"The Russians afraid of Napoleon at the Beressina?" Topic

So getting a back to the apocryphal statement that had the French been in the same position of the Russians, no French troops would have survived…

…and equating the action to Friedland…

…where the Russians were defeated and yet not annihilated…

…the French still lose at Berezhina and in 1807, which the apocryphal grognard should have been aware the French did indeed let some Russians escape.

Is that about right?

Bob

Frayer- congrats on some great postings here!
However this thread convinced me yet again never to take part in discussions here- loonies abound!

sergeis,

That's hardly an impartial statement in itself, and just as offensive to some as you no doubt found others. If you're entire contribution is to throw around suggestions of insanity then your decision is probably the correct one.

I'm not very surprised to learn that the tragic decline of the apprenticeship system can be laid at the door of the French. I guess it's symbolic of the general contempt in which theorists hold practitioners.

dear sirs ,
tTo me the brigdes building affair is done the French is a myth and beter looking at rapports and personal account of this event dutch enginiers and so on there were others involved aswell grts serg joe

dear sirs To my opinion utusov was afraid of napoleon at the berazina napoleon'army were a swarm of bies and once corned they stil could sting grts serg jie

Come on mate, you are having a laugh. You are good at this and you have some folk fooled, but who are you really?

This is a good attempt to resurrect something that died in 2009.

My worry is that you could destroy this forum with messages like this. This is nothing to do with your command of English, although more charitable folk accept you are genuine and struggle in a foreign language. Serg Joe…. you are a fraud and getting very silly…………and, if folk disagree then I deserve to be blacklisted and not you. (and I will then apologise wholeheartedly)

deadhead,

To your point:

It is a bit confusing how removing the 'K' from Kutusov has anything to do with Dutch vs English language translation…

Cheers,

The Bandit

Perhaps he suffers some mild form of dyslexia, or is using a phone to write (you should see my Whassap messages!) and it is not his fault either, Bandit. Though, to be honest, I have my doubts about his intentions.

Napoléon, as quoted by de Caulaincourt, speaking of Kutuzov at the Berezina, did not attribute any "fear" to the Russian general :
"He fights with courage when battle is joined, but he hasn't learned a thing about 'la grand guerre'."
link

So, if Kutuzov wasn't shy in Napoleon's judgement, who are we to differ with that opinion?

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Clausewitz certainly thought the three Russian commanders at or near the action at the Berezina were afraid of Napoleon and the Grande Armee.

From his history of the Russian campaign:

'Chance certainly somewhat favored Bonaparte in his discovery near Borisov of a place so favorable for the passage as Studenka; but it was his reputation which chiefly saved him, and he traded in this instance on a capital amassed long before. Wittgenstein and Tshitshagov were both afraid of him here, as Kutusov had been afraid of him at Krasny, of him, his army, and his Guard. No one chose to be defeated by him. Kutusov believed he could obtain his end without that risk; Wittgenstein was reluctant to impair the glory he had acquired, Tshitshagov to undergo a second check.'

'Bonaparte was endowed with this moral strength when he thus extricated himself from one of the worst situations in which a general ever found himself. This moral power, however, was not all; the strength of his intellect, and the military virtues of his army, which not even its calamities could quite subdue, were destined here to show themselves once more in their full luster. After he had overcome all the difficulties of this perilous moment, Bonaparte said to those about him 'Vous voyez comme on passé sous la barbe de l'enemi.''

'Bonaparte had here entirely saved his old honor and acquired new, but the result was still a stride towards the utter destruction of his army. We know how much of it reached Kovno, and that the Berezina contributed the last blow towards this result.'

B

Have you ever heard of spin-doctors? Apparently, Napoleon did.

Are you referring to Clausewitz?

What spin would he have to produce?

France and Napoleon were his enemy and he was in the Russian service, served in the campaign of 1812, and saw what occurred in the Russian headquarters.

Seems to me that Clausewitz knew what he was talking about.

B

Kevin,

You challenged Alexandre to provide evidence that your quote from Caulaincourt was suspect in one of the other threads where this discussion was taking place: TMP link Artillery and Formations and he did so – you've been posting since then but not in that thread, you plan to respond to him addressing your demand for proof?

Cheers,

The Bandit

What are you complaining about this time?

The quotes that I provided from Caulaincourt were taken from The Anatomy of Glory by Henry Lachouque.

