Briggs: Napoleon's cold. The reasons behind the battle.
Maude: Napoleon's cold. Why the battle had to be fought
Pevear and Volokhonsky: The unfathomable causes for the conduct and outcome of the battle.
Translation:
XXVIII.
Many historians speak that the Borodino battle was not won by the French because of how Napoleon had a runny nose, that should he would not have had a runny nose, that his orders before the time of the battle would have been still more brilliant, and Russia would have been killed, and the look of the world would change.694 For historians, recognizing that Russia was formed by the will of one man — Peter the Great, and France from a republic formed into an empire, and the French troops went in Russia by the will of one man — Napoleon, such reasoning that Russia was left powerful because of how Napoleon had a big runny nose on the 26th, such reasoning for these historians is inevitably consistent.
Should from the commitment of Napoleon depended to give or not to give the Borodino battle and from his commitment depended on to do such or another disposition, then obviously that runny nose had an impact on the manifestation of his commitment, could be the cause of the safety of Russia, and therefore that valet, who forgot to give Napoleon on the 24th waterproof boots, was the savior of Russia. In this way the thought of this conclusion is undeniable, — so the same undeniable as that conclusion, which, jokingly (himself not knowing about that), made Voltaire, saying that Bartholomew’s night has occurred from the disappointment of the stomach of Karl IX. Yet for the people, not admitting that Russia was formed by the will of one man, Peter I, and that the French empire was formed and the war with Russia began by the will of one man — Napoleon, this reasoning is present as not only incorrect, unreasonable, but nasty to all the essence of humanity. To the question about what form causes historical events, presents a different answer, concluding in what moves world events is predetermined over, depending from the coincidences of all the arbitrariness of people, participating in these events, and that the impact of Napoleon in the movement of these events is only external and fictitious.
As weird as it seems from the first sight assumption that Bartholomew’s night, the orders in which gave back Karl IX, had occurred not by his will, but that to him it only seemed that he told to do this, and that the Borodino slaughter of 80 thousand persons happened not by the will of Napoleon (despite that he gave back orders about the beginning and the course of battle), but that to him it seemed only that he told this, — as weird as seems this assumption, human dignity speaks to me that any of us, if not more, than in no way less of a person, than the great Napoleon’s orders allow the decision of this issue, and historical studies plentifully confirm this assumption.
At the Borodino battle Napoleon did not shoot and kill anybody. All this was done by soldiers. It had begun, and he did not kill people.
The soldiers of the French army went to kill Russian soldiers at the Borodino battle not owing to orders of Napoleon, but by his own wish. All the army: French, Italians, Germans, Poles — hungry, ragged and plagued by the campaign, in the view of the army, blocking them from Moscow, felt that the wine is uncorked and it is needed to drink it.695 If Napoleon would have banned them from now fighting with the Russians, they would have killed him and would have went to fight with the Russians because of how this was necessary to them.
When they listened to the order of Napoleon, representing to them for their mutilation and death in the comfort of the words of descendants about that they were in the battle under Moscow, they shouted: yes hello Emperor!"696 exactly so the same as they shouted: "Vive l’Empereur," (yes hello Emperor) at seeing the image of the boy, piercing the earth with an orb stick from a cup and ball, exactly so the same as they would have shouted "Vive l’Empereur" (yes hello Emperor) at every nonsense which would have been said to them. They would have stayed for nothing, as to shout:"Vive l’Empereur!" (yes hello Emperor) and go to fight, so that to find food and rest as winners in Moscow. It began, not owing to the orders of Napoleon, that they killed those similar to themselves.
Napoleon has not ordered the underway of the battle, because of how from his disposition nothing was executed, and in the time of the battle he knew nothing about that what was happening ahead of him. It began and in this way the people killing each other was happening not by the will of Napoleon, but was going whatever from him, by the will of a hundred thousand people, involved in the overall case. To Napoleon it seemed only that all the business was happening by his will. And because of it the question about whether or not Napoleon had a runny nose, has for history no more interest, than the question about the runny nose of the last convoy soldier.
By that more the 26th of August runny nose of Napoleon has no meaning in that the testimony of writers, as if owing to the runny nose of Napoleon, his disposition and orders in the time of the battle were not so good as the former, — is completely unfair.
