"Any surprise." Topic

In general, when we teach or lern at school about the invation of Russia by Napoleon, we considered that the Russian suffered that agression with some kind of surprice.
That the Russians were not waiting Napoleon Armies on their frontiers many time ago.
That they beleived on the diplomatic agreements signed by both countries hoping for peace.
Maybe that they knows that something would be happened against them but not sure about when, how much troops and the strategical plans of the french Emperor upon he put his first step on russian soil.

But up today, with the new research on Russian documents of that Era, it seems that the Tzar count with so excelency intelligence data that allow him and Barclay de Tolly to planned his own strategic two years BEFORE the invation by the french and Allied contingents and for the start they decided how was the plan to were down Napoleon by a defensive campaign and then to persue the defeated and weak enemy Army back over the frontier and at the same time, raise a European insurrection against Napoleon.

So, the campaing of 1812 was planned and impossed to Napoleon knowing full well that it was the prececerly kind of war that Russia was eqquiped to wage.
And now, with this new evidence, we could think that Napoleon was moved as a puppet by the Russian Tzar in his big plan to invade the Russian territory.

Any surprice at all to the Emperor invation!.
Did you agree?

Amicalement
Armand

what new research, all this was published already 100 years ago, like in the French work by Fabry.

Armand,

I would have to agree that much of the material I found in Lieven's new book has already been published in other accounts. One thing that is stressed in the academic side of the discipline is the attempt at finding something new, and it is almost a mania.

Graduate studies in military history was quite enlightening from a couple of viewpoints-one of them being the discouraging by those who hold PHDs of those with new master's degrees of continuing their studies at the doctoral level. I was quite surprised at that one.

Anyways, the knowledge of the Russian espionage ring in Paris is over twenty years old; the Russian preparations for war as early as 1810 and their pressure on the Poles to 'assimilate' is over forty years old.

There is also no way during that period that the huge preparations for the invasion of Russia could have been kept secret once the concentrations began. Troops were being pulled out of Spain and sent to eastern Europe, including such fine units as the Legion of the Vistula (see von Brandt's memoirs), and had to traverse too much territory in large numbers to have been missed by anyone, especially as there was no fighting in eastern Europe at the time.

What is new, though, is the Russian documents and 'viewpoint' that has been missing for so long. In that, Lieven has done an excellent job and the book is very valuable for the study of the campaign.

The more information, the better.

I disagree that Napoleon was manipulated by the Tsar. Alexander was a devious politician and was also scared to death that he was going to end up like his father at the hands of his own nobles. The Russians had a very hard time deciding what to do once the French invaded. There is no evidence that there was a planned withdrawal towards Moscow after Smolensk. There was a planned withdrawal to the Drissa camp, but after than plan backfired, the Russians were in trouble.

Napoleon's plan to trap the Russian armies close inside the Russian borders didn't work either. After that, a halt probably should have been called. Russia is just too large, and the means of communication and command and control during the period could not handle the immensity of the country and the poor road network. There are three additional informal Principles of War besides the generally recognized nine-Never invade Russia; Never invade China; and Never invade the United States (or Canada for that matter). The territory involved is just too big to operate in and do well.

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

Good to see you posting again.

Sounds like your a fan of the movie 'The Princess Bride', the character Vizzini "You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" – but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…"

Alexander did actually have good reasons for fearing his nobles.

Would you comment please on the idea that Napoleon planned a short campaign lasting only a few months and, if so, why did he continue rather than stoping and pulling back to Poland.

Best,

Elliott

Many thanks Mr. Kevin for your contribution.

I think that the Tzar had the best reasons for fearing his dead… but by his son as he did with his father?. Ha!. Ha!.

I suport the comment of 138Squadron Raf about Napoleon short campaign.

Amicalement
Armand

Whatever Napoleon planned, he was outwitted by the Russians and that already in 1810 and 1811 when they analysed his art of war and how to deal with it, read Fabry – very enlightening.

And just how was Napoleon 'outwitted' by the Russians? Their first plan with the Drissa Camp, which the Tsar approved, was an abject failure. They lost most, if not all, of the major engagements, and even got lost in their own country during the campaign.

Compound that with Kutusov's failure, probably on purpose, at the Berezina and I don't see the Russians outwitting anyone, except maybe for their own people.

Sincerely,
K

Thanks, Elliott,

It is good to see you, too. You can always be counted on for excellent postings and analysis.

Sincerely,
K

Well said Kevin

Thanks, Shane. How have you been?

Sincerely,
K

G'day Kev,

Reading prolifically atm. Just graduated university – post graduate certificate in business and half way through my masters now.

Had little time of late but starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel now.

G'day Shane,

Gratz mate!

Good to see you back!

Elliott

Shane,

Well done and congratulations. I breathed a very heavy sigh of relief when I finally got my masters last summer. I'm actually thinking of doing a second one-though not at the moment-I have three books to finish.

Sincerely,
K

Elliott,

Napoleon's original plan was to strike quickly and trap the Russian field armies close to the border. The entire logistical system for the campaign was designed around that plan.

The Russian withdrawal to Drissa tended to foil that plan, though the Russian plan was abandoned because the Drissa camp was a trap in the making.

Napoleon kept going, though I don't believe that he had to, because, among other things, he had always concluded his campaigns in one season (I guess Spain slipped his mind) and he didn't want to admit failure.

The campaign as it developed was beyond Napoleon's means-it was actually beyond anyone's means at the time and I wouldn't advise anyone to invade Russia-it is simply too large.

It should be noted that the logistical planning and outfitting was the most thorough of any of Napoleon's campaigns. The ultimate failure was not even the weather, though that played a part. It was the immense size of the theater of operations that was beyond the means available in transport, logistics, and communications.

It should also be noted that the Russians suffered almost as many losses as the French and couldn't actually defeat them in battle-including even when they trapped Napoleon at the Berezina because of two things-they were outthought and outfought and Kutusov's failure to support Wittgenstein and Tshitshagov, and the latter was left holding the Tshitty end of the stick.

