Military Review

The genius of the maneuver who beat Napoleon

158
The genius of the maneuver who beat Napoleon



Maneuver as one of the most important factors in achieving success in combat is of paramount importance in the art of war. From the most ancient times, the warring armies used it both on the battlefield (tactical) and on the scale of the entire theater of operations (strategic), with the aim of transferring troops to the right direction, withdrawing them from the enemy strike or creating the required group of forces and forces. classes more advantageous position. The role of maneuver increased with the improvement of the means of warfare, the growth of the number and mobility of troops.

We consider the implementation of a major maneuver in the Russian army at the end of the XVIII - beginning of the XIX century in the commanding activity of M.I. Kutuzov. He made extensive use of maneuver in various forms (a retreat and offensive march-maneuver, flanking, embracing and bypass) and made him the key to all his famous victories.

Well aware that victory was ultimately achieved by combat, he sought, with the help of a maneuver, to take the fight or impose it on the enemy in the most favorable conditions for the Russian army. For Kutuzov, one of the main goals of the maneuver was to strive to save his troops and achieve victory with little blood. "For ten French I will not give up one Russian," was the motto of the great commander.

All the hostilities in which Kutuzov led the Russian troops are imbued with the idea of ​​maneuver. This is explained by the fact that the commander had to take command, as a rule, in the most unfavorable, and sometimes even critical for the army conditions, with an unprofitable balance of forces for the Russians. Therefore, he was forced to start fighting with a maneuver that was designed to withdraw his troops from the blow, gather all his forces into a fist and achieve a change in the situation in our favor and go on the offensive.

In the 1805 campaign of the year, the Russian commander, hurrying with the 50-thousandth army to help the Austrian troops to Ulm, unexpectedly, in 1000 km from the Russian border, appeared before Napoleon's 150-thousandth army. The latter, having foreshadowed the formation of the armies of his opponents, with the help of a swift, offensive march-maneuver surrounded the Austrian troops under Ulm and on October 7 forced them to surrender. True to his principle of beating the enemy piecemeal, Napoleon decided by the same method and just as quickly end the Russian army, which at that time was still concentrating in Braunau. However, here he faced a worthy opponent. Having guessed the plan of the French commander, Kutuzov opposed him to an offensive march-maneuver, which aimed to surround the Russian army, an even more skillful retreat march-maneuver and brought the Russian troops out of the way. When the French 17 October entered Braunau, the Russian army was no longer there. Napoleon’s hopes of a quick victory over the Russians did not materialize.

Kutuzov’s plan was to avoid a general battle under unfavorable conditions, to withdraw his army to Tsnaym, then to Olmuts, to meet the Buxgewden army advanced from Russia and the Allied Austrian troops, and then, when all forces were gathered into a fist, go to offensive and defeat the French.



Kutuzov’s masterful maneuver preempted all Napoleon’s attempts to cut off the retreat from the Russian army and avoided encirclement. After several unsuccessful attempts to bypass the Russian troops and press them to the Danube on the right bank, Napoleon transferred Mortier’s corps to the opposite bank to block the path of our army to Tsnaym. Kutuzov, in the battle of Amstetten, threw away the troops of Murat, who were pursuing him along the right bank, quickly sent the entire army across the Danube and destroyed the bridge behind him. After that, using favorable conditions, Kutuzov moved his army towards the troops of Mortier and in the battle at Krems on October 30 utterly defeated the French corps. Napoleon, being on the other side of the Danube, was forced to be content with the role of an impotent witness of the “Kremnaya carnage” (as he called it his defeat), while Kutuzov continued to withdraw the army through Crem to Tsnaym.



Never defeated, Napoleon made a new decisive maneuver to surround the Russian army. On the move, overcoming the resistance of the Austrians, he quickly advanced troops to Vienna, captured it, and there sent the entire army across the Danube, so that the main forces would again block the way for the Russians to Tsnaym.

But Kutuzov and this time in a timely manner revealed the enemy’s maneuver and answered with a counter-maneuver. He advanced to meet the French, to Schöngraben, the 6-thousand-strong detachment of Bagration, who had fought with the entire French army for almost a day and had restrained its onslaught. Having forewarned the French in a maneuver at Znaim, Kutuzov withdrew his troops through this point to Olmutsu, and thereby completely disrupted Napoleon’s plans for their encirclement.

As a result of the 400-kilometer march maneuver from Braunau to Olmutsu, the Russian commander achieved a change in the strategic situation. In Olmuts, his army united with the approached reserves, after which its number increased to 86 thousand people. 80 thousand Austrian troops from Italy were expected. In addition, Kutuzov forced the enemy to stretch his forces during the offensive march, as a result of which Napoleon managed to bring all 60 thousand people to Olmuts. This was the result of the "masterful movements" of Kutuzov. Kutuzov surpassed his illustrious adversary in the art of maneuver.

The great Russian commander failed to fully implement the planned campaign plan and realize the strategic advantages achieved by the march-maneuver for defeating the French. The emperor Alexander I, who had arrived in the army and was pushed by the allies, sent troops to die in the Austerlitz battle, which was prematurely and ineptly conducted according to the Austrian plan.

On the other hand, Kutuzov’s maneuver against the Turkish army under Rushchuk in 1811 ended in a completely different way, when he managed to maintain his independence in command before the end. As in 1805, Kutuzov received an army in a very difficult situation for her. Against 80 thousand Turkish troops, whose main forces (60 thousand) were hiding in the strong fortress of Shumla, he had only 46 thousand. Russian troops were stretched along the Danube on the 1000-kilometer front. At the same time, Alexander I, having appointed Kutuzov as commander-in-chief of the Danube (Moldavian) army in 1811, demanded that he achieve a quick and decisive victory in the war with Turkey, which none of his predecessors, who had twice their strength, could accomplish over the years. In carrying out such a difficult task, Kutuzov again relied on the maneuver. But, unlike 5, when his actions were forced, he used the opponent's passivity and immediately took the initiative in his hands. This difficult and then very few people understandable maneuvering combined with military cunning from the very beginning was imbued with the idea of ​​an offensive.

Kutuzov first of all decided to lure the Turkish troops from Shumla and draw them into battle in the open country. Leaving the fortresses captured earlier by the Russian troops and gathering his few forces into a fist, he took up a position on the southern bank of the Danube under the Rushchuk fortress, deploying his troops to the rear of the river.

As Mikhail Illarionovich suggested, the commander of the Turkish army could not resist the seductive prospect of pressing the small Russian army to the Danube and destroying it. But everything turned out quite differently. In the battle under the walls of Ruschuka, where 15 thousands of Russian soldiers came together against 60 thousands of Turks, the Ottoman army was defeated on June 22. Kutuzov's plan was justified. However, the Russian commander went even further in his military tricks. He did not pursue the Turkish army that had fled, and did not lead his troops to Shumla, but unexpectedly for all he ordered to blow up the fortifications of Ruschuka and sent his troops to the Danube. Kutuzov explained his unexpected maneuver to the bewildered officers as follows. If the Russian army rushes after the Turks, then it will probably reach the walls of Šumly, but it will be problematic to take it. We'll have to go back, as it did last year. This will enable the Turkish Vizier to declare himself the winner. It is much better to encourage "my friend Ahmed Pasha, and he will come to us again."

That is exactly what happened. The Turkish vizier considered himself the winner of the Ruschuksky battle, quickly strengthened his army to 70 thousand people and rushed after the Russians beyond the Danube. Part of the army in the number of 20 thousand soldiers Ahmed Pasha left on the right bank under Ruschuk, to ensure the rear.

Kutuzov, having achieved a favorable situation for himself, immediately moved from defense to decisive offensive actions. A broad roundabout maneuver with the crossing of the Danube, the Russian troops of the part of the forces (Markov's detachment) went to the rear of the Turkish army and cut off its escape route to the right bank. At the same time, the main forces of Kutuzov attacked the Turks from the front and the flanks on the left bank and pressed them against the Danube. The Turkish army was completely blocked. Using his brilliant victory and outstanding diplomatic skills, the Russian commander forced Turkey, an ally of France, to sign peace before Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. The decisive role in this victory was played by subtly conceived and consistently carried out maneuvering, which Kutuzov imposed on the enemy the desired actions.



With particular fullness and strength, his talent was revealed in the Patriotic War 1812 of the year, during which the Russian commander reached the top of his military glory and enriched the art of war with new forms of maneuver that had not been used before. During the general battle in the Borodino field, Kutuzov, inflicting irreplaceable damage to the enemy and seriously undermining his strength, did not risk his army in a new battle on the outskirts of Moscow, which was to become as bloody as Borodino. He decided to achieve a final change in the course of the war and the subsequent complete defeat of the French army with the help of a tried and tested means - maneuver, alternating with private battles and battles. Acting in this way, Kutuzov wanted to exclude all chance and win with less losses.

In order to achieve this goal, the great commander, who was deeply aware of his responsibility for the fate of Russia, sacrificed Moscow in order to “prepare Moscow for the enemy the inevitable death ...” Such a sacrifice was necessary to implement the ingenious Tarutino maneuver that Kutuzov had planned over Russia in mastering its capital.

On the night of August 27, the Russian army secretly left the Borodino field behind the enemy, passed through the capital, and began to retreat further along the Ryazan road. But it was not the usual retreat march maneuver, similar to that used against Napoleon in the 1805 year. On the second crossing, the main forces of the army suddenly turned to the west and, hiding behind the right p. Pakhra, carried out a flank march towards the French towards Podolsk and further to Red Pakhra. In the interests of secrecy, Kutuzov did not devote even his own headquarters to his plans. At the same time, in order to deceive the enemy, he ordered the rear guard of the Cossacks to continue withdrawing towards Ryazan, with the result that Napoleon “lost” the Russian army. She, having completed her maneuver, went out onto the Kaluga road and got up near the village of Tarutino.

Reporting to the Tsar about the goal of the Tarutinsky maneuver, Kutuzov wrote: “... I hope to force Napoleon to leave Moscow and change his entire operational line ...” The commander really achieved this. Brilliant in his conception and execution of the Tarutinsky maneuver, he at once changed the entire strategic situation in favor of the Russians. Napoleon himself later admitted: "Kutuzov let me down strongly by his flank march."

The Tarutin maneuver brought the Russian army out of the enemy’s strike, and now it itself occupied a flanking position threatening it, having gained the opportunity to influence its communications between Moscow and Smolensk. She gained freedom of maneuver and deprived of such Napoleon, having stood in the way of the French army in the southern regions of Russia, not yet ravaged by war. Mikhail Illarionovich covered not only Kaluga, where the necessary supplies for the Russian army were located, but also Tula with its powerful weapons factories. He kept in his hands the means of communication with the southern regions of the country, due to which the army was replenished and supplied. In addition, the necessary conditions were created to prepare our army for a counterattack. Ultimately, this maneuver had decisive consequences for the entire campaign of 1812.



As expected Kutuzov, the French were forced to leave Moscow. To save the day, Napoleon tried to break through to Kaluga through Maloyaroslavets. However, Kutuzov responded with a counter-maneuver and, winning the battle at Maloyaroslavets on October 12, forced Bonaparte to retreat. A new attempt to bypass the Russian army to the west, through Meren, was also thwarted by Kutuzov’s counter-maneuver. He quickly moved his troops to Detchino and the Linen Factory and again blocked the enemy's way south.

The maneuver of the Russian army to Maloyaroslavets, Detchin and Polotnyannyi Zavod cost the won general battle. By these actions, Kutuzov finally secured a strategic initiative for himself, forced Napoleon to recognize himself as defeated and retreat along the hungry Smolensk road ravaged by war. According to a participant in those events of the French General Segur, “the conquest of the world stopped here ... twenty years of continuous victories crumbled into dust.”

The offensive march-maneuver of Kutuzov during the counteroffensive of the Russian army from Maloyaroslavets to the r. Berezina, made by him, as he himself said, in the form of parallel pursuit of the enemy. In this case, it was not about the usual pursuit of an army already defeated on the battlefield in order to complete its defeat. Kutuzov was faced with a completely new task - to defeat, by parallel pursuit, the still quite strong and fully combat-ready 100-thousandth French army. And he is the first in the military stories brilliantly developed and implemented this maneuver. Napoleon’s attempt to use a similar method of action against Kutuzov’s army in 1805, as we know, suffered a complete failure.



During the pursuit, Kutuzov advanced his main forces south of the Smolensk road parallel to the retreating army of Napoleon, and, constantly threatening to step forward and stand in the way of his withdrawal, he forced the enemy to a non-stop retreat, turning him to flight. Part of the Russian forces - the corps of Miloradovich and Platov - relentlessly pursued the enemy on the heels. At the same time, Kutuzov did not miss a single opportunity, under favorable conditions, to inflict short strikes from the flanks and rear, stretching on the march of the French army, in order to destroy it in pieces. For this, for the first time he widely used mobile units of cavalry and partisan detachments. His main task Kutuzov believed the complete destruction of the army of conquerors. Under Vyazma and Red, Kutuzov drew some of his main forces to defeat the enemy. Having stood in his way, the Russians only in these two battles destroyed and captured more than 40 thousand French soldiers and officers and beat off all the artillery from them, losing only about 4 thousand people.

As a result of the offensive march-maneuver, the Russian army on the way from Maloyaroslavets to Berezina, in essence, destroyed Napoleon’s army as a combat-ready force. Berezina reached no more than 40 thousand people from the once "great army". At the final stage of the 1812 war of the year, Kutuzov undertook the most complicated maneuver at the theater of operations before anyone — a simultaneous attack on the converging directions to Borisov of three Russian armies hundreds of kilometers apart from each other, with the aim of encircling and destroying the remnants of Napoleon’s army R. Berezina.



This last in the 1812 war of the year Kutuzov’s strategic maneuver by several armies to solve a single task carried elements of an operation. Its application opened up new opportunities for strategy and was a major contribution to the development of military art. Broad strategic maneuvers are characteristic of Kutuzov’s actions when the Russian army deployed an offensive outside of Russia in 1813. They again showed the desire of the commander to combine the efforts of several armies to achieve one main goal.

As a result of Kutuzov’s maneuvers by mid-April, 1813 of the year concentrated all his forces on the Dresden bridgehead, totaling up to 92 thousand people with 656 guns. The sudden death of the great commander interrupted his vigorous activity aimed at completing the defeat of Napoleon and the liberation of Europe. Owning all the methods and forms of the armed struggle of the time, MI Kutuzov attached special importance to maneuver, turning it into the same means of achieving victory, like a battle. At the heart of its most difficult, often risky maneuvers was the high combat capability of the Russian army.

