Napoleon's idiotic decision - leaving Moscow in October

Tolstoy forgets about his characters for a few chapters and goes off again on his theories about the forces of history, particularly in time of war. He's caught in an inherent contradiction, it seems. He can't help but analyze Napoleon's decision to leave Moscow in October (and the particular route he followed) as the worst possible decision any general could have made - the perfect decision from the Russian standpoint. But then, as he goes on once again to explain (preach?) that great men do not make history, you wonder: does he really think Napoleon's horrible decisions had no effect on the course of the war? In a memorable phrase (a rare use of metaphor), Tolstoy says that Napoleon, once under way, had no more control of events than a 10-year-old boy in a carriage holding the reins. Maybe the key is: once under way. Generals make these tactical decisions, but have little influence on their unfolding and their outcome. Despite the contradiction, I think Tolstoy is right, and I think most contemporary historians do, too, - in his turning away from a focus on great men in history. It would be better if he could more effectively build his case for the greater influence of ordinary people and popular culture. Moving along through the second part of volume 4, we pick up Pierre again, happily living among the prisoners, widely respected for his intelligence and strength, still unidentified as a count. His hair is matted and lice-strewn, he's barefoot, tattered clothes, can sit all day and just think - and from this position he seems to be making some sense out of what's important in his life. It's a monkish existence, and probably not too far from the abnegations Tolstoy self-inflicted later in his life..