Military Review

The first major victory of Napoleon. The start of the brilliant Italian campaign

118
Hannibal forced the Alps, well, we went around them.


General Napoleon Bonaparte

220 years ago, 12 April 1796, Napoleon Bonaparte won his first major victory in the battle of Montenotte. The battle of Montenotta was Bonaparte's first important victory, which he won during his first military campaign (Italian campaign) as an independent commander-in-chief. Napoleon himself said: "Our lineage comes from Montenotta." It was the Italian campaign that made Napoleon's name known throughout Europe, then for the first time, his leadership talent was revealed in all its glory. No wonder that at the height of the Italian campaign, the great Russian commander Alexander Suvorov will say: “He's walking far, it's time to calm the young man!”

prehistory

The young French general literally dreamed of the Italian campaign. While still the commander of the garrison in Paris, he, together with a member of the Directorate Lazar Carnot, prepared a plan for a campaign to Italy. Bonaparte was a supporter of active, offensive war, urging dignitaries in the need to preempt the enemy, anti-French alliance. The anti-French coalition then included England, Austria, Russia, the Sardinian kingdom (Piedmont), the Kingdom of both Sicilies and several German states - Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, etc.

The directory (the then French government), like the whole of Western Europe, believed that the main front in 1796 would be in western and southwestern Germany. From there, the French planned to invade the Austrian lands proper. For this campaign, the best French units with the best generals were assembled, of which two armies were formed under the command of generals Jean Jourdan and Jean Moreau, totaling about 155 thousand soldiers. These troops were to pave the way to Vienna. For these troops did not spare the means, equipment, their transport was well organized.

At this time, the commander of the Paris garrison, Bonaparte, made a “Note on the Italian Army” in which he proposed invading Northern Italy from southern France in order to divert the forces of the anti-French coalition from the German theater of operations and ensure successful actions of the main forces. These proposals were accepted by the Directorate and sent to execution by General Scherer, who then commanded the Italian army. But Scherer did not like the plan, he knew the condition of his troops very well. “Let the one who compiled it do it,” said Scherer.

The Directory was not particularly interested in the plan of invasion of Northern Italy through the south of France. The Italian front was considered secondary. But we took into account that in this direction it would be useful to hold an active demonstration in order to force the Austrian command to split up its forces, nothing more. Therefore, it was decided to send the Italian army against the Austrians and the Sardinian king. Formally, the Italian army was tasked with capturing Piedmont and Lombardy, after which it would join the main forces through Tirol and Bavaria to capture Vienna. However, there were no great hopes for the actions of the Italian in Paris. And even more so then no one could have foreseen that it was in Italy that the decisive events of this campaign would unfold. When the question arose of whom to appoint the commander-in-chief on this secondary sector of the front, Carnot named Bonaparte. The remaining directors easily agreed, because none of the more well-known generals for this appointment wanted to. The direction was considered unpromising and did not want to spoil their reputation.

Thus, the troops should have been led by Napoleon, who replaced Scherer. 2 March 1796 was proposed by Carnot Napoleon Bonaparte as Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Army. Already on March 11, three days after their own wedding, the new commander-in-chief rushed to their destination. The dream of a young general came true, Bonaparte got his star chance, and he did not miss it.

27 March Napoleon arrived in Nice, which was the main headquarters of the Italian army. Sherer handed over the army to him and brought in the case: 106 thousand soldiers were formally registered in the army (four infantry and two cavalry divisions under the command of generals Massena, Augereau, La Harpe, Seryurye, Stenzhel and Kilmen), but in reality there were 38 thousand. In addition, of these 8 thousand were garrison of Nice and the coastal zone, these troops could not be led to the offensive. As a result, in Italy it was possible to take no more than 25-30 thousand soldiers. The rest of the army were "dead souls" - they died, were sick, were captured or deserted. In particular, two cavalry divisions were formally listed in the Southern Army, but in both of them there were only 2,5 thousand sabers. Yes, and the remaining troops were similar not to the army, but to the crowd of ragged people. It was during this period that the French Quartermaster Department came to an extreme degree of predation and theft. The army was already considered secondary, therefore it was supplied according to the residual principle, but what was released was quickly and brazenly plundered. Some parts were on the verge of rebellion due to poverty. So Bonaparte just arrived, as he was told that one battalion refused to execute the order for redeployment, since none of the soldiers had boots. The collapse in the field of material supply was accompanied by a general collapse of discipline and fighting spirit. The location of the army was exhausted by requisition.

The army did not have enough ammunition, food and equipment, the money the soldiers did not pay for a long time. The artillery park consisted of all 30 guns. Napoleon had to solve the most difficult task: to feed, clothe, tidy the army and do it during the march, as he was not going to delay. The situation could be complicated by friction with other generals. Augereau and Massena, like the others, would willingly obey the older, or more honored commander, rather than the 27-year-old general. In their eyes, he was only a capable artilleryman, a commander who served well under Toulon and noted the shooting of the rioters. He was even given a few offensive nicknames, such as “lame”, “General vandemier”, etc. However, Bonaparte could put himself in such a way that he soon broke the will of all, regardless of rank and rank.

Bonaparte immediately and brutally began the fight against theft. He reported to the Directory: "I have to shoot often." But a much greater effect was brought not by executions, but by Bonaparte’s aspiration to restore order. The soldiers immediately noticed this, and discipline was restored. He decided the problem with the supply of the army. The general from the very beginning believed that the war should feed itself. To interest the soldier in the campaign, Napoleon declared: “Soldiers, you are not dressed, you are poorly fed ... I want to lead you to the most fertile countries in the world” (“From the appeal to the Italian army”). Napoleon was able to explain to the soldiers that their support in this war depended on them. And he knew how to find an approach to the soul of a soldier. Bonaparte's army had no choice, it could only go forward. Hunger and deprivation drove the soldiers, razbutye and stripped, with heavy guns at the ready, outwardly more like a horde of beggars and marauders than a regular army, they could only hope to win, because defeat meant death to them.



Campaign start

The Italian theater represented the low-lying valley of the Po, bordered from the northwest and southwest by the Alps, and in the south by the Ligurian Apennines. The river Po, which flows from west to east, is a serious obstacle, with a number of fortresses along both its banks. Valley of Po is divided into 2 parts: the northern plain, relatively populated and rich; it is crossed in the meridional direction by the left tributaries of the Po, representing natural defensive lines; and southern - smaller in area, filled with mountain spurs; this part was less rich and less populated. The Ligurian Apennines descend steeply to the sea, forming the seaside Riviera. From the Riviera to the valley of the Po led the most important roads: from Nice to Cuneo, from Savona to Cherasco and Alessandria and from Genoa to Alessandria. The coastal road (Corniche), which serves as a communication with France, was blurred and here wax could be attacked from the sea.

