Talk:French invasion of Russia/Archive 1

message: The literal translation is "war of the fatherland" . Same thing for the WWII version.
Correct. (Great) Patriotic War is just the standard English translation. --Kolt 08:44, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 

message: The caption to one of the pictures says, about the Cossacks:
"Seldom were they committed to execute a conventional charge in battle."
It may be good if a professional historian could check on this. I am afraid this is an oversight.
===================
Here in Napoleon's invasion of Russia it's said Moscow burned from September 2 to 6. But in Moscow, September 14, 1812 and Napoleon, it's said it burned on September 14.
Coould be one or the other, but certainly not both... =)--euyyn 16:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: seems to be a mixup between russian and western calendar  --Deelkar 16:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. September 14 New Style (September 2 Old Style). Cmapm 14:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think so. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 12:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsorted text 

message: Here in Napoleon's invasion of Russia it's said Moscow burned from September 2 to 6. But in Moscow, September 14, 1812 and Napoleon, it's said it burned on September 14.
Coould be one or the other, but certainly not both... =)--euyyn 16:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: seems to be a mixup between russian and western calendar  --Deelkar 16:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. September 14 New Style (September 2 Old Style). Cmapm 14:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think so. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 12:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: =======

message: I was merely trying to enhance the article with some images and undo the damage done by the OrphanBot. We have a common cause and enemy here Ghirl, let's not start an edit war.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image arrangement 

message: An important event in many ways, but should the title say "Invasion" rather than "invasion"? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital I? 

message: I was told that during one battle Napoleon observed the Russian army was marching on a sheet of ice, and so he ordered one of his cannons to fire upon the ice twice, thus caused the ice to crack and annihilated a good division of the Russian army. Can anyone confirm this as fact or fiction for me? I remember it also has something to do with the two cannon shots at the beginning of the 1812 Overture 24630 21:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation of specific event 

message: Is it smth wrong with placing Military conflict infobox in this article?
Ioakinf 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is helpful. It does not add new info, clutters the article, creates images jams. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for delay with reply. Maybe it will be useful to place simple list of links to battles (it really unconvinient to read article without it)? Ioakinf 08:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes provide a quick at-a-glance overview for the reader.  The Gomm 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placing Military conflict infobox 

message: Hey Mikkalai, Ghirla and I already discussed this. He proposed that I send this to the Russian Portal board. I did; I left this issue there for about a week or two and only Ghirla and I replied. Ghirla was fine with changing the name to "French invasion of Russia." I have changed it to "French invasion of Russia (1812)" because there were other moments when French troops invaded Russia (like in the Crimean War or during the Russian Civil War with the French Expeditionary Corps). Thanks.UberCryxic 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Recently, a Polish-Russian Wars tag was added to this article. It's not quite certain that it belongs here, however. If you take a look at the other struggles in the list, the Poles and the Russians were pretty much the main protagonists in most if not all of them. Here, the situation is obviously different. The French and the Russians were the main two warring sides, even though Napoleon's army was composed of soldiers from all of Europe. Your thoughts?UberCryxic 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template, not tag, you mean :) You are correct that it was primarily a French-Russian war, however Poles were a willing ally of Napoleon (see Duchy of Warsaw and Polish Legions of Napoleon); thus I think this war merits classification as a Polish-Russian war, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your response.  Consider, however, that during a number of other conflicts with Russia (e.g. November Uprising, January Uprising), an independent Polish state did not exist either. Appleseed (Talk) 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a redesigned version of the template or relocating it lower would be applicable: the goal is not to portray this as a primarily Polish-Russian conflict, but note that it fits in the series of Polish-Russian wars - and there is no doubt that if forms an important link between Kosciuszko Uprising and November Uprising.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotr, you seem to have found a new article to polonize. Please stop. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghirlandajo, could you please explain?  Polish forces played an important role in this campaign. Appleseed (Talk) 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spanish and Italian too. It does not make it Polish-Italian-Spanish invasion of Russia, to be sure. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the Poles were the second most numerous nationality after the French.  No one is proposing changing the article name, only adding a small template. On a side note, it would be nice if you could set aside your sarcasm and make a genuine effort to work through these issues. Appleseed (Talk) 18:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Italians the third-most numerous, and Germans the fourth.  The point is that the only independent political actor in the thing was the French Emperor.  john k 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tag 

message: Shouldn't this be Napoleon's inavsoon of Russia? The Grand Army was not only French, after all.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Appleseed (Talk) 21:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French or Napoleon's? 

