War and Peace again

I'm almost through Part III, which includes a massive section on the Battle Of Borodino, one of the pivotal battles in Napoleon's Russian Campaign.  Tolstoy uses the Battle to make some points about warfare, history, and social forces.

For one thing, Tolstoy is adamantly opposed to the Great Man theory of history.  As he puts it, Napoleon could not have invaded Russia if 100,000 Frenchman had not signed up for his army and agreed to invade Russia.  Further, having arrived in Russia, if Napoleon had just disappeared, they would have continued to fight, because that's what they came for.  He also depicts Napoleon as a bumbler who happened to have things go his way most of the time.  He mocks those who credit Napoleon with great genius, pointing out that most of the time, Napoleon couldn't have given orders on the battlefield, because, with the fog of war, by the time his orders were given and received, the situation had usually changed drastically.

I think that Tolstoy overplays his hand a bit with this argument.  Although it's true that Napoleon couldn't have marched without an army, and he didn't personally round up 100,000 men to serve in his army, it's equally true that 100,000 Frenchmen didn't spontaneously decide to make war on Russia.  Similarly, you can acknowledge the fog of war, but also credit Napoleon with the strategic ability to set up battles ahead of time, knowing that his orders during the battle might not always make it through.

I'm not a military (or any kind of) historian, though, so I think it's more interesting to see how these view fall into the context of the novel.  For one thing, they explain Tolstoy's panoramic approach to the years 1805-13.  Since he doesn't believe that one person is a prime mover, but instead that everyone is responding to general historical forces, he needs to show us the period from multiple points of view.  We see reactions to the sparring of the Tsar and Napoleon from the point of view of diplomats, soldiers, country land-holders, minor nobility, peasants (not so often, but occasionally), and so on.

This also helps Tolstoy illustrate another of his theses, that it's impossible to get an unbiased view of an historical event/personage.  Is General Kutuzov a hero, a bumbler, a man who gets credit for others' deeds, or what?  Each character would give a different answer, I think.