User talk:Kenmore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Welcome to the Military history WikiProject! 3 Comments at Borodino and Krasnoi article 4 Kenmore Responds: Why Chandler's account of Krasnoi is seriously in error 5 Chandler juxtaposes facts from different days between Nov. 15th and Nov. 18th to make them sound like they happened together on Nov. 17th 6 Thanks 7 Crimea 8 A tip 9 2nd battle of Polotsk 10 Starting a new article 11 Maps and images 12 Russian military history taskforce 13 Ozharovsky problem solved: he had 3500 troops at most 14 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006 15 Re: Bad, inaccurate sources: can't we dispose of them? 16 Krasnoi 17 Charles de Gaulle 18 Battle of Vyazma edits 19 Saltanovka 20 Interwiki 21 Peer review 22 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006 23 Re: Krasnoi 24 Golymin 25 Bennigsen

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Kenmore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

[edit] Comments at Borodino and Krasnoi article

Hey! Thank you for your comments at the Battle of Borodino, and boy were there a lot of them! Unfortunately I can't reply to all of them now as I don't have time, but I suspect I will get to them eventually. I just wanted to say that while your comments were well-meant and well-taken, there is a severe misunderstanding of the actual events on your part. The most acute representation concern Krasnoi, the article of which is absolutely pathetic. Most historians recognize the Battle of Krasnoi as the engagements on the 17th of November; I have no idea where this "five day battle" concept came from. Here's what Chandler writes in the Campaigns of Napoleon:

The Russians, meanwhile, semmed in little hurry to get to serious grips with their adversaries. A great deal of skirmishing and minor actions took place at various points along the column, but nothing really serious happened until the 17th. By that date Napoleon had been at Krasnoe for two days, waiting for his extended column to close up. He was not altogether satisfied with the situation, however, as is shown by the dispatch of two regiments of the Young Guard to aid Eugene's IVth Corps, which was held up by Davidovitch at Nikulina for much of the 16th before finding a way round the block through Jomina. Indeed, his anxiety to ensure that the main road should remain open induced Napoleon to order an attack against Kutusov by the Guard on the morning of the 17th. At first he thought to entrust this operation to General Rapp, but then changed his mind and placed General Roguet of the Middle Guard in command. The operation was a complete success. The southbound French columns (16,000 strong) caught Kutusov completely unawares, so accustomed had he become to the idea of a passive French opponent. The Russian partisan leader, Davydov, fancifully recorded that "The Guard with Napoleon passed through our Cossacks like a hundred-gun ship through a fishing fleet," and in no time the Russian commander in chief was ordering his 35,000 men to retreat south. The Russians subsequently tried to misrepresent the outcome of the action, claiming that "Bonaparte commanded in person and made the most vigorous exertions, but in vain; he was obliged to flee the field of battle." But this was flagrant propaganda. It was Kutusov who had very much the worst of the encounter.

This action - known as the Battle of Krasnoe - is of significance for two reasons. First, it reveals the degree of moral ascendancy retained by napoleon: his very name could clearly still strike terror into the hearts of his opponents; secondly, it proved the correctness of the not to send in the Imperial Guard at the later stages of Borodino, for had this formation been severly mauled near the River Moskva, it is unlikely that it could have pulled off this notable coup some eight weeks later. Strategically, the French attack at Krasnoe proved fully effective. It ensured that the road to the west remained open, allowed the greater part of the army (less Ney) to rejoin the Emperor by the evening of the 17th, and made the enemy warier than ever.

What clearly emerges from this account is that Krasnoe was mostly a French victory. To claim otherwise is sheer folly. Want a more recent source? Ok, here are Todd Fisher and Gregory Fremont-Barnes in the Napoleonic Wars: Rise and Fall of an Empire:

That night Napoleon sent his Guard Infantry in a risky night attack against several Russian encampents, reflecting his increased desparation. The bitter cold prevented the enemy from properly deploying pickets, and the Guard exacted a terrible revenge upon the dazed Russians. This French success made Kutusov cautious and he went back to striking only when Napoleon was in the process of retreating. The road was open again, at least for a time.

The victory at Krasnoi allowed Napoleon once more to gather his army, with the exception of Ney's Corps....... and it continues.