message: I personally don't care too much what we use to describe the leader of Imperial Russia, but I was under the impression that the most common term is "Czar." As such, this term is probably more appropriate.UberCryxic 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czar or Emperor? 

message: In the text it says that Napoleon had an army of 800,000 and only 22,000 survived then the total deaths must be 778,000 and not the current 525,000 Awayhave 10:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not assume such things.  Either or both of the numbers given may be wrong.  Why are you assuming that the army and survivor totals are the ones that are correct? john k 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?, because it says Napoleon = 800k and if you scroll down it says only 22K survived so I assume if there was 800k and only 22k survived then 778k must have died. The numbers are in the text so that if the article is to make logical sense then my conculsion is the only alternative. Awayhave 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awayhave - what makes you think that the 800k and the 22k numbers are right, and that the 525k number is wrong?   Isn't it alternately possible that the 22k and 525k numbers are right, and the 800k is wrong, or that the 800k and the 525k numbers are right, and the 22k is wrong?  Leave it as it is now until  you can find a reliable source which gives these various numbers.  As it stands now, you are claiming that one unsubstantiated figure in a wikipedia article proves that another unsubstantiated figure is wrong, when in fact there is no reason to say that it  is this one which is correct. john k 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers must be wrong 

message: Which source supports the casualty figures for the overall campaign?
Captainvp 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: IMO, this article ought to be at French invasion of Russia, unless there were two such invasions in the same year. The year in parentheses is not necessary for disambiguation and just makes the title too long. Hairy Dude 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: The picture possibly depicts Russian retreat, not the French one as it features a Cossack and a Kalmyk.--Dojarca 11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retreat from Moscow 

message: I'm not a big fan of the "Here's what five different historians think the number of troops was" approach that we're currently using. I think all we need is a single sentence saying that historians' estimates of the number of troops under Napoleon's command range from (lowest number) to (highest number) so we can avoid the whole laundry list. Funnyhat 05:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of soldiers in the Grande Armée 

message: All the battles of the invasion are crammed into three paragraphs in one section.  This probably needs to be fleshed out.  -Gomm 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs more on the battles 

message: POV words, point of view is clearly explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Where it clearly says
Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.
For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.
A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.
There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems
So clearly the words; "drenching" rain and baking heat are pov whilst rain and heat are neutral
Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Said quote is from said source and as the quotation of the historian involved proves a bit of understatement on my part. Please desist from further harrasment of me when I am trying to expand the article. --Tirronan (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not allowed to use pov words, even if the text you copy it from says those exact words does not change the fact that you are not allowed to use pov words to rules clearly state what is allowed and what is not as can been seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , and if you feel that following the rules is harassment that is your problem and if you continue calling following the rules as harassment I will report you for Wikipedia violations of the rulesWheelcarboat22 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pov words 

message: So which is it heavy or drenching rain? And is it stifling or baking heat?
Obviously both cannot be true so which is it either you were lying the first time or you are lying now so which is it and if you are lying about that then we can also assume that you are lying about everything you have ever written and that it is all fake
Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am asking you to follow Wikipedia rules not install pov words and not copy texts directly from books for very long periods and I have told you that if you find following the rules such as not installing unreferenced text or installing pov words or copy texts for long stretches from books as harassment then that is your problem, and answer the question which is it heavy or drenching rain? Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So now it is heavy what happened to drenching? 

