Russia Against Napoleon

by Lieven, Dominic

  4 Zapiski Sergeia Grigorovicha Volkonskago (dekabrista), SPB, 1902, pp. 60–62.

  5 A. Vandal, Napoléon et Alexandre Premier, 3 vols., Paris, 1891, vol. 1, pp. 196–7. SIRIO, 89, 1893, no. 15, Tolstoy to Rumiantsev, 26 Oct./7 Nov. 1807, pp. 183–5; no. 86, Tolstoy to Alexander, Dec. 1807, pp. 312–13; no. 111, Tolstoy to Rumiantsev, 25 April/7 May 1808, pp. 519–27.

  6 Correspondance de l’Empereur Alexandre, no. 12, Catherine to Alexander, 25 June 1807, pp. 18–19. On the French émigrés in Russia, see André Ratchinski, Napoléon et Alexandre Ier, Paris, 2002.

  7 VPR, 4, no. 219, Stroganov to Alexander, 1/13 Feb. 1809, pp. 490–91.

  8 On Mordvinov, see e.g. AGM, 4, pp. xliv–xlv: see in particular his memorandum on the Continental System dated 25 Sept. 1811 (OS), pp. 479–86. For Gurev’s statement, see C. F. Adams (ed.), John Quincy Adams in Russia, New York, 1970, p. 277. Since official policy on the surface remained committed to the French alliance until the moment Napoleon crossed the border, diplomats usually camouflaged this view. The main but by no means only exception was Petr Tolstoy, who was already arguing for rapprochement with Britain as early as the summer of 1808. See e.g. SIRIO, 89, 1893, no. 111, Tolstoy to Rumiantsev, 25 April/7 May 1808, pp. 519–27; no. 176, Tolstoy to Rumiantsev, 26 July/7 Aug. 1808, pp. 631–5. But see also e.g. VPR, 4, no. 101, Alopaeus to Rumiantsev, 18/30 April 1808, pp. 233–5, for just one of many examples of other Russian diplomats expressing very ‘Tolstoyan’ views.

  9 Mémoires du Général Bennigsen, 3 vols., Paris, n.d., vol. 1, 4th letter, pp. 33–52; vol. 3, annex 53, pp. 377–95.

  10 The main English-language source on Speransky remains Marc Raeff’s classic Mikhail Speransky: Statesman of Imperial Russia, The Hague, 1969, but at the very least the anglophone reader should also turn to John Gooding, ‘The Liberalism of Michael Speransky’, Slavonic and East European Review, 64/3, 1986, pp. 401–24.

  11 For de Maistre’s views, see D. V. Solov’eva (ed.), Graf Zhozef de Mestr: Peterburgskie pis’ma, SPB, 1995, no. 72, de Maistre to de Rossi, 20 Jan./1 Feb. 1808, pp. 98–101. For Caulaincourt, see RD, 1, no. 18, Caulaincourt to Napoleon, 13 Jan. 1808, pp. 48–51. Count A. de Nesselrode (ed.), Lettres et papiers du Chancelier Comte de Nesselrode 1760–1850, Paris, n.d., vol. 3, Nesselrode to Speransky, 2/14 April 1810, pp. 251–2. See also Joanna Woods, The Commissioner’s Daughter: The Story of Elizabeth Proby and Admiral Chichagov, Witney, 2000.

  12 RA, 2, 1876, Prozorovsky to Golitsyn, 23 July/4 Aug. 1807, pp. 157–9. On the British angle, see Brendan Simms, Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714–1783, London, 2007.

  13 On Ireland, see S. J. Connolly, Religion, Law and Power: The Making of Protestant Ireland 1660–1760, Oxford, 1992, pp. 249–50.

  14 On the global context, see Christopher Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World 1780– 1914, Oxford, 2004, part 1, chs. 1–3, pp. 27–120; John Darwin, After Tamerlane: The Global History of Empire, London, 2007, ch. 4, ‘The Eurasian Revolution’, pp. 158–217.

  15 RD, 5, no. 563, Caulaincourt to Champagny, 14 Dec. 1810, pp. 235–43.

  16 Adams, Adams, p. 209.

  17 Ibid., pp. 87, 432.

  18 The debate on the origins of the Industrial Revolution seldom bothers even to mention Russia as a potential candidate. Apart from the reasons set out in the text, it is generally assumed that industrial take-off required a densely concentrated population. See e.g. the interesting discussion in Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy, Princeton, 2000.

  19 RD, 4, no. 334, Caulaincourt to Champagny, 3 Oct. 1809, pp. 110–16; no. 423, 11 March 1810, pp. 325–8.

  20 P. Bailleu (ed.), Briefwechsel König Friedrich Wilhelm III’s und der Königin Luise mit Kaiser Alexander I, Leipzig, 1900, no. 157, Alexander to Friedrich Wilhelm, 2 Nov. 1807, pp. 167–8. VPR, 4, no. 146, Kurakin to Rumiantsev, 16/28 Aug. 1808, pp. 320–21, is merely one of many Russian appreciations on the damage done to any hopes of peace by Napoleon’s debacle in Spain. Another is no. 198, Rumiantsev to Alexander, 16/28 Dec. 1808, p. 441.

  21 N. Shil’der: ‘Nakanune Erfurtskago svidaniia 1808 goda’, RS, 98/2, 1899, pp. 3–24, Marie to Alexander, 25 Aug. 1808 (OS), pp. 4–17. The Erfurt convention is in VPR, 4, no. 161, pp. 359–61.

  22 RS, 98/2, 1899, Alexander to Marie, n.d. but certainly late Aug. 1808, pp. 17–24.

  23 Correspondance de l’Empereur Alexandre, no. 19, Alexander to Catherine, 26 Sept. 1808, p. 20.

  24 This paragraph is based on reading all the Russian diplomatic correspondence in these six months and it is impossible to cite all the relevant dispatches. The key ones are: VPR, 4, no. 131, Kurakin to Alexander, 2/14 July 1808, pp. 291–8; no. 143, Alexander to Kurakin, 14/26 Aug. 1808, pp. 316–17; no. 144, Rumiantsev to Kurakin, 14/26 Aug. 1808, pp. 317–19; no. 150, Alexander to Kurakin, 27 Aug./8 Sept. 1808, pp. 331–2; no. 174, Rumiantsev to Alexander, 26 Oct./7 Nov. 1808, pp. 387–9; no. 186, Anstedt to Saltykov, 22 Nov./4 Dec. 1808, pp. 410–12; no. 217, Rumiantsev to Alexander, 30 Jan./11 Feb. 1809, pp. 485–7; no. 220, Alexander to Rumiantsev, 2/14 Feb. 1809; no. 224, Alexander to Rumiantsev, 10/22 Feb. 1809, pp. 502–4; no. 246, Rumiantsev to Anstedt, 11/23 March 1809, pp. 543–5.

  25 SIRIO, 89, 1893, no. 94, Rumiantsev to Tolstoy, March 1808, pp. 496–7; no. 112, Tolstoy to Rumiantsev, 26 April/8 May 1808, pp. 525–7.

  26 Correspondance de l’Empereur Alexandre, Marie to Catherine, 23 Dec. 1809 (OS), pp. 251–7; Catherine to Marie, 26 Dec. 1809 (OS), pp. 259–60.

  27 On the non-ratification of the convention, see RD, 4, no. 410, Caulaincourt to Champagny, 26 Feb. 1810, pp. 296–9; Barclay de Tolly’s memorandum is reproduced in MVUA 1812, 1/2, pp. 1–6.

  28 VPR, 4, no. 221, Rumiantsev to Kurakin, 2/14 Feb. 1809, pp. 496–7.

  29 The statistics are drawn from A. A. Podmazo, ‘Kontinental’naia blokada kak ekonomicheskaia prichina voiny 1812 g.’, Epokha 1812 goda: Issledovania, istochniki, istoriografiia, 137, TGIM, Moscow, 2003, vol. 2, pp. 248–66, and M. F. Zlotnikov, Kontinental’naia blokada i Rossiia, Moscow, 1966, ch. IX, pp. 335 ff. For Caulaincourt’s comment, see RD, 2, no. 179, Caulaincourt to Napoleon, 9 Dec. 1808, pp. 387–8.

  30 Adams, Adams, pp. 236–8, 364; J. Hanoteau (ed.), Mémoires du Général de Caulaincourt, Duc de Vicenze, 3 vols., Paris, 1933, vol. 1, pp. 282–3. AGM, vol. 4, no. 1050, 25 Sept. 1811, pp. 479–86 for Nikolai Mordvinov’s memorandum on the Continental System.

