Original Text(~250 words)
CHAPTER X This letter had not yet been presented to the Emperor when Barclay, one day at dinner, informed Bolkónski that the sovereign wished to see him personally, to question him about Turkey, and that Prince Andrew was to present himself at Bennigsen’s quarters at six that evening. News was received at the Emperor’s quarters that very day of a fresh movement by Napoleon which might endanger the army—news subsequently found to be false. And that morning Colonel Michaud had ridden round the Drissa fortifications with the Emperor and had pointed out to him that this fortified camp constructed by Pfuel, and till then considered a chef-d’oeuvre of tactical science which would ensure Napoleon’s destruction, was an absurdity, threatening the destruction of the Russian army. Prince Andrew arrived at Bennigsen’s quarters—a country gentleman’s house of moderate size, situated on the very banks of the river. Neither Bennigsen nor the Emperor was there, but Chernýshev, the Emperor’s aide-de-camp, received Bolkónski and informed him that the Emperor, accompanied by General Bennigsen and Marquis Paulucci, had gone a second time that day to inspect the fortifications of the Drissa camp, of the suitability of which serious doubts were beginning to be felt. Chernýshev was sitting at a window in the first room with a French novel in his hand. This room had probably been a music room; there was still an organ in it on which some rugs were piled, and in one corner stood the folding bedstead of Bennigsen’s adjutant. This adjutant...
Continue reading the full chapter
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
Summary
Prince Andrew arrives at headquarters to meet with the Emperor, but finds himself witnessing a masterclass in dangerous expertise. The Emperor is out inspecting fortifications designed by Pfuel, a German military theorist whose elaborate defensive camp is now being questioned by everyone except himself. When Prince Andrew meets Pfuel, he immediately recognizes a familiar type: the expert who's so in love with his own theories that he's lost touch with reality. Pfuel embodies the worst kind of confidence—not based on results, but on abstract ideas he believes are absolute truth. Tolstoy brilliantly dissects different types of national confidence: French personal charm, English institutional pride, Italian passion, Russian indifference, and German theoretical arrogance. Pfuel represents the most dangerous type—someone whose identity is so wrapped up in being the smartest person in the room that he actually celebrates when his plans fail, because failure 'proves' that others didn't follow his perfect theory correctly. This isn't just about military strategy; it's about every workplace know-it-all, every expert who's never actually done the job, every consultant who blames implementation when their brilliant ideas crash and burn. Prince Andrew, having survived the disaster at Austerlitz, recognizes immediately that Pfuel's combination of theoretical brilliance and practical blindness spells disaster for the Russian army. The chapter reveals how institutions often elevate people who sound smart over those who get results.
That's what happens. To understand what the author is really doing—and to discuss this chapter with confidence—keep reading.
Terms to Know
Drissa Fortifications
An elaborate defensive camp designed by the German military theorist Pfuel to trap Napoleon. It was supposed to be a masterpiece of military science but turned out to be completely impractical. The fortifications represent the danger of theoretical planning divorced from reality.
Modern Usage:
Like when corporate consultants design elaborate new systems that look perfect on paper but fall apart when real employees try to use them.
Chef-d'oeuvre
French term meaning 'masterpiece' or greatest work. In this context, it refers to how Pfuel's defensive plan was praised as brilliant military science. The irony is that calling something a masterpiece doesn't make it work in practice.
Modern Usage:
When someone calls their project or idea their 'masterpiece' before anyone has actually tested whether it works.
Aide-de-camp
A military officer who serves as a personal assistant to a high-ranking officer or ruler. These positions often went to well-connected young men who could navigate both military and social situations.
Modern Usage:
Like an executive assistant or chief of staff who handles sensitive communications and has access to powerful people.
Theoretical Military Science
The academic study of warfare through abstract principles rather than practical experience. Pfuel represents the danger of experts who know all the theories but have never actually fought a real battle.
Modern Usage:
Like business school graduates who've never run a company telling experienced managers how to do their jobs.
German Systematic Thinking
Tolstoy's observation about how German culture values thorough, methodical approaches to problems. While this can be a strength, it becomes dangerous when the system matters more than the results.
Modern Usage:
When someone follows procedures perfectly even when those procedures clearly aren't working for the situation.
Strategic Blindness
The inability to see obvious flaws in your own plans, especially when you're too invested in being right. Experts often suffer from this when their identity depends on their expertise being correct.
Modern Usage:
When someone doubles down on a failing approach because admitting it's wrong would mean admitting they don't know what they're doing.
Characters in This Chapter
Prince Andrew Bolkonski
Experienced observer
Arrives to meet the Emperor but instead witnesses the dangerous confidence of Pfuel. Having survived the disaster at Austerlitz, he immediately recognizes the warning signs of theoretical expertise divorced from battlefield reality.
Modern Equivalent:
The experienced employee who can spot when the new consultant's plan is going to fail
Pfuel
Dangerous expert
The German military theorist whose elaborate defensive plan is falling apart. He represents the worst type of expert - someone so in love with his own theories that he celebrates when they fail because it 'proves' others didn't follow his instructions properly.
Modern Equivalent:
The consultant who blames everyone else when their brilliant strategy crashes and burns
Emperor Alexander
Absent authority figure
Out inspecting the very fortifications that are now being questioned. His absence while crucial decisions are being made reflects how leaders often delegate to experts without understanding the real situation.
Modern Equivalent:
The CEO who's always in meetings while their company is falling apart
Bennigsen
Military commander
The general whose quarters serve as headquarters but who is also absent during this crucial moment. Represents the military establishment that has to work with theoretical plans that don't match battlefield reality.
Modern Equivalent:
The department head who has to implement policies made by people who've never done the actual work
Chernyshev
Court insider
The Emperor's aide-de-camp who receives Prince Andrew and explains the situation. He's reading a French novel while serious military decisions are being debated, showing how court life continues even during crisis.
Modern Equivalent:
The executive assistant who knows all the office gossip and real power dynamics
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to identify experts whose confidence comes from complexity rather than results.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when someone giving you advice has never actually faced the problem they're solving—ask about their real-world experience, not their credentials.
You have the foundation. Now let's look closer.
Key Quotes & Analysis
"This fortified camp constructed by Pfuel, and till then considered a chef-d'oeuvre of tactical science which would ensure Napoleon's destruction, was an absurdity, threatening the destruction of the Russian army."
Context: Describing how the supposedly brilliant defensive plan is now being recognized as dangerous nonsense
This quote captures the central irony of the chapter - how something praised as genius can actually be completely wrong. It shows how institutional momentum and expert reputation can keep bad ideas alive long past when they should be abandoned.
In Today's Words:
The plan everyone said was brilliant is actually going to destroy us.
"Pfuel was one of those hopelessly and immutably self-confident men, self-confident to the point of martyrdom as only Germans are, because only Germans are self-confident on the basis of an abstract notion - science, that is, the supposed knowledge of absolute truth."
Context: Tolstoy's analysis of why Pfuel is so dangerous despite being clearly wrong
This reveals the most dangerous type of confidence - not based on results or experience, but on abstract theories. Pfuel would rather be a martyr to his ideas than admit they're wrong, making him impossible to reason with.
In Today's Words:
He's the kind of person who'd rather go down with the ship than admit his plan isn't working.
"Had his theory been destroyed he would have preferred the destruction of the whole world to the destruction of his theory."
Context: Explaining why Pfuel celebrates when his plans fail
This shows how dangerous it is when someone's identity becomes completely wrapped up in being right. Pfuel would literally prefer disaster to being wrong, making him the worst possible person to trust with important decisions.
In Today's Words:
He'd rather watch everything burn than admit he made a mistake.
Intelligence Amplifier™ Analysis
The Road of Expertise Without Experience
People who design systems they never have to live in become dangerously confident because they never face consequences for being wrong.