Sources:
Solovyov E. Kutuzov. The winner is Napoleon. M .: Publishing House "Thomas", 2012. C.3-23.
Lobov V. Military trick. M .: Moscow Military Historical Society; Logos, 2001. C. 58-70.
Ivanov V. The Art of Maneuvering in Leadership Activity // VIZH. 1981. No.3.
Tarle E. Mikhail Ill. Kutuzov - commander and diplomat. Rostov on Don: Phoenix, 1994. C. 477-558.
Shishov A. Kutuzov (Golenishchev-Kutuzov) Mikhail Illarionovich // One Hundred Great Commanders. M .: Veche, 2000. C. 333-340.
Author:
Articles from this series:
[B]Suddenness in the tactics of Suvorov
Special tactics of Admiral Chichagov
Genius resolute offensive strategy
158 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Korsar4
    Korsar4 April 28 2016 06: 34
    +8
    Lack of fuss. And the ability to take responsibility. With each re-reading of War and Peace, you pay more and more attention to Kutuzov.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 28 2016 08: 16
      +5
      With each re-reading of War and Peace, you pay more and more attention to Kutuzov.


      You believe less Tolstoy, the man was strongly politically biased
      1. Vend
        Vend April 28 2016 09: 50
        +1
        Quote: AK64
        With each re-reading of War and Peace, you pay more and more attention to Kutuzov.


        You believe less Tolstoy, the man was strongly politically biased

        Yes, Lev Nikolaevich made a completely sick old man from Kutuzov.
  2. qwert
    qwert April 28 2016 07: 09
    +4
    The school did not really explain. I still could not understand how Napoleon lost his army. That kind of won on Borodino, located in Moscow. And then broke away for no reason, and rushed to France. And then the Russian army seems to be driving him, and he comes to France with the miserable remnants of his army, and Alexander the Second drives into Paris the winner ... Honestly, I just realized how it was and the first time I knew that Kutuzov was beating Napoleon is still in the Italian campaign. A plus.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic April 28 2016 09: 21
      +6
      Quote: qwert
      and for the first time he learned that Kutuzov beat Napoleon in the Italian campaign.

      It is a pity that Bonaparte himself did not find out about this, during the Italian campaign of the Russian troops he was in Egypt.
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 28 2016 18: 20
        +3
        Quote: qwert
        and for the first time he learned that Kutuzov beat Napoleon in the Italian campaign.


        It is a pity that Bonaparte himself did not find out about this, during the Italian campaign of the Russian troops he was in Egypt.

        And Kutuzov would have been no less surprised: he was a diplomat in Berlin at that time
      2. Idiot
        Idiot April 28 2016 19: 00
        +9
        Moreau was a stronger commander than Napoleon, but was defeated by Suvorov and this did not bring him dishonor. Napoleon’s leadership gift is greatly exaggerated, first of all by himself, and then by the excessive French nationalism. Well, of course, the British put a hand to his exaltation. Well - Wellington, Waterloo! If you know how and want to get to the truth, analyze all his battles and you will be surprised. Two-thirds of his victories are either the merit of his subordinates, or the result of betrayal. For example, under Austerlitz there was actually no battle. The Austrians leaked him the allied disposition the next day and he covered the Russian army in the morning at the moment of relocation to new positions. It was a classic ambush when the time and place and direction of the enemy’s movement were known. Napoleon ditched the army in Egypt, ditched the army in Spain, ditched the army in Russia. During his reign, France lost 1 with a population of 500. Not too much for a genius? Yes, he was terribly lucky that God did not bring him to Suvorov. A career would have ended 000 years earlier ...
      3. Idiot
        Idiot April 28 2016 19: 00
        +1
        Moreau was a stronger commander than Napoleon, but was defeated by Suvorov and this did not bring him dishonor. Napoleon’s leadership gift is greatly exaggerated, first of all by himself, and then by the excessive French nationalism. Well, of course, the British put a hand to his exaltation. Well - Wellington, Waterloo! If you know how and want to get to the truth, analyze all his battles and you will be surprised. Two-thirds of his victories are either the merit of his subordinates, or the result of betrayal. For example, under Austerlitz there was actually no battle. The Austrians leaked him the allied disposition the next day and he covered the Russian army in the morning at the moment of relocation to new positions. It was a classic ambush when the time and place and direction of the enemy’s movement were known. Napoleon ditched the army in Egypt, ditched the army in Spain, ditched the army in Russia. During his reign, France lost 1 with a population of 500. Not too much for a genius? Yes, he was terribly lucky that God did not bring him to Suvorov. A career would have ended 000 years earlier ...
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 28 2016 20: 13
          -1
          Why is Moro stronger than Napoleon? Why should the Austrians drain the disposition of Napoleon?
          1. BarakHuseynovich
            BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 06: 40
            0
            And when did the Austrians not merge Russians or Poles?
    2. bandabas
      bandabas April 28 2016 13: 24
      +3
      "Walking far, it's time to calm the fellow!" As A.V.Suvorov said 15 years before.
    3. Rastas
      Rastas April 28 2016 14: 28
      +1
      How could Kutuzov beat Napoleon in an Italian campaign when Napoleon was in Africa at that time?
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 28 2016 18: 21
        +1
        How could Kutuzov beat Napoleon in an Italian campaign when Napoleon was in Africa at that time?


        And Kutuzov in Berlin. And what? How does this interfere?
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. Alex
      Alex April 28 2016 17: 23
      +3
      Quote: qwert
      Alexander Second drives into Paris the winner

      Actually, the first one ...
    5. AID.S
      AID.S April 28 2016 21: 16
      +2
      Quote: qwert
      The school did not really explain. I still could not understand how Napoleon lost his army. That kind of won on Borodino, located in Moscow.

      And they read about Vasilisa Kozhin, about the club of the people's war, but what was called the war the national war? In Soviet textbooks it was ...
      1. Alex
        Alex April 30 2016 18: 21
        +1
        In my 4 class (1971 year) of the Patriotic War of the 1812 year two paragraphs were allotted. For 4-th class - quite a lot. Then there was more.
  3. Cartalon
    Cartalon April 28 2016 07: 54
    -3
    The idea of ​​the article is correct, the form of presentation of the material is sickening, let it be srach am
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. AK64
      AK64 April 28 2016 08: 17
      -8
      The idea of ​​the article is correct, the form of presentation of the material is nauseous, may srach am


      And what is correct? Is this Kutuzov the "genius of maneuver" and is it Kutuzov who "beat Napoleon"?
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon April 28 2016 08: 44
        +6
        Imagine Kutuzov followed the strategy of starvation or anything new in this, but he acted correctly
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 28 2016 18: 23
          0
          Imagine Kutuzov followed the strategy of starvation or anything new in this, but he acted correctly


          So "beat" or "followed the strategy"?
          Barclay is considered the author of the "strategy" (however, the entire German "General Staff" was noted there). The main thing is that the "strategy" was highly approved by Alexander. So where is the "beat"?
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 28 2016 20: 14
            0
            The author of the strategy of starvation is Fabius Maxim Meditel
      2. qwert
        qwert April 28 2016 15: 37
        +2
        Quote: V.ic
        It is a pity that Bonaparte himself did not find out about this, during the Italian campaign of the Russian troops he was in Egypt.

        Quote: Rastas
        How could Kutuzov beat Napoleon in an Italian campaign when Napoleon was in Africa at that time?

        I apologize for my illiteracy. I'm talking about the Italian campaign (probably here my mistake) had in mind this episode:
        He advanced towards the French, to Shengraben, the 6-thousandth detachment of Bagration, who fought with the entire French army for almost a day and restrained its onslaught. Having preempted the French in a maneuver to Znaim, Kutuzov led his troops through this point to Olmuts and thereby completely frustrated Napoleon’s plans for their encirclement. As a result of the 400-kilometer maneuver from Braunau to Olmuc, the Russian commander achieved a change in the strategic situation. In Olmütz, his army combined with the reserves that had approached, after which its number increased to 86 thousand people. 80 thousand more Austrian troops from Italy were expected. In addition, Kutuzov forced the enemy to stretch his forces during the offensive march, as a result of which Napoleon managed to bring only 60 thousand people to Olmuts. That was the result of Kutuzov's “masterly movements”. Kutuzov surpassed his illustrious opponent in the art of maneuver.
      3. Idiot
        Idiot April 28 2016 19: 04
        0
        AK64 (3): who beat Napoleon? Papa Charles 13?
      4. Idiot
        Idiot April 28 2016 19: 04
        0
        AK64 (3): who beat Napoleon? Papa Charles 13?
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 28 2016 19: 13
          -3
          and who beat Napoleon?


