The Burning of Moscow: Napoleon's Trail By Fire, 1812

First published in Great Britain in 2014 by

Pen & Sword Military

an imprint of

Pen & Sword Books Ltd

47 Church Street

Barnsley

South Yorkshire

S70 2AS

Copyright © Alexander Mikaberidze 2014

HARDBACK ISBN: 978-1-78159-352-3

PDF ISBN: 978-1-47383-625-9

EPUB ISBN: 978-1-47383-449-1

PRC ISBN: 978-1-47383-537-5

The right of Alexander Mikaberidze to be identified as the Author of this

Work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs

and Patents Act 1988.

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including

photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system,

without permission from the Publisher in writing.

Typeset in Ehrhardt by

Mac Style, Bridlington, East Yorkshire

Printed and bound in the UK by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon,

CRO 4YY

Pen & Sword Books Ltd incorporates the imprints of Pen & Sword

Archaeology, Atlas, Aviation, Battleground, Discovery, Family History,

History, Maritime, Military, Naval, Politics, Railways, Select, Social History,

Transport, True Crime, and Claymore Press, Frontline Books, Leo Cooper,

Praetorian Press, Remember When, Seaforth Publishing and Wharncliffe.

For a complete list of Pen & Sword titles please contact

PEN & SWORD BOOKS LIMITED

47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S70 2AS, England

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.pen-and-sword.co.uk

Contents

Maps

Preface

Chapter 1          The Road to Moscow

Chapter 2          The City

Chapter 3          The Governor

Chapter 4          The Conqueror

Chapter 5          ‘And Moscow, Mighty City, Blaze!’

Chapter 6          The Great Conflagration

Chapter 7          In the Ruins of the Great City

Chapter 8          ‘By Accident or Malice?’ Who Burned Moscow?

Chapter 9          In Search of Peace

Chapter 10        The Die is Cast

Notes

Select Bibliography

Dedication

This book is dedicated to my brother Levan, whose encouragement, support and conscientious engagement have been a constant and indispensable source of strength and inspiration. I could not ask for a better, more loving brother.

Maps

1.  The streets of Moscow on the eve of the great fire

2.  The Kremlin in 1812

3.  Moscow after the great fire

4.  The deployment of Allied troops in Moscow

5.  Moscow and Environs, 1812

Map 1: Moscow on the eve of the Great Fire.

Key:

  1.  Dragomilovskaya Street

  2.  Arbatskaya Street

  3.  Nikitskaya Street

  4.  Vzdvizhenka Street

  5.  Znamenka Street

  6.  Prechistenka Street

  7.  Kremlin

  8.  Red Square

  9.  Nikolskaya Street

10.  Ilyinka

11.  Varvarka

12.  Solyanka

13.  Foundlings Home

14.  Nikolaemskaya Street

15.  Taganskaya

16.  Semyonovskaya Street

17.  Moskvoretskii Bridge

18.  Zamoskvorechye

19.  Ostozhenka Street

20.  Tverskoi Boulevard

21.  Presnenskii Ponds

22.  Meschanskaya Street

23.  Pokrovka

24.  Novospasskii Monastery

25.  Powder Magazines

26.  Simonov Monastery

27.  Danilov Monastery

28.  Donskoi Monastery

29.  Novodevichii Convent

30.  Prison

Map 2

In Kremlin:

  1.   Borovitskaya Tower

  2.   Vodovzvodnaya (Water-lifting) Tower

  3.   Blagoveschenskaya (Annunciation) Tower

  4.   Taynitskaya (Secret) Tower

  5.   First Unnamed (Bezymyannaya) Tower

  6.   Second Unnamed (Bezymyannaya) Tower

  7.   Petrovskaya Tower

  8.   Beklemishevskaya (Moskvoretskaya) Tower

  9.   Konstantino-Eleninskaya Tower

10.   Nabatnaya Tower

11.   Spasskaya (Saviour) Tower

12.   Senatskaya Tower

13.   Nikolskaya Tower

14.   Corner Arsenalnaya (Arsenal) Tower

15.   Middle Arsenalnaya (Arsenal) Tower

16.   Troitskaya (Trinity)

17.   Kutafya Barbican Tower

18.   Komendatskaya (Commandant’s) Tower

19.   Oruzheinaya (Armoury) Tower

In Kitai-gorod:

1.      Varvarskie Gates

2.      Ilyinskie Gates

3.      Nikolskie Gates

4–5.  Governor’s Mansion and other buildings of municipal administration

6.      St Basil’s Cathedral

Map 3: Moscow after the Great Fire.

Map 4 Initial deployment of Allied troops in Moscow, 15–29 September 1812.

Map 5: Moscow and its environs, 1812.

Preface

‘It is impossible to express the astonishment and dismay that the news of the burning of Moscow has produced in Paris. People have long forgotten about the effects of war that push people to the extremes. Despite the time elapsed since the bulletin brought this news to Paris, the impression that it has made still endures. This is one of those events whose consequences are incalculable and the more we reflect upon it, the more insights we gain.’¹

In 1802, just slightly over one year after ascending to the throne of the Russian empire, Emperor Alexander I was informed of rather disturbing news. A certain monk Abel, who was said to have possessed a rare gift of foreseeing the future, had written a book of revelations. It would have been easy to dismiss his writing as the product of rampant imagination, were it not for the monk’s correct prior predictions, including of the deaths of Empress Catherine II and Emperor Paul I. In March 1796 Catherine II, upon learning of Abel’s prophecy of her death, had him confined to the Schlüsselburg Fortress but just eight months later she suddenly passed away – ‘on the very day and hour predicted by Abel’, as General Alexei Yermolov noted. Catherine’s son Paul had him released and brought to the imperial palace. They had a long private talk, at the end of which the emperor ordered Abel to be accommodated at a privileged monastery and that all his needs be met.

A year later Abel made another ‘worrisome’ prediction, and history repeated itself. Arrested in May 1800 for ‘various writing containing prophecies and other literary nonsense’, the monk was released after Emperor Paul was assassinated by conspirators on the very night Abel had foretold. Paul’s successor, Emperor Alexander, initially followed his father’s example in treating the monk well until he was informed that the monk had produced yet another book of prophecies. This time the monk’s predictions were even more ominous, as he spoke of a future invasion of Russia by enemy hordes and the fall of the glorious city of Moscow. Alarmed by this prediction, Alexander commanded that the prophet be thrown into prison ‘and remain there until his prophecy comes true’. Ten years passed before Abel’s prediction was fulfilled – Napoleon’s Grande Armée crossed the Russian borders and Moscow fell and burned in September 1812. Just a month later Emperor Alexander released Abel from prison and ordered the monk to be well looked after for the rest of his life. Judging from the surviving documents, Abel lived a fairly quiet and untroubled life until his death in 1841.²

Historians have long agreed that the fiery destruction of Moscow was one of decisive factors in Napoleon’s fiasco in 1812. Russia loomed large in Napoleon’s mind. With war against Britain already entering its tenth year in 1812, the emperor was eager to find a way to subdue his stalwart enemy. The Continental Blockade, Napoleon’s effort to defeat Britain by denying her access to European markets, required the involvement of all European states, most importantly Russia. In the summer of 1807 Emperor Alexander I, his army defeated by Napoleon, accepted the Treaty of Tilsit and joined the Continental Blockade. However, Russian involvement proved to be lukewarm at best. The embargo on British trade led to a sharp decrease in Russian foreign trade, which in turned produced profound financial strains. These economic tribulations forced the Russian government gradually to relax the enforcement of the blockade, an action that incurred Napoleon’s wrath. Franco-Russian relations remained tense in other areas as well, most notably over the future of Poland and the conflicting interests in Germany and the Balkan peninsula.

By 1812 it was clear that the two empires were on a collision course and both were actively preparing for war. As part of his campaign against Russia, Napoleon even revived his ‘oriental’ dreams. ‘Imagine Moscow taken,’ he had confided to his trusted aide-decamp on the eve of the war, ‘Russia overthrown, [and] the Tsar reconciled or murdered by a palace plot … and tell me that it is impossible for a large army of Frenchmen and auxiliaries starting from Tiflis [in Georgia] to reach the Ganges, where the mere touch of a French sword would be sufficient to bring down the framework of [Britain’s] mercantile grandeur throughout India.’³ Although Napoleon never actually planned to get as far as Moscow, the prospects of overpowering Russia and then bringing the war against Britain to a conclusion clearly preoccupied him.⁴

The war, however, turned rather differently. After two months of futile pursuit of the Russian army, Napoleon found himself at the gates of Moscow, where he believed his opponent would finally sue for peace. Instead, the city went up in flames, taking with it any hopes for a triumph. ‘By directing his efforts against Moscow,’ wrote the famed Russian historian and war participant Dmitri Buturlin, ‘Napoleon thought that he was striking at the heart of Russia. So how great his dismay must have been when he saw that the Russians looked on their ancient capital as no more than a vast accumulation of stones, with which Russia’s destiny was not bound up in any way.’⁵ A ruined Moscow had inflamed Russian passions, lowered the Grande Armée’s morale and discipline and made retreat inevitable by destroying any prospects of peace. When in November 1816 Barry O’Meara asked the emperor to what he principally attributed his failure in the Russian expedition, Napoleon quickly named two factors – the premature cold and the burning of Moscow. ‘Had it not been for the burning of Moscow,’ he reminisced, ‘I should have succeeded. I would have wintered there. There were in that city about forty thousand people who were practically slaves. For you must know that the Russian nobility keep their vassals in a sort of slavery. I would have proclaimed liberty to all the slaves in Russia, and abolished serfdom and nobility. This would have procured me the support of an immense and a powerful party. I would either have made peace at Moscow, or else I would have marched the next year to St Petersburg … Had it not been for that fire, I should have succeeded in everything …’⁶ Of course, this statement, made by a man exiled to a remote island and bent on consolidating his legacy, must be treated with caution, but it does reveal Napoleon’s belief that the Moscow fire was the turning point in his war against Russia.

