However, the French attack was far from being as successful as Murat, Lejeune or Griois would have us to believe. In reality, the Russians managed to hold onto their position, despite Caulaincourt’s initial charge. The French cavalry was exposed to the ire of the Russian regiments on both sides of the redoubt. Although some cuirassiers broke into the redoubt, they were soon repelled and Caulaincourt himself was mortally wounded, either by a Russian bullet or canister ball. Some time later, an officer of the Vistula Legion saw ‘Caulaincourt, mortally wounded, being carried away in a white cuirassier cloak, stained deep red by his blood …’ News of Caulaincourt’s death quickly travelled to Napoleon’s headquarters, where Lieutenant Wolbert, one of Caulaincourt’s adjutants, arrived sobbing to relay the grisly news. A moment later Coignet arrived, declaring: ‘the brave Caulaincourt fell dead beside me’. Ségur, standing nearby, observed as Armand de Caulaincourt, brother of the unfortunate General
listened, and was at first petrified; but he soon summoned courage against this misfortune, and, but for the tears which silently coursed down his cheeks, you might have thought that he felt nothing. The Emperor, uttering an exclamation of sorrow, said to him, ‘You have heard the news, do you wish to retire?’ But as at that moment we were advancing against the enemy, the Grand Equerry made no reply; he did not retire; he only half uncovered himself to thank the Emperor, and to refuse.
‘He has died as a brave man should,’ Napoleon told Caulaincourt, ‘France loses one of her best officers.’470
As Caulaincourt’s men were fighting around the redoubt, Latour-Maubourg’s IV Cavalry Corps came charging around the southern side of the redoubt.
Von Leissnig recalled as:
an order was given to attack redoubt with several regiments of French, Westphalian and Saxon cuirassiers (La Garde du Corps Royal et le Regiment von Zastrow) whose men were well defended by their armour against the grapeshot. At the same time, several French regiments, two Bavarian units of light cavalry as well as the Saxons light horsemen were to be held ready for attack and diverting the attention of the enemy […] But the Russians, who had guessed this manoeuvre, opened on us a well-nourished fire of grapeshot at a distance of eleven hundred steps. Our batteries responded with strength: a dense, thick smoke then covered all space between the Russians and us: one could not see in this dimness the flashes of the blows of gun. It could be said that the hell opened its doors and plunged us in the darkness of chaos: the sabres themselves emitted a dull light […] This darkness, unbearable by itself, was still reinforced by clouds of dust akin to sandstorms in the deserts of Arabia […] Suddenly the enemy batteries fell silent, smoke and dust dispersed and the light lit the plain. I then saw several regiments of cavalry (of which the two were Saxon) throwing themselves against the batteries of the redoubt and forcing the Russians to abandon the ground.471
Rozniecki’s 4th Polish Light Cavalry Division, in two ranks, formed the right flank of this assault, while the Saxon and Westphalian cuirassiers were on the left; Latour-Maubourg placed his horse artillery batteries in the centre. The Saxon Gardes du Corps, and the nearest squadrons of the Zastrow Cuirassier Regiment, were first to reach the redoubt, which Caulaincourt’s cuirassiers failed to secure. Some of the Saxons jumped over the parapets while others fought through one of the entrances into the redoubt. Sources disagree on how many Russian troops the Saxons found inside the fortification. Considering the size of the redoubt, and losses sustained in the earlier fighting, it can be assumed that there were few infantry inside it and the garrison largely consisted of artillery crews.
