#general kutuzov

[empirearchives]

I’m crying, this author was UNHINGED 😂😂

[caesarsaladinn]

worst kinds of academic paper are the ones titled something like "is X in a causal relationship with Y?" and twelve pages down you start to realize that they're still giving context instead of arguments and eventually they get to the answer which is "we have no direct evidence to suggest it, but wouldn't it be neat?"

why did you write this, and more importantly, who published it?

[galakteon]

doodled these two general Kutuzov plushies i found while browsing (boredom)

[napoleonic-sexyman-tournament]

Hello sillies! I'm back with more fun facts about Bagration (and also an anti-propaganda for his wife Catherine Bagration)

It makes me very sad to see the two in this confrontation! I love them both very much and I think that in another context they would get along well because they are also curly fellas, but let me tell you something curious, Bagration and Murat got to know each other! In a very curious way, let's say that it was a form of flirtation, a flirtation that was done by Bagration himself, who, the very clever one, praised Murat in a meeting before Austerlitz so that he would accept a false armistice (Murat was also easy to influence. through praise, so Bagration knew how to take advantage of the situation).

Unfortunately, I would like to give more information about what happened between the two, but in my book it only mentions that, that Murat, under the influence of Bagration's flirtation, willingly accepted the armistice (did you know that, @joachimnapoleon ? Hehehe)

These are details that I said in my previous blurb, he is also with Lannes, who days ago I found his book written by Margaret that gave me more details of their meeting. Jean was not in a good mood because he did not like being under Murat's command because he considered him mediocre and when the Russian officers were invited to the barracks for dinner, Lannes chose, of all people, Bagration to form a conversation with him and Jean's opinion of Bagration was that he was someone who was an expert at what he did, not like some buffoonish soldiers present.

(Bagration was terrible at speaking and understanding French! I wonder what language they communicated in)

Here i left you a fragment extracted from both topics:

“Prince Bagration was a most agreeable man; he knew so well how to flatter Murat that the latter, taken in in his turn by the Russian general, eagerly accepted the armistice in spite of remarks of Lannes, who wished to fight.” The armistice was concluded on conditions that the Russians would leave Austrian territory, while the French would remain in Moravia. Both sides agreed to give four-hour notice before resuming hostilities. The armistice was to sent to Napoleon and Kutuzov for ratification. In the meantime, the French invited the Russian officers to their headquarters for a dinner. Bagration met Marshal Lannes there and the two spoke for some time. Lannes told him, if he had been commanding the troops, they would have been fighting by now." —The Lion of the Russian army, Alexander Mikaberidze.

«Bagration's rear-guard was not the only weapon in Kutuzov's arsenal. He decided to rum the armistice mse against its original perpetrators. While Bagration's men dug in at Schongrabern, Kutuzov sent General Ferdinand Wintzingerode under a flag of tmce to meet with the French advance-guard. The Austrian told Murat that because negotiations were underway in Vienna, they should both hold their present positions. If the negotiations failed, he added, then whoever broke the tmce would give a six-hour warning before resuming hostilities. Murat agreed, mostly because he mistook Bagration's rear-guard for the leading elements of Kutuzov's main force and knew he and Lannes needed reinforcements before they could engage the Russians. He sent an aide-de-camp to notify Napoleon of the cease-fire and invited Wintzingerode, Bagration, and other Russian officers to his headquarters for wine and polite conversation.

Lannes never believed Wintzingerode for a minute. Instead, he had a pretty good idea where Kutuzov was, thought Bagration was on his own, and knew Napoleon meant to fight the Russians, not negotiate with them. Already annoyed that his corps was at half strength and Murat was still telling him what to do, he stood on the edge of the gathering, holding a glass of wine and glaring at friends and enemies alike. He spoke only to Bagration, whom he recognized as a professional soldier, not a buffoon like some in the present company. "If I was on my own and didn't have to put up with Murat's orders," he told the Russian general, "we'd be fighting, not standing around drinking and talking about the goddamned weather." Bagration probably agreed with him.41 While Kutuzov marched farther away, Bagration returned to Schongrabern.

Napoleon sent an aide to Murat with another blistering reprimand. "It is impossible for me to find words to express my displeasure with you," he wrote.

"Break that truce immediately and attack the enemy. . . . The Austrians allowed themselves to be fooled over the Vienna bridge, but you have been fooled by one of [Alexander I's] aides-de-camp!" A chastened Murat gave orders for an offensive while Lannes, enjoying Murat's humiliation, rode off to tell Bagration they would be fighting after all.» —The emperor's friend: Jean Lannes, Margaret Scott.

Very curious and charming, right? Now let's move on to different points!

★ I know that there is a certain image of Alexander I and people love him, for my part I hate him because he was unfair to Bagration, Alex never trusted and liked the presence of Prince Georgian, he even excluded him from certain inaugurations and it is said that when Catherine, Bagration's wife, had an illegitimate daughter, Alex forced Bagration to acknowledge paternity and perhaps take financial responsibility for her, but there are no details of the latter. The truth is that Alex was visibly hostile to Bagration and Bagration knew it, he knew that the emperor did not want him and he even fantasized about commanding both Russian armies, but due to his strategic lack and tense relationship with Alex, he clearly never achieved it.

"Although Bagration's secret ambition was to command the Russian armies, he was hesitant to go that far. The proud descendant of the Bagration kings, he was a worthy man, too high and noble a figure to condescend to open intrigue and deliberate insubordination.

Bagration rejected all appeals to write to the tsar. He wrote to Yermolov: "I will not write to the tsar asking for command, because this would be attributed to my ambition and vanity, not to my merits and abilities." Perhaps Bagration realized that Alexander would never give him supreme command of the Russian Army. He was well aware of Alexander's feelings towards him, especially in light of his conflict during the 1809 campaign in the Danube Valley, current disagreements over strategy, and his previous relationship with Alexander's sister Catherine. However, Bagration still hoped to be appointed commander-in-chief and often commented in letters to Rostopchin: "if I commanded both armies..."

I really hate Alexander's attitude towards Pyotr because Pyotr never did anything bad to him, he was very good to him and obeyed him. When Pavel "adopted" Pyotr as a trusted general, that also meant that Bagration became closer to the imperial family and on one occasion, in the Palace, a prince along with Alexander saw Bagration approaching, to which the prince says that " Here comes the best general!" or something like that, but Pyotr responds that flattery/attention is more important "I am not worthy of praise, but the sun/star of Russia" referring and pointing to the tsarevich himself, Alexander.

★ This is related to the previous (anti-propaganda and Alexander) and pay attention to what I say, Bagration's wife started this whole nightmare because she was a very beautiful countess, yes, but as a person she was terrible, she was capricious and cruel (I understand that when she found out about Bagration's death, she had no mixed feelings, she simply didn't care about the death of the man she manipulated so much).

And since she was capricious, she was also a flirt, she fell in love with men to satisfy her ego and then abandoned them, the most notable victim of her was Bagration.

She began to pursue him, to attract him with her charms, but since Bagration did not know how to act in the face of coquetry and was very shy with female affection, he was stoic and she even complained to him about it, some time later Pyotr "falls in love" with her. Catherine (I think he was not in love, he was simply attracted by the enormous beauty of the countess to the point of being a toy for her, because I had read in a fragment that he sometimes wanted to burn the mini portrait that he had of her, but when he saw her beauty, his hand retreated and he found himself unable to do so, besides there was no reason to fall in love with someone like Catherine, in this era marriages were a horrible failure!) and when she saw his success, she immediately left him and things could have ended like this, with Bagration "in love" and her with her wasteful life, Pyotr would never have suffered, but here comes Pavel and his unfortunate habit of marrying two people, I know an anecdote that a marriage did not end well thanks to him, and Catherine and Pyotr are another example.

