# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lucy Worsley's Empire of the Tsars - 2 of 3 - Age Of Extremes - Full Documentary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this episode Lucy examines the extraordinary reign of Catherine the Great, and the traumatic conflict with Napoleonic France that provides the setting for the novel War and Peace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lucy Worsley's Empire of the Tsars - 3 of 3 - The Road To Revolution - Full Documentary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lucy Worsley concludes her history of the Romanov dynasty, investigating how the family's grip on Russia unravelled in their final century. She shows how the years 1825-1918 were bloody and traumatic, a period when four tsars tried - and failed - to deal with the growing pressure for constitutional reform and revolution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Higher History learning resources for adults, children, parents and teachers organised by topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The start of the 19th century was a time of hostility between France and England, marked by a series of wars. Throughout this period, England feared a French invasion led by Napoleon. Ruth Mather explores the impact of this fear on literature and on everyday life.

Following the brief and uneasy peace formalised in the Treaty of Amiens (1802), Britain resumed war against Napoleonic France in May 1803; hostilities were to continue until the British victory at the battle of Waterloo in 1815. The return to war required the resumption of the mass enlistment of the previous ten years, especially as fears of a Napoleonic invasion once again intensified. The Corsican general Napoleon, soon to become emperor, had made no secret of his intentions of invading Britain, and in 1803 he massed his huge 'Army of England' on the shores of Calais, posing a visible threat to southern England.

Buonaparte's Soliloquy, from a collection of material relating to the fear of a French invasion

Comical handbill about Napolean's threatened invasion of Britain, 1803.

Usage terms: : Public Domain

Map from a collection of material relating to the fear of a French invasion

Map illustrating the fear of Napolean's invasion of Britain, 1804.

Usage terms: : Public Domain

Glamorising the military

Although fears of invasion were downplayed in satirical prints that mocked Napoleon's size and strength, for many men and women these fears were very real. Indeed, the public rallied behind the British military, to the extent that the historian Linda Colley has argued that British identity was forged in these years. For men, this often involved training with the local volunteer forces, which were established for protection in the event of a successful French landing. Some women found an outlet for patriotic or charitable impulses in the campaign to make uniforms for the troops, while others found perhaps less noble enjoyment in the social whirl that surrounded army camps and brought excitement to an otherwise dull and repetitive daily round. Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice captured the heady mix of danger and glamour that military men in their dashing, brightly-coloured uniforms could bring to a sleepy market town, and this mood was echoed in numerous popular ballads and in regular reports of soldiers' elopements with local girls. A fascination with military men also fuelled a market in commemorative goods, especially of Nelson and Wellington, elaborate illustrated battle histories, toys and military-influenced fashions. Previously, British culture had been suspicious of land armies, but the glamorisation of soldiers helped to encourage enlistment at a time when it was very much needed. This increased recruitment and enthusiasm for the military demonstrated the army's power both to the enemy and to discontents at home.

Poverty and unemployment

As well as increasing the size of the army and navy, the British government responded by strengthening existing defences and building new ones along the south coast, notably the Martello towers which can still be seen today. These reinforcements came at no small cost, and taxes were again increased to fund the war effort. Many British men and women were left in desperate misery due to high taxes, skyrocketing food prices, unemployment caused by wartime trade restrictions, and the increased use of labour-saving machinery. Economic struggles forced many men to sign up for the army. In the popular Lancashire ballad 'Jone O'Grinfelt', the protagonist illustrates the choice between enlisting and starving: Jone tells his wife he will 'fight oather [either] Spanish or French' before he spends another day cold and hungry.

The Friend of the People; & his Petty New Tax Gatherer paying John Bull a visit by Gillray

Satirical print by James Gillray about the increased taxes caused by the Napoleonic wars.

Usage terms: : Public Domain

What the ballad does not mention is the fate of wives like Jone's. Officially, army policy permitted only six married men per company, with all others paid as single men. The Duke of Wellington himself weighed in against the recruitment of married men, protesting that it would 'leave their families to starve.' Despite this, in miserable economic circumstances many husbands and fathers clearly felt they did not have much choice, and their wives and children were forced to rely on their own work or the support of the parish. Not all were willing to accept their situation passively, and the later years of the Napoleonic wars were characterised by strikes, riots and Luddism in some depressed areas like Yorkshire and Lancashire, with the militia brought in to put down internal dissent.

