry?
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 20 November 2015 13: 21 New
          -1
          what stupidity, it makes no sense to argue
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow 20 November 2015 13: 59 New
            +1
            I hope you change your mind. French poetry of the Middle Ages celebrated contempt for death, romanticism. in the New Age - romanticism and rationalism. Without this, courage is impossible.
  17. Patriot C
    Patriot C 20 November 2015 12: 00 New
    0
    Quote: bober1982
    You are probably a big fan of France, but of course it’s your business, by the way, there was no great French literature: Jules Verne’s children's books, the fun stories of Alexandre Dumas and the Maupassant bastard — all this enriched France with world literature.


    If you are ignorant and you "know" the Great French literature only to the scanty amount of the Soviet educational program, then these are your problems.
    Francois Rabelais
    Cyrano de Bergerac,
    Jean de Balzac,
    Jean Batiste Racine,
    Pierre Cornell
    Moliere,
    Voltaire
    Didro
    Charles Pierrot
    Jean Jacques Rousseau,
    Pierre Beaumarchais,
    Prosper Merimee
    Alexander Dumas father
    Alexander Dumas the son,
    Great Honore de Balzac,
    Great Victor Hugo,
    and no less the Great Stendhal,
    Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

    If you have never read and know nothing about these writers, then this is only your ignorance and your personal problems. angry
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 20 November 2015 13: 20 New
      0
      The Soviet program asserted that Lesya Ukrainka and Taras Shevchenko are great poets, however, for some reason nobody knew this before.
    2. erg
      erg 20 November 2015 13: 27 New
      0
      I agree with you about the great French literature. But nevertheless, I see no reason today to follow us throughout the European way of life and culture. Today, neither France nor the rest of Europe can give us anything. I ask you not to mention material benefits, for the absence of some of them with us is not a consequence of our illiteracy or inability. The same applies to the social structure of society. We have our own rich experience in building a just society, where both rights and freedoms are respected and public and state interests are not affected. And there is a philosophical base for such a society, albeit not widely known in the rest of the world (for example, the works of Russian and Soviet cosmists, the idea of ​​the noosphere, etc.). And if today we still do not live in such a society, well, not all at once. When several people comprehend the basics of mastery of a business, someone comprehends it earlier, someone later. Also with nations. No one disputes that we need to learn from other nations, but only that which may come in handy, and not copy someone else's way of life under the pretext that they seem to have overtaken us in development. We have already learned a lot from other nations, digested it, making it an integral part of our culture. This is the normal way for any nation. Now we are old enough to live on our own. And he has the right, today to declare that we are not Europe and not Asia, but a fully formed and independent Russian world. But what about recognition or our influence on world culture, etc., honestly, but do we really need it? Do not meddle with us and do not bother us to live our minds.
      Sorry, that is not quite on the topic, but tired of these clarifications - who is better? Are we Europe, etc. etc.
      1. Morrrow
        Morrrow 20 November 2015 13: 52 New
        0
        Today's Europe is not Europe.
  18. Patriot C
    Patriot C 20 November 2015 12: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Morrrow
    French literature is 150 years older than Russian. What are you speaking about?
    Google: "The Song of Roland and Its World Significance"; "Cornel, Racine and Molière in the world drama", "French theater", "poetry of trouvers", "French troubadours", "J.J. Rousseau - the founder of romanticism". "New Eloise" - an incredible success ", works by Voltaire, etc.


    what is it about if he called Rousseau and Voltaire "mad philosophers, amateurs" request
  19. Patriot C
    Patriot C 20 November 2015 12: 50 New
    -1
    Quote: bober1982
    why do you always write the word sovetsky


    because it is necessary.
  20. erg
    erg 20 November 2015 14: 47 New
    +1
    Time-out. To lovers of literature. So that the French would not sing there, but still there is no our soul. And in simple words can say a lot and touch the soul. I found it, enjoy it. Maybe someone will say whose poem.

    Sponsor

    For the hundredth day grenades crash
    In Malakhov, a bloodied mound,
    And the ginger British soldiers
    They go on an assault under a hoarse drum.