One day, the two are told to go somewhere, dressed formally for something they didn't know about. When they arrived they were going to be consecrated in marriage, I can already imagine the surprise on both their faces.

The wedding was without consent and the family was close to the emperor, but you know, Pavel had a difficult and severe temperament, so telling him anything about it would end very badly.

It was already known that the Union was going to be unhappy, Pyotr tried to win Catherine's affection by satisfying her whims but this never happened and she looked for any excuse to avoid it, so it was a horrible suffering for Pyotr.

Everything was like that, until the Napoleonic wars broke out and she took the opportunity to go to Vienna, they never met again.

She was traveling through Europe, she was known as "the wandering princess" because she had her own carriage for several trips and she explained to Bagration that she could not return to Russia because "I am sick and I need medication." This lie was quite obvious and he The only thing she did was waste money, and when she began to run out of it, she began to ask Bagration, also in a guilty way, that Pyotr should take care of it because it was his duty as her husband (he also said so). ).

And since Bagration loved her very much and was detached with money, he took care of her and sent her all the money she needed, while she was unfaithful with the whore Metternich (excuse the word, but this man also slept with the wife of Murat, so here is another similarity between Murat and Bagration) and from there they had a daughter whom Bagration had to recognize as his own. I repeat, he never met the girl.

Obviously there are gossips everywhere, so the news of Catherine dishonoring Bagration spread like an epidemic, but despite that, he always defended her first and foremost because it was his duty as a husband, he was really too good for her.

Due to his wife's infidelities, his aristocratic position due to being of noble lineage (he was a prince, but a prince of nothing because his family was exiled, so that title was for decoration) and his poor education due to his youthful poverty, Pyotr's life was the object of gossip, ridicule and humiliation that he had to endure. I remember that he had tense relations with the St. Petersburg Court (he had courtier skills but he did not like the Court that much, from what I read in a book of his written by Gribanov) and there were two options there, speak wonders of Bagration or speak miseries of him.

To be specific in a humiliation towards Bagration, it happened when he once publicly announced with another man that he would take care of Catherine's assets while Pyotr would not, which earned him humiliation.

It also happens that Catherine's family hated Bagration because he "ruined" their daughter's life and he was trying to get closer to them but it wasn't working. On one occasion he gave a gift to his mother-in-law in Naples and she abruptly rejected it.

Bagration was faithful to him until Catherine arrived, the tsar's sister who felt great love for him and used to deify him, so they had a special approach both physically and in letters, they walked hand in hand through the parks and Catherine was younger. than him, but she was a very cunning woman, in a source I had read that during the Court balls, she flirted with Bagration saying that she would love to be queen of Georgia, which makes me sad because they didn't end up together.

The imperial family did not agree with that, partly because he was "ugly" (that same portrait you are seeing in the voting publication was from 1812, when Bagration was 47 years old, and he does not look like it!) and also because of Alex's dislike towards Pyotr, so they were immediately separated, Alex sent Bagration elsewhere while Catherine entered into a marriage.

What do you want me to tell you more? Oh, true! Alexander also had an affair with Catherine Bagration, what do you think?

★ Bagration was modest in the way he dressed and wore the same uniform almost all the time, but still he was like a fashion icon because of the popularity of him! Here is a fragment that explains it better.

While in St. Petersburg, Bagration became a symbol of Russian victory for the younger generation. Young women wore Bagration-style hats while young officers idolized him. Paul Grabbe, one of these officers, recalled that “Bagration's heroic deeds at Amstetten [and Schongrabern] were discussed in our spare time and remained the best reminiscences of that period.” Another contemporary, Denis Davidov wrote: “Bagration's soul echoed the bold thoughts of the younger generation, who always thirsted for military adventures and glory.” In late February, the St. Petersburg Vedomosti Decree published Emperor Alexander's decree praising Bagration for “remarkable courage and presence of mind… resisting the attacks of the superior enemy and marching his troops in order from the battlefield to Austerlitz and then covering the withdrawal of the army.”

★ When he recently moved to the capital, an aunt of his helped him have an interview with Potemkin and it was faster than expected, so a carriage went to pick up Pyotr but he didn't have the look/clothes to introduce himself , but a butler helped him by giving him his caftan with which he could attend the interview. Some time later, when Bagration was already a recognized general, he met the butler, whom he hugged and thanked him saying "without him, I would not have been who I am!", thus demonstrating that Bagration was a pleasant person.

★ Bagration didn't even know him at home before, but when he started as a general and was promoted (he was the most popular of all at that time), the Flattery and special invitations to him increased more, many people wanted to meet him and here's another fragment because it best describes the situation:

As his fame spread throughout the Empire, Bagration made public appearances with the Emperor and served as a guest of honor at numerous events. In early February 1806, Prince Peter accompanied Alexander to the Academy of Medical Surgery and then attended the opening of the first Russian Therapy Clinic. At the end of February, he traveled to Moscow, where the English Club, one of the Empire's most prestigious societies, hosted a special dinner “in honor of his last brave conduct with the armies.” He exceeded all expectations. The English traveler Ker Porter recalled: “The suites of splendid halls, and the great marble hall in which dinner was served, were furnished with the most implacable magnificence.”178 One reception housed 350 guests; One participant described: “he searched for and bought all the rarest meat, fish, vegetables, wines and fried foods for dinner; Everyone wanted to participate in this reception.”179 at 2:00 p.m. Bagration appeared and “was immediately surrounded by everyone in the room, eager to express his joy at his presence, and congratulations to his country for having been blessed with the preservation of such a man.”

Soon a splendid dinner was served and the emperor and Bagration “marred with the greatest enthusiasm” were toasted. “As long as we have baggage, the enemies will always be at our feet.”183 Ker Porter was perplexed by the fervor of the guests and noted: “I have never seen such a lively society of Russians; and more than once it reminded me of similar gatherings in honor of our glorious friend and hero Sir Sidney Smith.” In addition, a band of garrison singers sang a specially written song praising Prince Bagration. Hall, where he was declared an honorary member of the English Club.186 During the celebration, Sir Ker Porter was introduced to Bagration, who greatly impressed him. He characterized Prince Pyotr as “not only one of the first military heroes, but in his character as a man, an honor to human nature.”

The celebration in honor of Bagration did not end in the English Club. Over the next two weeks, he was invited to several dinners, dances, or other gatherings. On March 19, Prince Khovansky hosted another lavish dinner for Bagration. One of the witnesses wrote: “I cannot describe this event to you because there are no words for it. The dining room was adorned with various trophies and there was a portrait of Bagration in the middle of the main wall. There were bundles of weapons, flags, and other souvenirs beneath the portrait, and several young women, dressed in the color of his uniform and wearing Bagration-style hats, the latest fashion in the city, surrounded him.” When Bagration entered, the band played the music and the ladies' song the dedications. Then several ladies presented him with a laurel wreath and led him to a curtain-covered wall. While the curtains were drawn, “a theatrical stage was built depicting a forest and an ancient temple of glory with a statue of Suvorov. [Suddenly], a guardian angel [genius] came out of the temple and gave letters to Bagration, who read them aloud and placed a laurel wreath at the feet of the statue of Suvorov. "Then we started the dance."

