# Talk:Battle of Borodino

The current stable version conforms to the template model at Template:Infobox military conflict, which directs readers to the Aftermath section.

The issue at stake here is not whether the "Edit is backed by extremely well known sources with an immense amount of credibility and reliability" which I don't for a moment doubt, but, rather, how to avoid cluttering up the infobox. There's plenty of room in the aftermath section to include every variation on a theme and that neat little "See Aftermath section" directs readers to it. Really simple solution. Technopat (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This is very fair and I completely agree with you, but my issue is that if I let others know that the result of the Battle of Borodino was inconclusive, they will not think that it is true since there will be no source(s) to back it up.
Not only did both sides suffer tremendous losses and failed to achieve any real goal, but the efforts committed by the Imperial Russian Army weakened the Grande Armée to such an extent that it made France militarily impuissant. Napoleon grinded so much meat just to capture the city that was purposely used to entrap and devastate his already annihilated army. That can hardly be considered a victory, no matter the view-point.
So in conclusion, whilst I am fully on board with resolving your issue, I also want to counter my issue as well. So whenever you have time, I would greatly appreciate if you were to come up with a good compromise to solve this issue entirely. Thanks! 209.202.201.250 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi again! Thanks for your reply. Just for the record, I actually agree with your analysis. The problem is how to adapt that to the function and limited scope of the infobox.
As you can read in the link to the template that I included above, the parameter for the result of a military conflict infobox
... may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say.
The key points there are "one of two standard terms" and "the 'immediate' outcome" of the specific conflict. It then goes on to refer to those "cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome":
In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
So, the only viable solution I see is that of the current, stable version which directs readers to the Aftermath section. --Technopat (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Alright, that's totally fair! Thank you for this and have a terrific day. Issue resolved. 209.202.201.250 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Great! I should, however, point out that this consensus has been reached with a quorum of two. Now that it's out here on the talk page, let's give it a while and see how other contributors view it... Regards, --Technopat (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This state of the infobox clearly contains some flaws, why does it say "French victory" when quotes are added to the redirected link that the battle ended in a draw? You can also add a few additional quotes to this. In general, so far "French victory" is WP:ONUS + WP:OR. So it should be changed. Dushnilkin (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I also updated the data on losses, all explanations are in the text of the article. If you have any questions, write here. Dushnilkin (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Napoleon routed the Russians and occupied Moscow. That sounds like a French victory to me. Napoleon's blunder after the battle, to stay in Moscow, is another thing. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Again, this is WP:OR, please appeal with normal WP:RS, we have several references in the article to the fact that the battle ended in a draw/victory for the Russians. Dushnilkin (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Russian sources. I doubt these can be considered RS. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
The article, especially in the paragraph "aftermath", presents mainly English-language sources. And even so, you commit Genetic fallacy giving out this kind of arguments. Dushnilkin (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank god someone said it. Russian and Chinese editors need to be rangebanned until they can contain their propagandizing.

The Russians retreated; the French occupied their capital. In no universe would that constitute a Russian victory unless you’ve been raised in an environment of pro-Russian propaganda. This battle’s result has shifted over time from “French Victory” to “Pyrrhic French Victory” to “Stalemate” and now to the tried and true “See Aftermath”, which just serves to obfuscate the fact that the Russian army was forced to retreat and the French army occupied Moscow.

If this pattern of editing continues, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the Russians won the Battle of Borodino, the Russians won the Battle of Austerlitz, in fact the Russians won the entire War of the Third Coalition, and all of Central and Western Europe has been under continuous Russian occupation since before then anyways so none of these events matter.

I’d start edit-warring over this, but the shills will always come back to push their narrative. The next step in their playbook would be to accuse me of having an anti-Russia bias, but it’s not gonna change the fact that Moscow was taken and the Russian army retreated. 2806:2F0:1021:FF56:E5E2:2192:28D6:E32E (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't even make sense to respond to this in any way, the respected IP user has not brought out any actual arguments, mentioning that he wants to start a war of edits. Well, I think he'll be on this page pretty soon.
The infobox mentions the fact that the French army occupied Moscow, sources (including Russians) are indicated regarding the fact that the battle was potentially won by the Grande Armée, the issue in historiography is debatable, so it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to deduce the overall result. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
NTA but I checked out the aftermath section and I see it as a biased narrative based on Russian sources from 1992. For example: Kutuzov retreated from the battlefield on 8 September, and Napoleon and his men managed to capture Moscow; the fierce defense of the Imperial Russian Army devastated the Grande Armée to such an extent that it caused the French army's force to become impuissant.
This is given in wikivoice, while openly available facts stand in disagreement with such a narrative. Most importantly, the Grande Armee had suffered the majority of its losses already before even the Battle of Moscow, losing these troops to hunger and disease. Of course this fact is uncomfortable for the official Russian narrative focusing on Borodino, on white-washing the shameful Scorched Earth that followed, and on the ambushes the retreating Napoleon faced. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Again, there is no factual material here, just an emotional response. The passage you have quoted is confirmed exclusively by English-language sources, and the Vasiliev you mentioned (1992) generally believes that Borodino ended with the victory of the French. The fact that "the beginning of the end start in Moscow" already refutes the assumption you have made that bad and terrible Russian historiography is "fixated on Borodino," as Sokolov (2020) concluded that the battle had no effect on anything. And yes, the Grande Armée suffered the main losses not from illness or cold weather, (During the main period of retreat from the end of October to the end of November, the temperature averaged -2/-3 degrees, dropping below only two days. [Sokolov, 2020. p. 476]) but from hunger and military actions. And they were incurred after the beginning of the October retreat, not before it.  All your messages are unfounded accusations with a constant WP:OR. Dushnilkin (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Incorrect. The Grande Armee had suffered the majority of its losses already before even the Battle of Moscow, losing them to hunger and disease as Napoleon's extended logistical lines exposed him to supply shortages, which were the perennial problem of the invasion. The Aftermath section presently evokes in the reader as if nothing of that sort had happened and only the battle in itself wrecked Napoleon's war effort. That's incorrect. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Unsupported by WP:OR, your words have no weight in this case. Why should this article consider the losses of the grand army before the battle itself? This is an absolute WP:ONUS that shouldn't be and won't be. Even if we take your statement (which is not confirmed in the RS), the losses clearly did not reach the level at which the army loses its combat capability. During the occupation of Moscow, before retreating to the border, Napoleon was able to increase his army, which indicates normal supply lines. Dushnilkin (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Stop spamming WP. I have the sources, the fundamental gripe is the entire narrative behind the Aftermath section is essentially made up to the point that a single sentence, which I can find 3 or more sources for, would overthrow this entire narrative, so the whole paragraph or two in the Aftermath section will require a rewrite. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Stop referring to Wikipedia rules? This is something amazing. Since the entire mentioned section is compiled with a relatively large range of sources (definitely more than you have at your disposal), your actions will amount to a gross violation of WP:NPOV. If you have normal sources, please specify them. Dushnilkin (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
I can come up with an equal amount of sources, the discussion is moot since you're clearly acting in bad faith and not interested in discussion. An RfC will be needed. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
So far, you have not provided anything yet, the only thing I saw during the discussion were unfounded accusations, WP:LIE moments and constant attempts to prove the inconsistency of the modern historiography of the issue. If you intend to continue in the same spirit, then of course I am not interested in such a discussion. So you can reques. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The article as of now states: "the Russian Empire, being a massive country with a huge population, could relieve these losses quickly". This is, as far as I know, incorrect. Russia was huge by area but relatively thinly populated. France and Russia each had about 30 million within their borders as defined today.""Russia"".""France"".
The situation can be a little confusing, because both France's and Russia's borders changed a lot during and immediately after the wars. France as legally defined in 1812 was at its wartime territorial maximum, including swathes of what is now Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Croatia. Russia, having lost Poland, was at a minimum. It is therefore likely that metropolitan France's population as defined at the time was considerably greater than Russia's.
However, France's commitments were also much greater than Russia's, essentially having to garrison a continent. And at Borodino, France was fighting over a thousand miles from home. These, not relative population, are more likely reasons for difficulty relieving losses.
As no source is given for the claim, I see no reason not to remove it now. GarethAd (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that there are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)


### Battle of Borodino
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending 
Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720, I can work on this, and get it back to GA standards within a month. Matarisvan (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)