Sincerely,
K

How was Drissa a "failure" let alone an "abject failure"?? Sure, the camp itself was not suitable as a sanctuary because of its poor preparation and the unexpectedly large size of the Grande Armee, but the basic strategy represented by Drissa: face the main forces but do not engage, mobilize the nation, and raid and skirmish the long flanks worked to a T. That the Russian Army found refuge in Tula rather than Drissa is a detail. The strategy was ideally suited to countering Napoleon's desire for a quick border clash and resolution of a cabinet war. And Lieven articulately argues that Alexander had thought about this a great deal.

And what exactly is the point about the French winning most of the battles??? Eveyone knows that you can lose every battle and still win the campaign. It sounds like you are trying to compare them against the 19-1 Patriots…

And besides you are wrong.
Saltanovka F
Ostrovno F
Kobrin R
Kliastitsy R
Golovshchina R
Gorodetsna F
Krasny 1 F
Polotsk 1 F
Somlensk F
Borodino F
Taratino R
Polotsk 2 R
Maloyaroslavets R
Viazma R
Krasny 2 R
Berezina R

There was no conscious decision after Smolensk to withdraw deeper into Russia and thereby draw the French after them. The Russians were having problems, not the worst being that Barclay was being undermined by Bagration and some of his own staff. Bagration was not cooperating wholeheartedly with Barclay and was causing problems within the Russian command system, which wasn't that efficient to begin with.

Clausewitz, in his study of the campaign has interesting points to make on the senior Russian commanders and the Drissa camp and the failed strategy that led to its adoption. The camp was poorly located and apparently Phull, a Prussian, intended that the camp would be in the same role that Frederick the Great's camp at Bunzelwitz fulfilled in 1761.

Winning battles will generally lead you, if you take advantage of them, to winning the campaign if you pay attention and follow them up aggressively. Unfortunately, this didn't happen for the French in 1812.

I don't agree with your listing as to who won and who lost. You left out Valutino which was won by the French immediately after Smolensk. St. Cyr won at Polotsk II and Maloyaroslavets was a French victory, though Napoleon didn't take advantage of it at all-Kutusov retreated after the battle and had been repulsed during it, being driven by Eugene beyond the town. Krasny II was also a French victory during the retreat, the Russians being defeated after a very hard fight. Lastly, and most glaringly, the Crossing of the Berezina was definitely a French victory, executing an assault river crossing against a hostile shore, building two trestle bridges under fire, and defeating two Russian armies who tried to trap the Grande Armee at the river. Kutusov, though he could have influenced the action, refused to become involved until after Wittgenstein and Tshitshagov were defeated and the Grande Armee had escaped.

Sincerely,
K

got to agree with Kevin, your list of victors and losers is incorrect for my opinion.

Napoleon was in an impossible position after Smolensk, he had to chose between chasing the Russians deep into Russia or call a halt and try to negotiate. If he did not follow the Russians he would have lost face on the world stage and lose any chance of crushing the Russians but if he advanced he risked a long protracted campaign that might push him into having to chase the Russians long distances.

I do not envy him having to make that decision regardless of the reasons for fighting Russia in the first place. Personally, I feel he should have halted at Smolensk and consolidated his position. In the real campaign he formed the state of Lithuania and it failed because he did not have the time to establish it with any solidity of foundation. If he halted at Smolensk he would have had the time to spread his army out, form the state, ground it with solid foundations and build a Lithuanian army with enough time to instill it with some national pride.

I dare say the Russians would not have returned to counter-strike before the next spring which would have given Napoleon enough time to do what he wanted to do, instate a local commander like Davout to oversee everything and return to Paris to conduct his political duties. Saxony or Poland could have become his central axis of operations and his troops could have remained in garrison for long periods of time spread out over eastern Europe as desired. If the Russians showed any sign of aggression he could have concentrated rapidly and be in a position to catch them like baiting a mouse into a trap.

However, not knowing the real situation and how these leaders felt or what public opinion was it is hard to say what was the correct course of action. But I think what I have just stated could have worked.

yes, I am an armchair general.

Shane

And quite a good one, too, if I may say so. You need to write a book on the period from that perspective and you can incorporate wargaming into it. I'd certainly buy it.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I buyed too!.

Amicalement
Armand

Well Shane, my list can't really be "incorrect" since, as you imply, it's a matter of opinion. One need only check the Wikipedia discussion on Borodino to find people who consider that battle a Russian victory. The question is whether it is an educated and reasonable opinion. (Have you read Lieven's book?) I don't think it's unreasonable to consider a battle where the French lost more than 30,000 and the Russians less than 2,000 (Krasny 2) to be a Russian victory. But I'm not prepared to quibble about it, as it is in the end opinion.

Unlike, say, Gribeauval's invention of the bricole…;-)

Wikipedia is not a reliable reference. That's the reason you cannot use it in graduate school.

Where did you get the idea that the French lost 30,000 men at Krasny? What is your source?

At Borodino the Russians were forced out of their defensive position by the French and had much heavier losses. How could that be even construed as a Russian victory.

Common sense seems to be absent here.

Sincerely,
K

Re 2nd Krasnoi, 14-18 November, 1812

Digby Smith, "The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book", page 403-404

French and their Allies lost 13,000 killed, 26,442 capitured together with 123 guns and 15 Eagles/Colours. Obviously as resounding French victory ;-)
(Where do I find those emote-icons?)

I'd agree that nvrsaynvr is wrong, he underestimated the French losses by either 31% or 24% depending on how you do the calculation.

Wikipedia is a useful first look, but I would want to rely on the information presented, especially if finding myself back in graduate school. This is from someone who edits certain sections. Mind you Wiki is head and shoulders in reliability above Conservapedia:

conservapedia.com/Napoleon

Best,

Elliott

No, I have not read Lieven's book, yet. But he is but one author in a long line of succession of authors who have studied the campaign in Russia. I cannot see how you might imply his is the single authoritative source that you single out that you ask if I have read? I will purchase it in good time but I fail to see how owning and reading his book will sway my opinion, or yours for that matter.

