This episode explores the background of the Czar reduced to tears after the Battle of Austerlitz.

Many readers know little of the ruler Nicholas Rostov and countless officers were so devoted to.

Over the last few years, you may have watched Ridley Scott’s film “Napoleon.” I argue that the casting of Alexandr embraces a view of the filmmaker that aligns with the perception the fictional Nicholas held.

Edouard Philipponnat as Alexandr was the standout in the film and embraced a youthful exuberance. Handsome and dashing, Scott captured the energy that Tolstoy depicts.

Should you view a portrait of Alexandr, however, you will not see the equivalent of an Edourd or Brad Pitt. You will discover something that fits of Alexander Pushkin’s description of Alexandr of being a “Balding Dandy.” Pushkin was exiled by Alexandr for anti-Czarist sentiments.

Napoleon even wrote Josephine in 1807: “I am satisfied with Alexander and he ought to be satisfied with me. If he were a woman, I think I would make him my mistress.” Historically, the opposite may have been true. Alexandr may have taken up an affair with Josephine and assuredly did so with numerous beautiful and intelligent woman of the aristocracy.

More Importantly, Alexandr has a fascinating background which contributes to turning him into the lamenting Sovereign at Austerlitz.

Alexander’s grandfather was Peter III, who was born in northern German speaking lands and was also, for a time, the presumptive heir for the throne of Sweden. Peter served as Czar for only six months before his wife, Catherine, plotted to overthrew him in 1762. Catherine was Germanic royalty who converted to Orthodoxy upon her marriage. Catherine moved quickly against her husband, who she regarded as lacking sense and maturity. She also considered him a drunk. Nevertheless, some German historians find Peter to be cultured and open-minded. Peter did have an openness to adapting European technology and placed the sciences on a prestigious level. After the coup, Peter was held in a prison and likely strangled. The official account was that the cause was a stroke or bowel obstruction.

Catherine then ruled as regent for her son Paul, but never gave up any authority when Paul became of-age, around 1772. Catherine alleged, in memoirs and conversation, that Paul was sired by one of her lovers, which would mean Alexandr was not of any so-called Royal blood. Nevertheless, she took notable efforts to educate Paul’s two sons, Alexandr and Konstantin.

When Catherine died in 1796, Paul assumed leadership and met a similar end as Peter after a five year reign. Paul shares a complex reputation and was quite notably influenced by his love of Prussia, especially their military. Paul was most assuredly strangled in 1801. This second murder of a Czar within 40 years is what brought Alexandr (then 23) to the throne.

As referenced, Catherine dedicated time to instruct Alexandr and his brother Konstantin. She would relay the importance of the French Revolution and read to them the Declaration of the Rights of Man. More consequentially, Catherine assigned Alexandr a Swiss tutor, Frédéric-César de La Harpe, to teach Enlightenment ideals. For generations, aristocratic households were commonly hiring French and Swiss educators. Peter the Great had a Swiss soldier and advisor, François Lefort, instruct him on how to follow the path of Europe.

Alexandr took to his Swiss tutor and had a keen mind toward European ways. As soon as he became Czar, he put aspects of his education into practice, including creating an intellectual inner circle. Early on, this close group planned various reforms such as easing censorship and planning for a Constitution of the type sprouting around Europe.

There was a recognition that serfs were the agricultural and military backbone – but this system would eventually have to change. Alexandr desired phase out serfdom but it didn’t end until 1861. Alexandr went as far as issuing a voluntary decree - noting landowners could free their serfs and give them land if they desired. He understood what could and could not be done.

Reports are that Alexandr considered himself to be inspired – something of a Chosen One. He felt it was ordained that he would prevail at the pivotal battle at Austerlitz, which he chose to be present at. The all-encompassing loss caused him to become utterly devastated.

Nicholas continues on his mission looking for Kutuzov or the Emperor. He notices broken carriages along the roads and hordes of troops in worsening levels of disorganization. Many are wounded. He reaches an area safe from cannon fire coming from the Pratzen Heights and slows to realize that there is no point to what he is doing. He has nothing of import to convey to the Tsar or to Kutuzov, should they remain alive. He learns the direction surviving commanders headed and hears conflicting reports about Alexandr being wounded or killed. One soldier, however, expressed confidence the Tsar was driven away at full speed in a carriage pulled by his customary driver, Illya Ivanych,

Rostov rides on -- not knowing how to direct himself. He took in the scenery and local architecture, including a church, symbolic of the sacred blotted out by War. He felt that if the Emperor was slain, he should have no desire to save himself. The point is that Alexandr, who does not know the thousands of young men he sent to their ignominious end, remains Rostov’s end-and-be-all. This is a contrast to Andrei, who finally realizes there is something much greater than ambitious rulers.

Rostov soon passes the battlefield where the largest number perished. Here, “men lied like heaps of manure on well-kept plowland.” There were 10 to 15 dead to each couple of acres. Those wounded stumbled together in twos and threes and Rostov absorbed their screams and groans.

Rostov became noticeable on his horse and some French on higher ground trained a few shots at him. He was snapped out of his moroseness through thinking of his mother’s love. Once again Nicholas adopts the instincts of a rabbit who senses danger and escapes.

He made it to a small village many utilized as a Haven. Upon hearing more rumors about the Emperor, he continued on for a couple of miles, coming to a ditch where he saw two men who seemed out of place on their grand horses. Another stood by a tree and Rostov noticed it was his Monarch. Such a scenario may be thought fictional or symbolic – namely, Alexandr becoming virtually alone in the disorder of the retreat. However, there is enough truth in this description to commend Tolstoy for weaving fiction and history in the way that Shakespeare did with his Histories, where the Bard’s writing often stands for a greater truth.

What happened historically was that the struggle for The Pratzen Heights decided the Battle and Kutuzov remained at the center of the conflict for as long as prudent. Both Kutozov and even Weyrother were shouting orders, trying to rally men, dispatching messengers -- all actions of reputable commanders. Amidst the chaos, there are reports that Alexander was separated from his Guard and wound up with some of the survivors of Gen. Miloradovich’s brigade. At one point, Alexandr was found “on damp ground under a tree, with his face covered with a handkerchief, bitterly crying.” This was the account of Gen. Carl Freidrich Graf von Toll.

The sentiment portrayed by Tolstoy is that Alexandr started the day envisioning he would be at the head of His army, like a Greek Warrior-King, at least at the moment of Triumph. Yet the accounts are that he was reduced to the image of something like……Job among the ash heap. So Tolstoy depicts Rostov as having the opportunity to comfort his Beloved. Yet Tolstoy does NOT have Nicholas take that step. Instead, Rostov backs down with the fear of a youth who cannot approach his true love. Though Nicholas had played over a million speeches in his head on what he would say to Alexandr should they meet, he was now immobilized by fear. Instead he convinces himself of the imprudence of an approach at such an unpleasant moment. He felt any such interaction should be reserved for when Rostov was dying on the field and there would be a poetic moment of thanks. Tolstoy then has Von Toll come into the scene and upon seeing the Emperor, comfort him while the two spend a few moments under an apple tree.

Tolstoy hardly ends the novel with the revelation imparted to Andrei. Instead, it continues for another 1000 pages, in substantial part, exploring the triviality so paramount to those without such vision.

The story moves back to earth to focus on the historic disgrace for Alexandr and Francis. It is entirely the opposite for Napoleon, who came out on top of The Battle of Three Emperors. Yet the bravado with which men enter a fight for those like Bonaparte, has lost some of the luster.

So many of us can be brought to both planes by the right presentation – either recognizing the responsibility of answering a call to arms; or appreciating the Sublime. Tolstoy is presenting this contrast as one of the great humanists, who wrote his masterpiece 60 years after Austerlitz.

The segue of Nicholas taking on his futile mission with such fervor after Andrei takes in the infinite sky, highlights how vulnerable we are to mindsets of emperor worship and patriotic devotion – more so at younger ages without the experience of war.

Just before the battle, Andrei was imagining, ”this will be the battle that makes me.” He is thinking of how the Battle of Toulon, in 1793, was a springboard for Napoleon. Tolstoy is showing how common it is for decent men to reach the point they will sacrifice their lives for military glory.

The point of this episode is to appreciate how easy a man can pulled into that mindset; and it is one of the great lessons of War & Peace.

This episode brings you through a few examples of such calls, in fiction and history.

What often comes to mind for the American audience is the speech in Braveheart – iconic fiction based on the historic Battle of Stirling Bridge (1297), written by Randall Wallace & Mel Gibson and naturally delivered by Mel.

Napoleon assuredly had the knack of attracting men to risk their lives for his vision and also referenced is one of his inspirational appeals that came shortly after the Battle of Lodi in 1796:

“To you, soldiers, will belong the immortal honor of redeeming the fairest portion of Europe. The French people, free and respected by the whole world, shall give to Europe a glorious peace, which shall indemnify it for all the sacrifices which it has borne the last six years. Then, by your own firesides you shall repose and your fellow citizens, when they point out any one of you, shall say: ‘He belonged to the army of Italy that fought in the Italian campaign!’”

The last reference is to a speech attributed to St. Bernard, an abbot from Clairvaux, France, in the 1100s, where he motivated the Knights of the Second Crusade in a Palm Sunday speech:

“Christian warriors, He who gave His life for you, today demands yours in return. These are struggles worthy of you, combats in which it is glorious to conquer and advantageous to die. Illustrious knights, generous defenders of the Cross, remember your fathers, who conquered Jerusalem, and whose names are inscribed in Heaven. Abandon the things that perish, to gather unfading palms and conquer a Kingdom that has no end.”

These are appeals to a sense of manhood and patriotism, and once again it is the spirit Andrei relinquishes. He is now is given a more ideal, godly and transcendent point of view.