WILLIAM BLACKWOOD & SONS, 45 GEORGE STREET. To whom all Communications (post paid) must be addressed. PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, EDINBURGПI. BLACKWOOD'S EDINBURGH MAGAZINE. No. DXXXVII. JULY 1860. VOL. LXXXVIII. THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN OF 1812- Ir is long before we arrive at the secret causes of events, the hidden motives of the actors in them. The events themselves are patent to all; their form, their shape, their result, we all can from the first appreciate. Brilliant and accurate descriptions of them we can gather from cotemporary records, but these relate to the outward seeming alone. It is long years afterwards, when the generation who witnessed them have sunk into the tomb, and the men who acted in them have journeyed hence, that we first obtain a glimpse behind the curtain, and acquire a knowledge of the real objects pursued, and the true springs of action. Thus it is that on many points connected both with the diplomatic history and the military events of the first French Empire, we are only now beginning to have revealed to us the secret causes, and to see in their just character the men who carried them on. Upon the diplomacy of Napoleon I. much light has been shed by Thiers in his very valuable History of the Consulate and the Empire, and by the documents published in the Memoires of Joseph and Eugene. Many curious details have also been brought out by Marmont in his very interesting Memoires; and Koch, in his Life of Massena, has explained VOL. LXXXVIII.-NO. DXXXVII. much that is important regarding the military narrative of the campaigns in which that Marshal took a part. But there is no portion of this period both more interesting in itself, and upon which more new_matter has been revealed, than the Russian campaign of 1812. The brilliant eye-painting of Segur -the Times' correspondent of the campaign-left little to be desired regarding the external features of that most thrilling of military episodes. The Russian view was given with great clearness and great accuracy by Boutourlin, but he is essentially a supporter of one of the two great parties into which Russian public opinion was split-viz., that of the nobles, represented by Kutusoff; and that of the young Russians, by Milaradowitch and Bagrathion. He belonged to the former. Chambray has with great care and impartiality given the French account. He wrote with many advantages. Himself an actor in the events which he narrates, and furnished with all the information which the records of the French War-office could afford, he has produced a work which in some respects, and more especially with regard to the numbers of the French army at different periods, is the best which we possess. The keen Prussian A military writer, Clausewitz, has criticised with much judgment the principal events; and our own historian, Alison, has embodied the results of their labours in an account remarkable for the fire of its description, the keenness of its criticism, and the impartiality of its narrative. Within the last few years, however, two books have appeared which throw light upon many points hitherto involved in obscurity. The fourteenth volume of Thiers gives with great candour and minuteness the French side of the question. Upon the diplomatic relations of Napoleon at this period it is particularly valuable. From having access to all the papers in the hands of the French government relating to the subject, Thiers has been able to elucidate the Emperor's plans, and the difficulties of their execution, in a very satisfactory manner. We know no more interesting work to read; and with regard to the general history of the campaign, the numbers. who began it, the loss incurred, the results which flowed from it, there is none more worthy of credit. Towards the Russians, also, it is very fair. But there is one point where Thiers always requires to be studied with caution: his view of the movements of a battle is always just, but his statement of the numbers engaged on both sides, and the loss incurred, is frequently inaccurate. This arises from a foolish vanity, desirous of unduly increasing the great military merits of the French nation. In almost every instance he gives the French numbers before a battle as less than they really were, and greatly diminishes their true loss; while with regard to their opponents, he as much exaggerates in both particulars. What makes this the more curious is, that he in general is perfectly candid as to the numbers engaged in a campaign, and the total loss sustained in it. His general views in diplomacy and strategy are always admirable. Another work has appeared within the last few months of even greater importance upon this subject, and that is a journal or history (it partakes of the character of both) of the campaign of 1812, by the late Sir Robert Wilson. That able soldier and distinguished man joined the Russian army just before the battle of Smolensko, and was soon after appointed British Commissioner at the Russian headquarters, which post he retained through all the vicissitudes of the war during 1812 and 1813. The present work is the result of the observations he made, and the information he received, during the former period. The considerations which prevented its publication earlier, are thus stated by the editor: "Among these considerations a principal one was, that he had been held in close personal intimacy with the Emperor Alexander, highly trusted and honoured by him. The disclosure of facts and opinions, to which he could only have access through this confidence of a generous friendship, would have prejudicially affected the relations of the Emperor with his great nobility: and, moreover, it would have given pain to some with whom he had himself relations of attachment and esteem, formed by the fellowship of danger among the moving scenes of military service. Meanwhile he recorded, with exact care, the events of which he was a personal witness. He felt the claims of society; felt that the interests of mankind de mand from competent narrators, for enduring example, a record of the actions of men intrusted with the conduct of the affairs of nations. The lapse of years, he knew, removes the obstacles which present themselves in the circumstances historian's pen."-(Introduction, p. xv.) of the passing period, and liberates the Many indeed were the advantages which Sir Robert possessed, and good was the use which he made of them. Of great talent, ardent in temperament, keen in observation, but not balanced in judgment, his work is one of first-rate merit, both from the vast importance of the facts it discloses, and the acute nature of the criticisms it contains; yet it has its defects. As a cotemporary narrative of the contest, from one thoroughly acquainted with all its secret details, it is invaluable; as a calm and judicious history of a past event, it has considerable faults. Both its merits and its faults alike flow from the character of the man. A bold and a skilful soldier, a quick and accurate observer, a forcible |