I opened and listened however to his presentation in that mp3 and although he came out with some good solid points is is nothing new to me. I have heard it all before and even discussed much of what he spoke about within my own Napoleonic group over the years. All he did is help justify my own opinions on that campaign as to what happened and the reasons for it.

As for Wikipedia, I too would suggest you steer clear of that site if you wish to suggest you can derive truth from fiction and quote from it. Wikipedia is a good starting point if you know nothing about the subject however it is not peer reviewed nor is it critiqued. Anyone can write to it and anyone can say what they "think" is right, thus much of it is, "opinion"…

Shane

The twelve actions that collectively have become known as the battle of Krasny (Krasnoe/Krazni).

1812 – Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow
Adam Zamoyski

Quote:

Page 440
"The next stage of the retreat, the five-day march from Smolensk to Orsha, was executed in far more difficult conditions than the first, with temperatures varying from -15 degrees to -25 degrees and regular Russian forces harrying every step. It was dominated by the fighting around Krasny, with each unit having to run the gauntlet. And although the French were generally victorious, the five days of fighting around Krasny had emasculated the army of Moscow. Possibly as many as 10,000 of the best soldiers had been killed or wounded, over 20,000 (many of them civilians) had been taken prisoner and more than two hundred guns had been lost".

(Shishov) – (Bezkrovny) – (Buturlin) – (Troitskii)

Page 526
"Alexander reproached Kutuzov for losing three days by retreating from Maloyaroslavets, for failing to cut Napoleon off at Krasny and for letting him get across the Berezina".

(Voenskii) – (Kutuzov) – (Gosudarstvenno-Istoricheski Muzei)

The Russian objectives here were to cut off the French and crush them right there and then. They failed in this and the French broke through and pushed on. Hardly a Russian victory no matter the price the French paid. Again as is always the case, these debates come down to a matter of interpretation of just what constitutes a victory and a defeat. Clearly the Russians failed to gain their objectives while the French gained theirs.

Shane

According to George Nafziger, the strengths of the two armies at Krasny were 50,000 French and 90,000 Russians. If Digby's figures are correct, then, the Grande Armee would have ceased to exist.

There are four authorities to reference when talking about eagles: General Regnault, Hollander, Pierre Charrie, and General Andolenko. Different scholars prefer different source material, but any of these four (and better if you have all four, which I am very lucky to have) are accurate and display excellent scholarship.

Then, again, Digby is wrong on the eagles captured. The French only lost twelve during the entire campaign, so fifteen is just a little high for one action. Nafziger states that only two standards were lost, but it appears that the Russians captured three eagles at Krasny, not fifteen.

The field piece total is also a little high. Nafziger states that the French lost 45 guns, which is a reasonable assumption. He also states that there were 6,229 prisoners, which I have no reason to doubt.

Digby is a friend of mine and he and I have done two books together. I think very highly of him, but the data book has some errors in it that are not unusual for a book of that size and scope, and for Krasny the information is incorrect for the French.

It was also a battlefield victory for the French, though the Young Guard and the 3d (Dutch) Grenadiers suffered heavy losses-but so did the Russians and their attempt to destroy the Grande Armee failed.

Again, if the Grande Armee had suffered the losses listed in the Data Book, it would have been rendered combat ineffective and would never have made it out of Russia. The Russians were defeated again at Krasny just as they were in most of the battles of the campaign. The Grande Armee may have been 'dying on its feet' but the Russians still couldn't stop it.

Sincerely,
K

I don't know if anyone is interested, but here's the breakdown of eagles lost during the course of the wars from 1805-1815 by nationality of who captured them. Unfortunately I don't have the numbers of enemy colors taken by the French, but they were certainly much greater than the number of eagles lost.

The information is taken from Les Aigles Imperiales 1804-1815 by General Regnault, regarded by some as the authority on the subject.

The Austrians took nine total (three in 1805, five in 1809, and one in 1813)

The Russians captured twenty-eight (three in 1805, six in 1807, twelve in 1812, six in 1813, and one in 1814).

The Prussians captured five (one in 1807, two in 1813, two in 1814). They also grabbed two after the shooting stopped. They captured none in 1815.

The Spanish took five (three in 1808, one in 1813, and one in 1814).

The British took thirteen (five in the colonies they captured, six in Spain, and two in 1815).

Total taken was 60 in eleven years of warfare.

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

Smith quotes Eagles and Standards – it wasn't all 'another cookoo for Peterburg' to paraphrase.

I also undertand that there was a differnece between the way in which the British and French considered flags captured. IIRC the British went of off the flag, the French required the flag and pole.

Shane,

Lieven is worth reading, the main thing that he has done is bring in Russian sources that we not available to western scholars.

EWJ

I was just reading one of the editorials in the UK 'Daily Telegraph and thought I would share this because it seemed approriate:

"An iron law of human conflict: most people hate foreigners coming to their country and trying to force them to change their way of life for a better and wiser one. This was as true when the Romans invaded Britain as it is today. In the past, though, people were accustomed to being ruled by others. Now, they are not – and conflict situations give the home team, like the Taliban, advantage and likely victory.

There are exceptions to the rule, but they are few and far between. Napoleon won in the German principalities, Austria, the rest of Central Europe and Italy, because a significant part of the population had absorbed the ideas of the Enlightenment and felt and thought like the French soldiers: they wanted to be equal and wanted to be able to rise in the world, regardless of their low birth. This was the reason for Napoleon's early victories. But what sealed his fate in a few quick years was his fatal blunder of sending his troops into countries where people believed that the idea of equality was satanic. (Napoleon was the first "Great Satan", by the way.) He was beaten not only in Russia, which had greater manpower and resources, but also in Spain, which didn't."

Elliott

(For many years the papers senior editor was Max Hastings the historian and John Keegan was their defense editor.
For the record the Telegraph is nicknamed in the UK 'The Torygraph and is pretyy much the voice of the UK Conservative Party; this does not under any circumstances analagous to the Conservatives in the US.)

