There was so much what he wanted to have done, and so much he regretted not doing, that he seemed to think it had really happened like that. Well, maybe it had. Who could tell in the confusion what had happened and what hadn’t?
-An unnamed general
The Russian Military and the Experience of War
Tolstoy describes war through a variety of characters whose position in the military largely shapes their experience. Noblemen and the aristocracy usually filled the upper ranks, serving as generals, officers, adjutants, and aids, whereas peasants and serfs, sent by their masters, served as soldiers. By depicting these varied experiences, Tolstoy draws a number of comparisons of how these groups experience war. There are certain adjutants far from the front interested in advancing their military careers by getting close to the generals and the Tsar. Prince Andrei’s high position introduces us to the inner workings at the top of the military. Nikolai opens us up to his own as well as a number of characters’ experiences stationed at the front, where theoretical tinkering and strategizing usually proved useless. Someone made the observation that “military strategists are officers with an aristocratic background, but the soldiers or common serfs, the backbone of the military, are the ones whose instincts and reactions garner success on the battleground.” Another participant pointed to notion of strategy versus instinct when considering the Tushin episode, where Bagration orders to retreat, yet the order fails to make it to Tushin and his battery on time. The communication mishap, however, allows Tushin to lead his men through a crucial moment of delaying the French advancement, which Prince Andrei considers to have saved Kutuzov’s army that day. Plans sometimes fail to materialize on the field—and sometimes to positive effect! Many people in this week’s discussion questioned what roles strategy versus instinct play in war—especially when communication is difficult, the battlefield is chaotic and covered in gun smoke, and the enemy breaks truces, springing surprise attacks.
The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men Oft Go Awry
Tolstoy certainly seemed to have had this notion in mind when writing Part II! Many in the discussion agreed that the in-the-moment performance during battle showed to be more effective for the Russians instead of strategy and military “science.” The unknown seems to take over in battle, and the soldiers have to respond and be flexible, or even throw out premade plans. Strategists assume incorrectly, orders are misunderstood, and messages are delayed. In such extreme moments of flux, decisions of soldiers and commanders in the heat of the moment largely shape the outcome of the battle. One participant observed that the importance of military hierarchy even dissipates, and action and performance take precedence. The actions of lower-level men, like Tushin and Denisov, have great impact on the course of the war itself. The Tsar’s adjutant negotiates a truce with Napoleon’s forces, but Tushin is the one who holds the French army back when Napoleon’s army advances at Schongrabern. Fate plays a crucial role in the outcome of battle. The example that waiting for more Russian troops to gather saves Bagration’s platoon because the engagement does not start immediately came up in discussion. In another scene, a petty Russian soldier yells, “Hurrah!” and a whole group of soldiers come rushing behind him, perhaps changing the tide of the battle. Could such small actions alter the course of the battle? One observed that the battles are filled with cases of “what ifs.” Tolstoy seems to suggest that it’s impossible to really know what exactly happened in battle or what could have happened, but all the more, he points to the importance these small, in-the-moment decisions.
Tolstoy expands the idea of strategy versus instinct when describing the leadership in the Russian army. These higher-ups certainly must consider strategies when going into battle, but Kutuzov’s solemn presence and Bagration’s “wise passivity” leave a strong influence over the soldiers. Bagration goes around saying, “Carry on!” without actually giving orders. Prince Andrei speculates that “Prince Bagration was just trying to pretend that everything they were being forced to do, every accidental development or anything brought about by individual commanders, was happening, if not according to his orders, then at least part of his plan.” Bagration’s presence is described as “reinvigorating and he put a swagger and new courage into soldiers’ steps.” His leisureliness suggests a sort of “instinctual strategizing,” allowing him to make decisions when the moment calls for it. It is difficult to tell “what actually happened” in battle, which somehow matches up with Bagration’s passitivity. It was mentioned that Bagration rides around encouraging troops, just nodding as if whatever happens is what is supposed to happen—he takes the punches as they roll. He seems to put a greater importance on the spirit of the troops, by encouraging people through what comes up in battle, rather than relying on hardline orders to carry out.
Zooming in on The Experience of War
The soldiers had different reactions to such extreme moments of flux. Nikolai fumbled around, as someone put it, “lost and confused.” In his first moments of war at the front, he’s relatively useless—he forgets equipment, falls off his horse, and injures himself. Someone described his experience as a “baptism by fire,” where his first reaction to war was denial. He wonders why the enemy would possible want to kill him, dear Nikokai, when his mother and Sonya and everyone at home loves him. He wonders, “Does anyone love me anymore?” He struggles with the notion that he may actually get hurt or be killed in the war.
