Military Review

The defeat of the Sardinian kingdom: Millezimo, Dego, Chev and Mondovi

56
After the first victory at Montenotta (12 on April 1796), Napoleon’s army continued its offensive and, in a series of battles, knocked out the army of Piedmont-Sardinia. In the battle of Millesimo and Dego (13-15 of April), the Austro-Sardinian troops were defeated. The first task was solved - the Austrian and Piedmont armies were separated, the French opened the roads to Turin and Milan. Bonaparte got the opportunity to crush the Sardinians.


Napoleon went on the offensive on Chev (April 19) and in the battle of Mondovi (April 20-21) defeated the Colon Piedmont army. In pursuit of the enemy, the French entered Cherasco, ten leagues from Turin. Here on April 28 an armistice was signed with Piedmont (Sardinian kingdom) on very favorable conditions for the French side. The agreement in Kerasco brought Piedmont-Sardinia out of the war. Tsarist diplomat Simolin with due justification reported to St. Petersburg that, thanks to the 28 agreement of April, the French "became masters of all of Piedmont and the whole territory of Genoa." May 15 The 1796 of Sardinian King Victor Amadeus was forced into a final peace, in which Savoy and Nice were ceded to France.

In an order for the 26 army on April 1796, Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte wrote: “Soldiers, you won six victories over fifteen days, took the 21 banner, 55 guns, many fortresses and conquered the richest part of Piedmont, you captured 15 thousands of prisoners, you brought out 10 killed and wounded thousands of people. You were deprived of everything - you got everything. You won battles without guns, crossed rivers without bridges, made difficult crossings without shoes, rested without wine and often without bread. Only phalanxes of Republicans, soldiers of Freedom are capable of such feats! ”

Thus, the young French general decided the main task of the first stage of the campaign. Sardinian and Austrian troops were defeated, dismembered and Piedmont capitulated. The Austrian army was left alone against the French.

Battles with Millesimo and Dego

After the first defeat, the Piedmontese (Sardinians) retreated to Millezimo, and the Austrians to Dego. These two positions had a connection through the Piedmonte brigade, which occupied the heights of Biestro between them. In Millezimo, Sardinian troops blocked the road leading to Turin. The right flank of their position rested on the hill of Kossariya, which dominated the terrain. In Dego, the Austrians stood in a position that blocked the road to the Milan region. They were joined by Beaulieu with all those troops whom he was able to withdraw from the Voltri. Thus, the two main passages — to Piedmont and Milan — were covered by Austro-Sardinian troops. The allies did not take active steps and did not hurry, as time worked for them. They got the opportunity to further strengthen and receive reinforcements from the rear. The Austro-Sardinian army had a numerical superiority and could wait. Napoleon, unlike the enemy, could not wait. It was necessary for him to keep the initiative, to continuously develop the offensive, not allowing the enemy to recover and receive reinforcements, widening the gap between the armies of the allies.

Napoleon, giving the troops a short rest, led them on. Already in the evening of April 13, General Pierre Augereau with a swift blow knocked the enemy out of the Millesim gorges and surrounded the hill of Kossarya, cutting off the 2 thousand squad at its top. Commander of the detachment, General Provera entrenched in a dilapidated castle and held it until dark, successfully repelling all the attacks of the French. From a height Provera saw the right flank of the Sardinian army, preparing for battle, and hoped that these troops would help him out.

The next day, the battle began between the two armies. On the morning of April 14, Augereau attacked Millezimo from the left flank of the French army, Massena headed for Biestro and Dego with the center, and La Harpe from the right flank started a roundabout maneuver. After a fierce battle, Massena and Lagarp captured Dego, and Joubert - the heights of Biestro. All of General Colley’s attacks aimed at unlocking the Cossarius were unsuccessful. The troops of General Colley were defeated and the French pursued them. Desperate Provera, realizing that there would be no help, capitulated.

The results were sad for the Sardinians. The Sardinian army was defeated. Five Sardinian battalions with 13 guns surrendered, the remnants of the Sardinian army fled. On the battlefield, many dead remained, only the French captured 6 thousand people, including two generals. As a result, 15 flags and 30 guns were captured.

The next day, April 15 at 3 in the morning, the second battle for Dego took place. The Austrian Grenadier Division suddenly entered the city under the command of General Vukasovich, who arrived late from Voltri. After a two-hour stubborn fight, Dego was taken by the French again, and the Vukasovich division was almost completely destroyed or captured.

From this point on, the Austrian and Sardinian army were finally separated. Beaulieu with the remnants of his troops retreated to the northeast and collected forces from Acqui. Napoleon did not pursue him, deciding to complete the defeat of the Sardinians, and turned to the west. The French troops went to the Collies, who now had no connection with the Austrian group.

The defeat of the Sardinian kingdom: Millezimo, Dego, Chev and Mondovi

Battle at millesimo

Divisional General Pierre-Francois-Charles Augereau

The Battle of Chev, San Michele and Mondovi

Although the path to the capital of Piedmont - Turin was already open, Bonaparte was not interested in the strongholds themselves, which was very important from the point of view of the cordon strategy. Napoleon (like Suvorov) put in the first place the rout of the enemy's manpower. After the defeat of the enemy’s army, Napoleon’s army could occupy any city and fortress. Therefore, leaving LaGarpa’s division in Dego as a barrier from the Austrians of Beaulieu, with the rest of the troops the French commander-in-chief went on the offensive against Cheva, where Colley with 13 thousand soldiers took a position in the fortified camp. Frontal attack of the French troops Sardinians repulsed. But the threat to the flanks of the Sardinians forced the latter, abandoning artillery, to retreat to San Michele.

20 April 1796. The French army launched a new roundabout maneuver. Napoleon moved Seryurye's division to strike the right flank of the enemy, while Massena was bypassing the left flank of the Sardinians. After several skirmishes, Collie estimated the disadvantage of the current situation and at night went to Mondovi, where he managed to erect several fortifications. However, the French, inspired by victories, did not weaken the onslaught. On April 21, they attacked Mondovi in ​​three columns, captured the redoubts and broke into the city. The defeated Sardinian troops, without receiving any help from the Austrian army, fled to Kerasco, pursued by the cavalry of Colonel Murat.

In this battle, the Collie troops lost 3 thousand killed and wounded, 1,5 thousand prisoners, 10 banners and 8 guns. In pursuit of the enemy, the French entered Cherasco, 40 kilometers from Turin. It was a complete rout. Sardinia lost its combat strength and could no longer resist. In addition, the defeat of the army led to the growth of anti-feudal, revolutionary sentiment. The Turin court was scared to the extreme and preferred to capitulate. For his part, Napoleon preferred a truce and did not occupy Turin in order to get the opportunity to focus all his efforts against the Austrians. The smaller and worse armed French army couldn’t fight on two fronts for a long time. Napoleon saved only the speed and determination of action. The French general had to continue to act in accordance with his basic principle: "To compensate for numerical weakness with the speed of movements."

The Turin government signed an 28 April truce with Bonaparte, withdrew from the coalition. The French became masters of the whole Piedmont and the whole territory of Genoa. 15 May was signed by the Paris World. Turin pledged not to let anyone else’s troops, except French, enter into unions from now on, inferior France to the county of Nice and all of Savoy, and also had to supply the French army with all the supplies it needed.

Thus, in the shortest possible time, the young French commander-in-chief achieved major success by fulfilling the Directorate's plan for breaking the Austro-Sardinian alliance and securing communications with France. The success of the Italian campaign (first stage) of Napoleon brought Suvorov tactics and strategy: a lightning interception initiative, quick and decisive action. Napoleon did not allow the larger army of the enemy to concentrate and go on the offensive. The enemy did not expect such a pace of offensive operations. Marmont wrote to his father that he hadn’t gotten off his horse 28 for hours, then rested for three hours and after that the 15 watch was in the saddle again. The lightning speed of operations allowed Bonaparte to constantly retain the initiative and impose his will on the enemy. Having smaller forces in general, the French commander-in-chief acted with concentrated forces against the enemy scattered on a large front and in each decisive clash with him had an advantage in the army.

Changed and the state of the French army. It was no longer a bunch of ragged people. In the battles a lot of guns, horses and various supplies were captured. In Kerasco, the French already had 60 guns with a supply of shells and sleds. The soldiers began to receive regular food and specie. Discipline has been restored. It was the army of winners, which dictated its will to the enemy. From all the assembly points and hospitals of the Genoese Riviera, reinforcements began to arrive through the passes, as soon as there was a rumor about the victories and the abundance of occupied territories. Now the Austrians who remained in isolation could be pursued deep into Lombardy, and the liberated units of the Kellermann Alpine Army could be transferred to Italy. The length of communication with Paris has been halved. In addition, strong points and artillery depots were formed to form a siege park.

Author:
Articles from this series:
Napoleon's Italian Campaign

The first major victory of Napoleon. The start of the brilliant Italian campaign
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. parusnik
    parusnik April 14 2016 07: 30
    +5
    Interestingly, now the works of Evgeny Viktorovich Tarle are published ..? "Napoleon", "Talleyrand" ..
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 14 2016 08: 30
      +2
      Napoleon is published, and not in weak print runs, it is unlikely that Talleyrand, but Tarle is not the best option for an initial acquaintance, it is ideological and hard to read.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun April 14 2016 13: 56
        +6
        They publish, but rather sketchy. I have a volume of the Readers Digest publishing house where his works Talleyrand, Napoleon, Napoleon's Invasion of Russia in 1812 and Mikhail Illarionovich Ktuzov - a commander and diplomat are brought together. Another question is how much such books are in demand. Opuses of Rezun or Nosovsky with Fomenko seem to be in more demand today by buyers. Part of Tarle's complete works of the 1959 edition of the USSR Academy of Sciences managed to intercept at the moment when the previous owner intended to send him to the trash. This attitude towards the works of a serious historian is sad.
      2. Verdun
        Verdun April 14 2016 14: 16
        +3
        Only later works underwent serious ideologization. And then, where have you seen historical works without ideology ?! And about "hard to read", that's right. But what to do, Tarle is not Dumas, he wrote historical works, not novels. Not a opportunist, in modern terms.
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 14 2016 14: 42
          0
          It’s like I’m not comparing it with Dumas, and the late Tarle is more like Zhilin than Tarle
      3. Rastas
        Rastas April 14 2016 22: 15
        0
        "Napoleon" E. Tarle is an excellent book written by a professional historian. But I liked the book by Albert Manfred, also a professional historian specializing in French history, published in 1973 by Napoleon Bonaparte. Read in one breath.
  2. qwert
    qwert April 14 2016 08: 27
    0
    Yes, when the French shone. But by the 20 century, from warlike and serious Gauls there is not enough left
    1. Velizariy
      Velizariy April 14 2016 09: 37
      +5
      The French have no relation to the Gauls; these are two different peoples. Franks are a Germanic tribe.
  3. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid April 14 2016 08: 36
    +2
    I often meet in old versions in "second-hand booksellers" of "Napoleon", I have never seen Talleyrand. I have not seen any new ones. Although there is probably data on the net.
    In St. Petersburg, the publishing house "Nestor-Istoriya" ---- good books. Expensive. Sometimes I buy cheaper in their store, I live nearby.
    Very slowly I read "History of the 19th century" edited by Tarle. Someone saved it for me. I did not sell it in difficult times. Slowly I read, because I am distracted by other centuries.
  4. xan
    xan April 14 2016 12: 50
    +4
    From the time of Napoleon, such romance rushing, already sausage. About ten years ago, in the evenings turning into night, I read Manfred's thick book "Napoleon", so I began to dream of all this military campaign vanity with a triumphant tinge. It seems that the enemy of Russia, and because of him and his ambitions, millions of people died, but there is respect and respect, in contrast to the monster Hitler.
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 14 2016 14: 59
      +6
      Then you need to watch the movie "Napoleon, the Russian Campaign" which they and the British recently filmed, where, in addition to all other Russophobia, even Berezina is recorded as a victory, but at the end he is smashed ... the Englishmen at Waterloo
      1. xan
        xan April 15 2016 11: 35
        +1
        Quote: FooFighter
        Then you need to watch the movie "Napoleon, the Russian Campaign" which they and the British recently filmed, where, in addition to all other Russophobia, even Berezina is recorded as a victory, but at the end he is smashed ... the Englishmen at Waterloo