At the Italian Theater there were two French armies: the alpine Kellermann (20 thousand), which was supposed to protect the mountain passes from the side of Piedmont, and General Bonaparte. Against Kellerman was the Duke of Aosta with 20 thousand soldiers; against Napoleon, the Austro-Sardinian army of Johann Beaulieu. Austro-Sardinian forces numbered about 80 thousand people with 200 guns. An Austrian Belgian-born general Beaulieu planned to invade the Riviera and throw the French across the Var. To this end, the Sardinian squad Colli and the right wing of Argento were to move south towards the Apennines, and Beaulieu with the left wing - through the Boquet passage and the outskirts of Genoa - to the Riviera. The plan was complicated, as the army stretched out over a large area, it was crushed and the blow weakened.

For his part, Napoleon also decided to attack. Since 1794, he has compiled several carefully developed options for offensive operations in Italy. For two years I studied the map of the future theater of warfare perfectly and knew it, as Clausewitz put it, as “my own pocket”. His plan was simple. Napoleon decided to break through the stretched arrangement of the Allies and then attack the Sardinians of Collie or the Austrians of Beaulieu. His plan was to defeat the opposing forces separately: first defeat the Piedmontese army and force Piedmont to capitulate, then strike the Austrians. In order to win, it was necessary to surpass the enemy in speed and maneuverability, to seize the strategic initiative. Napoleon was not a pioneer in this sphere; Suvorov acted in the same way. Thus, both armies decided to advance.

On April 5, 1796, Napoleon moved troops across the Alps. From the very beginning, Napoleon showed bold courage and the ability to take risks. The army went the shortest, but also the most dangerous way - along the coastal edge of the Alps (the so-called "Karniz"). Here the army was in danger of being hit by the British fleet. The risk paid off; the trip to Karniz on April 5–9, 1796, went smoothly. The French successfully entered Italy. The Austro-Piedmontese command and thought did not allow the enemy to decide on such a risk.

Thus, in order to defeat Napoleon, it was necessary to act as quickly as possible and seize the initiative from the enemy. It was necessary to capture Turin and Milan, to force Sardinia to surrender. Rich Lombardy could provide resources for further campaigns.

Battle of Montenotta

Immediately after the transition, he directed General Seryurye's division to observe the positions of General Colley near Cheva, and he concentrated the divisions of La Harpe, Massena and Augereau in Savona, demonstrating the intention to move to Genoa. The vanguard of the Lagarp division under the command of General Chervoni advanced even further and captured Voltri.

The Austrian commander-in-chief, deceived about the intentions of the French army, 11 began active operations on April to drive the French out of Northern Italy. He moved his main apartment in Novi and divided the troops into three parts. The right flank of the Piedmontese under the command of General Colley with the main apartment in Cheva, received the task of defending the Stura and Tanaro rivers. The center under the command of Argento (D'Arzhanto) marched on Montenotta to cut off the French army during its intended march towards Genoa, crashing down on its left flank. Personally, 72-year-old Beaulieu with his left flank moved to the Voltri - to save Genoa. As a result, Beaulieu even more dispersed his strength. There were no communications between his left flank and the center. And the French army, on the contrary, was positioned in such a way that it could concentrate in a few hours and attack with all its might on the separate corps of the enemy. This is what Napoleon Bonaparte wanted for his demonstration. He created a winning situation. All that followed, historians later call "six victories in six days."

As a result, a French brigade under the command of General Chervoni advanced on Genoa (about 2 thousand soldiers with 8 guns). The Austrian commander decided to crush parts of Chervoni, throwing the French away from Genoa, and then regrouping the troops from Alessandria to strike at Napoleon’s main forces. The division of General Argento was directed against Chervoni, totaling about 4,5 thousand people with 12 guns.

10 April Austrians approached the French positions near the village of "Night Mountain" (Montenotto). Argento planned to capture Savona and cut the Savona road, which ran along the seashore and led to Genoa. The French were informed by the intelligence that the enemy was approaching and prepared for defense by building three redoubts. In this direction, the defense kept the detachment of Colonel Rampon. Around noon, 11, April, Austrians knocked over the advanced patrols of the French and hit the fortifications. But the French repulsed three enemy attacks. Argento withdrew the troops to regroup them and try to surround the enemy.

On the same day, the other forces of Chervoni repelled the Beauli attack at the Voltri Castle. A strong position helped restrain superior enemy forces. By the end of the day, Chervoni withdrew and merged with the division of La Harp. At the same time, the detachment of Rampon was reinforced, behind its redoubts they deployed a second line of fortifications.

On the night of April 12, Napoleon threw Massena and Augereau's divisions across the Cadibon pass. By morning, the division of D'Arzhanto was surrounded and in the minority, the French forces had grown to 10 thousand people. Early in the morning of April 12, the French hit the Austrians: General La Harpe led a frontal attack on the enemy’s positions, and General Massena hit the right flank. When D'Argentino realized the danger of the situation, it was already too late. The Austrian division suffered a complete defeat: about 1 thousand people were killed and wounded, 2 thousand were captured. The remnants of the division Argento in disorder retreated to Dego. 5 cannons and 4 banners were captured. Losses of the French army - 500 people killed and wounded.

Meanwhile, Beaulieu entered the Voltri, but no one was there. It was not until the afternoon of April 13 that he learned about the defeat at Montenotte and about the exit of the French into Piedmont. Beaulieu turned his troops back, but he had to walk almost two days on bad roads in order to return to the main events.

This was Napoleon's first victory during the Italian campaign, which set the tone for the entire campaign. Bonaparte later said: "Our lineage comes from Montenotto." The main thing was not even a victory over the enemy, but the formation of a winning army. Victory in the battle of Montenotta was of great psychological importance for the French army, half-starved, raspyutye French soldiers believed in themselves, defeating a strong opponent. The French believed in their seemingly odd commander. Beaulieu lost the strategic initiative and began to withdraw his troops. The French commander in chief was given the opportunity to strike at the Sardinian troops. In Vienna, they were perplexed, but they considered what happened to be an accident. The coalition forces still had a double quantitative superiority over the enemy.

The first major victory of Napoleon. The start of the brilliant Italian campaign

Colonel Rampon Protects Monte-Legino Redoubt

To be continued ...
Author:
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. parusnik
    parusnik April 12 2016 06: 44
    +6
    Starting the Italian campaign, Napoleon inspected the troops and said: "Soldiers, you are undressed, you are poorly fed, the government owes you a lot and cannot give you anything. Your patience and courage, which you have shown among these rocks, are amazing, but they do not bring you any glory, their splendor does not reflect on you. I want to lead you to the most fertile plains in the world. Rich regions, big cities will be in your power. You will find there honor, glory and wealth. Soldiers of the Italian army, do you really not have enough courage and endurance ? " This speech of a young, twenty-six-year-old general, whose name made one remember the actions at Toulon, Saorgio and Cairo, was greeted with approving exclamations.
    1. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder April 12 2016 12: 11
      +3
      Napoleon did the same with the army as Genghis Khan, did not feed them himself, but forced those nations that he had conquered to feed his army, however, as the United States is doing now, it is sad to admit.
  2. qwert
    qwert April 12 2016 07: 23
    0
    [quote = parusnik] out Napoleon promised the French word for word what Hitler later wrote in "Mein Kampf"
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx April 13 2016 08: 47
      +2
      [quote = qwert] [quote = parusnik] leaves Napoleon promised the French word for word what Hitler then wrote in "Mein Kampf" [/ quote]
      Nenene, this Hitler promised word for word what Napoleon had promised before))))
    2. The comment was deleted.
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 12 2016 07: 59
    -7
    The start of a brilliant Italian campaign

    I wonder for WHOM "shiny"? Should we clap our hands like Bonaparte fought? Maybe it's better about the retreat near Moscow, the "brilliant" ones in 1812? And how many are there? The article is purely informative.
    1. Max repp
      Max repp April 12 2016 09: 34
      0
      For him, the beginning turned out to be brilliant like a light bulb, but the end ... the same, however, like a light bulb, it burned out (broke) in an attempt to bring the light of Evzhopa to "unwashed Russia" however, as usual, how many of them tried to bring light to us and instead fertilized fields
    2. 97110
      97110 April 12 2016 10: 47
      +5
      Quote: aszzz888
      What, clap our hands, how Bonaparte fought?

      And let us call Napoleon "scum" and wonder what kind of battle happened at Maloyaroslavets. There was no such battle! We started fighting Napoleon right from Berezina. And what was Suvorov doing in the Alps? From whom did you run away? What kind of Marengo, Novi and other Austerlitz are there? Who invented? All lies!
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 12 2016 14: 34
        +5
        And what did Suvorov do in the Alps? Who was running away from?


        On YOUR collision we answer: Suvorov did not "run away" from anyone, Suvorov walked. and walked along (as he mistakenly thought) the fastest road to the rescue of Rimsky Korsakov.

        One should know the history of the country in which one lives, one should know.
    3. xan
      xan April 12 2016 11: 03
      +13
      Quote: aszzz888
      I wonder for WHOM "shiny"?

      For anyone who respects military prowess and military craft. Napoleon is a military genius, if you do not say so, and only a woodpecker will deny this. As well as a talented statesman, France practically still lives by the Code of Napoleon.
      1. Roman 11
        Roman 11 April 12 2016 19: 54
        0
        Quote: xan
        Napoleon military genius

        The first in a series of greats, although from time to time he suffered defeats in battles, there were also unsuccessful companies in 1812, 1813, 1815 - after 1809 something happened to him, or the war became boring, but he made a lot of tactical mistakes, and strategic, for example, scattered army in garrisons in 1813, etc. It seems that under Borodino Murat will say: "The emperor has forgotten his craft." There were many opportunities when he missed the victory, again in the Battle of Borodino he “did not throw the guard into the fire” when it was obvious to everyone and everyone asked to do it.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 12 2016 19: 57
          0
          in the Battle of Borodino, "he did not throw the guard into the fire," when it was obvious to everyone and everyone asked to do it.


          Not who "asked to do" - for his words, he was completely responsible: after the fact, they would have written "Yes, we did our best to dissuade the Emperor from this obvious mistake for everyone!!! ".
    4. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul April 12 2016 11: 32
      +3
      I wonder for WHOM "shiny"? Should we clap our hands like Bonaparte fought?
      In my opinion, you cannot study history only in fragments, because you will not have the full picture. If, on the whole, all the puzzles of the genius of Napoleon are put together, then we can draw the following conclusion: what could be done in Europe did not work in Russia. You need to learn from the mistakes of others, because it’s less expensive in the end. hi
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. tiaman.76
      tiaman.76 April 12 2016 21: 59
      +1
      for lovers of military history
    7. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 18: 34
      0
      Napoleon revived tactics and created operational art. This is his main contribution to humanity.
  4. antiexpert
    antiexpert April 12 2016 08: 01
    +9
    with all admiration for the Bonaparte, his campaign against Russia is not clear, and the consequences - 500 soldiers entered, 000 came out, such operations cast doubt on all his positive qualities
    1. tiaman.76
      tiaman.76 April 12 2016 16: 48
      +2
      not understandable not only the campaign against Russia, he had a number of erroneous decisions both militarily and politically .. firstly this campaign to Egypt .. his plan was fantastic even for the 20th century, its implementation without saying the 18-19th century .. firstly, the risk of intercepting the English squadron by a miracle it didn’t take place .. while the French fleet was blocked and destroyed, it was still with Abukir .. he threw the blocked army in Egypt .. the purest adventure ... the most stupid invasion of Spain by France’s former ally and becoming with his guerilla hell for the French troops .. the declaration of the continental blockade of England as a result did not defeat England but excluded any possibility of at least concluding a truce, so necessary for France, which was exhausted by the wars, and for starters Russia, in general, the most talented commander turned out to be a mediocre strategist and useless politician .. yes I’ve put my brothers into nothing worthless
      1. Roman 11
        Roman 11 April 12 2016 20: 09
        0
        Quote: tiaman.76
        in general, the most talented commander turned out to be a mediocre strategist

        Strategy is the foundation of a commander, a strategist he was brilliant ...... but again, after 1809 something happened to him, the general died in him, then the truth will return for a short time in 1814, when the party was already strategically lost. And so the commander replaced the monarch, the father of thought was not sober calculation, but royal whims.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 12 2016 20: 16
          +2
          Strategy is the foundation of a commander, a strategist he was brilliant ...... but again, after 1809 something happened to him, the general died in him, then the truth will return for a short time in 1814, when the party was already strategically lost. And so the commander replaced the monarch, the father of thought was not sober calculation, but royal whims.


          I can not agree.
          See for yourself:
          (1) France waged war with Britain. Actually, only this war was fought by France (and Napoleon). All other wars are nothing more than a consequence and convulsions in this single war.
          (2) Britain categorically disagreed.
          (3) Within the framework of this particular war with Britain - what exactly could Napoleon do more? Or what did he not do?

          The British simply beat the French diplomatically, skillfully creating one coalition after another.
          And this French diplomatic defeat is not surprising: the French killed their diplomats in the revolution, or they emigrated and worked for the enemy. and there’s no where to get new ones from.

          And, as one of the participants noted here earlier, "a good divisional diplomat is worth it." (Or maybe more than divisions ...)
          1. Warrior2015
            Warrior2015 April 12 2016 20: 38
            0
            Quote: AK64
            And this French diplomatic defeat is not surprising: the French killed their diplomats in the revolution, or they emigrated and worked for the enemy. and there’s no where to get new ones from.
            There was still such a bitch Uncle Talleyrand. He just stayed in France and became an active volunteer.
        2. tiaman.76
          tiaman.76 April 12 2016 21: 26
          0
          and a trip to Egypt, if not a gamble of the purest water ... and even threw his army there, he also set Turkey against himself .. and could then seize power in France instead of this enterprise ... and that would be especially interesting in northern Italians Suvorov met not Jourdans with Moro and most likely the Corsican himself ... curious to know who whom ..
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 12 2016 21: 34
            0
            and a trip to Egypt that if not an adventure of pure water ...


            The reasons are the same as in Germany in 1940.
            (A similar situation and convulsions are also similar)
          2. Morrrow
            Morrrow April 18 2016 18: 41
            0
            Egypt is a very good colony. Plans for Egypt were made by Leibniz. What is adventurism there? Turks are generally not a great power. If he tried to take power in 1796, he would be killed. The power of the Directory was still very strong.
        3. Morrrow
          Morrrow April 18 2016 18: 37
          0
          The victory over Prussia drove him crazy. He himself was shocked at how easily he defeated the most militarized state in the world.
    2. Roman 11
      Roman 11 April 12 2016 20: 00
      0
      Quote: antiexpert
      500 soldiers entered, 000 left

      It is doubtful somehow ...... If there are official statistics, then not everything is correct in it, "dead souls", various nationalities, including the Portuguese and even Spaniards, dithers, etc.
      1. yehat
        yehat April 14 2016 13: 59
        0
        and here you are wrong. A significant part of Napoleon's troops in 12 year - attached divisions of the type of "allies" - from all over Europe and there could not be dead souls.
        and about different nations ... at that time France was a cultural leader and very many understood this language, and other territories were unified. Throughout the army there were no more than 5 languages, moreover, understood in other parts.
    3. yehat
      yehat April 14 2016 13: 54
      0
      campaign in Russia relied on misconceptions about Russia
      I wouldn’t scold Napoleon too much, rather, his intelligence
  5. Seraphimamur
    Seraphimamur April 12 2016 09: 10
    -1
    I agree. For all his tactical successes, his strategist is not thin.
  6. Max repp
    Max repp April 12 2016 09: 22
    +2
    The little corporal had no choice, he couldn’t do anything with the dignitaries, damn Lamanche, it’s unlikely that he would agree with the Republic of Ingushetia under Alexander too, to remain inside Europe - we could try to hold out for some years and then all the same end, blockade, plus constant threat from the east.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 12 2016 17: 51
      +4
      agree with RI under Alexander, too, is unlikely

      But what about the Tilsit world?
      1. Alex
        Alex April 14 2016 23: 11
        +2
        Quote: AK64
        But what about the Tilsit world?

        A forced measure, Napoleon understood that as soon as Alexander took a breath, everything would return to square one. In general, for France, as well as for Germany, the European war on two fronts of death is similar.
  7. Verdun
    Verdun April 12 2016 09: 42
    +7
    Many romanticize Bonaparte. To know for what. Tough and cynical pragmatist. Before fighting - that with England, that with Russia - he tried to negotiate, on terms favorable to himself. But as a man who supported the revolution, the monarchs did not find sympathy ...
    1. 97110
      97110 April 12 2016 10: 50
      +2
      Quote: Verdun
      But as a man who supported the revolution, the monarchs did not find sympathy ...

      And Paul I, why is it embarrassing on the head with a snuffbox? They say I found ... Austrians got Pavel.
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 22: 30
      0
      For his talents. For impudence, for courage and for reason.
  8. Cartalon
    Cartalon April 12 2016 10: 00
    +4
    Judging by the comments about Bonaparte, you only need to know from the 1812 company of the year, the rest is for show
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 April 12 2016 20: 13
      +1
      Quote: Cartalon
      Judging by the comments about Bonaparte, you need to know only by the company of 1812

      Napoleon was already there, and this is a completely different story .....
  9. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 12 2016 10: 18
    +1
    Congratulations to the author on a very successful article! Well, really! wink

    Quote: Cartalon
    Judging by the comments about Bonaparte, you only need to know from the 1812 company of the year, the rest is for show

    In principle, it was she who became decisive for him. Before going to Russia - only success and take off. After - only a fall, albeit intermittently.

    In general, here is a curious porcelain mug from the period of the war with Napoleon - it very accurately, in my opinion, reflects the very essence of the emergence and further development of the Napoleonic regime. "The Devil's Favorite Pet" am - note, the devil holds in his hand exactly the star of the Order of the Legion of Honor - just the pentagonal pentagon!
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 22: 31
      0
      Decisive was the betrayal of Talleyrand in 1808.
  10. alexej123
    alexej123 April 12 2016 10: 20
    +6
    From the book of L. Ratknevsky "Generalissimo Suvorov" - "Walking far, boy. It's time to calm down." I do not presume to judge the quality of Bonaparte's politician - the military leader was brilliant. He, like A.V. Suvorov, was idolized by the soldiers, they were ready to follow them into fire and water. And such recognition is not achieved by mere speeches. By the way, both the Great Suvorov and Bonaparte used, in principle, the same tactics - "The eye meter, speed, onslaught."
  11. Verdun
    Verdun April 12 2016 11: 51
    +2
    Without his marshals, Napoleon could hardly have made such an advance. Ney, Bernadotte, Mossen ... If Mossen had not restrained resistance in Spain, a company in the east would hardly have become possible. By the way, Mossen claimed that he would give all his victories for one passage of Suvorov through the Alps ...
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 12 2016 14: 03
      +3
      Of the above Marshals, Mossen is a sensible general, but no more, Ney grunt unable to command a separate army, Bernadotte a traitor
      1. Verdun
        Verdun April 12 2016 19: 39
        0
        Quote: Cartalon
        Bernadotte the traitor

        And, nevertheless, it was his absence that Napoleon experienced the most.
      2. Roman 11
        Roman 11 April 12 2016 20: 16
        0
        Quote: Cartalon
        Of the above Marshals, Mossen is a sensible general, but no more, Ney grunt unable to command a separate army, Bernadotte a traitor

        Remains Davout? smile
        1. tiaman.76
          tiaman.76 April 12 2016 21: 32
          +1
          Lann. The death of which he was hard going through..this really was a very strong general. Napoleon said of him: “Lann had courage stronger than reason; but the mind woke up every day to restore balance; I found him a pygmy, and lost him a giant. " In the Italian campaign of 1796-97, he twice saved Napoleon's life. Here is how Napoleonologist and French scholar Manfred characterized him: “Lannes was one of the most prominent military leaders of the brilliant Napoleonic galaxy. Brave, direct, sharp, he earned the honorable nickname of Roland of the French army. " And further: “I discovered remarkable abilities in independent management of operations” [2].
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow April 18 2016 22: 34
            0
            Lannes took by storm Zaragoza. For that time - it was the most stubborn and fierce battle.
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 22: 32
      0
      Bernadotte failed in 1806, Ney the level of regimental general, no more.
  12. pigkiller
    pigkiller April 12 2016 13: 13
    +1
    Curious to read the publications of French newspapers about Russia (left by Napoleon)
    on the eve of the campaign of the Great Army of 1812
    As well as the British press on the eve of the Crimean War and German propaganda of the 30-40s. Twentieth century.
    And compare with the flow of Western media about Russia today.
  13. Shurik70
    Shurik70 April 12 2016 13: 24
    +1
    Interestingly, in the painting "Colonel Rampont Defends the Redoubt of Monte Legino" the Colonel himself is depicted,
    probably in the center holding a banner.

    I may not be a specialist, but weren't there special "standard-bearers" chosen from the young and romantic, whom you do not mind and can easily be replaced? Weren't standard-bearers the first target of snipers (or, as they were called, rangers with chokes)?

    And yet, what does an officer do in front of the colonel? It seems that the hilt of his blade directs the movement of the colonel’s hand, like a puppet doll.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 12 2016 14: 08
      +1
      The colonel could pick up the banner that fell out of the hands of the murdered standard-bearer, of course, in reality everything was less romantic, through Saint Bernard Bonaparte it was clear that he wasn’t galloping, but what they wrote they wrote
  14. Urfin
    Urfin April 12 2016 13: 28
    0
    The motivation of a simple French soldier is interesting. "Free civilized" people, what can I say ...
  15. antiexpert
    antiexpert April 12 2016 17: 41
    +1
    Quote: alexej123
    both the Great Suvorov and Bonaparte used, in principle, the same tactics - "The eye gauge, speed, onslaught."

    You forgot that the Great Suvorov used a rehearsal, which Bonaparte never used, especially when the capture of Ismail took place.
    1. alexej123
      alexej123 April 12 2016 19: 30
      +1
      A.V. Suvorov used "rehearsal" when time and the enemy allowed. I used the "rehearsal" so that each soldier in his subordination knew what and when to do it, used it so that every soldier would understand the meaning of the Suvorov plan (I apologize for the taftologia). The reason - Suvorov saw in the soldier not a soulless screw in a military machine, but a thinking executor of his plans. Did Suvorov also "rehearse" the Swiss campaign?
  16. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST April 12 2016 19: 08
    -1
    The French had no number or skill then. There was only the genius of Bonaparte.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 12 2016 19: 25
      0
      Normally, the French had everything with skill
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 12 2016 19: 55
        +1
        Normally, the French had everything with skill

        Yes? Officers in large numbers emigrated or fought against the republic. The soldiers either fled or fought against the republic.
        Instead of officers - commissars (find a description of the same siege of Toulon where Napoleon distinguished himself), and instead of soldiers - an untrained crowd of conscripts.

        But "skill was fine."
        Hmm ...
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 12 2016 20: 32
          +1
          I somehow trust Clausewitz more in this matter.
    2. AK64
      AK64 April 12 2016 19: 53
      +3
      The French had no number or skill then.


      But what about universal military duty?
      It is quite a modern model, and the First in Europe, by the way
  17. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 12 2016 20: 00
    +4
    Quote: alexej123
    both the Great Suvorov and Bonaparte used, in principle, the same tactics - "The eye gauge, speed, onslaught."

    Comrade Alexei, you are mistaken - Napoleon "used" the tactics formulated in the Revolutionary Wars - it is called "a strike by large battalions." And very often I used not so much quality as quantity. Suvorov had a completely different tactic of striking small groups.

    Generally the French army on the quality of troops equaled or even surpassed the armies of the monarchies of Europe only for a short period of about 1805-1812. Prior to that, it "crystallized" for 15 years in the Revolutionary Wars, and after 1812 there was a process of degradation due to the urgent need to replenish the troops with new recruits without combat experience.

    Few people know the little-known phrase of Napoleon: "If the old man Kutuzov had an army of the same quality as at Austrelitz, I would never have been able to win the battle from him near Moscow."

    Quote: Cartalon
    Of the above Marshals, Mossen is a sensible general, but no more, Ney grunt unable to command a separate army, Bernadotte a traitor
    In general, ALL marshals eventually became traitors - or rather, they were tired of the blood and horrors of the endless war that Napoleon waged. After all, it was they who convinced him to finally sign the renunciation.

    And most interestingly, they all received forgiveness and received positions from the Bourbons. And then during the "100 days" - many of them committed DOUBLE betrayal and again went over to the side of Bonopart.

    Quote: Oles

    By the way, 40 years after the "liberation" of Europe from Napoleon, the grateful liberated (including France) came to the liberator in war.

    It is such a traditional European sport to go to Moscow and eventually bring the Russians to Paris (to Warsaw, to Berlin, to Milan, etc.). laughing
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 12 2016 20: 19
      0
      Well, if by tactics, then there are not so much big battalions as big batteries, and throwing huge division columns into the attack only led to losses, on the other hand, it was possible to control the battlefield normally with a corps of 40 thousand people, which Bonaparte himself installed, so he threw in frontal attacks, huge masses sent to bypass the marshals usually mowed down.
    2. alexej123
      alexej123 April 13 2016 10: 34
      0
      Sergeich, I disagree. Suvorov did not fight in small groups. He fought with all the units that were under his command. And it was not his fault that at Turtukai, Fokshany, Rymnik, Izmail, and even in Switzerland, he had fewer troops than the enemy. He acted in small units when it was necessary to attack the enemy on the move, without giving him his senses, the rest of the forces were pulled further. Suvorov was a "black sheep". The envious people put sticks in the wheels and gave him less numerous troops.
  18. Kibl
    Kibl April 12 2016 20: 19
    0
    Napoleon, of course, is a great uncle, but his vanity ruined him. I’m such a mole !!! I was sitting in my Paris, because it’s an island in the ocean for you, besides all Europe at your feet with North Africa, which still was necessary. So no , popped on Russia a little, his appetite was broken. As a result, he choked on greed, found someone to jump on. Here, then, all his genius as a strategist was blown away. just as Hitler did not take into account later, their brains are in the wrong system, they are not screwing properly!
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 12 2016 20: 32
      +3
      Napoleon, of course, is a great uncle, but his vanity ruined him. I’m such a mole !!! I was sitting in my Paris, because it’s an island in the ocean for you, besides all Europe at your feet with North Africa, which still was necessary. So no , popped on Russia a little, his appetite was broken. As a result, he choked on greed, found someone to jump on. Here, then, all his genius as a strategist was blown away. just as Hitler did not take into account later, their brains are in the wrong system, they are not screwing properly!


      He was not allowed to sit quietly in Paris.
      The serious people did not allow him to do this - the British: they gathered one coalition after another and did not want to put up.
      So Napoleon had to do "indirect actions".
      The attack on Russia is one of them. And it was intended to force Alexander to really participate in the "continental blockade", and nothing more.

