Talk:French invasion of Russia (1812)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

French invasion of Russia (1812) is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... French military history task force Napoleonic Era task force (c. 1792–1815) Russian and Soviet military history task force

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Russia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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)

seems to be a mixup between russian and western calendar --Deelkar 16:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Idiocy - there is no such thing as Western calendar. Russia and most Protestant countries were using the same (Julian) calendar until 1750s (or even until 1920s in certain cases), while the Gregorian calendar (used by Catholic Europe) is the one that is now currently in use in Russia and elsewhere. http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-countries.html

Absolutely. September 14 New Style (September 2 Old Style). Cmapm 14:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

hey,

is he related to mini me

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

Contents 1 Why Moscow? 2 Removed line 3 turning-point 4 Image arrangement 5 Capital I? 6 Confirmation of specific event 7 Critical Review of this Article 8 Placing Military conflict infobox 9 Title 10 New tag

[edit] Why Moscow?

Last anon's addition about Moscow not being capital poses a question: why Napoleon's ultimate target was Moscow, then? Mikkalai 05:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed line

I removed this line because it is factually inaccurate. Source: Blundering to Glory (2nd edition) by Owen Connelly, whose class I am currently taking.*Kat* 08:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Russian army sought to avoid open battle, and turned to attrition warfare; under the scorched earth policy, Russian troops retreating before the French advance would burn crops and villages, thereby denying the enemy their use.

---

== Not "scorched Earth"? ==pooooo

Article contains a sentence, "The widely held belief that the Russians used a scorched earth policy, whereby they burned the crops to keep the French from living off the land is false."

This is somewhat confusing, since no sources are provided to buttress this point, nor is any other explanatory information given. If the Russians did not practice a "scorched Earth" strategy, then what else did they do? And why did the belief that they did become widespread? Moreover, this point needs to be reconciled with the next section, which mentions that Moscow was likely put to the torch by the Russians themselves.

Also, other articles, such as the entry on Russian Winter, mention that the Russians did use such a "scorched Earth" approach. If indeed the Russians did not, then all such articles should be updated.

I added that in. My History professor, Owen Connelly, is a well recognized and much respected Napoleonic Wars historian. His book and lectures were my source for that edit. I believe that I cited his book at the bottom of the page. *Kat* 20:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] turning-point

"the turning-point of the Napoleonic Wars". A turning-point yes but was it THE turning-point? What about the Battle of Trafalgar? No hostile UK no money for continental armies to oppose Napoleon. Philip Baird Shearer 6 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

From article history "Reverted. See talk. It was very important to France as well. If the UK had been knocked out of the war then Russia would not have had to break the continental system, and so no invasion."

Further most of the coalitions against Napoleon were given huge financial support by Britain. If the French had won the Battle of Trafalgar then that finance would not have been available for Sixth Coalition

This is not to deny that the losses in Russia were not a huge blow to Napoleon, but to call it "THE turning point" is pop history, as in most large wars it was one of several turning points. Trafalgar was at least as important as the Russian campaign in Napoleon's downfall. Philip Baird Shearer 10:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Trafalgar has been hyped up tremendously in Britain and other English-speaking countries. In fact, the battle didn't change any of Napoleon's plans and didn't prevent him from annexing half of Europe in the following years. It was a turning point for Britain, but not for France.

Well it certainly stopped him from invading Britian. Philip Baird Shearer

We may compare it with the Battle of Britain in 1940. While important for the history of the WWII and for the British national pride, it could by no means regarded as a turning point of the WWII, as most of the hostilities and annexations happened afterwards.

As any German strategist will tell you that fighting a war on two fronts is a bad idea for a continental power. But leaving that aside, Napoleon did not end up on Elba because of the successes of any one nation, it was concerted effort. In that effort the UK bankroll was at least as important any other contribution to his defeat and that is discounting the direct British contribution to the Spanish Ulcer. None of which would have happened if Napoleon's navy had been victorious at Trafalgar Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Both battles were significant, as they prevented annexation of Britain by the aggressor. And both battles were futile, as they didn't affect any of the agressor's plans for annexation of other countries. The turning point of the WWII was the Battle of Moscow or perhaps Stalingrad, when the Nazis were severely defeated in the field of battle, not in the air or on sea. The same holds for Napoleon's invasion of Russia. --Ghirlandajo 11:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW. I do not know of one British historian who claims that the Battle of Britain was a turning point in World War II. As Churchill pointed out "Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat" and as his speech at the time acknowledged "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image arrangement

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)

[edit] Capital I?

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

[edit] Confirmation of specific event

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)

Kenmore replies:

The incident you are thinking of is believed to have happened at the Battle of Austerlitz, in 1805, and not in 1812.