message: To Roksanna
Please do not use other Wikipedia articles in different languages as sources referencing to another Wikipedia article which anyone can edit in another language is not good, and can you please verify what the books in German say by scanning a translated version of them and uploading a link so that everyone can see what the translated books into English say Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that just because this is the English Language Wikepedia, this does not mean that all sources need to be in English - particularly in a subject like this where almost all of the primary sources will not be in the English Language - and there is a vast array of scholarly work done in languages like French, German and Russian.  There is absolutely no need to scan translated versions of documents and post them to the web - and indeed this could well raise copyright issues.  That said,foreign Language Wikipedias (or indeed the English Language one) do not count as a reliable source and should not be used as a reference.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get too wound up about it one way or the other I will continue to rewrite the article one section at a time.  If anyone has another source, preferably a printed acknowledged history, it would be a help. Please note that most of the Eastern Europe events are going to be French, Polish, German, or Russian. Indeed most of the modern works on the Battle of Waterloo got better because of old Prussian documents that came to light via Peter Hofschroer. --Tirronan (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually when I redid the numbers most of the other countries were Germanic with the exception of the Italians and Poles. Prussia, Austria, Saxony, and Wuttenberg, contributed almost 120,000 men between them. Interestingly the Austrians and Prussians got out almost completely intact. --Tirronan (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think around 180.000 "Germans" (including Swiss almost 200.000), the second biggest part after the French with the second biggest losses and therefore you cannot ignore German historicans and German sources. --Roksanna (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as an aside (and I have absolutly no problem with using German etc. sources where necessary) how many of the Austrian troops were German speakers? Could this be part of the difference.  There may be some double counting going on in several of the numbers - there were, for example, a good number of (20,000 out of 45,000)  French Troops in Eugène's Army of Italy.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess around half of them were "Germans", the command language was German, so all of them spoke it anyway. But I´m afraid that the Croats here could be listed twice. By the way, many Italians were in French units (not the only the Italians from French Northwest of Italy, also soldiers from Northeastern Kingdom of Italy) and so I guess they are listed twice, too. The 180.000 "Germans" include Austrians, Prussians and Rhineans as well as Germans in French Army (Germans from left-Rhine parts of France). --Roksanna (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent German edits 

message: Of course you can mention 253.000 from other nations. It means beside the 300.000 or 355.000 French were 253.000 from other nations, for example Poles, Italians, Germans and so on. But when you list detailed all those other nations seperately, then you have to substract them from those 253.000 men! Otherwise, if Germans, Poles, Italians, Swiss, Iberians and so on are already mentioned... where those remaining 253.000 come from? Andorra or Liechtenstein? Please do not write bullshit and nonsense, open your eyes and compare the main text with the tables, use your brain and remember school mathematics! Thanks --Roksanna (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Next point: The main text did mention 90.000 Poles who marched in (this could be correct) but the losses-table listed 95.000 Poles who died. Unimportant that many sources say almost (only) every third Pole survived and from the surving Poles Poniatowski formed a 18.000-20.000 men corps, but such simple mathematical impossibility everybody should see: 95.000 from 90.000 died??? --Roksanna (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, total losses were somewhere in range of 500,000 and even at that I remain utterly unconvinced that more of those were not deserters that crossed back over the border fairly unharmed by the event. Most of the Prussians returned, all of the Austrians returned, and any of the deserters close to the borders would have been walking back to their respective countries unnoticed. --Tirronan (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that Yorck and Schwarzenberg's ancillary armies are not normally counted among the 615,000. john k (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are counted among those max. 615.000, they are a part of it. How you can count Macdonald without his Prussians? --Roksanna (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I concur. --Tirronan (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You cut the number of French from 450k --> 300k and then ask ooo where are the other casualties. Well they are in the 150k you cut Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reihn gives a pretty good break down of the numbers, Roksanna has German sources and they seem in concurance, if you have a better source we'd sure would like to see it. Tirronan (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  253.000 from other nations... bullshit and nonsense 

message: In the section French invasion of Russia#Causes of the war it currently states: "At the time of the invasion, Napoleon was at the height of his power with virtually all of continental Europe either under his direct control or held by countries defeated by his empire and under treaties favorable for France. No European power on the continent dared move against him" 
What about Iberia? --PBS (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was called the Spanish Ulcer for a reason and there were those around Napoleon that recommened a suspension of the Spanish campaign till the Russian campaign was completed.  It was the 1st of many a bad decision by Napoleon.  In reflection I think that as numbers increased and the size of the operations expanded much of the genius of Napoleon evaporated.  Barclay de Tolley, and Kunetzov, both understood the grand stratigic better than Napoleon did.  It has been published by more than a few Historians that later, Napoleon did in fact leave Spain when forced to when he would have profitted more to have taken them out early and save much that was lost in the retreat. Tirronan (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Iberia 

message: Starting with the Capture of Moscow, the article is almost completely missing dates. Could someone fill in...? --Syzygy (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates? 

