Kutuzov and Napoleon. Their role in history. Essay “Kutuzov and Napoleon. Their role in history b) Battle of Austerlitz

The problem of personality in history: Kutuzov and Napoleon. (Based on the novel by L.N. Tolstoy) and received the best answer

Answer from Angelica[guru]
The images of the main commanders, Kutuzov and Napoleon, created in the novel are a vivid embodiment of Tolstoy’s principles of depicting historical figures. The Russian commander-in-chief is presented as a truly Russian man, close to his people. He understands and appreciates every soldier, wants to win with the least losses. For Kutuzov, it is not personal glory or ambition that is important, but the result. That is why he listens to the general “current of thought” and tries to give instructions in accordance with it. Napoleon, on the contrary, is the embodiment of selfishness and personal ambitions. He craves glory only for himself, and every death for him is another step towards victory. The French commander is far from the common people; for him he is just cannon fodder. That is why he loses in disgrace, suffering huge losses. Napoleon's army pursued aggressive goals; it did not have a true goal.
According to Tolstoy, Napoleon played “the cruel, sad and difficult, inhuman role that was intended for him.” It is unlikely that he would have been able to bear the full weight of this historical role if his mind and conscience had not been darkened. Napoleon is a deeply unhappy person who does not notice this only due to a complete lack of moral sense. This “European hero” is morally blind, unable to understand “neither goodness, nor beauty, nor truth, nor the meaning of his actions, which were too opposite to goodness and truth, too far from everything human for him to understand their meaning.”
However, despite the fact that Napoleon is doomed to play his “negative” role in history, Tolstoy does not at all diminish his moral responsibility for what he did: “He, destined by providence for the sad, unfree role of the executioner of nations, assured himself that the purpose of his actions was good peoples and that he could lead the destinies of millions and do good deeds through power! ..He imagined that by his will there was a war with Russia, and the horror of what had happened did not strike his soul.”
Napoleon's antipode - Kutuzov - is the embodiment of folk morality, true greatness, “simplicity, goodness and truth.” The “Kutuzovian”, popular principle is contrasted with the “Napoleonic”, egoistic one. Without trying to influence the course of history, he submits to the logic of the historical process and intuitively perceives the highest meaning of what is happening. Kutuzov, as Tolstoy emphasized, is endowed with true wisdom, a special instinct, which prompts him during the Patriotic War to act in accordance with the principle: what must happen will happen on its own.

Answer from 2 answers[guru]

Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: The problem of personality in history: Kutuzov and Napoleon. (Based on the novel by L.N. Tolstoy)

There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.
L. N. Tolstoy
People evaluate the events of private and historical life using the criterion of morality: goodness, selflessness, spiritual clarity and simplicity, spiritual connection with people, with society, with the people.
Kutuzov and Napoleon are exponents of the historical trends of the time. The novel clearly shows the extreme contrast between these two personalities. The wise Kutuzov, free from the passion of vanity and ambition, easily subordinated his will to “providence”, saw through the “higher laws” governing the movement of humanity, and therefore became a representative of the people's liberation war. That popular feeling that Kutuzov carried within himself gave him the moral freedom that appeared in the insight of the “higher laws.” This insight of Kutuzov was the result of a spiritual merger with the people: “The source of this unusual power of insight in the sense of occurring phenomena lay in the national feeling that he carried within himself in all its purity and strength.”
A keen national moral feeling guided Kutuzov and inspired him with disgust for violence and cruelty, for the merciless and useless shedding of human blood. The same feeling united Kutuzov with the soldiers and separated him from the highest ranks of the army, who wanted to “distinguish themselves, cut off, intercept, captivate, overthrow the French, and everyone demanded an offensive.”
Napoleon, thanks to his complete indifference to man and lack of moral sense, was placed by history at the head of a war of conquest. In his subjective qualities, Napoleon is the exponent of a sad historical necessity - “the movement of peoples from West to East,” which resulted in the death of Napoleonic army. Napoleon, according to Tolstoy, was destined “by providence for the sad, unfree role of the executioner of nations,” and performed “that cruel, sad and difficult inhuman role that was destined for him.”
Thus, Kutuzov and Napoleon, regardless of their intentions and understandings, perform a superpersonal task. At the same time, one imagines himself as a hero, the ruler of nations, on whose will their destinies depend, the other does not think about himself, does not play any role, but only wisely leads the spirit of the army entrusted to him.
Tolstoy divides life into upward and downward, centrifugal and centripetal. Kutuzov, to whom the natural course of world events within its national-historical boundaries is open and who, thanks to the people's moral sense, sees the will of “providence,” is a classic embodiment of the centripetal, ascending forces of history.
The centrifugal, downward forces of history were embodied by Napoleon, this “superman”. He does not feel the inner necessity in the spiritual phenomena of life, believes in the power of his individual will, imagines himself as the creator of history, the leader and ruler of nations, but in reality he is only a “toy of fate,” “the most insignificant instrument of history.” He leads historical forces that are misdirected and is therefore doomed. Tolstoy saw the internal lack of freedom of individual consciousness, expressed in the personality of Napoleon, because true freedom is associated with the fulfillment of the law, with the voluntary submission of one’s will to the “higher goal.” Tolstoy exposes the ideal of boundless freedom, which led to the cult of a strong and proud personality.
The great man in Tolstoy’s portrayal receives his strength from the people, carries in his heart a feeling close to the people. Tolstoy's merit is that he portrays the personality of a great man as a folk hero who achieved independence and freedom only in alliance with the people and the nation as a whole.
He is firmly connected with the mass of “ordinary people”, national joint goals and actions, and love for Russia.
Tolstoy emphasizes the moral height of Kutuzov. “And only this feeling brought him to that highest human height from which he, the commander-in-chief, directed all his strength not to exterminate people and kill, but to save and take pity on them. This simple, modest and therefore truly majestic figure could not fit into that deceitful form of a European hero, ostensibly ruling people, which history has invented.”
Tolstoy emphasizes the merits of Kutuzov as a commander, whose activities were invariably directed towards one goal that was of national importance. “It is difficult to imagine a goal more worthy and more consistent with the will of the entire people.” More than once in the novel, Tolstoy emphasizes the purposefulness of all Kutuzov’s actions, the concentration of all forces on the task that confronted the entire Russian people in the course of history. An exponent of popular patriotic feeling, Kutuzov also becomes the guiding force of popular resistance, leads and raises the spirit of the troops.
Tolstoy does not recognize Napoleon as great, because Napoleon does not understand the significance of the events taking place; in all his actions only ambitious claims and pride are manifested. Napoleon's insignificance lies in the fact that, imagining himself as the ruler of the world, he is deprived of that inner spiritual freedom that is expressed in the recognition of necessity. He “never, until the end of his life, could understand... neither goodness, nor beauty, nor truth, nor the meaning of his actions, which were too opposite to goodness and truth, too far from everything human, for him to understand their meaning . He could not renounce his actions, praised by half the world, and therefore had to renounce truth, goodness and everything human.”
Tolstoy sees the significance of a great personality in the insight of the people's meaning of events, in the feeling of unfolding history as the will of providence. Great people, leaders of humanity, like Kutuzov, who carry in their chests a national moral feeling, with their experience, intelligence and consciousness guess the requirements of historical necessity.
“For us,” L.N. Tolstoy concludes his reasoning, “with the measure of good and bad given to us by Christ, there is nothing immeasurable. And there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.”