I have no reason to doubt Lachouque's research. If someone else does, then the reasons for that and something to support should be provided.

It hasn't been. You, Alexandre, or anyone else don't have to believe what is posted. However, if you don't believe a citation, then it is up to you and Alexandre to prove that it isn't valid. Neither you nor he has done that.

What you have done, however, is post nonsense, continuous questions that are nothing but repetitive questions that do nothing but obfuscate the discussion and shed no light on anything.

I'm beginning to believe and understand that you're nothing but a marplot who is doing nothing but causing problems for no reason, or for a reason that only you understand.

B

That is easy to answer Kevin:

However, if you don't believe a citation, then it is up to you and Alexandre to prove that it isn't valid. Neither you nor he has done that.

They have done precisely that.

No-one can find the quote in Caulaincourt's work.

No-one can direct a reader from Lachouque's Anatomy of Glory to where Caulaincourt wrote or said it.

If someone could say where in Caulaincourt this quotation that Lachoque used, then end of this part of the discussion. But no-one seems to be able to. So it seems possible/probable that Lachouque erred by including it, or in attributing it to Caulaincourt. Thus no-one is placing any weight at all on this quotation.

Regards

I am. Which is why I used it. And until it is demonstrated that the quotation is wrong or that Lachouque made a mistake, then it has to stand.

And as I said before, there are at least three works that I've found by Caulaincourt in print. I don't think that anyone has gone through all three in the last 24 hours.

I've looked partially in two, and not in the third one yet which is on Google books.

So, the issue at worst isn't concluded and if you and others wish to beat it to death and write it off, that's fine. Ignoring the quotation doesn't change anything in the discussion.

The bottom line is that the Russians were defeated, and defeated badly, at the Berezina and trying to rationalize the historical record into a piece of terrible revisionism that the Russians actually defeated the French at the Berezina that only demonstrates either a deep-set anti-French bias and/or the inability to analyze a battle.

The same goes for the nonsense that was posted in the discussion regarding Eylau and Borodino. Eylau accomplished nothing except a large blood-letting. But the Russians withdrew because they couldn't maintain their position on the field. They certainly did not defeat the French.

At Borodino the French pushed the Russians out of a strong defensive position and the Russians had little or no reserves left after the action as the Russian army was almost if not all completely deployed in action during the battle.

The French artillery dominated the field and the French inflicted many more casualties on the Russians than the French incurred. And the Russians left for Moscow during the night-Napoleon was prepared to renew the contest the next day-Kutusov evidently was not.

B

Kevin,
You missed the following, so I am reposting. The so-called "quote" from de Caulaincourt is at best a translation of a third-hand re-writing of de Caulaincourt – "really only an apochryphal text and without value".

You relied on it, reppeated to others, because you liked it. You did not bothr to check it at all. Poor form. It makes your use of other supposed "sources" seem untrustworthy.

The passage is from an article from 1928 in the Revue des Deux Mondes (a more popular or social periodical than strictly academic) by Jean Hanoteau entitled "En traîneau avec l'empereur".
link

The origination of the text with de Caulaincourt is third-hand at best.
De Caulaincourt collected his papers and began to write some pieces of memoires in the years 1822 and 1825. In 1837, these manuscripts were used a basis for the publication of a so-called "Souvenirs de duc de Vicence" by one Charlotte Sor, a woman who had met the general at a thermal baths near the time of his death and who had then acquired certain of his papers, in amongst other "confidences". These papers themselves being lost, the publication of Mlle Sor cannot be said with any care to be really the words of de Caulaincourt. As one recent publisher of these works wrote, ""Il s'agit en réalité d'un texte apocryphe et sans valeur""
link

Parts of the publication of Mlle Sor were then again re-edited/re-written by M. Hanoteau, then an author/publicist working for the French Army, for publication in the Revue des Deux Mondes in1928.

The passage, with its "gung-ho" wording, has been atributed to de Caulaincourt many times since then, and occassionally to others. Lachouque used it in his original French text in 1957 for "Napoléon et la Garde Impériale" and it migrated thence to The Anatomy of Glory in English.

Occassioanlly the passage is introduced as "S'adressant aux soldats ….", for example in Lachouque's "Napoléon 20 ans de campagne" (1964). One supposes that the document of de Caulaincourt that most nearly might have had such language as in the passage quoted by Kevin was some sort of morale raising piece for his staff or for fellow Bonapartistes during the Restauration. But at third- or fouth-hand, after several re-editings/re-writings, it is impossible to tell what de Caulaincourt really wrote and in what context.