Debate over who was responsible for the great conflagration in Moscow began even while smoke was still billowing over the ruins of the city. Young artillery officer Nikolai Mitarevskii recalled that in the evening of 14 September, as he and his comrades rested in the vicinity of Moscow, they saw dark dense clouds forming in the distance and realized that the city was burning. ‘We began debating, with some arguing that the French were burning Moscow, others believing it was Count Fedor Rostopchin, the governor of Moscow, and some pointing a finger to the people themselves.’⁷ Meanwhile, many Allied soldiers and officers were simply astounded by the city’s destruction and struggled to understand ‘what possible advantage could this monstrous sacrifice be to Russia’.⁸ Seeking answers, some pointed fingers at their greatest enemy, Britain, ‘perfidious Albion’, which had been at war with France for the past two decades. Soldier Marchal wrote that the fire was, in fact, caused by the ‘English agents who had been detained wearing Russian clothing and holding torches’. Similarly, Guillaume Peyrusse, paymaster to Napoleon’s household, cited prevailing rumours that ‘it’s all been a plan proposed by the English to attract us to Moscow and in the midst of the fire and the disorder of a town delivered over to pillage fall on the emperor’s headquarters and the garrison’.⁹ But the majority of Allied troops thought otherwise and their letters and diaries are replete with references to Russian responsibility for what they considered a ‘barbaric’ act.¹⁰ Just hours after arriving at Moscow, Castellane recorded in his diary that ‘many Russians had been arrested with matches in hand’.¹¹ Five days later Lieutenant Pierre-Laurent Paradis of the 25th Line wrote that ‘the emperor of Russia forced the people to evacuate the city and then set it on fire’. Similar rumour is repeated in the letter of Pierre Besnard of the 12th Line, who wrote of the ‘Emperor of Russia releasing convicts and inciting the fire’.¹² On 24 September Jean-Pierre-Michel Barriés of the 1st Division of the 1st Corps could not contain his anger at the actions of the Russian ‘barbarians’. He explained that the Russians ‘were hotly pursued by our legions’ and, upon coming under strong fire near Moscow, they asked for a truce to save the city which ‘they agreed to leave to us intact’. But alas, ‘in an act of unsurpassed treachery that cannot be even compared to the actions of the worst frauds of ancient Greece’, the Russians then released ‘all the deranged and scoundrels from prisons’ to destroy the city.¹³ General Baron Louis-Joseph Grandeau d’Abeacourt, commanding the 1st Brigade of the 2nd Division (1st Corps) at least drew some consolation from the fact that even though ‘the city was burned by the Russians themselves, we plundered it in the most beautiful fashion’.¹⁴

The bulletins Napoleon issued in Moscow, as well as his subsequent writings in exile on St Helena, played an important role in shaping the public memory of the Moscow fire. They directly accused the governor, Fedor Rostopchin, of conceiving this enterprise, collecting immense quantities of combustible materials and incendiary rockets, releasing hundreds of criminals to serve as incendiaries and removing firefighting equipment. Such claims were repeated in numerous French memoirs and studies, starting with the earliest memoirs and campaign studies, most notably by Georges Chambray.¹⁵ The appearance of Rostopchin’s brochure La vérité sur l’incendie de Moscou, in which the governor sought to clear his name, led to the publication of Chambray’s rebuttal and Abbé Adrian Surrugues’ Lettres sur l’incendie de Moscou, while a year later Dmitri Buturlin completed his two-volume classic Histoire militaire de la campagne de Russie en 1812. These works were instrumental in shaping the French historiography and, as one Russian historian justly observed, ‘Surrugues’ letters, Napoleon’s statements, the works of Chambray created a rather well formed version of the Moscow fire that determined the course of the French historiography for the next hundred and fifty years and significantly influenced the writing of memoirs (and even publication of diaries!) of virtually every [French] participant in the Russian Campaign.’¹⁶

French perceptions of the Great Fire had, in turn, shaped the English-language historiography of the subject. Relying mainly on French sources, British and American scholars tend to concentrate on the military aspects of the campaign as a whole and, although one can find discussions of the Moscow fire in many books (for example those by Archibald F. Becke, Hilaire Belloc, Reginald Burton, Cate Curtis, Ronald Delderfield, Theodore Dodge, Edward Foord, H.B. George, George Nafziger, Nigel Nicolson, Alan Palmer, Richard Riehn, Achilles Rose, Digby Smith and Adam Zamoyski), the broad nature of these books meant that Napoleon’s one-month stay in the Russian capital is usually described in general terms, with an emphasis on the ‘French’ experiences. In the last fifty years only two separate studies dealt with the burning of Moscow: Daria Olivier’s The Burning of Moscow 1812 (originally published as L’incendie de Moscou) and Paul Britten Austin’s Napoleon in Moscow. Both books offer an engaging and accessible narrative to the reader but suffer from certain blemishes. Austin’s book deals exclusively with the Grande Armée and has nothing to say about the experiences of the Muscovites. Olivier had consulted some Russian documents to examine the well-worn question of the origins of the Great Fire. She found her culprit in Moscow’s governor, Count Fyodor Rostopchin, whom she held solely responsible for the fire. To support her argument, the author claimed that Rostopchin, given the opportunity by Emperor Alexander’s failure to articulate specific orders for Moscow’s defence, planned the city’s destruction and carried it out through the use of incendiary bombs and willing fire-starters in the criminals he had released from Moscow’s prisons. Yet some of her claims are far from conclusive and must be re-evaluated on the basis of a wider array of sources.

The Russian side of the story offers a rather different version of the event, and both public perceptions and historical assessments of what had transpired in Moscow in 1812 have varied over the past two hundred years. The news of the burning of Moscow ‘struck us all like a thunderbolt,’ remembered Russian noblewoman Caroline Pavlova. ‘Everyone was in some sort of bewilderment and everything that had transpired seemed like a fairy tale to us; the reality seemingly turned into a daydream and the boundaries of what was feasible disappeared.’¹⁷ The Russian public’s immediate reaction to this shocking news was to point the finger at the enemy that was barbarian enough to devastate a focal point of Russian history and society, and Rostopchin’s private letter reflects these attitudes when it states that, ‘frustrated in his great dreams by the actions of our Sovereigns and the Russian people, [Napoleon] burned the city so he could have an excuse to plunder it’.¹⁸ Throughout 1813 and 1814, recalled Dmitri Sverbeev, ‘no one amongst us even considered [the possibility] that Moscow could have been deliberately destroyed by the Russians’.¹⁹ Writing to his friend in March 1813, Aleksei Merzlyakov was infuriated that ‘there are still half-wits who try to explain French actions and even justify them. There are even people who place responsibility for the fires on the Russians even though Napoleon publicly brags about them in Paris!’²⁰

For the Russian government it was important to maintain this perception since it offered the higher moral ground in the war. The Russian struggle thus became, in the words of Emperor Alexander, the fight against ‘the modern-day Attila who, furious at finding neither the treasures he thirsted for in Moscow nor the peace which he hoped to dictate there, chose to turn my beautiful capital into ashes and ruins’.²¹ In October 1812, just weeks after the city was destroyed, the government’s official proclamation placed the sole responsibility on the Grande Armée, describing the fire as the action of ‘crazed and deprived individuals’.²² A month later, with Napoleon’s army already in full retreat and the outcome of the war all but clear, an imperial letter to Rostopchin reiterated the enemy’s culpability in the devastation of Moscow but also spoke of the fire as an act of divine providence: ‘As we cast our sights on the city of Moscow that has suffered so terribly at the hands of the enemy, we contemplate with extreme sadness the fate of its many victims and impoverished inhabitants. But God willed it this way! And He works in miraculous ways. Oftentimes, in the midst of violent storms, He sends us salvation, and through His rage shows us His mercy. No matter how painful it is for the Russian heart to see our ancient capital turned into ashes, and no matter how upsetting it is to gaze at the burnt churches of our Lord, we can seek solace in the fact that the enemy’s misdeeds did not go unpunished and the Moscow fire was extinguished with his own blood. The ashes of Moscow have buried his pride and power …’²³

The purpose of this and other similar proclamations by the Russian government became evident as time passed. They served to portray the Franco-Russian conflict in apocalyptic undertones and to unite the Russian populace against the enemy. The destruction of Moscow served as just another arrow in this anti-French ideological quiver – here was an example of barbarism perpetrated by the representatives of the people considered among the most civilized in the world. In October 1812 the Russian authorities explained:

We cannot say that we are waging war against an enemy [original emphasis] … Such a statement would be too ordinary and insufficient to describe all that rabid violence that has been perpetrated [by the Grande Armée]. War, in general, causes incalculable disasters on the mortals but when it is waged by enlightened nations, its wickedness is alleviated by certain rules of honour and humanity … Yet we are now witnessing the nation that in this enlightened era had once enjoyed a reputation for compassion but is now perpetrating abuses of such ferocity and cruelty that it would be difficult to find similar mistreatment even among the most uncultured residents of Africa and the Americas.²⁴

In such a context, the Russian occupation of Paris – without plunder and destruction – in 1814 offered a rather dramatic contrast to the French entrance into Moscow and was used to augment the positive reputations of Russia and, above all, Alexander I himself. In June 1814 Semen Vorontsov, the former Russian ambassador to Britain, observed ‘We are considered barbarians and the French, inexplicably, are perceived as the most civilized nation. Yet they burned Moscow while we protected Paris.’²⁵

The government’s desire to frame the debate of the Moscow fire was not entirely successful. Russian society and historians actively debated the causes of the fire and either acknowledged Russian involvement in it or squarely laid the blame on Napoleon’s shoulders. In June 1813 Joseph de Maistre was surprised to see that ‘there are still many among the commoners and [classes] above them who believe that the French burned Moscow – this only shows how powerful prejudices remain and how they suffocate any other thoughts’.²⁶ Over time, however, new explanations of the burning of Moscow emerged and some Russians came up with rather novel rationalizations of the event. Dmitri Runich, the infamous curator of the St Petersburg school district, rejected the accusations against Napoleon, noting that ‘it would be foolish to assume that the French burnt the city where they found everything they needed to survive in abundance, and which represented a secure location from which they could conduct negotiations or military operations’. Instead, Runich claimed that ‘this important undertaking [burning Moscow] could have been only conceived and carried out by the emperor [Alexander] himself’,²⁷ who chose to sacrifice his capital but fight on! Meanwhile Sergei Glinka, editor of a prominent Russian literary journal and a close companion of Rostopchin, rejected the Moscow governor’s involvement and could not make himself believe that a few ‘dozen Russian peasants and foreigner craftsmen’, who were executed by the Allied forces on charges of igniting fire, would have indeed ‘set fires in Moscow in the presence of Napoleon’s army’. For him, just as for Leo Tolstoy and others,²⁸ the destruction of Moscow was not premeditated but rather accidental, even a natural by-product of war. ‘Moscow burnt down [because] it was supposed to burn,’ proclaimed Glinka. ‘Who burned Moscow? The war! It was without a doubt the result of a war the likes of which the world had never seen before …’²⁹ About forty years later Leo Tolstoy, whose War and Peace had a profound impact on popular Russian perceptions of the 1812 campaign, reiterated Glinka’s assertions when he famously stated that,

In reality, however, it was not, and could not be, possible to explain the burning of Moscow by making any individual, or any group of people, responsible for it. Moscow was burned because it found itself in a position in which any town built of wood was bound to burn, quite apart from whether it had, or had not, a hundred and thirty inferior fire engines. Deserted Moscow had to burn as inevitably as a heap of shavings has to burn on which sparks continually fall for several days. A town built of wood, where scarcely a day passes without conflagrations when the house owners are in residence and a police force is present, cannot help burning when its inhabitants have left it and it is occupied by soldiers who smoke pipes, make campfires of the Senate chairs in the Senate Square, and cook themselves meals twice a day. In peacetime it is only necessary to billet troops in the villages of any district and the number of fires in that district immediately increases.³⁰

