"myths and outright lies!" Topic

It was not a French strategic victory, the campaign was a failure.

The discussion, however, was about the Berezina crossing, and that battle was a French victory because they defeated two Russian armies and fought their way clear to continue their retreat.

In that respect, it is similar to the victory at Hanau the next year against the Bavarians and Wrede on the way out of Germany.

And your opinion of who is rude or condescending or not is irrelevant.

B

'You've been calling me an ignorant meddler with nothing to offer for multiple pages in multiple threads now and you're accusing me of making it personal? I don't know what to even say to that.'

You need to reread some of your postings and some of the things that you have said, to me personally, and historically.

It seems to me that you are not capable of having a friendly discussion with someone with whom you disagree. That is a common problem on TMP, unfortunately.

B

If the Russians had won at the Berezina, there would have been no campaigns of 1813 and 1814 as the game would have been over.

Which would probably have saved a few thousand more lives. Especially at Leipzig, where Napoleon had his arse handed to him. Again. Before you go there, M Brechtel, every French history I've read considers Leipzig a Coalition victory.

Europe would have probably been a very different place today if Napoleon had taken the hint and quit in 1812.

And Waterloo will raise it's ugly head soon, I'm sure.

And your opinion of who is rude or condescending or not is irrelevant.

Well that's me told.

QED

I'm done, I don't need to be talked down to by an amateur historian.

'Well, so are you in that you are not replying to Alexandre meeting your challenge regarding the quote you attributed to Caulaincourt, but that aside, sure I'll answer your question.'

And that is nonsense. I gave the source where I found the quote. Nothing has been posted that disproves what was quoted or that Caulaincourt actually said it. I don't believe that Lachouque would make something up. That's my opinion of Lachouque as an historian.

The argument over the quote is nothing but ridiculous. If you don't believe it, then prove it. I'm perfectly happy with the quotation as stated in The Anatomy of Glory as there has been nothing to negate it provided by anyone.

As far as I'm concerned, I answered the question. You are entitled to disagree, but don't say I didn't answer the question, because that is inaccurate. You didn't like the answer, but that's too bad, isn't it?

B

daubere,

Kevin: If the Russians had won at the Berezina, there would have been no campaigns of 1813 and 1814 as the game would have been over.

This is a weird conclusion to me in that it isn't a necessary conclusion. Eugene's army didn't do much but spend time organizing and falling back. I don't think there wouldn't have been an 1813 campaign had the French army been destroyed at the Berezina but I do think it would have looked a lot different. Napoleon still had all the men he called up for 1813, he still had all the national guard units, he still had the army in Spain. Presuming Napoleon gets out of Russia, which I don't think is a strange presumption, the war continues into 1813 at least in some way, shape or form with him continuing to command a field army.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Without wanting to add to the "heated debate" about the Bérézina, it will always remain a controversial battle, I just verified the different articles on the same topic in the same general public reference : The famous (or infamous) Wikipedia. Interesting to see how the articles in different languages vary, both the English and French version speak of a French strategic victory, while the German and Dutch version refer to it as a Russian victory. Incidentally the French article in all it's brevity is quite well written.
(a pity I cannot read Russian or Polish to see their respective "mainstream" version of the battle)
Oh and yes the phrase "c'est la Bérézina" is still fairly commonly used in the French language today to indicate a major disaster (whether right or wrong I leave that to you, but that is the way it has survived in the French perception)

Kevin,

'Well, so are you in that you are not replying to Alexandre meeting your challenge regarding the quote you attributed to Caulaincourt, but that aside, sure I'll answer your question.'

And that is nonsense. I gave the source where I found the quote. Nothing has been posted that disproves what was quoted or that Caulaincourt actually said it. I don't believe that Lachouque would make something up. That's my opinion of Lachouque as an historian.

The argument over the quote is nothing but ridiculous. If you don't believe it, then prove it. I'm perfectly happy with the quotation as stated in The Anatomy of Glory as there has been nothing to negate it provided by anyone.

As far as I'm concerned, I answered the question. You are entitled to disagree, but don't say I didn't answer the question, because that is inaccurate. You didn't like the answer, but that's too bad, isn't it?