          Unfortunately, no one beat Napoleon. Napoleon did not have a single obvious defeat (except, perhaps, Waterloo). It is difficult to call even Lepzig a beating of Napoleon.

          As much as possible with Napoleon - "managed on equal terms", in several cases.
          Kutuzov had a chance, on the Berezina, to laugh at Napoleon. But Kutuzov did not dare.
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 28 2016 20: 16
            +2
            Leipzig is not a beating, the destruction of the army is so walked out
          2. Korsar4
            Korsar4 April 29 2016 08: 22
            +1
            Why take the risk? But Chichagova Napoleon outplayed. As for the results of Berezina - they are in French, as you know, have become common nouns.
          3. Cro-Magnon
            Cro-Magnon April 29 2016 18: 59
            +2
            Nobody beat him ... but lost the war! In World War II, the Germans had hundreds of air asses shot down dozens and hundreds of planes ... but the Reich lost the air war! And there are many more such examples ... initialize further your idols ... fortunately, this will not affect the historical results!
    3. V.ic
      V.ic April 28 2016 09: 22
      +1
      Quote: Cartalon
      let it be srach

      Are you talking about your comment, I hope?
  4. parusnik
    parusnik April 28 2016 08: 03
    +6
    It is much better to encourage "my friend Ahmed Pasha, and he will come to us again.".. made the Turks on the Danube horsemeat to eat. And then the French ... in Moscow ... Thank you ..
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 28 2016 08: 19
      -21%
      He made the Turks on the Danube eat horse meat. And then the French ... in Moscow


      Believe Tolstoy less.
      In fact, Kutuzov was less than a mediocre general.

      We assume that there were reasons for this --- one of which was a head wound (the trams of the head have not yet been made smarter and better). Nevertheless, --- Tolstoy is not a historian but a fabulist
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon April 28 2016 08: 51
        -3
        Kutuzov means injured great
        1. V.ic
          V.ic April 28 2016 09: 28
          +8
          Quote: Cartalon
          Kutuzov means injured great

          No, quite a sane person who provided the THREE emperors with the opportunity to prove themselves as "great" generals / Austerlitz / Slavkov /
          Russian society tea was no dumber than you, if it imposed on Alexander the Blessed, it was Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov as Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army.
        2. AK64
          AK64 April 28 2016 18: 26
          -1
          Kutuzov means injured great


          I do not understand...

          In general, such trams lead to a loss of intelligence and personal qualities.

          According to his personal qualities, Kutuzov was ... a rather bad person: unprincipled and conformist. Well, here I am writing: a possible cause for this could be a head wound.
          1. BarakHuseynovich
            BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 07: 54
            0
            And the "French scientists", on the other hand, write off their defeat in the war for this head wound, but you seem to be from the "British" laughing
      2. Heimdall47
        Heimdall47 April 28 2016 11: 24
        0
        In fact, Kutuzov was less than a mediocre general.

        More than mediocre is bad. Less than mediocre is good.
        In this case, your statement is true, since Kutuzov is more than a good general, but less good than Napoleon.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 28 2016 18: 31
          +2
          More than mediocre is bad. Less than mediocre is good.
          In this case, your statement is true, since Kutuzov is more than a good general, but less good than Napoleon.


          Barclay, for example, as a general was significantly better.
          But Barclay could not get along with Bagration, who imagined himself to be "older" than Barclay, and did not want to obey Barclay so much that he even deliberately delayed the connection with the 1st Army.
          However, Bagration and Kutuzova hardly endured:
          “This goose is also good, which is called both the prince and the leader! Now women and gossip will go to the leader of our gossip, ”Bagration about Kutuzov.

          In principle, at that time there were several generals in Russia who were better than Kutuzov. But political considerations ... "public opinion" and other nonsense.
      3. parusnik
        parusnik April 28 2016 16: 17
        +2
        AK64 ...Believe Tolstoy less... But not the essence .. to believe or not to believe Tolstoy, the fact remains, the Turkish army found itself in a blockade .. like then the French ..
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 28 2016 18: 38
          -1
          the fact remains, the Turkish army was in blockade ..

          Well, not thanks to Kutuzov.
          In general, there was a "strange war", which went on "strange": Turkey rushed from side to side in coalitions, falling under French or British influence. Well, in 1811, the Turkish government was pro-English. That is, at first, at the instigation of the British, when Alexander "threw" them, the Turks got into the war. Well, then the same Englishmen played.

          In general, there were many "eccentricities" in this particular war.
          But Kutuzov made the world --- and he made this world so Alexander was very angry. Very little received in this world. (And it happened because Kutuzov was ... also under English patronage)

          like then french ..

          Well, what does Kutuzov have to do with it?
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 28 2016 20: 18
            0
            For all that, Kutuzov for all that, he was just a very smart person.
  5. kvs207
    kvs207 April 28 2016 09: 42
    +5
    Quote: AK64
    You believe less Tolstoy, the man was strongly politically biased

    I wonder what Tolstoy is talking about? How was Leo Tolstoy, who wrote War and Peace, "politically biased"? Alexei Tolstoy, in fact, was a Soviet writer, but I don’t remember his works about the Patriotic War of 1812.
  6. xan
    xan April 28 2016 11: 17
    +8
    The whole trouble of military historians is that comparing commanders is very difficult for a simple reason - not everyone has absolute power. Kutuzov, unlike Napoleon, did not possess absolute power. And in the course of hostilities, when he was independent, we can conclude that he would not have lost Austerlitz, for example, Preisisch-Eylau would have won (Suvorov would have won 100%).
    And Napoleon in its pure form can be compared with Alexander the Great, all the other commanders with full power, including Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, did not show such skill in military art in comparison with their opponents. These are considerations stolen from the Internet, but with them I completely agree.
    If Suvorov had full power, he would go to France instead of Switzerland, and everything would end in 1800, and not in 1814.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 28 2016 12: 09
      +2
      One clarification with full power Kutuzov would not give the battle of Austerlitz
      1. xan
        xan April 28 2016 22: 43
        0
        Quote: Cartalon
        One clarification with full power Kutuzov would not give the battle of Austerlitz

        Not a fact, there were more allies.
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 29 2016 14: 00
          0
          The fact Kutuzov considered it necessary to wait for Böningsen and Karl da Prusski to intervene from day to day. Kutuzov proposed to move to the Carpathians
    2. AK64
      AK64 April 28 2016 18: 42
      -2
      And in the course of hostilities, when he was independent, we can conclude that he would not have lost Austerlitz,

      Austerlitz lost precisely Kutuzov.
      Once again: no one except Tolstoy wrote a word about the intervention of Alexander (very cunning and cautious, even "crafty") in military decisions.

      Austerlitz is 100% pure Kutuzov. And not for nothing that he was immediately removed from the team.


      If Suvorov had full power, he would go to France instead of Switzerland, and everything would end in 1800, and not in 1814.

      Suvorov did not have any troops for that.

      And why should Russia smash France? What are the benefits from that? "Your own dogs fight - don't interfere with someone else's"
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon April 28 2016 20: 19
        +2
        Austerlitz - 100% Kutuzov no you 200% Troll
      2. xan
        xan April 28 2016 22: 42
        +2
        Quote: AK64
        Austerlitz is 100% pure Kutuzov. And not for nothing that he was immediately removed from the team.

        AK64 for some reason does not bother the simple fact that Austerlitz is Kutuzov’s only catastrophic defeat. Everything can be faked and invented, but the fact that the plan was made by Weyrother, and there were two emperors at the headquarters - this cannot be falsified. I do not believe in such a thing that a person only once in a life dulls with terrible force, which is not visible either before or after.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 28 2016 22: 50
          +1
          I do not believe in such a thing that a person only once in a life dulls with terrible force, which is not visible either before or after.

          Excuse me, but Borodino?
          And Maloyaroslavets? (Where Dokhturov stood with insufficient forces - and Kutuzov was "stupid")?
          What about Red?
          Berezina, finally? Berezia is generally the limit, and the sentence to Kutuzov as a general.

          You read about that Beresen, you look, the views will change.
          1. xan
            xan 6 May 2016 11: 26
            0
            Quote: AK64
            Excuse me, but Borodino?

            Can Borodino be compared to Austerlitz?
            Quote: AK64
            And Maloyaroslavets? (Where Dokhturov stood with insufficient forces - and Kutuzov was "stupid")?

            But did Kutuzov have to arrange a general battle with the still strong French? It is enough that he did not let the French on the new road and lost no more than the French.
            Quote: AK64
            What about Red?

            Napoleon left in the Red half of the army and took away only the most combat-ready units. Is it necessary to remind that the French losses were much more than the Russians?
            Quote: AK64
            Berezina, finally? Berezia is generally the limit, and the sentence to Kutuzov as a general.

            Kutuzov appointed Chichagov? Should he have disposed of Chichagov?

            You don’t know military history, you are not able to think practically and independently.
    3. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 April 28 2016 21: 31
      0
      Quote: xan
      then comparing commanders is very difficult for a simple reason - not everyone has absolute power. Kutuzov, unlike Napoleon, did not possess absolute power.
      This is a very true remark! The fullness of power noticeably eases many issues of command, but it also complicates a lot.

      Quote: xan
      that he definitely wouldn’t lose Austerlitz, for example, Preisisch-Eylau would rather win (Suvorov would win 100%).
      It's hard to say, this is "Suvorov did not lose battles," and Bonopartia could only get away with a lot, but what about Kutuzov's victories?
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon April 28 2016 22: 02
        +1
        Kutuzov’s total extermination of the enemy, with the Turks the same result, if he had conducted the company in 1805 without emperors, most likely the result would have been the same.
        1. xan
          xan April 28 2016 23: 06
          +1
          Quote: Cartalon
          Kutuzov’s total extermination of the enemy, with the Turks the same result, if he had conducted the company in 1805 without emperors, most likely the result would have been the same.

          No, definitely not. And one more thing for sure - such a fall in the authority of the Russian army, as after the battle of Austerlitz, Kutuzov would definitely not have allowed. And one more is the shameful battle, under Friedland, completely the fault of the stupid Russian command. It was impossible for Alexander to remove Kutuzov, so there were specialists among the generals in the Turks. Personal insult, of course. How can even the crowned, but amateur, intervene in the orders of the pros who have not climbed out of the battles? Barclay de Tolly is an intelligent general, but society trusted only Kutuzov, and the tsar struck. And why did such a public trust in a general intolerant of the king? Can any of Kutuzov’s opponents respond? Without exception, all the names of the Russian aristocracy had someone in the army, and they certainly knew which of the generals was worth what.
          1. xan
            xan April 28 2016 23: 40
            +3
            Quote: xan
            And why did such a public trust in a general intolerant of the king? Can any of Kutuzov’s opponents respond? Without exception, all the names of the Russian aristocracy had someone in the army, and they certainly knew which of the generals was worth what.

            I would like to add. The Austerlitz first serious defeat of the Russian army in 100 years, counting from the Prut campaign of Peter. Society is used to the fact that there is only good news from the army, and therefore the battle of Austerlitz has been frayed in all corners of the empire, do not go to your grandmother. And since you cannot write in the newspapers that you lost because of the tsar, it means that everyone was blamed on Kutuzov. And since the authority of Kutuzov has not fallen, it means that society has figured out what's what. Other considerations such as who wrote where something, or fell asleep, or there is no evidence of tsar’s interference, I personally do not care. It has long been used to draw conclusions from indirect facts that are almost impossible to falsify.
            1. Warrior2015
              Warrior2015 6 May 2016 18: 00
              0
              Quote: xan
              The Austerlitz first serious defeat of the Russian army in 100 years, counting from the Prut campaign of Peter.

              Well, that's how to count. There was one more of the Crimean campaigns, with Friedrich der Grosse was Zorndorf, there was also the "Warsaw Matins", the Persian campaign of Peter and Zubov, and many things were unsuccessful. The defeat of the army, to which Suvorov was in a hurry, did they forget the same in the Battle of Zurich?

              Another thing is that under Austrelitz, and then under Eylau and Friedland, the backbone of "lifelong professionals" lay down, who in fact surpassed Napoleon's militia troops.
          2. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 29 2016 10: 07
            0
            I meant by the same result of the consumed horses, Napoleon’s situation in Austerlitz is terrible, winter, long communication, the approach of reserves to the allies and Prussia in the rear.
      2. xan
        xan April 28 2016 22: 49
        +1
        Quote: Warrior2015
        It's hard to say, this is "Suvorov did not lose battles", and Bonopartia could only get away with a lot

        Preisish-Eylau, with approximately equal powers, Napoleon suffered more damage and did not lose chyut. Smolensk, with significantly greater forces, could not impose a general battle on the Russians, and lost more than the Russians.
        Well, about Kutuzov, the article must be read.
        1. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 8 May 2016 13: 55
          0
          Quote: xan
          Preisish-Eylau, with approximately equal powers, Napoleon suffered more damage and did not lose chyut.

          A little bit is considered, but the allies suffered more damage ...
          I had in mind, for example, Leipzig, when it happened, and Dresden, when Napoleon managed to get out and win.
  7. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel April 28 2016 12: 02
    +1
    Not by number, but by reduction! am am am
  8. alovrov
    alovrov April 28 2016 12: 44
    -3
    In fairness, the maneuver to Berezina ended in failure for the Russian troops. Napoleon was able to outwit Chichagov and Wittgenstein and withdraw the guard from Russia. Well, then he rushed to France to form a new army.
  9. King, just king
    King, just king April 28 2016 12: 55
    -4
    Yes, normal uncle M.V. Of course, he and Napoleon didn’t stand near the leadership talent, but he pushed the adversary out of Russia, though at the cost of losses a little less than the Buonaparty. If the adversary fell down the Smolensk ravaged road, then ours followed right away from hand to mouth.