    And the fortress of Petropavlovsk-on-Kamchatka
    Immersed in the usual peaceful sleep.
    A lame lieutenant pulling on gloves
    In the morning he goes around the local garrison.

    The gray-haired soldier, looking awkwardly,
    Rubs lazy eyes with a sleeve
    And wandering around the cannons on a rope
    Thin garrison goat.

    No letters, no news. No matter how you ask them,
    They forgot there, over the seven seas,
    What is here, at the very tip of Russia,
    The lieutenant lives with a company of huntsmen ...

    The lieutenant, squinting against the light for a long time,
    Looked south at sea, where in the distance -
    Is there really going to be a relay race? -
    Shipped in the fog ships.

    He took the pipe. Swell, then green,
    That white from excitement, here,
    Built by a wake column,
    Went to shore British ships.

    Why did they come from Albion?
    What do they need? There came a distant thunder
    And the waves at the foot of the bastion
    Boiled, burned by the core.

    Half a day they fired at random
    Threatening the whole city to turn into a bonfire.
    Holding in my pocket the demand for change
    The delegate ascended the bastion.

    Lieutenant, seeing in his limp
    Danger to the dignity of the country,
    Arrogantly accepted the British, sitting
    On a bench by the fortress wall.

    What to protect? Rusted guns
    Two streets in puddles, then in dust
    Oblique garrison huts
    A scrap of land that nobody needs?

    But still, after all, something is there,
    What a pity to give the Briton from the ship?
    He rubbed a handful of earth with his hand:
    Forgotten, but still land.

    Leaky, weathered flags
    Noise above the roofs among the branches ...
    "No, I will not sign your paper,
    So tell your Victoria! "
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    The British have long been pushed back,
    All the sheets were patched on the roofs,
    For a long time all the dead were buried,
    They put pine crosses

    When St. Petersburg couriers
    Suddenly brought, stuck on the road for a year,
    Order to take decisive action
    And bring the garrison to the oath.

    For fighting to the squad
    A new captain was sent to the fortress,
    And to the old lieutenant as a reward
    Was a full retirement vacation given!

    He walked around the fortress, poor fellow,
    All hesitated to climb the gangways of the ship.
    Cold breech paper,
    An absurd beloved land ...
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 20 November 2015 16: 44 New
      0
      Konstantin Simonov, really liked it, I would never have thought that he could be the author of such a poem. I learned about authorship from the Internet, unfortunately.
      1. erg
        erg 20 November 2015 16: 50 New
        0
        And it was also written in 1939.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 20 November 2015 17: 22 New
          0
          you had to be a brave person, although, for example, Stalin respected Bulgakov, loved White Guard (play) very much
          1. erg
            erg 20 November 2015 18: 42 New
            0
            I do not think that it is courage. It’s just that in those days they were not so negative about the past of the country. For certain things, yes, but not for the past as a whole.
  21. Truth-lovers
    Truth-lovers 20 November 2015 19: 43 New
    0
    Quote: Morrrow
    And the merits of the French and Germans are simply enormous to Russia. What are Russian customs on the battlefield? And how did they show themselves under Narva?

    Yes, yes, and not only the opod of Narva, but also under Gemauerhof, Fraustadt, Golovchin and Red Kut - this is just offhand and only from the era of Peter. And the Germans - "Ostland", Livonian, Ostsee and others - actually were the mainstay of the throne from the end of the 17th to the beginning of the 20th century. And indeed they DID NOT MAKE SPELLS against the tsar, and participated in palace coups MUCH LESS than the Orlovs and Zubovs. There are more problems with the French - firstly, the quality was thinner than those who came to us, and in general there were much less of them.

    Quote: bober1982
    The brilliant commander Napoleon organized a senseless massacre throughout Europe. He led Russia to Europe's first united campaign against wild Russia. And you about Narva! And what kind of Caucasians are we? (Well, they picked up a word) We (Europe) are not on the way.