Dear Shane:

You write "As for Wikipedia, I too would suggest you steer clear of that site if you wish to suggest you can derive truth from fiction and quote from it. Wikipedia is a good starting point if you know nothing about the subject however it is not peer reviewed nor is it critiqued."

If you are implying that Wikipedia is not peer reviewed (by professional historians) nor is it critiqued (by qualified historians) then your assertion must necessarily also apply to this TMP forum. Nvrsaynvr writes ". . . it's a matter of opinion." 10th Marines can assert all manner of "facts," cite sources (rare and recommended by "scholars"), and appeal to authority ("graduate school" and "common sense"), but in the end what he argues is mere opinion. There are occasional threads with historical arguments bandied back and forth on the forum (in some cases by well-read and knowledgeable amateur historians), but this forum is not peer reviewed nor critiqued by professionals. Now, if you did not imply professional historians when you wrote "peer reviewed" then you have the issue of who possesses the credentials on this forum to validly peer review or critique.

I enjoy TMP because I am a wargamer and love history. My professional credentials and experience are irrelevant in this medium because it is not peer reviewed nor critiqued and I come here because of my enjoyment of the hobby.

You wrote "As for Wikipedia, I too would suggest you steer clear of that site if you wish to suggest you can derive truth from fiction and quote from it." The same assertion can be leveled about this forum for the same reasons that you note for Wikipedia.

Trying to silence opinions, such as Nvrsaynvr's, by creating a facade of historical authenticity is an exercise in frustration. All the wargamers that frequent this forum would leave in droves if it were peer reviewed and critiqued. And certain posters that come here to "critique" insinuate that other posters are not "their peers." I love to discuss wargame systems and history, but when someone starts citing credentials, arcane sources, and asking posters to cite sources they should consider a different venue. What are they adding to our enjoyment of our hobby? Why post here if it is note peer reviewed nor critiqued?

Our group of wargamers just fought a hypothetical battle based on the 1812 campaign last Saturday (we had not met in over three months). We had good food, good beer, and lots of fun. We enjoyed the camaraderie, the 15mm Napoleonics on beautiful terrain (8 x 12' table), and a great discussion afterwards (with nobody spouting superior credentials and sources). That was enjoyable. That is what unites us on TMP--is it not?

Shane,
This is one of several threads Armand has started by posing a question based on his reading of Lieven. So to a certain extent our arguments are in the context of supporting or rejecting Lieven. There's a two-fold problem: what is a reasonable interpretation of 1812 and what is a fair summary of what Lieven said. My list has nothing, really, to do with Lieven, who doesn't make any claims for particular Russian prowness on the battlefield. I'm merely pointing out to TMP that Kevin is diddling with his petard again.

Anyway Lieven is an excellent book that you will enjoy and I think you will agree once you have actually read it that it is different than the usual expositions.

To repeat, since apparently I was not clear the first time, the Wikipedia _discussion_ page, which is not the Wikipedia article page, is a good place to find people contending that Borodino was a Russian victory for essentially the same argument you have applied to Krasny: the French aim of totally crushing the Russians was unrealized. I think it's a silly argument. But at least the casualty ratio was under 2…

Speaking of silly arguments, it's rather pompous to sit on a TMP Napoleonic forum and complain about the review and critique standards of Wikipedia when, in fact, they have a rather vigorous process of self-policing. It doesn't always work, but at least they have to back stuff up with citations.

My source for Krasny is Riehn who I think is a sober and careful student of the campaign.

Now hang on Lest We Forget,

Trying to silence opinions, such as Nvrsaynvr's, by creating a facade of historical authenticity is an exercise in frustration.

How in hell did you come to that conclusion?? Where on this thread have I tried to silence anyone??? I am NOT trying to do anything of the sort. Remember, nvrsaynvr brought his own opinion here as to who were victors and who were losers in his own opinions first. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am in no way trying to silence anyone, I am merely stating that I refute his list and I have tried to provide the historical proof to back that up. Accusing me of creating a facade of historical authenticity is insulting and I request you withdraw it. You are doing no positive service to this debate by making such statements about fellow posters. By your own statement nvrsaynvr could be accused of the same thing…but you did not jump on him did you? double standard if I ever saw one.

As for Wikipedia, if you are going to have an opinion on anything historical would you base it on what is proven fact obtained from historical documents and other similar sources or would you base it on a website page that anyone can write to?

As for the debate over who is the victor and who is the loser in war, this is a question I do not think is easily argued successfully for either side in any conflict unless the outcome is total dominance of one sides will over the other and even then the winner is not always clearly defined. However, nvrsaynvr categorically decided the Russians won particular battles such as the Krasny example amongst others. But, if you look at the evidence available in many books your interpretation of just who was the victor does not hold water. The definition of a winner or loser of a battle really depends of the context of the battle, why it is being fought in the first place. If the reason for fighting is not fulfilled then you cannot claim victory but neither can the other side if theirs is not fulfilled either.

However, if one side makes a stand to put up a fight to defeat the enemy then is pushed off that battlefield at the end of the day I would call that a defeat. Equally, if one side wishes to cut-off the other and fails I would also call that a defeat. At Borodino the Russians left the field to the French and at Krasny the Russians failed to stop the break-out of the French, I call that a defeat on both occasions for the Russians, but sure, we can argue the point if you like.

But again, please do not tell me I am trying to silence anyone on this forum. I refute that as a silly statement which is impossible for me to do in such a global stage as TMP anyway. However, if I feel someone has stated something that I feel is incorrect then I have the right to argue that point in a debate (which I did) such as we are having now and back it up with evidence (which I have). But do not accuse me of trying to silence anyone, that is preposterous accusation in such a forum as this. I have respect for nvrsaynvr on this forum and what he has to say. I have no control over his voice and I know he will argue a point with me if he feels he has a case to back him up, I expect it from him.

Arguing over anything worth arguing over, or for want of a better word, debating a point is what we are doing. I think is has been amicable so far and nvrsaynvr has not shown any ill feeling over my own statements. I too enjoy war gaming and playing games with my mates around the table for fun. If you ask any of them I am not a staunch historian of any sort, I like facts but I enjoy more trying to change history in the games I play but find that if all too often repeats rather than changes in our games. The odd exception being our recent Albuera re-fight. You cannot see tone on forums such as this and my argument with previous comments here should be taken in the contect of the debate, if someone makes a statement claiming fact and I feel they are incorrect then I am going to argue that point, would you deny me that?

Case in point, nvrsaynvr said this in response to Kevin :

And what exactly is the point about the French winning most of the battles??? Everyone knows that you can lose every battle and still win the campaign. It sounds like you are trying to compare them against the 19-1 Patriots…

And besides you are wrong.

Did you pick him up for this? no, instead you picked me up for arguing the validity of wikapedia and trying to silence him which was over the line here. When I saw that statement and his own list of winners and losers I had every right to respond without being accused of trying to silence him.

nvrsaynvr & 138RAF,

Thank you, on the book by Lieven I do take your recommendations. I do intend to purchase it one of these days when time permits. I have many books recently bought that I have had no time to read due to my own studies but I am looking forward to reading once I do gain that time.

'I'm merely pointing out to TMP that Kevin is diddling with his petard again.'

And how is that? History and the study of it is not based on opinions, though everyone is entitled to their own. History is based on collecting facts and then coming to a logical conclusion based on those facts. That is called historical inquiry.

You made a statement on who won where. You categorically stated that I was 'wrong' without any substantial support. It has been demonstrated that isn't the case specifically with reference to the Berezina and Krasny both in November 1812.

If you would like to discuss the relevance based on historical material that you can reference, I'd be glad to engage you in conversation. If you're going to make ridiculous statements and start with ad hominem attacks, then you can go play elsewhere. I'm not interested in your personal remarks or anything of that nature. Getting personal has no place here to my mind.

Sincerely,
K

amen,

When a debate here seems to be lost it is typical of some posters to go personal. Once again this has occurred on TMP on a sub-forum specifically placed here by Bill to meet the requirements of many of us to have a place to speak about Napoleonics from a historical perspective several years ago because posters on the discussion forum complained that it was a wargaming forum (me included). Now that we have this sub-forum for serious historical debate and discussion if you try to provide historical evidence to substantiate your perspective you get posters complaining that you are trying to create a facade of historical authenticity on a forum devoted to war gaming…

…give me a break

Elliott,

The references for eagles lost are the ones that I listed, and Digby didn't use any of them. Martinien only lists the French officer casualties, not the enlisted. In the narrative in the book, Digby states that Kutusov's report stated that only two French standards and colors were taken. There is a disconnect here.

And, again, if there were 50,000 French effectives at Krasny, and the French casualties were 39,180, that leaves barely 10,000 to continue on to Orsha and the Berezina and with that number there is no way the French could have fought their way out, even being reinforced by Victor and Oudinot. I would refer you to the Esposito/Elting Atlas for a better understanding and feel for the campaign and the retreat. Also, the relative strengths of the Grande Armee are much more reliable in that history than in Digby's book.

Sincerely,
K

Elliott,

Generally speaking, when the term 'standard' is used for the French it could be the flag that went with the eagle, though the eagle was the valuable part of the ensemble.

Also, it could refer to the battalion fanions the infantry carried, different colors for each battalion in the regiment and which were not supposed to be 'decorated' by the units. As they did so anyways, it gave more credence to their capture. All they were, though, were marker flags to designate where the battalions were.

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

I have Esposito but grabbed Smith first as I know he gives total forces and casualties since the point was that you had challenged a causality figure for not being supported.

History is based on collecting facts and then coming to a logical conclusion based on those facts. That is called historical inquiry.

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." Bonaparte

Best,

Elliott

2 Auguest 4:47 Shane wrote in part:
"….The Russian objectives here were to cut off the French and crush them right there and then. They failed in this and the French broke through and pushed on. Hardly a Russian victory no matter the price the French paid. Again as is always the case, these debates come down to a matter of interpretation of just what constitutes a victory and a defeat. Clearly the Russians failed to gain their objectives while the French gained theirs.
Shane"

I disagree that the Russian objectives were clearly to crush the French at that time. By crush, I take the meaning to be to capture and destroy the French army at any cost and capture Napoleon.

War is diplomacy carried out in a differnt fashion.

Destroying the French army and gutting the Russian army was not in Russia's interest. Every other nation in Europe would gain from that but Russia would not be in a position to gather any of the spoils. Note that the way it turned out, a rump of an army was left for the French, enough to fight and weaken the other enemies before succuming. The French retreated stategically to defend their core, leaving a power vacumn in eastern europe that the Russians filled. Eventually, the Russian army engaged in the final battles and marched into Paris.

The Russian objective was to get the French out, not risk the annailation of their army, and make sure that they couldn't come back. They won.

P.S. This view is not original with me and has been discussed numerious times before, likely here on TMP as well.

The twelve actions that collectively have become known as the battle of Krasny (Krasnoe/Krazni).

1812 – Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow
Adam Zamoyski

Quote:

Page 526
"Alexander reproached Kutuzov for losing three days by retreating from Maloyaroslavets, for failing to cut Napoleon off at Krasny and for letting him get across the Berezina".

(Voenskii) – (Kutuzov) – (Gosudarstvenno-Istoricheski Muzei)

Even Alexander was angry that Kutazov failed to cut Napoleon off….are you saying this is wrong? It is clear that according to this evidence that the Russian high command, right up to Alexander was not trying to let Napoleon go, but to take him out. I do not think the Leiven's book and his claim that the opposite is true holds water. But hey, that just my opinion based on the evidence I have from several books and one in particular.

Shane

Shane – It is entirely possible that the Tsar and the Russian high command had slightly different objectives. For example, young General Bonaparte in Italy didn't always follow the script sent to him by the government in Paris. Civilian government vs. military command …

Beyond that, you may want to try reading Lieven's book before dismissing his conclusions because they disagree with your opinions. After all, you really have no idea what Lieven's claims actually are and have not examined his evidence, so how do you know if they hold water or not? Besides which, it's not clear to me whether 1968billsfan's statements that you reacted to are from Lieven or not.