I can go on like this for a long time, but I think you get my point. Frankly I don't know what incited you to think Krasnoi was anything but a French victory (and an impressive one at that!) The article that you have written needs serious modifications and I will undertake these soon (perhaps this weekend). Your other comments at the Borodino talk page also indicate a high level of general and specific naivete regarding the Russian campaign. As I said, I will address these shortly. Thank you very much.UberCryxic 01:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenmore Responds: Why Chandler's account of Krasnoi is seriously in error

UberCryxic:

Regarding Krasnoi, I request that you do not attempt to amend the article unilaterally. I propose that the two of us correspond on what revisions to make, how to upgrade it, what the facts, are, etc. We can communicate by email if necessary in order facilitate communication.

I am planning to pull together a variety of sources, Russian, French and English language, in order to document the full range of facts, including controversies, etc. I would be pleased to weigh all available evidence with you in order to arrive at understanding of what really happened there in 1812.

Please note that my sources regarding Krasnoi are excellent, including Digby Smith and Richard Reihn. Both Smith and Reihn describe Krasnoi as a Russian victory.

As for your comments about Krasnoi, you are mistaken, partly because the historical record has not been adequately represented by historians...including, shockingly, Chandler.

The Middle Guard's "Attack" on Nov. 17th under General Roguet

Are you aware that this attack did not feature close quarters contact between the Russians and the French Guard? It was not really an attack that culminated in a combat. It was more of an aggressive, forward moving manuever in which Roguet's troops marched toward the center of the Russian position, led by General Galitzin. Once the Guard got close enough to the Russians to attack, it stopped moving forward, and for the next several hours remained stationary, absorbing Russian cannon shot. That's the full description of this famous "attack"...it went no further than this.

The Guard's "attack" of Nov. 17th is significant because when Kutusov noticed the forward movement of the Guard, he became nervous and ordered the left wing of his army, under General Tormasov, to retreat slightly to the south in order to link up with Galitzin's troops. Kutusov also ordered his right wing, under General Miloradovich, to stop molesting Davout east of Krasnoi, and to fall back in support of Galitzin as well. This was supposedly to be a protective measure on the part of the Russians.

Tormasov's southward movement meant that the road out of Krasnoi -- leading westward -- was no longer threatened by the Russians, thus securing a safe retreat route for the French army. It also meant that Davout's corps was no longer threatened with destruction by Miloradovich.

Again, I stress that there was no contact between the Guard and the Russians on the 17th. The Guard merely made a threatening gesture against the Russians, and that was enough to clear the Russians from the roads leading to and from Krasnoi.

One half of the Middle Guard, incidentally, was slaughtered by Russian cannonfire on the 17th.

The Russians were not defeated on the 17th...they remained on the field firing their artillery at the French for the whole day. Napoleon's only accomplishment was that he discouraged the Russians from launching an all out attack on him.

"The Guard with Napoleon passed through our Cossacks like a hundred-gun ship through a fishing fleet.."

In this remark, Davidov was not referring specifically to the Middle Guard's "attack" against Galitzin on Nov. 17th. He was referring to the way the entire Napoleonic Guard handled itself on the road leading to Krasnoi on successive days of combat.

Note that Davidov refers to "our Cossacks", and not to the regular Russian troops. This is an important distinction...the Cossacks were harrassing the French on the roads from Nov. 14th to Nov. 17. Their activity was distinct and separate from that of the Russian army itself.

Hence, the quote you have giving me about the "hundred gun ship" is misunderstood by you, and in fact, it is misquoted by historians.

"Napoleon sent his Guard Infantry in a risky night attack against several Russian encampents.. and the Guard exacted a terrible revenge upon the dazed Russians."

Yes, this really happened, and the Russian regiment involved was badly mauled by the French Guard. However, this attack was a separate combat which happened on the night of Nov. 15th -- it is not the Middle Guard's famous "attack" of the 17th -- you are confusing these separate attacks with each other!

UberCryxic: I believe I know much more about Krasnoi than you do...let's begin corresponding as soon as possible in order to critique each other's work, and then we'll settle on a sophisticated, balanced account of Krasnoi that can be put on the web.