There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.

L. N. Tolstoy

People evaluate the events of private and historical life using the criterion of morality: goodness, selflessness, spiritual clarity and simplicity, spiritual connection with people, with society, with the people.

Kutuzov and Napoleon are exponents of the historical trends of the time. The novel clearly shows the extreme contrast between these two personalities. The wise Kutuzov, free from the passion of vanity and ambition, easily subordinated his will to “providence”, saw through the “higher laws” governing the movement of humanity, and therefore became a representative of the people's liberation war. That popular feeling that Kutuzov carried within himself gave him the moral freedom that appeared in the insight of the “higher laws.” This insight of Kutuzov was the result of a spiritual merger with the people: “The source of this unusual power of insight in the sense of occurring phenomena lay in the national feeling that he carried within himself in all its purity and strength.”

A keen national moral feeling guided Kutuzov and inspired him with disgust for violence and cruelty, for the merciless and useless shedding of human blood. The same feeling united Kutuzov with the soldiers and separated him from the highest ranks of the army, who wanted to “distinguish themselves, cut off, intercept, captivate, overthrow the French, and everyone demanded an offensive.”

Napoleon, thanks to his complete indifference to man and lack of moral sense, was placed by history at the head of a war of conquest. In his subjective qualities, Napoleon is the exponent of a sad historical necessity - “the movement of peoples from West to East,” which resulted in the death of Napoleonic army. Napoleon, according to Tolstoy, was destined “by providence for the sad, unfree role of the executioner of nations,” and performed “that cruel, sad and difficult inhuman role that was destined for him.”

Thus, Kutuzov and Napoleon, regardless of their intentions and understandings, perform a superpersonal task. At the same time, one imagines himself as a hero, the ruler of nations, on whose will their destinies depend, the other does not think about himself, does not play any role, but only wisely leads the spirit of the army entrusted to him.

Tolstoy divides life into upward and downward, centrifugal and centripetal. Kutuzov, to whom the natural course of world events within its national-historical boundaries is open and who, thanks to the people's moral sense, sees the will of “providence,” is a classic embodiment of the centripetal, ascending forces of history.

The centrifugal, downward forces of history were embodied by Napoleon, this “superman”. He does not feel the inner necessity in the spiritual phenomena of life, believes in the power of his individual will, imagines himself as the creator of history, the leader and ruler of nations, but in reality he is only a “toy of fate,” “the most insignificant instrument of history.” He leads historical forces that are misdirected and is therefore doomed. Tolstoy saw the internal lack of freedom of individual consciousness, expressed in the personality of Napoleon, because true freedom is associated with the fulfillment of the law, with the voluntary submission of one’s will to the “higher goal.” Tolstoy exposes the ideal of boundless freedom, which led to the cult of a strong and proud personality.

The great man in Tolstoy’s portrayal receives his strength from the people, carries in his heart a feeling close to the people. Tolstoy's merit is that he portrays the personality of a great man as a folk hero who achieved independence and freedom only in alliance with the people and the nation as a whole.

He is firmly connected with the mass of “ordinary people”, national joint goals and actions, and love for Russia.

Tolstoy emphasizes the moral height of Kutuzov. “And only this feeling brought him to that highest human height from which he, the commander-in-chief, directed all his strength not to exterminate people and kill, but to save and take pity on them. This simple, modest and therefore truly majestic figure could not fit into that deceitful form of a European hero, ostensibly ruling people, which history has invented.”

Tolstoy emphasizes the merits of Kutuzov as a commander, whose activities were invariably directed towards one goal that was of national importance. “It is difficult to imagine a goal more worthy and more consistent with the will of the entire people.” More than once in the novel, Tolstoy emphasizes the purposefulness of all Kutuzov’s actions, the concentration of all forces on the task that confronted the entire Russian people in the course of history. An exponent of popular patriotic feeling, Kutuzov also becomes the guiding force of popular resistance, leads and raises the spirit of the troops.

Tolstoy does not recognize Napoleon as great, because Napoleon does not understand the significance of the events taking place; in all his actions only ambitious claims and pride are manifested. Napoleon's insignificance lies in the fact that, imagining himself as the ruler of the world, he is deprived of that inner spiritual freedom that is expressed in the recognition of necessity. He “never, until the end of his life, could understand... neither goodness, nor beauty, nor truth, nor the meaning of his actions, which were too opposite to goodness and truth, too far from everything human, for him to understand their meaning. He could not renounce his actions, praised by half the world, and therefore had to renounce truth, goodness and everything human.”

Tolstoy sees the significance of a great personality in the insight of the people's meaning of events, in the feeling of unfolding history as the will of providence. Great people, leaders of humanity, like Kutuzov, who carry in their chests a national moral feeling, with their experience, intelligence and consciousness guess the requirements of historical necessity.

“For us,” L.N. Tolstoy concludes his reasoning, “with the measure of good and bad given to us by Christ, there is nothing immeasurable. And there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.”

Secondary school No. 10 of the city of Vladimir.

Abstract on the topic:

“Napoleon and Kutuzov in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace".

Work completed: Work checked by:

Student 10th grade teacher

Schmidt Semyon Mikhailovich. L.F. Fesenko.

2002

Abstract plan.

I . Tolstoy on the role of personality in history.

II . The image of Napoleon and Kutuzov in the work.