Anyway, once agian we learn the risks of relying on modern secondary English language sources instead of tracing the original text and its publication history.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

P.S. Mlle Sor's "confidences" from the ailing general at the baths were exactly what you more dirty-minded fellows were imagining.

Kevin,

What are you complaining about this time?

Condescend much? I'm asking you to respond in the light of your challenge to Alexandre being met by him.

The quotes that I provided from Caulaincourt were taken from The Anatomy of Glory by Henry Lachouque.

I have no reason to doubt Lachouque's research. If someone else does, then the reasons for that and something to support should be provided.

It hasn't been. You, Alexandre, or anyone else don't have to believe what is posted. However, if you don't believe a citation, then it is up to you and Alexandre to prove that it isn't valid. Neither you nor he has done that.

But Alexandre did do that in the thread where you made your demand that he do so, and I linked to it above, now he has reposted it in this thread.

So Alexandre did what you challenged him to do and your reply is to throw insults at me when I ask for your reply:

What you have done, however, is post nonsense, continuous questions that are nothing but repetitive questions that do nothing but obfuscate the discussion and shed no light on anything.

I'm beginning to believe and understand that you're nothing but a marplot who is doing nothing but causing problems for no reason, or for a reason that only you understand.

I had to lookup marplot, interesting insult to use. So according to you I am, "a meddler who is interfering in an undertaking." Well, it is a learned insult at least.

Alexandre challenged your quote attributed to Caulaincourt, you stated that if he felt it untrue it was on him to demonstrate it wasn't trustworthy. He has now done so and I am bringing it to your attention at which point you are denying he did it.

This is very poor form, what the heck man?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit

Anything that remotely seems to tarnish or to steal some of the shine from the reputation of Napoleon is liable to be considered "poor form" by our dear friend K.

Best

basileus66,

Anything that remotely seems to tarnish or to steal some of the shine from the reputation of Napoleon is liable to be considered "poor form" by our dear friend K.

Which is just foolish. Napoleon wasn't perfect, by making people think we believe he was perfect we just make ourselves the butt of a joke and polarize the conversation in such a way as to ensure our positions will not be taken seriously.

I think very well of Napoleon but if I am unwilling to accept, and in fact to hold, criticism of him, I would be an extremist incapable of rational discussion.

Cheers,

The Bandit

'He has now done so and I am bringing it to your attention at which point you are denying he did it.'

Where was the Caulaincourt quotation proven that it wasn't Caulaincourt's? Please point that out to me.

B

'Anything that remotely seems to tarnish or to steal some of the shine from the reputation of Napoleon is liable to be considered "poor form" by our dear friend K.'

Bags of Bull.

I have never said something like that nor have I attempted anything like that.

Your statement is incorrect and a very silly thing to say.

B

'Napoleon wasn't perfect, by making people think we believe he was perfect we just make ourselves the butt of a joke and polarize the conversation in such a way as to ensure our positions will not be taken seriously.'

And no one has stated or implied that Napoleon was 'perfect.'

You are creating a strawman argument and emphasizing yourself as indeed being a marplot.

B

Kevin,

Where was the Caulaincourt quotation proven that it wasn't Caulaincourt's? Please point that out to me.

Scroll up in this thread and read what Alexandre has now posted for you twice in two threads. If you aren't willing to even admit that he has posted something impeaching the quote you used it is hard to respect your position. Your own expressed standard is that if someone disagrees they are to post cited evidence to the contrary, it appears he did so, thus, by your standard, if you disagree, respond to it and indicate how it is wrong.

And no one has stated or implied that Napoleon was 'perfect.'

You are creating a strawman argument and emphasizing yourself as indeed being a marplot.

I think that when seemingly all criticism of Napoleon is disputed or denied it gives people this impression, while it may not be your intent it appears to be the outcome.

In the mean time, you're calling me names again, please stop, I'm not doing it to you.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"Where was the Caulaincourt quotation proven that it wasn't Caulaincourt's?"