The nineteenth-century Russian imperial historians, however, followed a different path and from early on they pointed the finger towards the governor of Moscow. Dmitri Buturlin believed that, with the enemy army at the gates of Moscow, ‘Rostopchin could not neglect the only means left at his disposal to remain useful to his Fatherland. No longer able to save the city entrusted to him, he set out to destroy it completely and to make the loss of Moscow beneficial to Russia’s cause.’ For Buturlin, Rostopchin had long prepared for this ‘deed worthy of a true Roman’, preparing incendiary materials and recruiting incendiaries who then scattered throughout the city under the direction of undercover police officers. But Buturlin offers no tangible evidence in support of such claims and admits that some Russians may have soberly turned to arson as a patriotic gesture.³¹ More than a quarter of a century after Moscow’s destruction, the Russian court historian Alexander Mikhailovskii-Danilevskii still noted that ‘nowadays opinions remain divided on the Moscow fire’. His own efforts to explain what had happened produced only a contradictory account of the events: he initially rejected claims of deliberate Russian destruction of the city, focusing instead on the patriotic fervour of the Muscovites who had burned their estates, and on the plundering by Moscow’s criminals and poor as well as by drunken Allied troops. Along the way he also inadvertently included sufficient information to implicate both Rostopchin and Kutuzov of contributing to the initial outbreaks of fire on 14 September. Nevertheless, in his final analysis, he blamed Napoleon and his forces for the burning of Moscow.³² In the mid-nineteenth century Modest Bogdanovich, one of the brightest of the Russian imperial historians, published his classic three-volume history of the Patriotic War of 1812 in which he devoted one chapter to the fire of Moscow and argued that the city was destroyed not by Napoleon or the Grande Armée (although, he argued, the latter did contribute to the fires) but through the activities of Rostopchin and zealous Muscovites.³³ Similar conclusions can be found in the works of many other late nineteenth-century Russian imperial historians,³⁴ although some in Russian society remained doubtful of such claims.

Following the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917, Soviet historians carried on a heated debate about the Moscow conflagration throughout the seven decades of the Soviet regime’s existence; a recent study estimated that over 200 articles and books had been devoted to this issue between 1920 and the 1990s.³⁵ Interestingly, the first generation of Soviet historians, writing between the 1920s and the 1940s, believed that Moscow was burned by the Russians. Framing his discussion within a Communist ideological framework, Mikhail Pokrovskii spoke openly of Moscow being abandoned by the aristocracy and of ‘[Russian] police burning the city on the orders of Rostopchin’. These aristocratic elites could not care less about the impact the fires would have on the common people, the historian argued.³⁶ A more nuanced explanation was offered by the renowned Soviet historian Eugène Tarle, who spoke of several factors in the destruction of Moscow, including the carelessness of enemy soldiers. But above all, Tarle argued, Moscow was destroyed through the actions of the governor and the patriotic zeal of its residents, who preferred to have the city they loved so much destroyed rather than surrendered to the enemy.³⁷

This apparent consensus on the Russian responsibility for the fire broke down after the Second World War, when the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin sought to exploit national history to justify his own actions during the war. Stalin helped create the cult of Field Marshal Kutuzov, who was credited with developing an overarching Russian strategic plan of luring Napoleon deep into Russia and then destroying him with a masterful counterattack – ostensibly just like Stalin himself did with the invading Nazi armies in 1941–1945! After the war the Soviet historian I. Polosin sought to prove that the destruction of Moscow was just one element in Kutuzov’s ingenious plan to destroy the invading enemy forces. Undaunted by the lack of concrete evidence for this plan, Polosin used circumstantial evidence to argue that the city was burned on the orders not of Rostopchin but of Commander-in-Chief Kutuzov himself. Polosin believed that Kutuzov had a plan for burning Moscow, which entailed the destruction of depots of supplies and ammunition as well as igniting fires to deceive the enemy on the direction of the Russian retreat.³⁸

But this interpretation proved to be short-lived and by the early 1950s the Moscow fire was no longer thought to have been a deliberate Russian act. With the Cold War under way, it was increasingly discussed within the larger narrative of the Soviet struggle against the bourgeois and capitalist West. Any suggestions of Russian involvement in the fire were denounced as unpatriotic and were subjected to severe criticism. Scholars quickly adhered to this new official dictum. The 1950s saw the appearance of several publications by Liubomir Beskrovnyi, Nikolay Garnich and Pavel Zhilin, who claimed that the Allied forces conscientiously and deliberately destroyed Moscow. This trio of scholars (and their supporters) closely controlled Soviet publications on the subject, reviewing manuscripts for publications and ensuring they conformed to the official doctrine.³⁹ The sesquicentennial celebrations in the 1960s produced dozens of publications on the Patriotic War of 1812 but they were largely dominated by the Beskrovnyi–Garnich–Zhilin school of thought, while the few more balanced accounts, the most promising being the works of V. Kholodkovskii and A. Tartakovskii,⁴⁰ were tossed aside. Kholodkovskii’s sensible questions on what benefit the Grande Armée could have garnered from burning the city where it hoped to spend the winter were simply ignored. The Beskrovnyi–Garnich–Zhilin ‘doctrine’ remained dominant throughout the 1970s and 1980s, influencing generations of Soviet youngsters. As late as 1987 the Soviet historian O. Orlik assured her readers that the ‘fires were produced by pillaging, marauding and other excesses committed by the French troops’.⁴¹ Not to be outdone, N. Ryazanov went even further, writing of special French incendiary detachments (!) ‘galloping through Moscow with burning torches in hand. If a certain building failed to ignite, it was loaded with gunpowder and burnt, or ignited with incendiary shells fired from cannon.’⁴²

The start of the glasnost and perestroika era allowed some Soviet scholars to defy established dogma. One of the first among them was Professor Nikolay Troitskii of Saratov State University, whose new history of the Patriotic War of 1812⁴³ offered a profound reassessment of the war in 1988. He rightly argued that the Beskrovnyi–Garnich–Zhilin school of thought ‘simplified the debate on the Moscow fire and, most importantly, distorted its essence’. The Russian government and the church had indeed accused the French of burning the city but, Troitskii argued, one could hardly expect anything else from the authorities. He then rightly pointed to ‘those great Russian historians and writers like A.S. Pushkin and N.M. Karamzin, M.Yu. Lermontov and A.I. Herzen, V.G. Belinskii and N.G. Chernyshevskii, M.I. Bogdanovich and A.I. Popov … as well as the heroes of 1812, notably A.P. Yermolov, D.V. Davydov, P.Kh. Grabbe and F.N. Glinka, not to mention M.I. Kutuzov himself, who, contrary to the official version, insisted with complete certainty that Russians themselves had burnt Moscow’.⁴⁴