1. Kutuzov:

a) biography;

b) review in Braunau;

c) Battle of Austerlitz;

d) Borodino;

e) council in Fili;

2. Napoleon:

a) biography;

b) Battle of Austerlitz;

c) Napoleon at the Neman River;

d) Napoleon on Poklonnaya Hill;

3. Comparative characteristics of Napoleon and Kutuzov.

III . The importance of personality in history (as a conclusion).

The formation of history, who or what determines the chain of events large and small on different historical scales, which has a key, guiding influence on the course of history - one of the main and controversial issues that interest historians and not only them, but many people whose activities are not related only directly, but even in general, it would seem not to be connected with historical science. Moreover, this question interests every person. Since this issue is a complex problem, it is not possible to solve it definitely. There are different views on the role of the individual in the historical process, as a broad, multifaceted problem. This topic is also largely addressed in the literature. Interesting conclusions can be drawn by considering one of the most fundamental works related to the wars of 1805-1807 and 1812. - epic novel by Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy “War and Peace”.

In 1867, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy completed work on the work "War and Peace". In this work, the author denied the possibility of an individual’s active influence on history, since it is impossible to foresee or change the direction of historical events, because they depend on everyone and no one individually. In his philosophical and historical digressions, Tolstoy viewed the historical process as a sum made up of “countless human arbitrariness,” that is, the efforts of each person. The totality of these efforts results in a historical necessity that no one can cancel. According to Tolstoy, history is made by the masses, and its laws cannot depend on the desire of an individual historical person. L. D. Opulskaya wrote: “Tolstoy refuses to recognize as the force guiding the historical development of mankind any kind of “idea,” as well as the desires or power of individual, even “great” historical figures.” There are laws that govern events partly unknown, partly groped by us, writes Tolstoy. “The discovery of these laws is possible only when we completely renounce the search for causes in the will of one person, just as the discovery of the laws of planetary motion became possible only when people renounced the idea of ​​the solidity of the Earth." Tolstoy sets the task for historians "instead of finding causes... finding laws." Tolstoy stopped in bewilderment before realizing the laws that determine the "spontaneous swarm" life of the people. According to his view, a participant in a historical event cannot know the meaning and significance, much less the result of the actions performed Because of this, no one can intelligently direct historical events, but must submit to their spontaneous, unreasonable course, just as the ancients obeyed fate. However, the internal, objective meaning of what was depicted in “War and Peace" led closely to the awareness of these patterns. In addition, in the explanation specific historical phenomena, Tolstoy himself came very close to determining the actual forces that guided the events. Thus, the outcome of the war of 1812 was determined, from his point of view, not by a mysterious fate inaccessible to human understanding, but by the “club of the people’s war,” which acted with “simplicity” and “expediency.” Tolstoy’s people act as the creator of history: the millions of ordinary people, and not heroes and generals, create history, move society forward, create everything valuable in material and spiritual life, accomplish everything great and heroic. And Tolstoy proves this thought - “people's thought” using the example of the War of 1812.

To prove this, the writer uses in “War and Peace” two important images in the history of mankind: Kutuzov and Napoleon. These are, as it were, two ideological centers in the work.

Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov.

On September 5 (16), 1745, a son was born into the family of Illarion Matveevich, who was destined to become a great Russian commander, his name - Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov - was immortalized by history.

Engineer-General Illarion Matveevich Kutuzov instilled in his son hard work and an interest in books from childhood. The boy successfully studied Russian and foreign languages, arithmetic at home, and read a lot. When Mikhail grew up, his father sent him to artillery and engineering school.

Not all nobles did this then, although they were obliged to serve in the army and train their sons in military affairs.

Under these conditions, young Mikhail Kutuzov, gifted by nature with intelligence and abilities, very inquisitive, precocious, prepared at home for training at a military school, immediately stood out from among the students of the artillery and engineering school.

He grew up as a healthy, handsome boy, cheerful, seemingly somewhat phlegmatic, able to notice the characteristic features of his peers and imitate them in a comically gentle way.

His comrades loved Kutuzov for his cheerful disposition, his teachers valued him for his abilities and diligence.

The future commander studied successfully. He mastered engineering and artillery well, loved military history, and knew languages:

French, German, Latin, and subsequently studied English, Swedish, Turkish and Polish.

Kutuzov had a special passion for engineering and was appointed to help officers train students on December 10, 1759.

Years will pass, officer and general Kutuzov will always and everywhere improve himself in military science, will continue the search for knowledge, read Russian and foreign literature, ancient classics, and master human culture.

His interests will forever include literature, art, theater, and international politics. His house in St. Petersburg will be open to Russian and foreign artists and writers.

Kutuzov was married to Ekaterina Ilyinichna, née Bibikova, and had five daughters - Praskovya, Anna, Elizaveta, Ekaterina, Daria; the Kutuzovs' only son died in infancy.

High culture and education became the support of his military calling, became the basis of military affairs to which Kutuzov devoted all the forces of his mind, his

souls, all my life.

An easy and safe career as a courtier opened up for Kutuzov. He was well prepared for it.

The young warrant officer, who knew foreign languages, was intelligent and polite in his manners, was appointed adjutant to the Governor General of Revel, Field Marshal General Prince Golyptein-Beksky. Kutuzov was with him at meetings with titled persons and diplomats arriving in Russia from abroad. But he did not stay as an adjutant for long.

His father’s upbringing had an impact, his own character had an impact, and the young officer asked to join the ranks.

Five long decades of military service, campaigns and wars dragged on for him.

Ensign Kutuzov began his military career and grew as an officer when the Russian army began to revive its military traditions from the time of Peter I.

He was brought up from childhood under the echoes of the glory of Peter's victories; The heroes of the Poltava battle were still alive, and in the family of Illarion Matveyevich the memory of the founder of the regular Russian army was honored.

But the point was not only the educational significance of heroic traditions. An analysis of the general art of Kutuzov clearly shows the common features that bring him closer to the general art of Peter I.

He comprehended the nature of battle and war, the essence of military leadership in the actions of commanders Rumyantsev and Suvorov. On this basis his talent as a commander grew and developed.

In 1764, when Russian troops moved into Poland, Captain Kutuzov achieved a transfer to the active army. Over the years 1764, 1765, 1769, he participated in a number of small battles (there were no major operations there), became involved in military life, but, as he later admitted, “he did not yet understand war.”

