Russia Against Napoleon

by Dominic Lieven

  14 ‘Zapiski I. V. Lopukhina’, RA, 3, 1914, pp. 318–56, at p. 345. On the militia and the debate that surrounded its mobilization, see V. V. Shchepetil’nikov, Komplektovanie voisk v tsarstvovanie imperatora Aleksandra I, SVM, 4/1/1/2, SPB, 1904, pp. 18–40, 69–72.

  15 I. Merder, Istoricheskii ocherk russkogo konevodstva i konnozavodstva, SPB, 1868: the quote is on pp. 84–5. V. V. Ermolov and M. M. Ryndin, Upravlenie general-inspektora kavalerii o remontirovanii kavalerii. Istoricheskii ocherk, SVM, 3/3.1, SPB, 1906. This is a key work.

  16 Marquess of Londonderry, Narrative of the War in Germany and France in 1813 and 1814, London, 1830, p. 31. Sir Robert Wilson, Campaigns in Poland. 1806 and 1807, London, 1810, p. 14.

  17 Apart from Merder, see Shelekhov, Glavnoe intendantskoe upravlenie, for the purchase and upkeep of horses: e.g. purchase prices are on p. 104. A useful modern history of the Russian cavalry is A. Begunova, Sabli ostry, koni bystry, Moscow, 1992. On the incident with the Austrians, see T. von Bernhardi, Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Leben des kaiserlichen russischen Generals der Infanterie Carl Friedrich Grafen von Toll, 5 vols., Leipzig, 1858, vol. 4, book 7, pp. 183–4.

  18 There are two extremely useful unpublished Russian candidates’ dissertations (i.e. roughly equivalent to a contemporary British Ph.D.) on the military economy: S. V. Gavrilov, Organizatsiia i snabzheniia russkoi armii nakanune i v khode otechestvennoi voiny 1812g i zagranichnykh pokhodov 1813–1815gg: Istoricheskie aspekty, candidate’s dissertation, SPB, 2003, and V. N. Speranskii, Voenno-ekonomicheskaia podgotovka Rossii k bor’be s Napoleonom v 1812–1814 godakh, Gorky, 1967. The basic statistics on raw materials are in Gavrilov, pp. 39–42. Speransky is a mine of useful information: his only weakness appears to be that he neglects the crucial production of field artillery at the Petersburg arsenal. See the following note for references to this production. Viktor Bezotosnyi kindly confirmed that the arsenal did indeed produce most Russian field artillery.

  19 For the basic statistics, see L. Beskrovnyi, The Russian Army and Fleet in the Nineteenth Century, Gulf Breeze, 1996, pp. 196–7. Speranskii, Voenno-ekonomicheskaia, pp. 38–58, on production at the Petrozavodsk and other works. On the artillery’s equipment, guns and tactics in 1812–14, see A. and Iu. Zhmodikov, Tactics of the Russian Army, 2 vols., West Chester, Ohio, 2003, vol. 2, chs. 10–15. See also: Anthony and Paul Dawson and Stephen Summerfield, Napoleonic Artillery, Marlborough, 2007, pp. 48–55.

  20 On the three arms works, the best introduction are the articles in Entsiklopediia, pp. 296, 654 and 724–5.

  21 Speranskii, Voenno-ekonomicheskaia, ch. 2, especially pp. 82 ff., 362 ff. Much the most detailed primary source on the Tula works is an exceptionally interesting article by P. P. Svinin, ‘Tul’skii oruzheinyi zavod’, Syn Otechestva, 19, 1816, pp. 243 ff. Though naively Soviet-era in many of its judgements, V. N. Ashurkov, Izbrannoe: Istoriia Tul’skogo kraia, Tula, 2003, contains interesting details.

  22 On the French tests, see K. Alder, Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763–1815, Princeton, 1997, p. 339. On English criticism, see Philip Haythornthwaite, Weapons and Equipment of the Napoleonic Wars, London, 1996, p. 22. Speranskii, Voenno-ekonomicheskaia, pp. 458–9, on the sources of the muskets distributed to the army in 1812–13.

  23 Even Wellington’s men did not usually expect to beat off attacks by musketry alone. Volleys were followed up by rapid counterattacks with the bayonet.

  24 Two recent surveys of Russian finance and taxation are: Peter Waldron, ‘State Finances’, in Lieven (ed.), Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2, pp. 468–88, and Richard Hellie, ‘Russia’, in R. Bonney (ed.), The Rise of the Fiscal State in Europe c. 1215–1815, Oxford, 1999, pp. 481–506.

