Napoleon's Russian Campaign of 1812Foord, Edward (Edward A.)
History
Napoleon's Russian Campaign of 1812
Foord, Edward (Edward A.)
Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, 1769-1821 -- Military leadership; Napoleonic Wars, 1800-1815 -- Campaigns -- Russia
Thus, owing to various causes--divided counsels, imperfect
organisation, bad roads and especially the lack of any real
command-in-chief--the Russian forces were, almost up to the very
moment of hostile contact, in a state of dangerous dispersion. The
secret history of the months during which Alexander had been at Vilna
will probably never be accurately known. Dissension and intrigue were
rampant in the Tzar’s personal _entourage_. Much valuable time was
wasted in drafting and discussing plans of action, all impracticable,
because based upon hypotheses which proved untenable. They all
considerably underestimated Napoleon’s fighting strength, and appear
to have assumed a concentration of the Russian forces about Vilna.
There was great disorder in the higher commands. Barclay was nominally
commander-in-chief, but Alexander frequently issued orders, through his
adjutant, Prince Volkonski, over the head of the harassed War-Minister,
while to make confusion worse confounded Phull, as Clausewitz
expresses it, “sometimes put in _his_ oar.” Contrary to the usually
accepted belief, it appears that Barclay would have preferred to stand
to fight, granted a favourable opportunity. The deciding factor in the
situation seems to have been that almost at the last moment the Russian
staff obtained better information as to the strength which Napoleon had
with him in Prussia.
At all events the party of prudence finally obtained the upper hand
in the Tzar’s councils. The policy of retreating before the invader
had been so often discussed that there was nothing unexpected in the
resolution which was adopted. It was determined to draw back the whole
First Army at least as far as Sventsiani. All the corps commanders
were warned to be ready to retreat thither immediately upon receiving
orders, except Wittgenstein, who was given permission to anticipate
them if pressed by a rapid advance of Napoleon’s extreme left wing
over the Niemen. Platov, it was vaguely supposed, would be able to
threaten Napoleon’s communications, and would be supported by Bagration
from Volkovisk. Tormazov, with the Third Army, was to retreat on
Kiev if hard pressed; but, if not, was to leave General Sacken with
his incomplete division to observe the Austrian frontier, and with
the rest of his army to fall upon the right of the forces which were
opposed to Bagration. General Okunev, in his commentaries upon the war,
suggests that Bagration and Tormazov should have effected a junction
and advanced in force against Napoleon’s communications while he was
engaged in front with Barclay. As, however, Napoleon could detach
80,000 men, under Eugène, to support the 114,000 whom he already had
in the Grand Duchy, Bagration, Tormazov and Platov would eventually be
outnumbered by at least two to one; while Napoleon would still have
possessed a double superiority of numbers over Barclay. In fact the
Russians were so enormously outmatched at every point that retreat
was the only sensible strategy.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account