    Borodino is completely lost, move the enemy guard and that's it, there is no Russian army. True, Napoleon did not move the guard, probably not wanting to completely defeat the Russian troops. Those. the catastrophe of the Russians was not necessary to Napoleon. Napoleon did not expect that Rostopchin would burn his own capital. Studying the materials, it is clear that the adversary did not even think to approach Moscow. Everything had to be completed in the border area, at most on the Smolensk line. It didn't work out - the "genius of maneuver" maneuvered near Moscow.
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth April 28 2016 13: 22
      +9
      Borodino was not lost outright. Napoleon achieved nothing but the loss of all his magnificent cavalry. And his guard would not have decided anything, because by the middle of the day N. had reached a complete dead end in his actions. He wandered deep into Russian positions, ran into a ravine which was covered by 200 guns supposedly forgotten by Kutuzov, and Barclay's army hung over his left. If N had moved the guard, he simply would have lost it, about which he informed his advisers. And moreover, N. realizing what a dead end he reached, he stopped the attack, although it was at least 4 hours before dark and cleared the battlefield, taking his army back to the initial ones.
      And the genius of the commander just makes the adversary do not what he spanned. The army was not defeated at Smolensk by the overwhelming forces of the enemy, but ended the war in the capital of the adversary.
      1. Morrrow
        Morrrow April 28 2016 22: 37
        -2
        Near Borodin, the Russian army was defeated.
        1. Kenneth
          Kenneth April 29 2016 00: 38
          0
          Even Napoleon did not think so.
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow April 30 2016 11: 33
            0
            When I found out that in Moscow the wounded Russians, I counted.
        2. Prometey
          Prometey April 29 2016 19: 45
          +1
          Quote: Morrrow
          Near Borodin, the Russian army was defeated.

          Not certainly in that way. The merit of Kutuzov near Borodino that the Russian army was not completely defeated.
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow April 30 2016 11: 13
            0
            She was not defeated, i.e. I didn’t lose control, but it was certainly defeated - not a single untouched division remained - there were losses everywhere. The Russian army could only run and it fled, while at least some control remained. To defeat an army - to inflict terrible losses, to defeat - to deprive it of control.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 28 2016 13: 22
      +4
      What else equal losses what kind of nonsense if the Russian remaining was returning into operation then either French or a corpse or a prisoner
  10. qwert
    qwert April 28 2016 15: 45
    +3
    Quote: Oles
    In terms of its strategic and tactical talents ... it’s not equal to Suvorov and not equal to Napoleon ”, - E. Tarle (FROM THE LITERARY HERITAGE OF ACADEMICIAN E. V. TARLE. M., Science, 1931). In my opinion it is said quite clearly.

    Who is the best strategist Stalin or Hitler? The answer is simple. Look where the war ended. So that Tarle wouldn’t say there (Solzhenitsyn won a lot of things too), Kutuzov drove Napoleon to France and deprived the army. Whose army was stronger in the 1941 year, Soviet or German? And in the 1945? The same thing is the first time domestic. Whose army was stronger at the beginning of the war? French And at the end? Russian. The question is who is the most competent commander? Who has won? Who outplayed whom? The answer is clear. Kutuzov in REALITY turned out to be better than Napoleon.
    1. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 April 28 2016 16: 12
      0
      Quote: qwert
      Kutuzov still drove Napoleon to France and deprived the army.

      Well, suppose that Napoleon was not driven by Kutuzov to France, but Barclay and the allies. Kutuzov died near the borders of Poland. As for the army, the Russian troops, with the parallel pursuit of 1812 in the fall and winter, proportionally lost a comparable number of soldiers unfortunately ...
      1. Kenneth
        Kenneth April 28 2016 17: 19
        +4
        Yes, the Russian army lost up to 70 thousand during the persecution. So be it. But most of them returned to duty. And opponents remained on permanent residence in Russia.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 28 2016 19: 05
          0
          Yes, the Russian army lost up to 70 thousand during the persecution. So be it. But most of them returned to duty.

          No. Did not return. Very few of the lost have returned.

          But if they had killed Napoleon on the Berezene, then 30-40 thousand would have saved their own.
          1. Kenneth
            Kenneth April 28 2016 20: 40
            0
            You mean that they died in a foreign trip. maybe
            But blaming Kutuzov for not catching Napoleon is impossible. Napoleon would have left anyway. Suppose with a hundred cavalrymen. He had the experience of dropping his troops in a hopeless situation. And in any way, the role of the epic eccentric went to Chichakov. he was preceded by the defense of a water obstacle, while Kutuzov was to give a field battle and suffer losses from the enemy he was caught in a corner
            1. Cro-Magnon
              Cro-Magnon April 29 2016 20: 16
              +3
              And mind you dear, fans, but rather a sect of Napoleon's adorers, they do not blame him for abandoning the army, lost companies, the defeat of France, huge losses ... like it should be! But we are ready to lynch anyone who dares to encroach on the title of Napoleon as the best commander! It is no coincidence that psychiatric hospitals are full of "Napoleons" ... oh, no coincidence !!!
              1. Morrrow
                Morrrow April 30 2016 11: 17
                -1
                He did not abandon the army either after Leipzig or after the Laon battle. Napoleon lost because he fought against the whole world. How long will Russia hold out against the whole world?
                1. Cartalon
                  Cartalon April 30 2016 11: 21
                  +1
                  And who asked him to fight against the whole world? By the way, at the beginning of 1812 his army was larger than the whole world, why did he ditch it?
                  1. Morrrow
                    Morrrow April 30 2016 12: 51
                    0
                    It was not he who fought against the whole world, but the world against France. Google the First and Second anti-French coalitions. Napoleon's army in 1812 was only 425 thousand. In 1813, the coalition put up almost a million soldiers. Napoleon ruined the army by the fact that he could not foresee that the Russians would burn Smolensk and Moscow (the main operational bases with reserves) instead of observing the continental base and being in alliance with France, getting straits and all of Eastern Europe? Do you also think this is adequate answers to Tilsit and Erfruit? I want you to say: The Russians did the right thing and now I propose to burn Moscow to leave the WTO, breaking off partnership with the EU.
                    1. BarakHuseynovich
                      BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 15: 38
                      0
                      He came to Russia with 12 armies of the entire European Union and left them
                      1. Morrrow
                        Morrrow April 30 2016 15: 56
                        0
                        Rave. You are confusing volunteer units and full-fledged armies. If full-fledged armies of the allied countries went to Russia, their number would be 2-3 million.
                      2. BarakHuseynovich
                        BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 17: 52
                        0
                        Your delirium is chronic. An army of two languages ​​came to Russia - all the countries it captured became its allies.
                      3. Morrrow
                        Morrrow 1 May 2016 00: 05
                        +1
                        Are you a bot or something? I wrote to you do not confuse the hell with a finger. If there were a couple of Spaniards in the large army, it means the Spanish army came, buggag or something.
                      4. BarakHuseynovich
                        BarakHuseynovich 1 May 2016 05: 34
                        0
                        The bot is you - Spain fought with him ...
              2. Cartalon
                Cartalon April 30 2016 16: 09
                0
                In 1812, Napoleon had 1200 thousand people under arms, no one in all of Europe needed a continental blockade, except for the invincible emperor
                1. BarakHuseynovich
                  BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 17: 57
                  0
                  And you ... everybody wanted to rob Russia and didn’t want the Frenchman to prick him with a bayonet.

