Talk:Battle of Berezina

message: This is an excerpt from Yevgeny Tarle's Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, 1812.Whoever is enthusiastic, may incorporate. mikka (t) 06:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Tarle

message: I do not believe the Berezina battle should be listed as a "decisive Russian victory". The Russian successes at Berezina were limited; they were anything but decisive. 
Consider:
1. The French first outmanuevered Chichagov, then built pontoon bridges across the river. This manuever frustrated Chicagov's object of preventing a French passage of the river.
2. The French moved a substantial portion of their combat force across the river (to the western bank), in spite of Russian attempts to prevent this from happening.
3. The French repelled Chichagov's attempt to disperse them once they crossed the river (on the western bank); Chichagov suffers heavy losses.
4. On the eastern bank of the river, Wittgenstein was at first too timid to attack the French rear guard in earnest. 
5. When Wittgenstein finally attacked, he did force the surrender of Parteneaux's division, and he did bombard the French bridges, inflicting heavy losses on the French rear guard. By then, however, Napoleon had succeeded in moving his main force across the river (to the west).
6. Even though French losses were heinous, most of their losses were stragglers. The Russians, for their efforts, suffered very heavy casualties themselves. These losses immobilized Chicagov's and Wittgenstein's forces in the wake of the battle.
7. There was no Russian pursuit of the French army once it resumed its retreat on the western bank.
Overall, I would say this battle had mixed results. The Russians could claim some kind of victory, perhaps, but certainly it was nothing decisive.
Kenmore (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who won the battle? 

message: But lower: Berezina 27-28 November 1812
Xx236 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Berezina took place November 26-29, 1812 

message: The Battle of the Berezina was not really a Russian victory, let alone a "decisive" victory, as the article previously stated. Basically, the French outfought and outmanuevered Chicagov's troops on the west bank and forced their way across the river. On the east bank, the French received the worst of the combat against Wittgenstein's troops, but even here the French fought something of a successful rear guard action.
True, the French suffered horrendous losses as their bridges were being shelled toward the end of the engagement, but this does not change the fact that Napoleon successfully led the bulk of his combat forces across the river...a feat accomplished by dint of arms at the expense of the Russians.
Noteworthy also is the unusually large casualties suffered by the Russians: 13,000 to 20,000.
It would be more realistic to say that the battle had a mixed outcome: the Russians retained the field and inflicted heavy losses on Napoleon, but were themselves worsted when they attempted to stop the Grande Armee's retreat.
Kenmore (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Russian sources give smaller figures Russian losses: 6,000 to 15,000. 93.74.76.29 (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Added number casualties from Russian sources. 93.74.76.29 (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The result needs to be changed -- the Russians did not really win this battle 

message: The following coordinate fixes are need for the battle of Berezina. The listed coordinates in the article must be wrong, because the battle took place during the crossing of Napoleons army over the river. The position given by the coordinates are not by the river but by the road leading to Barysow... 
—79.161.198.43 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the point nearer to Studzionka, where the brigdes were. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: *Dear Demian, let's agree that it is too simple to say this battle results in a French victory. Only the sentence: "Since then "Bérézina" has been used in French as a synonym for "disaster." -makes this already almost impossible. Since there were far more French casualties and the French were fleeing some kind of compromis seems to be the least. Greets, Rolf1981 (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: dear Rolf, believe me, I understand what you are saying. How can a man win all these battles: Smolensk, Borodino, Tarutino, Maloyaroslavets, Viazma, Krasnoi, Berezina and still emerge defeated from the campaign? It doesn't seem to make sense. Yet, it does, Napoleon won all these battles and the Russians were defeated on the field of battle every time they fought Napoleon. Yet, they won the campaign through brilliant logistics and though shrewd political victories that spelt the end of Napoleon's declining, burned-out genius. Russia just did not win the 1812 campaign on the field of battle but by more subtle means. At Berezina, the French Grande Armee should have ceased to exist. Had the Russians completed their encirclement, Napoleon would have probably escaped anyway, escorted by a few hundred horse guards, but the rest of the troops would have been killed or taken. Instead, the backbone of the army, including a few thousand officers, survived the campaign and were able to form a new army in 1813, an army that outnumbered the Russian and Prussian one by almost 2:1 at a certain moment. So, yes, Berezina was a strategic victory for the French. Very costly. Chandler literally calls it a "strategic victory". I've read perhaps a dozen books on the 1812 campaign (including the recent ones from Dominic Lieven and Adam Zamoyski) and I can provide several more sources for a strategic victory claim, if you wish. As I said, the Russian decisive victory was not won on a field of battle. Greets, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's historically incorrect. What political victories are you talking about? What "shrewd logistics"? The Russians don't get to dictate to Napoleon how he supplies his armies, unless they win battles, or at least achieve draws. Claiming that the Russians were defeated at Berezina because they didn't utterly destroy Napoleon's Army is absolutely ridiculous. Wellington didn't utterly destroy Napoleon's Army at Waterloo either. Was that a French Victory? I don't care who makes the claim, Obama once said something about 57 states, and a Congressman talked about Guam capsizing. When someone makes a ridiculous claim, it doesn't matter how smart they are - all it means is that the one following said claims can't use common sense. 71.165.41.100 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose victory? 