I would suggest that being dismissive of a respected scholar without even reading his book is -poor scholarship – especially since you dismiss the entire book instead of just a specific assertion that may or may not have been made in the book. You seem to be concerned about the level of scholarship demonstrated by others (your posts above in this thread), so you may want to pay some attention to your own. But hey, that's just my opinion, you understand. You're certainly free to cling to confirmation bias as the basis for historical inquiry. Lots of folks do.

It is entirely possible that the Tsar and the Russian high command had slightly different objectives. For example, young General Bonaparte in Italy didn't always follow the script sent to him by the government in Paris. Civilian government vs. military command …

Can you back that claim up with evidence??? or is it just opinion or worse, poor ing scholarship…

I am not being dismissive of Lieven's book at all. I listened to the mp3 presentation of his book and have no issues with it at all. I, like Kevin simply disagree that Napoleon was manipulated by the Tzar. But my argument has nothing to do with that at all.

My issue is that I have provided evidence from another source which refutes the earlier claim by nvrsaynvr that Krasny was a Russian victory is all. Lets not turn this into a focus on Lieven when my points had nothing to do with his book in the first place. Just because I have not read his book "yet" does in no way make me naive of the Russian campaign and what went on.

If a poster tries to assert an opinion as truth and I know that assertion is false I will argue the point backed up with the evidence I have. That was my aim and focus, not to argue whether owning and reading Lieven's new book or not denounces my ability to present credible evidence.

And again, taking this thread to a personal level and attack shows once again the direction some people take when they cannot debate a point amicably. I am astounded that someone can make a statement and claim it as truth without evidence. Someone else provides the evidence to refute the claim and get attacked personally because he has not read one single new book that suggests that Alexander wanted to let Napoleon leave Russia and continue as head of state of France. I provided evidence that Alexander rebuked Kutazov for failing to cut off Napoleon and for my trouble I am denounced as showing poor scholarship (or worse) simply because I have failed to read a brand new published account of a long line of books on the subject. Typical. The evidence I provided is credible from another author, if you do not agree with it then refute it, not attack me personally for daring to post it.

Shane

Shane is correct. You don't have to read Lieven to be familiar with the Russian campaign. And it isn't the best evidence for the campaign either. It's good, solid history and should be judged and used as such. It isn't the last word.

Shane is correct on another related issue. Some people who are 'losing' an argument can't take it or understand it and in response instead of saying 'OK' or 'thanks' or perhaps 'good point' make a personal attack on the person who made the last piece of input. That is not only wrong in the larger sense, it is petty, ridiculous, and reminds me of the middle school students that I teach when they are let loose on their own in the hallway.

It would be a lot better, I think, to at least attempt to be more gracious and courteous which would make the forum a better place to live and visit.

Sincerely,
K

Shane, take a deep breath and calm down. In your agitation you've certainly gone off on a wild tangent. Read carefully below before racing to fire off another heated reply full of righteous indignation.

Consider what I said (read all the words):

I would suggest that being dismissive of a respected scholar without even reading his book is -poor scholarship – especially since you dismiss the entire book instead of just a specific assertion that may or may not have been made in the book.

Now consider your reaction to it (read all the words):

I provided evidence that Alexander rebuked Kutazov for failing to cut off Napoleon and for my trouble I am denounced as showing poor scholarship (or worse) simply because I have failed to read a brand new published account of a long line of books on the subject.

???? How on earth do you manage to twist that into denouncing you for bad scholarship for not having read a new book? Holy ready fire aim, Batman. Read what's written.

I'll probably kick myself later for taking the time to do this, but here's the breakdown. [begin exegesis of TMP exchange]

What you wrote, and I quote, was: "I do not think the Leiven's [sic] book and his claim that the opposite is true holds water." This is what I reacted to, which I found pretty amusing considering your lecture on historical method and wikipedia. But now you say "Lets not turn this into a focus on Lieven when my points had nothing to do with his book in the first place." But you EXPLICITLY made this about Lieven' book. And this is somehow about me changing the subject?

Now I personally don't think that owning and reading Lieven's new book has any bearing on your ability to present credible evidence and never made any statement that it did. This is something you've just made up. But I do think that having read Lieven's book (regardless of whether or not you own a copy) is essential in determining whether the author's arguments "hold water".

Now if your intended point in the post was that Krasny was not a Russian victory, then I think your quote from Zamoyski is wholly inadequate as a refutation. Recall that Houchard was executed for having won a battle but not well enough. Alexander's correspondence is proof that Alexander was disappointed in Kutuzov's results, not whether the Russian won or lost.

But after re-reading you post, I really don't think you're correct about what you meant because your explanation doesn't make sense in context. I really think that what you meant in the post I responded to was NOT to provide evidence "refuting" the Russian victory at Krasny, a point made by nvrsaynvr, but rather to present evidence "refuting" an assertion made by 1968billsfan regarding the nature of Russian objectives. If I'm correct, then the quote you selected would actually support your assertion, at least at the Tsar's level. While I have no problem with your evidence, I am open to the possibility that there may have been differing objectives at different levels. It APPEARS that you have a problem with my open-mindedness on the topic, based on your demand that I somehow produce EVIDENCE of a possibility or be guilty of -poor scholarship (I don't think my bleep is the same as yours).

[end exegesis of TMP exchange]

S you see, all of your lengthy reaction has nothing to do with the rest of MY post, which addressed your comments concerning Lieven.

If what you said isn't what you meant, then that's fine, maybe you haven't jumped to conclusions about a book you haven't read. But in that case, a "no no, I didn't mean to diss Lieven's book" would have done the trick, at which point I could simply have said "Oh, cool, I really thought that's what you were doing, my bad." You see, what you write can fail to convey what you mean, or can be misunderstood. Casual dismissal of new scholarship sight-unseen IS -poor scholarship and often an example of confirmation bias. But if you didn't intend a casual dismissal sight-unseen, then my comments really have nothing to do with you. n'est-ce pas?

you wrote:

I would suggest that being dismissive of a respected scholar without even reading his book is (expletive)-poor scholarship

For gods sake, how else couild I have taken that statement if not a personal attack ?????