★ just as Alexander has a nickname which is Sasha, Bagration clearly had too, and that was Petya, very cute indeed.

★ Bagration was easy to embarrass/blush! I'm just reading his historical novel in Russian and on several occasions Bagration blushes and gets embarrassed, imagine if you were flirting with him, he'd be more ahhh cutie patootie. 😭

★ he was not interested in politics, but if he did get involved in Georgian politics, again, I will leave another fragment to explain it better:

In the summer of 1806, Bagration also participated in Georgian politics. The Georgian nobility was dissatisfied with the Russian administration and anti-Russian sentiment spread rapidly among the population. The Russians introduced the Russian legislature and language which were rejected by the Georgians. The harsh Russian occupation had greatly changed the attitude of a people, who once welcomed the Russians as liberators from the Persians and Turks. Considered by their new masters as mere serfs, the Georgian peasantry looked back with nostalgia on the bad old days. The nobility also felt neglected. Under the Georgian kings, they enjoyed privileges and power, ruling according to their traditions and customs. Now they found themselves living in a province of the vast empire, whose rules were foreign to them and seemed to lack sympathy for their nation. In the spring of 1806, the Georgian nobility asked for help from Peter Bagration, who was one of the most influential Georgians in the Russian Empire. Instead, Prince Pyotr sent his brother Roman to Georgia with letters to the Georgian nobles urging them to comply with the Russian government. However, the Russian administration became alarmed by Bagration's involvement in Georgian affairs and made reports of disapproval to St. Petersburg.

★ That's right, Bagration had a sense of humor, he even told jokes in tense/dangerous moments before a battle.

★ there is a mischaracterization of Bagration in the novel War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, he is represented as someone stoic, flat, inexpressive, things like that, but Bagration was very warm, pleasant and sociable with people, typical of expressive people, with Just saying that he blushed easily is enough!

★ Bagration was so sociable and the typical extrovert who adopts an introvert to such a degree that he was a close friend of Arakcheyev, a man with a horrible temperament (like killing kittens and being in favor of corporal punishment, according to what a friend who knows him told me well) that he received disdain and his friendships were almost non-existent, but with Bagration it was different, from what I read in the few letters from Petya to Arakcheyev, he handled both professional and personal things, and one of them is that Bagration was aware of the criticism towards him and told Arakcheyev that it hurt his soul to receive such criticism.

★ As he had said, Bagration was close to Emperor Pavel, who was approaching his peak of paranoid and found it difficult to trust anyone, so he "adopted" Bagration as his trusted general since he was a first-timer at the site and did not He knew nothing about the Court, which gave him an advantage. Pavel appreciated him and got along very well with Pyotr, even recommending him for promotion and Arakcheyev too since he was very devoted to Pavel and all that. I'm going to go to the old reliable, fragments hehehe

Suvorov was already on his way to St. Petersburg, when unexpected news devastated him. Although Paul praised Suvorov and arranged a reception for him, he still regarded him with suspicion and resentment. He knew that Suvorov's return to Russia meant that the field marshal would continue to oppose the new military system established by Paul. The emperor could not allow this to happen. They told him that Suvorov had violated his rules and appointed the generals of the time, 4 and banned the Prussian pigtails, reintroduced by Paul into the army.5 The emperor canceled the reception and sent a brusque letter to Suvorov. “I have learned that while you were in command of my forces abroad you had on your staff a general, known as an orderly, despite my instructions…. Surprised by this, I order you to tell me what prompted you to do it.” 6 Furthermore, Paul forbade Suvorov to come to St. Petersburg during the day;

It was said that he even wanted to deprive the field marshal of his title of “Italiiskii”. The old field marshal was shocked by this misfortune. He was already in poor health and this humiliation further sapped his strength. He arrived in St. Petersburg late at night, unannounced and unwelcome. An imperial courier informed him that he was forbidden to visit the imperial palace.7 Peter Bagration was one of the few who visited the disgraced Suvorov during his illness. On one occasion, several days before Suvorov's death, Paul sent Bagration to inquire after his health.8 Prince Peter described finding [Suvorov] very weak...he fell into a coma. His assistants rubbed spirits on his temples and gave him smelling salts, which brought him back to his senses. He looked at me, but the old fire no longer burned in his eyes.

He continued to look at me as if trying to recognize me and then shouted, “Ah! It's you, Peter. It's good to see you!" He remained silent and then looked at me again and I informed him of my errand from the Emperor. Alexander Vasilievich came to life, but his speech was broken. “Convey my respects… my deepest respects… to the Emperor …please do it…Peter…Ah…so much pain!” He said no more and fell into a delirium.”9 Death was rapidly approaching and, on May 18, 1800, Suvorov whispered his last words. Large crowds followed Suvorov's remains during the funeral. It seemed that the entire population of Suvorov was present. However, Pablo pursued Suvorov even to death. At his insistence, the funeral date was moved one day later; newspapers were not allowed to publish obituaries and the military honors awarded to Suvorov were listed one rank lower. of his rank.10 The emperor did not attend the funeral of his best commander and instead reviewed the Guard regiments.11 Suvorov's death was an important date in Bagration's career. command of Suvorov and rose to his rank and positions thanks to the support of the field marshal.12 Upon returning to St. Petersburg, Bagration became famous and accepted in higher social circles. He was often invited to the palace and met with members of the. Royal family. On one occasion, he was introduced to the future Emperor Alexander and a group of aristocrats. One of them, Prince Eugene of Wuttemberg, greeted him: “Here comes the famous Prince Bagration.” Prince Peter shrewdly replied to the courtier: “My Prince, if you want to see someone distinguished, here is the rising sun of Russia” and pointed to Alexander. (here is what I said a few moments ago, but better)

However, Bagration was also in a dangerous position. His close relationship with Suvorov, whom Paul hated so much, could have led to his disgrace. However, cordial relations existed between the emperor and the young general. Paul met Bagration on many occasions and contacted the sick Suvorov through him. In addition, Bagration had no connections with the court and did not participate in judicial machinations. Paul was already suspicious of the conspiracy against him and with each passing day he became more and more cautious. He needed trustworthy people around him, so he focused on Bagration.

Prince Peter was new at court. He had spent most of his life on the periphery of the empire and had visited St. Petersburg only once in 1782, when he joined the service. For the next eighteen years he fought in the Caucasus, Crimea, Poland, Italy and Switzerland and was unable to travel to the capital. He was not familiar with the imperial court and did not participate in various intrigues. In addition, the emperor was well aware of Bagration's military achievements. Suvorov had periodically reported on Bagration's successes at Brescia, Tidone, Trebbia and Novi. The Swiss campaign brought him new laurels, so Paul appreciated his talent. On March 20, 1800, he was appointed commander of the 6th Jager Regiment, and in April, Paul gave him a large estate in Lithuania to replace the one Bagration received for his actions in Trebbia.14 However, Bagration was not frugal. .

To lead a life befitting his status, he began an extravagant lifestyle in the capital that naturally resulted in increasing debts. Over the years, Bagration sold two properties to cover debts.

With the onset of spring, Bagration was ordered to Pavlovsk, where his Jagers protected the imperial family.15 In May, Bagration attended the launching ceremony of three new ships at the Admiralty. Then, in June, Bagration accompanied the emperor to Peterhof in St. Petersburg, where he attended naval maneuvers and enjoyed the social life of the court. In July 1800, Paul again rewarded young Bagration and appointed him chef of the Jager Lifeguard Battalion.16 This appointment indicated the great respect Paul had for Bagration. The position of chef of the lifeguard regiments was usually filled by the emperor and members of his family.17 Paul created the Prussian-style chefs in August 1798 and this position practically replaced the commanders. The chefs were all-powerful within the regiment, supervising the management of the troops, their training and determining logistical needs.

