Russia Against Napoleon

25 An interesting letter of 17 March from Count Latour to Radetsky states that the Austrian army had lost prestige because it was generally blamed for twice doing nothing and leaving the Army of Silesia to its fate: Fournier, Congress, no. 17, pp. 281–2. For Barclay’s compliment to Kankrin, see his letter of 10 March 1814 (OS), in RGVIA, Fond 103, Opis 210/4, Sv. 17, Delo 17.

26 For the Russian angle, see the excellent and detailed account by Bogdanovich, Istoriia…1814, vol. 1, pp. 456 ff. For the French view – on this occasion not too dissimilar – see Houssaye, Napoleon, pp. 296–311. Friederich, Feldzug, pp. 287–90, is fair and intelligent as always. There is a recent account in English by Digby Smith, Charge: Great Cavalry Charges of the Napoleonic Wars, London, 2003, pp. 207 ff., but as with most of the English-language literature on 1813–14 it very much underestimates the Russian impact, in this respect following its German-language sources. This chapter, for example, gives the impression that Württemberg’s cavalry played the leading role at Fére-Champenoise, which is far from true.

27 Langeron, Mémoires, pp. 446–8.

28 See n. 26 above for the main sources. See Ch. 5, pp. 162–4, for the battle of Krasnyi. Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky was present at Fére-Champenoise and gives a good description of the final stages of the battle: Opisanie 1814, pp. 294–313. P. Pototskii, Istoriia gvardeiskoi artillerii, SPB, 1896, pp. 300–310, has interesting details on the role of the Guards horse artillery.

29 For an excellent and succinct interpretation of Talleyrand’s views and role in 1814, see Philip Dwyer, Talleyrand, Harlow, 2002, pp. 124–40. For Napoleon’s movements and the Council of Regency, Houssaye, Napoleon, pp. 317–70.

30 Count A. de Nesselrode (ed.), Lettres et papiers du Chancelier Comte du Nesselrode 1760–1850, Paris, n.d., vol. 5, pp. 183–4, 28 March 1814.

31 Löwenstern, Mémoires, vol. 2, p. 376. I. Burskii, Istoriia 8-go gusarskago Lubenskago polka, Odessa, 1913, pp. 115–17. I. Radozhitskii, Pokhodnyia zapiski artillerista s 1812 po 1816 god, 3 vols., Moscow, 1835, vol. 3, pp. 109–10.

32 Mikhailovskii-Danilevskii, Opisanie 1814, p. 327.

33 There is a detailed narrative of the battle in Bogdanovich, Istoriia…1814, vol. 1, pp. 506–60, and Friederich, Feldzug, pp. 301–10.

34 Bogdanovich, Istoriia…1814, vol. 1, pp. 534–7. Eugen, Memoiren, vol. 3, pp. 278–90.

35 Langeron, Mémoires, pp. 465–73.

36 See e.g. his orders to Langeron: RGVIA, Fond 846, Opis 16, Delo 3399, fo. 160ii, 16 March 1814 (OS), and his plea to Wrede, in Mikhailovskii-Danilevskii, Opisanie 1814, p. 324. M. F. Orlov, ‘Kapitulatsiia Parizha 1814 g.’, VS, 37/6, 1864, pp. 287–309.

37 See e.g. Castlereagh’s comment to the Prince Regent that the Russian Guards were ‘the most splendid that can be imagined’: Castlereagh, vol. 9, 30 Jan. 1814, pp. 210–12.

38 Burghersh, Operations, pp. 250–52. Baron de Vitrolles, Mémoires et relations politiques, 3 vols., Paris, 1884, vol. 1, p. 316.

39 Orlov, ‘Kapitulatsiia’, p. 300. Vitrolles, Mémoires, vol. 1, pp. 311–12.

40 On Talleyrand, see n. 29 above. J. Hanoteau (ed.), Mémoires du Général de Caulaincourt, Duc de Vicenze, 3 vols., Paris, 1933, vol. 3, pp. 207–30. Houssaye, Napoleon, pp. 470–99. For Talleyrand’s own account of these days, see Mémoires du Prince de Talleyrand, Paris, 1891, pp. 156–67.

41 All the key documents of these days are reproduced between pp. 403 and 416 of SIRIO, 31, 1881: these include the various allied declarations, senatorial resolutions, Marmont’s statements and a short commentary by Nesselrode.

42 For Alexander’s letter to Louis XVIII of 17 April, see SIRIO, 31, 1881, pp. 411–12. Castlereagh, vol. 9, pp. 450–51, reproduces Charles Stewart’s letter to Bathurst of 7 April denouncing the offer of Elba but there is no mention of his brother’s letter to Bathurst of 13 April: this is published as no. 4, pp. 420–3, in Baron Fain, Manuscrit de Mil Huit Cent Quatorze, Paris, 1825. Since there is nothing that is implausible in the content of the letter and no reason to think that Fain invented it, the likeliest interpretation is that it was not included in the collection by Lord Londonderry because he did not think it reflected well on his brother. He does include many other letters to Bathurst. In Castlereagh’s defence, he was seeking to sustain a fait accompli created by others.

43 Schwarzenberg, Schwarzenberg, p. 337.