Regards, Kenmore 9/25/06

kenmore

[edit] Chandler juxtaposes facts from different days between Nov. 15th and Nov. 18th to make them sound like they happened together on Nov. 17th

It may interest you all to know that the account of the Battle of Krasnoi offered by David Chandler in his "Campaigns of Napoleon" is duplicitous and misleading. This is because Chandler juxtaposes descriptions of separate skirmishes that occured at different junctures between Nov. 15th and 17th together, giving the erroneous impression -- to unlearned readers at least -- that they constituted a single encounter on Nov. 17th.

The Russian regiment atomized by the Guard on the night of Nov. 15th was under Ozharovsky, and it was located on the far left wing of the Russian army. The attack of the Young Guard on Nov. 17th, by contrast, was directed against the Russian center under Galitzin, with Ozharovsky's troops still positioned far away on the left.

Yet, from the way Chandler's account reads, one would think that the attack against Ozharovsky on Nov. 15th and the attack on Galitzin's center on Nov. 17th were one and the same event. Very, very misleading.

To make matters even more confusing, Chandler presents Davidov's famous "100 gun ship" quote in such a way as to dupe the reader into thinking that the Young Guard's attack on the Nov. 17th was in fact the event that Davidov was referring to. It wasn't! Davidov was referring instead to the way the Guard brushed his Cossacks off like flies during the light skirmishing on the roads on Nov. 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th.

Another grotesque misrepresentation by Chandler concerns the fate of Ney’s corps, which was destroyed by the Russians on Nov. 18th.

Chandler fails entirely to mention that of Ney’s 8,000 combatants and 7,000 stragglers, all but 700 were killed or captured by Miloradovich’s troops in battle.

Instead, Chandler’s account reads as if Ney won some kind of great victory in leading his 700 survivors back to Napoleon’s army in the days following the Krasnoi encounter. This is manipulating the historical record by omission of facts.

Also, why does Chandler make no mention of the fact that the French suffered at least 30,000 casualties in the Krasnoi skirmishes? Or that the French lost nearly 200 cannon? Or that the corps of Eugene and Davout were mauled by the Russians?

Fortunately more objective descriptions of the Krasnoi skirmishes are available. I’ve posted two of them as footnotes to my article. There are several more.

I want to clear up the historical record.

I have special maps on order from my library, and I am hoping to pick up copies of the original orders from French and Russian commanders.

Too much about Krasnoi is misunderstood by the public, and professional historians are responsible for perpetuating the confusion.

Regards, Kenmore 9/25/06

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your advice. I will make use of the sources you quote to debunk some Napoleonophilic propaganda in the project. Stay tuned, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crimea

I have made some changes to the Crimean War Campaignbox, namely moved the siege of Sevastopol so it is before Balaclava and Inkerman. As the battles was attempts to lift the siege it would look strange to have the siege after the battles. What do you think? Carl Logan 16:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't actually do that, I only moved Sevastpol and renamed Malakhov to Malakoff, because that is the name of the battle.

It was Ghirlandajo that added Malakoff. Carl Logan 06:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A tip

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and I do not know who you're trying to impress by "revealing" how Western historians have whitewashed the 1812 campaign. Please be aware that edits in an article's talkpage must in one way or another involve suggestions for improving the article. They are not grounds to offer personal theories and suppositions. Wikipedia simply does not care what you think.UberCryxic 04:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not writing what "I think"...I am merely stating the truth, and it is supported by many modern, scholarly texts. I urge you to read Cate, Riehn, Zamoyski and Digby Smith soon. You will then see where I am coming from.

I have already demonstrated to you how Western historians -- including, sadly, David Chandler -- have spread falsehoods about the events of Nov. 17th at Krasnoi. There is more to come.

Finally...I am not trying to "impress" anyone; I merely trying to make you understand that your sources are bad ones.

Kenmore 04:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Frankly, it is truth only to you. The sad reality is that you are grossly misinformed about the 1812 campaign. I feel sorry for myself just for bothering. Still, regardless of any possible merits your arguments may have, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to make them. You will have to find another venue to espouse your theories. Please also be aware that Wikipedia is not here to document what is true and what is false, but only to document what reputable sources say on any given subject. To that end, again, Wikipedia does not care what you say.UberCryxic 04:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, just out of curiosity, why did you delete most of the content in your talkpage? Not saying that you're not allowed to, but it's odd.UberCryxic 04:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What I've written about Krasnoi is not "my theory". It is derived from many sources, some of which I have quoted for you here and on the Krasnoi discussion page. I've asked you many times to read my quotes on Krasnoi, and above all, to familiarize yourself with the accounts of the battle written by Riehn, Cate, and Smith. For some reason though you refuse.

