MAPS AND PLANS
[Plan of Battle of Saltanovka]
[“ ” Smolensk]
[” ” Lubino]
[” ” Gorodeczna]
[” ” Borodino]
[” ” Vinkovo]
[” ” Maloyaroslavetz]
[” ” Polotsk (2nd)]
[” Order of French Retreat, October 31]
[” Battle of Viasma]
[” ” Krasnoï]
[” Passage of the Berezina]
[” Battle of Polotsk (1st)]
[Map of Theatre of War, showing positions of opposing forces at opening of campaign and movements on both sides up to occupation of Moscow (folding, at end of volume)]
[Map of Theatre of War, showing positions of opposing forces at the evacuation of Moscow and movements on both sides to the end of the campaign (folding, at end of volume)]
NAPOLEON’S
RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN OF 1812
THE PRELIMINARIES
The Russian Campaign of 1812 was the last and greatest of Napoleon’s efforts to impose his dominion upon Continental Europe; and it resulted in perhaps the most tremendous overthrow that any world-conqueror has ever sustained. A review of the immediate causes of the mighty struggle is necessary and not without interest, but it is difficult, as one studies Napoleon’s character, to resist the conclusion that it was inevitable. The career of the Corsican adventurer whom genius and good fortune had made Emperor of France, resembles the fateful development of a Greek tragedy. By 1812 his pride had reached its height. Whatever set itself in opposition to his will must be trodden under foot. Russia, impelled partly by a natural sense of independence, partly by economic causes, made up her mind to resist him, and the consequence was an attack upon her by the tyrant of south-western Europe.
The effects of the Continental system varied in different parts of Europe, but everywhere they were bad. France, wealthy in herself, and with the material advantage of being able to maintain her overgrown armies at free quarters in foreign countries, felt them least—a fact which probably accounts for Napoleon’s long continuance in power. Elsewhere the pressure was cruel, especially in Sweden, which practically depended for economic existence upon her sea-borne commerce. Russia, though self-supporting as regards food supplies, also suffered materially from the cessation of her trade with Great Britain; and the classes which felt the pressure most were those of the nobles and merchants, which embodied and voiced such public opinion as existed in the country. There was also in Russia a healthy sense of independence, coupled with a feeling of possessing such strength as made destruction, at the hands even of Napoleon, impossible. Such opinions were certain to penetrate sooner or later to the Tzar and his advisers; and, in spite of much irresolution and diversity of views, they could not fail to exercise considerable influence. Besides, the commencement of a new independent Poland, in the shape of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, established by Napoleon on the western frontier of Russia, was an ever-present source of anger and uneasiness. The Grand Duchy was, to all intents and purposes, a military camp, a sort of French advanced guard against Russia. Within its bounds everything was subordinated to military organisation, and its large army, organised and trained on French principles, and with French aid, was a very real menace.
Napoleon’s political marriage with Maria Louisa of Austria, at a moment when he was ostensibly negotiating for the hand of Alexander’s sister, added to the Tzar’s sense of his people’s sufferings and his empire’s danger a feeling of personal injury. Next year this was aggravated by Napoleon’s abrupt annexation of the coast-lands of north-west Germany, including Oldenburg, whose ruler was Alexander’s brother-in-law. In the beginning of 1811 the Tzar issued a commercial decree which virtually prohibited various French imports into Russia, and also permitted the import of Colonial goods under a neutral flag. The measure must, of course, have been under consideration for some time, and Russia’s financial straits amply account for it, but coming as it did on the heels of Alexander’s protests against the seizure of Oldenburg, it enraged Napoleon. In a letter to the King of Württemberg he described it as a declaration of hostility, and, since any movement in the direction of independence inevitably called down his furious wrath, he was probably right.