message: I see above that a few years ago there was a query about the title of this article. Indeed the title isn't accurate, because the invasion was by Germans, Italians, Swiss and Poles as well as the French. It would be like calling the US-Brit-Canadian D-Day operation the 'American Invasion of Europe' because it was under US overall command. It would be more accurate to entitle this article 'The 1812 campaign against Russia' or 'Napoleon's march on Moscow'. Also, the word 'invasion' is misleading and should not be used because this wasn't a full-scale attack on the whole country like Operation Barbarossa, in fact it was one very long march of one enormous army on a very narrow front to one objective - Moscow. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the French Invasion of Russia is inaccurate, for the reason you have stated. Napoleon's invasion of Russia is equally unsatisfactory as it tends to suggest things were personal in some way. The most accurate name I stumbled across in Napoleonic literature is the French take on it, which is actually perfectly accurate: Campagne de Russie - Campaign of Russia (1812). It follows the same thought pattern as the name 'Campaign of France' during the second World War. --Alexandru.demian (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your idea. As a native speaker of English, I would rather translate that French phrase into 'The Russia Campaign'. But still, this is English language Wikipedia and we should stick to English language precedents, where it is usually referred to as 'the march on Moscow' or the '1812 campaign'. English sources also tend to use the word 'Napoleon' in the title because it is verifiable that he was personally in control of the campaign, it was his idea rather than France's. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's true that English-speaking literature usually uses the names you bring up. Nonetheless, I've just had a look and PhD Charles Esdaile, a pretty authoritative author in the field, does use the term Russian Campaign of 1812 in his book 'Napoleonic Wars: An International History'. So calling it that would not be in complete disagreement with English-speaking literature and would also provide quasi-perfect accuracy when compared to other titles suggested for the article. --Alexandru.demian (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to settle on 'Napoleon's Russian Campaign of 1812'. Esdaile's book is entitled 'Napoleonic Wars', so we already know its about Napoleon when he refers to the 'Russian Campaign of 1812'. A WP article is a self contained unit, so 'Napoleonic' or 'Napoleon's' needs to be in the title, otherwise its meaning would be unclear. To a native English reader, the 'Russian Campaign of 1812' could easily be interpreted as something about the Tsar's expeditions. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me!--Alexandru.demian (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Let's wait for 2 or 3 more agreements.-Chumchum7 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

text: My main argument is the same as yours, that: "naming conventions for old battles are mostly set in stone". Honestly, I can't see the evidence online that this campaign is conventionally entitled the 'French invasion of Russia'. It seems more frequently the 'Russian Campaign of 1812' or 'Napoleon's march on Moscow' and variations on this theme using the words 'Napoleon', '1812' and 'Moscow' most often. I agree the naming convention is more important than the fact that the invasion was super-national in character (just like D-Day was in some sense an 'American invasion of France', but its WP title should remain 'D-Day' because of naming conventions). Maybe we should do the old 'Google test' by searching complete phrases, and seeing which is most popular (discounting film titles, games and existing WP entries) ? All ideas welcome. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Might get the Milhist group involved and see what they think.  I've really got no issue with it one way or the other but I don't want groups up in arms about it either and both the French and Russian's seem to have a lot of sensitivity where this one is concerned. --Tirronan (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. WP Russian calls it the 'Patriotic War of 1812' while French WP calls it the 'Russian Campaign of 1812'. Both are potentially confusing in English. The common denominator is coming out as '1812'. That needs to be in the title, at least. Anglophone sources tend to refer to the 'Napoleonic' wars, armies, campaigns, etc. But I don't think our much loved French friends get particularly offended by this Anglophone naming convention. This is why IMO 'Napoleon's Russian Campaign of 1812' works best, but am happy to work at consensus. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

text: On a lighter note we had a Russian editor that decided that we English speakers were far to liberal in our understandings of how battles should be named and went about trying to change the names of the Battle of the Bulge and others... the howls were remarkable and I was laughing till my sides hurt and I was gasping for breath.  All this goes to say walk softly on this one. --Tirronan (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The current article name is a descriptive name, as as such it is an accurate description (no need for the year as the French don't invade Russia very often!). If we were to move it I'd go for "Russian Campaign" as that is in my experience the most common name. I would not qualify it further, but place a  at the top of the page to a disambiguation page. If gets around the problem of who's campaign (Napoleon's, the French, or the European Union's) and any other usage of the term "Russian Campaign" would be qualified because it is not the common usage.-- PBS (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'French or Napoleon's?' revisited