Thematic Threads
Expertise vs Experience
In This Chapter
Pfuel's theoretical military genius contrasts sharply with Prince Andrew's battlefield experience
Development
Builds on earlier contrasts between salon strategists and actual soldiers
In Your Life:
You've probably worked under someone who designed policies they never had to follow
Pride
In This Chapter
Pfuel's intellectual arrogance makes him celebrate when his plans fail because it 'proves' others are incompetent
Development
Continues exploration of how pride blinds characters to reality
In Your Life:
Think of times when admitting you were wrong felt impossible because it threatened your identity
Class
In This Chapter
Different national types of confidence reveal how cultural background shapes authority
Development
Expands on how social position affects credibility and self-perception
In Your Life:
You've probably noticed how certain accents or backgrounds automatically get more respect
Institutional Power
In This Chapter
The Emperor's court elevates theoretical brilliance over practical results
Development
Shows how institutions often reward the wrong qualities
In Your Life:
Your workplace probably promotes people who sound smart over those who actually solve problems
Modern Adaptation
When the Expert Has Never Done the Job
Following Andrew's story...
Andrew's volunteering at a homeless shelter when the new director arrives—a consultant named Dr. Marcus who's designed a revolutionary efficiency system. Marcus has never worked directly with homeless clients, but he's got charts, metrics, and theories about 'optimizing human service delivery.' He explains how his background in corporate restructuring translates perfectly to nonprofit work. Within a week, his new intake process creates three-hour waits, his meal scheduling leaves people hungry, and his 'dignity-preserving' ID system humiliates clients. When volunteers complain, Marcus insists they're not implementing his system correctly. He actually seems energized by the chaos, treating each failure as proof that the staff needs more training in his methods. Andrew watches seasoned volunteers quit while Marcus schedules more meetings to explain why his perfect system isn't working. Andrew recognizes the type from his business days—the expert whose confidence grows with each disaster because failure always proves someone else's incompetence, never their own.
The Road
The road Prince Andrew walked in 1812, watching Pfuel destroy the Russian army with theoretical brilliance, Andrew walks today. The pattern is identical: dangerous expertise that sounds smart while being catastrophically wrong.
The Map
This chapter provides a navigation tool for identifying experts who've never done the job. Andrew learns to ask one crucial question: 'When's the last time you actually lived with this problem?'
Amplification
Before reading this, Andrew might have been intimidated by Marcus's credentials and complex theories. Now he can NAME theoretical arrogance, PREDICT its destructive cycle, and NAVIGATE around experts who blame implementation when their ideas fail.
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
What makes Pfuel dangerous despite being genuinely intelligent and knowledgeable about military theory?
analysis • surface - 2
Why does Pfuel actually celebrate when his plans fail, and how does this protect him from ever learning from mistakes?
analysis • medium - 3
Think about your workplace or community - who fits Pfuel's pattern of theoretical expertise without practical experience?
application • medium - 4
When someone is giving you advice or making decisions that affect your life, what questions could you ask to tell the difference between real expertise and theoretical knowledge?
application • deep - 5
What does Pfuel's character reveal about why institutions often promote people who sound smart over people who get results?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Spot the Pfuel in Your Life
Think of someone in your life who makes decisions affecting you but has never actually done your job or lived your situation. Write down their title, their typical advice, and then contrast it with what someone who's actually lived the experience would say differently. This could be a manager, healthcare administrator, policy maker, or family member giving life advice.
Consider:
- •Look for people whose confidence increases when their advice doesn't work out
- •Notice who blames 'implementation' when their ideas fail rather than questioning the ideas themselves
- •Pay attention to how they respond when you share practical concerns about their suggestions
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you had to follow advice from someone who'd never been in your situation. How did it work out? What would you tell someone facing a similar Pfuel today?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 178: The Illusion of Military Genius
What lies ahead teaches us experts often mask uncertainty with complex theories and jargon, and shows us real leadership might require humility rather than brilliance. These patterns appear in literature and life alike.