When Nikolai and the other Pavlogradsky Hussars are stationed in the village of Salzeneck, Nikolai publicly accuses the unpopular Lieutenant Telyanin of stealing a purse full of coins from the squadron commander Captain Denisov. To Nikolai's surprise, however, others in the regiment encourage him to retract his accusation and apologize. In making his argument that it is inappropriate for Nikolai, a mere "junker" or junior officer, to make an accusation against a superior officer, the staff captain employs logos, or an appeal to logic:
“I wouldn’t have thought it of you,” the staff captain said gravely and sternly. “You don’t want to apologize, but you, my dear boy, are to blame all around, not only before him, but before the whole regiment, before us all. And here’s how: you might have reflected and taken advice on how to handle this matter, but you blurted it right out, and in front of officers. What’s the regimental commander to do now? Should he prosecute the officer and besmirch the whole regiment? Disgrace the whole regiment because of one scoundrel?"
Though Nikolai's accusation is merited, the staff captain places blame for the ensuing squabble on Nikolai's shoulders. The "whole regiment," he reasons, has been affected by this accusation, which leaves the regimental commander in a difficult position. If the regimental commander were to prosecute Telyanin, the staff captain argues logically, then the honor of the entire regiment would be "besmirched," leading to "disgrace for them all." Everyone in the regiment, his argument suggests, would be marked by the stigma of theft. He encourages Nikolai to put aside his strong feelings and think about the issue rationally.
Tolstoy interweaves his own theory of history into his more personal narratives of the Rostov, Bolkonsky, and Bezukhov families. In one passage, in which he turns his attention to what he regards as the fallacies of previous historians, he wields logos to present his argument that history is not affected by the choices of individual men. Using Napoleon's invasion of Russia as his example, he argues that:
The way these people were killing each other occurred not by the will of Napoleon, but went on independently of him, by the will of the hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the common action. To Napoleon it only seemed that the whole thing happened by his will. And therefore the question whether Napoleon had or did not have a cold is of no greater interest to history than the question of the last convoy soldier having a cold.
Here, Tolstoy proceeds through his argument in a logical fashion. The war, he notes, was not fought by one man who wiped out whole armies, but rather by "the will of hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the common action." Each of these people, Tolstoy reasons, found themselves participating in the war as a result of their own complex choices, motivations, and circumstances. "To Napoleon," he writes, "it only seemed that the whole thing happened by his will." Though a man like Napoleon might believe, as a result of his own experiences, that his will alone directs an entire army, Tolstoy suggests that this is a fallacy based upon limited human perception. In the end, he concludes, Napoleon's individual choices and circumstances matter no more than that of any soldier, as all have been swept up in the same historical moment.