        The British are chmyr, they have no land victories, and dofiga ambition. So, to support your ego, you have to unwind even those battles in which the Angles won thanks to the allies of the Prussians at Waterloo and the French in the Crimean campaign. We Russians need to know the real history, we don't need to invent anything. The words of Catherine's general: "Everything will be ours, and the snout in the blood is also ours."
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Rastas
      Rastas April 14 2016 22: 20
      +2
      Well, if you read Manfred, then you probably should have understood that not all the wars that Napoleon waged happened through his fault. Not all the wars he unleashed. He has become an aggressor since the attack on Spain, well, maybe, as an exception, partly in Egypt even earlier. Prior to this, European countries, led by England, wove constant intrigues against France.
    4. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 27
      0
      Romance is no coincidence. Napoleon built his entire state on a romantic beginning. Contempt for death was most appreciated by him.
  5. Heimdall47
    Heimdall47 April 14 2016 13: 21
    +5
    An interesting article, only a little hurts the eye that the author everywhere pushes Suvorov. What for? He is a great commander, but an article about another figure who is great in itself without reference to anyone.
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 14 2016 14: 35
      +1
      Suvorov is mentioned once in brackets, one more time his tactics, Napoleon - 15 times
      An article about the defeat of the Sardinian kingdom ... the Austrians are mentioned (16 times) - why didn’t this cause your righteous romantic indignation?
      1. Heimdall47
        Heimdall47 April 14 2016 14: 46
        +6
        why didn’t it cause your righteous romantic indignation?

        The article describes how Napoleon fought with Italians and Austrians. Here it is appropriate to mention them. Alexander Vasilievich had the same relation to the events as Rumyantsev or Joseph Vissarionovich.
        So the question arises - where does Suvorov? Why not the Turenne, which Napoleon admired and studied in detail at war, or Hannibal?
        There is a thought that the author is complexing about Napoleon’s talent and wants to show that we, too, do not slap cabbage soup — Napoleon used the Suvorov’s tactic laughing Where does he say without us. This is some primitivism.
        1. Foofighter
          Foofighter April 14 2016 15: 04
          +1
          Despite the fact that his tactics. And about that because of which the Alpine campaign of Suvorov took place in those parts, and at the same time, do you know?
          in the same way, a little later Nelson borrowed Ushakov’s tactics, which are not generally accepted in England
          Traced in the comments that some just trudge from the mentioned 15 times Napoleon a "EVERYWHERE" mentioned once Suvorov cuts their eyes ... bully
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 14 2016 15: 08
            +1
            Mentioned is a certain Suvorov tactics which somewhere apparently studied young Bonaparte.
            1. Foofighter
              Foofighter April 14 2016 15: 16
              +1
              Is it the other way around Suvorov studied at Napoleon?

              not a young Soviet Bonaparte tried to get into the service of the Russian army
              1. Heimdall47
                Heimdall47 April 14 2016 15: 40
                +2
                Is it the other way around Suvorov studied at Napoleon?

                Did Peter 1 and his generals (and, therefore, Suvorov indirectly) not learn from Karl the Twelfth?

                Everyone studied from someone and everyone borrowed something from someone. But why it is necessary to put Suvorov at the beginning of this chain is not clear. Although it’s understandable why you are doing this, mother Russia must be shoved everywhere. laughing As if she had little glory without this.
                1. Foofighter
                  Foofighter April 14 2016 15: 51
                  -1
                  No, they didn’t study, and Suvorov didn’t look like that.