I don't think it is me who is having trouble "not liking the answer." I think it is you. You've impeached other's claims with less evidence than Alexandre has provided yet you deny his.

I'm perfectly happy with the quotation as stated in The Anatomy of Glory as there has been nothing to negate it provided by anyone.

You have raised the criteria to "proving a negative" which is generally a practical if not logical impossibility. One can't prove that something doesn't exist, they can simply demonstrate it is improbable and unlikely. To prove a negative would require demonstrating complete knowledge of all things so one could point at the sum of all things and say, "see, X does not exist in the pile we know to be everything."

If the standard we are going to apply in our discussions is that when I say something you have to prove a negative to win your point then there is no reason for people not to just make stuff up. For example, I could claim Napoleon said XYZ statement. You can't prove he didn't, therefore it must be true. This is silly and foolish.

Please address those of us who disagree with you with the same respect we are offering you.

Cheers,

The Bandit

'This is a weird conclusion to me in that it isn't a necessary conclusion. Eugene's army didn't do much but spend time organizing and falling back. I don't think there wouldn't have been an 1813 campaign had the French army been destroyed at the Berezina but I do think it would have looked a lot different. Napoleon still had all the men he called up for 1813, he still had all the national guard units, he still had the army in Spain. Presuming Napoleon gets out of Russia, which I don't think is a strange presumption, the war continues into 1813 at least in some way, shape or form with him continuing to command a field army.'

If the Grande Armee had been defeated at the Berezina and trapped, how would Napoleon have gotten out? Walk out by himself?

Eugene's Army of the Elbe was formed from the wreck of the Grande Armee which had gotten out because of the victory at the Berezina (Eugene was at the Berezina with the remnants of his IV Corps). Eugene took command after the Berezina after Murat, who Napoleon had left in command after he left for Paris with Caulaincourt, had deserted.

So, if the Grande Armee had lost at the Berezina and was trapped, Eugene would have been there and trapped also. Therefore, there would have been no Army of the Elbe commanded by Eugene in early 1813.

Like I said, game over.

B

Kevin,

If the Grande Armee had been defeated at the Berezina and trapped, how would Napoleon have gotten out? Walk out by himself?

I'm not trying to sound snide but after the remnant of the Grande Armée crossed the Berezina he rode home on a sled with Caulaincourt and a couple coachmen so I don't know see how it is so weird to think he could "escape" on his own without the army.

Eugene's Army of the Elbe was formed from the wreck of the Grande Armee which had gotten out because of the victory at the Berezina (Eugene was at the Berezina with the remnants of his IV Corps). Eugene took command after the Berezina after Murat, who Napoleon had left in command after he left for Paris with Caulaincourt, had deserted.

So, if the Grande Armee had lost at the Berezina and was trapped, Eugene would have been there and trapped also. Therefore, there would have been no Army of the Elbe commanded by Eugene in early 1813.

Like I said, game over.

That doesn't address what I said.

Cheers,

The Bandit

'You have raised the criteria to "proving a negative" which is generally a practical if not logical impossibility. One can't prove that something doesn't exist, they can simply demonstrate it is improbable and unlikely. To prove a negative would require demonstrating complete knowledge of all things so one could point at the sum of all things and say, "see, X does not exist in the pile we know to be everything."…Please address those of us who disagree with you with the same respect we are offering you.'

If you cannot find a quotation from an historical figure and you believe that you might have found the basis of it in a publication that may be suspect, that does not negate the quotation. If you don't believe it to be true, that has to be shown and it has not.

For a common sense evaluation of Napoleonic memoirs, you might wish to take a look at Vincent Cronin's biography in the book as an appendix.

And I'm not trying to prove a negative nor am I asking anyone else to.

There was doubt raised on a quotation I used as found in a secondary work. That quote was questioned. However, nothing has been shown that demonstrates that quotation to be false, which was the original accusation. So, until it is shown to be false, I'll stick with Lachouque's use of the quotation.

What is silly is beating this to death.

B

Here is what Alexandre posted, now available to you in a *third* thread, you are beginning to look like you perpetrating a willful denial.

Cheers,

The Bandit

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,

And here are the two links Alexandre provided (listed here in the order they apply in his quoted post:

PDF link

link

Cheers,

The Bandit

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.

