Moscow 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March

Rating:
Summary: The Horrors of a Russian Winter
Review: It was Churchill who described Russia as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma". This vast often frozen country that has defied conquerors over time has also been unwilling to undergo liberal democratic progress. Russia has truly been a mystery.

It was Napoleon's view that Russia could be beaten. It was inevitable that this huge but primitive country would be no match for his Grand Armee. His victory would act as a spur for still greater future victories.

However, Russia could not be broken. In fact, even though Napoleon actually reached Moscow, the actions of scorched earth plus the horrors of a Russian winter could not be overcome.

Adam Zamoyski succeeds admirably in bringing the horrors of Napoleon's initial victories then subsequent defeats to the stark attention of the reader. War is never pleasant but the winter of 1812 must have been plumbing new depths. Zamoyski is a fine historian.

It is perhaps inevitable that Zamoyski's work will be compared with Antony Beevor's work on the German defeat at Stalingrad. Personally, if it is possible to compare, then I recommend the latter. However, the two books perform a similar task in explaining why Russia has not bowed to conquerors nor yield many clues to its mystery.


Rating:
Summary: World spirit on horseback shot out of the saddle
Review: Napoleon's final campaign is strangely relevant to the world he live in. Beset on all sides from reactionaries, the French Revolution graduates to the Napoleonic mode spreading the Revolution even as it apes its enemies. Fastforward to Jena 1806 and Hegel is putting the postage on his tome as the great Legion arrives in town, that Kojevian moment. One can read of the great battles of the early Napoleon with distate, yet see the meaning of this era better from the tale of the collosal fiasco of the invastion of Russia. For we see what the stakes were and what ensued, a generation of reaction, the age of Metternich and the Tsar Alexander.
I read this account with in second guessing mode: What Napoleon should have done is degree the liberation of the serfs as he crossed the Niemen, and he might well have scored not only a complete success, but rid the world of the subsequent era of troubles that leads directly into our own times. One has but to see the outcome of Hegelian hopes in the world of Marx and the '48's.
Very cinematic, popcorn optional. This is your book on this subject.


Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Study
Review: Napoleon's strike into Tzarist Russia, the fighting at Smolensk Borodino, and elsewhere, and the dramatic and horrific retreat from Moscow that killed tens of thousands of Europeans in Le Grande Armee is well told in this utterly fascinating and well-researched account. Zamoyski's use of all the traditional sources, coupled with new archival material from eastern Europe/Russia has made this the best of its kind. Both sides are treated fairly, and his conclusions are objective tand thoughtful. My previous favorite, "The War of the Two Emperors," by Curtis Cates, has been eclipsed.

I also recommend that if you want to study the Russian Officers and army more closely and really understand that under-studied army in this period, see Alexander Mikaberidze's new book "The Russian Officer Corps in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, 1792-1815" (Savas Beatie) At 500+ pages it is the definitive study of its kind, studying 800+ officers.

Rating:
Summary: Debunks the myths and reveals the horror
Review: With hundreds maybe thousands of books written about the events surrounding 1812 I have only read this one. And it is memorable in making clear that supply questions, sometimes of the most basic kind, can define the outcome of wars. For example Napoleon's inattention to replacing the 50 year old Gribeauval gun and gun carriage or badly designed uniforms which look good on parade but which are difficult, restricting and irritating on a march. The problem of feeding hundreds of thousands of horses. In addition Mr Zamoyski makes clear the effects of the Grand Armee on the move, like a giant centipede, never moving uniformly, parts bunched up, parts dragging behind. The husbandry of resources, the effects of the cold, the black comedy of Napoleon having to slide down a frozen hill on his arse, the hundreds of details that give life to this amazing tale. On the Russian side, the interpersonal squabbling of the major protagonists is astonishing where personalities and the lack of dedication to a common cause or agreement on strategy, was farcical. Simple maps make the major battles clear to the reader. Mr Zamoyski also makes clear that even in the face of the most appalling misadventures, blunders, or losses of the most tragic kind, the populace will believe what it wants to believe and with sheer weight of personality, some, like Napoleon, can survive the truth. With a combination of an overall grasp of the war, with rivetting attention to detail and the suffering and experiences of the ordinary soldier, this is a good read.

Rating:
Summary: a excellent account of the 1812 campaign
Review: Zamoyski has written an excellent account of Napoleon's invasion of Russia. According to Zamoyski, Napoleon invaded Russia in order to prevent an emerging independent European power that the nationalist in Germany could follow and also because Russia was breaking the Continental System. Russia declared war on France due to the French backing of Polish independence. Zamoyski is critical of Napoleon for committing too many troops to the invasion which strained the logistical system and impeded the advance of the French army. Also Napoleon missed many opportunities to surround the Russian and committed disasterous frontal attacks at Smolensk and Borodino and should have retreated from Moscow earlier in order to avoid the Russian winter. However, Zamoyski depicts the Russian high command as being plagued by constant infighting and missing chances to surround the French army. The main weakness of the book is that Zamoyski is too critcal of the Russian army and ignores important reforms in the Russian army such as a Corps system and a general staff which is mentioned in the works by Frederick Kagan. Nevertheless this book is a highly readable and informative account of Napoleon's Russian campaign.