Troitskii’s book played an important role in prompting both academic and public discussion of the Moscow fire, which continues to the present day. While some Russian popular history books repeat claims of the Allied involvement in the destruction of Moscow,⁴⁵ Russian scholars – notably V. Zemtsov and A. Popov – have joined their Western counterparts in holding the Russians themselves responsible for the burning of the city. Thus, V. Zemtsov’s fascinating Pozhar Moskvy offers the most in-depth and up-to-date account of the Moscow fire based on a wide range of Russian, French, German and Polish sources. The book explores the topic thematically, looking at the fire first from the Russian perspective then ‘through the eyes of the French’, before concluding with three absorbing vignettes on personal experiences of the war. However, the author shies away from attributing responsibility, stating that the book does not aim to ‘provide an unequivocal answer to what is often considered as the sole important question of who precisely burned Moscow: Russians or Napoleon?’ Instead, he seeks to offer a ‘much more multifaceted approach’ on ‘major issues of life and death’.⁴⁶ On the other hand, A. Popov believes that ‘the question of who ignited the Moscow fire has been long resolved’ and only the ‘patriotic arrogance’ of Russian historians ‘does not allow them to accept this plain conclusion but rather compels them to reiterate propagandistic false claims that are far removed from historical truth’. In his insightful study on the Patriotic War, Popov does not loiter long on this issue but he effectively absolves the Grande Armée of the outbreak of the fires and states that ‘the fire of Moscow was disadvantageous to Napoleon’s army from economic, political and military points of view, and neither could it be ascribed [to the Allies] on the grounds of plunder-marauding’. Instead, he directly accuses Governor Rostopchin of burning the Russian capital.⁴⁷ However, it is difficult to agree with Popov’s complete absolution of the Grande Armée’s role in the destruction of Moscow. One cannot but wonder what part was played by the hundreds of Allied soldiers who entered the city in defiance of imperial orders and began looting the suburbs.

The purpose of this book, therefore, is to build upon the existing literature and provide an in-depth account of one of the most dramatic events of the Napoleonic Wars. It will attempt to address several important questions in this tragic story. Was the fire part of a deliberate plan conceived by Governor Rostopchin? Or was it the result of spur-of-the-moment decisions made by the governor and city officials? What was the role of common Muscovites in the event? And finally, what about the responsibility of the Grande Armée itself? In writing this book, I tried to consult the widest possible array of sources to produce a balanced account. In the process I have examined more than two hundred Russian, French, German, Polish and Dutch memoirs, diaries and private correspondences. I was fortunate to have an opportunity to peruse the archival holdings of the Russian State Military Historical Archive (RGVIA), the Service historique de la Défense at Château de Vincennes in Paris and the Central Historical Archive of Moscow (TSIAM), all of which offer unparalleled insights into the events of 1812.

This book would not have been possible without the support of many individuals. I am grateful to Rupert Harding, my editor at Pen & Sword, for his willingness to continue our collaboration after two prior volumes on the 1812 campaign. For three years he patiently waited for me to complete this book, gently reminding me of the numerous deadlines I missed and urging me forwards. In the process of researching this book, I was able to utilize materials from dozens of university libraries and am extremely grateful to Susie Davison of the Noel Library at Louisiana State University in Shreveport (LSUS) for her steadfast support. Over the last six years, as I toiled on what has now turned into the 1812 trilogy, she procured hundreds of titles from all across the United States, always attentively listening to my inquiries and quickly locating requested items. Also worthy of mention here are the staffs of the various research libraries in the United States and Europe for their generous help with materials. I would like to thank the College of Liberal Arts at LSUS for granting me the Hubert Humphreys Endowed Professorship that facilitated this research.

Beyond institutional support, I was fortunate to enjoy the friendship and support of many people. As always, I have greatly benefited from the help I received from the wonderful people at the Napoleon Series (www.napoleon-series.org) and the Russian Military Historical Forum (http://www.reenactor.ru/). Sarah Cook’s careful copyediting has greatly enhanced the text, while Jonathan North and Michael Hopper looked at parts of this manuscript and shared their precious comments with me. Bart Funnekotter, who is researching the Dutch participants of the Russian campaign, turned my attention to a number of Dutch memoirs and kindly supplied translations of select passages. I was fortunate to get in contact with Tone Borren, whose ancestor Aart Kool served as a young Dutch engineer in Davout’s 1st Corps and survived the campaign to write insightful memoirs. Mr Borren kindly shared his English translation of Kool’s fascinating memoir. I am very grateful to my Muscovite friends Pavel and Natalya Khoretonenko, who assisted me in acquiring recent publications in Russia, while Mikhail Khoretonenko and Dmitri Ostanin helped me peruse vast maps of Moscow laid out on the floor of my living room. I am also thankful to my colleagues Gary D. Joiner, Helen Wise and Cheryl White at LSUS, Michael V. Leggiere at the University of North Texas, and John H. Gill at the National Defence University, who have cheered me on throughout these years and offered precious advice. Vladimir Zemtsov, a great scholar whose works have taught me a lot, kindly shared with me his research into the Moscow fire, while Dmitri Gorchkoff allowed me to peek into materials from his recent two-volume compilation of archival documents on Moscow during the Patriotic War of 1812. In no case, however, do any of these individuals have any share in any of the faults that may be found in these pages.