I am going to say this one last time and I am going to say it slowly so you understand. I have no problem with Lievan's book because I have not read it yet. I have a problem with someone asserting what they perceive as fact and when taken to task on it and shown contrary evidence instead of producing their own evidence to back their stance gain the support of others who swing the argument away from the original point to argue something entirely different.

No matter how you try to cut it that was taken by me as a direct insult and personal attack directed at me. Actually, it is poor scholarship to assert a claim without providing evidence or if arguing a point to personally attack someone who is trying to provide the truth backed up by supporting evidence.

I have explained my position and have detailed my evidence for disputing nvrsaynvr's assertion as to Krany being a Russian victory.

But you EXPLICITLY made this about Lieven' book. And this is somehow about me changing the subject

How on earth did you come to that assumption? I did not bring up Lieven's book, others, including YOU suggested I read it long before I mentioned it. Do you need glasses to re-read the entire thread once again ??? You and others are the ones who changed the argument from Krasny to Lieven, not me…

It was yourself amongst others who suggests I must read Lieven to have a better understanding of the campaign. Rubbish ! I do not need to read a new book because suddenly it is published with new evidence that suggests all before him were wrong. Like what is already said, most of his assertions have been around for 100 years or more. I myself have been aware of most of them. However, my argument is not with Lieven and his book but it seems to keep going back to him for some damned reason.

My argument is with the assertion that Krasny was a Russian victory, it was not and I provided evidence to support that. If you do not like that then please come out and argue the point with your own evidence. Pushing this silly superfluous argument with me by personally attacking me is not getting us both anywhere. Produce the evidence to refute mine and we will be able to move on, or is is true that this evidence cannot be produced so instead the personal attack on me and my stance stance will continue?

I do not care about Lieven's book right at this point, I have so much already on this campaign and so much else going on right now that I do not have the time nor inclination to argue about a book I do not own, have not read and will not have the time to read for quite a while. All I care about is the assertion that Krasny was a Russian victory so can we please leave Lieven's book and his perspective alone and argue the original point or topic please? n'est-ce pas?

"It is clear that according to this evidence that the Russian high command, right up to Alexander was not trying to let Napoleon go, but to take him out. I do not think the Leiven's book and his claim that the opposite is true holds water."

Lieven makes no such claim.

"Someone else provides the evidence to refute the claim and get attacked personally because he has not read one single new book that suggests that Alexander wanted to let Napoleon leave Russia and continue as head of state of France."

Lieven makes no such suggestion.

Lieven does make a strong argument that Kutuzov's deliberate strategy of a "golden bridge" was motivated by his own political considerations.

Now, Shane, do you really wonder why these arguments get "personal"? You admit having not touched Lieven's book, yet you insist on making claims about it, which even if they were not untruthful, you have no business doing. It is foolish behavior, and will be received like that. That's not an attack on your person, it's a (deserved) attack on your posts. And on the net, your reputation is only as good as your posts…

"It is clear that according to this evidence that the Russian high command, right up to Alexander was not trying to let Napoleon go, but to take him out. I do not think the Leiven's book and his claim that the opposite is true holds water."

Lieven makes no such claim.

Sorry, I did get my words incorrect here. Lieven "does" make the claim that Kutazov (not Alexander) wanted to maintain Napoleon as head of state of a weakened France and thus letting him leave Russian soil. This is why Alexander rebuked him. I withdraw the point about not holding water, I only listened to the mp3 once and thought he meant Alexander wanted this.

Lieven does make a strong argument that Kutuzov's deliberate strategy of a "golden bridge" was motivated by his own political considerations.

I do not dispute this at all. This is the basis of my argument. Kutazov wanted to let Napoleon go and when he did Alexander reproached him for it.

Now, Shane, do you really wonder why these arguments get "personal"?

So you admit this got personal ?

You admit having not touched Lieven's book, yet you insist on making claims about it, which even if they were not untruthful, you have no business doing.

I fully admitted not reading his book, however, this was after you asked if I had. Once again, I do not have to read his book to understand the Russian campaign and what happened. In fact, I have tried to steer clear of his book this entire thread but it is you guys who insist I read it or argue about it. All I wanted to do was dispute your claim about Krasny. You guys keep coming back to Lieven, not me.

It is foolish behavior, and will be received like that. That's not an attack on your person, it's a (deserved) attack on your posts. And on the net, your reputation is only as good as your posts…

So claiming your list is correct and dismissing my evidence is not foolish behavior? I supported my stance by submitting evidence, you have not. Why do you not put your mouth where your words are and provide us with contrary evidence? because you cannot.

As for my reputation, I do not care what you may think of me, it means nothing to me. However, this is a forum of discussion and under no circumstances should it be allowed to turn personal. You put forward an assertion about Krasny and I disputed it and provided evidence to support my position. To discredit me others, and now you have attacked me for doing so. No one as yet has come out to certify your claim on Krasny and I know you cannot because the evidence points otherwise. So instead I have been subjected to this kind of vitriolic treatment for daring to put forward not opinion, but cold hard fact.

Please, I insist you argue why Krasny is in fact a Russian victory, you made the claim but do not seem to be able to support it but you can attack me over a book I have not read and admit I have not read? I knew you could not support your claim and instead you, like the other guy move the goal posts to another topic to turn the argument around.

Gentle readers, it is interesting that this thread seems to have degenerated over the past days.

I am quite willing to acknowledge that Krasny was not a Russian victory and that the evidence present by Digby Smith, whom I have found reliable on other actions, was incorrect.

The one point I will make in defence of Lieven is that the trust of his book concerns (a) the overall relation between France and Russia during the period 1807-14, (b) the remarkable projection of Russian power into middle and western Europe during the campaigns of 1813-14. This is further brought out in the lecture posted by here.

Finally I do note that the Dawghouse is currently empty and I would sooner not see people whose posts I enjoy reading populating it.

Best,

Elliott

thank you Elliott, common sense prevails

I presented my evidence and that is it, so I am done with this thread.

and lastly, I have nothing against Lieven's book at all, I have not read it of course but I listened to his entire lecture and agreed with all of his points other than that he manipulated Napoleon. I think Napoleon trusted him more than he should have but turned into some kind of manipulation is going too far.

Shane – Thank you for clarifying that you did not intend to dismiss Lieven's conclusions without having read them. What you wrote gave me that impression, my bad. I commented briefly on a statement you made and I freely admit it was a barbed comment because of what it appeared you were doing.

I do have to make a comment on your jeremiad filled with groundless accusations about how and why I have attacked you and pushed an argument with you. I have produced an explanation of why I posted what I did which, apparently, you never read since your latest response ignores every point I made. I have no argument with your opinions on Krasny, as you claimed in your last post (over and over). This argument of yours is entirely fictitious, a product of things you've imagined I said. I will take this as an unintentional confusion over who posted what, and will conclude by saying that when you advise others to read carefully you should make doubly sure that you've done so yourself.

Shane,
Okay so you meant the lecture when you said the book. Problem is, Lieven doesn't say those things in the lecture either. He describes the larger geopolitical viewpoint of Rumientsev, shared by Kutuzov, both in the lecture and the book, that the French were a short term obstacle while Great Britain was in the best position to dominate long term. And he goes on to say that they realized Napoleon was of such a mind that he must be defeated, however the destruction of French power, particularly by expending Russian power, was not in Russia's longer interest.

Lieven is equally clear that many of the Russian generals wished to engage the French at Krasnyi 2 and believed they would have annihilated them. However this did not include Kutuzov, who, as commander in chief, got to decide. He was extremely pleased with the results, >30,000 French losses and < 2000 Russian losses. And why shouldn't he be? As Lieven well explains he preserved Russian power to fill the vacuum created by the devastation of the Grand Armee.

I haven't bothered to argue about Krasnyi 2 because I've already said all I want to. It is, as I said, a matter of opinion. Your opinion seems to be that causing >30,000 losses at the cost of <2,000 must represent a defeat because of the possibility you might have done even better. I think that's absurd. But it's also inconsistent because if you go back and apply it to the other battles you wind up declaring Borodino a French defeat because Davout's flank attack was a better idea. All very backseat armchair.

And while we're on the subject of what Lieven actually says, he never said anything about "manipulation". That's something Kiley came up with and you have been ditto'ing. [Lieven speaks about the possibility that Russian intelligence was deliberately feeding Napoleon with misinformation suggesting they would defend Vilna, but cautions this needs to be corraborated.] Lieven does suggest Alexander outwitted Napoleon. He makes an excellent argument I won't bother to summarize. That thought really does not seem to sit well with some people…

I really would prefer not to belabor these points and have tried to avoid posting, but sometimes it's useful to remind people that saying something often doesn't make it true…

'Lieven does suggest Alexander outwitted Napoleon. He makes an excellent argument I won't bother to summarize. That thought really does not seem to sit well with some people…'

Because it is conjecture and not something that is logical. How did Alexander outwit Napoleon-that is the historical question and it hasn't been answered. In short, there is no evidence for it. The Russian scrambling at the beginning of the campaign and the adoption of a greatly flawed opening plan is indicative that the Russians, and especially the carpet knights on Alexander's staff were at a loss to figure out what to do.

'…sometimes it's useful to remind people that saying something often doesn't make it true…'

I heartily agree and suggest that you follow your own advice, especially regarding casualties and who did what to whom in that regard.

Every source that I've looked at regarding casualties at 2d Krasny is different. Russian losses in Lieven, Smith's Data Book are to my mind inflated. Further, it fails the logic test that if the French lost in excess of 30,000 men at 2d Krasny then the Russians lost only 2,000.

And if the French had only 50,000 effectives at the beginning of the action, they would have had much less available to them at the Berezina, where Napoleon had between 20,000 and 25,000 effectives as well as Oudinot's and Victor's corps which raised the effective strength of the army to just under 50,000 effectives. There were also approximately 30,000 stragglers accompanying the army.

Kutusov's after-action reports are notoriously inaccurate adn his claims after Krasny have to be taken with a large salt pill. He supposedly claimed to have 80,000 effectives in the field, but undoubtedly his strength was much less. At a numerical advantage of 30,000 men at Krasny, he would have been a fool not to attack in strength. In fact, at Krasny because he learned that Napoleon and the Guard were present, he actually withdrew somewhat and never got closer than two miles of Krasny.

The Russians could not stop the French at Krasny (Ozharovski's command was mostly destroyed by the French and the survivors scattered; Mortier wasn't stopped by Miloradovich and defeated him on the way out) and with all the fighting that went on the Russian losses had to be much heavier than reported and stated in the sources mentioned. Nafziger is much more careful in his narrative of the battle and in describing the fighting at Krasny definitely does not describe a Russian victory.

Again, if the French losses were in excess of 30,000 as you are insisting, then the Grande Armee would never have made it to Orsha or the Berezina and would never have defeated the Russian armies at the Berezina. So, logically and common sense wise, the figures for French casualties that you are championing are much too high and those of the Russians are much too low.

Miloradovich couldn't stop the Guard, though the Guard and Miloradovich's command were relatively of the same strength. Miloradovich couldn't stop Eugene the next day, and Eugene was outnumbered.

In short, you are incorrect and your analysis is flawed, greatly. What does not seem to be taken into account by the authors you are relying on is that besides the 50,000 or so combatants Napoleon had in the ranks, there was also a large number of unarmed stragglers at the rear of the army and many of those undoubtedly fell into Russian hands, which included a good many noncombatants. The fact that Kutusov didn't know about these stragglers, even during the Berezina fight, is a very good indication that the Russian light cavalry had bungled their reconnaissance mission.

Sincerely,
K