Talk:Battle of Krasnoi

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Krasnoi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207091755/http://www.dean.usma.edu:80/history/web03/atlases/napoleon/napoleon%20pages/napoleon%20map%2051.htm to http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/napoleon/napoleon%20pages/napoleon%20map%2051.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I wrote this article in 2006 because I wanted to promote awareness among Westerners about the Battle of Krasnoi. But all the successive edits have made the article less informative than what I originally intended. I recall putting a carefully worded sentence or two in the introductory paragraph, emphasizing that this encounter was not so much a battle as it was a series of skirmishes, ambushes, raids, marches and counter-marches. That information is essential to understanding the nature of the so-called Battle of Krasnoi. It's not good that someone eliminated that wording.
Again, if anyone wants to collaborate in order to improve the quality of the writing and upgrade the narrative, please don't hesitate to contact me. I've read many historical accounts of this engagement, and plan to tour the battle site in person pretty soon. I'm always interested in discussing this little-known but momentous historical event with anyone.--Kenmore (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not good... 

message: Interesting article. Can I respectfully suggest the change of a word?
In the second to last sentence under 'Combat near Uvarovo' I suggest changing the word 'atomized' to 'broken up'. It would seem to be a more common military term to me. Just a thought.
Thankyou.
Mov326 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. However, the data in footnote #2 has been mixed up. Whoever edited that footnote has made the mistake of confusing the November 15th French Guard attack on the Russian flying column with a subsequent, November 17th feint made by the Guard against the Russian central position. The were two separate events. If we can talk, I'll explain my point in detail. Best Regards,Kenmore (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  , would you mind just editing the article?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested change of one word that caught my eye 

message: Basically, I've got to dig up all the original texts I used for my research, and to reread the passages in order to put references after (virtually) each and every sentence in this article. All the sentences I wrote are derived directly from one text or another; it's just a question of finding the right text and page number, then inserting a reference after each statement.
Also, I notice that other Wiki history articles are making a distinction between references and footnotes. They use numbers for references, and alphabet letters for contextual footnotes and author's comments. Perhaps this should be done on this article. Notice that I used numbers for both references and contextual footnotes.
The data in the info box very much needs to be referenced as well. Somebody recently challenged my figures for French casualties, which I took from an excellent Digby Smith book. That individual (who questioned my figures) pointed out that Smith was quoting Kutusov's official report on the "battle" after hostilities had ended. I suppose it would be best if we quoted multiple estimates of casualties, troops engaged, artillery pieces, etc.
This is all stuff I should have done already, but I've been too busy. If anyone has enthusiasm for doing this "donkey work" with me, let me know, and we'll make a go of it together.
Kenmore (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest Priority Edits for this Article

message: Today I rewrote the introductory paragraphs for this article. Personally, I hope this version of the introduction stands, and that nobody edits without discussing with me first. This latest version of the introduction, I believe, is most factually accurate, and is sufficiently informative about the nuances of the battle without going into excessive or needlessly overparticular detail. Further, it's readable. Here's a copy of today's rewrite (for future reference in case anyone edits):
The Battle of Krasnoi (Krasny) (November 15 to 18, 1812) was a series of skirmishes fought in the final stage of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. In this engagement the Russians under General Kutuzov inflicted heavy losses on the remnants of the Grande Armee, which was severely weakened by attrition. Neither Kutuzov nor Napoleon allowed this clash to escalate into a full battle. Throughout the four days of combat, Napoleon sought to rush his troops, extended in a 50 mile line of march, past the Russians, who were positioned parallel to the highway. Despite the vast superiority of the Russian army, Kutuzov refrained from launching a full offensive as he did not want to risk a pitched battle against Napoleon. [1][2][3]
The climax of the engagement occurred on November 17, when an aggressive feint by the French Imperial Guard induced Kutuzov to delay a potentially decisive final attack. This daring maneuver enabled Napoleon to evacuate a large part of his army before the Russians seized Krasny.
Despite Napoleon's successful rear guard action, overall the encounter was ruinous for the French. The corps of Davout, Eugene, and Ney suffered heavy defeats in individual actions during the four days of fighting. Russian Cossacks took large numbers of prisoners, and the Grande Armee was forced to abandon much of its remaining artillery and baggage train.
I hope this latest intro survives.Kenmore (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I rewrote the introduction: I think this current version is most factually accurate, informative, and readable. 

