Not logged in | Create account | Login
    Menu

      Authorpædia Trademarks

      Social buttons

      Languages

      Read

      AUTHORPÆDIA is hosted by Authorpædia Foundation, Inc. a U.S. non-profit organization.

    Svetlana Velmar-Janković

    Good articleBattle of Borodino has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    November 2, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
    March 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
    On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 7, 2005, September 7, 2009, September 7, 2010, September 7, 2012, September 7, 2014, September 7, 2016, and September 7, 2020.
    Current status: Good article


    Sarevo?

    In the article, the statement "On 18 August Kutuzov arrived at Sarevo to greet the army" is referenced to a Vietnamese book. The book is referenced many times in the article, so I assume it's an important work on the subject. However, I cannot find a location named "Sarevo" anywhere near Borodino. There is one well to the east of Moscow, but Kutozov could not have greeted the army there before the battle. So here is the question: was there a mistranslation somewhere here (Russian-->Viet-->English), or is this just wrong? IF wrong, can we find the correct location? If not, the location should be removed. -Arch dude (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point. A correct spelling of this village is Tsaryovo-Zaymishche (direct transliteration gives "Tsarevo", the first "T" was lost, which resulted in "Sarevo". In general, if this source contains such a mistake, it makes sense to replace it with something more reliable. I'll try to check it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we know that the Vietnamese book is reliable? I don't read Vietnamese, but it strikes me as odd that an article on the Battle of Borodino would rely so heavily on Vietnamese-language sources. Kate Riley2019 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    68,000 casualties not 68,000 dead

    The header to this article prominently states 68,000 dead, a blatantly erroneous number, presumably written by someone who didn't understand the meaning of casualties in battle (killed, wounded, and missing). This error is even clearly contradicted by the both the Casualties section of the article and the sidebar numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.75.108 (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Troop strength and casualty figures

    I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution and just list the range of proposed troop numbers (and casualties), since so many respected and eminent scholars appear to disagree. From Chandler, Duffy, Soltyk, Adams, Zamoyski, Lieven, Lejeune, and of course Caulaincourt - none appear to give the exact same figures.

    I like the approach of Dwyer, who simply says: "By the time the largest army in the world had reached the banks of the Moskva after more than ten weeks of marching, it had been reduced to between 103,000 and 135,000 men (depending on the sources), perhaps fewer given the tendency of commanders to inflate the numbers under their command. The French were, in fact, outnumbered, at least on paper, facing around 155,000 Russians. However, around 30,000 of those were militia who took no part in the fighting; they were used to carry away the wounded (a task that front-line troops would normally perform, often not to return), as well as forming a cordon behind the lines that prevented deserters, including officers, from fleeing..." - Dwyer, P. (2013). Citizen Emperor: Napoleon in Power 1799-1815. Yale University Press. (p. 383)

    So I would propose using Dwyers very cautious estimates: 103,000-135,000 vs 125,000-155,000

    Likewise with casualties:

    "When the Russians were finally able to clear the battlefield in 1813, they buried or burnt 67,000 bodies and 36,000 horse carcasses.129 It was the highest loss in any European engagement in a single day’s fighting since Hannibal’s defeat of the Romans at Cannae in 216 CB, and it was not to be surpassed until the battle of the Somme..." (p. 385)

    "Russian losses were devastating: anywhere between 40,000 and 50,000 men killed and wounded, that is, a third of their forces. The casualties of the Grande Armée were fewer – about 30,000–35,000 men killed and wounded, or about 22 percent of their forces – but just as devastating, especially given the distance from their supply sources." (p. 385-6)

    Although, Zamoyski writes: "Calculations of Russian casualties vary from 38,500 to 58,000, but most recent estimates put the figure at around 45,000, including twenty-nine generals, six of them killed, among them Bagration, who died of his leg wound, Tuchkov and Kutaisov. But if Kutuzov’s assertion that he would only be able to muster 45,000 for battle the next day is true, then the losses must have been much higher. French casualties came to 28,000, including forty-eight generals, eleven of whom died." - Zamoyski, A. (2004). Moscow 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March. HarperCollins Publishers. (p. 287-8).

    Given that the speculation resulting from Kutuzov's remarks is only hearsay, we can safely put that aside. Although if I'm being consistent, I must insist on adding the lower figure of 28,000 to the range that Dwyer lists.

    So I would propose for casualty numbers: 28,000-35,000 vs 40,000-50,000.

    - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Moscow a trap, really?

    In the lede we've got

    Because the Imperial Russian army had severely weakened the Grande Armée, they allowed the French occupation of Moscow, using the city as bait to trap Napoleon and his men

    But elsewhere in the article we say (correctly I believe) that the Russians wanted to defend Moscow but couldn't. The ref is to Riehn 1990, p. 253. I don't who he is, but if he's an academic, academic historians are poor sources for non-hard-fact stuff sometimes, cos they have to put a novel spin on things -- that's what they do.Herostratus (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It is universally accepted by most professionals from renowned universities that the Battle of Borodino was a devastating pyrrhic victory for Napoleon and his Grande Armée as the conflict absolutely annihilated France's ability to wage any more wars and conqeusts, and later on, the ability to defend itself as a nation entirely. Thing is though, the Russian Empire had a superiority over Napoleon and his empire since they were able to replenish these losses without an issue; Napoleon could not. It is impossible to know the exact casualty count suffered for each side, as many of the casualties shown or talked about, including this Wikipedia article, are just speculations and are not verifiable. The reason for this being is that not only did the Battle of Borodino occur more than 200 years ago, but the battle itself was so brutal and catastrophic that a consensus of the death count simply could not be held. However, it is a well known fact amongst historians and professionals alike that both sides suffered enormous losses, and no side suffered more or less; that's a silly way of thinking.
    -
    -
    -
    Anyway, back to your question. Yes, Moscow was indeed used as a trap, as the Battle of Borodino completely devastated France and Napoleon's army. The Imperial Russian High Command knew very well as to what they had done to France and so they purposely lured the weakened and bludgeoned French forces into the city so that they could trap them and inflict even more horrendous casualties against the already semi-destroyed French army. It is estimated that more than 600,000 soldiers invaded the Russian Empire, with less than 100,000 surviving.
    -
    -
    -
    To be fair, you literally answered your own question. The academic historian you mentioned, who stated that the Imperial Russian Army wanted to defend Moscow, but couldn't, is indeed a poor source for "non-hard-fact stuff" (as you put it) since this is just his own speculation towards the conflict and it is not verifiable. However, Moscow being used as a trap is verifiable because it is a universally accepted fact. I hope I managed to help you and have a great day! СумиКозак (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is best to just discuss this first without the constant reverts. Mellk (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    And again the infobox

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Russian sources. I doubt these can be considered RS. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Credit: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Borodino

    Explore other authors