Summary
Tolstoy pulls back the curtain on how history gets written by the winners. He shows us Napoleon's retreat from Russia - a complete disaster where the French army basically destroyed itself - and then reveals how historians later spun this catastrophe into tales of brilliant strategy and heroic leadership. Napoleon abandoned his own soldiers to die while he fled home in a warm coat, yet history books call this 'greatness.' Tolstoy exposes a dangerous pattern: when powerful people do terrible things, society often reframes their actions as beyond normal moral judgment. We're told that 'great' men operate by different rules, that their supposed genius excuses any cruelty or cowardice. This chapter isn't just about Napoleon - it's about how we still do this today with leaders who hurt people but get praised for being 'strong' or 'decisive.' Tolstoy argues that real greatness can only exist where there's goodness, truth, and basic human decency. When we abandon moral standards for anyone, no matter how powerful or famous, we're really just admitting our own moral weakness. This is Tolstoy at his most direct, cutting through the mythology that surrounds power and asking us to judge leaders by their actions toward ordinary people, not by the stories they tell about themselves afterward.
Coming Up in Chapter 317
As the war draws to its close, Tolstoy will examine what happens when the smoke clears and people must rebuild their lives from the ruins of grand historical events.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
This campaign consisted in a flight of the French during which they did all they could to destroy themselves. From the time they turned onto the Kalúga road to the day their leader fled from the army, none of the movements of the crowd had any sense. So one might have thought that regarding this period of the campaign the historians, who attributed the actions of the mass to the will of one man, would have found it impossible to make the story of the retreat fit their theory. But no! Mountains of books have been written by the historians about this campaign, and everywhere are described Napoleon’s arrangements, the maneuvers, and his profound plans which guided the army, as well as the military genius shown by his marshals. The retreat from Málo-Yaroslávets when he had a free road into a well-supplied district and the parallel road was open to him along which Kutúzov afterwards pursued him—this unnecessary retreat along a devastated road—is explained to us as being due to profound considerations. Similarly profound considerations are given for his retreat from Smolénsk to Orshá. Then his heroism at Krásnoe is described, where he is reported to have been prepared to accept battle and take personal command, and to have walked about with a birch stick and said: “J’ai assez fait l’empereur; il est temps de faire le général,” * but nevertheless immediately ran away again, abandoning to its fate the scattered fragments of the army he left behind. * “I have acted the Emperor long enough; it is time to act the general.” Then we are told of the greatness of soul of the marshals, especially of Ney—a greatness of soul consisting in this: that he made his way by night around through the forest and across the Dnieper and escaped to Orshá, abandoning standards, artillery, and nine tenths of his men. And lastly, the final departure of the great Emperor from his heroic army is presented to us by the historians as something great and characteristic of genius. Even that final running away, described in ordinary language as the lowest depth of baseness which every child is taught to be ashamed of—even that act finds justification in the historians’ language. When it is impossible to stretch the very elastic threads of historical ratiocination any farther, when actions are clearly contrary to all that humanity calls right or even just, the historians produce a saving conception of “greatness.” “Greatness,” it seems, excludes the standards of right and wrong. For the “great” man nothing is wrong, there is no atrocity for which a “great” man can be blamed. “C’est grand!” * say the historians, and there no longer exists either good or evil but only “grand” and “not grand.” Grand is good, not grand is bad. Grand is the characteristic, in their conception, of some special animals called “heroes.” And Napoleon, escaping home in a warm fur coat and leaving to perish those who were not merely his comrades but were...
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
As an Amazon Associate, we earn a small commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Intelligence Amplifier™ Analysis
The Road of Rewritten History
When powerful people fail catastrophically, society collectively rewrites their failures as strategic brilliance to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths about authority.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to recognize when disasters get reframed as strategy to protect those responsible.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when leaders who cause problems get praised for 'making tough decisions'—ask who actually paid the price and who benefits from that framing.
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Historical revisionism
The practice of rewriting history to make events or people look better than they actually were. Historians often do this to serve current political needs or to protect powerful reputations.
Modern Usage:
We see this when politicians claim their failed policies were actually brilliant strategies, or when companies reframe layoffs as 'right-sizing for growth.'
Retreat
A military withdrawal from enemy forces. In this chapter, Napoleon's retreat from Russia was a complete disaster where his army fell apart, but historians later called it strategic.
Modern Usage:
Today we use 'strategic retreat' to make any failure sound planned, like when CEOs 'step down to pursue other opportunities' after scandals.
Military genius
The supposed special intelligence that great generals possess. Tolstoy argues this is often just a myth created after the fact to explain away disasters and mistakes.
Modern Usage:
We still call business leaders 'visionaries' and 'geniuses' even when their companies fail and workers suffer.
Profound considerations
Tolstoy's sarcastic term for the fancy explanations historians give for obviously stupid decisions. It's his way of mocking how we make excuses for powerful people.
Modern Usage:
Politicians and pundits use 'complex factors' and 'nuanced strategy' to explain away obvious failures and bad choices.
Heroism
True courage and self-sacrifice for others. Tolstoy shows how this word gets misused to describe cowardly leaders who abandon their responsibilities while others suffer.
Modern Usage:
We call executives 'heroes' for 'tough decisions' that mostly involve firing workers while protecting their own bonuses.
Abandoning to fate
Leaving people to suffer or die when you have the power to help them. Napoleon fled while his soldiers froze and starved, but history books glossed over this.