                  It seems someone just needs to reduce this fame ...
                  1. Heimdall47
                    Heimdall47 April 14 2016 16: 01
                    +1
                    No, not studied

                    Those. when Peter called the Swedes his teachers, he also lied his he_ril glory? laughing Or are you not aware that he called them that?
                    It seems someone just needs to reduce this fame ...

                    This pride is already immeasurable, not glory.
                    What other glory do you need when Russia defeated all whoever is possible? Let it crooked somewhere askew, not Napoleonic, but tight. Therefore, it is not necessary to turn children's theories wherever they fall.
                    1. Foofighter
                      Foofighter April 14 2016 16: 17
                      -2
                      Of course, he was before her even before ... and he was also taught by the Dutch carpenters under whom he dressed up.

                      That Napoleon and the Swedes broke yet, huh ... bully Genghis Khan and Tamerlan did not defeat, but they did not reach. Therefore you need torii bully
                    2. The comment was deleted.
              2. Cartalon
                Cartalon April 14 2016 15: 45
                0
                You did not answer where and how Bonaparte could study Suvorov’s tactics?
                1. Foofighter
                  Foofighter April 14 2016 15: 49
                  -1
                  How do you study?

                  Nelson generally studied Ushakov’s tactics personally.
                  1. Cartalon
                    Cartalon April 14 2016 15: 52
                    0
                    I live after 200 years and poorly speak Russian poorly, and which Bonaparte were there for that opportunity?
                    1. Foofighter
                      Foofighter April 14 2016 16: 22
                      -1
                      What about french? wassat Or could it not be because the Internet was not?
                      1. Morrrow
                        Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 33
                        0
                        Do not bother. Tell us what is common in the tactical schemes of Napoleon and Suvorov.
                      2. Foofighter
                        Foofighter April 19 2016 00: 24
                        0
                        Something is written in the article ... And how does this relate to the fact that someone here cannot understand how the Corsican could study these schemes?
            2. Morrrow
              Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 31
              0
              And where did Napoleon study with Suvorov? Suvrorov taught in Brienne?
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 19 2016 00: 29
                0
                Yes, it is there ... externally.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Heimdall47
          Heimdall47 April 14 2016 15: 23
          +2
          Despite the fact that his tactics.

          Can you prove it? Why not the same Turenne or Caesar?
          Turenne gained fame as one of the prominent French commanders during the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), as well as in the wars waged in the second half of the XNUMXth century by King Louis XIV. Viscount was a master of unconventional tactics, aimed at achieving victory with a surprise attack
          Will Turenne also be assigned to the "Suvorov school"? laughing
          a little later, Nelson borrowed the tactics of Ushakov, about which it is not at all customary to mention England

          May be. But with all due respect to Ushakov and Suvorov, these figures are by no means of the same scale as Nelson and Napoleon. At least in the number of battles and broken opposition. And therefore it is strange to equate them.
          Patriotism is good, but constantly representing Russia as the birthplace of elephants is foolish. She is already great.
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 14 2016 15: 47
            0
            Well, for me, Suvorov, in person, all other things being equal, has every chance against Napoleon))
            1. Heimdall47
              Heimdall47 April 14 2016 15: 54
              +1
              Well, for me, Suvorov, in person, all other things being equal, has every chance against Napoleon))

              Perhaps, but one can only guess. It may well be that Suvorov was able to grind the Prussians and Austrians like Napoleon. But history did not give him this chance. And Bonaparte provided.
              Therefore, Wishlist and fortunetellers are good, but there is a cruel reality where Napoleon destroyed the best enemy armies of his time, but Suvorov did not.
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 14 2016 15: 59
                0
                Let's count without fortune-tellers - Kutuzov is no better than Suvorov, Kutuzov crushed Napoleon’s army ...

                Napoleon destroyed them as a Turk, he is a war criminal. Then, absolutely idiotically, he climbed into Russia and destroyed almost all the armies of the "EU" there. wassat

                Suvorov did not have Berezina and Waterloo ...
                1. Heimdall47
                  Heimdall47 April 14 2016 16: 13
                  +2
                  Suvorov did not have Berezina and Waterloo ...

                  He did not have much since he was an independent figure and was kept on a strong leash by the emperor.
                  You also did not have Waterloo, but I think this will not do you a plus))
                  Kutuzov crushed Napoleon's army.