Charlotte Brontë's novel Shirley (1849) is set during 1811 and 1812, and depicts the effects of war on a Yorkshire cloth manufacturing community, in which the mill operatives have become so desperately poor that they must consider emigration - even the owner of the mill is under considerable pressure to marry a woman he does not love to secure his financial position.

Anti-war literature

Much anti-war art and literature focused on the struggles of ordinary people and the capacity of war to impoverish and separate families. William Wordsworth's The Excursion (1814) , for example, tells the tale of Margaret, whose husband is driven by poverty to enlist, leaving her and their child to cope in straitened circumstances, in which she eventually goes mad with wondering if he will ever return. Anna Laetitia Barbauld's poem 'Eighteen Hundred and Eleven' likewise spoke of women suffering at the uncertainty of the fate of loved ones, and described in apocalyptic terms the collapse of commerce and the spread of poverty and famine in all warring nations. While many Britons felt hostility was justified to repulse Napoleon's expansionist aims, Barbauld and others questioned the morality of war, warning Britain that 'Thou who hast shared the guilt must share the woe'.

After the war

After the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, the threat of a French invasion receded. However, Napoleon continued to be successful in his campaigns on the continent, and the continued costs of a distant war left wearied even former enthusiasts. Hopes for a better life after the war were frustrated, and maintenance of taxation and the flooding of the labour market led to continued unrest among working people. This began to express itself in the formation of organised political groups calling for better political representation. In 1819, the Female Reform Society of Manchester denounced the 'unjust, unnecessary, and destructive war, against the liberties of France', stating that it had 'tended to raise landed property threefold above its value, and to load our beloved country with an insurmountable burden of Taxation'. Although the war had begun with the ostensible aim of protecting the liberties of the British people, many of those people queried whether the corrupt aristocracy were the only ones to benefit.

Footnotes

[1] L. Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837. (Yale University Press, 2005).

[2] In the popular Lancashire ballad 'Jone O'Grinfelt', the protagonist illustrates the choice between enlisting and starving: Jone tells his wife he will 'fight oather [either] Spanish or French' before he spends another day cold and hungry.

[3] Letter from Duke of Wellington to Colonel Torrens, January 28th, 1811, quoted in Jennine Hurl-Eamon, "Insights into Plebeian Marriage : Soldiers, Sailors, and their Wives in the Old Bailey Proceedings" in London Journal, 3.1 (2005), p.24.

[4] Anna Laetitia Barbauld, Eighteen Hundred and Eleven, A Poem (London: J. Johnson & Co., 1812).

[5] 'Manchester Female Reformers' Address published in the Manchester Observer, 31 July, 1819, reprinted in Political Women, 1800-1850, ed. by Ruth and Edmund Frow (London: Pluto, 1989), pp.25-26.

Ruth Mather is a PhD student at Queen Mary, University of London. Her research is focussed on the links between working-class political identities and the home in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The impact of the Napoleonic Wars in Britain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The start of the 19th century was a time of hostility between France and England, marked by a series of wars. Throughout this period, England feared a French invasion led by Napoleon. Ruth Mather explores the impact of this fear on literature and on everyday life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Political cartoon of Napoleon's return from Elba in March 1815

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View 'Political cartoon of Napoleon's return from Elba in March 1815' on the British Library's Discovering Literature website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The National Archives | Exhibitions | British Battles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The war between Russia and Japan was provoked by strategic issues, the international context and personal factors. Russian expansionism and rapid Japanese military growth and modernisation generated clashes over military, political and commercial interests in East Asia. In the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, Japan eliminated Chinese power in Korea and won control over the Liaotung Peninsula in Manchuria. An alliance of Russia, France and Germany, however, pressured Japan to give back the peninsula in return for increased reparations. Tensions increased as Russia founded the Russo-Korean Bank, demanded a twenty-five-year lease from China of the Liaotung Peninsula for itself and moved troops into Manchuria in response to the Boxer Uprising.

Furthermore, in 1897 Russia had embarked on railway building on Chinese territory to open it up to commercial exploitation. The potential of the railway as an instrument of economic control, colonisation and military policy caused alarm among Japanese leaders. In 1902, Japan signed a treaty with Britain that secured British intervention should any country join Russia in a war against Japan, effectively removing the threat of other European powers' involvement if hostilities erupted. Influential individuals disrupted attempts at conciliation. The Russian viceroy for the Far East, Yevgeni Ivanovich Alekseyev (1843-1917), for example, encouraged the Tsar to strengthen his Far East forces when they were supposed to be withdrawing from Manchuria. As negotiations stalled, on the night of 8-9 February 1904 Japanese destroyers launched a surprise attack on Russian warships at Port Arthur in Manchuria and Chemulpo (Inchon) in Korea. On 10 February 1904, after the initial assaults had taken place, Japan declared war.

Japanese naval manoeuvres at Port Arthur beginning in February 1904 failed to block the harbour, but largely confined the Russian squadron to the port. On 13 April 1904, a mine sunk the Russian flagship Petropavlovsk in the harbour, taking with it Vice-Admiral Stepan Osipovich Makarov (1848-1904) and 662 crew members. Japanese forces pursued the remaining Russian ships, under the command of Admiral Vil'gel'm Karlovich Vitgeft (1847-1904), when they broke out to join with cruisers at Vladivostok. The ensuing Battle of the Yellow Sea was a significant defeat for Russia. Admiral Vitgeft was killed and no Russian ships succeeded in reaching Vladivostok. Some were interned in foreign ports, one destroyer was sunk and another captured. The rest of the squadron was forced back to Port Arthur. In December 1904 all but one of the Russian battleships still anchored there were sunk by Japanese shelling. The final large-scale encounter of the war was the Battle of Tsushima between the fleet of Admiral Heihachiro Togo (1848-1934) and the 2 nd Pacific Squadron led by Rear-Admiral Zinovii Petrovich Rozhestvenskii (1848-1909). The newly formed 2 nd Pacific Squadron had left the Baltic in October 1904. On the way it caused a diplomatic incident at Dogger Bank by firing on English trawlers mistaken for Japanese torpedo boats. By the time the fleet approached Japan in May 1905 it was weakened by problems with fuelling, mutiny and tropical disease. The Japanese fleet routed the squadron and captured the badly injured Rozhestvenskii. Thousands of Russians were killed, taken prisoner to Japan or interned in neutral countries, while Japan lost just three torpedo boats and 700 men killed or wounded.

At the end of April 1904, the first major land battle, the Battle of the Yalu River, took place on the boundary between Korea and Manchuria. It resulted in Russian retreat, their exclusion from Korea and the surrender of part of the Russian army. A few days later, the Japanese 2 nd Army was able to land unopposed on the Liaotung Peninsula, north of Port Arthur. At the Battle of Nanshan, the 2 nd Army drove the Russians to abandon the commercial port of Dalny and the outer defences of Port Arthur despite heavy casualties. From the end of July 1904, Japanese forces besieged Port Arthur's fortress town, accepting the surrender of the garrison on 2 January 1905. In the meantime, in 1904 Japanese divisions had advanced into Manchuria, driving back the much larger Russian army of General Aleksei Nikolaevich Kuropatkin (1848-1925) at Liaoyang, albeit with greater losses, and inflicting heavy casualties on the Russians at the Battle of Sha-Ho. The Russian offensive at San-de-pu in January 1905 ended in failure. Reinforcements arrived on both sides and in February and March 1905, in the town of Mukden, the armies fought the longest land battle of modern history to that point. The battle cost both sides almost a third of their forces as Japanese troops outflanked those of Kuropatkin and took the town.

Japan had won clear victories at Mukden and Tsushima; however, Japanese forces were exhausted, low on ammunition and the country's economy was strained. Russia could draw on more substantial reinforcements than Japan, but the Tsar was preoccupied with domestic unrest. In August 1905, peace negotiations began in the United States. The Treaty of Portsmouth signed in September 1905 recognised Japanese rights in Korea and ceded Port Arthur, Dalny and the adjacent territory to Japan, along with control over the South Manchurian Railway. It provided for Russian evacuation from Manchuria. The Japanese government's demands for financial reparations were not granted, however, and the island of Sakhalin, seized by Japan at the end of the war, was divided between the two powers.

Consequences and Significance ↑

The war took a bitter toll on each side, contributing to domestic unrest in both countries. In Japan, many felt the peace settlement cheated them of the fruits of victory. Riots lasted for days and the authorities instituted martial law. In Russia, news of defeat seemed to justify the political opposition's criticism of the autocratic regime's incompetency. Discontent at military humiliation and economic disruption, compounded by the domestic absence of the troops, relied upon by the regime to quell domestic protest, heightened social unrest. Waves of oppositional activity culminated in the Revolution of 1905, in which protests by liberals, socialists, workers, peasants, ethnic minorities and even some soldiers and sailors, for example on the Black Sea fleet's battleship Potemkin, forced the Tsar to grant Russia's first parliament.

The shame of defeat also prompted long-delayed military reform to bring Russia's capability in line with her Great Power status, a programme interrupted by the outbreak of the First World War. In addition, military humiliation contributed to currents of nationalism and pan-Slavism that found release in the eruption of war in 1914. There was also a significant international dimension to the Russo-Japanese war. Its global reverberations have led some scholars to term it "World War Zero." It changed the balance of power in East Asia, elevated Japan to potential inclusion in the ranks of the Great Powers and inspired anti- imperialists across Asia. The victory of an Asiatic country over a European power shattered illusions in the west and the general staffs of European and American militaries pored over reports sent back by their observers. Unfortunately, erroneous inferences were often drawn, for example that future warfare would be short, mobile and won by spirited offensives, lessons which had to be quickly unlearned as the First World War unfolded.

Siobhan Peeling, University of Nottingham

Section Editors: Yulia Khmelevskaya; Katja Bruisch; Olga Nikonova; Oksana Nagornaja

Notes

Wolff, David et al. (eds.): The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective. Volume II World War Zero, Leiden 2007, p. xiii.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905, caused by Russian and Japanese expansionism in the Far East, inflicted humiliating defeats on Russia at land and sea. The war contributed to domestic unrest in both countries, catalysing the revolution of 1905 in Russia. The rise of Japan also sent reverberations across the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Romanovs were the most successful dynasty of modern times, ruling a sixth of the world's surface. How did one family turn a war-ruined principality into the world's greatest empire? And ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Greg King's books include "The Fate of the Romanovs," "The Court of the Last Tsar," and the forthcoming "Mayerling."

In the months before the Russian revolution, the notorious Grigori Rasputin haunted Petrograd's exclusive Hotel Astoria, clapping along with gypsy bands and dancing wildly. "Like a beast," he demolished the cook Spiridon's carefully prepared dishes, grabbing food with "talon-like fingers" as all watched in horror. Rasputin exemplified the imperial regime at its worst: the "mad monk," a favorite of Czar Nicholas II and his unbalanced wife, Alexandra, corrupted by power and acting his malevolent role in a fatal ménage à trois.

"It was hard to be a tsar," writes British historian Simon Sebag Montefiore in his erudite and entertaining "The Romanovs: 1613-1918." Drawing on a wide array of Russian sources, Sebag Montefiore paints an unforgettable portrait of characters fascinating and charismatic, odd and odious. Magnificent palaces, elaborate balls, and a culture that produced Pushkin, Tchaikovsky and Tolstoy existed alongside pogroms, torture and murder (of the last dozen Romanov sovereigns, half were assassinated). Romanovs both capable and insane struggled with what the author calls "the distorting effect of absolute power." Monarchs over one-sixth of the globe, they played at Western niceties while clinging to Byzantine notions of absolute rule.

An undercurrent of violence and sexual depravity runs through the vibrant narrative, but the poignant stories of two teenage boys open this chronicle. One, Michael, reluctantly takes the chaotic Russian throne in 1613 and founds the dynasty amid dangerous power struggles; the other, Alexei, frail with hemophilia, enters a Siberian cellar in 1918, where Bolshevik bullets will bring the dynasty to its bloody end. Tackling the 20 reigns between these bookends, Sebag Montefiore arranges chapters as connected scenes in a larger drama. Beyond the three sovereigns who have become household names - Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Nicholas II - are vivid portraits of other Romanovs. The cruel Empress Anna, who dressed courtiers as chickens, clapped as dwarves fought the maimed and presided over hair-pulling contests between her ladies-in-waiting, stands in contrast to Abraham Lincoln's contemporary Alexander II, who not only ended serfdom and instituted judicial reforms but also carried on a blush-worthy correspondence with mistress Ekaterina Dolgorukaya. He wanted her "four times" a day, "on every piece of furniture" and in "every room." He married her a month after his wife's death, only to perish himself nine months later, victim of a nihilist's bomb.

The dynasty, Sebag Montefiore concedes, produced only two "political geniuses," Peter the Great and the famous Catherine. Rebelling against the intrigues and backward ideas characterizing Muscovite rule, Peter turned Russia to the West, visiting Europe and building his new capital, St. Petersburg. Western clothing and manners were forced on a reluctant court as Peter dragged Russia into the 18th century. Modernization marked his tumultuous reign, yet Peter couldn't escape the grotesque: Dwarves and giants paraded through his court; he drunkenly - and lewdly - mocked the Orthodox Church; and he had his own son tortured to death for opposing his reforms. Anatomy fascinated him: He once had a former mistress decapitated, then held up her severed head, kissing the lips before lecturing stunned onlookers about the function of her windpipe.

Catherine the Great had little taste for violence. The former German princess came to Russia and wed Empress Elizabeth's demented nephew Peter. Her husband played with tin soldiers; Catherine cultivated the real thing, taking lovers from elite regiments. Peter despised Russia; Catherine became conspicuously Russian in all things. Ascending the throne as Peter III, he had so alienated the court and military that most readily supported the coup d'état that left him strangled and crowned his wife. "My glory is spoilt!" Catherine lamented. "Posterity will never forgive me." But it did, and she went on to enlarge her empire while wrapping it in a veneer of enlightened autocracy. Catherine read Diderot, corresponded with Voltaire and engaged in myriad romances, including a long, volatile relationship with Prince Grigori Potemkin. Through it all, she understood the essential dichotomy of her rule: "One must do things," Catherine explained, "in such a way that people think they themselves want it to be done."

The Romanovs who followed successfully repelled Napoleon and exulted in the splendor of their court - until 1894, when Nicholas II came to the throne with his wife, Alexandra. It's hard to imagine two people more unsuited to their roles. Sentimental nostalgia surrounds them with an uncritical legend focused entirely on their love affair and domestic lives. Yet Sebag Montefiore treats them "as both intimate and political figures . . . without the burden of pungent romance, Soviet disgust or liberal contempt."

Nicholas II emerges as "the least capable and most narrow-minded" of Romanov sovereigns. Having inherited his father's virulent anti-Semitism, he witnessed horrific pogroms during his reign, and violence was common: With "careless arrogance," the czar foolishly propelled Russia into wars and revolutions. Not that Alexandra escapes unscathed. "Obsessive piety [and] sanctimonious prudery," combined with a belief in her own superiority, drove her to isolate her husband and tie him to a world of petty domestic concerns. Her only son's hemophilia, inherited through her grandmother Queen Victoria, left the empress ripe for the ministrations of a stunning succession of holy fools, ending with Rasputin.

"It is unlikely," Sebag Montefiore concludes, "that even Peter or Catherine could have solved the predicaments of revolution and world war faced by Nicholas II." Perhaps - but they possessed will and vision, two qualities Nicholas II lacked. The storm that swept Russia in 1917 carried away millions in its wake: Only the cagey managed to survive, among them Spiridon, the poor cook who had watched Rasputin dip into his exquisite dishes with dirty fingers. Abandoning the old regime, Spiridon went on to work for Lenin and then Stalin. It's tempting to ponder the warnings against weakness and the lessons of ruthless power he passed to his grandson Vladimir Putin, who seems intent on restoring Russia's prestige, resurrecting the lost empire and enshrining himself as a modern czar, every bit as autocratic and ruthless as the fallen Romanovs.

The Romanovs, 1613-1918

By Simon Sebag Montefiore

Knopf. 744 pp. $35

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
russion history books. the last tsar of russia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Romanovs: fascinating, odd and odious

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Greg King's books include "The Fate of the Romanovs," "The Court of the Last Tsar," and the forthcoming "Mayerling." In the months before the Russian revolution, the notorious Grigori Rasputin haunted Petrograd's exclusive Hotel Astoria, clapping along with gypsy bands and dancing wildly.

# data[].attributes.body
1613 - 1918

# data[].attributes.headline
The Bolshevik Revolution 1917 - 1923 (out of date slightly, but good for background knowledge) 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Bolshevik Revolution 1917 - 1923 (out of date slightly, but good for background knowledge) 

# data[].attributes.body
by Edward Hallet Carr

# data[].attributes.headline
Reaction and revolution: Russia 1894 to 1924 Third Edition 

# data[].attributes.subject
Reaction and revolution: Russia 1894 to 1924 Third Edition 

# data[].attributes.body
Michael Lynch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After taking power in 1799, French leader Napoleon Bonaparte won a string of military victories that gave him control over most of Europe. He annexed present-day Belgium and Holland, along with large chunks of present-day Italy, Croatia and Germany, and he set up dependencies in Switzerland, Poland and various German states. Spain was largely under his hegemony despite continuing guerilla warfare there, and Austria, Prussia and Russia had been browbeaten into becoming allies. Only Great Britain remained completely outside of his grasp.

In 1806 Napoleon decided to punish the British with an embargo that became known as the Continental System. But by the end of 1810, Czar Alexander I had stopped complying due to its deleterious effect on Russian trade and the value of the ruble. Alexander also imposed a heavy tax on French luxury products like lace and rebuffed Napoleon's attempt to marry one of his sisters. Exacerbating tensions was the 1807 formation of the Duchy of Warsaw. Though Napoleon created that state from Prussian, not Russian, lands, Alexander worried that it would incite a hostile Polish nationalism, according to D.M.G. Sutherland, a history professor at the University of Maryland who has authored two books on the Napoleonic era. "Down to the present day, the love affair between the French and Polish is pretty permanent," Sutherland said.

Napoleon, who considered Russia a natural ally since it had no territorial conflicts with France, soon moved to teach Alexander a lesson. In 1812 the French emperor raised a massive army of troops from all over Europe, the first of which entered Russia on June 24. "It was the most diverse European army since the Crusades," Sutherland said. Estimates vary, but experts believe that at least 450,000 Grande Armée soldiers and perhaps as many as 650,000 ended up crossing the Niemen River to fight approximately 200,000 soldiers on the Russian side. By comparison, George Washington' s army during the American Revolution rarely numbered more than 10,000 or 15,000 men, explained Sheperd Paine, president of the Napoleonic Historical Society.

Napoleon's goal was to win a quick victory that forced Alexander to the negotiating table. The Russians pulled back, however, and let the Grande Armée capture the city of Vilna on June 27 with barely a fight. In an ominous sign of things to come, an electrical storm pouring down freezing rain, hail and sleet killed a number of troops and horses that very night. To make matters worse, Grande Armée soldiers were already deserting in search of food and plunder. Nonetheless, Napoleon remained confident. "I have come once and for all to finish off these barbarians of the North," he purportedly declared to his top military advisors. "The sword is now drawn. They must be pushed back into their ice, so that for the next 25 years they no longer come to busy themselves with the affairs of civilized Europe."

In late July, the Russians similarly abandoned Vitebsk, setting fire to military stores and a bridge on their way out. Then, in mid-August, they retreated from Smolensk and torched that city. Many peasants, meanwhile, burned their crops to prevent them from falling into French hands. "Certainly, the scorched earth tactics were incredibly important in denying the French army sustenance," said David A. Bell, a history professor at Princeton University and author of " The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It. " The summer heat had likewise become oppressive, and Grande Armée soldiers were coming down with insect-borne diseases such as typhus and water-related diseases like dysentery.

Thousands of men died while fighting at Smolensk and elsewhere. But the Russians did not truly make a stand until the September 7 Battle of Borodino, which took place just 75 miles from Moscow. That day, the French and Russians pounded each other with artillery and launched a number of charges and countercharges. Roughly three canon booms and seven musket shots rang out each second. The losses on both sides were enormous, with total casualties of at least 70,000. Rather than continue with a second day of fighting, the Russians withdrew and left the road to Moscow open.

On September 14, the Grande Armée entered the ancient capital of Moscow, only to see it too become engulfed in flames. Most residents had already escaped the city, leaving behind vast quantities of hard liquor but little food. French troops drank and pillaged while Napoleon waited for Alexander to sue for peace. No offer ever came. With snow flurries having already fallen, Napoleon led his army out of Moscow on October 19, realizing that it could not survive the winter there.

By this time, Napoleon was down to some 100,000 troops, the rest having died, deserted or been wounded, captured or left along the supply line. Originally he planned a southerly retreat, but his troops were forced back to the road they took in after a replenished Russian army engaged them at Maloyaroslavets. All forage along that route had already been consumed, and when the army arrived at Smolensk it found that stragglers had eaten the food left there. Horses were dying in droves, and the Grande Armée's flanks and rear guard faced constant attacks. To top it off, an unusually early winter set in, complete with high winds, sub-zero temperatures and lots of snow. On particularly bad nights, thousands of men and horses succumbed to exposure. Stories abound of soldiers splitting open dead animals and crawling inside for warmth, or stacking dead bodies in windows for insulation. "Things got bad very quickly," Paine said. "It was a constant attrition."

In late November, the Grande Armée narrowly escaped complete annihilation when it crossed the frigid Berezina River, but it had to leave behind thousands of wounded. "From then on, it was almost every man for himself," Paine said. On December 5, Napoleon left the army under the command of Joachim Murat and sped toward Paris amid rumors of a coup attempt. Nine days later, what little remained of the Grande Armée's rear guard stumbled back across the Niemen River.

Emboldened by the defeat, Austria, Prussia and Sweden re-joined Russia and Great Britain in the fight against Napoleon. Although the French emperor was able to raise another massive army, this time it was short on both cavalry and experience. Napoleon won some initial victories against his enemies, but he suffered a crushing defeat in October 1813 at the Battle of Leipzig. By the following March, Paris had been captured and Napoleon was forced into exile on the island of Elba. In 1815 Napoleon made one more attempt to take power but was overcome at the Battle of Waterloo. "Charles XII tried it, Napoleon tried it, Hitler tried it," Bell said. "It never seems to work out invading Russia."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Napoleon's Invasion of Russia Was the Beginning of the End

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After taking power in 1799, French leader Napoleon Bonaparte won a string of military victories that gave him control over most of Europe. He annexed present-day Belgium and Holland, along with large chunks of present-day Italy, Croatia and Germany, and he set up dependencies in Switzerland, Poland and various German states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nicholas II was the last tsar of Russia. He was deposed during the Russian Revolution and executed by the Bolsheviks.

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov was born near St Petersburg on 18 May 1868, the eldest son of Tsar Alexander III. When he succeeded his father in 1894, he had very little experience of government. In the same year, Nicholas married Princess Alexandra of Hesse-Darmstadt (a duchy in Germany). They had four daughters and a son, Alexis, who suffered from the disease haemophilia.

Alexandra was the dominant personality in their relationship and encouraged the weaker Nicholas's autocratic tendencies. He mistrusted most of his ministers and yet was incapable of carrying out the task of ruling the vast Russian empire alone.

Determined that Russia should not be left out in the scramble for colonial possessions, Nicholas encouraged Russian expansion in Manchuria. This provoked war with Japan in 1904. The resulting Russian defeat led to strikes and riots. In January 1905, on 'Bloody Sunday', the army in St Petersburg shot at a crowd demanding radical reforms. Opposition to the tsar grew and Nicholas was forced to grant a constitution and establish a parliament, the Duma.

Nicholas's concessions were only limited. Changes were made in the voting laws to prevent the election of radicals and the secret police continued to crush opposition. However, the Duma did give many more people, especially the middle classes, a voice in government.

The outbreak of World War One in 1914 temporarily strengthened the monarchy, with Russia allied to France and Britain against Austria-Hungary and Germany. In mid-1915 Nicholas made the disastrous decision to take direct command of the Russian armies. From then on, every military failure was directly associated with him.

With Nicholas often away, Alexandra took a more active role in government. Russia was suffering heavy losses in the war, there was high inflation and severe food shortages at home, which compounded the grinding poverty most Russians already endured. German-born Alexandra soon became the focus of discontent, as did her confidante, the mystic, Rasputin, who had been at court since 1905 and had gained great influence through his apparent ability to treat the haemophilia of Alexis, the heir to the throne.

In December 1916, Rasputin was murdered by a group of disaffected nobles. Then in February 1917, widespread popular demonstrations began in the capital Petrograd (as St Petersburg was renamed in 1914). Nicholas lost the support of the army and had no alternative but to abdicate. A shaky provisional government was established. The tsar and his family were held in various locations, eventually being imprisoned in Yekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains.