    Incidentally, it was Napoleon who STOPPED the REVOLUTIONARY TERROR (although the Directory had already removed the crazy executioners like Robespierre). Actually, from 1800 to 1804, he was engaged in calming France and trying to reconcile the Nation ... By the way, he took many steps to improve relations even with the irreconcilable fighters "For God and the King" in Vendée, although he never did succeeded. But I do not absolve him of the responsibility for unleashing many wars, although the neighboring emperors WERE AGGRESSORS IN MANY CASES. I will even say by the way that even Alexander I was not a good guy at all, and did not at all comply with the conditions of either Tilsit or Erfurt, and was actively PREPARING FOR THE OFFENSIVE WAR AGAINST FRANCE in 1810-1812 ... (as soon as the issue with Sweden was resolved, chopping off Finland).

    Quote: erg
    Today, neither France nor the rest of Europe can give us anything. I ask you not to mention material benefits, for the absence of some of them with us is not a consequence of our illiteracy or inability. The same applies to the social structure of society. We have our own rich experience in building a fair society,

    Yah ?!? It was precisely from material wealth that they were ahead, moreover, in various fields - scientific in the first place. And about the social structure, about the JUSTICE of the social structure, about THEIR CARE OF THE DISABLED, it’s generally better to keep quiet or go and see for yourself.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 20 November 2015 20: 04 New
      0
      going to sleep, everyone seemed to calm down, but the future was coming: Emperor Alexander the First did not prepare for any offensive war against France, for the reason that Russia was simply not ready for the war, and the tsar understood this. And what does it mean, Alexander I wasn’t a good kid? Or else, in your opinion, the emperors were aggressors? It was a matter of survival of empires, otherwise they would have simply crushed and torn. Napoleon himself can be compared to a butcher, despite his genius as a commander. Good night.
      1. Morrrow
        Morrrow 20 November 2015 21: 26 New
        0
        Amiens world was not broken by him. He did not violate the Campo-Formian truce either. Who is the aggressor? Russian emperors got involved in a completely idiotic war. Tell me, what is the difference to the Russian people who controlled France? What did the Bourbons give Russia?
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 21 November 2015 07: 51 New
          0
          I’ll say, but you and I are at different poles, you’ll hardly understand.
          Both the French Republic and Napoleon himself were not in law. It was a godless country, with the same power that was established in a criminal manner. Contemporaries called Napoleon himself a usurper on the throne, a monster in over-boots, and not only crowned persons considered this.
          After the so-called great French revolution, after all these Napoleonic adventures, France as a great power ceased to exist. Only one Parisian zucchini remained. The Bourbons are legal power (which they brutally killed), this is a relatively peaceful life.
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow 21 November 2015 15: 21 New
            0
            What does it mean outside the law? Who determines this? Is the English revolution illegal too? Then why was no one in a hurry to restore the Tudors to London?
            I didn’t hear anything funnier. If France ceased to be a great power in 1815, then who took Sevastopol? Who defeated the Austrians at Solferino? Who built the most powerful fleet in the history of France? Who defeated the Germans at Verdun?
    2. erg
      erg 20 November 2015 20: 32 New
      0
      And I did not write what is better with us. I just pointed out that we have a lot of our own experience. And we don’t need to stare at them today. The thing is small, put into practice. At one time, at the end of the Soviet era, we developed a system for the prevention of crime among young people. Then it was rejected as a relic of the Soviet past. And in the mid-90s, in the states, on its basis, they developed their own similar system, and did not hide the fact that they studied our experience. We can when we want. In tsarist Russia, for example, despite the absence of democracy, activities aimed at caring for people with disabilities, orphans, etc., were widespread. Well, and the fact that they were once the first in something - yesterday they are, today they are different, tomorrow we are life and nothing more. You can’t constantly copy, borrow, live on someone else’s orders, no matter what advantages the indicator has.
    3. Morrrow
      Morrrow 20 November 2015 21: 31 New
      0
      The funny thing is that the whole world fought against France, and not vice versa, from 1794 FIVE was opened against France !!! FIVE fronts. In the north in Holland, on the Rhine, in Italy, in Spain and in Toulon.
      1. erg
        erg 20 November 2015 22: 11 New
        0
        The term front, as we understand it today, was not used then. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to lead him to that era. Well, you can open a lot of things. After all, one must also competently wage a war, competently coordinate their actions with their allies. But more often than not, as it happens, they made an alliance, started hostilities, and it started: some are not happy with it, others have it, and the result is good if there is just peace, or it could be defeat. A good commander will always take advantage of the contradictions in the camp of the enemy.
  22. Truth-lovers
    Truth-lovers 20 November 2015 22: 23 New
    0
    Quote: bober1982
    and what kind of offensive war against France, Emperor Alexander the First did not prepare,