Prince Andrei, on the other hand, glides into war with a natural ease. He has a very different experience than Nikolai—although he sometimes is at the front, like when he meets up with Tushin—Prince Andrei is more likely to be found at a meeting rather than in the battlefield. He talks with diplomats in Brno, attends required social gatherings with others in high positions in the military, has a hearing with the Austrian Emperor Francis, and discusses issues with generals. Someone pointed out that his conceptions of heroism are crushed at the staff meeting at the end of the section. Another participant mentioned that Andrei constantly daydreams about the glories of war and his successful participation—his version of Napoleon’s Toulon—but he finds that simply following his superiors’ orders won’t get him there.
Nikolai and Prince Andrei share this certain “lack of preparation” for war, and they don’t realize it until they actually begin to experience it. They both experience this “rude awakening.” Nikolai is clearly still a child, naïve and inexperienced, whereas Prince Andrei’s dreams of rising as a military genius and hero like Napoleon are dashed. They’ve both come to realize that, as those in the discussion mentioned, action shows the true worth of the individual in battle where officers and soldiers alike are subject to the same laws and unknowns. This relates to the idea discussed before—the question of fate. Those high in military rank aren’t the only ones to change the course of the battle. Those like the simple Captain Tushin or a petty soldier taking charge have that power as well. This supports Prince Andrei’s hopes of becoming a hero—that military rank doesn’t determine the heroes but instead decisions and actions that turn the tide in the heat of the moment. So, who are/who decides the heroes in war?
Battle of Schongraben by K. Bujnitsky, 1898.
The “Heroes”
Tolstoy introduces us to a number of heroes and the expectations of what a hero is. Since the outset of the book, we’ve been exposed to opinions on Napoleon, admired by young men, but considered “overrated” by the older generation like Anna Pavlova and Count Bolkonsky. Prince Andrei refers to Napoleon over and over again and dreams and waits for his own version of Toulon. He can’t reconcile any other vision of a hero. Tushin emerges as an accidental hero—Tolstoy does a good job making us see him as a hero—but Prince Andrei has to convince Bagration that Tushin deserves recognition as a hero. Those in the discussion agreed that Tushin is a hero—he seems to be “Tolstoy’s vision of a true Russian soldier, focused on his job and duty without regard for fame and position for their actions.” (Not like the braggart Dolukhov seeking a rise in the ranks!) Many brought up the scene of Prince Andrei helping the woman in the road, simply doing the right thing. However, this doesn’t convince Prince Andrei that he is a hero—aiding a woman on the road doesn’t equate to winning a battle with genius insight and flawless leadership. He even seems embarrassed by helping her!
Someone made the interesting point that “there are all these ‘stories’ of war and expectations, which are juxtaposed against what actually happens.” Those involved in battle later tell stories that don’t match up to what actually happened. Their stories tend to glorify their own actions in the battle as well as the battle itself. We can see this with Dolokhov, who approached the major after the battle, boasting about his brave action of killing two French officers and taking another one as prisoner. But with Tushin, Bagration only recognizes his actions after Prince Andrei interjects and insists that Tushin’s battery saved the entire army. Tushin emerges as a sort of “accidental” hero, not like Prince Andrei who mentally plans his own rise to heroism, a rise modeled after that of Napoleon. Here we find Prince Andrei disappointed: “It was all so strange, so unlike what he had been looking forward to.” He discovers that heroism is not objective. A participant in the discussion noted that heroism is not acknowledged and rewarded in the way Prince Andrei wanted and expected. Many officers discussed fictionalized events and took credit for things they didn’t do. Being a hero takes a certain pride, fictionalization, and improvisation, which was described as “problematic” for Prince Andrei. Perhaps his disappointment at the end of Part II stems from the fact that image is important in entering the status of “hero”, as some one noticed. In this respect, the mechanics of war is not very different from the mechanics of aristocratic society—image is built not only by action, but also by recognition and building a certain reputation by being talked about and even fictionalized. The creation of stories to create heroes touches on Tolstoy’s conception of writing history. Soldiers retell and recreate past events “based on what they wanted to happen or wish happened to conform with notions of glory and heroism.” A great point was made, that “memory is largely emotional,” and soldiers tended to cast themselves in the best light. As objective accounts of the past are impossible to create, the soldiers’ story telling doesn’t necessarily detract from the writing of history—they are perhaps all that is there is to base history on.
A Note on Reading War and Peace in Translation
Last session, many people were curious about how different translations influence reading and interpretation. Many shared the opinion that Briggs “makes the book come alive,” whereas the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation was thought of as “tedious and laborious.” The Maude translation was lukewarmly received, so the Briggs translation seems to be the group’s favorite!
Keep on reading, and join us next Wednesday to continue the discussion on War and Peace!
No comments:
Post a Comment