"I'll stick with Lachouque's use of the quotation."

Ok, so …. if you like the sentiment of a passage, it is OK if some bath-house girl publishes something that she claims was based on unavailable/lost papers of a general, and then some guy in the employ of the French army re-writes this for publication in a popular magazine, as long as M. Lachouque, whose own pro-French and pro-Napoléon bias is legendary (he was the founder of the modern Bonapartist society "Amis de Sainte-Hélène"), included it somewhere?

This is the same Lachouque who told a journalist in the 1960's, when asked about his attitude toward modern French democracy, "Je ne suis pas républicain" "I am not a republican".

Fine. If those are your standards for the use of historical sources, we can assume anything you write is just propaganda and that you have no real interest in historical inquiry.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Alexandre,

Kevin has shifted threads again, he is now over here TMP link where you didn't respond so he jumped parts of the conversation and is telling me I'm wrong for applying his and TW's expressed Berezina criteria (if you don't accomplish your aim you were defeated) to other battles.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Lachouque lists Caulaincourt in his bibliography, and not Sor…

I do find that curious…

I posted the material from Cronin for you…

And your comment 'If those are your standards for the use of historical sources, we can assume anything you write is just propaganda and that you have no real interest in historical inquiry' is both uncalled for and inaccurate, especially after all the misinformation that you've posted in these recent threads regarding French divisions, the Russians, Sir Robert Wilson, etc. Look to your own biases and prejudices before attempting the same to others.

Lachouque may be wrong. You were certainly correct on Sor, as stated by Cronin. But as Sor isn't listed it is quite possible that the 'Recollections of Caulaincourt' listed in Lachouque's bibliography is the Sor volume as the publication date is listed as 1838, not 1933. It is an interesting conundrum. I wonder why he didn't use the 1933 volume, the authentic memoirs?

So the quotation used by Lachouque may or may not be apocryphal, we just don't know for sure.

B

Kevin,

I replied to your challenges regarding Napoleon's likelihood to be captured or killed, are we settled on that now?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Kevin,

Lachouque may be wrong. You were certainly correct on Sor, as stated by Cronin. But as Sor isn't listed it is quite possible that the 'Recollections of Caulaincourt' listed in Lachouque's bibliography is the Sor volume as the publication date is listed as 1838, not 1933. It is an interesting conundrum. I wonder why he didn't use the 1933 volume, the authentic memoirs?

So the quotation used by Lachouque may or may not be apocryphal, we just don't know for sure.

Wow, it took all of this for you to admit that was *possible* the quote you have latched onto was suspect or outright false? This is disgusting Kevin.

Cheers,

The Bandit

If anyone cares, the family de Caulaincourt specifically disavowed the so-called "Souvenirs" in a public letter, mentioning that they had no knowledge of any documents that might have been left with the bath house girl, Sor.
link

Maybe Kevin would like to base some more historical points on her other works?
- Le berger roi ou la servie
- Le Duc de Bassano; souvenirs intimes de la Révolution et de l'Empire
- Madame de Tercy, ou l'Amour d'une femme
- Napoléon en Belgique et en Hollande, 1811
- La plus heureuse femme du monde
- Le due de Barsans : souvenirs intimes

Maybe the "duc de Barsans" said French artillery was really better than other nations'? Could be a great quote, Kevin.
:-)
(There is no such duke, nor even such place in France.)

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Just to give a visual picture of Lachouque's bias, he would sign personal notes "d'un grognard Montmartrois" / "from a Montmartre grognard".
(Montmartre is a section of Paris.)

Any secondary source should be used with care, but from a writer who saw the "glory" and "efficiency" of the Bonapartism as an antidote for social change in the 1960's, an unbiased researcher would be extra careful.

But, Kevin is just interested in boosting his biased agenda with nothing better than propaganda, so standards of historical inquiry do not apply to him.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Did you not read what I posted on Sor above?

And your comments such as 'But, Kevin is just interested in boosting his biased agenda with nothing better than propaganda, so standards of historical inquiry do not apply to him' are both unwarranted and uncalled for.

B

'Wow, it took all of this for you to admit that was *possible* the quote you have latched onto was suspect or outright false? This is disgusting Kevin.'