                  Bonaparte was already exhausted by then. The mistake gave that he climbed into Russia - there are no absolute geniuses, everyone is mistaken.
                  He himself understood that his limit as a commander was close to exhaustion, about which he spoke, but could not stop. Pride killed a man.
                  1. Foofighter
                    Foofighter April 14 2016 20: 46
                    -1
                    And what would it be? belay
                    Maloyaroslavets and Berezina he had, and not Waterloo. So he didn’t seem to be engaged in running, he was even carried on a sled ...
                    There were several major miscalculations in the choice of means and their holding as well as the choice of the very purpose of the campaign.
                    His pride killed millions, but not only him
                    1. Morrrow
                      Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 36
                      0
                      What was in Maloyaroslavets? Napoleon in 1796 and 1815 - is it one person or another?
                    2. Foofighter
                      Foofighter April 19 2016 00: 21
                      0
                      Yes, really, but what happened in Maloyaroslavets? In 1815, Napoleon-2 did not seem to have existed yet.
                  2. Morrrow
                    Morrrow April 18 2016 21: 51
                    0
                    And who organized the anti-French coalitions?
                  3. Foofighter
                    Foofighter April 19 2016 00: 27
                    0
                    Do you think "scoundrel and mediocrity" A.V.Suvorov? laughing
                    Probably those who did not like the French terror.
              2. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 15 2016 23: 41
                -1
                The Tsar Emperor kept Suvorov in the sovereign service, as did Ushakova, and the English king, Nelson.
                And your emperor, the leader of the Napoleon, who repeatedly led to the Sahara, will add Siberia, and then throwing his armies there - bullshit, which then couldn’t do anything without his murath father-in-law, and whose army was turned into forcemeat instead of surrendering under Fer-Champenoise .
                Leashes are your part ...
                1. Morrrow
                  Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 36
                  0
                  Where did he throw his army?
            2. Morrrow
              Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 35
              0
              In what battle? On the Berezina or what? Against hungry rascals?
            3. Morrrow
              Morrrow April 18 2016 22: 08
              +1
              Suvorov had an unsuccessful Swiss campaign. Suvorov did not fight against the Austrians, Prussians and the British.
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 19 2016 00: 31
                0
                You rave three comments in a row ... laughing You would have read at least one book about Suvorov, you can with an eye on the portrait of Napoleon (autographed by Kutuzov). bully
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 14 2016 16: 03
            0
            How would we have an Italian company that makes it clear that Suvorov was able to defeat the French army, and if he had unconditional powers and not limited as in reality, then he would have grinded as you put it
            1. Foofighter
              Foofighter April 14 2016 20: 59
              0
              We have a broken French and twelve languages ​​army in Russia commander weaker than Suvorov, certainly and without any sort of.
      2. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 14 2016 15: 57
        +3
        This is to the author. You will soon attribute Hitler and the Japanese.

        It cannot be, but it is. Since when have Ushakov and Suvorov become worse than Nelson and Napoleon? Suvorov has 93 victories without a single defeat, Ushakov in all his battles in general not a single lost ship!
        Are you an Englishman? Then it is clear...
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 14 2016 16: 19
          -1
          These are exactly the ones that you have done the most harm to Russian weapons
          1. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 14 2016 20: 50
            0
            Explain the account of harm ... In essence, what is written about the brilliant victories of Suvorov and Ushakov?
            1. Morrrow
              Morrrow April 18 2016 21: 58
              0
              However, what does Suvorov and Ushakov have to do with it? It discusses the greatest creation of Bonaparte, his Italian miracles.
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 19 2016 00: 36
                0
                His greatest creation is the self-destruction of the army of the entire European Union in Russia
                However, despite the fact that someone once mentioned EVERYWHERE Suvorov did not like it.
        2. Heimdall47
          Heimdall47 April 14 2016 22: 03
          +1
          Since when have Ushakov and Suvorov become worse than Nelson and Napoleon? Suvorov has 93 victories without a single defeat,

          But a certain Tarle Evgeny Viktorovich (you know this?) Claims the following:
          Napoleon gave about 60 large and small battles in his lifetime (quantitatively incomparably more than Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Caesar and Suvorov in total), and much more masses took part in these battles than in the wars of his predecessors in military art
          Scoundrel, right? How belittles our glory. laughing Sheer worship of the West. And this is in the Stalinist era.
          Ushakov in all his battles in general not a single lost ship

          With the Turks, who were worthless for military qualities? But Nelson beat first-class at the time the fleets of the French and Spaniards. You can say that they are no good, but it wasn’t better at that time - with the exception of the British. You can also add Danes to him.
          1. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 15 2016 14: 26
            -1
            It turns out that your Frenchman Tarle did not know or "forgot" that Suvorov has 93 victories out of 93.
            With the Turks, even on wooden ships, Ushakov did what the British then grabbed on steel dreadnoughts in 1915.

            All the same, a strange people here, and even some with the flag of New Russia ...
            1. Heimdall47
              Heimdall47 April 15 2016 16: 28
              0
              All the same, a strange people here, and even some with the flag of New Russia ...

              Yes - strange ... I understand - you have your own reality, where Tarle is a Frenchman, the opinions of academics involved in this matter are not taken into account, the opinion of historical characters is also not important. Where the Turkish military power in the land aspect approaches Napoleonic, and the sea, at least, surpasses the combined Franco-Spanish. laughing Believe further, the main thing is not to go crazy ..
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 15 2016 19: 16
                +1
                Is Tarle a Russian name? The opinion of whose academicians? Characters cannot be historical.
                Quote: Heimdall47
                Where the Turkish military power in the land aspect approaches Napoleonic, and the sea, at least, surpasses the combined Franco-Spanish. laughing Believe on, the main thing is not to go crazy ..

                Explain ...
                Turks in Egypt, the French did not win?
                1. Heimdall47
                  Heimdall47 April 15 2016 21: 12
                  0
                  Is Tarle a Russian name? The opinion of whose academicians?

                  Have you finished school at least? laughing Tarle is a Soviet Jew and part-time academician.
                  Correctly I guess - Are you a victim of the exam? laughing Then of course Suvorov has 930 battles behind him and 100 parachute jumps
                  Turks in Egypt didn’t defeat the French

                  In what battle was Napoleon defeated by the Turkish army without assistance?
                2. Foofighter
                  Foofighter April 15 2016 21: 56
                  0
                  And what origin? No, the victim of the USE is obviously you, Suvorov has 93 battles and he won in all - Soviet textbooks were written this way, and not only in Soviet ones.
                  Maybe the British still helped with Borodino? laughing
                3. Heimdall47
                  Heimdall47 April 15 2016 22: 07
                  0
                  And what origin?