Meerheim, who took part in the attack, shared his experiences:
The combat was frightful! Men and horses hit by lethal lead, fell down the slope and thrashed around among the dead and dying foe, each trying to kill the enemy with their weapons, their bare hands or even their teeth. To add to this horror, the succeeding ranks of assaulting cavalry tramped over the writhing mass as they drove on to their next targets, the infantry squares, who greeted them with well-aimed volleys …
The Russians fiercely defended their guns and, as Meerheim described, ‘inside the redoubt, horsemen and soldiers, gripped by a frenzy of slaughter, were butchering each other without any semblance of order’. The Russians managed to remove several of their guns (most sources acknowledge six) but, as Roth von Schreckenstein claimed, two more were abandoned at the northern entrance and a third in the ditch behind the redoubt.472
At the same time, Prince Eugène attacked as well, with the 35th Line on the extreme left, the 21st Line (supported by the 12th and 7th Light) on the right and the 17th and 9th Line in the centre.473 Sergeant Bertrand of the 7th Light saw as
a round shot took my Captain’s head off, killing or mortally wounding four men in the first rank. The Lieutenant took the Captain’s place, but scarcely was he at his post than he was himself hit by a piece of grape, which shattered his thigh. At the same time, the Sous-Lieutenant’s leg was shattered by another splinter. With the officers hors de combat and the Sergeant Major absent, I, as senior sergeant, took command of the company. We were at the foot of the redoubt, two of the regiment’s battalions seemed to be retiring by echelons, and the two others making an oblique movement. The Colonel ordered me not to budge. The reasons for his order were beyond me, but I was proud to be commanding an élite company. My musket on my shoulder, facing the redoubt and under grapeshot, I was addressing my comrades when suddenly a platoon of Russian dragoons emerged from it shouting hurrah …
However Bertrand’s men quickly organized a defence and ‘opened a rolling fire, which cost the horsemen, already almost on our bayonets, dear’. Labaume informs us that ‘in the midst of this scene of carnage I discovered the body of a Russian gunner decorated with three crosses. In one hand he held a broken sword, and with the other he firmly grasped the carriage of the gun at which he had so valiantly fought’. As the redoubt was captured, General Likhachev continued to fight until, as Cesare de Laugier described, Chef de Bataillon Del Fante, ‘recognized a Russian general […] threw himself at him, disarmed him and snatched him from the fury of the men…’474
The Russian sources indicate that some troops of the 35th Line, which crossed the Kolocha at its confluence with the Stonets stream, were engaged by the 1st jägers. According to Petrov, after the initial attack on Borodino in the morning, a company of jägers under Captain Zubko was left along the river and skirmished with the French until late afternoon, when it
moved to the right side of Stonets stream to prevent enemy attempts to cross to our side at the stream’s confluence with the Kolocha and to threaten the rear of [Rayevsky’s Redoubt]. Our regiment repelled four such attempts and inflicted considerable losses on the enemy each time.
Petrov also noted that his regiment was later supported by the Libau Infantry Regiment to ‘fend off the decisive attacks of the enemy, who was assaulting [the redoubt]’. Gulevich’s 23rd Battery Company seems to have played an active role in this area. Deployed on the left bank of the Stonets stream, it engaged the attacking French columns in their flank but suffered greatly from the returning fire of the French batteries. Petrov tells us that Gulevich’s battery lost
[The] larger part of its men, halted its fire and wanted to withdraw to the right bank of the stream. Colonel Karpenko dispatched me with two officers and forty soldiers, who were specifically trained for such incidents at the division quarters in Slonim before the war. I replenished the battery’s crew with these men, which allowed it to continue firing …475
Karpenko’s memoirs provide a few more details on the fighting along the Stonets stream:
Around 4pm, the French columns rushed across the rivulet […] As they approached my positions at pistol range, I opened murderous volleys at them. They and us both held the ground with intrepid gallantry for the next quarter of hour before the enemy was deprived of his victory again. However, the casualties were great and both sides, as if on command, seized the fire and retreated from each other …476
The French cavalry charged like a whirlwind against the battery, making what seemed a splendid charge […] The Russian infantry was driven back but they organized in squares and put up resistance […] One could soon hear the rumbling noise and sound of weapons – this was the tempest of the Russian cavalry attacking the French horsemen; the success of the [French] attack was denied and they were forced to flee back, without seizing our artillery and with considerable losses.477
The Russian casualties also mounted. General Bakhmetyev I was wounded while his brother, Bakhmetyev III had his leg torn off by a cannon-ball. Among the wounded were also Generals Aleksopol and Osterman-Tolstoy. Yet, even in the midst of this cauldron, some men still thought of vying for recognition. Seeing Barclay de Tolly standing intrepidly under fire, Miloradovich exclaimed: ‘Barclay wants to top me!’ and, as participants recalled, he chose a spot closer to the French lines, where he demanded to be served lunch!478
Leo Tolstoy and Borodino
Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace is considered one of the masterpieces of world literature. This massive novel, published between 1865 and 1869, tracks the destinies of several characters – Andrei Bolkonsky, Pierre Bezukhov, Natasha Rostova – throughout the Napoleonic Wars, and contains a detailed description of the Battle of Borodino. Tolstoy’s account of the battle, and his conclusions and general views on history, had a profound effect on how the Battle of Borodino was – and still is –perceived by the general reader. A compelling work of fiction, it generates a powerful mythology that, in fact, overshadows historical reality and assumed the authority of a historical document.