Unlike other chefs, Peter Bagration was also appointed commander of the Jager Lifeguard Battalion and thus combined both positions.18 However, considering Paul's meticulous attention to the Prussian military organization, this appointment could also compromise Bagration. . Paul held daily parades and reviews in the capital and any poor performance by officers led to disgrace and banishment. 19 In June 1800, Paul reviewed Bagration's battalion on Semeyonovsky Square in the capital. Prince Peter deployed his battalion into three companies of 100 men each and his orderly formation and neat appearance pleased the emperor. Paul asked Bagration to show him several Jagers that he found in perfect order. In 1800 Bagration's life soon became routine. Every morning he attended the Wachtparade, which Paul modeled after the daily exercises of Frederick the Great. Paul personally supervised the deployment of troops and anxiously watched the parade for any imperfections. After the parade was over, Bagration led the troops to the barracks and continued the exercise there. The emperor often made unannounced visits and Prince Peter had to be ready at any time.

At the end of July 1800, Paul moved to Tsarskoe Selo. Bagration with his battalion was in charge of security there. He stayed in the town of Sofia, which the Empress Catherine founded for her entourage. However, Paul did not like staying in Tsarskoe Selo, which reminded him of his mother, so he spent the rest of the summer and early autumn of 1800 in Gatchina, where Bagration continued to protect the imperial family. Paul often ordered Prince Peter to prepare his battalion for maneuvers and exercises.

In one of them, in September 1800, Paul gathered forces from all branches of the army to reenact the battle. The troops were divided into two opposing corps and Bagration “fought” under the command of General Mikhail Kutuzov, who won the battle and earned Paul's praise. Kutuzov, who was later appointed military governor of the capital, had a high opinion of Bagration. In September 1800, when Major General Ivan Ivelich accused Bagration of embezzling regiment funds, Kutuzov personally investigated the matter and determined that Bagration committed no crime.

★ He had a mini portrait of Alexander's wife (she was good to him, as I remember), Catherine (Alexander's sister), Catherine Bagration (his wife) and Suvorov, who was like a father figure to he. There was someone else but I don't remember well.

★ On one occasion he fell from his horse and suffered a concussion that was not serious, but that meant that he had to leave his position to recover, which happened, but he was replaced by a man not so nice and very different from him , that at the time this man announced that he would replace Bagration, he did so arrogantly and praising his own achievements, earning the contempt of the soldiers who preferred Bagration, who had given a very emotional and sweet farewell speech that even Langeron praised the speech.

Here's another extract from the topic:

Bagration then praised his generals and officers for their services in this campaign, concluding: As I leave this army, I consider it my sacred responsibility to express my deep gratitude and respect to the commanders of the corps, detachments, senior and junior officers, as well as the rank and archive, who, serving under my command, had to fulfill his duties for the Emperor and the Fatherland, and trusted me unconditionally in doing so…. I want to thank my generals and the entire army for the love they always showed me and that I enjoyed every moment of the campaign, in the middle of battle or in March. This love will forever be imprinted on my heart and I will always remember it as the greatest and sweetest reward that will comfort me for the rest of my life. I will pray to the Lord to bless my comrades in arms and help them in all their endeavors. I began my command of this army with victories and with victories I say goodbye to you.”154 The army was moved by these words. Langeron declared that “Bagration's farewell order was one of the most moving and well-written speeches he had ever read in Russia. He was very successful in reaching the hearts of the troops, while Kamensky's order only generated discontent among the rank and file.

★ now some descriptions about Bagration:

• In the spring of 1802, Bagration planned to travel to Naples, but was unable to due to financial strain. Denis Davidov recalled: “[Bagration] liked to live luxuriously, he always had a lot of everything, but not for himself, for others. He was satisfied with some necessary things and was always sober. I never saw him drinking vodka or wine, except for two small glasses of Madeira at lunch.”40 However, Catherine Bagration's extravagant spending was out of control and the family's debts increased. Furthermore, Bagration liked his troops and often spent his own money on them. As the chef of the lifeguard battalion, he had to live lavishly to maintain the status of himself and his acquaintances. His new acquaintances in high society only helped him to spend lavishly. A contemporary noted: “The extravagance of his friends…let him forget moderation.”41 His annual salary was an impressive 2,200 rubles, but his debts slowly accumulated. Bagration had to sell his estate and other property that he received from the government to pay the debtors. In early 1802, the state treasurer informed Emperor Alexander that Bagration had to sell his estate to the treasury. “[Bagration] did not determine any price, but he informed me that he had 28,000 rubles in debt to the Treasury, plus another 52,000 rubles in debts, for a total of 80,000 rubles.” In February 1802, Alexander gave his consent for the Treasury to purchase Bagration's.

In general, the Russian army was in better condition than Napoleon's troops. The artillery not only had numerical superiority over the French (640 to 587), but also the advantage in Caliber. Bagration spent September 6 resting his troops and preparing for battle. He demonstrated deep concern for his troops. General Mayevsky recalled: “The next day [after Shevardino] I was asleep in the courtyard. The prince [Bagration], passing me with his retinue, moved as silently and silently as we usually do while approaching the room of a sleeping loved one. Such attention to his troops… only strengthened his sense of loyalty to this commander.”

•Langeron also noted Bagration’s “invaluable talent, as he was admired [obozhaem] by all who served under him. His remarkable but taciturn bravery, his manners, easy conversation, familiarity with the soldiers, sincere joy animated troops and fueled universal admiration [for him]. No other commander of our armies was loved as much as [Bagracion]; Even the generals, whom he outpromoted, served with pleasure under him.” Langeron highlighted Bagration's achievements by referring to his humble beginnings. He observed: “I saw him in St. Petersburg in 1790 dressed in the uniform of a common Cossack, unknown to many and without invitation to any salon.” However, almost two decades later, “[Bagration] was commanding an army!” Furthermore, Langeron stated: “Russia has no better commander of the Advanced Guard, or of the main forces [Glavnikh Sil] than Bagration.”

••The soldiers loved him and believed in his invincibility. But now he was wounded and with him, “the soul [of valor] had departed from the entire left wing.” When he let himself be carried away, his aide-de-camp, Adrianov, ran to the stretcher and said: “Your Excellency, they are taking him away, I am no longer useful to you!” Then, as Witnesses recalled: “Adrianov, in the sight of thousands, moved like an arrow, broke through the blows of the enemies and fell dead.” Total confusion. ”97 General Mayevsky recalled: “The Prince [Bagration] was taken behind the line and his entourage accompanied him. The fight was now fought in such confusion that I did not know who and how I should join.” (It happened in Borodino)

And that's all for today! I know that many love Murat, it is difficult not to get attached to a tremendously beautiful and loving man, but I would like you to please vote for Bagration, his life was not as beautiful as Murat's and it is not unusual for someone to call him ugly when you and I know it's the complete opposite, so I would really appreciate it if you voted for Bagration, I'm going crazy 😭.

Thank you for reading, silly!

(I'm supporting you, @yaggy031910 hehehe)

.

