History 18/03/20 How many soldiers had Napoleon to defeat Russia
least of all analysis of the events of the war of 1812 contribute to allegations that the conqueror would not have been able to break the persistence of the Russian soldiers fighting for their country. As we know from the experience of world history, many countries (and ours is no exception), even with the most heroic resistance was conquered, if he was stronger.
so, the question for us is the analysis of political and strategic alternatives for the campaign of 1812 in Russia.
the Abolition of serfdom
one political alternative, it was stated quite some time. We are talking about the proclamation of the liberation of Russian peasants from serfdom, which is a close advised to publish Napoleon as he was sitting in Moscow, not knowing what to do next.
In 1812, at the approach of Napoleon’s troops, many serfs were worried, expecting will, thinking that will gain her if written in the militia against the “motley array usually describe”, not getting expected, rebelled and burned manor houses. In a country where less than forty years ago raged the Pugachevshchina, the peasants, feeling the weakening of the power, everywhere rioted.
Kutuzov after leaving Moscow in a difficult situation you had to allocate according to numerous requests from landowners, the military command to suppress peasant uprisings. It is in Central Russia. In Belarus, as in many places the peasants themselves provided the enthusiastic reception of the army of Bonaparte, by voluntarily providing her with provisions and forage.
Famous sayings of Napoleon at the expense of the abolition of serfdom in Russia is quite transparent. “If I do, I will have no one to make peace” “I don’t want to be king of the Jacquerie”. A former Jacobin, an admirer of Rousseau, he became Emperor of the French, felt much closer to the Royal courtyardam feudal Europe than to the elements of a popular revolt. This alternative was not even considered Napoleon seriously. In addition, it is not clear whether it led to victory. Undoubtedly, in this way Bonaparte would be able to sow strong discord in the enemy’s rear. But the French Emperor has always believed is true only to the victory, which is achieved by the bayonet in combat directly with the enemy’s army.
Moscow or Saint Petersburg?
As an alternative to the main axis of advance of Napoleon on Moscow or Saint Petersburg? After Moscow at that period were rather symbolic center of Russia. The focus of the government apparatus and the embodiment of a new Imperial power of Russia for a century was St. Petersburg. What if Napoleon chose to advance on the real capital of Russia? Along the way, he could declare the independence of the Baltic lands from the Russian Empire. From the sea it could support and provide the Navy of the Union of Denmark. To Petersburg and it was closer, than to Moscow.
However, this plan was fraught with more dangers than benefits. Leaving on the right flank of the main forces of the Russian army, Bonaparte put at risk their main communication, which ran through Poland and Lithuania. The fleet of Denmark was weaker in comparison with the Baltic navies of Sweden (opponent of Napoleon) and Russia, who would have joined, if necessary, their strength, not to mention the fact that to help them to be part of the English fleet. The only political force in the Baltic was German barons, but they have always been a faithful pillar of the Russian throne, and independence from the hands of Napoleon did not need them. Finally, under the threat of the enemy, the Russian government and the Royal court would have left Petersburg and over in the same Moscow, preserve the value of the ancient capital. Taking Petersburg, Napoleon would become the owner of the Baltic coast of Russia, but a victory over all of Russia it would not he brought.
so, all the parameters of the direction of advance electeding Napoleon to Moscow – was for him the only correct one. Especially in front of Moscow, at Borodino, he won a decisive battle, although not as rapidly as I used to. Why is this tactical victory has not led to the success of the campaign as a whole?
What the experts think
the Great military theorist, who was then in Russia, Carl von Clausewitz long ago subjected to analysis of alternatives. “Defeat and the defeat of the Russian army, the conquest of Moscow – all these objectives could be achieved in one campaign; but we believe that these goals had to be linked to a significant condition, namely, it was necessary, and in Moscow still remain a formidable enemy.” After analyzing sequential replenishment and losses of “great army”, he came to the conclusion: “In Moscow, he arrived with 90 thousand people, and was supposed to bring with him 200 thousand”. Only in this case, according to the authoritative opinion of Clausewitz, Napoleon would have been enough and after the capture of Moscow to impose the Russian army a decisive battle and forcing her to the world. So Bonaparte simply did not have enough military forces for the conquest of Russia, namely, about 100 thousand soldiers in reserve.
Analyzing why it happened, Clausewitz drew attention to some subjective factors related to the personality of Napoleon. “We believe that Napoleon had lost sight of that due to his characteristic arrogant frivolity”. In addition, “the loss of the moral influence of his military success he was probably hoping to make up for the weakness of the Russian government and the strife that he might be able to sow between the government and the Russian nobility”. It was, obviously, a political utopia, as the entire ruling class of Russia were United with their government in an effort to drive Napoleon at any cost. Everything else is maintaining forces along the road to Moscow was possible for Bonaparte, “if he was frugal and thoughtful about his army. But this question has always been alien to him… In more zabotlivoand the best device of the food, the more considered of marches… he could have prevented the famine which reigned in his army at the outset of the campaign, and thus would retain more full strength”.
But the most important reason why Napoleon did not have enough of these 100 of thousands of soldiers for a victorious conclusion of the war with Russia, was the continuation of the war in Spain. Napoleon just nowhere to take those extra troops. Putting on the conquest of Russia, he had to abandon the actions in Spain and to withdraw the army.
Thus, Napoleon was able in 1812 to force Russia to bargain for him the world only on the condition if would sacrifice their goals in Spain and he could not allow. And in the end lost.
Yaroslav Butakov
Source:
© Russian Seven
Featured articles Share: Comments Comments on the article “How many soldiers had Napoleon to defeat Russia” Please log in to leave a comment! br>
Share on Tumblr
