To the writer it appears that all criticism must necessarily base itself upon the fact that Napoleon’s strategy was preconceived. Before he knew anything of the Russian plans he had practically made up his mind to advance on Smolensk by the left bank of the Dnieper. The offensive movement of the Russians produced no change in his resolution. It is highly probable that his determination was taken on grounds not purely military. He must by now have recognised that warfare in Russia was subject to conditions which did not obtain in Germany or Austria. His opponents were elusive; but there were certain places regarded by soldiers and people as holy, which the popular voice would probably force the generals to make a show of defending. He therefore resolved to threaten Smolensk directly, believing that thereby the Russian army would be constrained to give battle. Even so it appears somewhat doubtful whether this end could not have been as well attained by manoeuvring on the right bank. The advance by the left appears to have assumed that Smolensk would be uncovered and undefended, and that the Russian field army would be too far away to return to its rescue. Napoleon, on this hypothesis, would have been able to occupy it and give battle to his outmanoeuvred opponents with all the prestige of the capture of the sacred city behind his onset. As a fact Barclay had provided for speedy information by his flank-guard under Neverovski, and his resolution not to move far from Smolensk afforded the means of frustrating Napoleon’s strategy. That he only arrived in the nick of time hardly affects the discussion, since his obsession about an attack from the direction of Poriechie delayed him for a day. On the other hand, Napoleon’s hesitation, owing to the appearance of Bagration’s army at Katan, also caused him to lose a day, during which Barclay was able to arrive. According to Barclay’s memoir to the Tzar he had no intention of wasting his army in the defence of Smolensk, a place of no military value, and merely held it in order to allow Bagration time to occupy Solovievo. Bagration and the majority of the Russian generals appear to have expected that he would have made it the centre of the Russian operations. It is, of course, possible that Barclay, harassed and perplexed, did make some conditional promise as to defending Smolensk should a favourable opportunity offer. General Okunev--who may perhaps voice the views of Paskievich--apparently thinks that it could have been held. But it must be said that as the Russians’ line of retreat was in extension of their left flank such a policy would have been hazardous at best. There seems every reason to believe that Barclay’s ideas were sound; what he lacked was commanding strength of character to enforce them on his unruly officers. Napoleon’s assault upon Smolensk is very difficult to account for: and led to little but waste of human life. FOOTNOTES: