the lion of the russian army - Florida State University

example of subordination, concealed his grievances and silently endured the insults …
but Bagration behaved outrageously, disregarding all manners.“ 146
Bagration’s actions at Smolensk are difficult to explain. Patriot as he was,
Bagration often ignored the obvious facts, claiming he was safeguarding “Holy Russia”.
He accused Barclay of betraying Russia, yet his own actions could have threatened the
Russian armies. He admitted Napoleon’s numerical superiority, but tenaciously called for
the offensive that would have been disastrous for the country. After the battle at
Smolensk he bragged about his achievements and minimized those of Barclay. Yet,
despite his argument with Barclay, Bagration occasionally expressed his respect to him
as he did at Usvyatie and later at Borodino. Though he appealed for the offensive, he
complied with Barclay’s orders to retreat eastward and defend Dorogobouzh.
Considering his correspondence it can be argued that Bagration suffered from the mental
strains under the pressure of the campaign. Usually calm, respectful and agreeable,
Bagration demonstrated his irrational and belligerent behavior. Even his associates
observed this strange transformation in his character and criticized his behavior.
Despite his weaknesses, Prince Peter was still one of the finest Russian
commanders. His troops were distinguished for discipline and good spirits. He
anticipated The French flanking maneuver long before Barclay and other Russians
generals. Bagration’s decision to deploy Neverovsky’s division at Krasnyi safeguarded
the Russian armies. During the battle of Smolensk, Bagration’s troops successfully
defended the city and ensured the retreat of the main forces.
146 Bagration to Rostopchin, circa 28 August 1812, Headquarter’s Archives, V, 74; also
Tartarovsky, Barclay de Tolly, 93; Yermolov, Memoirs, 100-101
789