Zamoyski covers a wide range in this rather large book. He begins by giving a bit of the history of the Napoleonic conflicts. He doesn't go into great detail about them, but he does set up the political situation that both France and Russia were in right before Napoleon's decision to invade. He also gives a chapter to each of the rulers involved, detailing Alexander's strengths and weaknesses (Alexander is generally less known among the history non-fans) in regards to military as well as political matters. The politics of the situation set up, Zamoyski then sets the stage for one of the greatest debacles of all time. Napoleon keeps insisting that he doesn't want war with Russia, and if Alexander would just be a good boy and subjugate himself like he should, then Napoleon wouldn't have to do this. He doesn't seem to realize that the humiliation he's already forced Alexander to suffer will keep Alexander from doing it again. Thus, Napoleon's arrogance will finally cause him to meet his match.

Zamoyski sets the scene beautifully, in clear, interesting chapters that give the reader just enough detail without going too far. He delves into the make-up of Napoleon's army, the various satellite states, and even how the French soldier was typically outfitted. Some of this may sound boring, but Zamoyski keeps it fairly light, and it has even greater meaning later on in the book when soldiers are casting off as many possessions as they can to lighten their load, or when national divisions start to show their cracks as conditions worsen.

It's amazing, in a campaign that took at least five months, how little fighting there actually was. Sure, there was skirmishing, and the Russian pursuit of the fleeing French army which resulted in a few pitched battles and a lot of sniping, but Borodino is the only major battle. Zamoyski does a great job giving details for this battle, as well as all the subsequent ones when the French had to turn and fight during the retreat in order to avoid annihilation. The maps in this book are wonderful, giving positions of all the various armies, the leaders and the units they led, all of which match neatly the description which is on the same page or two that the map is. My one major complaint about a lot of military history books is how the maps are often elsewhere, but Moscow 1812 does a wonderful job with this. The reader can follow along with no problem, and see, both visually and mentally, exactly what happened.

Moscow 1812 spends almost half of the book on the actual retreat from the captured Moscow, and this is where it drags slightly. Not that it isn't interesting, because I found it fascinating. What happens, though, is that the book almost becomes oppressive. Zamoyski gives us a lot of detail about the retreat, all the way down to the cannibalism at the end when there was no food to be had. He details the cold, the snow, how the soldiers managed to survive, and how many of them didn't. Granted, there were some actual battles in this part, and Zamoyski does his usual good job with these, but then we get back to the retreat, and the freezing to death. I alternately loved and hated this part, and I do think it went on a bit too long. Some of the detail is not for the squeamish, including vivid descriptions of the affects of frostbite on a man walking.

That being said, I think it was important for us to get a lot of that detail. I have always known about the great retreat in concept, and that it was bitterly cold, and that Napoleon lost a lot of his men and his army was basically destroyed. I had, however, no idea just how horrible it was, and this book brought that home. The Cossacks in this book are especially effective, as they almost seem like a horrible force of nature rather than a group of men. They are always hovering on the outskirts of the retreat, waiting for people to fall to the roadside, swooping in to strip them of their valuables. We hear a lot about the brutality of the Cossacks, both in the raiding as well as the escorting of prisoners. This is an important story, and I'm very glad I read this book.

The best part of Moscow 1812 is that it is extensively researched, with a lot of footnotes. Most of these notes are from primary sources, letters home from the soldiers, or journals. Some of these are from letters that Zamoyski later says were never delivered, which implies that a Russian soldier found them and kept them. This is the story of the retreat told by those who were there, and it's all the more powerful for it.

If you have any interest in military history or Napoleon, and if you don't have a weak stomach, Moscow 1812 is the book for you.

David Roy


"Don't worry lads, the gaffer knows what he's doing..."   September 3, 2005
 14 out of 16 found this review helpful

Such may have been the comments of the members of the half million strong "Grande Armee" of Napoleon Bonaparte as they trudged to Moscow and back in 1812 under appalling conditions. Adam Zamoyski's book is a fine narrative history of the period leading up to and the actual invasion of Russia by Napoleon's France in 1812. In many ways a well-written military narrative history is better than a good novel and the epic events described in "1812" certainly make for a gripping read. The main characters in the drama are Emperor Napoleon, the (now paunchy) Gallic serial conqueror in the mould of Julius Caesar and Tsar Alexander of Russia, a stubborn , strong-willed expansionist committed to preserving the feudal order which Napoleon had overthrown elsewhere in French-occupied Europe. The crux of their dispute lay with their conflicting plans for the future of Poland and Russia's abandonment of Napoleons Continental System (enforced boycott of British produce.Differences of opinion there may have been between Napoleon and Alexander on these issues, but surely it was hardly worth a full scale war in which half a million people died on the barren,snowy wastelands of Lithuania, Belarus and Russia ?