[theintexp]

The Battle of Borodino on 26 August 1812 by Peter von Hess

The Battle of Borodino took place near the village of Borodino on 7 September (O.S. 26 August) 1812 during Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The Grande Armée won the battle against the Imperial Russian Army, but failed to gain a decisive victory and suffered tremendous losses. Napoleon fought against General Mikhail Kutuzov, whom the Emperor Alexander I of Russia had appointed to replace Barclay de Tolly on 29 August (O.S. 17 August) 1812 after the Battle of Smolensk. After the Battle of Borodino, Napoleon remained on the battlefield with his army; the Imperial Russian forces retreated in an orderly fashion southwards. Because the Imperial Russian army had severely weakened the Grande Armée, they allowed the French occupation of Moscow, using the city as bait to trap Napoleon and his men. The failure of the Grande Armée to completely destroy the Imperial Russian army, in particular Napoleon's reluctance to deploy his Imperial Guard, has been widely criticised by historians as a huge blunder, as it allowed the Imperial Russian army to continue its retreat into territory increasingly hostile to the French. Approximately a quarter of a million soldiers were involved in the battle, and it was the bloodiest single day of the Napoleonic Wars.

Although the Battle of Borodino is classified as a victory for Napoleon since he and his men managed to capture Moscow, the fierce defense of the Imperial Russian Army devastated the Grande Armée to such an extent that it caused France and its army to become militarily impuissant. Also, the city was actually used as bait to lure and trap the French forces. When Napoleon and his men visited the city, he found that it was burnt and abandoned upon his arrival. While Napoleon was in Moscow, he sent a letter to the tsar who was residing in Saint Petersburg demanding that he surrender and accept defeat. Napoleon received no response. Whilst patiently waiting for an answer from the tsar, as soon as the cold winter and snowfall started to form, Napoleon, realizing what was happening, attempted to escape the country with his men. Seeing that they were fleeing, the Imperial Russian army launched a massive attack on the French. Attrition warfare was used by Kutuzov by burning Moscow's resources, guerrilla warfare by the Cossacks against any kind of transport and total war by the peasants against foraging. This kind of warfare weakened the French army at its most vulnerable point: logistics, as it was unable to pillage Russian land, which was insufficiently populated nor cultivated, meaning that starvation became the most dangerous enemy long before the cold joined in. The feeding of horses by supply trains was extremely difficult, as a ration for a horse weighs about ten times as much as one for a man. It was tried in vain to feed and water all the horses by foraging expeditions. Of the more than 600,000 soldiers who invaded the Russian Empire, fewer than 100,000 returned. Sources. The Battle of Borodino, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[whencyclopedia]

Kutuzov: A Life in War and Peace

Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov is best known in the West as the general who led imperial Russian forces to victory over Napoleon during his 1812 invasion of Russia. In Russian culture, Kutuzov became – almost immediately after his death in 1813 – a mythic figure, part of the national pantheon of heroes. To Western readers, he is above all the man presented by Leo Tolstoy in War and Peace: calm, inert, patient, allowing events to unfold before him. In this meticulously researched biography, Alexander Mikaberidze strips off layers of mythmaking and offers a balanced, judicious life of Kutuzov.

Continue reading...

[look-sharp-notes]

General Field Marshal Kutuzov M.L. Kazan Cathedral, St. Petersburg.

[themummersfolly]

I like how Tolstoy writes warfare. He doesn't sugar coat or shy away from any aspect of it; there's horror, and fleeting moments of glory, but mostly it's just a goddam mess.

This was around or shortly after the time when Clausewitz was writing about the fog of war, and Part 2 gives a good sense of what he was referring to. No one knows what's going on.

Like seriously. Military operations in general tend to be a shit show, but the high stakes and the speed at which everything happens dial it up to 11.

Bilibin, shut the fuck up. You're the reason "civilian" is a four-letter word. Also, Andrei is never going to fuck you.

Andrei's turning out to be one hell of an officer. He could have bailed with Bilibin, but his instinct was to be with his troops in the critical hour. He rode into danger to gather intelligence for Kutuzov, which his command desperately needed, and then he volunteered to go into the thick of things again. He got the job done, time and again, even while under fire. And then when it was all said and done, he stuck up for Tushin when the other (shitbag) officers were getting ready to tear him up over the two lost cannons.

Speaking of Tushin, he is now my favorite character. An awkward, unassuming little dude with a squeaky voice, balls of steel, and the justly deserved respect of his troops. I wanna be him when I grow up. (Also, does anyone else feel like he gives off trans man vibes? Because he really reads that way to me.)

Poor Nikolai. He absolutely does not belong here. The way Tolstoy writes his pov while under fire, the surreality and dissociation, that was just visceral. He calls himself a coward, but I can't find it in me to blame him. He was made for peace, not this bullshit. Someone should have warned him- why did no one warn him what it's like when people want you dead, and your life isn't worth a cent? He went looking for glory, but he's probably going to lose that arm. I hope he lives, poor kid.

I am officially impressed with Prince Bagration. I wasn't sure what to think of him at first; he seemed checked out, not really present in his own command. But in retrospect, he was rolling with whatever happened. You can't micromanage something as chaotic as warfare; you can try, but you'll only fail worse the harder you try. Bagration just takes whatever happens in stride. He trusts his troops to know what they're doing in their own little sliver of the field, and that trust (which to the untrained eye looks like being in control) inspires courage and calm and in fact amplifies his soldiers' performance. And then when the critical moment comes, Bagration doesn't just see it and seize it, he gets off his horse and leads his infantry charge from the front. You can just see his eyes light up when he realizes, yes, this is the time and the place. God, what I wouldn't give to be on the line with him at that moment.

I also liked how when things started heating up, Tolstoy shifts to a much closer third person pov. Particularly, the way he switched from "the line/army/soldiers/etc" to "our line/army/soldiers/etc" brings the reader into the story and gives them a stake in what happens. I was holding my breath as the cannonballs flew by, I was right there with our boys as we fought back the French!

[storkmuffin]

"It was obvious that Kutuzov despised the intelligence,the knowledge and even the patriotic feeling shown by Denisov, but he despised them not with his intelligence, or feeling, or knowledge (for he did not even try to show any), he despised them with something else. He despised them with his old age, with his experience of life."

War and Peace, Vol 3, Part 2, Ch. 15.

I've worked for men two years out from retirement, and they hated us young people in the same way as this old general Kutuzov does Denisov, who has an interesting idea about how to defeat the French. The more things change...

[taiwantalk]

Despite of the ability to hit russian forces with precision, there’s a very important reason that the counteroffensive is progressing incrementally.

Believe it or not, Russians prefer ukraine to launch massive counteroffensive with greater commitment of ground forces knowing that the russian forces actually would be undermatched in combat strength but overmatched with cannon fodders.

Russian generals think that they are like kutuzov wearing down French elite forces of napoleon.

But russians are nowhere near being kutuzov. The reason is that was another time another era where they could attack, regroup, and give chase. Russians presently are not doing that.

[shamsaddinmegalommatis]

Mikhail Kutuzov in 1812, Sergei Shoigu in 2024, and Aleksey Kivshenko's Historical Painting of the Military Council in Fili, a suburb of Moscow

Many Russians were astounded yesterday morning, when reading in the news that during searches conducted in the residences of the former Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Dmitry Bulgakov, who was arrested on charges of corruption on 26th of July, a small number of very bizarre frames and paintings were found.