Then Kutuzov took part in two Crimean wars (1786-1787)

Since 1793, a new stage began in Kutuzov’s life: he became a diplomat - the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Russia in Constantinople. The descriptions of Kutuzov’s diplomatic activities that have reached us indicate that here too he turned out to be talented.

In September 1794, Mikhail Illarionovich was appointed director of the land cadet corps, where he supervised the training and education of future officers of the Russian army. He himself lectured them on military history, and for the first time introduced the teaching of tactics in the corps.

Continuing this activity, Kutuzov simultaneously serves as commander of the ground forces in Finland, inspects them, builds fortifications there, and participates in diplomatic relations aimed at improving relations between Russia and Sweden.

For about a year, Mikhail Illarionovich was the Governor-General of St. Petersburg, but Alexander was dissatisfied with him “for malfunctions in the police service.”

In August 1802, he was “dismissed by request,” and in essence, he was simply removed from St. Petersburg. Kutuzov left for his village of Goroshki, Volyn province.

But still, in those days, Kutuzov’s talent as a commander had not yet faded, glory awaited him ahead. In 1805-1807 he became commander-in-chief of the Russian army.

For the first time in the novel, the commander-in-chief of the Russian army appeared before us in the scene of the review of the Russian regiment in Braunau. Walking along the lined rows, he carefully peers into the faces of the officers and soldiers, stops near those he knows from the Turkish War, and says a few kind words to almost everyone. Recognizing Timokhin, a brave Russian officer who distinguished himself in the battle of Shengraben, Kutuzov stops and says that Timokhin is an “Izmailovsky comrade,” a “brave officer,” and, hinting at Timokhin’s commitment to wine, adds: “We are all not without weaknesses.”

Vanity is alien to Kutuzov; he does not value the opinion of empty and envious people about himself.

At Austerlitz, Kutuzov was powerless. He spoke out firmly against the offensive. They didn't listen to him.

The battle plan was prepared by the German Weyrother. It seemed that everything in this huge, complex plan had been thought out. But the prudent German could not take into account the fact that instead of defensive actions, Napoleon would go on the attack. On the day of the battle, Kutuzov was irritated and bilious. Even before this event, he openly expressed his dissatisfaction with the conduct of the battle planned by Emperors Franz and Alexander. Perhaps Kutuzov understood that Napoleon was not as powerless as it seemed at first glance. He also did not like Weyrother’s plan, since in addition to strategy, one also needed the will to win, spiritual closeness to the battlefield, to the soldiers, as well as extensive experience of commanders.

Kutuzov had only hope for the unparalleled courage of the Russian soldiers, that during the battle he would be able to save the situation with the right decision.

And Kutuzov went with the soldiers under the bullets of the French. When the French troops began a rapid offensive, the Russian soldiers, who did not expect this, fled. Kutuzov in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy is shown precisely at this moment. Despite the fact that the crowd of running people was pushing him back, the commander himself tried to get ahead and follow the sounds of gunfire. He shouted: “Stop them (the running)! Stop these scoundrels!”

This episode reveals Kutuzov’s firmness, steadfastness, courage, and his disdain for traitors to the Motherland.

L.N. Tolstoy says in his work: “Just as in a clock the result of the complex movement of countless different wheels and blocks is only the slow and steady movement of the hand indicating the time, so is the result of all the complex human movements of these one hundred and sixty thousand Russians and French - all the passions, desires, repentances , humiliation, suffering, outbursts of pride, fear, delight of these people - there was only the loss of the Battle of Austerlitz, the so-called battle of the three emperors, that is, the slow movement of the world-historical hand on the dial of human history.” Therefore, according to Tolstoy, the culprit of the defeat of the Russian army can be considered not the emperor with his plan for accepting the battle, but the people. This is contrary to reality.

When everyone knew that the Russian emperor himself, and not Kutuzov, was the culprit of the Austerlitz defeat, Alexander I hated Kutuzov even more and, having removed him from the army, appointed him governor-general of Kiev.

But already “Since 1811, increased armament and concentration of forces in Western Europe began, and in 1812 these forces moved from West to East, to the borders of Russia, to which, in the same way, since 1811, the forces of our army were concentrated. On June 12, 1812, the forces of Western Europe crossed the borders and war began." (War and Peace)

And in this dangerous, tense situation, Kutuzov again becomes the head of the entire Russian army. But, despite the experience and genius of Mikhail Illarionovich, events were not in Russia’s favor: Russian troops began to slowly but surely retreat. Cities such as Smolensk, Kaluga, and Ryazan were given to the French. The turning point in the Russian-French war was the battle near the village of Borodino on August 26.

Kutuzov had a premonition of victory in the Battle of Borodino. During the battle, Kutuzov was excited. He did not make any orders, but only agreed or disagreed with what was offered to him: “Yes, yes, do it,” he answered various proposals. “Yes, yes, go, my dear, have a look,” he addressed first one or the other of those close to him; or: “No, no, it’s better to wait.” Kutuzov knew that one person could not decide the fate of the battle. This is done by that elusive force called the spirit of the army, and he monitored this force and led it as far as it was in his power. Therefore, after receiving the first news of the victory, the field marshal immediately sent an adjutant to travel through the troops with this news. Kutuzov understood the significance of the Battle of Borodino. The wheel of Napoleonic army, having received a rebuff from Borodin, lost the power with which it moved and captured Russian lands. Therefore, having rolled by inertia to Moscow, the wheel rolled back, pushed by Russian soldiers.

In the episode of the Battle of Borodino, Kutuzov appears to us as modest, easy to deal with others, and accessible to the people. As proof of his devotion to the people and love for the Motherland, one can cite an episode of the participation of M.I. Kutuzov at a prayer service before the Battle of Borodino. As an example to those around him, as a simple Russian man, a Christian, he approached the icon, knelt down, and bowed to the ground. Then he stood up with difficulty, kissed the icon and bowed again, touching the ground with his hand. Everyone else, including soldiers and militia, did the same. It seems to us that this is a common occurrence when Kutuzov is constantly among the common people. But in fact, even in our time, it rarely happens that high ranks can be seen among ordinary people.

The reader’s next meeting with Kutuzov takes place in the episode “Council in Fili.”

“In the spacious, best hut of the peasant Andrei Sevastyanov, at two o’clock, the council met.” Almost all members of the council (Barclay de Tolly, Tol, Kaisarov, Konevnitsyn) were convinced that Moscow should be surrendered to the enemy. The main question facing Kutuzov was: “When, when was it finally decided that Moscow was abandoned? When was what was done that resolved the issue, and who is to blame for this?” All the actions of the meeting participants were observed by a six-year-old girl Malasha, the granddaughter of Andrei Sevastyanov. She carefully watched “grandfather” Kutuzov. It seemed to her that it was only a matter of personal struggle between Kutuzov and Count Bennigsen, who insisted on the defense of Moscow, only because of personal considerations. In her soul, Malasha sided with her “grandfather.” With this fact, Tolstoy emphasizes Kutuzov’s undoubted closeness to the people; Tolstoy’s phrase is confirmed here: “There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.”

At the end of the council, Kutuzov addressed everyone who was at the meeting: “And so, gentlemen, it means that I have to pay for the broken pots,” he said. And slowly getting up, he walked over to the table. - Gentlemen, I heard your opinions. Some will disagree with me. But I, by the power entrusted to me by my sovereign and the Fatherland, I order a retreat.” Everyone left quietly, without obvious emotions. Kutuzov sat for a long time, leaning on the table, and asked himself the same question: “When, when was it finally decided that Moscow was abandoned?”

After much thought, Kutuzov shouted: “No! They will eat horse meat like the Turks!”

This passage shows Kutuzov’s sense of responsibility to his Motherland, the sovereign, and the people.

In 1812, for the sake of the interests of Russia, Kutuzov, against the will of the tsar, surrendered Moscow to Napoleon.

When things got better in the Russian army, and Napoleon’s army began to retreat, everyone realized that Russia had been saved, and this largely happened thanks to the great Russian commander M.I. Kutuzov.

Russia celebrated the victory with glory and legitimate pride, the name of M.I. Kutuzov thundered throughout the country.

“I could say,” Mikhail Illarionovich wrote to his wife Ekaterina Ilyinichna, “that Bonaparte, this proud conqueror, is running before me like a schoolboy from a teacher,” but... “God humbles pride.” “I keep wandering, surrounded by smoke, which they call glory,” he adds in another letter. At the same time, Kutuzov wants the true meaning of his actions to be understood. When Ekaterina Ilyinichna sent an ode from St. Petersburg in which it was said that he surrendered Moscow in order to save the blood of soldiers, the commander replied: “I weighed Moscow not with the blood of soldiers, but with the whole of Russia and with the salvation of St. Petersburg and with the freedom of Europe.” Then, standing on Poklonnaya Hill, the strategist and politician found the only path to victory and temporarily sacrificed his native capital. He foresaw that there would be spiteful critics who would distort the essence of his decisions, and a month later he wrote to St. Petersburg again: “Still, I didn’t weigh Moscow that way, not with the blood of soldiers, but with all of Russia.”

Kutuzov's health was getting worse every day. And on April 11, Mikhail Illarionovich dictates his last letter to Ekaterina Ilyinichna: “I am writing to you, my friend, for the first time in someone else’s hand, which will surprise you, and perhaps even frighten you - a disease of such a kind that the sensitivity of the fingers in your right hand has been lost. .."

The commander-in-chief was dying in a small corner room of a two-story house on Bunzlau Square.

Shortly before his death, Alexander I came to see him. The hypocrite, who had persecuted Mikhail Illarionovich since the first year of his reign, now sanctimoniously asked the dying man for forgiveness.

“I, Your Majesty, forgive, but will Russia forgive,” answered the field marshal.

The death of the commander-in-chief was hidden from the Russian army for several days; obeying the orders issued in his name, she continued to advance to the west.

Thus, based on the text I wrote, we can make a brief description of M.I. Kutuzova.

He is brave, decisive, full of ideas, expedient, attentive to his subordinates. Kutuzov is great as a commander because he, like all the best representatives of the Russian officers, acted in complete unity with the entire Russian people.

Napoleon Bonaparte.

Napoleon was born into a poor Corsican noble family of Charles and Letizia Buonaparte (there were 5 sons and 3 daughters in the family) on August 15, 1769 on the island of Corsica (Ajaccio). He studied at the Royal Military School in Brienne and at the Paris Military School (1779-85), from which he graduated with the rank of lieutenant. Napoleon grew up as a gloomy and withdrawn boy, quickly and for a long time irritated, did not seek rapprochement with anyone, looked at everyone without respect and sympathy, and was very confident in himself, despite his youth and small stature. He did not have time to graduate from the academy. The father died, and the family was left almost without a livelihood. Napoleon entered the army with the rank of junior officer.

Life was hard for the young officer. Most of the already small salary had to be sent to the family, leaving only meager food for themselves. He avoided society: his clothes were so plain that he did not want and could not lead a social life. But he worked tirelessly, spending all his free time from work reading books; I read voraciously, with unheard-of greed, filling my notebooks with notes and notes. He was most interested in books on military history, mathematics, geography, and travel descriptions. The progressive youth of that time were keen on the writings of enlightenment philosophers. Napoleon showed an early aversion to the views of revolutionary writers.

Appointed chief of artillery in the army besieging Toulon occupied by the British, Bonaparte carried out a brilliant military operation. Toulon was taken, and at the age of 24 he himself received the rank of brigadier general (1793). After the Thermidorian coup, Bonaparte distinguished himself during the dispersal of the royalist rebellion in Paris (1795), and then was appointed commander of the Italian army. During the Italian campaign (1796-97), Napoleon's military genius was revealed in all its splendor. The Austrian generals were unable to oppose anything to the lightning-fast maneuvers of the French army, poor, poorly equipped, but inspired by revolutionary ideas and led by Bonaparte. She won one victory after another: Montenotto, Lodi, Milan, Castiglione, Arcole, Rivoli. The Italians enthusiastically greeted the army, which carried the ideals of freedom, equality, and liberated them from Austrian rule. Austria lost all its lands in Northern Italy, where the Cisalpine Republic, allied with France, was created. The name of Bonaparte resounded throughout Europe. After his first victories, Napoleon began to claim an independent role. The Government of the Directory, not without pleasure, sent him on an Egyptian expedition (1798-1799). Its idea was connected with the desire of the French bourgeoisie to compete with the English, which was actively asserting its influence in Asia and North Africa. However, it was not possible to gain a foothold here: while fighting the Turks, the French army did not find support from the local population.