For Tolstoy, Borodino was a titanic battle and the turning point in the war between France and Russia. In describing the overall pattern of events, the novelist argued against the role and free choice of individuals in history. Thus, the battle is shown as part of the ‘irresistible tide of history’, which enveloped both Kutuzov and Napoleon, who hardly manifested any will of their own. Tolstoy suggests that Kutuzov acted merely as a catalyst, allowing the forces of destiny to work through him, while he, through intuition and emotion, not sentiment or intellect, understood the Russian state of mind. The battle itself is described as a national struggle and a moral victory of the Russian people against the invaders. Napoleon not only had no control over the course of the battle but his ambition prevented him from understanding the actual insignificance of his role. The Emperor is shown as helpless under the tide of destiny as any soldier in the ranks of his army. His orders are inevitably delayed, or made irrelevant by unforeseen developments.
But War and Peace did not assume its present-day iconic status at once. At its publication, it caused a stir among contemporaries, since the novel challenged the prevailing views of the battle. Veterans of 1812 questioned its authenticity and the legitimacy of this genre, which seemed to supplant history with fiction. They were particularly incensed by Tolstoy’s depiction of various mundane and irreverent details of the battle, which, veterans felt, distorted the heroic atmosphere of the battle as they remembered (or wanted to remember) it.
Several veterans of Borodino were particularly vocal in their criticism. Prince Peter Vyazemsky saw War and Peace as a lampoon of 1812. Avraam Norov and Parmen Demenkov were insulted, among many other things, by Tolstoy’s suggestion that Kutuzov, this genuine Russian, would be reading a cheap French novel while assuming command of the Russian armies at Tsarevo-Zaimishe. Ironically, it was later discovered that Norov himself was not shy of savouring a French novel during the Russian retreat from Moscow, causing one Russian writer to note that: ‘what had happened to the artillery lieutenant in September of 1812 was forgotten by the venerable dignitary, since it did not fit the notion which he subsequently formed about 1812’.
This explains well why many veterans were so upset by Tolstoy’s work – it directly contradicted their cherished memories of this memorable event. Tolstoy’s attempt to debunk the place and role of historical individuals struck a particular chord with the veterans, who argued that this would make history meaningless. Norov complained that Tolstoy painted a ‘picture without actors [in which] everything occurs by chance, which is hardly in accordance with the high purpose given to man by God. Since there are no human agents, there is no history either.’
Despite such criticism, Tolstoy’s novel gradually became perceived by the public as an authoritative account, on a par with historical reports of the campaign. Objections from veterans were disregarded on the suspicion that they mythologized history.
Barclay de Tolly, informed of the fall of the redoubt, intended to recapture it with available sources. ‘The 24th Division fell back in great confusion but was immediately rallied and regrouped,’ he later wrote. These troops hardly moved out of the ravine behind the redoubt when they were attacked. ‘The enemy continued his attack, with part of his cavalry tying down our forces while the other part attacked the 24th Division.’479 The charge was beaten back but Barclay de Tolly realized that the redoubt was lost and ordered further withdrawal. The Allied cavalry regrouped amid clouds of dust and smoke and Latour-Maubourg then ordered an attack on the Russian squares on the plateau behind the redoubt.480 The Allied cavalry attacked the Pernovskii, Kexholmskii and the 33rd jäger Regiments and, as Kutuzov’s report described:
the enemy cavalry, consisting of cuirassiers and Lancers, attacked the IV Corps in many points but our courageous infantry, allowing the enemy to a close range, opened such devastating battalion volleys that the enemy was routed and fell back in disorder and with heavy casualties 481
At one moment, the Polish Lancers attacked a Russian battery, which was commanded by General Kostenetsky, chief of artillery of the VI Corps, himself. As the Poles began cutting down the gunners, Kostenetsky, a tall man of extraordinary physical strength and gallantry, seized a rammer and alone attacked several Lancers. Inspired by their General’s heroism, the Russian gunners rushed to his assistance and repelled the Poles.482
Barclay de Tolly’s report contains a few more details about the ‘attacks of enemy cavalry, cuirassiers and Uhlans’ against IV Corps. The infantry, showing ‘remarkable firmness’, allowed the cavalry to approach as close as ‘sixty paces’ before opening a fire that mowed down the enemy ranks. The Pernovskii Infantry and the 33rd Jägers were commended for their actions and Barclay de Tolly rewarded each company of these regiments with three medals of distinction.483 According to Saxon sources, the Russian infantry fell back following the initial cavalry attack and was deployed in squares in chequerboard formation on the plateau behind the redoubt. Thielemann’s men charged in-between them but found Russian cavalry deployed behind the infantry; the Russian soldiers allowed the enemy to approach as close as 20 paces before opening fire which devastated the Zastrow Cuirassiers.
