Even from school, I was tormented by a question to which the history teacher could not answer me: why did Napoleon strive so hard to seize Moscow?
After all, the capital of the Russian Empire at that time was St. Petersburg?
Naturally, the General Staff of the Army was located in St. Petersburg. That is, the entire military elite of the Russian troops, headed by the tsar, are sitting in St. Petersburg, and Napoleon goes to defeat them in Moscow.
Already sounds like complete idiocy. An attempt to explain that Napoleon decided first to seize the central economic and trade hub, and then take the capital of Russia does not stand up to criticism. If you deprive the army and the state of leaders, then nothing else needs to be captured. Resistance will be possible, but not so organized and fierce. We must not forget about the merciless oppression of the peasants who make up 90% of the inhabitants of Russia. I strongly doubt that they would have organized a vengeful war for the king, father.
But Napoleon still goes to Moscow. Now let's see what Moscow looked like then in 1800.
According to the artist F. Ya. Alekseev, it looked like a provincial town.
This painting is called "View of the Kremlin at the Spassky Gate".
Promotional video:
We see the territory inside the Kremlin walls. The walls of the Kremlin themselves were overgrown with bushes, everything was overgrown with grass. A view of complete neglect and abandonment.
And here is how the artist saw Red Square.
A kind of Chinese market against the backdrop of the overgrown Kremlin wall. Moreover, in order for the bushes on the walls to grow this way, it is necessary at least 30 - 40 years, they should not be removed.
People are modestly dressed, the military is not visible. What does Napoleon want in this city?
The seizure of St. Petersburg was also planned, but somehow reluctantly.
According to various sources, Napoleon's army numbered up to 500 thousand people.
That is, to capture the capital of the Russian Empire, around which the main part of the regiments of the Russian army was concentrated, he sent about a tenth of his troops. A strange strategy. Moreover, they never reached St. Petersburg.
Generally kapets. MacDonald didn't know where he was going? Forgot to grab the siege artillery? How was he going to take fortresses and fortifications without this artillery?
That's the whole trip to the capital of Russia.
Meanwhile, the main part of Napoleon's troops literally in two months covers (with PERIODIC FIGHTS, among other things) 1200 km and reaches Moscow.
More precisely the village of Borodino. Where the battle takes place, in which Napoleon lost, but moved on (also some kind of fantasy).
But if you calculate the average daily mileage of Napoleon's troops (eighteen kilometers a day), it seems that there were clearly no obstacles to the advance. For this is practically equal to the speed of movement of infantry units on the march. If they periodically conducted battles with someone, they should have covered this distance much more slowly.
There were no fights? An amazing enemy attack on the country. Calmly marching, accompanied by the army of the defending side.
Considering the large number of guns, this speed even seems too fast. The rugged terrain and the crossing of rivers clearly did not accelerate the movement.
In addition, we are convinced that partisans periodically attacked the carts of Napoleon's army from the forest. And the locals burned hay and crops. Which created additional problems. But more on that another time.
In view of all of the above, I have a strong doubt not only that Napoleon captured Moscow, but also that he attacked Russia in general.