The historically true: Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies Mikhail Kutuzov at 'the Council in Fili', 1812

The mystically allegorical: Sergei Shoigu, former Minister of Defense of Russia and currently Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation as an atemporal replica of General Kutuzov

Contents

I. Introduction

II. Brief description and possible parallels

III. Shoigu's lengthy tenure exceeded by far that of President Putin

IV. Long 'reigns' come with indulgence in corruption and extravagance

V. An attempt to inculpate or a mystical allegory?

VI. Appendices

Содержание

I. Введение

II. Краткое описание и возможные параллели

III. Длительное правление Шойгу намного превзошло президентство президента Путина

IV. Длительное «правление» сопровождается потворством коррупции и расточительству

V. Попытка инкриминировать или мистическая аллегория?

VI. Приложения

I. Introduction

The most mysterious of those paintings is based on a historical painting, which was created by the famous 19th c. Russian painter Aleksey Kivshenko (1851-1895) in 1879, and known as 'the Council in Fili'. This great masterpiece of Modern Russian Art represents the artist's impression of a historical event, namely a military council that took place (1812) in a suburb of Moscow, prior to Napoleon's temporary occupation of the Russian city (14 September – 19 October 1812). The extraordinary summit occurred immediately after the Battle of Borodino, which was a Pyrrhic victory for the French army.

Created 67 years after the event, the painting had an enormous success; Kivshenko, who was already known for his numerous, fascinating works and representations of significant historical events of the Russian past, had to repeat the painting twice, which clearly means that his artwork generated an overwhelming and exceptional enthusiasm. This situation was basically due to the primordial importance of the historical event.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies, Infantry General Mikhail Golenishchev-Kutuzov had then to take a most critical decision: the orderly retreat of the Russian army from Moscow. The meeting (13 September 1812), which is known through several historical sources, started with the dilemma formulated by General Leonty Bennigsen, namely to give battle against the French army in an unfavorable position or to surrender. Kutuzov sided finally with the minority opinion and took the decision to abandon Moscow, which was finally proven correct, because Napoleon could not hold his position for long.

Then, how should we today, 212 years after the event and 145 years after the painting, interpret a bizarre painting in which a group of top Russian statesmen and military desire to be and are effectively depicted as exchanging roles with the historical personalities who saved the Russian Empire before two centuries?

In the painting found in Bulgakov's house, Sergei Shoigu, the former Minister of Defense of Russia, and now Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, is depicted as the Russian commander Mikhail Kutuzov. Shoigu's former deputy Ruslan Tsalikov plays General Mikhail Barclay de Tolly. The painting also features former deputy defense ministers Timur Ivanov, Tatyana Shevtsova and other officials.

Several other bizarre paintings were found in the arrested statesman's house, but the atemporal replica of the said historical painting raises more questions, due to the potential symbolisms or parallels that can be drawn. If the potentially allegorical but effectively incomprehensible artwork was found in 2005 or in 2012, no one would pay much attention, and the eventually innocuous representation would be taken as the result of a certainly bold, yet counterproductive, imagination of a group of top level Russian officials, eventually characterized by their narcissism.

It is clear that many Russians are -truly speaking- under terrible shock because of the revelations, and their comments about this, most weird, story are very negative. With no doubt, Kutuzov is almost a holy person for the Russians because, although he did not mark a real victory over Napoleon, he forced him to advance following Pyrrhic victories during a prolonged war of attrition which led finally to the collapse of the French Army. How a defeat at the battlefield can possibly be transformed into a victory in the long perspective is a most fatalistic turn of events for historians to possibly fathom. But it was known since the time of the Battle of Kadesh (May 1274 BCE) between the Hittite Emperor Muwatalli II and the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III.

On the other hand, many of the persons depicted on the bizarre paintings have recently lost their positions or even been arrested. Bulgakov was arrested only 4-5 days ago, following allegations of bribery, but he is only the last of several similar cases.

II. Brief description and existing parallels

As the mystery of these eventually absurd but potentially meaningful pictures is beyond imagination, several friends contacted me to make some inquiries. They asked me what this meant in reality and whether this initiatory and hypothetically purposeful painting denoted a hidden desire of Shoigu to "take Putin's place".

What follows here includes parts of my responses; it is actually difficult to answer such a question because there are many parameters involved in this regard; but in general, I never thought that Sergei Shoigu would be interested in taking Putin's place. In addition, the painting does not hint at anything of the sort. Kutuzov did not imagine, even for a second, not to be loyal to the Russian czars whom he served.

First and foremost, it is essential for any non-Russian to comprehend that Russians have no conventional thought. Historically, it is very common in Russia to evaluate one man as higher and as more important than the czar, the secretary general or the president.

If one goes to Russia and speaks with the average people, one will understand that what they narrate as «History of Russia» is not what is taught in the West about this topic. By this, I don't mean discrepancies at the level of historical facts and narratives, but a totally distinct perspective of the time and a markedly different evaluation of the human deeds.

There are effectively some parallels between Kutuzov (1745-1813) and Shoigu (born in 1955).

Kutuzov served (as military officer and diplomat) three czars (Catherine II, Paul I, and Alexander I).

And Shoigu was a minister under four presidents (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, and Medvedev). 

Prince Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov-Smolensky (Михаил Илларионович Голенищев-Кутузов-Смоленский) belonged to an ancient noble family of German-Prussian extraction. The Golenishchev-Kutuzov branch consisted of the descendants of Gabriel, who left Prussia (1252-1263) and became the founder of the Kutuzovs.

Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu (Сергей Кужугетович Шойгу) belonged to a Turkic Tuvan family, as his father (Kuzhuget Shoigu, 1921-2010) was first Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Tuvan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Tuvan ASSR. Shoigu's mother (Alexandra Yakovlevna Shoigu, 1924–2011) was a Ukrainian-born Russian, who was detained by the German occupation forces during World War II and had a traumatic experience from this event.

Mikhail Kutuzov was a multilingual, as he was fluent in Russian, German, French and English; on later occasions he also studied Ottoman Turkish, Polish, and Swedish.

Sergei Shoigu is also a multilingual, who speaks Tuvan, Russian, and another seven languages including Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, English, etc.

III. Shoigu's lengthy tenure exceeded by far that of President Putin

All the people know that Vladimir Putin has been president since the year 2000 (with an interval of four years (2008-2012), when he served as prime minister; however, few people remember today that Shoigu was a minister since 1991. Only last May, he was removed from the position of Minister of Defense and promoted/rewarded as «Secretary of the Security Council of Russia».

This means that Shoigu was a minister for 33 years! When the positions are so important, a person creates his own small state within the state; this is normal and inevitable.

As a matter of fact, Yeltsin appointed Shoigu as Minister of Emergency Situations in April 1991. All the same, at the time, Yeltsin was only the «President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic», not the «President of the Russian Federation». This means that Yeltsin was under Gorbachev who was then the «President of the Soviet Union». In other words, Shoigu was at the very beginning a minister of USSR, not Russia! He was appointed before the August 1991 coup attempt, which failed and led to the rise of Yeltsin, resignation of Gorbachev, and demise of the USSR. 

And what was Vladimir Putin at the time?

In June 1991, in (then) Leningrad, he was appointed as head of the Committee for External Relations of the Mayor's Office. So, you cannot compare. 

In fact, better than any other Russian, Sergei Shoigu epitomizes the transition from the USSR to today's Russia. Consequently, although he was not a career military man but an apparatchik and part of the Soviet nomenklatura, he had progressively become a major pole of power. And because of his success, which guaranteed Putin’s success, it was surely unthinkable for anyone to remove him. 