I am grateful to my family for tolerating heaps of books and papers scattered around our house for the past few years. My wife Anna endured many lonely evenings as I explored the travails of soldiers and civilians, while my sons Luka and Sergi oftentimes played underneath the desk waiting for their father to finish writing another page. This book would not have been possible without their love, patience and support.

Alexander Mikaberidze

Shreveport, Louisiana

April 2013

Chapter 1

The Road to Moscow

On a clear June day, standing on a hill overlooking the Niemen river, Emperor Napoleon watched as his Grande Armée crossed the river and invaded Russia. ‘Soldiers, the Second Polish War has commenced,’ he exhorted his troops in a bulletin. ‘Russia is swept away by her fate; her destinies must be accomplished. She places us between dishonour and war: the choice cannot be in doubt. Let us, then, march forward! Let us cross the Niemen!’¹ Hours after the French invasion commenced, the Russian Emperor Alexander responded with his own proclamation:

We had long observed on the part of the emperor of the French the most hostile proceedings towards Russia, but we had always hoped to avert hostilities by conciliatory and pacific measures … We flattered ourselves that reconciliation might be effected … alas, all these conciliatory and pacific measures could not preserve the tranquillity which we so desired [and] we are left with no other choice but to turn to arms and appeal to the Almighty, the Witness and the Defender of the truth. The ancient blood of the valiant Slavs flows in their veins. Warriors! You defend your Faith, your Country, and your Liberty! I shall be with you and the Lord will be against the aggressor!²

The war between Russia and France was long in the making. In the summer of 1807, after suffering a major defeat at the hands of Napoleon, Russia was compelled to sign the Peace Treaty of Tilsit, which bound her in alliance with France. However, Emperor Alexander I of Russia did not forget the painful lessons of the preceding two years when his armies were repeatedly defeated by Napoleon. He was well aware of the widespread displeasure prevailing in Russia over the Franco-Russian peace. Although Napoleon and Alexander seemed to have reconciled again in 1808, the fissures became evident the following year, when Russia was reluctant actively to support France against Austria. The Continental Blockade, which Napoleon initiated in response to the British blockade of 1806, had a profound effect on Russia, leading to a sharp decrease in Russian foreign trade. Napoleon’s protective tariff system sought to safeguard French manufacturers and industry, limiting Russian imports while boosting French exports. With its trade with Britain restricted, Russia looked to France for trade but the French could provide neither the volume nor the quality of products required in Russia; neither could they replace British spending power when it came to buying raw materials. The financial strains created by the Continental System soon turned into a profound economic problem, distressing merchants and nobles and affecting the imperial treasury, which struggled to deal with an increasing deficit. Such economic tribulations forced the Russian government gradually to relax the enforcement of the blockade, initially allowing neutral shipping into Russian ports. By 1810 American ships – many of them English ships with false papers – freely docked in Russian harbours. As English goods found their way from the Russian ports into Eastern and Central Europe, Napoleon realized that the new Russian policy constituted a heavy blow to his Continental Blockade, and St Petersburg’s cooperation in this system could only be enforced by war. ‘The sole cause [for the war]’, opined a contemporary English political observer in August 1812, ‘is a refusal on the part of the Czar to shut English commerce out of his dominions.’³

But the Continental System was not the sole bone of contention, as France and Russia also disagreed on several other political issues. Russia, which historically maintained close ties with the Germanic states, was concerned by Napoleon’s aggressive foreign policy in Germany, especially after the annexation of Holland and the Duchy of Oldenburg, whose ruler was Emperor Alexander’s brother-in-law. Even more important to Russia was the fate of Poland. Russia was the prime beneficiary of the eighteenth-century partitions of Poland, extending its territory deep into north-east Europe. Napoleon’s establishment of the Duchy of Warsaw in 1808 naturally threatened Russian geopolitical interests in the region. Napoleon’s interest in consolidating his control over the Poles was further revealed when, after the defeat of Austria in 1809, he expanded the Polish principality. Polish demands for eventual restoration of their former kingdom only increased Russia’s concerns that she would be obliged to cede territory. Despite Napoleon’s assurances that he had no intention of restoring Poland – ‘I have no desire to become the Don Quixote of Poland,’ Napoleon declared⁴ – Alexander remained profoundly concerned by the existence of the Polish state and tried to convince Napoleon to give up on the Poles. Both emperors spent three years (1809–1811) wrangling over this issue and by 1812 the discussions had reached deadlock, with neither side willing to concede. Another aspect of Franco-Russian enmity lay in the Balkans, where Russia supported the local Slavic population against the Ottomans. In the eighteenth century alone Russia and the Ottoman Empire were engaged in four wars, and a fifth had been under way since 1806. At Tilsit Napoleon had agreed to give Russia a free hand in the Balkans, but Alexander gradually became convinced that France was far from willing to allow Russian expansion into the Balkans.

Thus, by late 1811 both sides were preparing for ‘the Second Polish Campaign’, as Napoleon described it, and the emperor’s Grande Armée of some 600,000 troops (including reserves) began assembling along Russia’s western frontier. Its forces were largely furnished by Napoleon’s European allies, with contingents from Austria, Prussia, Saxony, Poland and Italy. By the spring of 1812 Napoleon’s army was deployed in three groups – under Eugène de Beauharnais, Napoleon himself and Jérôme Bonaparte, King of Westphalia – along the Vistula river, stretching from Warsaw to Königsberg. Meanwhile, Marshal Jacques-Etienne Macdonald’s X Corps (with a Prussian contingent) guarded the northern flank of the Grande Armée, close to the Baltic coastline, while Austrian troops under Karl Philip Schwarzenberg covered the southern flank.