                  Something is not funny already, but stupid.
                  Tarle never hid his ethnic background. His phrase “... I am not a Frenchman, but a Jew, and my last name is pronounced Tarle” became famous.
                  And here is Borodino, when it comes to the Turkish army, which allegedly defeated the French? How and when did she do it?
                4. Foofighter
                  Foofighter April 15 2016 22: 34
                  0
                  Yes, it's really stupid - everywhere about the result of this campaign of Napoleon there is written "victory of the Ottoman Empire", the British of course write British-Osman victory, look at this page in French about propaganda and Egyptology laughing
                  Despite the fact that after him the English ambassador tried to hide behind the Russian stove - it means that at least one Englishman was near Borodino! laughing wassat
                  If Tarle was a Jew, he would never have said so.
                5. Morrrow
                  Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 40
                  0
                  Can you comment on the results of the Abukir battle where the 7 thousandth order of the French from the march through the desert defeated the 25 thousandth army of the Turks?
                6. Foofighter
                  Foofighter April 21 2016 18: 27
                  0
                  And what does Clausewitz write about this? bully

                  maybe the Turks had just dysentery, the salary was unpaid, or Friday and they didn’t want to fight during prayer?

                  it was raining in the desert and the bowstrings were wet or their Mameluke archers somewhere led away to water their horses (this is to the question of what two Bashkirs squadrons with the French regiment later did near Austerlitz).
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 15 2016 22: 00
          0
          Well, he was not defeated by the Turkish army and with outside help, there was one Abdallah formerly known as General Menu who was defeated and the British did it
        5. Heimdall47
          Heimdall47 April 15 2016 22: 14
          0
          It seems that this citizen is FooFighter, either fools around, or he himself is smile
        6. Foofighter
          Foofighter April 15 2016 23: 17
          -1
          I’m fumbling for the two of you - no, your "infallible saint" from there, as after the Berezina, one left on a sledge, the last time after two abdications and three surrenders of armies apparently just got tired of it ...
  • Morrrow
    Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 37
    0
    How much how much? Why not 930?
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 21 2016 18: 24
      0
      Because even the Germans know that there were 93 of them, trying to lower one to a draw.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm April 22 2016 17: 45
    0
    Quote: Heimdall47
    a little later, Nelson borrowed the tactics of Ushakov, about which it is not at all customary to mention England

    May be. But with all due respect to Ushakov and Suvorov, these figures are by no means of the same scale as Nelson and Napoleon.

    Ushakov Nelson taught intelligence in 1798, in the Mediterranean Sea during the liberation of Naples, Nelson did not particularly show himself there, unlike Ushakov, and besides, he somewhat froze his honor with reprisals against French prisoners.
  • Morrrow
    Morrrow April 18 2016 22: 07
    -1
    What kind of nonsense? Clausewitz would be revered and not dishonored.
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 21 2016 18: 25
      0
      And how much was the Clausewitz?
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 14 2016 15: 53
    -1
    Quote: Cartalon
    You did not answer where and how Bonaparte could study Suvorov’s tactics?

    Just the answer "instead of that guy" - you think that publicly available materials in the European press of the triumphant Russian-Austrian campaign of 1789-190. were not available to him?

    And Suvorov’s first campaign in Poland — so there the French generally were repeatedly officers of the Poles, and in France they studied in great detail.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 14 2016 15: 57
      -1
      So how did tactics of battalion squares against non-regular troops help Bonaparte in Italy?
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 42
      0
      Not studied. The French studied only Turenne and Frederick. But what do Suvorov and Napoleon have in common?
      1. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 19 2016 00: 55
        0
        And for everything else, they turned away and spat at all, and did not read newspapers at all ...
  • Verdun
    Verdun April 14 2016 16: 39
    +1
    Quote: Cartalon
    You did not answer where and how Bonaparte could study Suvorov’s tactics?

    With some similarities, Napoleon's tactics have little in common with Suvorov's. Napoleon focused on artillery. "After all, Bonaparte and I are both gunners." - words attributed to Kutuzov. The key to most of Suvorov's victories is swift marches and an attack on an unprepared or unprepared enemy.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 14 2016 17: 02
      +1
      In fact, the general thing is this desire to attack in any situation, I just can’t agree that Bonaparte came to the need for purely attacking actions studying Suvorov’s actions against weakly stable Turks and Poles, rather, these are similar character traits and reaction to the tendency of the Austrians to scatter forces
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Verdun
        Verdun April 14 2016 20: 55
        -1
        I remember that in Egypt, the French and the Turks did not work out very well. And in the Italian campaign, Suvorov did not fight with the Turks and Poles. As for Bonaparte, from what I read about him, he hardly drew attention to the exploits of the Russian commander. He had other idols.
        1. Foofighter
          Foofighter April 14 2016 21: 04
          -1
          Nelson, too, as it were in a word about Ushakov.