  25 All these statistics should be viewed with a certain scepticism. The Russian ones are specially to be distrusted because of uncertainties as to whether sums are being cited in silver or paper rubles. Most of the statistics are drawn from Bonney, Economic Systems, pp. 360–76. The French figure is from Michel Bruguière, ‘Finances publiques’, in J. Tulard (ed.), Dictionnaire Napoléon, Paris, 1987, pp. 733–5. The British figure is from J. M. Sherwig, Guineas and Gunpowder: British Foreign Aid in the Wars with France 1793– 1815, Cambridge, Mass., 1969, p. 96.

  26 W. M. Pintner, Russian Economic Policy under Nicholas I, Ithaca, NY, 1967, ch. 5. There is a useful table on p. 186 which shows the volume of paper money issued annually and its value vis-à-vis the silver currency. A well-informed source stated that the peasants’ obligation to feed the soldiers for very inadequate compensation from the state was a well-established custom: L. Klugin, ‘Russkaia soldatskaia artel’, RS, 20, 1861, pp. 90, 96–7.

  27 Most of the subsequent discussion is gleaned from basic texts, with the addition of some of my own ideas: see in particular Paul W. Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics 1763–1848, Oxford, 1994; H. M. Scott, The Emergence of the Eastern Powers, 1756–1775, Cambridge, 2001; H. M. Scott, The Birth of a Great Power System 1740– 1815, Harlow, 2006; A. N. Sakharov et al. (eds.), Istoriia vneshnei politiki Rossii: Pervaia polovina XIX veka, Moscow, 1995.

  28 Isabel de Madariaga, Britain, Russia and the Armed Neutrality of 1780, London, 1962. There is a good description of the realities behind these disputes over maritime rights in ch. 1 of Ole Feldbaek, The Battle of Copenhagen 1801, Barnsley, 2002. Pitt’s miscalculation is analysed by Jeremy Black, ‘Naval Power, Strategy and Foreign Policy, 1775–1791’, in Michael Duffy (ed.), Parameters of British Naval Power 1650–1850, Exeter, 1998, pp. 93–120.

  29 Apart from the general diplomatic histories, see in particular H. Heppner, ‘Der Österreichisch-Russische Gegensatz in Sudosteuropa im Zeitalter Napoleons’, in A. Drabek et al. (eds.), Russland und Österreich zur Zeit der Napoleonischen Kriege, Vienna, 1989, pp. 85 ff.

  30 Elise Wirtschafter, ‘The Groups Between: raznochintsy, Intelligentsia, Professionals’, in Lieven, Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2, pp. 245–63, is a good introduction to the evolution of the Russian middle classes. On state and society in the Napoleonic era, Nicholas Riasanovsky, A Parting of Ways: Government and the Educated Public in Russia 1801–1855, Oxford, 1976, remains valuable.

  31 Jerzy Lukowski, The Partitions of Poland, Harlow, 1999, is a reliable introduction to this issue.

  32 J. Hartley, Alexander I, London, 1994, pp. 58–72. A. A. Orlov, Soiuz Peterburga i Londona, Moscow, 2005, ch. 1, pp. 7 ff.

  33 The key text for this is Alexander’s instructions for his envoy to the British government, Nikolai Novosil’tsev: VPR, 1st series, 2, pp. 138–46 and 151–3, 11/23 Sept. 1804. See also Patricia Grimsted, The Foreign Ministers of Alexander I, Berkeley, 1969, pp. 32–65.

  34 On the 1805 campaign, see above all two recent works: R. Goetz, 1805 Austerlitz: Napoleon and the Destruction of the Third Coalition, London, 2005; Frederick W. Kagan, Napoleon and Europe 1801–1805: The End of the Old Order, Cambridge, Mass., 2006.

  35 For an interesting defence of Prussian policy, see Brendan Simms, The Impact of Napoleon: Prussian High Politics, Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Executive 1797–1806, Cambridge, 1997. Russia’s foreign minister in 1806, Prince Adam Czartowski, was very unsympathetic to the Prussian dilemma. See W. H. Zawadski, A Man of Honour: Adam Czartoryski as a Statesman of Russia and Poland 1795–1831, Oxford, 1993, pp. 61–136.