                  Even these eternal mercenaries are singing now ... and vowed for eternal neutrality
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_xDK8RrJDk
                2. BarakHuseynovich
                  BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 21: 54
                  0
                  he has already been several times bypoor at that moment, what the article (and in the comments) is about, which, of course, is therefore immediately "u.g" ... laughing
                3. Morrrow
                  Morrrow April 30 2016 23: 58
                  +1
                  425 thousand entered Russia. And Constantinople with the Balkans of Russia was also not needed? But did Russia need World War I and German nationalism?
      2. Morrrow
        Morrrow April 30 2016 11: 15
        -1
        When did he leave the army in a hopeless situation?
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow April 30 2016 15: 59
            -1
            Under Berezin, he defeated Chichagov and Wittgenstein. How could he leave the army and at the same time lead the crossing? And in Aleppo, whom did he leave? O_o Can I proof?
            1. BarakHuseynovich
              BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 17: 59
              0
              Under Berezin, he lost almost all the remains of his army

              Are you in Scottish? Can’t you search for links yourself?
              1. Morrrow
                Morrrow 1 May 2016 00: 02
                +1
                The Russians also lost a lot and miserable remnants reached Berezina. What does it change? Kutuzov’s plan to surround and captivate collapsed.
                I read on the topic of Tarle, Vandal, Manfred, Trinity, Napoleon and Thiers. This episode is not there.
                1. BarakHuseynovich
                  BarakHuseynovich 1 May 2016 05: 36
                  0
                  Apparently he didn’t have such a plan, because then the West would have got the British.
              2. Morrrow
                Morrrow 1 May 2016 00: 08
                +1
                You contradict yourself, then your army died, then you abandoned the army. ?
                1. BarakHuseynovich
                  BarakHuseynovich 1 May 2016 05: 38
                  0
                  No, it’s you mowing under the stupid Scot - he threw the army and it died.
        2. BarakHuseynovich
          BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 15: 39
          0
          Stuck? Berezina, Aleppo ... they also listed you
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow 1 May 2016 00: 09
            +1
            And further. There was no Napoleon in Aleppo. Are you fond of mushrooms?
            1. BarakHuseynovich
              BarakHuseynovich 1 May 2016 05: 40
              0
              He fled from Aleppo to France on a ship.

              How do we know about mushrooms?
  • V.ic
    V.ic April 28 2016 18: 39
    +3
    Quote: Warrior2015
    Kutuzov died near the borders of Poland.

    M.I.Kutuzov died in Bunzlau / now Silesian Boleslawiec / somewhere nearby in 1945. A.I. Pokryshkin landed planes directly on the Berlin highway. The lands of the lowland Silesia were seized by "der grosse" Friedrich No. 2, about 70 years before Kutuzov's death. Before that, Silesia was an Austrian province, but not a Polish one. So Mikhail Illarionovich died on the Prussian lands, which were later donated by the Soviet Union to Poland.
  • Prometey
    Prometey April 28 2016 18: 53
    -1
    Quote: Warrior2015
    And as for the army, the Russian troops, with the parallel pursuit in the fall and winter of 1812, proportionally lost a comparable number of soldiers unfortunately ...

    By December 1812, only half the army reached the state border, which began the persecution of the French. Half fell from illness, frostbite and skirmishes.
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth April 28 2016 20: 44
      +1
      In most cases, there is a difference between the collapse and the temporary outage
      1. Prometey
        Prometey April 29 2016 19: 31
        0
        Quote: Kenneth
        Hope fell and temporarily out of order

        After frostbite of the legs and amputations, they no longer return to duty.
  • wax
    wax April 28 2016 15: 54
    +2
    The sovereign is weak and crafty,
    A bald dandy, the enemy of labor,
    Unintentionally warmed by glory,
    Reigned over us then.
    ...
    Thunderstorm twelve
    Arrived - who helped us here?
    Frenzy of the people
    Barclay, winter or Russian god?
    ...
    But God helped - grumble became lower,
    And soon by the power of things
    We found ourselves in Paris
    And the Russian Tsar is the head of the kings.
    ...

    A.S. Pushkin
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 28 2016 19: 16
      0
      The sovereign is weak and crafty,
      A bald dandy, the enemy of labor,

      In this case, Pushkin simply flattered Nikolai
      1. Prometey
        Prometey April 29 2016 19: 33
        0
        Quote: AK64
        In this case, Pushkin simply flattered Nikolai

        Still, researchers in Pushkin's biography note the fact that he did not really digest Alexander I. But he respected Nicholas 1.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 28 2016 16: 10
    +2
    Yes, the author’s article was interesting, but controversial. And to be honest, I personally support those questions that have already been asked in the comments. I would like the author to answer them.

    He made extensive use of maneuver in a variety of forms (retreat and offensive march-maneuver, flank, enveloping and bypass) and made him the key to all his famous victories.
    Really good maneuvering is a departure from Mack's surrender. Everything else is mediocre.

    Quote: Oles
    Weyrother appeared at him only at 1 one in the morning
    Once again, let me remind you that this is actually the chief of staff in the army of Suvorov himself. It is strange that he is exposed as mediocrity and incompetence ... And the plan of Austrelitz was correct! if the Russian-Austrian troops were doing better intelligence and would not have nicknamed the approach of the Davout corps.

    Quote: Oles
    . But the fact that sometimes behind the figure of Kutuzov is forgotten by MB Barclay de Tolly
    That's for sure - here he is - a really great commander.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 28 2016 16: 20
      +2
      Kutuzov was not against the Weyrother’s plan, but against the battle itself, Barclay throwing at Rudn say that he’s not so great
      1. Kenneth
        Kenneth April 28 2016 17: 21
        +2
        And the plan too. He recommended not to leave the heights.
    2. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 28 2016 16: 39
      0
      And what specific role did Weyrother play under Suvorov? The Italian army of Suvorov is not only 30 tons of people with whom he maneuvered and defeated, but also more than 100 tons in different units and garrisons that were conditionally subordinated to Suvorov and who almost never followed his orders, but to control this mass of troops, Weyrother was needed, Well, wasn’t the chief of staff supposed to find normal maps of Switzerland?
      1. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 April 28 2016 21: 45
        0
        Quote: Cartalon
        The Italian army of Suvorov is not only an 30 man with whom he maneuvered and defeated, but also more than 100 in different orders and garrisons that were conditionally subordinate to Suvorov and who almost never followed his orders, but to control this mass of troops we needed Weyrother
        Weyreuter was precisely the chief of staff for Suvorov's army, all forces in Italy were subordinate to various commanders and through them to the Court Military Council. Suvorov was, let's say, "on his own", very quarrelsome, and the allies were too arrogant.
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 28 2016 22: 06
          0
          Name the commander in Italy not subordinate to Suvorov
  • Prometey
    Prometey April 28 2016 18: 50
    -2
    Still, it would be interesting to know where exactly Kutuzov beat Napoleon? Yes, he was squeezed out of Russia - exactly so, but no one could beat Napoleon’s army before Waterloo. Defeats were inflicted on him, but the army he commanded was not defeated.
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth April 28 2016 18: 57
      +3
      That is, Napoleon left Russia with an unbroken army. But with a broken face. And the army left proud but painfully small. By the way, the battle at the red doesn’t mean anything to you?
      1. Prometey
        Prometey April 29 2016 19: 37
        +1
        Quote: Kenneth
        That is, Napoleon left Russia with an unbroken army.

        That's it - left. Whether beaten or not, judge for yourself if, until the middle of 1814, he mocked allies with such an army, until they stupidly crushed him and betrayed his marshals. And from under Waterloo - he was draping without an army, which he had not already gathered.
        1. BarakHuseynovich
          BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 08: 10
          0
          He left Egypt. Only not on a sled, and almost completely alone.
    2. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 28 2016 19: 57
      +2
      There are other ways of warfare, except to beat the enemy’s main army with all the dope, war is something more than the sum of the battles.
    3. Cro-Magnon
      Cro-Magnon April 29 2016 20: 33
      0
      540-600t entered Russia. It turned out 20-30t. Squeezed out!
      Waterloo ... the forces of the parties are half of what they fought at Borodino! THE GREATEST VICTORY OF THE ANGLO-SAXON RACE, SUCH NOT HAVE IN OUR GALAXY, BECAUSE AN UNIVERSE !!! Who are you burning a fire at?
  • Morrrow
    Morrrow April 28 2016 20: 02
    0
    Too many undeserved compliments.
  • King, just king
    King, just king April 28 2016 20: 40
    +1
    Quote: qwert
    Quote: Oles
    In terms of its strategic and tactical talents ... it’s not equal to Suvorov and not equal to Napoleon ”, - E. Tarle (FROM THE LITERARY HERITAGE OF ACADEMICIAN E. V. TARLE. M., Science, 1931). In my opinion it is said quite clearly.

    Who is the best strategist Stalin or Hitler? The answer is simple. Look where the war ended. So that Tarle wouldn’t say there (Solzhenitsyn won a lot of things too), Kutuzov drove Napoleon to France and deprived the army. Whose army was stronger in the 1941 year, Soviet or German? And in the 1945? The same thing is the first time domestic. Whose army was stronger at the beginning of the war? French And at the end? Russian. The question is who is the most competent commander? Who has won? Who outplayed whom? The answer is clear. Kutuzov in REALITY turned out to be better than Napoleon.


    Based on the strength and resources EVEN of the Belarusian military district, do you really consider the German army stronger on 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX?
    1. Cro-Magnon
      Cro-Magnon April 29 2016 20: 37
      0
      And what about the one that EVEN was stronger than the Wehrmacht's front-line offensive group! ??
  • Pissarro
    Pissarro April 28 2016 21: 11
    +1
    I read the comments, I remembered And the dawns here are quiet: "War is not who will shoot whom, but who will change his mind" (c)
    How can one compare Napoleon, who ditched the Great Army in Russia and Kutuzov, skillfully retreating, stretching the enemy’s communications and, as a result, dissolving the Great Army in the vastness of Russia? Still, Sun Tzu said that victory achieved without a battle is higher than victory in battle.
    Napoleon, by the way, did not kill the first army, before that there was a mediocre Egyptian campaign. All his "art" is to take the enemy to a show-off and force him to surrender. If the enemy turned out to be strong, then Napoleon simply did not know what to do next, Threw the army in Egypt, in Spain, In Russia and France he fled for a new army. In general, this amusing little man is greatly overestimated.

    I especially liked the commentary, where Kutuzov, like from a head wound.idi.ot, with a brain damaged from a bullet, skillfully outplayed the Corsican “genius.” .ota, so he made a reputation on them and made
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 28 2016 22: 24
      0
      Russians, British, Austrians and Prussians are weak warriors, I agree. What is the mediocrity of the Egyptian campaign?
      1. BarakHuseynovich
        BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 06: 42
        0
        Well, I understand I agree ... a kilt in one place does not press?

        The fact that Napoleonchik climbed there (and climbed himself) without securing dominance at sea, later, however, others sent the Rommel there hoping for aviation ...
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow April 30 2016 11: 23
          0
          Why does he need a fleet. Do you consider Egypt a poor country? Napoleon conquered Egypt in a week. Louis Saint having MAIN forces ruined himself and the army
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon April 30 2016 11: 27
            0
            But Alexander of Macedon won a vaapche without a fight, by the way your lie for the week and the main forces of Louis were smaller than Bonaparte’s army and Louis was opposed by one of the best armies in the world
            1. Morrrow
              Morrrow April 30 2016 12: 38
              0
              However, I argue with the author. The army in Egypt, when Napoleon sailed, was in excellent condition. Do you argue with that too?
              1. BarakHuseynovich
                BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 15: 27
                0
                Quote: Morrrow
                Why does he need a fleet.

                then that I came there not through the balkans and Asia Minor
                Quote: Morrrow
                The army in Egypt, when Napoleon sailed, was in excellent condition.

                350% troll ...
                1. Morrrow
                  Morrrow April 30 2016 16: 03
                  0
                  Quote: BarakHuseynovich
                  then that I came there not through the balkans and Asia Minor

                  So what? In your opinion is Egypt a naked desert? He had no Nile valley?
                  Quote: BarakHuseynovich
                  350% troll

                  A.Z. Manfred the troll? Argue with him.
                  1. BarakHuseynovich
                    BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 17: 50
                    0
                    Did he farm there? And how much did it help him?

                    You are a troll, yourself and argue with him ...
                    1. Morrrow
                      Morrrow 1 May 2016 00: 33
                      +1
                      You are an alkobot, you argue with Manfred yourself, because these were his words about the excellent condition of the French army on the day of sailing.
                      1. BarakHuseynovich
                        BarakHuseynovich 1 May 2016 05: 44
                        0
                        On the day of departure in the morning or in the evening? The army in excellent condition is not so abandoned.
                        Nobody argues with you and your Manfred, calm down, eat a pill ...
              2. BarakHuseynovich
                BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 15: 27
                0
                Quote: Morrrow
                Why does he need a fleet.

                then that I came there not through the balkans and Asia Minor
                Quote: Morrrow
                The army in Egypt, when Napoleon sailed, was in excellent condition.

                350% troll ...
              3. Cartalon
                Cartalon April 30 2016 16: 04
                0
                It’s not worth arguing with the author because the article yr, the state of the army was not perfect and this army was doomed.
                1. BarakHuseynovich
                  BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 18: 27
                  -1
                  Quote: Cartalon
                  You should not argue with the author because

                  nothing to complain about. But you can do Galim trolling for a couple with Morrrow in the comments
                2. Morrrow
                  Morrrow 1 May 2016 00: 35
                  +1
                  Those. the army that destroyed the large Turkish landing in Abukir from the march was in poor condition? Can you prove it? I have the opinion of Manfred and the Abukir battle, but what do you have?
                  1. BarakHuseynovich
                    BarakHuseynovich 1 May 2016 05: 48
                    0
                    To prove that this army then surrendered to the Turks in Aleppo?
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow April 28 2016 22: 28
      +1
      How was the ingenious Kutuzov able to merge the battle of Borodino at home?
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 28 2016 23: 00
        +2
        Another Russophobe? Why don't you prove which you good warriors yourself at home., but not on Russian forums?
        1. BarakHuseynovich
          BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 06: 47
          0
          To do this, you need to know English, and so left - and pop out to your health (but not to the mental) ...

          And who is he there and what will surprise him? In England and France, the conventional wisdom is that their Russians have never won, and therefore they are weaker, especially in England fellow
        2. Morrrow
          Morrrow April 30 2016 11: 27
          +1
          Russophobe? Why? I consider the great Rumyantsev and Suvorov. Because it is objective.
          1. BarakHuseynovich
            BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 15: 30
            0
            Because:
            Quote: Morrrow
            Russians, British, Austrians and Prussians are weak warriors, I agree.
            1. Morrrow
              Morrrow April 30 2016 16: 04
              0
              This was written by the author of the commentary, calling Napoleon's rivals weak.
              1. BarakHuseynovich
                BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 18: 07
                0
                You wrote it yourself, and then you agreed with it.
              2. BarakHuseynovich
                BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 18: 07
                0
                You wrote it yourself, and then you agreed with it.
                1. Morrrow
                  Morrrow 1 May 2016 00: 36
                  +1
                  Are you gouging in your eyes or something? Read the top comment.
                  1. BarakHuseynovich
                    BarakHuseynovich 1 May 2016 05: 52
                    0
                    I read - it is not written there ... Campaign you in something else.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. BarakHuseynovich
        BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 06: 26
        0
        Well, for example, some German officers hidden by him in the folds of the terrain and in the forest "heroically" led the regiments to the hills or to an open place, not only finding them so also under the shelling of French artillery.
  • Hurray
    Hurray April 30 2016 10: 15
    0
    Kutuzov was a worthy descendant of the great warriors. It’s in the genes, in the blood.
  • stdemetrio
    stdemetrio 1 May 2016 21: 02
    +1
    Are you really making conclusions about Kutuzov, according to the War and Peace of Tolstoy? :) It's funny, they managed to say everything, but not to think ...