While immeasurable literature on Napoleonic Wars exists, there are still some mysteries yet to be unveiled on the comprehension of both wars and the circumstances in which they came to. Perhaps the major mystery concerns the role of Russia in international relations in the Napoleonic era, misunderstood both in Russia and in other parts of the world. One of these literatures, Moscow 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March analyses the state of affairs during the French Invasion of Russia and subsequent proceedings during Napoleon’s reign, that eventually marked an end to Napoleonic empire whose troop, while trying to access Moscow, were defeated.
This history would not have been realized were it not for some influential military leaders at the time. Their leadership strategies influenced the 1812 campaign. One of the leaders was Alexander perhaps meeting him was one thing Napoleon regretted, being one of the most exciting Tsars because he was very contradictory. He was the ruler of Russia during the Napoleonic Wars and was victorious in many military campaigns. His contradictions were evident when, during his tenure, he introduced liberal reforms, after which he revoked them again in the second half of his tenure. The second leader was Bagration.
In the wars of 1805 Bagration’s achievements were noted at the Battle of Hollabrunn where he resisted and emerged victorious with only a small army, the continuous attacks of forces that were way bigger than his own in numbers. The eventual surrender of the forces helped him secure the major army that was being let by Kutuzov. This army was important in the war against the French and it had to be guarded. Kutuzov, a cunning leader, who was hated by many but adored by his soldiers, commanded the Russian corps in 1805 which did not agree with Napoleon’s encroachment on Vienna.
He tried to stop allied generals from going to war on the Austerlitz eve, but the Tsar did not heed to his command, he thus did not take part in the planning arrangements so that he would not be blamed in case they lost. Kutuzov served as governor-general of Lithuania and Kiev from 1806 to 1811. He is honored for the victory the French. The Russian campaign’s outcome was very obvious but in every war they went to, both parties claimed to have won; by the end of 1812, however, it was clear the French had been defeated. Unfortunately for the Russians, they still could not be declared winners.
This invasion marked a turning point in the history of Europe and the world as a whole. Approximately 450,000 soldiers were annihilated, reducing the French and its allied military to a very small figure of their original power and this caused a grand change in the politics of Europeans, since the earlier principal position of the French on the continent had been significantly reduced. It is noted that the French invasion failed because of the ambitions of Napoleon who did not consider what Alexander, his Russian ally, thought of him invading Moscow.
In his book, Zamoyski has made possible the provision of accounts of the events that took place in Russia at the time. Personal accounts of the characters and in illustrating the attitudes, craftiness and alertness of the soldiers from both sides in the 1812 campaign, he depicts the plans of Alexander as a scheming leader, Napoleon as an ambitious and arrogant one, Kutuzov and Bagration as those leaders who brought liberation to Russia from the French. He also looks into their lives as they endured suffering during that period in futility. Reference: Zamosky A. (2005). Moscow 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March. New York. HarperCollins
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX