Tolstoy addresses how divided opinions persist through the ages. There will be a prominent crisis grabbing Your attention where every opinion under the sun is stated. He posits there is a perception afforded to a select few people involved in whatever conflict is at hand. There will naturally be some who get close to an accurate prediction of how a matter turns out and are often mistaken with being responsible for the event. For example, if Napoleon orders an advance and wins the field, he will get credit for taking ground. Tolstoy has us examine if there is more to the story.

To illustrate this, Tolstoy has us imagine the hypothetical of men hauling a log, where each expresses an opinion as to how and where to take it. Eventually, the log will be hauled to some location in a manner most similar to how one, or a small group, predict. We are led to the conclusion that those who predict most accurately are responsible for the task. However, Tolstoy’s goal is to relate to the complexity of attributing causes for events. He proffers that there is merely a perception of command and illusory nature of power.

With the Log-haul, there will be various men doing most of the physical work and because of their attention to the task, do not often think so much about what they are doing. Tolstoy proposes that they are as much responsible for the result as so-called decision makers.

Tolstoy infers that certain men who take initiative to “talk more” are often given accolades and find themselves with decision-making capacity and work less with his hands. Napoleon was one such man.

In affairs of the military or other large-scale enterprises, masses direct themselves with grander objectives than hauling a log. The commanding is often done in small teams, who do little of the actual fighting. Tolstoy attributes to this group similar attributes to how man perceives himself when he works alone and develops values to draw from. Basically, considerations which directed past activity, justify present activity, as serve as a guide for his future actions.

Tolstoy finds that this analytical process does not take the overriding values bestowed through the Gospel into account and allows us to devise justifications or rationalizations for collective activity. Tolstoy provides an example through the French Revolution. He notes: for reasons known or unknown the French began to drown and kill one another in that affair of 1789. There was an overriding belief that such was necessary for the welfare of France and for Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality.

The People later felt differently and ceased to kill one another. It was then believed that a centralization of power was necessary as well as resistance to those who desired to stay attached to monarchies. This resolve led to another effort that involved marching out of country to kill at the behest of men like Napoleon. This was accompanied by phrases about the glory of France and baseness of England.

It is such that every movement that occurs inevitably coincides with someone’s expressed wish and receives some justification. Tolstoy proclaims that the justifications made for such wars have no logic but have formidable significance. They serve to release people from moral responsibility for our collective crimes, such as how we kill millions of our fellows. Our intellect can excuse, reframe, or justify anything!

Tolstoy is wrestling with the nature of life, like the Preacher in Ecclesiastes, who Tolstoy often cites. He is expressing that man must rely on more than what other men say -- no matter how convincing. As Andrei realized on the field of Austerlitz, man must look above and beyond himself and act as if he is accountable to the Almighty even when he is flowing with the strongest currents of conventional thinking. We all have a voice in where we are going and for the wars and oppression around us. We share the responsibility of not justifying the unjustifiable.

He uses a metaphor to make the point: Think of a person on a boat who does not perceive the degree to which he is moving, as compared to someone who can see the ship from the shoreline. We are moving but do not feel it. We are all akin to passengers being led somewhere. This can be the narrow path of virtue or the wider path of frailty and sin. Tolstoy essentially is asking you to consider, while on board and looking at the sky: What is Your North Star?

This is a stark reminder to not lose sight of the essential connection that those few names in history have to the masses. Power also lies with the people. It was not one man who led to the excesses of any movement. It was a combination of those considered leaders and the rest of us who actually haul the log.

On his return as a lieutenant in a fancy military jacket laced with silver as well as possessing a St. George’s Cross for bravery, Nicholas is treated magnificently. Nicholas gets used to it and develops an ego that leaves him open to being taken advantage of. The finances of his aristocratic family are brought out, noting how his affable father, Ilya, was bestowing a trove on his Prodigal son, as well as other celebratory events after remortgaging his estates. Illya purchased his son a fine horse that could enter races and also the most fashionable outfits.

With his new look and demeanor, Nicholas would be seen at the elite social events. He also visited a woman on the boulevard…a fairly clear reference to a prostitute. He relished being home as a young man aware of the world. He left behind childish things, such as once feeling disconcerted about sneaking around his mansion kissing Sonya. He also visited the historical English Club – a social institution started by English merchants around 1770 that gathered at various stately houses. Men used the Club to socialize, drink, gamble and make connections. Tolstoy, Pushkin and Nikolai Gogol were members. Gogol is a writer with Ukrainian roots, from a Cossack family, which both Ukraine & Russia claim as theirs.

Like much of Moscow, Rostov’s passion for the Czar cooled but he still expressed that there was something in his feelings for Alexandr that could not be understood by others. Rostov drifted even away further from Sonya, as Tolstoy expertly catches the nature of a young man who must have his freedom. He knew there were more women to know and Love would come later.

It was now early March, and Ilya is arranging a dinner in honor of General Bagration at the aforementioned English Club. Ilya is presented as a long-time member.

This celebration for actually happened and it is important to recognize why. The reason was that Bagration was viewed as the saving grace of the recent war. Tolsoty reveals how the news of Austerlitz traveled. High Society had generally been accustomed to victories, especially from era of Catherine the Great & General Suvorov, where the triumphs were common over the Ottomans and Poles. On receiving news of the absolute defeat at Austerlitz – much of Moscow did not believe it or chose not to. However, the truth could not be contained. When it spread, it had to be dealt with.

Blame was cast on many, including Kutuzov. Many felt it was the general’s age, health, and lack of ingenuity that led to defeat. More quietly blame was cast the Czar, by way of his youth, inexperience and trust in worthless advisors. Still, a good portion considered Alexandr as the “angel incarnate.” Most vocally, the Austrians were blamed.

The public felt compelled to throw their support behind the army. Some were singled out for having performed miracles of valor. The chief hero of was General Bagration, hailed for his effort at Schön Grabern and command of the rear-guard. It also helped that Moscow’s new hero was a stranger to the City. Tolstoy has Shinshin (a quick wit and relative of the Rostovs) parody the master of satire, Voltaire by voicing, “Had there been no Bagration, it would have been necessary to invent him.” The original quote was “Had there been no God, it would have been necessary to invent him.” The Frenchman reached something profound in few words.

Tales of valor of numerous men were embellished and spread and characters like Rostov, Boris and Berg symbolized that wave. One may have saved a standard, another had reportedly killed five Frenchmen, while another was said to fight valiantly with an injury.

There is a reference that nobody spoke of Andrei. Reports were that he was killed, leaving a pregnant wife with his eccentric father. Tolstoy references Andrei to symbolize the many, with such promise, who were wasted.

This chapter plays up the elaborateness of the preparation for the event at the English Club, going through the choice of cook, food and entertainment. Nicholas jokes with his father that Bagration prepared less for battle at Schön Grabern. Ilya tells his son to go to Pierre’s, invite him and obtain the best fruit – strawberries and pineapples, as they are not available anywhere else.

Anna Drubetskaya shows up and introduces the sordid affair that Pierre is affected by. There is a rumor that Dolokhov, who survived Austerlitz, is having an affair with Helene, Pierre’s wife. Helene, has always been presented as the type of woman who is a snare -- something of Delilah to the Biblical Sampson. She reveals that Pierre gave Dolokhov a place to stay upon his return and was betrayed. This has filled Pierre with a rage of biblical proportions.