Meanwhile, the power crisis in Paris reached its climax. The corrupt Directory was unable to ensure the gains of the Revolution. In Italy, Russian-Austrian troops under the command of A.V. Suvorov liquidated all of Napoleon’s acquisitions, and there was even a threat of invasion of France. Under these conditions, the returning popular general, relying on an army loyal to him, dispersed the representative bodies and the Directory and proclaimed the consulate regime (November 9, 1799). According to the new constitution, legislative power was divided between the State Council, the Tribunate, the Legislative Corps and the Senate, which made it helpless and clumsy. The executive power, on the contrary, was gathered into one fist by the first consul, i.e. Bonaparte. The second and third consuls had only advisory votes. The constitution was approved by the people in a plebiscite (about 3 million votes against 1.5 thousand) (1800). Later, Napoleon passed through the Senate a decree on the lifetime of his powers (1802), and then proclaimed himself Emperor of the French (1804). Already the head of a strong state, Napoleon set himself the goal of eradicating all memories of revolution and freedom. He mercilessly dealt with the Jacobins who survived the revolutionary upheavals. A despot to the core, he persecuted every idea, even the most remote, of freedom. It was forbidden not only to write about the revolution, but also to mention it and the figures of that time, even the word “revolution” itself was prohibited in the press. Bonaparte was very afraid of betrayal and rebellion. Therefore, I tried in every possible way to find out about it before it happened and to prevent it, starting from the roots - not to give rise to conspiracies. He pursued a tough policy that kept him in control.

When Napoleon came to power, France was at war with Austria and England. Bonaparte's new Italian campaign resembled the first. Having crossed the Alps, the French army unexpectedly appeared in Northern Italy, enthusiastically greeted by the local population. The decisive victory was the Battle of Marengo (1801). The threat to the French borders was eliminated.

The economic policy pursued by Napoleon was to ensure the primacy of the French industrial and financial bourgeoisie in the European market. This was hampered by English capital, the predominance of which was determined by the industrial revolution that had already taken place in England. England put together coalitions against France one after another, trying to win over the largest European powers - primarily Austria and Russia. She financed military operations on the continent. Napoleon planned a direct landing on the British Isles, but England was stronger at sea (at Trafalgar, the French fleet was destroyed by the English fleet, commanded by Admiral Nelson (1805). However, a month later, at Austerlitz (now Slavkov, Czech Republic), Napoleon dealt a crushing blow to the combined Austrian and Russian troops. Frightened by the growing influence of France, Prussia opposed it, but was quickly defeated (Battle of Jena, 1806), French troops entered Berlin. Russian troops inflicted great damage on the French army at the Battle of Eylau (1807), but were defeated at Friedland (1807).As a result of the war, France included the territories of Belgium, Holland, northern Germany, part of Italy. In the rest of Italy, in the center of Europe, in Spain (1809) kingdoms dependent on Napoleon were created, where members of his family ruled. extremely reduced Prussia and Austria were forced to conclude an alliance with France, as did Russia (Treaty of Tilsit, 1807).

Having won, Napoleon signed the decree on the continental blockade (1806). From now on, France and all its allies stopped trade relations with England. The Continental blockade damaged the British economy.

Napoleon's policies in the first years of his reign enjoyed the support of the population - not only owners, but also the poor (workers, farm laborers). The fact is that the revival in the economy caused an increase in wages, which was also facilitated by constant recruitment into the army. Napoleon looked like the savior of the fatherland, wars caused national upsurge, and victories caused a sense of pride. After all, Napoleon Bonaparte was a man of the revolution, and the marshals around him, brilliant military leaders, sometimes came from the very bottom. But gradually the people began to get tired of the war, which had lasted for about 20 years. Military recruitment began to cause dissatisfaction. In addition, the economic crisis broke out again (1810). The bourgeoisie realized that it was not within its power to economically subjugate all of Europe. Wars in the vastness of Europe were losing their meaning for her; the costs of them began to irritate her. The security of France had not been threatened for a long time, and in foreign policy the emperor’s desire to extend his power and ensure the interests of the dynasty played an increasingly important role. In the name of these interests, Napoleon divorced his first wife Josephine, with whom he had no children, and married the daughter of the Austrian Emperor, Marie-Louise (1810). An heir was born (1811), but the Emperor's Austrian marriage was extremely unpopular in France.

Napoleon's allies, who accepted the continental blockade against their interests, did not strive to strictly observe it. Tensions grew between them and France. The contradictions between France and Russia became increasingly obvious. Patriotic movements expanded in Germany, and guerrilla violence continued unabated in Spain. Having broken off relations with Alexander I, Napoleon decided to invade Russia. The Patriotic War of 1812 was the beginning of the end of the Empire. Napoleon's huge, multi-tribal army did not carry within itself the previous revolutionary spirit; far from its homeland in the fields of Russia, it quickly melted away and finally ceased to exist. As the Russian army moved west, the anti-Napoleonic coalition grew. Russian, Austrian, Prussian and Swedish troops opposed the hastily assembled new French army in the “Battle of the Nations” near Leipzig (October 16-19, 1813). Napoleon was defeated and abdicated the throne after the Allies entered Paris. He took possession of the small island of Elba in the Mediterranean Sea (1814).

The Bourbons and emigrants returned to France in the convoy of foreign troops, anticipating the return of their property and privileges. This caused discontent and fear in French society and in the army. Taking advantage of this, Napoleon fled from Elba and, greeted by the enthusiastic cries of the crowd, returned to Paris. The war resumed, but France was no longer able to bear its burden. The "Hundred Days" ended with Napoleon's final defeat near the Belgian village of Waterloo (June 18, 1815). He became a prisoner of the British and was sent to the distant island of St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean. There Napoleon spent the last six years of his life, dying from a serious illness and the petty bullying of his jailers. And in 1821, on May 5, he died.

In the novel L.N. Tolstoy's "War and Peace" we learn about Napoleon from various events and battles.

Napoleon, oddly enough, won the Battle of Austerlitz. Perhaps this happened because our generals were too confident in the Russian victory, perhaps this happened due to some other reasons.

Before the battle, Napoleon's address was read to the French soldiers. It said that if the soldiers won this battle, they would be able to return home to their winter quarters, that the emperor himself would lead the troops, etc.