However, the uneasiness of the Russians with the ongoing fake war in Ukraine and the disclosure of several financial scandals and cases of bribery in the Russian army and the Ministry of Defense generated another environment.

IV. Long 'reigns' come with indulgence in corruption and extravagance

Last April, the Russian deputy defense minister Timur Ivanov was arrested. 

This occurred only little time after Putin’s re-election. 

One month after the arrest, Sergei Shoigu was removed and replaced by Andrey Belousov, who is provenly a very good economist, a well-experienced statesman, and a former First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia.

At the time, many people said that Putin placed an economist at the top of the Ministry of Defense, because he wanted to make a more effective programming of the military industrial production in view of the continuation of the war in Ukraine. It may be.

But personally, I was absolutely convinced that the reason for this appointment was the desire to effectuate an extensive control of earlier business transactions, carry out a thorough examination of past deals, identify practices of corruption, and uncover all cases of bribery that the «Shoigu establishment» allowed or tolerated or supported or covered deliberately. In the face of the collateral damages caused by the Russian military operations in Ukraine, it would be unacceptable that top officials accumulated illegal benefits. 

Almost four months after the aforementioned case of Timur Ivanov, the arrest of Bulgakov rang the bell for the part of the Russian establishment that was exposed to such inexcusable weaknesses at wartime and for ministers who indulged themselves in corruption and extravagance.

and

And with the frames and paintings found in his house yesterday, we learned that Bulgakov viewed Shoigu as Kutuzov!

Of course, Kutuzov is more important than Alexander I for the Russians. Czar Alexander I acknowledged personally that Russia owed the final victory to Kutuzov. This means that, with all similarities taken together as coincidental (!!), Bulgakov and his associates, friends and subordinates viewed Shoigu like a 'god'. Several Russian friends interpret this approach as absolutely true; they even consider it as the result of extreme narcissism of all persons involved. 

What follows is a selection of comments that I found in Russian social media (I translated them into English):

1. «This is blasphemy against the memory and exploits of our ancestors»!

2. «They came up with this a long time ago and are successfully stealing it»

3. «A finished script for a film. How far human stupidity and impudence go»!

4. «They are very far from Kutuzov and others; but there is plenty of time for self-admiration»

5. «A gang of thieves assembled»

6. «Where is Timur Ivanov»?

From the following web pages:

А такие портреты нашли дома у задержанного экс-заммини��тра обороны Дмитрия Булгакова во время обысков.

and

Минутка статистики по одному из шедевров золотой коллекции задержанного замминистра обороны Булгакова.

V. An attempt to inculpate or a mystical allegory?

As a matter of fact, it would not make sense for Shoigu and his close associates to envision that he would take Putin’s place (let alone to conspire with this target in mind); in addition, the picture says the opposite. Kutuzov was already more important than the czar.

All the same, there is another dimension too; these pictures may have been placed in Bulgakov's home after his arrest in order to inculpate him, Shoigu and others in some way. This would however seem rather to be a puerile attempt, because there can be far worse and far more effective ways to inculpate someone than the revelation of the narcissistic visions and the grandiose imaginations of a group of corrupt and not corrupt officials.

If there is a symbolism, it means that the true ruler is («was»?) Shoigu; but even in this case, it is a very unusual type of praising and self-praising for some top officials. In real terms of boastfulness, such an atemporal replica of Aleksey Kivshenko's legendary painting adds nothing on the table.

I believe that, if some people want truly to unveil a real and serious purpose in this painting, they must rather view it as a mystical allegory – not a mere symbolism. In this case, the otherwise bizarre artwork becomes meaningful.

What are the major points of an allegorical mysticism in this regard?

I will brief enumerate a few.

1- Reminiscent of the French invasion of the Russian Empire, the present war in Ukraine reveals that the Russian Federation is under attack.

It matters little whether some Western idiots believe that we have to deal with a Russian invasion of Ukraine; there was never such an event, because Ukraine is an integral part of Russian territory that criminal Anglo-Saxon gangsters brutally and illegally detached from Russia at the time of the Soviet collapse.

Yuval Harari was very correct when saying that "Gorbachev saved us from nuclear war"; but his truth ends there. What truly happened in 1989 is not the continuation of a development that started in 1985. In fact, Gorbachev was openly threatened by George Herbert Bush with imminent nuclear attack if he did not rapidly dissolve the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The truth was enveloped in thousands of lies, endless smiles, and hypocritical hand shakings, because this was beneficial for both, the US and the Soviet Union/Russia. I cannot further expand now on this topic, because I would digress.

So, as it happened in the 1810s and the 1940s, Russia has been under attack since the late 1980s.

2- Similarly with Kutuzov's ingenious strategy and tactics, the Russian state withdrew from lands for quite some time now.

The formation of the Ukrainian pseudo-nation after 1991 was an entirely orchestrated fabrication, involving the creation of a bogus-idiom named 'Ukrainian language', the pseudo-translation of thousands of toponyms and personal names into their hypothetically Ukrainian forms, the compilation of a distorted 'History of Ukraine', the diffusion of heinous anti-Russian racism, and the subtle disfigurement of the Orthodox faith of the local population into a charlatanesque form of Anti-Christian Catholicism.

3- Similarly with what happened during the French Invasion of the Russian Empire, the military proved to be the backbone of the Russian nation.

In this regard, the lengthy tenure of Sergei Shoigu reflects perfectly well the long military career of Mikhail Kutuzov.

4- The partly withdrawal from the Western Russian lands, as implemented by the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies, can be mirrored in Moscow's agreement for a separate, 'independent' Ukrainian state. The concession made is very similar to the decision taken at the Military Council in Fili.

5- Sergei Shoigu's contribution to the final victory may be analogous to Kutuzov's strategy which brought the final victory after many rather insignificant defeats.

6- Last but foremost, the final defeat of Napoleon in Russia ended with the subsequent demise of his regime; the allegory is very clear as regards the combined Anglo-Saxon world that has attacked USSR-Russia since 1945 – or if you prefer 1985.

---------------------------

Download the article in PDF:

[lightdancer1]

Wrapped up the first in a series of books on 19th Century wars:

Stop me if you've heard this one before. The rest of Europe is overrun in a set of lightning wars by a jumped up junior officer who steamrolls a bunch of poorly led and bitterly divided bickering enemies who can barely get out of their own way. He makes, in this process, a bargain the despot of a Russian empire dividing central Europe into spheres of influence while that empire works as his ally. On June 22nd he decides to invade that empire, committing himself to a case of prevailing against it in brute force, dismissing any prospect that any local allies are desireable, let alone findable.

No, this isn't Adolf Hitler even if it is the anniversary of Bagration and Barbarossa both. It's Napoleon Bonaparte, who learned all the lessons of the failure of Charles XII of Sweden and avoided those mistakes, setting out to make all new ones. The result was six months of bloody battles, an expensive lesson in logistics, and a campaign marked by the irony that the loser at the tactical level won itself to death winning all the battles and underwent a total collapse with few to no equals in military history.

For the old Russia of the Tsars, this was the Patriotic War (hence the old Soviet name for the Axis-Soviet War as the Great Patriotic War) where the autocracy had launched a canny retreat and the superman-general Kutuzov bested the upstart. In reality it embodies more than most wars one of Patton's most truthful comments that wars are a sequence of blunders and the person who fucks up one less time than the other is the one who wins and is proclaimed a genius.