The Russian cavalrymen initially hesitated because, seeing the Saxon uniforms, they mistakenly assumed they belonged to fellow Russians. But moments later their true identify was revealed and a cavalry mêlée followed. According to Barclay de Tolly, the Sumskii and Mariupolskii Hussars, supported by the Irkutskii and Sibirskii dragoons, counter-attacked and pursued the retreating French to ‘their very reserves’, but had to fall back after encountering ‘strong artillery and musket fire’. It was now the Russian turn to flee as the French cavalry, ‘receiving reinforcements from its reserves, pursued ours, and, breaking through the intervals between our infantry squares, got into the rear of the 7th and 11th Divisions’. Barclay de Tolly also reported that ‘our incredible infantry, without showing any slight disorder, received the enemy with a strong and effective fire […] Our cavalry, meantime, regrouped, and the enemy was driven back from this point…’484
Some Russian infantrymen sought shelter in a ra
vine further behind, where, as Löwenstern notes, ‘the enemy cannon-balls and canister did not reach them’. Barclay de Tolly sent his adjutant to rally these troops and lead them out of the ravine. However
there was nothing that could have animated these men. They suffered too much and lost their spirits, choosing to die in this trap rather than to leave it. I left them there and do not know what happened to them since the French soon appeared and surrounded them from every side. I only escaped because of my admirable steed.
The French carabiniers (from Defrance’s division) were also actively engaged in charges on the Russian squares but could not break through them. After one of the charges, Sergeant Major Ravat, with his right sleeve soaked with the Russian blood, which was also dripping from his sabre, approached Captain du Brail, who scolded him earlier for inappropriate talk. ‘Well Captain,’ Ravat yelled, ‘am I still a miserable Jean-Foutre?’485 The 1st Carabinier Regiment suffered considerable losses in these attacks and had to retire. As he was galloping back, the Carabiniers’ Captain Marceau suddenly heard someone yelling behind him and, turning around, saw his comrade lying with an eagle in hand under his dead horse. With the Russians charging, Marceau turned back to rescue him but could only retrieve the eagle. Not far from the redoubt, Karl Schell, a fourteen-year-old trumpeter of the 2nd Carabinier Regiment, came across his squadron commander, von Bruckheimer, who was lying in a pool of his own blood but refused to be taken to a dressing station, saying, ‘Let me be, I feel I must die today.’ The young trumpeter sat beside von Bruckheimer and, seeing his commander die, wept.486 One carabinier’s fate, however, became more famous than all the others, largely due to French artists producing masterful paintings of his death. Although only a sous-lieutenant in the 1st Company of the 1st Squadron of the 1st Carabiniers, Ferdinand de Lariboisière seemed destined for a great career, being the son of Napoleon’s Inspector General of Artillery and a former page to the Emperor. At Borodino, as his brigade was deploying for a charge on the redoubt, the 21-year-old Lariboisière saw his father nearby and left the ranks to bid him farewell. Moments later he was mortally wounded by a Russian cannon-ball and was carried by his comrades to his father’s tent. Napoleon sent his personal surgeon to attend him but Ferdinand died a few days later at Mozhaisk. His grief-stricken father survived the retreat only to die of exhaustion at Königsberg in December 1812. Young Lariboisiére was buried on the battlefield, while his father was laid to rest in Paris: but both their hearts were removed before entombment and buried together at the family crypt of their château.
The Battle of Borodino: Napoleon Against Kutuzov Page 29