Summary
Tolstoy steps back from the story to ask a burning question: Why didn't the Russians capture Napoleon's entire retreating army when they had every advantage? Russian historians blame specific generals for not following the plan, but Tolstoy argues this misses the point entirely. The plan itself was impossible and senseless. Napoleon's army was already destroying itself through hunger and cold - why sacrifice Russian lives to finish what winter was already doing? The real goal was never to capture Napoleon but to drive the invaders out, which was happening naturally. Tolstoy compares the elaborate military plans to a gardener who chases a cow out of his garden, then runs to hit it on the head at the gate - pointless and stupid. The Russian army was already stretched to its limits, losing fifty thousand men to cold and disease during the pursuit. Half the army died just from the conditions. Meanwhile, historians sitting in warm rooms criticize the generals for not doing the impossible. Tolstoy reveals how we often mistake good intentions for good strategy, and how people far from the action always think they know better. The chapter shows that real success comes from understanding what's actually possible, not what sounds heroic on paper.
Coming Up in Chapter 318
As we transition into the final section of the novel, Tolstoy will explore what victory really means and how ordinary people, not grand strategies, determine the fate of nations.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
What Russian, reading the account of the last part of the campaign of 1812, has not experienced an uncomfortable feeling of regret, dissatisfaction, and perplexity? Who has not asked himself how it is that the French were not all captured or destroyed when our three armies surrounded them in superior numbers, when the disordered French, hungry and freezing, surrendered in crowds, and when (as the historians relate) the aim of the Russians was to stop the French, to cut them off, and capture them all? How was it that the Russian army, which when numerically weaker than the French had given battle at Borodinó, did not achieve its purpose when it had surrounded the French on three sides and when its aim was to capture them? Can the French be so enormously superior to us that when we had surrounded them with superior forces we could not beat them? How could that happen? History (or what is called by that name) replying to these questions says that this occurred because Kutúzov and Tormásov and Chichagóv, and this man and that man, did not execute such and such maneuvers.... But why did they not execute those maneuvers? And why if they were guilty of not carrying out a prearranged plan were they not tried and punished? But even if we admitted that Kutúzov, Chichagóv, and others were the cause of the Russian failures, it is still incomprehensible why, the position of the Russian army being what it was at Krásnoe and at the Berëzina (in both cases we had superior forces), the French army with its marshals, kings, and Emperor was not captured, if that was what the Russians aimed at. The explanation of this strange fact given by Russian military historians (to the effect that Kutúzov hindered an attack) is unfounded, for we know that he could not restrain the troops from attacking at Vyázma and Tarútino. Why was the Russian army—which with inferior forces had withstood the enemy in full strength at Borodinó—defeated at Krásnoe and the Berëzina by the disorganized crowds of the French when it was numerically superior? If the aim of the Russians consisted in cutting off and capturing Napoleon and his marshals—and that aim was not merely frustrated but all attempts to attain it were most shamefully baffled—then this last period of the campaign is quite rightly considered by the French to be a series of victories, and quite wrongly considered victorious by Russian historians. The Russian military historians in so far as they submit to claims of logic must admit that conclusion, and in spite of their lyrical rhapsodies about valor, devotion, and so forth, must reluctantly admit that the French retreat from Moscow was a series of victories for Napoleon and defeats for Kutúzov. But putting national vanity entirely aside one feels that such a conclusion involves a contradiction, since the series of French victories brought the French complete destruction, while the series of Russian defeats led to the total destruction of their...
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 Armchair Quarterbacking
People furthest from the action become the harshest critics because distance creates false confidence in solutions.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to distinguish between useful feedback and empty criticism based on the critic's actual experience.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when someone criticizes your work or decisions—ask yourself: have they actually faced the constraints you're dealing with?
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Armchair quarterbacking
When people who weren't there criticize decisions made under pressure by those who were actually in the situation. Tolstoy shows how historians sitting in warm rooms judge generals who were dealing with impossible conditions in the field.
Modern Usage:
We see this constantly on social media - people criticizing coaches, politicians, or managers without understanding the real constraints they faced.
Strategic retreat
Sometimes the smartest military move is to let your enemy destroy themselves rather than engaging directly. The Russians realized Napoleon's army was already dying from cold and hunger - why waste Russian lives finishing the job?
Modern Usage:
In workplace conflicts, sometimes it's better to let a difficult person dig their own grave rather than confronting them directly.
Impossible orders
Commands that sound good on paper but can't actually be executed in real conditions. The plan to surround and capture Napoleon's entire army ignored basic realities like weather, supply lines, and troop exhaustion.
Modern Usage:
When your boss gives you a deadline that requires working 80 hours a week, or asks you to do three people's jobs with one person's resources.
Pyrrhic victory
A win that costs you so much it's actually a loss. Tolstoy argues that capturing Napoleon's army would have been meaningless if it killed half the Russian army in the process.
Modern Usage:
Getting a promotion that requires you to work so much overtime you ruin your health and family relationships.
Scapegoating
Blaming specific people for systemic failures. Russian historians blamed individual generals for not executing an impossible plan, rather than admitting the plan itself was flawed.
Modern Usage:
When a company fails and they fire the middle managers instead of admitting the business model was broken.
Natural consequences
Sometimes problems solve themselves without intervention. Napoleon's army was already disintegrating from cold, hunger, and disease - the Russians just had to wait and stay out of the way.
Modern Usage:
When a toxic coworker keeps making enemies, sometimes it's better to let them face the natural results rather than getting involved.
Characters in This Chapter
Kutuzov
Russian commander-in-chief
Blamed by historians for not capturing Napoleon's army, but Tolstoy suggests he understood that pursuing the French would cost more Russian lives than it was worth. He chose practical wisdom over heroic gestures.
Modern Equivalent:
The experienced manager who refuses impossible projects
Napoleon
French emperor in retreat
His army is falling apart from cold and starvation during the retreat from Moscow. He's no longer the brilliant strategist but a leader watching his forces dissolve around him.
Modern Equivalent:
The CEO whose company is failing despite past success
Chichagov
Russian general
Another commander blamed by historians for not executing the impossible plan to capture Napoleon's entire army. Represents the unfair criticism faced by people dealing with real-world constraints.
Modern Equivalent:
The department head blamed when corporate's unrealistic goals aren't met
The historians
Monday-morning quarterbacks
They sit in comfortable rooms years later, criticizing military decisions without understanding the actual conditions the generals faced. They represent all armchair critics who judge without context.
Modern Equivalent:
Social media commenters who know exactly what everyone should have done
Key Quotes & Analysis
"How was it that the Russian army, which when numerically weaker than the French had given battle at Borodinó, did not achieve its purpose when it had surrounded the French on three sides?"
Context: Tolstoy poses the central question that puzzles Russian readers about why their army didn't capture Napoleon
This question reveals how we often misunderstand what success looks like. The Russians had already achieved their real goal - driving out the invaders - but people wanted a more dramatic ending.
In Today's Words:
Why didn't we completely destroy them when we had the chance?
"History replying to these questions says that this occurred because Kutúzov and Tormásov and Chichagóv did not execute such and such maneuvers"
Context: Tolstoy describes how historians explain the 'failure' to capture Napoleon's army
This shows how we love to find someone to blame when things don't go according to our ideal plans, rather than questioning whether the plans were realistic in the first place.
In Today's Words:
The official story is that these specific people screwed up the plan.
"But why did they not execute those maneuvers? And why if they were guilty were they not tried and punished?"
Context: Tolstoy challenges the historians' explanations by asking obvious follow-up questions
These simple questions expose the weakness of scapegoating. If it was really their fault, why weren't they held accountable? The answer is that the fault lay with the impossible expectations, not the people.
In Today's Words:
If they really messed up that badly, why didn't anyone get fired?
Thematic Threads
Class
In This Chapter
Educated historians in comfortable positions critique working generals facing brutal realities
Development
Continues the theme of how social position shapes perspective and judgment
In Your Life:
You might see this when office managers who never work your shift criticize how you handle difficult patients or customers.
Authority
In This Chapter
Those with institutional authority to write history blame those who had operational authority in the field
Development
Explores how different types of power create different blind spots
In Your Life:
This appears when your supervisor, who hasn't done your job in years, questions your methods without understanding current challenges.
Reality vs Idealism
In This Chapter
Perfect military strategies fail when they meet the messy reality of starving armies and brutal winter
Development
Deepens the ongoing tension between how things should work versus how they actually work
In Your Life:
You experience this when company policies look great in training but fall apart when you're dealing with real people and real problems.
Human Limitations
In This Chapter
Russian army loses fifty thousand men just from pursuing a retreating enemy, showing the cost of ambitious plans
Development
Continues exploring how grand ambitions crash against human physical and emotional limits
In Your Life:
This shows up when you're asked to take on more responsibilities without additional support, pushing you past sustainable limits.
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
Why does Tolstoy argue that the Russian military plan to capture Napoleon's entire army was impossible and senseless?
analysis • surface - 2
What does Tolstoy mean when he compares the military historians to 'a gardener who chases a cow out of his garden, then runs to hit it on the head at the gate'?
analysis • medium - 3
Think about your workplace, school, or community. Where do you see people who are far from the actual work criticizing those who are doing it?
application • medium - 4
When you're making decisions or giving advice, how can you tell the difference between what sounds good and what actually works in reality?
application • deep - 5
What does this chapter reveal about why we should be cautious of criticism from people who aren't facing the same constraints we are?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Map Your Critics and Advisors
Think of a current challenge you're facing at work, home, or in your personal life. List the people who have given you advice or criticism about this situation. For each person, write whether they currently face similar challenges, used to face them, or have never dealt with this type of problem. Then identify whose input deserves the most weight and whose you should take with a grain of salt.
Consider:
- •People currently in similar situations understand constraints you face
- •Those who used to do something may have outdated information about current realities
- •Distance from a problem often makes solutions seem simpler than they actually are
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you received harsh criticism from someone who had never faced your situation. How did their distance from your reality affect the usefulness of their advice? What would you tell someone in a similar position now?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 318: The Territory of Grief
What lies ahead teaches us grief creates its own protective boundaries that others can't cross, and shows us returning to daily life feels like betraying the dead. These patterns appear in literature and life alike.