It also showcases why the old Russia was able to win wars even when its army barely functioned at a tactical level, because its enemies were monstrously arrogant and relied on deeply erroneous assumptions. None of this save the incompetent blundering, of course, applies to the Russian Army that is every bit as badly led as Kutuzov's and is wrecking itself in the Donbas, in a fashion which Napoleon I wouldn't have been surprised to see at all.

8/10.

[napoleonic-sexyman-tournament]

Ahhh, portraits of Bagration! They are something of a mess, with every engraver and their dog claiming to repeat after Tonci, but with every repetition Bagration's features became more and more exaggerated. Not to mention, we don't actually have Tonci's original. There is a very bad copy by an unknown portraitist and many engravings 'based on'.

(Let's put aside the 'mistaken identity' portraits, because at least two Bagrationi are regularly called by Petr Ivanovich's name, including a younger brother, who, at that, wore a moustache.)

In fact, there is a case to be made that there is a bit of truth in Dawe's portrait. The way Dawe's whole enterprise worked, he and his team produced copies after earlier originals, just in the right size and in uniform style. Fairly faithful copies with a bit of poetic licence in details, often kept at exactly the same angle if only possible. The portraits were based on one of the following things: the generals who were still around, portraits send in by families or by those who couldn't make it to Petersburg. Those portraits were gathered and handled by the General Staff. It was a Big Deal. And if no likeness could be tracked, then no dice - they left an empty frame.

So, where am I going with this? George Dawe and his team had to be copying something. And it certainly wasn't Tonci. So what could it have been? The most probable theory - or at least one that kinda works - is that it was a portrait by R. M. Volkov. It is fairly indisputed that Bagration ordered a pair of portraits from Volkov between 1810 and his death, of him and his absent wife. But we don't have this Bagration... or do we? There are at least two paintings languishing in Russian museums, a 1830s copy of an unknown portrait, another older and a mystery. The older one, the Rybinsk Bagration, is thought to be what Dawe might have worked from.

How do we know that they're not copied from Dawe? That's easy. Dawe's workshop produced copies of the gallery paintings as it breathed (because money). And there are a few Dawe-copy Bagrations around. But they all have the wrong, 1817 uniform on, like the Dawe original does and the same arrangement of orders, which doesn't look like that with Dawe - not on the portrait, not on the workshop engraving. Those two, whatever they were copied from, have the version of uniform just right for the time.

Now, we don't actually know that the Rybinsk portrait is the missing Volkov or its copy. But it could very well be. It roughly fits Volkov's style. And we know that of all possible paintings of Kutuzov, Dawe chose Volkov's to extrapolate from when painting his Kutuzov in full length. There was a reason for that. It was widely known that before Dawe arrived, Alexander was Volkov's great fan and indeed pronounced his own portrait to be a magnificent one.

This is wonderful detailed information. Thank you!

[theintexp]

The Battle of Krasnoy on 17 November 1812 by Peter von Hess

The Battle of Krasnoy (at Krasny or Krasnoe) unfolded from 15 to 18 November 1812 marking a critical episode in Napoleon's arduous retreat from Moscow. Over the course of six skirmishes the Russian forces under field marshal Kutuzov inflicted significant blows upon the remnants of the Grande Armée, already severely weakened by attrition warfare. These confrontations, though not escalated into full-scale battles, led to substantial losses for the French due to their depleted weapons and horses.

Throughout the four days of combat, Napoleon attempted to rush his troops, stretched out in a 30 mi (48 km) march, past the parallel-positioned Russian forces along the high road. Despite the Russian army's superiority in horse and manpower, Kutuzov hesitated to launch a full offensive, according to Mikhail Pokrovsky fearing the risks associated with facing Napoleon head-on. Instead, he hoped that hunger, cold and decay in discipline would ultimately wear down the French forces. This strategy, however, led him in a nearly perpendicular course, placing him amidst of the separated French corps.

On 17 November a pivotal moment occurred when the French Imperial Guard executed an aggressive feint. This maneuver prompted Kutuzov to delay what could have been a decisive final assault, leading him to seek support from both his left and right flanks. This strategic decision allowed Napoleon to successfully withdraw Davout and his corps but it also led to his immediate retreat before the Russians could capture Krasny or block his escape route. Kutusow opted not to commit his entire force against his adversary but instead chose to pursue the French relentlessly, employing both large and small detachments to continually harass and weaken the French army.

The decision to divide into columns proved catastrophic, resulting in heavy defeats for the corps of Eugene, Davout and Ney throughout the four days of relentless combat. The Russians captured a significant number of prisoners, including several generals and 300 officers, while the Grande Armée was forced to abandon most of its remaining artillery and baggage train.

Overall, the Battle of Krasnoy inflicted devastating losses upon the French forces, amplifying their already continuous losses during their perilous retreat. Despite the valiant efforts of the Imperial Guard, the confrontation left the French military in dire straits and without supply and food, further weakening their already battered army. Sources. French invasion of Russia, The Battle of Krasnoy, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[the-paintrist]

The Battle of Borodino took place near the village of Borodino on 7 September [O.S. 26 August] 1812 during Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The Grande Armée won the battle against the Imperial Russian Army, but failed to gain a decisive victory and suffered tremendous losses. Napoleon fought against General Mikhail Kutuzov, whom the Emperor Alexander I of Russia had appointed to replace Barclay de Tolly on 29 August [O.S. 17 August] 1812 after the Battle of Smolensk. After the Battle of Borodino, Napoleon remained on the battlefield with his army; the Imperial Russian forces retreated in an orderly fashion southwards. Because the Imperial Russian army had severely weakened the Grande Armée, they allowed the French occupation of Moscow, using the city as bait to trap Napoleon and his men. The failure of the Grande Armée to completely destroy the Imperial Russian army, in particular Napoleon's reluctance to deploy his Imperial Guard, has been widely criticised by historians as a huge blunder, as it allowed the Imperial Russian army to continue its retreat into territory increasingly hostile to the French. Approximately a quarter of a million soldiers were involved in the battle, and it was the bloodiest single day of the Napoleonic Wars.

Louis-François, Baron Lejeune (3 February 1775 in Strasbourg – 29 February 1848) was a French general, painter, and lithographer. His memoirs have frequently been republished and his name is engraved on the Arc de Triomphe.

Battle of Borodino - Battle of Moscow, 7th September 1812

by Louis-François Lejeune

[filmes-online-facil]

Assistir Filme Guerra e Paz 3 O Ano de 1812 Online fácil

Assistir Filme Guerra e Paz 3 O Ano de 1812 Online Fácil é só aqui: https://filmesonlinefacil.com/filme/guerra-e-paz-3-o-ano-de-1812/

Guerra e Paz 3 O Ano de 1812 - Filmes Online Fácil

Parte 3 do mega filme soviético Guerra e Paz (1966), uma adaptação em 4 partes do romance de Leon Tolstoi de 1869. Em 1812, o Exército de Napoleão invade a Rússia. O general Mikhail Kutuzov pede ao príncipe Andrei Bolkonsky que se junte a ele como oficial de sua equipe, mas o príncipe solicita um comando no campo. Pierre Bezukhov procura assistir o próximo confronto entre os exércitos. Durante a Batalha de Borodino, ele se oferece para ajudar em uma bateria de artilharia. A unidade de Bolkonsky espera na reserva, mas ele é atingido por uma granada. Tanto Anatol Kuragin quanto Andrei Bolkosnky, os dois amores de Natasha Rostova, sofrem ferimentos graves. O exército francês é vitorioso e avança sobre Moscou.