Modern Usage:
Leaders today abandon workers, communities, or customers when things get difficult, then get praised for being 'decisive.'
Characters in This Chapter
Napoleon
Failed leader
The supposedly great emperor who abandoned his dying army during the retreat from Russia. Tolstoy shows him as a coward who fled while his soldiers suffered and died.
Modern Equivalent:
The CEO who gets a golden parachute while laying off thousands
Kutúzov
Russian general
The Russian commander who pursued Napoleon's retreating army. He represents practical military leadership focused on results rather than glory.
Modern Equivalent:
The experienced manager who quietly gets things done while others take credit
The historians
Spin doctors
The writers who later rewrote Napoleon's disaster as strategic brilliance. Tolstoy uses them to show how powerful people get their failures turned into success stories.
Modern Equivalent:
The PR teams and media commentators who make excuses for failed leaders
Key Quotes & Analysis
"This campaign consisted in a flight of the French during which they did all they could to destroy themselves."
Context: Tolstoy's blunt summary of Napoleon's retreat from Russia
Tolstoy cuts through all the historical mythology with brutal honesty. He's saying this wasn't strategy or genius - it was just a complete disaster where the French army basically fell apart.
In Today's Words:
The whole thing was just the French running away and screwing themselves over in the process.
"Mountains of books have been written by the historians about this campaign, and everywhere are described Napoleon's arrangements, the maneuvers, and his profound plans."
Context: Tolstoy mocking how historians turned disaster into genius
This shows how the history industry works - take an obvious failure and bury it under fancy language about 'arrangements' and 'profound plans' until people forget what actually happened.
In Today's Words:
Tons of writers have made this disaster sound like brilliant strategy with a bunch of fancy words.
"J'ai assez fait l'empereur; il est temps de faire le général"
Context: Napoleon claiming he's ready to fight personally at Krasnoe
Napoleon says 'I have played the emperor long enough; it is time to act the general' - but then immediately runs away. It perfectly captures how leaders make grand speeches about sacrifice while actually being cowards.
In Today's Words:
I've been the big shot long enough; time to actually do some real work - but then he immediately bailed.
Thematic Threads
Power
In This Chapter
Napoleon's abandonment of his army gets transformed into tales of strategic genius by historians who need to justify their belief in his greatness
Development
Throughout the novel, Tolstoy has shown how power corrupts perception—now he reveals how it corrupts historical memory itself
In Your Life:
You might see this when bad managers get promoted while their failures get reframed as 'learning experiences' or 'bold leadership.'
Truth
In This Chapter
The stark contrast between what actually happened (cowardly abandonment) and what gets recorded (brilliant strategy) exposes how truth gets buried under convenient narratives
Development
Tolstoy has consistently shown characters struggling with self-deception—here he shows how entire societies engage in collective self-deception
In Your Life:
You might recognize this when you find yourself making excuses for someone's harmful behavior because admitting the truth would be too uncomfortable.
Class
In This Chapter
The soldiers who died are forgotten while Napoleon's comfort and reputation are preserved, showing how class determines whose story matters
Development
The novel's class themes culminate here in showing how historical narrative itself serves the powerful at the expense of the powerless
In Your Life:
You might see this in how workplace injuries get blamed on 'worker error' while management decisions that caused unsafe conditions get ignored.
Moral Judgment
In This Chapter
Tolstoy argues that abandoning moral standards for 'great' leaders reveals our own moral weakness, not their transcendent genius
Development
This represents the climax of Tolstoy's moral philosophy—that true greatness requires goodness, not just power or success
In Your Life:
You might catch yourself excusing harmful behavior from people you admire or depend on, rather than holding them to basic standards of decency.
Identity
In This Chapter
Society's need to maintain belief in exceptional leaders becomes more important than facing the reality of their ordinary human failures
Development
The novel's exploration of how people construct identity reaches its peak in showing how collective identity depends on shared myths about leadership
In Your Life:
You might notice how admitting your boss or partner's serious flaws feels threatening to your own sense of judgment and security.
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
How did Napoleon actually behave during the retreat from Russia, and how did historians later describe the same events?
analysis • surface - 2
Why do you think society chooses to reframe leadership failures as strategic brilliance rather than admit leaders made mistakes?
analysis • medium - 3
Can you think of a recent example where a leader's harmful actions got reframed as 'tough decisions' or 'strategic thinking'?
application • medium - 4
When someone in authority over you makes a decision that hurts people, how do you decide whether to accept their explanation or trust your own judgment?
application • deep - 5
What does Tolstoy mean when he says real greatness can only exist with goodness, and why might this threaten how we usually think about powerful people?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Decode the Damage Control
Think of a time when someone in authority made a decision that hurt you or people you care about, then later justified it with impressive-sounding language. Write down what actually happened versus how they explained it afterward. Look for words like 'strategic,' 'necessary,' 'complex,' or 'long-term thinking' that might be covering up simpler truths.
Consider:
- •Who benefited from the original decision versus who got hurt?
- •What fancy language was used to make the harmful choice sound wise?
- •How did the explanation make you feel about questioning authority?
Journaling Prompt
Write about a leader you truly respect. What makes them different from those who just talk a good game after making harmful choices? How do they treat people when no one important is watching?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 317: Why Perfect Plans Always Fail
The coming pages reveal to spot the difference between what sounds good and what actually works, and teach us armchair quarterbacking misses the real story. These discoveries help us navigate similar situations in our own lives.