Disgusting? Did you not read what I posted on Sor and that Lachouque used Sor? You didn't look it up, I did and posted it. And yet you have another personal comment to make.

Get a grip.

B

Kevin,

I read it and I presume Alexandre read it, but after several pages in three threads of you declaring so vehemently that the quote is clearly trustworthy and there is no reason what-so-ever to doubt it, followed by you denying that Alexandre brought such reason to our attention and yours, your minor concession that:

the quotation used by Lachouque may or may not be apocryphal, we just don't know for sure.

Appears inadequate at best.

Next time how about you don't call people names and say we are ignorant for post upon post while defending your declarations of truth. It may prevent your opposition from being dissatisfied with such a perfunctory admission of mistake.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Kevin,

I was responding to this comment from you:
"So, until it is shown to be false, I'll stick with Lachouque's use of the quotation."

As shown in my posts above, Lachouque has to be used with extreme care, because of his pro-French pro-Napoléon bias. Taking his work, especially on normative topics such as "glory" (as opposed to factual matters such as which regiment attacked first) at face value, without checking his sources very carefully, reveals that you are just interested in boosting your biased agenda with nothing better than propaganda, and do not believe that standards of historical inquiry apply to you.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Bandit,

You are not applying my criteria, you are doing what you always do lately, which is to mis-interpret almost every thing I have written.

I have explained to you in what I think is sufficient detail (twice) that I do not except your comparison of Beresina with relatively evenly-matched pitched battles with entirely different stakes, such as Eylau or Borodino. I have given you a list of other battles that are far more analogous to Beresina, which you have not commented on.

I am starting to think that a sensible discussion concerning the details of Beresina is impossible with you at this date, which is a shame as your conclusions are usually so adept. Your questions are all the more bizarre now that I know you have read Britten-Austin's book, and should understand just how dire the plight of the French was at the Beresina. First you try to compare Beresina with Eylau or Borodino (as if the situation was any way analogous). Then you invent your own criteria and continuously claim they are mine! Then you ask me why I think Napoleon was in danger at the Beresina! (isn't it obvious?) Now you are basically asking Kevin why he thinks a big Russian win at the Beresina would have been an end-game (for all practical purposes) of the French Empire (again isn't it obvious?).

Gentlemen,

Based on the posting by Alexandre on Sor, I looked it up and found the publication date discrepancy in Lachouque between Sor's 'work' and the publication date for Caualincourt's memoirs. I also posted, on two threads, Cronin's evaluation of Sor and Caulaincourt. Neither of you did that. Now, I suggest we move on.

If you wish to continue to beat this horse over one quote, then you can of course, but I don't see the point. The quotation has been brought into doubt so that should be the end of the subject.

However, that has no bearing on the fighting at the Berezina, which is the main subject, and that the French won and fought their way out and the two Russian armies were defeated. That's the bottom line.

And stating the following 'reveals that you are just interested in boosting your biased agenda with nothing better than propaganda, and do not believe that standards of historical inquiry apply to you' is not only wrong, but insulting and that comment and some of the other nonsense that you post needs to be withdrawn. An apology should also be rendered but that requires the requisite character, which I don't see happening.

B

Kevin,

It was not a French strategic victory, the campaign was a failure.

The discussion, however, was about the Berezina crossing, and that battle was a French victory because they defeated two Russian armies and fought their way clear to continue their retreat.

In that respect, it is similar to the victory at Hanau the next year against the Bavarians and Wrede on the way out of Germany.

This is a good summary. I don't understand why people are struggling so much to understand it.
I noticed that some of them have resorted to claiming that you thought the campaign was a win, which is quite pathetic. All that you or I have said is that the battle of the Beresina was a victory for the french and a huge missed opportunity and a lost battle for the Russians.
Why do they need to invent arguments that neither of us have made, and change the parameters of the discussion to try to suit their own agenda? Probably because their own arguments are so weak.

'Next time how about you don't call people names and say we are ignorant for post upon post while defending your declarations of truth. It may prevent your opposition from being dissatisfied with such a perfunctory admission of mistake.'

Look to yourself for 'name-calling.' You're being a hypocrite which is unsavory at best.