The discharged here disposition was not any worse, but even better than all former dispositions, by which were won battles. The imaginary orders in the time of the battle were also not worse than the former, but exactly such the same as always. Yet this disposition and orders seem worse than the former only because of how the Borodino battle was the first which was not won by Napoleon. All the most beautiful and thoughtful dispositions and orders seem very bad, and every scientist of the military with a significant look criticizes them, when the battle by him was not won, and the most bad dispositions and orders seem very good, and serious people in whole volumes prove the virtues of bad orders, when by him is won the battle.
The disposition, formed by Weyrother at the Austerlitz battle, was a pattern of perfection in essays of this family, but it all the same is condemned, condemned for its perfection, for being too big in detail.
Napoleon at the Borodino battle carried out his business representative to authorities so the same okay and still better than in other battles. He did nothing harmful for the passage of the battle: he bowed at the opinions of the more prudent; he was not confused, did not contradict himself, was not scared and was not running from the field of the battle, but with his big tact and experience in war, calmly and suitably carried out his role seeming to a boss.
694 et la face du monde eut été changée (and the face of the world would have been changed)
695 le vin est tiré et qu’il faut le boire. (the wine is drawn and must be drunk.)
696 "Vive l’Empereur! ("Long live the Emperor!)
Mentioned: the 24th, the night of St. Bartholomew
Locations: Borodino
Mentioned: France (and French), Russia, Italians, Germans, Poles, Moscow, Austerlitz
Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Many historians say Napoleon didn't win the battle because he was dealing with a cold. "For historians who accept that Russia was shaped by the will of one man--Peter the Great--and that France was turned from a republic into an empire and French troops went to Russia by the will of one man--Napoleon--such an argument, that Russia remained a power because Napoleon had a bad cold on the twenty-sixth, such an argument for such historians is inevitably consistent."
But in reality: "To the question of what constitutes the cause of historical events, a different answer presents itself, which is that the course of world events is predestined from on high, depends on the coincidence of all the wills of the people participating in those events, and that Napoleon's influence on the course of those events is only external and fictitious."
"In the battle of Borodino, Napoleon did not shoot at anyone and did not kill anyone. That was all done by the soldiers. Which means it was not he who killed people...If Napoleon had now forbidden them to fight the Russians, they would have killed him and gone to fight the Russians, because it was necessary for them."
Tolstoy has the soldiers fighting the battle of Borodino because they needed to go find food and kill the people that were in their way. Importantly, despite the critique of the disposition in the previous chapter, the disposition was better than many of the ones he used in many of his wins, but is just as irrelevant and there is an explicit comparison between his dispositions and Weyrother's before the start of Austerlitz. The chapter ends with Tolstoy claiming that Napoleon did a good job fulfilling the duties of a commander at Borodino because he did not get in the way.
Characters (characters who do not appear, but are mentioned are placed in italics. First appearances are in Bold. First mentions are underlined. Final appearance denoted by *):
Napoleon (since the chapter is one of the expository ones, every character is a mentioned character. Also "l'Empereur".)
Peter the Great (also "Peter I".)
Weirother
(also historians and writers. Voltaire is referenced again. Charles IX is referenced as well for the first time. Also soldiers are mentioned, especially French ones, in general. Also the valet who forgot Napoleon's waterproof boots.)
Abridged Versions: No break in Bell.
Gibian: Chapter 28.
Fuller: Entire chapter is cut.
Komroff: Entire chapter is cut.
Kropotkin: Entire chapter is cut.
Bromfield: No corresponding chapter.
Simmons: Chapter 28: the references to Peter the Great, Voltaire, and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew are cut.
Additional Notes:
Segur/Townsend: Page 83: "The cold he caught paralyzed his movements and shackled his genius for five days, not only preserving Kutuzov from total ruin at Borodino, but giving him the time to re-form his army and escape from our pursuit."
S.A. Tolstaya: Random Notes, For Reference:
Page 85: “Of Peter the Great he said he was the tool of his times, that he was hard-tried, but that destiny had assigned him the mission of bringing Russia into contact with the European world.”
Troyat/Amphoux: Page 316: "And Norov, who had fought in the battle of Borodino in his youth, admitted that the author had portrayed the battle scenes with praiseworthy respect for detail, but bemoaned the fact that "our generals, whose names are inseparable from our military history, and are still heard in every mouth in the new generation of officers, were presented as a set of blind and incompetent tools of fate.".
No comments:
Post a Comment