After the battle, Napoleon rode along Pratsen Mountain, gave the last orders to strengthen the batteries firing at the Augesta Dam, and examined the dead and wounded remaining on the battlefield. He approached the wounded Prince Andrei and said: “This is a wonderful death.” At that moment Napoleon himself and his words seemed insignificant and petty to Andrei. Bolkonsky was completely disillusioned with Napoleon Bonaparte. This disappointment is justified. Is it possible to praise a man who loves to walk around the battlefield after a victory and look at the wounded, killed and prisoners. This nasty feature of Napoleon is confirmed by the words of the French escort officer: “We must stop here: the emperor will pass by now; it will give him pleasure to see these captive gentlemen.” When Napoleon won, he showed nobility, which was more like arrogance, boasting.

On the Neman River, Napoleon is also not shown from the best side in the novel. Tolstoy wrote: “Napoleon, despite the fact that more than ever, now, in 1812, it seemed to him that it depended on him whether or not to shed the blood of his people.” In fact, according to Tolstoy, the entire outcome of events, as well as the decision to “shed blood,” was made not by the will of Bonaparte himself, but by the will of the people. But be that as it may, Napoleon transferred his troops across the Neman on June 12, 1812, and the war began.

Even at the beginning of the war, Bonaparte had already divided Russia, “gave Bose a palace in Moscow and made him minister of Kashmir in India. Being among his troops crossing the Niemen, Napoleon could hardly withstand the enthusiastic cries of the soldiers. “On the faces of these people there was one common expression of joy at the beginning of the long-awaited campaign and delight and devotion to the man in a gray frock coat standing on the mountain.” The devotion and patriotism of his subordinates was so strong that one of the Ulan colonels, in front of Napoleon's eyes, forced his regiment to swim across the Viliya River without looking for a ford. Many people and horses drowned. But they “were proud of the fact that they were floating and drowning in this river under the gaze of a man sitting on a log and not even looking at what they were doing.” The episode shows indifference to others, contempt for patriotism, and Napoleon's hypocrisy.

Now let's look at the personal qualities of Napoleon Bonaparte using the example of the episode of the Battle of Borodino.

On August 25, Napoleon spent the whole day on horseback, he inspected the area and gave orders for the conduct of troops. Tolstoy in this passage talks about how absurd the orders of the French emperor were, while he did not explain the reasons why, for example, he forbade the Russian left flank to be bypassed, but allowed the division to move through the forest, despite the fact that this movement is dangerous and could upset army. Napoleon's disposition also had no success. None of the points of this disposition were implemented.

Before the battle, Bonaparte was cheerful and active, despite his runny nose. But during the battle, Napoleon’s mood worsened, and adjutants continued to come to him from different sides. They said the same thing: “Reinforcements are needed, the Russians are holding their ground and producing hellish fire, from which the French army is melting.”

After the battle, Napoleon experienced a heavy feeling of grief and anger: all the same techniques, which were invariably crowned with success, the same disposition as all the previous ones, but no success. For the first time in his life, Napoleon realized that he could not stop the work that was being done in front of him and which was considered to be guided and dependent on him. It is clear from the episode that despite Napoleon’s extensive military experience, the emperor was a commander much worse than Kutuzov. Bonaparte did not know such concepts as the military spirit of the soldiers, which in most cases decides the outcome of the battle, did not understand that it is impossible to resist the course of some events, that winning the battle largely depends on the closeness of the commander-in-chief to his soldiers.

After the Battle of Borodino, Napoleon approached Moscow and looked at it from Poklonnaya Hill. He admired the spectacle that opened before him. He still couldn’t believe that he was at the gates of Moscow, the capital of the Tsars. And so he, giving a sign with his hand, sent troops to Moscow. But before that, he asked his retinue to gather all the boyars to propose to them his resolution. Napoleon had already prepared his speech and felt that his acting talent would be demonstrated in it. But there were no boyars in Moscow, and when this was announced to him, he became angry: “The denouement of the theatrical performance failed.” After Napoleon's troops entered Moscow and dispersed there, it was difficult to gather them again. Some soldiers remained in Moscow. Therefore, the army was greatly weakened and could no longer conduct an offensive. The invincible French army began to retreat under the pressure of Russian soldiers. Napoleon, on his way back to France, obsessed with failure, abandoned his army, thereby completely upsetting the situation among the French soldiers.

Thus, from all this we can conclude about the true image of Napoleon Bonaparte. The French commander is the embodiment of conceit, complacency, ambition, callousness, and vanity. The only thing that was positive about his image was his great acting abilities. Perhaps it was only thanks to them that Napoleon became famous throughout Europe.

Power and glory are Napoleon’s main passions, and moreover, power is more than glory. He wanted to lead everyone and command everyone.

The sharp contrast between Kutuzov and Napoleon is given by the author of the novel, primarily from the point of view of the attitude of each of them to the people and in relation to their personality. Tolstoy believes that Kutuzov embodied the best features of a public figure of that time: patriotism, simplicity, modesty, sensitivity, firmness and sincerity in achieving goals, subordinating his interests to the interests and will of the people. Napoleon, according to Leo Tolstoy, is a selfish man, neglecting the interests of the people, striving to play at will with the lives and destinies of people.

All thoughts, feelings and actions of Kutuzov are aimed at achieving a goal that corresponds to the interests of the people - to preserve their independence, to get rid of an evil and insidious enemy. All his activities are of a national character, determined by his love for the Motherland, the people, and faith in their strength.

Appointed commander-in-chief against the will of the tsar, but at the unanimous desire of the people, Kutuzov sees the decisive condition for victory over the enemy in the patriotic inspiration of the army and population, in their love for the Motherland and hatred of the enemy. Therefore, the efforts of the great commander were aimed primarily at maintaining this inspiration.

Napoleon's activities were of a completely different, anti-national character. It is directed against the interests of the European peoples whom he enslaved, including against the interests of the French people, forced to endure all the difficulties of the war, and later the shame and consequences of defeat. He is the indirect killer of many thousands of people. This gave him the right to greatness and glory. Preoccupied exclusively with his own personality, imagining himself as a superman, he does not want to know the mental state of the people around him.

In the behavior of the Russian commander, Tolstoy notes modesty, accessibility to the people, and indifference to glory. Vanity is alien to Kutuzov; he does not value the opinion of empty and envious people about himself.

Napoleon appears to us completely differently. The Emperor of the French is distinguished by extreme arrogance, empty vanity, and a desire for pomp and luxury. Napoleon's entire appearance is unnatural and deceitful. He could not meet high moral requirements, and therefore there is no true greatness in him.