B

TW,

You're being hyperbolic, we don't interact on this site enough for me to:

you are doing what you always do lately, which is to mis-interpret almost every thing I have written.

and should understand just how dire the plight of the French was at the Beresina

We agree on that part.

Then you invent your own criteria and continuously claim they are mine!

No, I didn't and I believe it was Whirlwind who also posted that he understood you similarly…

Then you ask me why I think Napoleon was in danger at the Beresina! (isn't it obvious?)

I explained this to Kevin, I don't think Napoleon was in any greater threat to his person than he was on many other occasions, some of which I listed in my reply to Kevin. So no, I do not think it is obvious that Napoleon was likely to be killed or captured.

Now you are basically asking Kevin why he thinks a big Russian win at the Beresina would have been an end-game (for all practical purposes) of the French Empire (again isn't it obvious?).

No, again it is not obvious, so long as Napoleon escaped Russia he had field armies he would be able to command. Had the remnant of the Grande Armée been destroyed at the Berezina but Napoleon returned to France I do not see it as obvious or likely that there would be no war in 1813, it simply would have been very different from how it was.

Cheers,

The Bandit

'This is a good summary. I don't understand why people are struggling so much to understand it. I noticed that some of them have resorted to claiming that you thought the campaign was a win, which is quite pathetic. All that you or I have said is that the battle of the Beresina was a victory for the french and a huge missed opportunity and a lost battle for the Russians. Why do they need to invent arguments that neither of us have made? Probably because their own arguments are so weak.'

Thank you very much. Coming from you means a lot.

I don't know why they invent arguments at all. It is somewhat disconcerting and does nothing but obfuscate the historical record and what actually took place.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that they are advancing an anti-Napoleon, anti-French, pro-Russian agenda despite what is quite obvious. And the nonsense keeps on giving, unfortunately.

There are too many strawmen being advanced and used to obfuscate, such as beating a quotation to death which in the end is irrelevant. Keep up the good work and I enjoy reading your postings.

B

Why do they need to invent arguments that neither of us have made? Probably because their own arguments are so weak.

Wow.

Look to yourself for 'name-calling.' You're being a hypocrite which is unsavory at best.

Way to take the high ground Kevin.

However, that has no bearing on the fighting at the Berezina, which is the main subject, and that the French won and fought their way out and the two Russian armies were defeated. That's the bottom line.

You posted the quotation when discussing the fighting at the Berezina! Now that the quote is proved false you claim it is of no consequence?

Gentlemen

And now we are gentlemen after you've called me everything from ignorant to a hypocrite.

An apology should also be rendered but that requires the requisite character, which I don't see happening.

Yeah, neither do I, but I think you and I feel it should be rendered by opposite parties.

Cheers,

The Bandit

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that they are advancing an anti-Napoleon, anti-French, pro-Russian agenda despite what is quite obvious.

Oh yeah, people who read my posts on this board definitely think I'm anti-Napoleon, anti-French and pro-Russian… that's a new one, normally if I'm accused of bias it is of being too pro-Napoleon and pro-French. Guess if I'm getting thumped from both sides it might mean I'm less bias than either side thinks eh?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Kevin,

The accuracy of my comment's on Lachouque are again demonstrated by the other quote you posted about "glory", those from the general baron Berthezène.

What Lachouque did….

It has been said that the bridges presented a hideous spectacle due to the crowding and confusion [page 171] memoirs…In reality, the crossing of the Berezina in the face of the enemy was a very large military imdertaking that reflects further glory on the army and its chief.[page 172]

The parts in bold were added by Lachouque. The are not the words of Berthezène.

Lachouque created the impression that Berthezène thought that the there was no crowding and confusion at the bridge and that the most notable thing was the "large military undertaking". When, in fact, Berthezène did see and report horrors at the bridge – in the paragraphs between the two pieces that Lachouque just skips over with an ellipses (…).
link

So, Kevin, both your little snippets about "glory" at the Bérésina are impeached.

It is not a surprise. You relied on a biased source, Lachouque, because your own bias is the same as his. A neutral person would have been careful not to accept Lachouque at face value. You, on the other hand, write "So, until it is shown to be false, I'll stick with Lachouque's use of the quotation."

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

So no, I do not think it is obvious that Napoleon was likely to be killed or captured.

