Talk:Battle of Borodino/Archive 1

message: Correction - The Battle of Leipzig was a much larger battle in numbers involved than Borodino, so i personally disagree with calling it "the greatest battle in history" (admitedly, it was, but a year later it was eclipsed by leipzig) However, the casulaties were greater here, but on the other hand, Leipzig is much more strategically important. As such, some sort of correction should be made to the opening paragraph - Warmaster 26/06/05
I cut the claim
: and arguably the greatest battle in human history up to that date
since (a) anything is "arguable" and (b) I think this is going to be very hard to substantiate. There are a lot of older battles that are claimed to be larger (cf. Battle of Wagram, Battle of Red Cliffs, Battle of Plataea, Battle of Gaugamela). Of course, the older claims are likely to be exaggerated, but it would take a lot of effort to sort through the many claims and adjust them; so this kind of debate is best moved to its own article. In the case of naval battles, where there were similar claims, a separate page was created to handle the issue; see Largest naval battle in history. Gdr 12:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "among the largest battles in human history up to that date"? Rl 15:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The largest battle in history?

message: The point that the previous writer made about numbers is correct; virtually all of the sources I have seen state that the French and their allies outnumbered the Russians (this was, in fact, the first time I have ever heard the contrary position). 
However, I am not so sure about anti-Russian bias. My main indicator is the listing of the battle as a 'draw,' a clearly ridiculous assertion. Most authorities agree that Russian casualties were 45,000 compared to about 30,000 for the French. Furthermore, by the time the battle ended, the Russians had been thrown back roughly 1,700 yards from their original positions, and to prevent more damage the Russians retreated a further 1,000 yards, completely fleeing the sector by the next day and leaving the way open for Napoleon to march on Moscow. Borodino, Utitsa, the Fleches, and the Great Redoubt all fell to the French and their allies. In light of what I've already mentioned, and considering the high morale of Russian troops and the ultimate objective of safeguarding Moscow, there is no rational basis upon which to call this battle a draw. One would have to be a Russian nationalist or plainly dishonest to hold such an opinion. I am going to change the result to 'French victory,' and since I saw meddling with this decision before, I humbly request that there be no more interference. --User:UberCryxic
It is useful to look at the outcome of the battle in the context of each side's goals. Russians' goal was to not let the French pass and take Moscow, and they clearly failed in that. On the other hand, Napoloeon did not achieve his goal either, of destroying the Russian army. Therefore I think a label "Indecisive (or Nominal) French Victory" is appropriate. - anon
I am going to weigh in here, the Russians lost and had a pretty good idea they were going to lose before they started.  The change of command was all about having a battle to uphold national honor.  Once that was completed the Russian command was (either commanders) was more than happy to allow the French to continue to melt away.  It is strictly my opinion and not a fact but I consider it stupid to have given battle to a army that was already sustained 2/3 of casuailties of the campaign.  It was already apparent that the French were going to die in droves regardless of the Russian Army's giving battle.  Regardless of how you figure it Borodino was a failure to the Russians from the the long term or the short term view.  It did however allow the Russians to say they had attempted to defend the capital.  Nothing in the battle effected the long term continued dissolution of the French Army. Tirronan 20:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The outcome 