          This Englishman, by the way, is also a war criminal, he did this in Italy.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 14 2016 21: 42
          0
          Still, the Italian company of Suvorov was later, and what kind of problems did the French have with the Turks?
          1. Verdun
            Verdun April 14 2016 21: 48
            0
            Lack of tangible results. In general, comparing Bonaparte and Suvorov is pointless. One is the emperor, and the second is a servant to the king, a father to the soldiers. The capabilities and resources of Bonaparte Suvorov never had!
            1. Cartalon
              Cartalon April 15 2016 05: 39
              0
              Uh conquering egypt is the lack of result oh well
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 15 2016 14: 47
                0
                How long did he stay in French?
                even french wikipedia writes

                General information
                Date 1798 - 1801
                Lieu Égypte et Levant
                Casus belli Le Directoire décide d'entraver la puissance commerciale britannique, en barrant la route des Indes orientales
                Issue Fin de la période des begs mamelouks
                Échec de la campagne et capitulation des forces françaises
                Début de l'égyptologie
                Accroissement du prestige de Bonaparte grâce a la propagande

                last three lines ...
                RESULT:
                Defeat in the campaign, surrender of the French forces
                Egyptology debut
                Bonaparte's growing prestige through propaganda

                Egyptology, this is yes ... laughing and you're busy with propaganda here.
                1. Morrrow
                  Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 46
                  0
                  And what is wrong with the Turks then? And who capitulated to whom? Napoleon or what?
                  1. Foofighter
                    Foofighter April 19 2016 00: 59
                    0
                    And above, immediately under "RESULT" it was written ... No, it was not he who surrendered, he fled. He is the emperor "saint". Another capitulated for him ...

                    Then they also removed Rommel from Africa on time ... only to get into Africa without having dominance at sea was not his initiative. lol
                2. Morrrow
                  Morrrow April 18 2016 22: 15
                  0
                  Did the Tukrks take Paris or did they occupy Normandy? No need to carry nonsense The Turks were completely defeated at Abukir.
                  1. Foofighter
                    Foofighter April 19 2016 01: 03
                    0
                    Under Abukir there was another battle and in the end the French surrendered to the Turks near Aleppo.
                    The fate of the French soldiers is interested ...
        4. Morrrow
          Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 45
          0
          And what is wrong with the French and the Turks?
          1. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 21 2016 18: 32
            0
            and they finally surrendered to them ...
      3. Morrrow
        Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 43
        0
        To attack or not to attack is a strategy.
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 44
      0
      Wrong. However, where is he in the Italian army artillery.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 14 2016 16: 55
    0
    Quote: FooFighter
    In Sudan, in Africa, at least slave traders ..

    The funny thing is that Bonopart considered this issue. But the slave traders in Africa were mostly Muslims, and the surrendered Turkish soldiers were Muslims, and the Muslim cannot be kept in slavery to another Muslim, so even if they were bought, they would have been released right away.

    And what are we talking about? The French army in Egypt is a classic "blue", ie the revolutionary troops that grew out of the gangs of sansculottes, for which to carry out a mass execution of EVEN YOUR CITIZENS was without question. And here are some Turks ...

    Quote: Cartalon
    And when were they the executions of Russian prisoners?

    In general, before the 1812 war, the year of executions of Russian prisoners was not recorded. Even more, on the contrary, starting from 1805 to 1811 of the year, in all battles, the French provided medical assistance to the Russian wounded, who remained on the battlefield or were captured.

    But in 1812, there were terrible things - not to mention the "Russian guerillas" - the French reached the point of executing their own wounded, and what can we say about Russian prisoners.

    But the war in Russia was more than a war. And by the way, many of our officers, even during the war of 1812, and afterwards, during the overseas campaigns, sometimes ordered to kill prisoners. BUT the French were the first to set an example. As the saying goes, "as it comes around, it will respond."
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 14 2016 17: 20
      +2
      Googling a bit on the topic is what I found: After the battle, the opposing armies, if one of them didn’t immediately go on the run, exchanged lists of prisoners. Through parliamentarians, letters and money could be transmitted. Vasily Norov wrote to his relatives about his brother Abraham (wounded at Borodin, he was left in Moscow with thousands of other Russian wounded): “the brother shed his blood for the fatherland and fell into the hands of an enemy, but man-loving, for the brother himself writes that he and all the wounded it’s very good for our officers, the doctors are skilled, and his wound heals. "General Yermolov and all the officers of the guards artillery, having received letters from him through the French parliament and learning that he needed money, sent him a significant amount of gold coins." Norov even missed the farmer Dmitry Semenov sent by his parents, with whom Norov sent a letter home.
      (Although the wounded in hospitals and medical personnel were not considered prisoners according to the rules of those times, the French apparently looked at Norov and his unfortunate comrades as prisoners, asking them to “return us to our army if we give a receipt for pro forma, that we won’t enter the ranks again during the campaign. ”(Norov). None of the Russians agreed to this. It is interesting that, according to Norov’s memoirs, immediately after the French left Moscow, one of the wounded in the same hospital came to the wounded Russians. Frenchmen and said: "Gentlemen, you have been our captives so far, now we are yours. Gentlemen, I have no doubt that you could not complain about your treatment, let me express the hope that we will meet the same attitude! .. ”The French even gave the Russians for storage their valuables - money, orders, etc.).
      1. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 14 2016 21: 32
        -1
        Could it be the officers' hospital of the noblemen for whom they would pay a ransom?
        The French exported gold from Russia (from the devastated Russian churches in which they arranged their stables) more than conquistadors for all time from Latin America, and most of these cultural values ​​have not been returned to Russia.
        Having taken Paris, the Russians there just drank all the champagne that came to hand, and bought this champagne later ...