?????
Picture this, as a wargamer or an historian; your army is massively outnumbered as it has melted away in the Russian snows. The men are freezing, starving, and discipline is strained to breaking point. You desperately need to get out of hostile enemy country. A large river blocks your route of escape. A large enemy army is following you, but even worse two more enemy armies are closing in to block off your avenue of escape. One of those armies is on the bank of the river that you are trying to cross to! You have built two very ramshackle bridges across the icy water but the enemy is closing in and if they act according to the rules of war there is every chance that they may shell the bridges and maroon your army. Complete annihilation or unconditional surrender will be the only options then open to you.

And yet you still state that the commander of this army is not in any more danger than is usual. You also compare the situation to an ordinary pitched battle. You also fail to see that it is game over (for all practical purposes) for the army if it is defeated and cannot reach the far bank. You also believe that an escape in this situation does not constitute a win for the escapers and a big defeat for the pursuers.
Hmmmm…..

@TW,

Then you invent your own criteria and continuously claim they are mine!

No, I didn't and I believe it was Whirlwind who also posted that he understood you similarly…

Bandit is right, we both understood you the same way – so did Sam. I think there is a very strong case for calling the Berezina a French victory, despite the French suffering many more casualties than their Russian opposition because a – the French did what they wanted to (escaped the pincers) and b – the Russians failed to do what they wanted to do (trap the French). However, there are certain logical consequences to this; firstly, that the escape is an operation of war to which the term victory can be applied (see also Leipzig on the 19th, Demyansk, last day of Arnhem, Corunna, Dunkirk et al); and secondly, like the Russians at the Berezina, if one engages in a battle with the object of the destruction or severe defeat of your enemy – as at Eylau and Borodino – and one achieves a bloodbath instead, that is a defeat. One has failed to achieve one's objectives.

Now, perhaps the traditional interpretation of Borodino is wrong and Napoleon was actually trying for attrition only. Then, if the casualty count was in his favour, it might be considered a victory. But AFAIK he wasn't trying to do that. Conversely, imagine a Russian source comes to light showing that the Russians were only interested in causing casualties and moving the French on at the Berezina. In that case, in my view, the Russians could claim it as a victory.

It looks like special pleading and partiality when the criteria for victory are moved for every battle to increase the chances of being able to claim that the French won…

Regards

Kevin,

Moving away from your mis-use of source material ….

I do not disagree with your posts here about what (factually) happened at the Bérésina. In the most narrow sense, that of the specific operation of the river crossing, it was indeed a French victory and an excellent (really canonical) example of military skill.

But, to stop there, to call the Bérésina an unqualified "victory", to ignore the context, to forget to mention ten's of thousands of troops lost, to pay not even passing notice to the disaster that was so great as to pass into the French language as an idiom …. well, that to me reveals bias, or at best special pleading.

Combined with your treatment of sources, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that you are more interested in boosterism, in cheerleading, in protecting the legacy of glory of the 1er Empire from being tarnished, than in actual historical inquiry.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

If you take out the words in bold as not being stated by Berthezene, it doesn't change the meaning of the passage.

And Berthezene's comment that 'the crossing of the Berezina in the face of the enemy was a very large military undertaking that reflects further glory on the army and its chief' is the point of the exercise.' I really have no interest in the 'glory' part of the comments, and you seem to be under the impression that is the most important part or what I was emphasiszing. The importance to me was the 'very large military undertaking' which it was and all parts of the French operation were undertaken with skill.

So, you are mistaken regarding Berthezene, and I've read the passages in his memoir. And Berthezene isn't 'impeached.' You are focusing on seven words that quite literally mean nothing in the context of the quotation and in Berthezene's meaning the emphasis being on the military operation to get across the river and fight the Russians at the same time.

Clearly, you don't understand the military aspects of the operation and your emphasis is to stress what you believe is someone else's bias.

In short, you just don't get it and fail to recognize your own bias which I suspect is to protect the reputation of the Russians as much as you can without respect to any historical connotation or fact at all.

Again, you just don't get it and your preoccupation with one small quote of literally no consequence (Caulaincourt) and your misunderstanding of the other by Berthezene is quite obvious.

B

TW,

I concur with what Whirlwind write above as well and will add the following as my own reply:

And yet you still state that the commander of this army is not in any more danger than is usual.