message: I have two descriptions that seem to indicate that the Voltigeurs advanced in support of the Grenadiers and not the opposite which is written in the article.
Blok and Molhuysen write: 
Tindal's 3rd Grenadier Regiment, supported by the Dutch Red Lance Regiment, was destined to attack the Russian-occupied village of Uwarowo. Still only 500 men strong, the regiment was formed into one battalion under the command of one of the battalion's cantors, Lieutenant-Colonel George. General Fantin des Odoards, at the time a captain in the 2nd Regiment of Grenadiers, relates in his Journal (Paris 1895, 345), that on that occasion, when Napoleon sent one of the battalions of his Guards (which must have been the battalion of grenadiers of Tindal's regiment) against the enemy, he heard the Emperor say: 'Allons, grenadiers, abordez ces b .... - là. A la guerre comme en amour, il faut se voir de près.' With those words, then, the Dutch grenadiers were ordained to death; for, having fired their cartridges, they continued to hold out until only about 40 of them remained, which was relieved by a battalion of skirmishers of the Young Guard, under Colonel Lenoir. This troop, too, was mowed down by the Russian artillery and cavalry in less than half an hour.
Van Lennep writes:
One of these divisions succeeded in fighting its way to him, but the second one, led by Davoust, was (16 Nov.) so encircled by the enemy that Napoleon ordered Marshal Lefebre, who commanded the Old Guard, to send one of the regiments of grenadiers to enable communion with this corps. To this end, Lefebre chose the Dutch regiment, which was already down to 500 men. Led by Superior George, it fearlessly advanced on the enemy, who was already approaching by a long road, and kept him busy until Davoust's troops had approached. Then George received orders to retreat; - he did, but with 40 men. All the others were killed, and the name of that regiment, once called 'Dutch glory' by Napoleon, could henceforth, as after the battle of Borodino that of the regiment of Dutch hussars, be crossed out on the roll of the Grand Army.
The same took place few moments later with the 33rd regiment light infantry, formerly the third regiment of Dutch jagers. Repeatedly pursued, it had each time, by forming itself into a square, repelled the attack of the enemy horsemen; but at last, attacked by foot soldiers and artillery, it was destroyed: no more than 78 men, of whom only 25 were unhurt, remained, but to be taken away as prisoners of war.
 DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Taksen Before I am gonna start editing that part myself, do you know what is going on here? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  For seven years I am involved in this article. I tried to find out what happened and what is worth mentioning. What I did not understand, I did not add. Your details would fit very well in a Dutch version of "Slag om Krasny" or at the 3rd Grenadier Regiment as they go into detail. There is also an article in French on 33rd Regiment. In my point of view these details do not clarify a lot but make the article more difficult to comprehend. I asked someone to advise me in this case.Taksen (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to include most of these details. My point is that there seems to be a conflict of chronological order with these sources. I have two descriptions that seem to indicate that the Voltigeurs advanced in support of the Grenadiers and not the opposite which is written in the article. Since you know the battle far better than I do, you maybe have an explanation? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Everts mentions voltigeurs and tirailleurs of the Imperial Guard and in that order. As he was a colonel in the 33rd Regiment which was sent to assist he must be regarded as a reliable source. There were also Husaren involved. To study more regiments is not exactly what I would like to do, sorry. Perhaps you can?Taksen (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem wih the Dutch last stand 

message: By changing a lot of references and (not encyclopedic) personal views into notes the story became more clear and engaging. Bogdanovich and Naffziger seem to be the only ones who recognised many skirmishes happened along the Losvinka (erroneously called the Losmina), not precisely at Uvarova but along the brook in a 20m deep ravine leading to the main road on the plateau. Nowadays the villages in the Krasninsky area are scarcely populated, were desolated or do not exist anymore. They have less than fifty inhabitants; sometimes just a few families or owners of dachas.  It is better to concentrate on the main road, the plateau on both sides and the ravine with the brook. De Beauharnais, Davout and Ney succeeded to pass or to get around the steep slope which was also difficult to cross for the horses and the baggage train. They seem to have used ropes after the horses collapsed. Taksen (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: , I think the many recent changes to this section have had a very confusing effect on the chronology.
Napoleon's counterattack, or "feint" begins in the early morning of the 17th, and his declaration that "I have played the Emperor long enough! It is time to play general!" clearly belongs with that episode, as confirmed by numerous sources, but you've placed it with his withdrawal from Krasnoi later in the day. The quoted paragraph beginning "The Krasnoy defile was an excellent place to stop ..." is taken from Rouguet's arrival in Krasnoi on the 15th, and has no place among the details of the retreat on the 17th. The quote from Ségur beginning "So the 1st Corps was saved ..." is much more logically placed in the section on Napoleon's retreat, where it was previously found. There are many other examples.
Let me stress that I'm a layman, but it's clear to me that many of these recent edits have only served to make this section confusingly unclear when compared with its previous state. I haven't had time to look at the other sections in any detail. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your remarks but 17 November is extremely difficult day to understand, also after two hundred years. The confusion comes partly from my webpage on my ancestor who joined the 33rd. At that time I dumped everything I found. I don't mind making mistakes. I learn, don't worry. Because the postcard from 1910 has a bridge on it, I got confused and moved the quote as no one else mentions a bridge over the Losvinka. This article goes into rather in detail; compared with the one in French and Russian. (The articles in Russian and French are copied from the English version in 2007. Something I found out today by comparing them, with almost the same headings.  Though the Russian added their own sources.) As there is no one else who knows the topic as well as User:Kenmore I will ask him. Taksen (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology of November 17th 

message: I am unsure of what this really means to say. Could it be written better? I'm thinking of the time/date thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "happened in the early afternoon of 3/15 November" ?