Supposedly, as Napoleon was routing the Austrians and Russians at Austerlitz, the defeated Russian left flank under Doctorov tried to escape by crossing the ice on a pond to their rear. It was their only alternative to being encircled and destroyed, and they were desperate. Napoleon supposedly ordered his cannon to open fire on the ice, with the result that thousands of Russians drowned.

It is an open question as to whether this event really happened. It is a fact that Doctorov's troops did have their backs to the frozen pond, and that many of them surrendered to the victorious French. Whether some Russians tried to escape over the ice is another matter.

kenmore 9/28/06

[edit] Critical Review of this Article

Learning about Napoleon Bonaparte has always been one of my passions in history. Ever since hearing fantastic stories about Napoleon’s takeover of Europe when I was a boy, I have always endeavored to learn as much as possible about Napoleon. Every time I have had a chance to do independent research on a topic of my choice, the topic is always, inevitably, Napoleon. So naturally, when I went on Wikipedia on March 17, 2006, I was intrigued to find an article about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia by an unknown author. This review provides fantastic technical information; however, it seems to lack much of the “big picture” information.

The author provides very detailed technical information about the invasion of the French. He puts a particular emphasis on the actual numbers in the invasion. For example, the entire article reads like a government statistics book. Instead of just saying that Napoleon conscripted men from all over the Empire, the author painstakingly gathers conscription numbers from every individual country. Although it may seem like he is trying to emphasize the importance of the diversity of the army, it simply becomes tedious for the reader.

Besides simply giving information, I believe that the author is trying to convince the reader that the Russians had a set strategy for defeating Napoleon. It has been argued that the Russians simply reacted to Napoleon and lacked the strength to draw the French into open battle. He proves this point by telling the reader that the Russians blocked southern routes, which forced Napoleon to take the same route that he had invaded. He also makes a point to say that the Russians fought the indecisive battle of Borodino on their own terms. These points attempt to persuade the reader that the Russians were far more calculating than it has been previously thought that they were.

This author assumes that the generals on both sides were competent and that supplying the Grand Armee was no problem until Napoleon’s retreat. In fact, many historians ignore this point when referring to the invasion of Russia. The author does a good job of naming all of the generals, but does not comment on them. We are left to assume that they are all very competent men. However, because this was a wartime atmosphere, the competency of the army, especially the generals, is extremely important to consider. Also, the problem of re-supply of the army is never mentioned and we are left to assume that the army was well supplied, when in fact it was not. Supplying an army of at least 600,000 troops is hard enough. Many generals allowed their troops to pillage the land. This is why the “scorch and burn” tactic by the Russians was extremely effective.

The most convincing part of the author’s argument is the logistics of the army at the time. In this section, the author seems to know exactly how many people fought and under whom they fought. He is also convincing in the fact that he calls this the “turning point” in the Napoleonic Wars. He provides a staggering statistic when he says that only 2% of the Grand Armee made it back to France. Although this may be unsubstantiated, it still seemed convincing enough to be unnerving.

There are certain parts that would have better been left out. The author makes it seem like the Russians won the Napoleonic War, when, in my opinion, Napoleon lost the War. This author simply did not do enough to convince me otherwise. He also did not convince me that winter played a crucial role in the destruction of the French Army. I have heard that the winter had been one of the worst in history, and honestly, from his assessment, it sounds like any winter could have destroyed the French. He mentions it, but does not make it seem like it was much of a factor. The French army was the strongest in the world. It is idiotic to think that the Russian Army, who had lost many times before, could have suddenly defeated the French.

Although there are several things that seem unconvincing, it is a well-written article. It could have been an expert who wrote it. This is unlikely, however, because the author only used two. I would never only use two sources in order to write an article. The article, thus, is not well rounded, and it comes off in the article. It seems that the author emphasizes things such as the preparation and the initial invasion, but not the retreat. I would really like to know more about the minor battles after the retreat from Moscow, or more about the suffering of the soldiers. This sounds very bleak, but I think it would be very interesting to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.239.203.26 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Placing Military conflict infobox

Is it smth wrong with placing Military conflict infobox in this article? Ioakinf 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think an infobox would be all-right. No logical reason not to have it.UberCryxic 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

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)

[edit] New tag

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)

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)

The Poles were a willing ally, no doubt, but not an autonomous or independent entity. Or at least they had no autonomy or independence beyond what being an ally of France afforded, which wasn't much anyway because Napoleon had already made the strategic decision at Tilsit not to anger Russia too much, to bring her into his fold. The distinction being drawn here is one of willing and self-assuming Polish action versus willing and French-inspired Polish action. The list in the template is almost exclusively populated by the former kind. Putting this article there would just be an anomaly.UberCryxic 22:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

In those conflicts, however, the Poles and the Russians were the main protagonists, which is essentially why I'm arguing that this conflict does not belong in that list.UberCryxic 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Piotr, you seem to have found a new article to polonize. Please stop. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, could you please explain? Polish forces played an important role in this campaign. Appleseed (Talk) 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)