And the last, most important difference between these two commanders is that Kutuzov always tried to act completely alone in battles with the entire Russian people, which is why Russia won this difficult war of 1812. Napoleon did not even think about this fact; he was mentally far from his subordinates, and not only did not understand, but also did not strive to understand the mood of his people in a given period of time.

So, to show the role of personality in history, L.N. Tolstoy resorts to two main images in the work: the image of Kutuzov and the image of Napoleon. But on the way to proving his point of view that the course of events is influenced not by an individual, but by some factors unknown to mankind, Tolstoy encounters many contradictions. Sometimes, the author himself indirectly proves that he is wrong. So, for example, saying that the course of history is influenced by forces unknown to people, Tolstoy at the same time writes about the enormous importance of the masses in influencing the general course of events.

Another example. Tolstoy speaks of Kutuzov’s enormous service to the Fatherland. But according to the same theory, anyone could have been in Kutuzov’s place, say Count Bennigsen, and Russia would still have defeated Napoleon’s army. In fact, this is far from the case. The true role of the individual in history is great. This is confirmed by many facts, starting with the formation of Rus', the Time of Troubles, the reign of Peter I, and ending with the revolution in the political system of the 1990s.

Bibliography.

1).P. Zhilin “Patriotic War of 1812” M. 1988

2).F. Wilkinson “Commanders” M., “word” 1994

3M. Bragin “Kutuzov” M., “young guard” 1995

4).F. Glinka “Letters of a Russian Officer” M. 1982

5). "The Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius 2000."

Antithesis in the novel

The images of Kutuzov and Napoleon in Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” occupy one of the central places. Depicting the war with France, the author populates his novel with real historical figures: Emperor Alexander, Speransky, General Bagration, Arakcheev, Marshal Davout. Chief among them, of course, are two great commanders. Their large-scale figures appear before us as if alive. We respect and sympathize with Kutuzov and despise Napoleon. When creating these characters, the writer does not give detailed characteristics. Our impression is formed based on the actions, individual phrases, and appearance of the characters.

The main technique of the composition of the work is the technique of antithesis. The opposition sounds already in the title itself, as if anticipating events. The figures of Kutuzov and Napoleon in “War and Peace” are also opposed to each other. Both, according to Tolstoy, played a big role in history. The difference is that one of them is a positive hero, and the other is negative. When reading a novel, one must keep in mind that this is a work of fiction, not a documentary work. Some features of the characters are deliberately exaggerated and grotesque. This is how the writer achieves the greatest effect and evaluates the characters.

Portrait of heroes

First of all, Kutuzov and Napoleon are compared externally. The Russian field marshal is an old, overweight, sick man. It is difficult for him to move and lead an active lifestyle, which is required by the wartime situation. A half-blind old man, tired of life, cannot, according to representatives of secular society, stand at the head of the army. This is the first impression of Kutuzov.

Whether it’s the cheerful young French emperor. Healthy, active, full of strength and energy. Only the reader strangely feels sympathy for the elderly man, and not for the brilliant hero. The writer achieves this effect with the help of minor details in the portrait of his characters. Kutuzov's description is simple and truthful. The description of Napoleon is imbued with irony.

the main objective

The life goals of the heroes are also contrasted. Emperor Napoleon strives to conquer the whole world. Confident in his genius, he considers himself an impeccable commander, capable of controlling the course of historical events. “He imagined that by his will there was a war with Russia, and the horror of what had happened did not strike his soul.” This person will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. He is ready to sacrifice people's lives in order to please his pride and vanity. Doubts, remorse, repentance for what they have done are concepts and feelings unfamiliar to the hero. For Napoleon, “only what was happening in his soul” was important, and “everything that was outside of him did not matter to him, because everything in the world depended only on his will.”

Field Marshal Kutuzov sets himself completely different goals. He does not strive for power and honors, and is indifferent to people's rumors. The old man found himself at the head of the army at the request of the Russian people and at the behest of duty. His goal is to protect his homeland from the hated invaders. His path is honest, his actions are just and prudent. Love for the Fatherland, wisdom and honesty guide the actions of this person.

Attitude towards soldiers

Two great generals lead two great armies. Millions of lives of ordinary soldiers depend on them. Only the old and feeble Kutuzov understands the full extent of responsibility. He is attentive to each of his fighters. A striking example is the review of troops near Braun, when the commander, despite his poor eyesight, notices worn-out boots, tattered uniforms of the army, recognizes familiar faces in the total mass of the army of many thousands. He will not risk the life of a simple soldier for the approval of the sovereign emperor or another award. Speaking with his subordinates in a simple and understandable language, Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov instills hope in the soul of everyone, well understanding that victory in the battle depends on the mood of each soldier. Love for the Motherland, hatred of the enemy and the desire to defend one’s independence and freedom unite the commander with his subordinates and make the Russian army stronger, raising its spirit. “They will eat my horse meat,” Kutuzov promises and fulfills his promise.

The narcissistic Emperor Napoleon has a different attitude towards his brave army. For him, only his own person has value. The fate of the people around him is indifferent to him. Napoleon enjoys looking at the battlefield littered with dead and wounded bodies. He does not pay attention to the lancers swimming across the stormy river, ready to die in front of their adored emperor. Without feeling responsible for the lives of people who blindly believe in him, Napoleon cares about his comfort, well-being and glory as a winner.

Strengths and weaknesses of commanders

History has put everything in its place. The Patriotic War of 1812 was lost in disgrace by the French army, despite Napoleon's great plans. In the decisive battle of Borodino, the emperor was confused and depressed. His brilliant mind is unable to understand what force forces the enemy to rise to the attack again and again.

The motives for the heroism and courage of his soldiers are well understood by Field Marshal Kutuzov. He feels the same pain for Russia, the same determination to go as millions of people around him did during the great battle of Moscow. “What... what have they brought us to!” – Kutuzov exclaims excitedly, worried about the country. An elderly, exhausted man, with his wisdom, experience and fortitude, leads Russia to victory over its strongest enemy. Kutuzov, contrary to the will of the emperor and the majority of the generals, courageously takes responsibility at the council in Fili. He makes the only correct, but very difficult decision to retreat and leave Moscow. This manifestation of great fortitude and self-denial saved the Russian army and subsequently helped to deliver an indestructible blow to the enemy.

The essay “Kutuzov and Napoleon in the novel “War and Peace” makes it possible to analyze the actions of the great commanders, their role in the historical events of 1812, to understand whose side is right and what is the greatness and strength of human character.

Work test