Russia fielded about 650,000 men in 1812, but they were dispersed throughout Moldavia, the Crimea, the Caucasus, Finland and other regions, leaving some 250,000 men (organized in three major armies and a few separate corps) in the western provinces to fend off Napoleon’s invasion. The 1st Western Army of Mikhail Barclay de Tolly deployed in the vicinity of Vilna, while the 2nd Western Army under Peter Bagration assembled in the area of Volkovysk and Belostock (Białystok) in the south. Alexander Tormasov commanded the 3rd Reserve Army of Observation around Lutsk, covering the route to the Ukraine. In addition to the three main armies, Lieutenant General Baron Faddei Steinheill’s Finland Corps in the north and Admiral Pavel (Paul) Chichagov’s Army of the Danube in the south covered the extreme flanks of the Russian army. These forces were further supported by the three reserves corps of Peter Essen, Egor Muller-Zakomelsky and Fedor Ertel.

After a year of intensive preparations, Napoleon crossed the Niemen on 23–24 June, advancing to engage the armies of Barclay de Tolly and Bagration. The Russians retreated to Smolensk, the Grande Armée following them in the hope of forcing a decisive battle. Tormasov was more successful in the south, where he pinned down Schwarzenberg in the Volhynia region. At the same time Chichagov’s Army of the Danube received orders to move from Moldavia to support Tormasov. In the north Marshal Nicolas Charles Oudinot attacked General Peter Wittgenstein’s 1st Corps (tasked with protecting the route to St Petersburg) and seized Polotsk on 26 July. But in subsequent combats the Russians prevailed, forcing Napoleon to divert Gouvion St Cyr’s corps to support Oudinot. In the Baltic provinces MacDonald became bogged down near Riga. Thus, by August 1812 Napoleon’s initial plan to destroy the Russian armies in a decisive border battle had been frustrated. Instead, his army suffered considerable losses from strategic consumption and desertion, as well as the usual combat casualties. The hot weather was, according to Baron Lejeune, ‘a veritable disaster to our troops’. There was a lack of fresh water and no forage for the horses. To cap it all, the supply system struggled to operate effectively, with the wagons laden with provisions bottlenecked near bridges or battling road conditions. These carts could not hope to keep pace with the troops that were constantly pushed forward by forced marches for a battle that forever remained on the horizon.

As the armies of Barclay de Tolly and Bagration united at Smolensk, the Russians faced a crisis of command. The constant retreat had been a subject of great consternation in the Russian army and society. In towns and at court there were angry murmurs about the Russian leadership and questions about the military strategy. What was the point of this constant retreating, and why were so many prosperous towns and villages abandoned to the enemy? The word ‘treason’ went from mouth to mouth and some even pointed to specific individuals. Such grievances were further exacerbated by a discord between the Russian aristocratic officers and the ‘foreigners’ who had gained influence at court and in army headquarters. There were two main factions that differed in their views regarding strategy. Barclay de Tolly, the Minister of War and the nominal commander-in-chief, was surrounded by a group of officers (most of them of German extraction) who supported his defensive strategy. Opposing them was the much larger ‘Russian faction’, led by Prince Peter Bagration (ironically a Georgian), which urged an immediate counter-offensive. Anti-Barclay sentiments were so strong among the senior officers that they openly loathed the commander-in-chief and intrigued for the appointment of Bagration to supreme command; some even suggested replacing Barclay de Tolly by force.

Bending to such pressure, Barclay de Tolly agreed to an offensive at Smolensk. But due to differences among the commanders – made worse by Barclay’s vacillation – precious time was lost in futile manoeuvring, which allowed Napoleon to recognize Russian intentions and seize the initiative. He crossed the Dnieper river and rapidly advanced on Smolensk. A resolute rearguard action at Krasnyi on 14 August enabled the Russians to prepare Smolensk for defence, while Bagration and Barclay de Tolly rushed their commands back to the city. On 15–16 August the Russians repulsed the Allied assaults on Smolensk but nonetheless were forced to abandon the city. As the Russians withdrew towards Moscow, Napoleon attempted to cut their line of retreat, but Barclay’s army succeeded in clearing its way to Dorogobuzh following the indecisive Battle of Valutina Gora on 19 August.

The surrender of Smolensk further stoked up the general discontent in the army and society at large. To keep up the troops’ morale, they had been told over and over again that once the Russian armies linked up at Smolensk, this strategic retreat would lead to a decisive battle. But now Smolensk was left in enemy hands and vast territories were abandoned. The army and society clamoured for change and the general outcry was ‘Out with Barclay! Down with foreign generals! A single command in the hands of a true Russian!’ Emperor Alexander had to act. In late August he appointed General Mikhail Kutuzov as the commander-in-chief of the Russian armies. After joining the army on 29 August, Kutuzov withdrew the troops still further to the east, deploying them for battle near the village of Borodino. After receiving reinforcements, Kutuzov commanded some 155,000 troops, of whom 115,000 were regulars, supported by 636 guns. Arriving at Borodino on 5 September, Napoleon fielded some 135,000 men with 587 guns. The decisive battle took place on 7 September, with Napoleon opting for frontal attacks on fortified Russian positions instead of flanking manoeuvres that might have prompted another Russian withdrawal. In a savage and bloody fight both sides displayed great bravery and steadfastness, but suffered tremendous losses; the Grande Armée lost some 35,000 men, including forty-nine generals, while Russian losses exceeded 45,000 men, including twenty-nine generals.

Neither side was willing to concede defeat in this bloody battle. The French considered themselves victorious since the Russians eventually retreated from the battlefield. After the battle Napoleon wrote to his wife Marie Louise: ‘My dear, I write