  31 SIRIO, 121, 1906, Chernyshev to Barclay de Tolly, 31 Dec. 1811/12 Jan. 1812, pp. 196–202. V. M Bezotosnyi, Razvedka i plany storon v 1812 godu, Moscow, 2005, pp. 51–5.

  32 The quote is from a letter to Rumiantsev from Chernyshev dated 6/18 June 1810: SIRIO, 121, 1906, no. 7, pp. 55–8.

  33 Nesselrode (ed.), Nesselrode, vol. 3, 5/17 July 1811, pp. 375–9.

  34 The memorandum is reprinted in N. K. Shil’der, Imperator Aleksandr pervyi: Ego zhizn’ i tsarstvovanie, 4 vols., SPB, 1897, vol. 3, pp. 471–83, but note the comment in VPR, 5, note 246, pp 692–3, which corrects Shil’der’s error as to when this report reached Alexander.

  35 All this is drawn from Chernyshev’s reports to Alexander, Barclay de Tolly and Rumiantsev published in SIRIO, 121, 1906, parts 2 and 4, pp. 32–108 and 114–204. The quote is from report no. 6, to Barclay, dated Nov. 1811, pp. 178–87. Chernyshev’s one error was a moment of carelessness on departure in 1812 which allowed his agent in the War Ministry to be caught. Vandal, Napoléon et Alexandre, vol. 3, pp. 306–18, 377, 393, discusses Chernyshev’s activities. Some details differ: for example, he writes that the War Ministry’s ‘book’ was produced every fortnight. More importantly, he underestimates the scale and impact of Chernyshev’s role, let alone the importance of his and Nesselrode’s information combined.

  36 Bailleu (ed.), Briefwechsel, no. 192, Frederick William to Alexander, 19/31 Oct. 1809, pp. 204–5. Nesselrode (ed.), Nesselrode, vol. 3, Nesselrode to Speransky, 6/18 Aug. 1811, pp. 382–5. The most detailed description of Che
rnyshev’s activities is ch. 2 of General A. Mikhailovskii-Danilevskii, Zhizneopisanie kniazia Aleksandra Ivanovicha Chernysheva ot 1801 do 1815 goda, reprinted in Rossiiskii arkhiv, 7, Moscow, 1996, pp. 13–40.

  37 SIRIO, 121, 1906, no. 12, Chernyshev to Barclay, received 3 March 1812, pp. 204–10.

  38 VPR, 6, Barclay de Tolly to Alexander, 22 Jan./3 Feb. 1812, pp. 267–9.

  39 By far the best source in English on these men and issues is Alexander Martin, Romantics, Reformers, Reactionaries: Russian Conservative Thought and Politics in the Reign of Alexander I, De Kalb, Ill., 1997. There are also useful biographical details about Rostopchin in A. Kondratenko, Zhizn’ Rostopchina, Orel, 2002.

  40 All this discussion is drawn from Richard Pipes’s excellent translation and analysis of Karamzin’s work: see R. Pipes, Karamzin’s Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia: ATranslation and Analysis, Ann Arbor, 2005; the quote is from p. 146.

  41 Ibid., pp. 147–67.

  42 VPR, 6, no. 137, Rumiantsev to Stackelberg, 28 March/9 April 1812, pp. 341–3; no. 158, Stackelberg to Rumiantsev, 29 April/11 May 1812, pp. 393–4.

  43 Bailleu (ed.), Briefwechsel, no. 196, Frederick William to Alexander, 30 April/12 May 1812, pp. 214–18.

  44 W. H. Zawadski, A Man of Honour: Adam Czartoryski as a Statesman of Russia and Poland 1795–1831, Oxford, 1993, pp. 188–205. See VPR, 6, p. 693, n. 98 for a detailed demolition of Vandal’s statement that Russia was planning a pre-emptive strike in 1811.

  45 W. Oncken, Österreich und Preussen in Befreiungskriege, 2 vols., Berlin, 1878, vol. 2, appendices, no. 30, Saint-Julien to Metternich, 13 Aug. 1811, pp. 611–14.

  46 Bailleu (ed.), Briefwechsel, no. 198, Alexander to Frederick William, 14 May 1811, pp. 219–22; no. 208, Frederick William to Alexander, 19/31 March 1812, pp. 238–9.