Kevin,
Did you read my post on this question (copied into two threads)?
You supposed "quote" from de Caulaincourt is a translation of a passage first published in a popular (not academic) French magazine in 1928 by a writer employed by the French army.
He was using as a "source", before his re-writing, a so-called "Souvenirs" of de Caulaincourt that had been published by a tart that the general had met at a thermal baths who claimed a decade after his death that she had some of his papers.
The modern French scholar who reviewed this summarized "really only an apochryphal text and without value".
That's it.
You and quite a few other authors have replayed this stirring little so-called "quote" for neigh onto 100 years …. but you did not check its origin, because it fit your bias and your agenda.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

P.S. It is really not de Caulaincourt's style in French, so finding it suspect would be easy for anyone who had the language and was not driven by a biased agenda.

Who is the modern French scholar?

B

Perhaps this might help:

'About 1826 Caulaincourt, suffering from cancer of the stomach, went to take the waters at Plombieres. there he met Charlotte de Sor, alias Madame Eillaux, a novelist. She questioned him about Napoleon and persuaded him to show her certain pages of his manuscript Memoirs. Caulaincourt died in 1827; ten years later Charlotte de Sor published a two-volume Souvenirs de Duc de Vicenze. So successful were they that she followed them up with two more volumes, again purporting to be based on Caulaincourt's papers.'

'Caulaincourt's authentic Memoirs were published only in 1933, admirably edited by Jean Hanoteau, who was then able to describe Sor's books as a tissue of absurdities, untruths and spiteful words, the historical value of which is nil.' Yet they had been freely used by previous biographers of napoleon! Caulaincourt's Memoirs, written between 1822 and 1825, are based on notes taken daily about many things, including the character of Tsar Alexander, but Napoleon, in St. Helena, called his former Grand Squire 'a man who is both sensitive and upright', and his Memoirs are among the most valuable sources we have.'

-Vincent Cronin, Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography, 448.

B

So getting a back to the apocryphal statement that had the French been in the same position of the Russians, no French troops would have survived…and equating the action to Friedland…where the Russians were defeated and yet not annihilated…the French still lose at Berezhina and in 1807, which the apocryphal grognard should have been aware the French did indeed let some Russians escape.

The tactical situations were quite different in 1807 than in 1812 regarding the two battles. If the French had been on both sides of the Alle in 1807, the Russian army would have been completely trapped and I don't see them fighting their way out.

B

"Who is the modern French scholar?"

Kevin, do you read my posts? Do you read French?
I linked the work where the comment was made about the de Caulaincourt text : "really only an apochryphal text and without value".
It was Christophe Bourachot.
46 entries in World Cat, mostly publishing manuscript first-hand accounts from the Napoleonic era:
link

His name is not familiar to you?
Maybe if he published more secondary works in English, with a pro-French slant, you would know him better.
:-)

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

I have as many primary sources, in more than one language, as I do in secondary source material.

And, no, his name was not familiar to me.

B

Then again, neither was the Allied command structure in 1813…

question , why didn't kutusov atack,
when he had the chance seeing the frist troops crossing? grts serg joe in my last postin i orgot the " k" so shoot me! stil serg joe

gough reed a buch

you also have problems with the "f"

Having a new key board doesn't mean it's beter and while giving comment i didn't read it.
grts serg joe

sirs To my opinion kutusov was afraid of napoleon at the berazina. He was told by other people never to underestimate your enemy grts serg jie

while building the bridges why didn'tniet Kutusov send patrols of cossacks to see if he should be afraid of the grande armee state? grts serg joe

In my last comment i wrote something wrong saying while building the bridges why didn't Kutusov send patrols of cossacks to see if ,
he should be afraid of the grande armee state .Take away the word "niet" please and ofcourse the grande armee escaping grts serg joe

That new keyboard is marvellous….quite an incredible change in communication standards, quite incredible, literally…

while building the bridges why didn't Kutusov send patrols of cossacks to see if he should be afraid of the grande armee bt.w. this should be beter!. grts serg joe

Kutusov was so afraid that the did not catch up with Napoleon – he was far behind.

Tchitchabov however did send out patrols and they found out about the crossing – but his troops were too much dispersed and (thanks to faulty intelligence supplied by Kutusov) at the wrong place – so Tchitchagov couldn't concentrate his units fully.

wittgenstein was a big watcher as well and only took part in the end of the fighting but claiming that he alone was destroying the Grande Armée

In case of interest – Mikaberidze is discussing all this points very well in his book – go for it.

"Your statement is incorrect and a very silly thing to say"

Kev

You are pro-Napoleon. Sometimes, you get blinded by your admiration for him. That is not sillyness, just an observation.

Anyway, I apologise to you. My post was unnecessarily sarcastic.

Best