He usually put himself in a fair amount of danger…

And yet you still state that the commander of this army is not in any more danger than is usual.

Since you repeated the line twice, I will do:

He usually put himself in a fair amount of danger…

You also compare the situation to an ordinary pitched battle.

During several of which he was in an awful lot of danger.

You also fail to see that it is game over (for all practical purposes) for the army if it is defeated and cannot reach the far bank.

Napoleon left Russia in the event without a viable field army between Germany and Russia. He managed to raise a new one in Germany from remnants of the Grande Armée, new recruits from France and a cadre from Spain. Had the remnants of the Grande Armée not been available, the new recruits raised in France and the field army in Spain still would have been available to him in 1813. I don't know that the war of 1813 would have taken place in Germany, I find that doubtful, but I don't see any reason to believe that Napoleon would have given up when he still had the means to raise an army and another one in the field (Spain) with the coalition against him still outside French boarders.

You also believe that an escape in this situation does not constitute a win for the escapers and a big defeat for the pursuers.

I believe it was an amazing achievement, I said that in previous posts in these threads where we've been discussing and arguing about it. Does it constitute a an 'unqualified victory' was the question and there I say I don't think so, no.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Is there actually quite a large degree of consensus hiding underneath all of this…?

Kevin,

If you take out the words in bold as not being stated by Berthezene, it doesn't change the meaning of the passage.

So if I alter your words and then present it as a quote but a random 3rd-party declares that the meaning didn't change, that's OK with you right?

Again, you just don't get it and your preoccupation with one small quote of literally no consequence (Caulaincourt) and your misunderstanding of the other by Berthezene is quite obvious.

Now it has become a "small quote of literally no consequence" but before it was evidence that directly supported your argument regarding how the battle at the Berezina crossing should be viewed… it was important then but not that its false, no big deal, no consequence?

Cheers,

The Bandit

'Napoleon left Russia in the event without a viable field army between Germany and Russia. He managed to raise a new one in Germany from remnants of the Grande Armée, new recruits from France and a cadre from Spain.'

Napoleon would not have left Russia by any sort of odds if the French had lost at the Berezina.

Napoleon did not raise a new army in Germany. That was Eugene's doing, and without a win at the Berezina, that would not have happened.

The new Grande Armee (originally named the Army of the Main) was raised in France, not Germany. When it united with Eugene's Army of the Elbe in April 1813, it was renamed the Grande Armee.

Not only cadre was pulled out of Spain, but entire units, as would be done through 1814. Berthier and others strongly urged Napoleon to pull out half of the French veterans from Spain in January 1813 and march into Germany with them to link up with Eugene. That way he would have a qualitative advantage over the exhausted Russians and the barely formed Prussians early and get it over with. Unfortunately, Napoleon wouldn't do it.

B

Kevin,

"Berthezene isn't 'impeached.' "

Indeed, Berthezène is not impeached. Lachouque is impeached for composing a non-quote from various words written by Berthezène and some of his own. And you are impeached for using a biased source without checking it carefully to see if such a composition had been fabricated.

The importance is not the number of words invented by Lachouque, nor if he greatly or only marginally changed the sense of Berthezène's text.

The importance is that Lachouque invented words and put them into Berthezène's mouth. The importance is that Lachouque changed the sense of Berthezène at all. And the importance is that this is all just fine with you, as long as it supports your agenda.

That is not how history is written. That is how propaganda or advertising copy is written. And it is propaganda or advertising copy that you have offered here.

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Kevin,

Napoleon would not have left Russia by any sort of odds if the French had lost at the Berezina.

That I am not willing to grant, Napoleon was exceptionally good at self-preservation and was an incredibly determined individual.

Napoleon did not raise a new army in Germany. That was Eugene's doing, and without a win at the Berezina, that would not have happened.

…

The new Grande Armee (originally named the Army of the Main) was raised in France, not Germany.

Ah, my bad, I was consolidating the raising of the Army of the Main and its subsequent transfer to Germany with it being raised in Germany. No big deal, it was just a couple word inaccuracy right?

Berthier and others strongly urged Napoleon to pull out half of the French veterans from Spain in January 1813 and march into Germany with them to link up with Eugene.