        Do you need links to German and other atrocities from WWII?
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 49
          0
          French or Germans? Historians write that the Saxons atrocities.
          1. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 19 2016 00: 53
            0
            Saxons in 1941-44.
      2. Verdun
        Verdun April 14 2016 22: 27
        0
        And you read at Ermolov how, during the occupation of Moscow, Murat and Miloradovich visited each other on a binge.
    2. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 14 2016 21: 24
      -1
      They "reached" this almost at the very beginning. Smolensk, more than 800 wounded Russian prisoners of war were shot at one time.

      That "bruises" then "provided medical assistance", well, yes ...

      Muslim slavers almost never were
      1. Morrrow
        Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 49
        0
        Give a fact, not a chatter.
        1. Foofighter
          Foofighter April 21 2016 19: 15
          0
          The fact was cited in the first line.

          You come across - they will transfer to another chamber from the Corsican, there the Tolstoyans will force him to read his works and leave them like a pierre without an ear ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 21 2016 19: 31
            0
            ... and no Clausewitz will help you.
    3. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 47
      0
      Can I have an example and statistics of executions? This is not described in any work!
      1. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 19 2016 00: 45
        0
        Do you have a chatter and some kind of wrong raota you read ... maybe you are a Frenchman?
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon April 14 2016 17: 36
    +1
    And here is the source for Seguyr’s memoir
    The imperial column was approaching Gzhatsk (now the city of Gagarin. - Ed.); she was amazed to meet the Russians just killed on her way. The remarkable thing is that each of them had a completely equally broken head and that a bloodied brain was scattered right there. It was known that before us there were two thousand Russian prisoners and that they were accompanied by the Spaniards, Portuguese and Poles ...
    Obviously, reprisals against prisoners are not Napoleon's initiative, he valued his reputation
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 14 2016 21: 26
      -1
      Obviously Smolensk on the way to Moscow and west of Gzhatsk, there it was, if not on his orders, then with his knowledge ...
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 14 2016 20: 35
    +3
    Quote: Cartalon
    It was known that before us there were two thousand Russian prisoners and that they were accompanied by the Spaniards, Portuguese and Poles ...

    For the Spaniards and the Portuguese, this is generally not characteristic. Moreover, they were soldiers who were torn from their homeland by force, without any serious military spirit.

    But the Poles are under serious suspicion. they had something to fight for, the double division of Speech was in memory, and most of the "legionnaires of the Vistula" fought under the banners of Kosciuszko, and most importantly, they have a downright genetic hatred of Russians. I read that the battles at the outposts between the Polish uhlans and the Russian Cossacks literally turned into a fight of wild animals, both sides did not take prisoners (while outpost battles of the regular French and Russian cavalry, in general, resembled a polite exchange of blows).
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 14 2016 21: 08
      -3
      What were the Poles to fight for? They then did not depend on the Russian crown, and Warsaw before the arrival of the French after the "partitions of Poland" was under the Germans!
      The same as everyone - they went to rob slaves as well.
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon April 14 2016 21: 44
        0
        Stop trolling is not interesting already
        1. Foofighter
          Foofighter April 15 2016 06: 26
          -1
          Look at the map of the Polish partitions and not the troll.
          Warsaw went to the Russian Empire only after the Napoleonic Wars.
          All three Polish sections are the division of Poland between Austria and Prussia among themselves; only Belarus and Little Russian lands captured by Lithuania and then bypassed by the Poles left Russia.
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 15 2016 10: 53
            0
            Listen to any person familiar with the subject, the Poles’s attitude towards Russia is known and to which lands the Poles considered their own, given that in the other comments you make equally absurd statements, you can either assume that you just did not read a couple of books on this era or you just troll discussion
            1. Foofighter
              Foofighter April 15 2016 14: 07
              0
              It turns out that Dumas wrote nothing about the sections of Poland ...
            2. Foofighter
              Foofighter April 15 2016 14: 32
              0
              Interestingly, what should the Poles have to do with Napoleon? He brought them better than Susanin laughing laughing laughing
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 15 2016 14: 51
                0
                that's who he "surpassed in fame", not Suvorov (Alexander Vasilyevich) crying
              2. The comment was deleted.
            3. The comment was deleted.
  • Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin April 15 2016 19: 18
    +1
    Quote: FooFighter
    Interestingly, what should the Poles have to do with Napoleon?

    They honor and respect him for having recreated the "Duchy of Warsaw" and perceive the formation of all kinds of "legions" as the next stage in the struggle against "damned Moscow expansionism." Exactly. Although, as a result of the support of Napoleon, Poland ceased to exist as an independent state.
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 15 2016 22: 24
      0
      And left him, as before, under German rule ... Well then, why did they cut off Ivan Susanin’s leg, was he clearly a Bonapartist and ahead of his time? lol
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 19: 53
      0
      Pole Kosciuszko dictated to him, Napoleon, what Poland should be like and where he, Napoleon, should move an army for Greater Poland. After such impudence, Napoleon, when asked by the parliamentarian what to convey to Kosciuszko, said - "Tell him that he is."
    3. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 18 2016 22: 16
      0
      Before Napoleon there was no Poland at all, what are you talking about?
      1. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 19 2016 01: 12
        0
        Due to the alliance of France, it was divided for the 2nd and 3rd time. After Napoleon, it had not had sovereignty for more than 100 years.

        Before unification with the ON through the successful marriage of his princess, this kingdom was slightly larger than Czech
      2. The comment was deleted.