| |||||
1812: Napoleon's Fatal March On Moscow - Adam Zamoyski
Monday, December 25, 2006
By Simon Woodhouse
I've never really been very interested in history. Having to learn endless lists of which King of England reined after which other King of England, killed history for me at school. It's only recently that I've started to find events from the past interesting. 19th century Europe is particularly fascinating - the Industrial Revolution, the reign of Queen Victoria, science coming into its own. The dominant military campaign in Europe, or at least the one people remember the most from that era, is the Crimean War. But that fracas pales a little when compared to Napoleon's fateful Russian campaign.
As a theatre of war, Europe has seen some of the worst conflicts. Proving the old adage that 'war solves nothing' to be true, history has repeated itself time and time again. However, it wasn't for another one hundred years, until WWI, that Napoleon's Russian campaign was beaten in terms of manpower and bloodshed.
Though 1812 is a work of non-fiction, it's so readable it's more like a novel. The book begins by introducing the two main characters - Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I. These two had been engaged in a love/hate relationship for several years before the Emperor of France finally decided to sort things out. To aid Napoleon in this endeavor, he formed the Grande Armee. This was a multi-national force estimated to be 600,000 strong. At the time it was the largest army ever assembled. As the book details, the campaign started well enough, with the Russian's continually retreating. And when they did stand and fight, Napoleon's men promptly kicked their butts. This retreat let the French make it all the way to Moscow. But that's where things started to go wrong for the Grande Armee.
Besides Napoleon and Alexander, other players include the high-ranking military men of both armies. For the majority of the campaign, the Russian's suffered from a lack of discipline, especially amongst the higher ranks. Infighting between various generals proved the army's undoing time and time again. Only General Mikhail Barclay receives constant praise (from the author that is, not from his fellow officers). On the French side, a lower ranking military man, Michel Ney, is portrayed as a hero who saved the day on many occasions.
But Ney had little to do as the French were approaching Moscow. They arrived at the city in the beginning of September, the Russian autumn. As campaigning back then often gave the common soldier a chance to get his hands on some real booty, the Grande Armee set about stripping Moscow of everything that wasn't nailed down. Napoleon, however, soon realized that he and his men couldn't stay in the city all winter. After examining his options it became apparent there was really only one course of action available - go back to France. This proved to be the turning point of the campaign.
Up until this point, the book doesn't delve too deeply into how unpleasant conditions were during certain episodes. As the Grande Armee starts to leave Moscow, all that changes. And really, that shouldn't be a surprise. Any telling of this tale would be incomplete without painting the situation in all its gruesome glory.
Weighed down with booty instead of food, the French and their allies left Moscow during a particularly mild spell of late October weather. This didn't last long, and as the conditions worsened so did the army's predicament. They left Russia via the same route they'd used on the way in. Feeding such a large number of men was never easy, but now the Grande Armee was marching through an area it had already stripped of supplies only a few weeks before. Harsh country at the best of times, in the winter it proved fatal. But things soon got worse. Having retreated in the face of Napoleon's army, the Russians now saw their chance for payback.
During the battle of Berezina, Napoleon seemed faced with almost certain defeat. Three different Russian armies had trapped him against the Berezina River, whilst at the same time destroying the nearest available bridge. Though outnumbered and commanding a demoralized and depleted army, Napoleon forged the river, held off his attackers and drove back the Russians on the far bank. But the victory proved almost worthless, because once over the water the Grande Armee still faced a forced march through terrible conditions.
Written with a neutral voice, 1812 paints neither Napoleon nor the Tsar as the bad guy. Both armies are shown to be equally capable of barbarism. However, it's the French and their allies who suffer the most, and this is where the really graphic descriptions come into play. Forced to eat whatever they could lay their hands on (which included dead comrades), what was left of the Grande Armee eventually made it out of Russia. But Napoleon's invincible status had been forever tarnished, and within three years he was Emperor no more.
Considering it deals with such a weighty subject, 1812 is very readable. Its unbiased point of view means it doesn't get bogged down with unnecessary sentiment. Though the gore and the grime is hard to read about at times, the author doesn't dwell on this aspect of what happens, or offer any moral judgment. Even if (like me) you've always found history hard to stomach, 1812 makes this particular episode not exactly entertaining but certainly understandable.
7:57 PM Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
| I have always imagined that
paradise will be a kind of library. -Jorge Luis Borges |