    Yah ? Well, read a little about the activities of Barclay de Tolly as Minister of War, about a multiple increase in the army. About the monstrous increase in military spending. This is not a peaceful life, this is preparation for war. Another thing is that Napoleon got ahead - but Hitler also got ahead of Stalin.

    Quote: bober1982
    do you think neighbors emperors were aggressors? It was a matter of survival of empires

    By the way, a little yes. Read more stories, many wonderful discoveries will probably be seen. For the majority, the fact of the fact that this is Peter I, and even in alliance with two other kings, for example, attacked Sweden, and not Russia, for example. But no, it turned out that the young male on the throne, who had just been sworn in eternal peace and treacherously betrayed, turned out to be a small military genius and the brave ruler of his era.

    Quote: Morrrow
    it is the whole world that fought against France, and not vice versa, from 1794 FIVE was opened against France !!! FIVE fronts. In the north in Holland, on the Rhine, in Italy, in Spain and in Toulon.

    But the 1st republic has already coped with them, and quite successfully, thanks to a monstrous army of 0,8 million people (this is in the pre-industrial period !!!!) and already the Directory has not only successfully "closed" these fronts, but also opened new ones - the same Egyptian-Syrian, for example, Italian ... And the 1st Empire already had to "close" the fronts previously opened by France (for example, surrender Egypt) and only then basically start new ones.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 21 November 2015 00: 31 New
      0
      I forgot about Vendée. There, too, the republican army fought. In short, the total total PZZ. Civil, enemies around. How the French did not slide into Nazism - amazing. Apparently court etiquette interfered with yesterday's nobles.
    2. bober1982
      bober1982 21 November 2015 07: 21 New
      0
      We always had monstrous defense expenditures (under kings, Bolsheviks, communists, and at the present time) We must always be ready for war. Moreover, we were never ready for it - 1812, 1914, 1941, and now we are not ready for the great war. Not a single state experienced such pressure as Russia.
      And you talk about the preparation of some offensive operations of Alexander I, and the activities of Barclay de Tolly, who only frantically strengthened the army.
      And about the young brave Swedish talent - the king was clearly out of his mind, did not give rest to the glory of Alexander the Great. Did he read his biography? He just curanzed, fought continuously. According to the official version, the Swedish comrades died bravely in the battle, according to the unofficial and shot, the king simply ceased to rule the kingdom, there was no time, he fought.
    3. erg
      erg 21 November 2015 08: 43 New
      0
      There is no discovery that the northern union, which included Russia, declared war on Sweden and that Karl was a fairly talented and brave commander. At least for those who taught history in the Soviet school and universities.
      You, like that, think flatly. Why is an increase in the army and high expenses for it necessarily preparation for an offensive war? For war - I agree, but give specific, not indirect, facts of preparation for an attack. The era of Alexander is a continuous reform of the army, only the uniform changed several times (for reference: the caps of the usual look and shoulder straps were introduced under Alexander).
      And for the lover of military history, you do not know the terminology. The front in those days meant the side of the system. And, for example, they called the front-line soldier a bright supporter of the science of fruit science or, as they simply called it, stepistiki (in fact, a thing very necessary in those days, unless of course go to extremes).
      1. Morrrow
        Morrrow 21 November 2015 15: 58 New
        0
        The diplomatic conflict with passports began Kurakin, emnip. Although, of course, Napoleon’s campaign is aggression, like the Russian campaigns in 1799 and 1805
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 21 November 2015 16: 35 New
          0
          Curiously, you have a purely Soviet mentality, a Marxist approach. And all this, together with a love of French elegance. Although the Bolsheviks also lacked intellectuals and aesthetes, these evil tongues said that they were barbarians. But in essence, I got distracted.
          As for the legitimacy of power, you didn’t understand anything, as you expected. I’ll say easier, the crowd, or its individual crooks and charlatans do not have the right to apply for this very power and to impose their crazy ideas. Nobody was in a hurry to go to London? it was hard to get, they were sitting on their islands, even Hitler had problems.
