Kutuzov did not win a single battle. Title page of Times magazine

07 September 13:11 Monument to the heroes of the Battle of Borodino (opened in 1839), located in the center of the Borodino field. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

Historian Konstantin Zalessky in an interview with Tsargrad told why the general battle Patriotic War 1812 was given on the Borodino field and can Napoleon be considered a genius

Tsargrad: Is Borodino a victory for Russian arms, or is it just an ordinary battle?

Konstantin Zalessky: The battle of Borodino, of course, is not an ordinary battle. In terms of its level and the way Napoleon considered it, it can be safely called a general. From the point of view of the Russian command, the significance of this battle is great, since it was simply impossible to continue the retreat and leave Moscow without a serious clash. The question of who won at Borodino is still the subject of fierce debate, and, apparently, a consensus will never be reached, since we are talking no longer about real facts but about their political interpretation. So, the French will always claim that this is a victory for Napoleon, especially since formally the Russian troops really retreated (and then left Moscow).

But when evaluating the results of the battle, it is necessary to take into account not only individual facts - who left the battlefield, what was the number of losses, etc., but also to look at what significance the battle had on the result of the entire campaign. This is really important, because otherwise there is a dilemma: he won the battle, but he lost the war! And here we can draw an unambiguous conclusion: Napoleon could afford such losses that he suffered, only on one condition - the Russian army had to be defeated, taken out of the game without hope of revival. That is, the campaign had to be completed. In any other case, the losses suffered by the "Great Army" were for it, if not a disaster, then its beginning.

Peter Hess. Battle of Borodino. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

C.: Was it Borodino key point in the final defeat of Napoleon?

K.Z.: If we turn to the terminology of the Second World War, then the Battle of Borodino was the beginning of a great turning point. The defeat of the "Great Army" was due to a number of large and small reasons, their complex. This is Kutuzov's Tarutinsky maneuver, and the actions of army partisan detachments, and extended communications, and accepted by the leadership Russian Empire measures to strengthen the army, and Vyazma, and Krasny, and Berezina, etc. etc. But battle of Borodino, of course, became the brightest page of the entire - for the French - campaign of 1812, and for us - the Patriotic War.

C.: Was Kutuzov right that he gave Moscow to Napoleon and kept the army?

Kutuzov's actions were fully justified. They completely fit into his strategy as a commander. Although they say all the time that he was a "commander of the Suvorov school," he was not Suvorov. Both the tactics and the strategy of Kutuzov were different: here again one cannot use the terms “bad-good”. Suvorov would have adopted a different strategy and perhaps succeeded in it. But, in this case, within the framework of the strategy that Kutuzov was an adherent of, he was absolutely right in his decision. A cautious commander, not only a military leader, but also an experienced administrator and statesman(which, for example, Suvorov was not), he perfectly understood the significance of the isolation of the "Great Army" from its main bases. The Russian army got the opportunity to replenish its ranks, supplies, weapons and rest, having accumulated strength, and the enemy’s forces only decreased every day without the hope of replenishing them. Time worked for Kutuzov, and he understood this very well: his actions in previous campaigns show that he generally tried to drive the enemy into a stalemate without entering into serious clashes.

A. Adam. Napoleon in burning Moscow. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

C.: Was Alexander I right in refusing to conclude peace with Napoleon?

K.Z.: The position of Alexander I was clear, consistent and understandable from both moral and pragmatic points of view. Firstly, the enemy, having invaded the empire, put himself outside the law, including from the point of view of God (despite the fact that Napoleon and his army are generally difficult to consider as a "Christian army"). Secondly, after Borodin, the emperor understood that the enemy was in a less advantageous position than the Russian army: why then negotiate? And, finally, the looting and destruction of Moscow was in itself a signal that negotiations were impossible. In addition, one must understand that the conclusion of peace with Napoleon (even on the most favorable terms, for example, with the obligation to withdraw the army from the Russian Empire), only postponed the end of the conflict, since in this case Napoleon retained the possibility of revenge (not to mention that he controlled almost all of Europe). Thus, peace would not mean the end of the war, but only a temporary respite.

Alexander I. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

C.: Your view of Borodino. Was the battle itself deliberate or accidental?

K.Z.: On the one hand, no one predicted ahead of time, for example, near Smolensk, that the battle would unfold precisely near Borodino. But on the other hand, the choice of the battlefield was made consciously, based on tactical and strategic objectives. In addition, the decision that a general battle should be given on the way to Moscow had already been taken by that moment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the battle was accidental.

C.: Did Kutuzov's military leadership talent manifest itself during Borodino?

K.Z.: Since it was Kutuzov's opinion that was decisive in choosing the battlefield, deploying forces, and also adopting major decisions in the course of the battle, then, therefore, his talent as a commander was fully manifested. Another thing is that in his manner it was to give his subordinates quite a lot of freedom of action - but nothing can be done here: someone will criticize him for this, someone, on the contrary, will praise him. How many experts - so many opinions.

M. I. Kutuzov. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

C.: They say that Kutuzov was going to continue the battle the next day. Why did he refuse?

K.Z.: This is precisely the talent of Kutuzov. Initially, being satisfied with the results of the first day of the battle, he intended to continue it on the second day with the clear intention of defeating the enemy. (The defeat of the "Great Army" in the depths of Russia, far from its communications would be a disaster for her). However, having assessed the level of losses, Kutuzov, as a very cautious commander and clearly not prone to adventures, decided to take a longer, but more sure way. Suvorov, most likely, would have attacked the enemy and, perhaps, would have won a brilliant victory, but not for sure. Kutuzov, on the other hand, preferred a titmouse in his hands than a crane in the sky. Although for this he had to sacrifice Moscow.

Napoleon. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

C.: Was Napoleon's campaign itself a gamble? They say that Napoleon was a tactical genius, but in the end he lost in strategy. Is it right to consider him a brilliant commander?

K.Z.: Napoleon was the most an outstanding commander of his time: none of the generals of the countries Anti-Hitler coalition did not win so many victories and did not achieve such serious results on the battlefield. Apparently, the campaign of 1812 was not a gamble for him: he prepared for it very seriously and fully counted on success. Another thing is that he could not calculate either the enemy as a whole, or, which is extremely important, Emperor Alexander I, seeing in him only a variation of Emperor Franz. He could not understand Russia as an enemy, and he miscalculated. Moreover, if he had been ready for such actions, he would most likely have started the campaign anyway, but he would have acted differently. For example, he would take care of the formation of a stronger second echelon, not limited to flank corps. I would have driven deep into the country and Reynier, and MacDonald, and troops from Poland and Germany.

C.: There is a phrase that is attributed to Napoleon: he allegedly said that Borodino was his bloodiest battle. Is it true?

K. Zalessky. Photo: Tsargrad TV channel

K.Z.: Data on the losses of the French troops in various battles vary quite a lot, due to the shortcomings of counting. In the data cited by French sources, the overly accurate figures of losses in killed, wounded, and prisoners are always somewhat alarming. The French themselves consider the battle of Preussisch-Eylau in 1807 to be the bloodiest for themselves. East Prussia, where they lost 30,655 killed, wounded and captured. French researchers usually indicate losses at Borodino as 28,012 people killed and wounded (however, the number of those killed at Borodino is greater than at Preussisch-Eylau), but here, for example, English sources show a figure of 28-35 thousand, and domestic - 30-40 thousand. That is, if Borodino was not the bloodiest battle of the Napoleonic Wars, then one of the bloodiest - certainly.

In the Crimea, on the way to Alushta, many of you must have seen a monument-fountain, looking at which, we remember the severe wound of the future Prince of Smolensky.

In July 1774, the Turkish landing moved deep into the Crimea. Near the village of Shumy, a three-thousand-strong Russian detachment stopped and defeated the enemy. Kutuzov commanded a grenadier battalion, fought bravely and was seriously wounded.

« The Moscow Legion, Lieutenant Colonel Golenishchev-Kutuzov, who brought his battalion, consisting of new young people, to such perfection that in dealing with the enemy he surpassed the old soldier. This staff officer was wounded by a bullet, which, hitting him between the eye and the temple, went straight through in the same place on the other side of the face.”, General Dolgorukov wrote to the Empress after the battle.

Ekaterina treated Kutuzov cordially, took care of his treatment. She highly appreciated the fact that this enlightened, witty officer turned out to be a brave man. Kutuzov received George 4th class and was sent for treatment to Austria. Through the treasury.

2. Ishmael. "He was my right hand!"

You can decide on such an assault only once in your life ... Everyone - from an ordinary to a general - risked mortally.

During the assault on the impregnable fortress, Major General Kutuzov commanded the 6th column, which was supposed to break into Izmail through the Kiliya Gates. According to Suvorov's plan, the Kutuzov column started a battle on the rampart.

When the Turks began to push the attackers, Kutuzov asked Suvorov for reinforcements. The commander's answer was cunning: “Ishmael has been taken. And Major General Kutuzov was appointed its commandant.

Mikhailo Illarionovich cast aside doubts and sent reserves into battle. The fortress fell, and the Kutuzov column distinguished itself in battle.

« Major General and Cavalier Golenishchev-Kutuzov showed new experiments in his art and courage, overcoming all difficulties under heavy enemy fire, climbed the rampart, took possession of the bastion, and when an excellent enemy forced him to stop, he, serving as an example of courage, held his place, overcame strong enemy, established himself in the fortress ... He walked on the left flank, but was my right hand", - so wrote Suvorov, who appreciated not only the soldier's courage, but also the diplomatic cunning of the witty general.

3. Machin. "Vivat, Lieutenant General Kutuzov!"

June 1791. It was one of the largest battles of the Russian-Turkish war. The Ottomans sought to keep the Russians out of the Danube and concentrated an 80,000-strong army near the city of Machina.

Nikolai Vasilyevich Repnin commanded the Russian troops - he planned to inflict a preemptive strike on the main enemy forces. Kutuzov's corps crushed the right flank of the Turkish troops and broke into the Machinsky camp. Kutuzov distinguished himself in the pursuit of the retreating Turks. He acted efficiently and quickly.

For the victory near Machin, the future field marshal was awarded the Order of George 2nd degree.

4. Family. “I am writing to you, my friend…”

Kutuzov was womanly, like few of our outstanding commanders. And yet (unlike Rumyantsev, Suvorov, Potemkin, Miloradovich, Yermolov, Skobelev ...) Kutuzov created real family and loved his Ekaterina Ilyinichna to the grave. Free morals did not shake their union. His wife gave him a son and five daughters, to whose upbringing he was not indifferent.

He wrote to her from all campaigns. I felt a strong need for frank correspondence with my wife. She sometimes learned about military events before the emperor ... Prince Smolensky was already dictating the last letter in a weakening voice. It ended with the words: "I'm sorry, my friend ...".

5. Mission in Berlin. "Smart, smart! Cunning, cunning!"

Under Paul the First, Kutuzov escaped disgrace, although he did not escape the highest scoldings. The emperor trusted him and considered him, among other things, a resourceful negotiator.

At the beginning of 1798, Kutuzov arrived in Berlin. Shortly before this, the Prussian throne was occupied by a new king - Friedrich Wilhelm III. In Prussia, Kutuzov had to not only greet the new king and get to know him, but also prepare the ground for an anti-French alliance.

At the court of the Prussian king Kutuzov was received as a hero. His wounds inspired respect. In private conversations with the monarch, Mikhailo Illarionovich skillfully persuaded him to an alliance with Russia. He fulfilled his diplomatic mission with brilliance.

6. Amstetten

Rivalry with Napoleon in those days was considered madness. In the autumn of 1805, after the surrender of the Austrian General Mack, the Russian army under the command of Kutuzov was forced to retreat. On November 5, the troops of Marshal Murat - the vanguard of the Great Army - attacked the Russian rearguard, commanded by General Bagration. Despite the significant numerical superiority of the French, Bagration's troops withstood the blow.

Kutuzov sent Miloradovich's corps to help him. The grenadiers of the Apsheron and Smolensk regiments overturned the French infantry. While the battle was going on, in which the Russian troops showed themselves with better side, the main forces, according to Kutuzov's plan, calmly retreated, crossing the Ibs River. They managed to break away from Napoleon by a considerable distance.

As was often the case in Kutuzov's biography, the question of the winner remains open. Murat argued: after all, the Russians continued their retreat! Kutuzov retorted: but we intended to retreat, and the French failed to break the rearguard and overtake Kutuzov's main forces.

Kutuzov accepts the army

7. Ruschuk. Count's dignity

Under the command of Kutuzov was a small army with powerful artillery. For a long time he slyly showed the Turks inaction. He lured Ahmet Pasha, forced him to come close to the fortress. The main Russian forces were stationed not far from Ruschuk.

The Turks had a large, but not very organized army. Kutuzov threw another idea to the Ottomans: to cut off the Russian army from the fortress with a bulk of cavalry and press it to the river. But a powerful counterattack, as well as unexpected sorties from the fortress, broke the Turks. Having lost 5 thousand soldiers, the Turks retreated. Wonderful Victoria in the taste of Kutuzov!

Soon Kutuzov's army will finish off the enemy near Slobodzeya. For these important victories, achieved with minimal losses, Kutuzov was elevated to the dignity of a count.

8. Borodino. Ambiguous Glory

We will remember this battle again and again. Contradictory interpretations of its course will always intrigue history buffs. Until the Great Patriotic War, the Battle of Borodino remained the largest in scale among the battles that took place on the territory of native Russia.

Near Moscow, two great forces clashed. Showed unattainable valor. There were no losers. The French won a tactical victory. There is no doubt that after the Battle of Borodino they continued to move to the East and soon occupied Moscow. The second general battle at the walls of Belokamennaya Kutuzov did not give them, he preferred to concentrate.

Mikhailo Illarionovich himself always considered the battle to be victorious. The emperor hardly trusted his optimism, but was forced to reward Kutuzov - at least for propaganda purposes, in order to strengthen the morale of the army. Three days after the battle of Borodino, Kutuzov was promoted to field marshal ... However, he deserved the baton a long time ago.

End of the Battle of Borodino. Artist V. Vereshchagin

9. Maloyaroslavets

After the battle of Borodino, this battle was the most important in the campaign of 1812. The Grand Army first retreated from Moscow along the Old Kaluga Road. But then Napoleon ordered to turn to the New. Seslavin's partisans noticed the advance of the main forces of the Great Army to Maloyaroslavets.

On October 23, when Napoleon spent the night in ancient Borovsk, the main forces of Kutuzov left the Tarutinsky camp in order to block the New Kaluga road. On the morning of the 24th, the battle began in Maloyaroslavets, in which at first small formations took part. But more and more new parts were drawn into the funnel of the battle. The task of the Russian army is to make it impossible for the French to advance to the South of Russia, saving Napoleon.

On the 25th, Kutuzov ordered his troops to retreat and fortify themselves in a convenient position. The unexpected attack of Platov's Cossacks almost ended with the capture of Napoleon. As a result, Bonaparte was forced to continue his retreat to the West along the devastated Smolensk road. It was the path to death.

10. The defeat of Napoleon. "We will not win, but we will deceive!"

Kutuzov entered the war of 1812 with an aphoristic program: “We will not defeat Napoleon. We will deceive him." General Bogdan Knorring joked aphoristically: "Each hour of this old man's sleep inexorably brings us closer to victory."

The aging Kutuzov managed to spend French army before western border Russian Empire and drove home the remnants of the Great Army. Of course, the Russian army also suffered losses - mainly not combat ones, but medical ones.

Do you remember: the army flowed behind the army,
We said goodbye to older brothers
And in the shade of sciences they returned with annoyance,
Envying the one who is dying
walked past us...

On the evening of June 11 (23), 1812, a patrol of the Life Guards of the Cossack Regiment noticed a suspicious movement of the usurper's troops on the Neman. When it got dark, a company of French sappers crossed the river to the Russian bank in boats and ferries, and the first skirmish took place.
After midnight on June 24, 1812, the crossing of French troops across the border Neman began along the four bridges above Kovno.
At 6 o'clock in the morning on June 12 (24), 1812, the vanguard of the French troops entered Russian city Kovno.

Repetition is the mother of teaching: "Everyone knows that Kutuzov - great commander. But few people thought about how great it is. He fought all his life, but did not win a single famous battle, he has nothing like the resounding victories of Napoleon or Suvorov - neither Ishmael nor Austerlitz. Either defeats, then retreats, then rather controversial victories with a draw.
When you think about it, at first some unpleasant feeling arises - or maybe Kutuzov's authority is exaggerated? Maybe he just went with the flow, and the people and the Russian winter did everything themselves?
Tolstoy's interpretation of his personality, I must say, lies in line with just such a view of this historical figure.
That's Napoleon, yes. The armies under his command were head and shoulders above their rivals on the battlefield. They beat everyone - both Russians, and British, and Saxons, and Austrians, and Prussians, and Janissaries.
They fought with artillery, "like a man with his fists", huge masses of cavalry (a revolutionary innovation!) Swept away both infantry and well-drilled, but small cavalry European armies. Napoleon's battle tactics were advanced, Suvorov's, and it was not without reason that Suvorov's ardent desire was "to meet the boy in order to return everything he had taken." Under the "taken" meant just Suvorov's innovations. Suvorov beat the Napoleonic marshals, but they did not meet face to face with Napoleon, and the question - who is stronger - remained open.

At the same time, as a strategist, Napoleon was nobody. His armies, even in Europe, even before meeting with the enemy, lost up to a quarter of their composition, due to disease and hunger! He was completely uninterested in the fate of his soldiers. Napoleon had no idea about the state structure and features of Russia. Invading Russia
The Great Army had neither field kitchens, nor tents, nor normal infirmaries - already in Smolensk, parchments from the city archive were used for dressings.
But if Napoleon already managed to lead his army to a general battle, nothing could be done with him - on the battlefield he was the best at controlling his soldiers, and they did not let him down.
How different from him was Kutuzov! In front of Borodin, Kutuzov prepared ten thousand carts for the wounded and ten thousand orderlies to evacuate them from the battlefield, and Napoleon simply abandoned his wounded.
Both Suvorov and Napoleon called Kutuzov, respectively, a cunning and cunning fox - such a coincidence of opinions from different people says that this assessment of Kutuzov's personality is objective, and, since it comes from the generals, it means not only the qualities of a "crafty courtier". When after the catastrophe allied to us Austrian army near Ulm, Kutuzov had to lead the Russian army away from destruction along the Danube valley, from Braunau to Brunn, the French failed to do anything with him. Kicking like a horse, Kutuzov did not give anything and did not donate
no one - but a retreat, whatever you say, hardest kind actions. Acting constantly with only part of the forces (the rest must leave), it is necessary to contain all the enemy forces, and the cover units must, constantly alternating, then deploy in battle formation, then turn into marching, and even from an inverted front. The troops that have completed their task, without allowing a delay, must be passed into the column through the deployed replaceable units. All this is technically very difficult, here the commander must be, first of all, just a military professional, but he also needs an understanding of the terrain, and composure, and, of course. cunning. The slightest hitch - and the "tail", and even the entire army, would be lost. I'm not talking about such a "trifle" that the rearguard of the Russian army had to win unconditionally in every clash with the French avant-garde.
This retreat is a masterpiece of military art.
But at the same time - and there is a lot of evidence about this - Kutuzov avoided a general battle with Napoleon in every possible way, even at the end of the 1812 campaign of the year.
So that's why we say that in general in that era Napoleon lost, and Kutuzov won? The fact is that, without losing a single battle outright, Napoleon lost his main war. You can speculate on this topic as much as you like, but Napoleon lost not only the greatest (up to Hitler) pan-European army, but also his life's work, and not because of his stupidity, but because of the mind of Kutuzov.
Kutuzov's mind manifested itself in a simple recognition of the obvious fact: Napoleon is the greatest tactician commander of that time, and having fought him, at best, you can resist, but you cannot defeat him by maneuvering on the battlefield, attacking. He does it better! And the battle with him, which ended in a draw, is not at all a guarantee that the next one will not end in disaster. Kutuzov knew how to retreat, fighting back, as it turned out, he could withstand the blow of Napoleon in a pitched battle.
It is said that Kutuzov considered it risky in the course of a decisive war to learn to defeat Napoleon on the battlefield. No, it's not about risk. Kutuzov was absolutely certain that he would inevitably be defeated if he tried to defeat Napoleon's army.
That is why Kutuzov "built a golden bridge" for Napoleon to leave Russia, and did not try to slam his army. Yes, Kutuzov's plans cannot be called majestic - he did not want a resounding victory, but only the complete extermination of the enemy and the salvation of the fatherland. Yes, Kutuzov retreated, dodged, he never seriously attacked Napoleon, did not destroy him with artillery fire and a valiant bayonet attack. But Napoleon could not do anything with Kutuzov, that is, Kutuzov was not a bad commander! The French attacked - the Russians fought back. The French were stepping up the blow - it was already in an empty place. The French left - the Russians clung to them from behind.
The French generals recalled with resentment that they would have managed to reach Maloyaroslavets before Kutuzov if he had not put his soldiers on carts. This was not according to the rules, but at the decisive moment of the war, Kutuzov had several thousand carts with draft horses at hand, apparently by pure chance. AND Grand Army had to
go not along fertile Ukraine, but along the scorched Smolensk road.
Napoleon, by his own admission, won battles because he thought them through in every detail in advance, unlike his opponents. But in the war as a whole, he acted according to his other principle: "we must get involved in battle, and then we'll see." And Kutuzov had an idea, he implemented it, and this idea turned out to be correct.
Kutuzov, as I understand it, accurately calculated that Napoleon would not be able to provide fodder for more than 50 thousand horses. And the old professional turned out to be right - even before trying to break through to the south, Napoleon had to send horseless cavalry to the West on foot.
And it was only September!
Kutuzov understood the war, but Napoleon did not. What is the joy of Napoleon, that he is invincible? From his "Grand Army" survived 5,000 people. This is from five hundred or six hundred thousand!
By the way, Kutuzov's plan was not the plan of a lone genius - Defense Minister Barclay de Tolly adhered to the same views as Mikhail Illarionovich. He, apparently, was the author of this plan, because in general it was Barclay de Tolly who was the generator of non-standard solutions - to recall at least his invasion of Sweden ... through the frozen Baltic! The most surprising thing was not that the operation was a success and led to the neutrality of Sweden, but how the very idea could come to the head of a military professional - a march of an entire army for several days, with overnight stays on ice ... there are no analogues in history either before or after was and is not expected.
Let's return to the plan of war with Napoleon: why didn't society as a whole see this plan and accept it from the "German" (Scottish Barclay), and listened to Kutuzov with great difficulty?
Because the most important prerequisite for this plan was the recognition of an unpleasant and unacceptable fact for the entire Russian society of that time: we cannot defeat Napoleon in the way that was then considered correct - by defeating his army in a pitched battle.
Kutuzov knew that this could not be done. That is why his war plan was unpopular. Couldn't Russian society come to this plan "with your own mind." We lost one of the capitals, we lost a significant part of the country, we suffered a national humiliation in the fall of 1812 - for the first time in 200 years, the enemy invaded the heart of Russia. But Kutuzov consistently and purposefully carried out his plan.
The battle of Borodino was a violation of his plan, it was a concession to public opinion, Kutuzov did not want the battle, but even he could not yield. The Russian army longed for one thing - to die under the walls of Moscow - who could resist?
Did Kutuzov want to win at Borodino? In no case. He only hoped to save as many soldiers and officers as possible. Having saved half of the army, Kutuzov won - he could now implement his plan.
* * *

Here is the dilemma - the entire Russian society was eager to fight. There was no soldier, officer, general who would be afraid of battle, who would like to let go of Napoleon's army, as it turned out later, to die a natural death. But it was impossible to accept a proper battle. Kutuzov recognized the superiority of Napoleon in tactics and operational art - and certainly destroyed it.
Few people understood Kutuzov, but not because of his excessive wisdom - the premise for Kutuzov's plan was offensive to any Russian, but that was the whole point. Recognizing the real state of affairs is not always difficult, but sometimes it is very offensive, and resentment prevents you from acting correctly. And Sun Tzu said: "If the commander is overly touchy,
it can be provoked."
After all, even Kutuzov failed to fully fulfill his duty to Russia, he failed to save all of us from a terrible mistake.
All sections of Russian society - both the tsar, and the nobleman, and, perhaps, the peasant - wanted most of all then to free Europe from the "usurper". But in fact, there was no need to "liberate" Europe - the Europeans fell under Napoleon, even if they themselves tumbled with him as they wanted, what do we care? The second time "Buonaparte" would not have been dragged to Russia on a lasso!
This was the opinion of Kutuzov, and on his deathbed in the spring of 1813 he asked the king about this. And the king asked for forgiveness from him for not obeying. Kutuzov replied "I'll forgive, will Russia forgive?".
We know about this conversation from the words of only one person - an official for assignments, who overheard him, hiding behind a screen. Its reliability is not one hundred percent, but even if it is fictional, the very idea of ​​​​this dialogue could not appear from scratch. There was nothing for us to do in Europe, Kutuzov knew Europe and understood that, trying to play some role there, Russian society was mistaken.
And one can only guess what would have happened if Alexander had heeded Kutuzov's pleas and did not go to Europe after Napoleon. It's not even about the heavy defeats of our army in 1813 from the same French, the same Napoleon. The whole history of Russia would turn in a different direction! There would not have been a financial crisis caused by the need to maintain the Russian army abroad, there would have been no Holy Alliance, there would have been no shameful role of the "European gendarme", there would probably have been no Crimean War.

He was appointed commander in chief of all Russian armies and militias. The soldiers, having received the news of this, rejoiced. What can I say, the whole of Russia was delighted.

Kutuzov, who received a responsible post at a difficult time for the empire, was in his 67th year. Why, then, did Russia see the savior of the Fatherland in the old general of Catherine the Great, and why did Emperor Alexander I, despite his personal dislike for the commander, approve the decision of a specially created emergency committee to appoint him? In the resolution of the committee, which included Count Saltykov, General Vyazmitinov, Count Arakcheev, General Balashov, Prince Lopukhin and Count Kochubey, who were especially close to the tsar, the choice in favor of Kutuzov is explained by his solid experience in military art and "excellent talents" - in contrast to his predecessor at the head of the Russian army, Barclay de Tolly. Kutuzov had no competitors then. The emergency committee voted unanimously for his candidacy.

In memory of the important appointment, which largely decided the fate of Russia, the VM correspondent recalled the five main battles of the legendary commander.

The Russian-Turkish wars became a baptism of fire for Mikhail Kutuzov. In 1774, the grenadier battalion under his command took part in the battle near the village of Shumy near Alushta. Lieutenant Colonel Kutuzov prepared his subordinates in such a way that they did not leave a single chance for the formidable Turkish landing force that outnumbered them. The enemy was defeated. The future commander-in-chief himself took Active participation in battle and was seriously wounded - a Turkish bullet pierced his head through and through. After the battle, General Dolgorukov reported to Catherine II:

“The Moscow Legion, Lieutenant Colonel Golenishchev-Kutuzov, who brought his battalion, consisting of new young people, to such perfection that in dealing with the enemy he surpassed the old soldier. This staff officer was wounded by a bullet, which, hitting him between the eye and temple, went straight through in the same place on the other side of the face.

Impressed by the heroism of the lieutenant colonel, the empress awarded him the Order of St. George 4th degree and sent him to Austria for treatment, paying all expenses.

Having recovered from his wound, Kutuzov continued to fight bravely, receiving more and more new appointments. During the assault on the Izmail fortress, he, already in the rank of lieutenant general, commanded the 6th column of the Suvorov army. His unit was to make a breakthrough into the fortress through the Kiliya Gate. The task was difficult, and when the Turks launched another counterattack, Kutuzov asked Suvorov for reinforcements. The field marshal answered, as always, wittily:

Ishmael has been taken,” he said. - And Major General Kutuzov was appointed its commandant. Mikhail Illarionovich had no choice but to make a breakthrough. The fortress fell.

“Major General and Cavalier Golenishchev-Kutuzov showed new experiences of art and courage, overcoming all difficulties under strong enemy fire, climbed the rampart, took possession of the bastion, and when an excellent enemy forced him to stop, he, serving as an example of courage, held his place, overcame a strong enemy, established himself in the fortress ... He walked on the left flank, but was my right hand, ”Suvorov wrote about him after this battle.

For the victory over the Turks near the Romanian city of Machin, Mikhail Kutuzov was awarded the Order of St. George, 2nd degree. It was one of the largest battles of the Russian-Turkish war. The Russians were opposed by the 80,000-strong Ottoman army, which was faced with the task of preventing the enemy from crossing the Danube. It didn't work out. Russian troops won a landslide victory. The Turks lost up to 4,000 people killed and 35 guns, the Russians - no more than 600 people killed and wounded.

MOLDOVA

During the war with Turkey in the spring of 1811, Alexander I appointed Kutuzov, whom he did not like, commander-in-chief of the Danube army, weakened by the recall of several divisions to defend the western border. Kutuzov took command of 30,000 demoralized soldiers, who were opposed by a 100,000-strong army of formidable Janissaries. But already in the first battle, Kutuzov's army defeated the enemy, and this confrontation ended with the fact that the future field marshal took the camp of the grand vizier himself into a blockade. The Turkish army capitulated, and Kutuzov annexed Bessarabia and Moldavia to Russia by signing peace.

BORODINO

Until the Great Patriotic War, the Battle of Borodino remained the largest battle in terms of scale among those that took place on the territory of Russia. More than 300 thousand people took part in it from both sides, and almost a third of them were injured or killed. There were no losers in this battle. And although the French won a tactical victory, as subsequent events showed, it was from Borodino that the defeat of the great Napoleonic army began. Three days after the battle of Borodino, Kutuzov was promoted to field marshal.

MALOOYAROSLAVETS

Leaving Moscow, Napoleon tried to withdraw his army to Smolensk, choosing for this the southern route through Kaluga, where he was going to replenish food and fodder. Near the city of Maloyaroslavets, he was stopped and attacked by Russian troops. Militias came to the aid of Kutuzov, inflicting painful blows on the flank of Napoleon's army. Ahead of the 100,000-strong French army, almost complete destruction from hunger and cold and defeat in the war awaited.

Subscribe to the Evening Moscow channel in Telegram!