Even so it appears somewhat doubtful whether this end could not have been as well attained by manœuvring 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 outmanœuvred 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:
[1] This is my own explanation of what happened. Bagration says that he reached Smolensk at 10 a.m.; but Raievski declares that the leading brigade of the 8th Corps did not arrive until past 6 p.m., and speaks of Bagration coming later. Either the march of the 8th Corps was much delayed, or it moved with amazing slowness under the circumstances. Seeing what Bagration had written to Raievski, it is difficult to suppose that he would not make all speed to his rescue. It is only possible to reconcile the conflicting statements as to the hour of Bagration’s arrival at Smolensk by such an assumption as is made in the text. For the rest it must be admitted that Bagration’s despatches are often unreliable, and he naturally endeavoured to present himself in the best light. When there is a conflict of testimony between him and Raievski, I prefer to believe the latter.
[2] Only thus is it possible to reconcile the statements of the Russian historians that the action began at 10 a.m. with that of Eugen of Württemberg, that he did not withdraw from Gedeonovo until about that hour. Ney seems to have followed him to his second defensive position before he was recalled, which brings us to 11 a.m. at least; and then time must be allowed for the march of nearly 6 miles to Tuchkov’s front.
THE OPERATIONS IN VOLHYNIA AND ON THE DÜNA