      Russian people find it hard to believe, of course. After all, they believe that it is Russia that is the center of the universe. But from London and Paris it looks a little different. (especially in 1812)
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon April 12 2016 20: 45
        -1
        It did not allow him to sit in Paris, sewed in one place, not the British, so he would have come up with something else.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 12 2016 20: 57
          +1
          It did not allow him to sit in Paris, sewed in one place, not the British, so he would have come up with something else.


          No need to invent. There are facts, we must adhere to them: the whole history of the second half of the 18th century - the beginning of the 19th century --- is the war of France and Britain for world domination.
          (Britain won.)
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 12 2016 21: 14
            -3
            Only now, not a single person in France except the emperor needed this world domination for nothing.
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 12 2016 21: 26
              +2
              uh-huh --- just like "nobody in the USSR".
              And then they pay indemnities at 120 billion a year, travel to the Crimea abroad and take offense that strange things are happening in Ukraine.

              France was in fact a world hegemon after winning the 30-year war. Britain waged an unreasonable war with her for this title.
              You can get off the pedestal. It is possible - but only in a coffin.
              (USSR example)
              1. Cartalon
                Cartalon April 12 2016 21: 31
                0
                France was not a world hegemon, in the last quarter of the 17th century, Louis 14 achieved superiority in Europe but no more.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 12 2016 21: 36
                  0
                  France was not a world hegemon, in the last quarter of the 17th century, Louis 14 achieved superiority in Europe but no more.


                  Europe then essentially ruled almost the whole world.
                  "Hegemony in Europe" => "world domination".
                  1. Cartalon
                    Cartalon April 12 2016 21: 44
                    0
                    World domination is naval dominance, the West Indies, the East Indies and so on. The Brits fought for it with the Dutch, France never had the opportunity to maintain an army against the Habsburgs and the fleet against Britain, and at the same time it didn’t go broke, Louis could spoil the Dutch but Wilhelm Oransky became the English king and French attempts were blocked.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 April 12 2016 21: 56
                      0
                      It seems so to you.
                      Here, by the way, on this site itself, there has recently been a series of articles on the Franco-British naval confrontation.
                      In fact, Brtania felt relatively safe only after Trafalgar. And this despite the fact that the French fleet was almost completely destroyed by the revolution!

                      we know that in vain they relaxed something: Napoleon could have approved the Fulton project; if only the British would jump.

                      In general, you (and I, and all of us) are studying history written in Britain, in the village of Oxford. Recently, the 100-year war was discussed - and after all, we know it only in the Oxford description. (And therefore sometimes surprising questions arise in ns, such as "how could this have happened?")
                      But after all, not only the 100-year war, but in general everything we have in the retelling of the "Oxford elders".
                      1. Cartalon
                        Cartalon April 13 2016 05: 47
                        0
                        The French themselves spoiled enough paper, about the possibility of Napoleon somehow forcing the Channel, I could have no idea what would happen to him.
                      2. AK64
                        AK64 April 13 2016 09: 24
                        0
                        The French themselves spoiled enough paper,

                        Anyway, the whole "world history" in the form in which we know it, and even what French schoolchildren are studying is a creation of "Oxford stars"


                        about the possibility of Napoleon in one way or another to force the Channel, I could have no idea what would happen to him there.

                        (1) Could (The British took this very seriously)
                        (2) I would take London and establish ... well, I would establish some kind of control (the British did not doubt it)

                        Do you have any doubts about this? If Villeneuve acted according to Napoleon’s plan, and under normal conditions (i.e. weather and so on, independent of people), the probability of a successful landing would be somewhere around 66%.
                        At least the British, even after Trafalgar, sighed with great relief when the Bois de Boulogne left.
                      3. Cartalon
                        Cartalon April 13 2016 11: 12
                        0
                        Fortune-telling coffee grounds, horses in the right quantity could not be transported by the British would fight to the last, the Austrians and maybe the Prussians would immediately attack France, and there would be nothing to transfer the army back.
                      4. AK64
                        AK64 April 13 2016 11: 28
                        0
                        Fortune-telling coffee grounds

                        Stop-stop-stop, recently you said "impossible". And now "fortune-telling on the coffee grounds". Progress, right?


                        the British couldn’t transport the horses to the last

                        Didn't you write below that at Waterloo Napoleon "shot down" Wellington with approximately equal forces (and poor quality troops, I must say frankly)?
                        And here Wellington is somewhere in Portugal ... And when it arrives it is not known ....

                        Austrians, or perhaps Prussians, would immediately attack France, and there would be nothing to transport the army back to.

                        But why did the Prussians and the Austrians suddenly need it? After all, the British just created the coalitions all the way! Nobody except Britain, these coalitions were no longer needed, all (except it is clear who) was essentially satisfied with the status quo.

                        And so: if they would kill Britain in a short company, then there would be no one to create coalitions.
                      5. Cartalon
                        Cartalon April 13 2016 13: 45
                        0
                        I wrote about the impossibility for France to establish world hegemony, and here we are considering landing on the island, I can’t figure out how everything went there, but I’m sure that not everything would be smooth, the Austrians always had enough reasons for the war with France, there weren’t always enough troops and money, they would not have missed such a case as the loss of the main forces of the enemy.
                      6. AK64
                        AK64 April 13 2016 14: 29
                        0
                        I wrote about the impossibility for France to establish world hegemony,

                        It's just that you (as well as the rest of the world) is studying history in the retelling of the "Oxford elders". Just correct for interested authorship.


                        and here we are considering landing on the island, I can’t calculate how everything went there, but I’m sure that not everything would be smooth,

                        Smoothly in war does not happen at all. But in general, the alignment would not be in favor of British.

                        the Austrians always had enough reasons for a war with France; they did not always have enough troops and money; they would not have missed a case like the loss of the main enemy forces.

                        А WHAT FOR should they carry chestnuts out of fire for the British?
                        In this situation for the Austrians (as the not-so-smart "real person" said in 1940) "and let them kill each other as long as possible"
                        But in any case, this is already a zone of speculation, and if so, then nothing to argue about.
                      7. Cartalon
                        Cartalon April 13 2016 15: 49
                        0
                        There is such a wonderful place on earth called Italy and for it the Habsburgs fought for 500 years.
                      8. AK64
                        AK64 April 13 2016 17: 26
                        0
                        There is such a wonderful place on earth called Italy and for it the Habsburgs fought for 500 years.


                        Napoleon, planning a landing, forgot about it? Did not take into account?
                      9. AK64
                        AK64 April 13 2016 17: 26
                        0
                        There is such a wonderful place on earth called Italy and for it the Habsburgs fought for 500 years.


                        Napoleon, planning a landing, forgot about it? Did not take into account?
                  2. Morrrow
                    Morrrow April 18 2016 18: 56
                    0
                    Philip 2 installed.
  19. Morrrow
    Morrrow April 18 2016 18: 54
    0
    France has been a world hegemon since the time of Philip 2. What are you talking about?
  • Morrrow
    Morrrow April 18 2016 18: 53
    0
    And in 1793 what happened?
  • Morrrow
    Morrrow April 18 2016 18: 52
    0
    Punitive campaign in 1812, punitive.
  • mayhem
    mayhem April 12 2016 20: 40
    -1
    Valentin Pikul wrote very well about Napoleon and there he is not at all such a brave guy as is customary to perceive in society !!!
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 12 2016 20: 44
      +4
      Valentin Pikul wrote very well about Napoleon


      Valentin Pikul he wrote "well" about everyone.
      The only problem is that the "well-written" by Valentin Pikul has nothing to do with reality.
    2. Verdun
      Verdun April 12 2016 22: 17
      0
      Eugene Tarle wrote well about Napoleon. Recommend!
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 12 2016 20: 57
    +3
    Quote: Cartalon
    Well, if by tactics, then there are not so much big battalions as big batteries, and throwing huge division columns into the attack only led to losses

    This was the genius of Wellington — who had developed a special tactic back in Spain, against which neither one of the Marshal nor Napoleon himself had come up with anything intelligible.

    Quote: KIBL
    the whole Europe at your feet with North Africa, what else was needed
    I look forward to inform you, when was North Africa at the feet of Napoleon then? You did not confuse his case with Rommel? laughing

    Quote: AK64
    But from London and Paris it looks a little different. (especially in 1812)
    And when you ask the Anglo-Saxon about the 1812 war of the year, he says with confidence - yes, it was like that, we clashed with the Americans, and this is not a joke.

    And I am attaching a unique photo of the RUSSIAN HERO OF THE WAR AGAINST NAPOLEON: the last live participant of the Borodino battle of the 1812 of the year Pavel Yakovlevich Tolstoguzov at the age of 117 years, photo of the 1912 of the year.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 12 2016 21: 15
      0
      And what kind of tactics is to hold on to the last and all tactics
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 18: 58
      0
      Sushe drove Wellington like a dog. What tactics are there ... In 1854, the British showed their real power.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 13 2016 10: 45
    +2
    Quote: AK64
    The British were on the verge of breaking, but still stood, and it is not known how much they would have stood still.
    Dear AK64, above, Comrade Oles described Wellington's tactics very correctly - to defend BEYOND the ridge of hills - thereby completely neutralizing the tactics of "large batteries" + "large battalions". In response to this, Napoleon, even in his decisive final battle could not come up with anything new.

    Kutuzov could not think of anything against Napoleon’s tactics - and our troops at Borodin literally coughed up artillery fire.

    After all, it was not just that Alexander I (who was far from) considered Wellington a great commander and invited him to Russian service?

    Quote: Oles
    Subsequently, the Donzelo and Bourgeois battalions faltered and began to withdraw precisely because of the enemy’s strong fire from the front. Here are the consequences of the tactics of the colon.
    That's it ! In the Russian-speaking community, usually everyone forgets that the French at Waterloo faltered and began to retreat before the Prussians arrived. It is a fact. In general, Waterloo itself, as well as "100 days", is a pure insane adventure, costing only both the French and the allies new and unnecessary tens of thousands of victims.

    Let's not forget that after the first abdication, Napoleon was given the opportunity to capitulate with dignity and even to preserve freedom and dignity, and his officers and soldiers did not suffer any punishment (after the capture of Paris, the allies led by the Russians conducted only a few special processes, finding and executing only a few especially fierce executioners of the era of revolutionary terror and all).

    And after "100 days" the allies, in my opinion, showed extreme generosity that they did not shoot him at all as a rebel and a traitor to his word (as, for example, many of his officers who paid with their lives for the insane adventurism of the Corsican).
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 13 2016 11: 30
      0
      I’m not going to sort now who occupied which village, I don’t think Napoleon was a brilliant tactician, his strength was in operational management, and Blucher won the company’s operational point of view if in his place Schwarzenberg had some troops withdrawn to the Rhine, and Wellington with all his tactics would have to to dig in somewhere near Antwerp.
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 13 2016 11: 44
        +1
        his strength was in operational management


        But this is a much higher level!
        Operational art is the same!

        Napoleon won the company of 1805 with brilliant marches (that is, full-scale operational art).
    2. AK64
      AK64 April 13 2016 11: 41
      0
      above, Comrade Oles very correctly described Wellington's tactics - to defend BEYOND the ridge of hills - thereby completely neutralizing the tactics of "large batteries" + "large battalions". In response to this, Napoleon, even in his decisive last battle, could not come up with anything new.


      The "behind the hill" has its downsides: you don't see anything. The enemy behind the ridge can concentrate both troops and artillery against you - but you will not understand.

      (True, he doesn’t see you either ...)

      Kutuzov could not think of anything against Napoleon’s tactics - and our troops at Borodin literally coughed up artillery fire.


      There was another mistake ...
      Mowed already in the second phase - when Dokhturov took command of the 2nd Army. The mistake was that the Russian (very considerable) artillery still stood dead capital in reserve --- there was no one to dispose of.

      The young Kutaisov, who commanded the artillery (and who guessed to appoint the boy as the commander of the artillery?) Rushed to counter-attack instead of commanding the artillery. He died - and Kutuzov ... sat and looked. In general, no one disposed of artillery, and all the huge Russian artillery took part in the battle to a very insignificant degree.

      Hence the "mowing".

      And to tell the truth: there was nowhere for Dokhturov to hide. Do not forget that they knocked out of the Russian flashes, and behind was a rum field. (Well, the 2nd Army crossed the ravine. But wasn’t she hiding in the ravine?)

      Another thing is that the position could have been found better. Well, Barclay found it. But Kutuzov could not approve of the position proposed by Barclay: "not together."

      (Coffee pot it's all to blame ...)

      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon April 13 2016 12: 12
        0
        About not using artillery, google quickly find a rebuttal to this legend
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 13 2016 12: 36
          +1
          Well, throw a link.
          In general, the extremely small participation of artillery in the Borodino battle is, as it were, a common place; I don’t even know what Google can offer here.
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 13 2016 13: 38
            0
            I can’t throw the link, the file ends, A P Larionov Use of Artillery in the Battle of Borodino
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 13 2016 14: 21
              0
              Thanks, I'll see.

              But no counter-battery action was taken against the "big battery" that was crushing Dokhturov. (And it was too late for Dokhturov to attack the "big battery")
    3. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 13 2016 12: 20
      0
      Quote: Oles
      Subsequently, the Donzelo and Bourgeois battalions faltered and began to withdraw precisely because of the enemy’s strong fire from the front. Here are the consequences of the tactics of the colon.
      A private failure, regarding the contribution, Prussakov Blucher launched an attack at 16.30, holding down French reserves just at the time of Ney's cavalry attacks on the center and the crisis was resolved only two hours later, so without Blucher's help Wellington would have been conditionally forced to retreat perhaps in order , but not more.
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 13 2016 12: 42
        +2
        so that without Blucher’s help Wellington without conditionally would have been forced to retreat perhaps in order, but no more.