In October 1917, the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government. Following a harsh peace treaty with Germany in March 1918, Russia descended into civil war. On 17 July 1918, as anti-Bolsheviks approached Yekaterinburg, Nicholas and his family were executed. This was almost certainly on the orders of the Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nicholas II was the last tsar of Russia. He was deposed during the Russian Revolution and executed by the Bolsheviks. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov was born near St Petersburg on 18 May 1868, the eldest son of Tsar Alexander III. When he succeeded his father in 1894, he had very little experience of government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Citation: C N Trueman "The 1905 Russian Revolution"
historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 22 May 2015. 3 Sep 2017.

The 1905 Russian Revolution was sparked off by a peaceful protest held on January 22nd. This protest may well have been the turning point in the relationship the tsar, Nicholas II, enjoyed with his people. Led by a Russian Orthodox priest, Father Gapon, 150,000 people took to the cold and snow covered streets of St Petersburg to protest about their lifestyle. They were not intent on making any form of political protest in the sense of calling for the overthrow of the government or royal family. The petition they carried clearly shows that they wanted Nicholas to help them.

The petition they carried stated:

"Oh Sire, we working men and inhabitants of St. Petersburg, our wives, our children and our parents, helpless and aged women and men, have come to You our ruler, in search of justice and protection. We are beggars, we are oppressed and overburdened with work, we are insulted, we are not looked on as human beings but as slaves. The moment has come for us when death would be better than the prolongation of our intolerable sufferings. We are seeking here our last salvation. Do not refuse to help Your people. Destroy the wall between Yourself and Your people."

None of this could be considered to be a call for a political overhaul, merely a plea for Nicholas to hear their call for help.

As the huge crowd marched through St Petersburg to the Winter Palace, they were confronted by troops who were understandably nervous having to face such a large crowd. The evidence as to why the soldiers fired on the peaceful crowd is patchy - such as who gave the command (if one was ever given) - but after the firing had finished several hundred protestors lay dead. The tragedy was quickly called "Bloody Sunday". Revolutionary parties inflated the number of deaths to thousands. Rumours were spread that there were so many deaths, that soldiers disposed of the bodies in the night to disguise the real number killed. The government figure was less than 100 deaths.

"The present ruler has lost absolutely the affection of the Russian people, and whatever the future may have in store for the dynasty, the present tsar will never again be safe in the midst of his people."The American consul in Odessa

News of what happened quickly spread throughout Russia. Strikes occurred throughout the country involving about 400,000 people; peasants attacked the homes of their landlords; the Grand Duke Sergei, the tsar's uncle, was assassinated in February; the transport system all but ground to a halt. Russia seemed to be on the point of imploding. Sailors on the battleship 'Potemkin' mutinied in June and to add more woes to the government, it became clear that on top of all of this, Russia had lost the Russo-Japanese War - a war that was meant to have bound the people in patriotic fervour to Nicholas.

In January the demonstrators in St Petersburg had merely wanted the tsar to help improve their living standards. By the summer, the demands had become far more political. Protestors called for freedom of speech to be guaranteed; they demanded an elected parliament ( Duma) and they demanded the right to form political parties. The Finns and Poles demanded their right to national independence.

In October 1905, a general strike took place in Moscow and quickly spread to other cities. All manner of people took to the streets demanding change - students, factory workers, revolutionaries, doctors and teachers. On October 26th, the St Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies was formed. This example of working class unity and strength quickly spread to other industrial cities.

Nicholas had two choices. He could use force to put down the rebellions but he had no guarantee that this would be successful as he could not fully trust the military or he could make a conciliatory offer. He did the latter by issuing the October Manifesto on October 30th.

By December, troops had arrived back in European Russian from the Russo-Japanese War. Nicholas used loyal troops to put down the St Petersburg Soviet and to crush those on strike in Moscow. Loyal troops were also sent into the countryside to restore law and order. While the October Manifesto had seemingly brought rewards to the protestors, the tsar's reaction in December showed where the government really stood.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 1905 Russian Revolution - History Learning Site

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1905 Russian Revolution The 1905 Russian Revolution was sparked off by a peaceful protest held on January 22nd. This protest may well have been the turning point in the relationship the tsar, Nicholas II, enjoyed with his people. Led by a Russian Orthodox priest, Father Gapon, 150,000 people took to the cold and snow ...