          Say, they took Sevastopol. Did some French take without allies? And what does it mean: allies, you know? All of Europe, that is, one against all this pack.
          About the Germans, Verdun is better to be silent, and not to find a more shameful participant in the First World War.
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow 21 November 2015 19: 30 New
            0
            The French were the main military force in the Crimea. The British were a burden. France, too, was defeated only in a coalition - so what?
            What is wrong with Republicans in WWI? The French themselves arranged the Marne for the Germans - no one really helped them. And about Verdun you better keep silent. The Germans and chemistry used large-caliber artillery, the shell of which was the size of a man, and aviation, and the French, anyway, fought back.
        2. bober1982
          bober1982 21 November 2015 17: 27 New
          0
          about the more shameful participant in World War I, of course I had in mind Republicans, for some reason I always respected Germans, I read a lot of Remarque
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow 21 November 2015 19: 31 New
            0
            Prove it. The soldiers carried the brunt of the French.
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 21 November 2015 20: 06 New
              0
              I’m tired of the topic, it’s useful to switch attention from time to time to something else (for example, to football) I won’t prove anything to you anyway, but I sincerely wish you all the best, you are a curious and well-read person.
    4. cast iron
      cast iron 22 November 2015 04: 41 New
      0
      After the statements that Stalin was preparing to attack Hitler, are you giving advice to everyone to "read history"? Oh well. A noble historian among you. Almost like Rezun / Suvorov.
  23. Truth-lovers
    Truth-lovers 21 November 2015 23: 24 New
    0
    Quote: bober1982
    We always had monstrous defense spending (under kings, Bolsheviks, communists, and at the present time) We must always be ready for war. Moreover, we were never ready for it - 1812, 1914, 1941
    Or maybe “it wasn’t the babin, it was a systemic crisis”?


    Quote: bober1982
    And you talk about the preparation of some offensive operations of Alexander I, and the activities of Barclay de Tolly, who only frantically strengthened the army. And about the young brave Swedish talent - the king was clearly not in himself, the glory of Alexander the Great was haunting.
    About Karl Swedish, let's be quiet. It's just that all Soviet people know about him from the clichés of propaganda. In fact, it was really a brilliant commander. And when the army is increased at times - what did Alexander I do after Tilsit - is this not preparation for war? and even pushing close to the borders?


    Quote: erg
    Why is an increase in the army and high expenses for it necessarily preparation for an offensive war?
    Because they are preparing for a defensive war in a different way - for example, building fortifications or improving existing units. A typical example is the same Finland with the St. George cavalier and ex-cavalry guard Mannerheim.
    1. erg
      erg 22 November 2015 07: 51 New
      0
      Are they preparing differently for a defensive war? Answer a simple question to begin with - how is defense different from attack, at least tactically?
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 22 November 2015 20: 02 New
        0
        Oh, come on. Why conduct a constructive dialogue with a cheap anti-Soviet propagandist with the nickname "Pravdolyubov"? You still won't get the truth from him. Man deliberately hates everything Soviet. Such people cannot be persuaded.
    2. bober1982
      bober1982 22 November 2015 08: 32 New
      0
      calling Mannerheim an ex-cavalry guard is the same as calling Denikin an ex-general.
      And in matters of tactics, the strategy of war, as well as in preparing for it, you have a lot of confusion, often over-reading is only harmful.
  24. Truth-lovers
    Truth-lovers 22 November 2015 13: 49 New
    0
    Quote: erg
    Answer a simple question to begin with - how is defense different from attack, at least tactically?
    In fact, very many, both tactically and quickly. But we will not talk about modernity. Let's better think about the realities of the late 18th-early 19th centuries - if we are preparing for defense, why does our very bloated army stand in groups in about the same way as before the start of the wars of all previous coalitions with France?!? Even the troops from the Turkish and Finnish theater of operations are withdrawn? (I remind you that Russia mostly acted as an aggressive side, though almost constantly and always unexpectedly receiving "nuts" from the French and Co.)