        Not out of the blue.

        I myself also think that Wellington would not have resisted, and that he could not even "retreat in order": he simply could not have left the battle. (Only the night would have saved the British from the complete defeat - that is, he would have left but badly beaten). But this is also only view --- It is impossible to either prove or refute it, and since there is nothing to argue about.

        By the way, I think that Grushi CONSCIOUSLY changed: apparently he was also tired of the war and Napoleon. (Or Pears paid, which is also possible: typical British "George cavalry tactics" --- it would be necessary to check how many bucks he had AFTER)
    4. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 02
      0
      What tactics of large columns are we talking about? Have you read the text?
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 13 2016 13: 53
    +2
    Quote: Cartalon
    I do not consider Napoleon a brilliant tactician, his strength was in operational management, and Blucher won the company’s operational point of view if Schwarzenberg had taken his troops in his place to the Rhine, and Wellington, with all his tactics, would have to dig somewhere near Antwerp.

    That is yes. But from the fact that Waterloo would have taken place in a different place, his results were hardly different. Look when the French guard ran. Is it from the attacks of the Prussians? not at all ! even the introduction of the French guards could not turn the tide of the battle!

    In the first place, Waterloo lost to Napoleon himself - one can argue why, but this is a fact.

    Quote: AK64
    The "behind the hill" has its downsides: you don't see anything. The enemy behind the ridge can concentrate both troops and artillery against you - but you will not understand.
    Well, actually the officers are monitoring. wink And the French had practically no such snipers as the British.

    Quote: AK64
    Another thing is that the position could have been found better. Well, Barclay found it. But Kutuzov could not approve of the position proposed by Barclay: "not together."
    Exactly ! At all Barclay de Tolly was the most competent Russian general (and then marshal), - the only commander of those who were with Alexander I, whom Napoleon was afraid of ! In his military genius, he is comparable only to Davout among the French ("the only marshal who could command a separate army," Moreau and Masséna is another case), and most likely surpasses him.

    Just in fact: the battles that Barclay commanded by the Russian troops - the capture of Thorne, the victory over Loriston at Konigswart, saved the situation after Bauzen, defeated at Goerlitz, promoted the surrender of Vandamm at Kulm, defeated the French at Leipzig and took Paris. Is this not enough?!? And what do we have in Kutuzov’s assets as a commander?

    But after all - how - the people think that Barclay, he is "from German", he is a foe, he is a traitor ... And Kutuzov - he is his own, Russian, came to beat the French!
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 13 2016 14: 15
      +1
      [quote = Ratnik2015] [quote = Cartalon] I do not consider Napoleon to be a brilliant tactician, his strength was in operational control, and Blucher won the company’s operational point of view if Schwarzenberg had taken troops to the Rhine in his place, and Wellington with all his tactics had to to dig somewhere under Antwerp. [/ quote]
      That is yes. But from the fact that Waterloo would have taken place in a different place, his results were hardly different. Look when the French guard ran. Is it from the attacks of the Prussians? not at all ! even the introduction of the French guards could not turn the tide of the battle!

      In the first place, Waterloo lost to Napoleon himself - one can argue why, but this is a fact.
      Napoleon started the battle without a numerical superiority, at 16.30 a battle began at Lobau, that is, for another three hours the French attack a strong position in the minority and in fact take it already inferior to the enemy, the French were broken only when the allied superiority became overwhelming, so your assumption that Wellington would certainly beat Bonaparte is not justified, the only reason why Wellington gave battle is Blucher's promise to come with the whole army to join
      1. Morrrow
        Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 17
        0
        Is Waterloo his only battle? By the way, does a person not change over time?
    2. AK64
      AK64 April 13 2016 14: 17
      +1
      Well, actually the officers are monitoring.

      It is clear that they are leading. But the “over the hill” position has both pros and cons.
      List laziness

      Barclay de Tolly was the most competent Russian general (and then marshal)

      At that time, yes. But he had a disagreement with Bagration. (Bagration believed that he was "older", because according to some list he received something "earlier" by as much as three seconds - typical remnants of parochialism)
      Because of this absurd dispute, I had to look for a "neutral candidate" that would suit everyone.

      What do we have in the assets of Kutuzov as a commander?

      We have a coffee pot

      In general, the galaxy of "Rumyantsevs, Suvorovs, Potemkin" for some reason was suddenly interrupted
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 10
      0
      Is Waterloo Bonaparte’s entire military career? By the way, who was Napoleon in 1815? Napoleon in 1815 was already a deeply sick and broken man. Not only did he not believe in himself, he no longer knew where he was and what he should do. By that time he had: pains in the bladder, stomach cancer, severe headaches, memory lapses and general softness. It is ridiculous to compare Bonaparte 1796 and 1815.
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon April 13 2016 15: 36
    0
    I propose a truce on the topic of the article, it seems nothing to say, but my favorites will still pop up, as I’m not ready to defend Kutuzov in an article about the beginning of an Italian company
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 13 2016 15: 47
    +2
    Quote: Oles
    Napoleon had a chance to win at Waterloo, but, as I wrote above, Pears could not organize the normal persecution of the Prussian army, could not prevent the Prussians from uniting with Wellington, could not join Napoleon himself.

    In the absence of Blucher’s army, perhaps the Pear’s corps decided something. But when Blucher’s army arrived, even managed to catch Pears on time - he would still be unable to solve anything, because a screen would be put up against him (the size of the Prussian army allowed) and that’s all.

    Quote: Oles
    The victory at Amstetten and at Krems was crossed out by Austelitz. Although Austerlitz was not 100% Kutuzov's fault.
    The first two battles are highly controversial. Austerlitz is Kutuzov's fault, he could, being the commander-in-chief, categorically insist on abandoning the wrong plan (drawn up by the way by the former chief of staff of Suvorov - they somehow "forget" about it) or, disagreeing with the opinions of others, resign. However, he decided to be cowardly, keep the post and carry out the same plan.

    By the way, the plan at Austrelitz was correct. And it would have been a success if the Allies had conducted adequate reconnaissance and would have known about Davout's corps, which had come and completely blocked their maneuver.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 14
      0
      On the theme of the war 1796-97 have something to say? Why are you talking about the 1796s in a topic about 1810?
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon April 18 2016 20: 22
        0
        Ek, you turned around here, you won’t be happy with the Italian company, we were warming up here, it would be fun with Austerlitz.
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow April 18 2016 22: 23
          0
          Well then, the comrades managed to talk for tactics. Let them explain how Napoleon managed to give about 20 battles in 1796-1797 and defeat almost without artillery. Is it that the Austrians shot themselves or something? And what to discuss then? Berezina? There was no longer an army. Waterloo? Well this is no longer interesting. The sick broken man was clearly not at ease. He would not even have been in the gendarmerie in 1815, not to mention the army.