  36 The best source on this is Shelekhov, Glavnoe intendantskoe upravlenie, chs. VI–XIV; F. Zatler, Zapiski o prodovol’stvii voisk v voennoe vremia, SPB, 1860, is also an excellent source and provides statistics on relative population densities on pp. 23 and 78–9: even in 1860, after decades of rapid population growth, densities in Belorussia and Lithuania were one-quarter of what one found in Silesia, Saxony, Bohemia or north-eastern France. Gavrilov, Organizatsiia, p. 59. On salaries, see PSZ, 30, 23542, 17 March 1809 (OS), pp. 885–6. In 1809 the salaries of all junior officers had to be raised 33 per cent to offset the depreciation of the paper ruble.

  37 There is a good, detailed article on this in Drabek et
al. (eds.), Russland und Österreich by Rainer Egger: ‘Die Operationen der Russischen Armee in Mahren und Österreich ob und unter der Enns im Jahre 1805’, pp. 55–70.

  38 See above all E. Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen, Stanford, Calif., 1976, especially ch. 6, pp. 67 ff.

  39 This statistic is based on a survey I carried out of 1,500 NCOs whose details are recorded in the personnel records (formuliarnye spiski) in RGVIA, Fond 489. I included all NCOs whose records were legible and who were not the sons of soldiers and clergy, from the following regimental lists: Preobrazhensky Guards (Ed. Khr. 1); Little Russia Grenadiers (Ed. Khr. 1190); Kherson Grenadiers (Ed. Khr. 1263); Murom (Ed. Khr. 517), Chernigov (Ed. Khr. 1039), Reval (Ed. Khr. 754), Kursk (Ed. Khr. 425) infantry regiments; the 39th (Ed. Khr. 1802) and 45th (Ed. Khr. 1855) Jaegers; His Majesty’s Life Cuirassiers (Ed. Khr. 2114) and the Mitau (Ed. Khr. 2446), Borisogleb (Ed. Khr. 2337), Narva (Ed. Khr. 2457), Iamburg (Ed. Khr. 2631) and Pskov (Ed. Khr. 212) dragoons; the 2nd (Ed. Khr. 3798), 5th (Ed. Khr. 3809) and 10th (Ed. Khr. 3842) artillery brigades.

  40 There is much information on this in A. N. Andronikov and V. P. Fedorov, Prokhozhdenie sluzhby, SVM, 4/1/3, SPB, 1909, pp. 1–59, and Shchepetil’nikov, Komplektovanie, pp. 41–55.

  41 On the artel, see the comments of William Fuller in Strategy and Power in Russia, 1600–1914, New York, 1992, pp. 172–3; also L. Klugin, ‘Russkaia soldatskaia artel”, pp. 79–130; Andronikov and Fedorov, Prokhozhdenie sluzhby, pp. 112–14. On the formation of new regiments, see A. A. Kersnovskii, Istoriia russkoi armii, 4 vols., Moscow, 1992, vol. 1, p. 206.

  42 Eugen, Memoiren, vol. 2, p. 49; S. F. Glinka, Pis’ma russkogo ofitsera, Moscow, 1987, p. 347.

  43 In 1806, for example, a circular from Alexander’s Personal Military Chancellery stressed that ‘the transfer of officers from one regiment to another is wholly contrary to the emperor’s wishes’: Andronikov and Fedorov, Prokhozhdenie sluzhby, p. 112. In 1812 Baron Cyprian von Kreutz became chief of the Siberian Lancer Regiment. Next year his two young brothers-in-law transferred into the regiment. Within thirty months one of them had been promoted twice and the other three times: RGVIA, Fond 489, Opis 1, Ed. Khr. 2670, fos. 34–45: ‘Spisok o sluzhbe i dostoinstv Sibirskago ulanskago polka generaliteta’ and ‘Spisok o sluzhbe i dostoinstv Sibirskago ulanskago polka rotmistrov i shtab-rotmistrov’. See the personnel records e.g. of the Preobrazhensky Guards (Ed. Khr. 1), the Little Russia and Kherson Grenadiers (Ed. Khr. 1190 and 1263), the Kursk and Briansk (39th Jaegers) regiments (Ed. Khr. 425 and 1802) and the Pskov Dragoons (Ed. Khr. 212).