"1812" clearly demonstrates that the invasion of Russia had more to do with a clash of egos than any imminent military threat or political differences between the two protagonists. Napoleon wanted an alliance with the Tsar, for Alexander to defer to him on important issues and to cease his expansionism into the West. He most certainly didn't want a regime change in Russia or a bloody war and this caution led to Napoleons downfall. He was too proud to compromise with Russia before the invasion and too timid in his objectives once the decision to invade went ahead. Napoleon wanted to call Russias bluff and achieve peace on his terms by marching a huge army to Russias borders but Alexander didnt capitulate as Napoleon had expected. When he finally sacked Moscow (why not go to St Petersburg ?) ,still Alexander refused to negotiate a peace deal and not knowing what to do next with the winter approaching, Napoleon retreated.The retreat turned into a total disaster which decimated the "Grande Armee" and ultimately led to Napoleons political demise and the end of French power. The aforementioned lack of clear objectives by Napoleon were the key to his failure, as well as the abysmal planning and organisation of transport and supplies for the huge army. From a purely military point of view , the French were tactically superior to the Russian Army and more skilled in battle, but the freezing weather,starvation and lack of shelter they suffered destroyed this superiority and turned what was to have been an orderly, temporary retreat into an embarrassing flight and a damage limitation exercise.

Zamoyski's "1812" serves up a wealth of detail about the French invasion, much of it in the form of eye-witness accounts which gives the reader an insight into the mood of the army at various stages of the campaign and the horrific conditions they suffered. The lucky ones were killed in battle; most of the rest froze to death ,died of exhaustion , caught a fatal disease, were killed and/or tortured by Russian soldiers or peasants or sold into servitude. The wounded were locked up in hospitals more akin to prisons and left to die without food ,water and proper sanitation. Visceral accounts by eye-witnesses of cannibalism, "fricasees of cat" and the hacking off of chunks of flesh from live horses by ravenous soldiers ,while their owners werent looking, make the whole book very vivid and makes the tragedy of 1812 more poignant.
After reading this book, I found it hard to believe that all this grand scale death and destruction was caused by the arrogance and hubris of two despots with only relatively minor political differences between them and that a renowned leader like Napoleon could have displayed such consistently bad judgement and decision making throughout the 1812 campaign. A terrible waste of human life. I also wondered that if Napoleon had married Tsar Alexander's jailbait sister as he wanted to in 1809 (little Princess Anna was only 14) ,whether or not the whole 1812 debacle could have been avoided .Bonaparte would have had his saucy teenybopper, become part of the Tsars family and any dirty linen would have been washed in private (so much for the conspiratorial version of history ?). So cheaply did Napoleon and Alexander value their subjects lives that if this had happened half a million unfortunates mightn't have perished.

I would definitely recommend this book; it's an epic story describing a dramatic series of memorable events, the humiliation of a great Emperor, the merciless destruction of a massive army and the unimaginable suffering of its soldiers.


Superbly balanced   August 1, 2005
 6 out of 8 found this review helpful

This book is balanced in every way. Not only by not taking sides, but by balancing military and political thinkings, and the broad-brush against the detail. I particularly like how he is able to illustrate the broad sweep of events with a huge array of extracts and detail from documents concerning individuals. A very impressive work, clearly based on scholarship, highly readable, suitably amusing and appalling in places, and requiring little pre-knowledge.


Absolutely riveting   June 21, 2005
 11 out of 13 found this review helpful

History books are divided for me into the dry (usually written twenty or thirty years ago and riddled with scholastic footnotes and a huge bibliography - rarely if the truth were told does one get past chapter 3) and the sensational (apparantly written by a Daily Star reporter "resting" and consisting of a search for salacious angle on a period or personality.) This book to me is the perfect balance in that it portrays tragic but glorious events mixing just the right amount of scholastic integrity with those engrossing anecdotes which so often bring the subject to life. Adam Zamoyski clearly has a fine academic grip on his subject but displays his knowledge in an entirely accessible and empathetic manner. The greater picture of Napoleon's ill-advised and foolhardy push into the Russian heartland is riveting in itself, but when this is superbly illustrated with brilliant little vignettes of ordinary soldiers and peasants (I will always retain the image of the soldier carrying the regimental dog with four frozen legs through the chaos) the result is a compulsive read