message: In my previous comments I mentioned the "scorching summer and dreadful winter," so I was not being exclusive. I'm not sure what you mean by "theories of Russian winter," but I am well aware that over half of Napoleon's army died in the summer and that the winter has long dominated popular view of the campaign. That admitted, however, the winter was catastrophic in the final toll it took, and I don't think I have to provide evidence of this. 
Regardless, the objective of that paragraph was to show that the French didn't actually have trouble beating the Russian army; they'd been doing it effectively since 1799. While they were a factor in ultimate victory, they did not single-handedly, as your Britanica article ostensibly claimed, "[drive] Napoleon out of Russia." The record shows that by far the vast majority of the Grand Army died from causes unrelated to Russian regular troops, particularly weather, a hostile population, and horrendous infrastructure which ruined Napoleon's supply system, leading to disease and starvation in the summer (and practically the elimination of all horses, which would be needed so desperately in the 1813 campaign). The Grand Army lost this campaign that summer, and as you can see, the Russian army had nothing to do with it. In fact, in line with Barclay's strategy, the Russians were retreating (quite wisely, might I add). Had they fought the French in the early stages, as some of the senior commanders wanted to do, they would've been annihilated. 
:Yes, and the Wehrmacht was destroyed by the French, Anglo-Americans and extraterrestrials. Please keep your nationalist mythology at bay. --Ghirla | talk 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK with me but I would like to know what other editors think. --Ghirla | talk 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: Most pictures of battles on wikipedia have the victor in the main frame, so I'd appreciate it if you left the one I put up alone.
:First of all, Napoleon was not a victor but a loser in this battle, see above. Secondly, the battle was one of the least successful in his career; it was more the battle of peoples than personalities as per Tolstoy. Thirdly, the copyright status of your picture has not been specified: who painted it? when? what is the title? These concerns are valid, so please address them. --Ghirla | talk 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The question at RfC is whether Napoleon won or lost this battle.  Looking at the talk page and the article itself, this looks like one part of a larger dispute.  There does seem to be some bias in the article.  I'm not sure if this bias is intentional.  The opening paragraph fails to name the Russian general.  Later when the article does introduce Kutuzov it calls him a new commander.  This is misleading: he was a veteran returning from retirement.
There's some good material here on the talk page that could fill out the article.  Who won?  What was the significance of this battle in the larger picture of the 1812 campaign?  From the very narrow definition of who held the field and who retreated, I'd have to chalk this up to the French.  It's listed as a French victory on Napoleon's tomb in Paris.  That said, it was far from a decisive victory.  It's hard to divorce this from the surrounding campaign and the article doesn't really need to treat this in a vacuum.  Just list the reasons why each side claims victory and include a separate section for context.  Regards, Durova 00:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule of thumb to decide the victor is to see who advanced and who retreated after the battle. The French advanced. The other clue we can get is who lost more. Russians seem to have lost more although numbers are not solid. So, based on this "Marginal French victory" could be used. OTOH, the battle and its concequences were a catastrophe for the French. A Pyrrhic victory term seems very much applicable. So, we can say "inconclusive", if you ask me. --Irpen 00:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it natural that the French would obviously chalk Borodino as a victory to them, but to me that is just one point of view. Everything I have ever heard or read about it, it was so devastating, that it could hardly be even called a "victory". I agree with Irpen that it was pyrrhic. So have it a victory if you will, but at what costs? the word victory must have sounded like a joke even to Napoleon. Gryffindor 13:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me it was a draw. Simply because Napoleon didn't reach his goal to destroy the main Russian forces in a single decisive battle. The retreat of the Russians from Borodino was absolutely voluntarily and controlled. They just continued their strategy to bait Napoleon further into the Russian territory, making his supply routes longer and thus more vulnerable. The casualties in the battle were comparable and the tactical situation didn't change at all, compared to the eve of the battle. Voyevoda 02:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I doubt that "Borodino" is marked as a French victory on Napoleon's tomb. No victory monument in France I have ever seen mentions "Borodino" - because French historians have always talked about the battle of Moscow, not of Borodino. Only in recent years some of them switched to "Bataille du Moskwa" (as if the battle was fought in, or over a river). Look at the French version - it specifically states that "Bataille de Borodino" is waht the Russians call it. Of course, it is easier to present the taking of "Moscou" as a French victory than the blooth bath at Borodino. User:Gryffindor is 100% right about what Napoleon himself thought- judging from his memoirs.--pgp 15:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I understand this much about Kutuzov because I come to the article with background knowledge.  A reader without that knowledge wouldn't infer his veteran status from the version I read.  Durova 21:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You still didn't explain why if both sides don't reach their goals, it must be declared as a victory of one side. Moreover, I wonder whether your conviction of Russians being in a "desperate state" and unable to fight another battle is based on solid documented knowledge or mainstream western prejudices. Voyevoda 19:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Add to the above that both sides were not only overworked and sleep deprived, but dehydrated.  A substantial number of French soldiers died on the journey to Borodino.  From what I understand, Russian casualties throughout the campaign were nearly as severe. Durova 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems likely that no short description of the outcome will please everyone, so maybe "see text" would be the right thing to use. Gdr 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. --Ghirla | talk 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  "Disputed" might work.  I'd have to object to calling this a Pyrrhic victory.  A brief quote on that point: For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders.  This didn't happen on the battlefield at Borodino.  Napoleon still had a substantial force when his army entered Moscow. Durova 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: 70.27.27.76 and Daborhe seem to be randomly changing the numbers in the info box. I agree with Daborhe's change of 154,000 to 154,800 as the minimal strength of the french because this is exactly what's written in the article. However the changes to casualties are completely contradictory to the article. Please explain here what sources you are using for your casualty estimates. I am changing the info-box so that is agrees with the rest of the article, please do not change the numbers without explaining why here first.--Yarilo2 21:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Uber:
I've done some research that should solve the Ozharovsky question once and for all.
Note that this map is dated one day behind what the actual date should be...Nov. 15th should be Nov. 16th, etc.
On the map below, Ozharovsky's flying column is the solid black unit next to the village of Kutkovo, at the bottom of the map. You will notice the uncolored box north of it representing the Young Guard. The erratic arrows representing the movements of these forces indicate that the Young Guard hit Ozharovsky, then turned back to Krasnoi. Ozharovsky's troops' wild flight is also indicated.
Note that Ozharovsky's unit is isolated from Miloradovich, far to the right of the map, and isolated from the main Russian army, more towards the right/center.
Of Ozharovsky's flying column, Riehn says the following on page 337: 
"The pursuit was to take the Russian army on a parallel course. Only Platov was to stay direclty on the heels of the French. For this purpose, his Cossack corps was reinforced with some infantry. A flying column was formed under Ozharovsky to go to Yelnia."
Riehn, on page 345, describes Ozharovsky's flying column thusly: 
"The column included 1 jaeger regiment, 1 hussar regiment, and 4 Cossack regiments, with 6 guns."
Also, Riehn describes a "flying column" thusly in his glossary on page 410:
"Flying Column: Generally a raiding party of unspecified size, a flying column could run to several thousand men at most. Operating only on general directives, it did not have a fixed base of operations and was not responsible to any intermediate headquarters. i.e., the column was detached and therefore "flying".
I know from internet research that the average strength of such units was:
1 jaeger regiment: average strength = 600 to 1300 troops maximum
1 hussar regiment: average strength = 800 to 1600 troops maximum
1 Cossack regiment: average strenth = 300 to a maximum of 1000 troops
Thus, Ozharovsky's flying column, at most, was an isolated detachment numbering between 2600 to 7900 troops. The figure of 7900 is impossible, in my estimation, for Krasnoi, as all regiments on both sides were underpopulated due to attrition at this late stage in the campaign.
See these links for average strengths of regiments:
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Russian_army.htm
http://home.att.net/~superspy/russorg.htm
Proposal
Can we put the Krasnoi argument behind us, in which case I will proceed to finish the article?
I propose that we compromise...I will add a section describing the Imperial Guard's action on Nov. 17th (the "two southbound columns 16,000 strong") as a successful feint by Napoleon, and describe Napoleon's strategic success in getting most of his combatants out of Krasnoi intact.
I will expand the section regarding Roguet's destruction of Ozharovsky on Nov. 16th. 
Perhaps we could change the name from "Battle of Krasnoi" to "Skirmishes at Krasnoi" or "Actions at Krasnoi", and the result could be changed to "Inconclusive", or something indicating the heavy wreckage of the French noncombatants, the destruction of Ney, but also Napoleon's strategic success in extricating his combatants.
It will have about 50 footnotes...every sentence backed up by references. 
I insist however that Chandler's account must go...he is dead wrong. Very sloppy research.
Kenmore 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[Ozharovsky]] Question Is Now Solved

message: I want to throw out Chandler's account of the Battle of Krasnoi. It is totally inaccurate. Please consider the latest evidence regarding massive inaccuracies.
David Chandler's account of Krasnoi, below, uses Davidov's "100 gun ship" quote to characterize what happened on 11/17/1812:
The Russians, meanwhile, semmed in little hurry to get to serious grips with their adversaries. A great deal of skirmishing and minor actions took place at various points along the column, but nothing really serious happened until the 17th. By that date Napoleon had been at Krasnoe for two days, waiting for his extended column to close up. He was not altogether satisfied with the situation, however, as is shown by the dispatch of two regiments of the Young Guard to aid Eugene's IVth Corps, which was held up by Davidovitch at Nikulina for much of the 16th before finding a way round the block through Jomina. Indeed, his anxiety to ensure that the main road should remain open induced Napoleon to order an attack against Kutusov by the Guard on the morning of the 17th. At first he thought to entrust this operation to General Rapp, but then changed his mind and placed General Roguet of the Middle Guard in command. The operation was a complete success. The southbound French columns (16,000 strong) caught Kutusov completely unawares, so accustomed had he become to the idea of a passive French opponent. The Russian partisan leader, Davydov, fancifully recorded that "The Guard with Napoleon passed through our Cossacks like a hundred-gun ship through a fishing fleet," and in no time the Russian commander in chief was ordering his 35,000 men to retreat south. The Russians subsequently tried to misrepresent the outcome of the action, claiming that "Bonaparte commanded in person and made the most vigorous exertions, but in vain; he was obliged to flee the field of battle." But this was flagrant propaganda. It was Kutusov who had very much the worst of the encounter.Chandler, pages 828-829
Meanwhile, in his memoir "Diary of Partisan Warfare 1812", Davidov uses the remark to describe what happened on 11/15/1812:
On Nov. 3rd the detachment of Count Ozharovsky joined Kutkov's and Seslavin's party and, reinforced by Figner's, reached Zverovich. On that day at surnrise our reconnaissance unites reported that eneemy infantry wsa stretched out in marching columns between Nikulino and Stesnam...Finally, after midday, we sighted the Old Guard, with Napoleon in riding in their midst. We mounted our horses and stationed ourselves beside the highway. The enemy troops, sighting our unruly force, got their mustekts at the ready and proudly continued on their way without hurrying their step. They resisted almost contemptuously every attempt we made to breach their closed ranks and wrest a single man from their midst. Like blocks of granite, they remained invulnerable.
I shall never forget the unhurried step and awesome resolution of those soldiers, for whom the threat of death was a daily and familiar experience. With their tall bearskin caps, blue uniforms, white belts, red plumes and epaulettes, they looked like poppies on the snow-covered battlefield...As fi it were now, I see Count Orlov-Denisov prancing about on his light brown mare amidst myt Akhtyrka Hussars and orderlies of the Cossack Life Guard Regiment....our horsemen threw themselves at the front line, but all was in vain! Column followed upon column, dispersing us with musket fire and ridiculing our useless display of chivalry...During that day we captured one more general, countless supply wagons and up to 700 prisoners; but the Imperial Guard with Napoleon ploughed through our cossacks like a 100-gun ship through fishing skiffs.Davidov, pages 142-143
Calendar Calculator
Check this link for a calculator to translate the old, Russian Julian Calendar dates into modern, Western, Gregorian equivalents. You'll see that Davidov's stated date of Nov. 3rd, 1812 -- on the Julian Calendar -- translates into Nov. 15th, 1812 on the Gregorian Calendar.
http://5ko.free.fr/en/jul.php?y=1812
Clearly, Chandler's account of Krasnoi is unreliable. More and more evidence mounts. Can't we just pull it out of the Krasnoi article?
Kenmore 03:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Krasnoi: More serious problems with Chandler

message: the table must match the article. The article intro says "ended inconclusive". The rest is speculations. That Kutusov retreated later is of no relevance to the immediate result of the battle. `'mikkanarxi 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess since you called me a troll for talking on your talk page then I'll write here. My reasons were given there and are public for anyone to see should they wish to scroll through the history.UberCryxic 23:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My reasons are right there and you dont have to scroll. Opinions of historians are split. The outcome was way far from black/white. You cannot capture it in one prize given to one side. As for troll, my talk page clearly says I dont wish to discuss articles in my talk page. I can name seven reasons why. `'mikkanarxi 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "most historians": Since the issue is dusputable, you better write a section that quotes these "most historians", as well as of those who have different opinion.  As for other language wikipedias, of note is polish wikipedia. Everyone knows that Poles quite dislike russians and love french. Still, they write "inconclusive". `'mikkanarxi 23:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "tactical victory" ? The French held the ground on this day, but the consequences of the battle were catastrophic, so... Rama 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome

message: Speculations removed.
:His conduct during the battle suggests that his tactical decisions were marred by his efforts to avoid a "Pyrrhic victory". He was also suffering from a fever at the time, which may explain his uncharacteristic detachment from the battle as well as his unusually simplistic battle plan.   
"may explain" by whom and to who? `'mikkanarxi 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given a citation for this now, although I should add that this is fairly well-known.UberCryxic 23:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quotation good. As for "fairly well-known", not everyone loves french fries. Still it sounds apologetic, but at least we know who said this. `'mikkanarxi 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I support mikka in that the apologetic statement should go. The only reason for including such naive statements into the article is excessive Napoleonophilia. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The history does not have "ifs on a horseback". It is a stupid childish excuse. It is sick apologetics of Napoleon to repeat this several times in the article. I collected all this illness in one place for future editors to stylistically make one piece of it. Im not against leaving it in the text, referenced, as a demonstration of slavish apologetics and Russophobia among Napoleonic historians (it is clearly relevant to the topic). Kutusov was also old and sick man and didn't show himself off on horseback, yet he kicked Napo's ass in a clever way, similar to Eastern martial arts: let the opponent defeat himself by his own stupidity.  `'mikkanarxi 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text 

message: A map of the battlefield/battle would be very helpful for the uninitiated. -- 201.51.211.130 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map, please