    Quote: bober1982
    calling Mannerheim an ex-cavalry guard is the same as calling Denikin an ex-general.
    Well, for reference - the cavalry guard then ended with the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia and the abdication of the Emperor. After that, he could only save the banner of the regiment, and keep a photograph of Nicholas II on the table ... But in Finland I did not hear something about the revival of the regiment of life guards.
    1. erg
      erg 22 November 2015 14: 29 New
      0
      Just tactically, neither defense nor offensive are nearly the same. Is the names. On the offensive, an attack; on the offensive, a counterattack. Blow is a counterattack. Both the defending and advancing parties can also build defensive structures if necessary or make any maneuvers. And the numerical superiority of one side or another is primarily reserves. And in order to talk about the realities of that time, one must at least imagine how the units on the battlefield acted in those days. For example, can you describe how the front fire was fired from a three-shift system?
      The regiments really ceased to exist, but all the employees, primarily the officers, continued to be considered members of their regiments until the end of their lives. In addition to those officers who, for supporting the Soviet regime, were expelled from the composition of the officers' meeting (for example, Count Ignatiev, colonel of the general staff under the tsar, major general under the interim government, lieutenant general of the Soviet army, former graduate of the Page Corps and officer of the cavalry guard regiment ) It is strange that a lover of military history does not know this.
  25. Truth-lovers
    Truth-lovers 22 November 2015 23: 08 New
    0
    Quote: erg
    Just tactically, neither defense nor offensive are nearly the same.
    Well, we’ve arrived ... By the way, even artillery positions are chosen differently on defense and on the offensive, not to mention the placement of tank and maneuverable reserves, well, damn you and the level ...

    Quote: erg
    And the numerical superiority of one side or another is primarily reserves.
    Strategic and even operational reserves are not placed at the border; in general, they would be better off inland. And when they develop an offensive plan, it is the strike forces that are pulling themselves to the border. It was in 1805, it was in 1811-1812. For example, if the Russians were preparing for the defense, why wouldn’t they have equipped the famous Drissky camp in advance and made several such fortified camps, but rather something like a complete line of fortifications in the style of the English Torres-Vedras? - But it’s just the Pirinean war, and just the French, during the heyday of their power, AND WERE NOT ABLE TO BREAK THEM. What prevented us from doing something similar on the Russian border if we REALLY PREPARED TO DEFEAT FROM NAPOLEON?
    1. erg
      erg 23 November 2015 07: 24 New
      0
      Along with repelling enemy attacks, defense also includes elements of offensive operations (retaliatory, counter and preemptive fire attacks, counter-attacks and counterattacks, defeating the attacking enemy in the areas of their basing, deployment and at the starting lines), the specific gravity of which characterizes the level of its activity .
      Learn the materiel. Maneuver is one of the main tactics in defense but also during the offensive. As for the choice of position, the allocation of reserves, etc., it depends on many conditions (terrain, the nature of the enemy’s actions, etc.), and not only on what you are going to take - offensive or defensive. Guderian also pointed out that during, for example, an offensive, different types of tanks must be used in different ways. In some cases, in the first echelon, launch heavy tanks, use another type for auxiliary operations, and sometimes it is more expedient to let light maneuverable in the first echelon on the contrary.
      By the way, you didn’t answer that you knew about tactics, for example, infantry units on the battlefield in those days (the time of the Napoleonic Wars)?