  47 I. G. Fabritsius, Glavnoe inzhenernoe upravlenie, SVM, 7, SPB, 1902, pp. 733–58. There is a new and interesting book on Ottoman warfare by Virginia Aksan: Ottoman Wars 1700–1870: An Empire Besieged, London, 2007. If it has a weakness it is that it says too little about actual battle and tactics.

  48 SIRIO, 121, 1906, no. 13, Chernyshev to Rumiantsev, 13/25 July 1810, and no. 15, 5/17 Sept. 1810, pp. 75–80 and 88–95. For his account of his mission to Sweden, see SIRIO, 121, pp. 22–48.

  49 The quote is from a letter from Bernadotte to Count Löwenhielm, the special Swedish emissary to Alexander, dated 7/19 March 1812 and published in La Suède et la Russie: Documents et matériaux 1809–1818, Uppsala, 1985, pp. 96–8. The text of the Russo-Swedish treaty of alliance is no. 66, pp. 105–11.

  50 The phrase ‘blundered towards empire’ was suggested by Owen Connelly to describe Napoleon’s campaigns: Blundering to Glory: Napoleon’s Military Campaigns, Wilmington, Del., 1987.

  51 The literature on Napoleon’s empire is so immense that any attempt at a bibliography is impossible here. The best up-to-date general history in my opinion is Thierry Lentz, Nouvelle histoire du Premier Empire, 3 vols., Paris, 2004–7. In English, the best recent works include P. Dwyer (ed.), Napoleon and Europe, Harlow, 2001; M. Broers, Europe under Napoleon, London, 1996; S. Wolff, Napoleon’s Integration of Europe, London, 1991.

  52 See above all Christopher Bayly, Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire, Cambridge, 1988, ch. 3, and the chapters by Michael Duffy, Patrick O’Brien and Rajat Kanta Ray in P. J. Marshall (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Eighteenth Century, Oxford, 1998.

  53 Rajat Kanta Ray, ‘Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765–1818’, in Marshall (ed.), British Empire, pp. 509–29, at p. 525. On changing European views on overseas empire, see especially Jennifer Pitts, A Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France, Princeton, 2005. On French (and other) views of eastern Europe, see Larry Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment, Stanford, Calif., 1994.

  54 This is to risk embroiling myself in a vast literature on the origins of nations: see e.g. A. D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, London, 1986. The Napoleonic era provides fine opportunities to test national identities’ strength and constituent elements, not just in Europe but in comparative terms across the globe: R. G. S. Cooper, The Anglo-Maratha Campaign and the Contest for India, Cambridge, 2003, illustrates the internal weaknesses of a polity which was Britain’s toughest enemy in India. Compare this with e.g. M. Rowe (ed.), Collaboration and Resistance in Napoleonic Europe, Basingstoke, 2003.

  55 The perfect model of an imperial conqueror is the Chinese Emperor Ch’in Shih-Huang, whom Sam Finer calls the ruler who left the biggest and most lasting mark on government. Measured against him, Napoleon’s ambitions and impact appear puny: S. Finer, The History of Government, 3 vols., Oxford, 1997, vol. 1, pp. 472–3. For a fuller study of the First Emperor, see D. Bodde, ‘The State and Empire of Ch’in’, in D. Twitchett and M. Loewe (eds.), The Cambridge History of China, vol. 1: The Ch’in and Han Empires 221 BC–AD 220, Cambridge, 1986, ch. 1. Michael Doyle, Empires, Ithaca, NY, 1986, is perceptive as regards institutionalization.

  56 On this and many other points discussed in this section, see the excellent Lentz, Nouvelle histoire, vol. 3: La France et l’Europe de Napoléon 1804–1814, Paris, 2007. As will be evident from the above, I agree with Professor Lentz on the question of ideology: see pp. 671–5 of his book.

  57 VPR, 5, no. 142, Memorandum of F. P. Pahlen, not later than 14/26 Nov. 1809, pp. 294–5.

  58 On Napoleon’s ‘Indian projects’ and Russian fears that they would be forced to serve them, see V. Bezotosnyi, ‘Indiiskie proekty Napoleona i Rossiia v 1812 g.’, in Epokha 1812 goda: Issledovaniia, istochniki, istoriografiia, 161, TGIM, Moscow, 2006, vol. 5, pp. 7–22.