message: Can somebody protect this article? Somebody, (called Demian) has made it his task in life to change the outcome of this battle on different wiki-pages. Allthoug almost all pages state the factual Russian victory, he keeps changing that on the english and french page. Gr,145.18.110.36 (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection needed 

message: I found the time to check one of the sources supposedly used by an anonymous user to support the claim that Berezina was a Russian victory. I've checked Zamoisky. Now, I could not find the, 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March on Moscow from 1980 and it doesn't seem to exist on Amazon either. The only book with that name seems to be the one of 2004, of which I have a copy. In the 2004 book, there is actually absolutely no mention of the battle at pages 7-96, as claimed by the anonymous user. The section discussing the battle is at pages 470-480. Furthermore, this author ranks the battle as a French victory (p. 480), in line with mainstream specialised literature: "The crossing at the Berezina was, by any standards, a magnificent feat of arms. Napoleon had risen to the occasion and proved himself wothy of his reputation, extricating himself from what Clausewitz called <<one of the worst situations in which a general ever found himself>>. [...] But it was above all a triumph for Napoleonic France [...]". I'm now wondering what the other two sources quote might hide... Unless there is actually a 1980 book with the same title claiming a Russian victory at Berezina, I have to say that I'm at a loss here and, while I'm not one to suspect foul play quickly, the anonymous user will need to provide some rationale quickly to avoid deletion.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no response to this serious issue in 2 weeks. Given that the first source (Zamoisky) was bogus, I am assuming that the other two are bogus too. I've read another, more recent book by general Michel Franeschi ( "Napoléon, défenseur immolé de la Paix"), where he ranks Berezina as a French victory. It is unlikely that he would change his opinion so radically over a few years, so the book with Weider is unlikely to be a viable source. I am assuming that the third is not a serious source either. Given all this and given that there's a history to push the Russian victory label on this battle with no serious, mainstream sources, I am assuming that this is yet another attempt of this kind. I am thus restoring the result to what it was before the edits by the anonymous IP.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zamoisky and Berezina 

message: Somebody (more specific a certain Alexandru Demian) has made it his task in life to change and adjust this page in a more pro French way. I saw in the 'View History' section that he keeps undoing versions from different users, so that the outcome looks more positive for the French army. He even (quite childish) changes the logical order in the result, as if it was a clear French victory and only a minor Russian one. Almost all other wiki-pages state a Russian victory, so I would say that he already got a strange compromise by allowing him to add that the French partly won as well. (This last thing is although rather doubtful).
Could somebody use his/her authority to protect this page?
Greetings, 145.18.226.156 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir - if you had a closer look (and knew anything about Napoleonic history), you would see that the result is referenced to reputable, neutral authors of international Stature. As is all my work here on wikipedia. This article, as well as its versions on other wikis, needs major rewriting. If you wish to see how an article about a major Napoleonic battle should look like, please have a look at my article about the Battle of Wagram, for example. That said, I have no objection regarding the result order (which I did not alter myself, rather removed a very dubious website). I do find the Russian tactical victory claim bizzare and will have to have a look into Clausewitz to check it. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I had another look and there is the Russian website again . I had erased it because the main page of the site seems to be about the modern Russian army.. Where on the website is the info about the result of the battle of Berezina? What work is it based on? Which historians? Why is the result refrenced to a site rather than a book?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: dear demian, did you really check the site, since there is an enormeous load of information on Berezina and the whole campagne; http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/history/more.htm?id=10965719@cmsArticle
It feels or even seems like you re only bluffing, and that makes it very doubtfull what sources you  erased before. The whole meaning of wiki is to make neutral articles, not distributie your personal view (a French one in this case). Greetings, Thomas  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.236.177 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result: Logical order.