Russia Against Napoleon

11 For de Maistre’s views, see D. V. Solov’eva (ed.), Graf Zhozef de Mestr: Peterburgskie pis’ma, SPB, 1995, no. 72, de Maistre to de Rossi, 20 Jan./1 Feb. 1808, pp. 98–101. For Caulaincourt, see RD, 1, no. 18, Caulaincourt to Napoleon, 13 Jan. 1808, pp. 48–51. Count A. de Nesselrode (ed.), Lettres et papiers du Chancelier Comte de Nesselrode 1760–1850, Paris, n.d., vol. 3, Nesselrode to Speransky, 2/14 April 1810, pp. 251–2. See also Joanna Woods, The Commissioner’s Daughter: The Story of Elizabeth Proby and Admiral Chichagov, Witney, 2000.

12 RA, 2, 1876, Prozorovsky to Golitsyn, 23 July/4 Aug. 1807, pp. 157–9. On the British angle, see Brendan Simms, Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714–1783, London, 2007.

13 On Ireland, see S. J. Connolly, Religion, Law and Power: The Making of Protestant Ireland 1660–1760, Oxford, 1992, pp. 249–50.

14 On the global context, see Christopher Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World 1780– 1914, Oxford, 2004, part 1, chs. 1–3, pp. 27–120; John Darwin, After Tamerlane: The Global History of Empire, London, 2007, ch. 4, ‘The Eurasian Revolution’, pp. 158–217.

15 RD, 5, no. 563, Caulaincourt to Champagny, 14 Dec. 1810, pp. 235–43.

16 Adams, Adams, p. 209.

17 Ibid., pp. 87, 432.

18 The debate on the origins of the Industrial Revolution seldom bothers even to mention Russia as a potential candidate. Apart from the reasons set out in the text, it is generally assumed that industrial take-off required a densely concentrated population. See e.g. the interesting discussion in Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy, Princeton, 2000.

19 RD, 4, no. 334, Caulaincourt to Champagny, 3 Oct. 1809, pp. 110–16; no. 423, 11 March 1810, pp. 325–8.

20 P. Bailleu (ed.), Briefwechsel König Friedrich Wilhelm III’s und der Königin Luise mit Kaiser Alexander I, Leipzig, 1900, no. 157, Alexander to Friedrich Wilhelm, 2 Nov. 1807, pp. 167–8. VPR, 4, no. 146, Kurakin to Rumiantsev, 16/28 Aug. 1808, pp. 320–21, is merely one of many Russian appreciations on the damage done to any hopes of peace by Napoleon’s debacle in Spain. Another is no. 198, Rumiantsev to Alexander, 16/28 Dec. 1808, p. 441.

21 N. Shil’der: ‘Nakanune Erfurtskago svidaniia 1808 goda’, RS, 98/2, 1899, pp. 3–24, Marie to Alexander, 25 Aug. 1808 (OS), pp. 4–17. The Erfurt convention is in VPR, 4, no. 161, pp. 359–61.

22 RS, 98/2, 1899, Alexander to Marie, n.d. but certainly late Aug. 1808, pp. 17–24.

23 Correspondance de l’Empereur Alexandre, no. 19, Alexander to Catherine, 26 Sept. 1808, p. 20.

24 This paragraph is based on reading all the Russian diplomatic correspondence in these six months and it is impossible to cite all the relevant dispatches. The key ones are: VPR, 4, no. 131, Kurakin to Alexander, 2/14 July 1808, pp. 291–8; no. 143, Alexander to Kurakin, 14/26 Aug. 1808, pp. 316–17; no. 144, Rumiantsev to Kurakin, 14/26 Aug. 1808, pp. 317–19; no. 150, Alexander to Kurakin, 27 Aug./8 Sept. 1808, pp. 331–2; no. 174, Rumiantsev to Alexander, 26 Oct./7 Nov. 1808, pp. 387–9; no. 186, Anstedt to Saltykov, 22 Nov./4 Dec. 1808, pp. 410–12; no. 217, Rumiantsev to Alexander, 30 Jan./11 Feb. 1809, pp. 485–7; no. 220, Alexander to Rumiantsev, 2/14 Feb. 1809; no. 224, Alexander to Rumiantsev, 10/22 Feb. 1809, pp. 502–4; no. 246, Rumiantsev to Anstedt, 11/23 March 1809, pp. 543–5.

25 SIRIO, 89, 1893, no. 94, Rumiantsev to Tolstoy, March 1808, pp. 496–7; no. 112, Tolstoy to Rumiantsev, 26 April/8 May 1808, pp. 525–7.

26 Correspondance de l’Empereur Alexandre, Marie to Catherine, 23 Dec. 1809 (OS), pp. 251–7; Catherine to Marie, 26 Dec. 1809 (OS), pp. 259–60.

27 On the non-ratification of the convention, see RD, 4, no. 410, Caulaincourt to Champagny, 26 Feb. 1810, pp. 296–9; Barclay de Tolly’s memorandum is reproduced in MVUA 1812, 1/2, pp. 1–6.

28 VPR, 4, no. 221, Rumiantsev to Kurakin, 2/14 Feb. 1809, pp. 496–7.