  Chapter 4: Preparing for War

  1 D. V. Solov’eva (ed.), Graf Zhozef de Mestr: Peterburgskie pis’ma, SPB, 1995, no. 72, 20 Jan./1 Feb. 1808, pp. 98–9.

  2 On Arakcheev, see E. Davydova, E. Liatina and A. Peskov (eds.), Rossiia v memuarakh: Arakcheev. Svidetel’stva sovremennikov, Moscow, 2000, a very useful collection of contemporary recollections of Arakcheev. See also ch. 1 by K. M. Iachmenikov, ‘Aleksei Andreevich Arakcheev’, pp. 17–62, in Russkie konservatory, Moscow, 1997.

  3 Solov’eva, de Mestr, no. 72, 20 Jan./1 Feb. 1808, p. 99.

  4 Above all these were better canister ammunition and better sights.

  5 P. Pototskii, Istoriia gvardeiskoi artillerii, SPB, 1896, chs. VI and VIII, pp. 99–153, is the best source on Arakcheev’s role. There is a useful chapter also in V. N. Stroev, Stoletie sobstvennoi Ego Imperatorskago Velichestva kantseliarii, SPB, 1912, pp. 98–129. As regards memoirs, see above all ‘Zapiski A. A. Eilera’, RA, 11, 1880, pp. 333–99, at pp. 342–3, 348–50. F. Lange (ed.), Neithardt von Gneisenau: Schriften von und über Gneisenau, Berlin, 1954: ‘Denkschrift Gneisenaus an Kaiser Alexander I’, pp. 119–34, at p. 133.

  6 See e.g. laws and decrees published in these years: PSZ, 30, 22756, 17 Jan. 1808, p. 27 (all reports to Alexander to go via Arakcheev); 22777, 25 Jan. 1808, pp. 42–3 (accounting); 22809, 5 Feb. 1808, p. 58 (no private letters); 23052, 2 June 1808, p. 284 (accurate service records); 23205, 5 Aug. 1808, pp. 486–508 (rules for the acceptance of cloth supplied).

  7 PSZ, 30, 23923, 21 Oct. 1809, pp. 1223–7, on cloth supplies; MVUA 1812, 1/2, no. 8, Arakcheev to Barclay, 26 Jan. 1810, pp. 21–3. The regimental histories are the best source for Arakcheev’s instructions on shooting practice and the upkeep of weapons: see e.g. V. V. Rantsov, Istoriia 96-go pekhotnago Omskago polka, SPB, 1902, pp. 114–17.

  8 MVUA 1812, 1, no. 116, Barclay to Commissary-General, 4 June 1810, p. 53; RD, 4, no. 332, Caulaincourt to Champagny, 2 Oct. 1809, pp. 106–8.

  9 On recruit uniforms, see e.g. PSZ, 30, 20036, 23 May 1808, pp. 272–4. On initial emergency measures regarding cloth supplies, 23121, 26 June 1808, pp. 357–68. S. V. Gavrilov, Organizatsiia i snabzheniia russkoi armii nakanune i v khode otechestvennoi voiny 1812 g. i zagranichnykh pokhodov 1813–1815 gg.: Istoricheskie aspekty
, candidate’s dissertation, SPB, 2003, pp. 117–20, 124.

  10 The same was true in France: see K. Alder, Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763–1815, Princeton, 1997, p. 466 for all the references to the failed effort to introduce interchangeable parts.

  11 See above all the excellent chapter on small arms production in V. N. Speranskii, Voenno-ekonomicheskaia podgotovka Rossii k bor’be s Napoleonom v 1812–1814 godakh, Gorky, 1967, pp. 82–135. On the new musket and its calibre, PSZ, 30, 23580, 13 April 1809, pp. 908–11. On lead, 22827, 16 Feb. 1808, pp. 71–7, and also MVUA 1812, 4, no. 11, Kremer to Barclay de Tolly, 25 July 1811, pp. 82–5; no. 12, Barclay to Gurev, draft, pp. 85–6. P. Haythornthwaite, Weapons and Equipment of the Napoleonic Wars, London, 1996, p. 21.

  12 PSZ, 30, 23297, 10 Oct. 1808, pp. 603–38.

  13 ‘Dvenadtsatyi god: Pis’ma N. M. Longinova k grafu S. R. Vorontsovu’, RA, 4, 1912, pp. 381–547, 13 Oct. 1812, pp. 534–5. I. P. Liprandi, Materialy dlia otechestvennoi voiny 1812 goda: Sobranie statei, SPB, 1867, ch. 10, pp. 199–211.