…

Unfortunately, Napoleon wouldn't do it.

Yeah, but I bet he might have if there'd been no French forces in Germany.

Clearly, you don't understand the military aspects of the operation and your emphasis is to stress what you believe is someone else's bias.

When you say things like this… never mind.

Cheers,

The Bandit

'So if I alter your words and then present it as a quote but a random 3rd-party declares that the meaning didn't change, that's OK with you right?'

Did those eight words change the meaning of the quotation?

And if you change a quote by a few words and not change the meaning, is that not a paraphrase?

'Now it has become a "small quote of literally no consequence" but before it was evidence that directly supported your argument regarding how the battle at the Berezina crossing should be viewed… it was important then but not that its false, no big deal, no consequence?'

And if I didn't use it, my argument would not have changed at all. Therefore, it is not as important as you wish it to be. And it is only important to you now because it is in all likelihood apocryphal, is it not? If it was a valid quotation, you'd just ignore it anyway as you do with any logical argument, supported or not, with which you disagree despite any evidence that proves you wrong. Isn't that a true statement.

OK, next horse to kill…

B

'The importance is that Lachouque invented words and put them into Berthezène's mouth. The importance is that Lachouque changed the sense of Berthezène at all. And the importance is that this is all just fine with you, as long as it supports your agenda.'

But Lachouque didn't change the sense and intent of the Berezina as a military operation as stated by Berthezene. The words highlighted were an introduction, nothing more, and something that would or could be used in a paraphrase.

You're wrong here in that the meaning of the quotation was not changed at all. I certainly wouldn't do it that way, but did Berthezene actually state that the Berezina was an important military operation, or words to that effect? If yes, then you are wrong and merely trying to give an excuse for the Russians getting their collective ass kicked in a fight that should have ended with the entrapment of the Grande Armee.

You need to get off your high horse and actually discuss the action, and the results. You cannot do that with a positive outcome, so you take this route.

I'm sorry, but it's pathetic.

B

'That I am not willing to grant, Napoleon was exceptionally good at self-preservation and was an incredibly determined individual.'

And how would he have done that if the Grande Armee had been cut off and trapped at the Berezina?

He would have been lost with his army.

Napoleon, though urged to do it, refused to leave the army until they were safely out of Russia. The crossing of the Berezina ensured that as the Russians (Tshitshagov and Wittgenstein) were too beat up for another battle (as was the Grande Armee) and Kutusov refused to fight Napoleon and the Grande Armee again.

Napoleon continually put himself in the line of fire on the battlefield and was wounded in action twice in his career (some general officers, such as Massena, never being wounded), and his usual place on campaign when the army was in motion was with the advance guard.

B

Kevin,

"Napoleon would not have left Russia by any sort of odds if the French had lost at the Berezina"

You don't think there was a good chance that the gendarmes d'élite and lanciers polonais could not have made it through? They had horses in excellent condition, better than anyone else around. The gendarmes' commanders were the comte Durosnel and the baron Henry – the first as bright and clever as the second was tough and experienced.
The baron Henry :

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

"Massena, never being wounded"

Execpt by Napoléon ! …. who shot him in the eye while hunting together in 1808!
:-)

Amicalement,
- Alexandre

Kevin,

And it is only important to you now because it is in all likelihood apocryphal, is it not?

No, honestly, it is important to me because you, as a published author whose Napoleonic artillery book I have on my bookshelf, were so willing to stand behind something that it turns out was fraudulent without being *willing* to look yourself when asked to determine whether the quote was suspect.

But now that we, including myself who you've been quite upset with for pushing you on this matter, have forced you to admit it is untrue, you declare it is of no import.

Further more, the other quote you used was shown to have been altered and you declare, oh, that's OK, an altered quote is a paraphrase. But the author you cited did not denote it as a paraphrase and you did not present it as a paraphrase.

It bothers me, it upsets me, because you hold others to a different standard than yourself and it troubles me because I do not know which standard you have applied when you have published. That is to say I am uncertain if I can trust you.

…you'd just ignore it anyway as you do with any logical argument, supported or not, with which you disagree despite any evidence that proves you wrong. Isn't that a true statement.

It is a true statement about your conduct on this issue.

Cheers,

The Bandit