  44 On Karneev, see RGVIA, Fond 489, Ed. Khr. 1, fo. 506: ‘Formuliarnyi spisok leib gvardii Preobrazhenskago polka, generalam, shtab i ober ofitseram i drugim chinam’, dated 1 Jan. 1808 (OS). On the Briansk, Narva and Grenadier regiments, see the sections on NCOs in their personnel records listed in n. 39 above. On soldiers’ sons and NCOs, see Komplektovanie, SVM, pp. 173–208. On Russian NCOs, see D. G. Tselerungo, ‘Boevoi opyt unter-ofitserov russkoi armii – uchastnikov Borodinskago srazheniia’, in Otechestvennaia voina 1812 goda: Istochniki, pamiatniki, problemy. Materialy XII vserossisskoi nauchnoi konferentsii. Borodino, 6–8 sentiabria 2004 g., Moscow, 2005, pp. 21–6.

  45 Much the best evaluation of the Russian army’s performance in 1805–7 is in vol. 1 of Zhmodikov, Tactics.

  46 Eugen, Memoiren, vol. 1, p. 136.

  47 This information comes from the biographical sketch which introduced Osten-Sacken’s own diaries when these were published by Russkii arkhiv in 1900: RA, 1, 1900, pp. 6–25.

  48 ‘Iz zapisok fel’dmarshala Sakena’, RA, 1, 1900, pp. 161–80. Langeron’s memoirs are a useful source on this dispute, since he had a healthy respect for both Bennigsen and Sacken. Langeron’s letter to Bennigsen, dated 10 Dec. 1816, is in vol. 1, pp. xxvii–xxix, of Mémoires du Général Bennigsen, 3 vols., Paris, n.d. The comments in his own memoirs are in Mémoires de Langeron, Général d’Infanterie dans l’Armée Russe: Campagnes de 1812, 1813, 1814, Paris, 1902, pp. 15–18.

  49 The best source on the views of both Alexander and his advisers is the many letters of Prince Aleksandr Kurakin to the Dowager Empress Marie, in RA, 1, 1868. See also A. Gielgud (ed.), Memoirs of Prince Adam Czartoryski, 2 vols., London, 1888, vol. 2, pp. 174–83. V. Sirotkin, Napoleon i Aleksandr I, Moscow, 2003, is a good introduction to opinion within the Russian ruling elite on foreign policy.

  50 S. Tatishcheff, Alexandre I et Napoléon, Paris, 1894, Alexander to Lobanov, 4/16 June 1807, p. 121.

  51 D. N. Shilov, Gosudarstvennye deiateli Rossiiskoi imperii, SPB, 2001, pp. 377–9. Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich, Russkie portrety, SPB, n.d., vol. 4, part 1, no. 62.

  52 On Aleksandr Kurakin’s career, see S. N. Shipov and Iu. A. Kuz’min, Chleny gosudarstvennogo soveta Rossiiskoi imperii, SPB, 2007, pp. 412–16. Lobanov’s reports on the initial negotiations are in RS, 98, 1899, pp. 594–5, Lobanov to Alexander, 7/19 June 1807. See also RA, 1, 1868, Kurakin to Empress Marie, 10/22 June 1807, pp. 183–7.

  53 It seems that in his initial drafts Tolstoy depicted the Kuragins in more sympathetic terms: K. B. Feuer, Tolstoy and the Genesis of War and Peace, Ithaca, NY, 1976, p. 71. On the ancestry of Lobanov and Kurakin, see N. Ikonnikov, La Noblesse de Russie, 2nd edn., vols. A1–Z2, Paris, 1958–66: vols. H1, pp. 211–16 and I1, pp. 426–31.

  54 On Constantine, see E. Karnovich, Tsesarevich Konstantin Pavlovich, SPB, 1899. On Paul, see R. McGrew, Paul I of Russia, Oxford, 1992, and H. Ragsdale (ed.), Paul I: A Reassessment of his Life and Reign, Pittsburgh, 1979.

  55 V. I. Genishta and A. T. Borisovich, Istoriia 30-go dragunskago Ingermanlandskago polka 1704–1904, SPB, 1904, pp. 119–21, describes Lieven’s role in preparing the army for the 1805 campaign.

  56 Lieven’s personnel record is in RGVIA, Fond 489, Opis 1, Delo 7062, fo. 356: as was true of many officers, he omitted to mention his parents’ property. See his self-appraisal in a letter to his fiancée, Dorothea, who was the god-daughter of the Empress Marie: J. Charmley, The Princess and the Politicians, London, 2005, p. 7.

