Raievski advanced from Dashkova at 6 a.m. on the 23rd. He had with him about 17,000 men with 84 or 96 guns. His cavalry he left in reserve at Novo Sielki, 3 miles from Dashkova. He ordered Paskievich’s division to endeavour to turn the French right, promising that as soon as the attack made headway he would hurl Kolubakin’s division at Saltanovka.
Paskievich, driving in the French skirmishers, fought his way across the rivulet, and, bringing up a battery to cover his advance, pushed on against the 108th Regiment beyond it. Raievski, marking the advancing roll of Paskievich’s fire, believed that the time had come, and sent forward Kolubakin’s division. The Russians flung themselves at the bridge, drove off a battalion of the 85th which endeavoured to take them in flank, and pressed doggedly on under a murderous fire which swept them away by platoons. Unable to advance, with the stolid courage of their race they refused to fall back, and stood facing the French volleys until Raievski withdrew them.
Paskievich’s leading troops, attacking Fatova, were charged and repulsed across the stream by two battalions of the 108th under Colonel Achard. Achard, in his turn, hotly pursuing, was driven back to his own side; and Paskievich, again advancing, carried Fatova, and penetrated almost to the outskirts of Selets; but his offensive power had exhausted itself, and before the heavy fire of his well-posted and well-protected opponents he could advance no farther. Meanwhile Raievski, determined not to abandon his lieutenant, called up Kolubakin’s reserves, and made another desperate attempt upon the bridge, himself and General Vassilchikov leading on foot, with reckless bravery. All was in vain; the splendid infantry went forward only to die, and as the last attack reeled back from Friederichs’ front, an aide-de-camp arrived to report Paskievich’s failure. It was now past four o’clock, and Davout, feeling safe on his right, ordered forward Compans with the 61st and 111th Regiments and began a general advance. Prisoners told Raievski that Davout had about Mohilev 3 infantry and 2 cavalry divisions, and, believing that he was opposed by overwhelming forces, he gave orders to retreat. Compans followed as far as Novo Sielki, but as the road was practically a defile between woods he could do nothing to seriously harass the Russian retreat, and Davout’s handful of light cavalry was of course useless. Claparède and the heavy artillery reached Mohilev during the closing stages of the battle. Raievski at Dashkova was met by Bagration, and the latter, judging that the way was barred by the bulk of Davout’s corps, decided to pass the Dnieper and retreat on Smolensk.
Raievski gave his loss as 2504 killed, wounded and missing. That of the French was naturally, under the conditions of the fighting, much less. Davout stated it at less than 900. General Desaix was slightly wounded. Davout was on worse terms with him than ever, and pointedly ignored him in his reports.
Bagration wrote to Barclay that he had failed to break through at Mohilev, and so would make for Smolensk. On the 24th Platov and Dorokhov—except one fatigued infantry regiment—forded the Dnieper at Verkalobovo, and pushed on to join Barclay. Raievski, supported by Voronzov, held firm at Dashkova. Borozdin went back to Staroi Bykhov, while the pontooneers were sent on to bridge the Dnieper at Novi Bykhov, 14 miles farther south. On the 25th Borozdin marched for the selected place of passage, and Raievski followed to Staroi Bykhov, unpursued by Davout, who could not meddle with Sievers’ and Vassilchikov’s squadrons. The Second Army crossed the Dnieper on the 26th and 27th, and marched rapidly upon Mstislavl. On the same day Platov was in touch with Barclay, having passed the Dnieper at Dubrovna on the 27th. Davout had remained practically inactive. He has been blamed for his inertness; but it must be remembered that he was inferior in numbers to Bagration. He had in hand only some 25,000 men, and his nearest reinforcement was the 5th Corps, which, harassed by fatigue, disease and lack of supplies, only reached the Berezina on the 24th. On the 25th Bordesoulle reported that Bagration was bridging the Dnieper, and on the same day Latour-Maubourg sent a detailed and fairly accurate statement of Bagration’s strength, which probably made Davout more than ever inclined to caution. On the 27th Poniatowski’s leading brigade was at last within reach, but on the same day Bordesoulle reported that Bagration was across the Dnieper. Whatever Davout might have wished to attempt it was now too late. On the 29th Napoleon sent orders for him to canton his three corps along the Dnieper.
As has been seen, the First Russian Army had concentrated at the camp of Drissa, but it had scarcely arrived when proposals for its abandonment were made.
The Russian army can scarcely be said to have had a commander at this moment. Clausewitz gives a graphic account of the disorder that prevailed. The Emperor was of course nominally the supreme head, and he was more or less at the mercy of his personal entourage. He himself believed in Phull, but everyone else distrusted the Prussian theorist—certainly not without good reason. The Tzar’s relations often exercised undue influence over him, and were distrusted and disliked by the courtiers and soldiers; the courtiers were at odds with the military men; finally, the native Russian officers were jealous of the foreigners. Barclay himself was included among the objects of their dislike, and Colonel von Wollzogen, one of his German aides, was regarded with poisonous hatred, merely because his manners were unpleasing! Projects of strategy were almost as numerous as advisers. Count Lieven, late ambassador at Berlin, had there seen much of Scharnhörst, who considered that no attempt should be made to fight before reaching Smolensk. Barclay protested repeatedly against remaining at Drissa, and he was supported by the Tzar’s relative, Alexander of Württemberg. Paulucci, the chief-of-staff, declared furiously that the man who had selected such a position could only be either a fool or a traitor, and resigned.
The camp of Drissa lay in a bend of the Düna between Drissa and Bridzievo. Its land front was about 6500 yards in length, that on the river about 8000. The land front had ten redoubts, connected by batteries. In front of redoubts 6, 7, 8 and 9 was an abattis 2000 yards long and 120 broad; but before the left wing a marshy wood gave excellent cover to an attacking enemy. Two more redoubts strengthened the first line of defence. The second was formed of five closed works, and another formed a kind of citadel behind it. Communication was maintained with the right bank by four bridges, which had only just been constructed and were incompletely protected with outworks. The subsidiary means of defence—pitfalls, palisades, entanglements and abattis—were also very incomplete. The stores were largely accumulated in wooden sheds in the village of Drissa, opposite the left wing and exposed to hostile fire.
These tactical defects were, however, slight as compared with the strategic disadvantages. Lying far away from the Moscow road it could afford no defence against an enemy who chose to advance by that line, and it did not even cover that to St. Petersburg. The roads which led to it were mere country tracks, which ruined the convoys which had to use them. Moreover, by retiring on Drissa the First Army had actually retreated away from, instead of towards, Bagration, and if the two separated forces wished to effect a junction they could do so only by retiring far to the rear, or by perilous marches across the front of Napoleon’s advancing columns.
Alexander, perhaps at Phull’s instigation, reprimanded Bagration for retreating, as if he could have done anything else. Finally, however, Phull was induced to give way, and it was decided, just in time, to evacuate Drissa. The 1st Corps was ordered to cover the St. Petersburg road, and on July 14th the rest of the army began its march for Vitebsk.