  57 S. W. Jackman (ed.), Romanov Relations, London, 1969, Grand Duchess Anna to Grand Duke Constantine, 2 April 1828, p. 149.

  58 See e.g. Tatishcheff, Alexandre, pp. 140, 183, and A. Vandal, Napoléon et Alexandre Premier, 3 vols., Paris, 1891, vol. 1, pp. 61–7. The instructions are in VPR, 1st series, 3, note 414, pp. 754–60.

  59 Alexander did relinquish the Ionian Islands and Cattaro, which Russia could in any case never defend once at war with the Ottomans and Britain. It received the more useful Belostok district in return.

  60 The treaties of peace and alliance are in VPR, 1st series, vol. 3, nos. 257 and 258, pp. 631 ff.

  61 These comments on Alexander’s preferences and perceptions are drawn from the instructions he gave to Kurakin and Lobanov: VPR, 1st series, vol. 3, note 414, pp. 754–60.

  62 For a list of regimental artisans, see I. Ul’ianov, Reguliarnaia pekhota 1801–1855, vol. 2, Moscow, 1996, p. 212. On the Church in the army, see L. V. Mel’nikova, Armiia i pravoslavnaia tserkov’ Rossiiskoi imperii v epokhu Napoleonovskikh voin, Moscow, 2007, pp. 45–56, 116–37.

  63 The key work on officers’ profiles is Tselerungo, Ofitsery russkoi armii.

  64 The information on the Preobrazhenskys comes from: RGVIA, Fond 489, Opis 1, Ed. Khr. 1, fos. 455–560: ‘Formuliarnyi spisok leib gvardii Preobrazhenskago polka, generalam, shtab i ober ofitseram i drugim chinam’, dated 1 Jan. 1808. Only occasionally in the personnel records of line regiments can one spot that officers have neglected to mention serfowning: see for one example the three Dolzhikov brothers in the Narva Dragoons who had family serfs as orderlies: RGVIA, Fond 489, Opis 1, Ed. Khr. 2457, ‘Spisok o sluzhbe…Narvskago dragunskago polka’, fos. 95 ff. for the list of batmen and lines 6 ff. and 27 ff. for the personnel records of the brothers. It is much easier to spot omissions among the prominent officers of the Preobrazhensky officers, let alone in the generals’ personnel records in Fond 489, Opis 1, Delo 7602.

  65 T
he quote is from Zapiski Sergeia Grigorovicha Volkonskago (dekabrista), SPB, 1902, p. 70. See e.g. L. G. Beskrovnyi (ed.), Dnevnik Aleksandra Chicherina, 1812–1813, Moscow, 1966, for excellent insights into the cultured young Guards officers’ mentality. Two such strikes were in the Semenovskys on the eve of 1812 and in the Guards artillery in January 1814: P. Pototskii, Istoriia gvardeiskoi artillerii, SPB, 1896, pp. 285–6; Dnevnik Pavla Pushchina, Leningrad, 1987, pp. 49–50.

  66 On Lazarev, see http:www.svoboda.org/programs. For examples of ex-rankers being censured for poor behaviour after the war, see e.g. the cases of lieutenants Beliankin and Kirsanov of the 45th Jaegers (RGVIA, Fond 489, Opis 1, Delo 1855, fos. 19–20) or of three officers of the Iamburg Lancers (Lt. Krestovskii, Istoriia 14-go Ulanskago Iamburgskago E.I.V. velikoi kniagini Marii Aleksandrovny polka, SPB, 1873, appendices). Of course, many ex-rankers flourished.

  67 ‘Imperator Aleksandr I: Ego kharakteristika po sochineniiu N. K. Shil’dera’, RS, 99/3, 1899, pp. 98–114, at p. 99.

  68 The catalogue of the excellent recent exhibition at the Hermitage on Alexander contains articles with many insights into his personality: Aleksandr I: ‘Sfinks ne razgadannyi do groba’, SPB, 2005.

  69 Quoted in N. Shil’der, Imperator Aleksandr pervyi: Ego zhizn’ i tsarstvovanie, 4 vols., SPB, 1897, vol. 3, a letter to Alexander from Professor Parrot, p. 489.

  70 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, p. 99.

  71 There is a dearth of work on provincial society and administration under Alexander. The reign of Catherine II and the period from the 1861 Emancipation to 1917 are much better covered. For a good overview of local administration, see Janet Hartley, ‘Provincial and Local Government’, in Lieven (ed.), Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2, pp. 446–67.