What I wrote tonight about Polotsk II was taken straight from Smith, Tarle, Riehn, Zamoyski, Cate and the famous "West Point Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars." It is not my "original research"

There is too much misrepresentation about 1812 in the West. It is bad history...literally Napoleonic propaganda. It needs to be eclipsed by the more sober, balanced accounts of the war, such as those written by Richard Riehn and Digby Smith.

Again, I urge you to pick up copies of the books that I am recommending for you.

As for my talk page, I want other people to be able to look at it and easily see where I'm coming from in terms of research, documentation and sources. I thought it best not to clutter the page with non-essential material.

Kenmore 05:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

There are plenty of reputable sources on the 1812 campaign that speak on their own and differ from your suppositions. The authors you are "citing" (do you even have those books? Read what they say first) are no way near the radicalism you're showing right now, blaspheming against a significant portion of the historical community as you are. As I said, I feel sorry for myself that I got caught up in a battle with an individual who has not familiarized himself with the relevant literature, or who just simply decides to invent what the literature says as he pleases. I fundamentally agree that there is misrepresentation on all sides - that's true - but the more blatant and serious cases are usually on the Russian side.UberCryxic 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have, right here on my desk, every single book that you claim is “relevent literature” on 1812. Repeatedly I have demonstrated this to you, even going so far as to quote passages from these books to show you where the authors are making weak, tendentious or erroneous arguments. You haven’t responded to a single one of my points, all which are on my talkpage and the Krasnoi discussion page.

And if you believe I am misquoting or misunderstanding the sources I regard as most reliable on 1812 – Cate, Riehn, Smith, and Zamoyski – I invite you to demonstrate as much on this page. All I ask is that you be specific in matching my words against theirs.

As for Russian studies on 1812, can you tell me what specific Russian historians you are talking about? I would like to see their works for myself.

Kenmore 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] 2nd battle of Polotsk

Thanks for the article. I wikified it a bit. If you need to edit the campaignbox, go to Template:Campaignbox Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon's invasion of Russia
Klyastitsy – Smolensk – 1st Polotsk – Borodino – Tarutino – Maloyaroslavets – 2nd Polotsk –Czasniki –Vyazma –Smoliani –Krasnoi – Berezina

On October 24, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Second battle of Polotsk, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Sorry about my oversight earlier today. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starting a new article

I saw the question you asked Ghirla. Here is the answer. Happy edits. --Irpen 02:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kenmore. If you need to upload images, you should consult Wikipedia:Uploading images and then go to Special:Upload (this page may also be reached from the menue to the left of this text). Each image should have a tag specifying its copyright status; otherwise, it may be deleted. You are free to chose any tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. In the case of old paintings, {{PD-art}} or {{PD-Russia}} are the most popular tags. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I uploaded several images to illustrate your new articles. I hope you don't mind. I may also upload some pictures from this page about Borodino. They are free. Do you think we need them? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps and images

The maps are really wonderful, but are they really free? We should always specify a source of the picture, e.g., a book from which it is taken. I have not seen the books from "American Heritage" series, but I think the idea of using both historical and modern photographs of battlefields has some merit. I added a modern view to Second battle of Polotsk. This is the church represented on Hess's painting of the Vyazma battle (its belltower was destroyed during the Soviet period). I may upload the picture if you think it is needed. For the modern views of Borodino, I may refer you to this page. All the pictures are free, so we may upload them once the Borodino article is expanded. As for Paskevich, I actually preferred the previous version of the page, with a more satisfactory picture of the palace. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

October - November 1812

[edit] Russian military history taskforce

Add yourself there Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Russian_and_Soviet_military_history_task_force

By the way, can you tell me something about the current Russian navy's capabilities. We would like to know if it is a Talk:blue water navy (sources). Wandalstouring 18:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ozharovsky problem solved: he had 3500 troops at most

Uber: I've done some research that should solve the Ozharovsky question once and for all.

Map

On the map below, Ozharovsky's flying column is the solid black unit next to the village of Kutkovo, at the bottom of the map. You will notice the uncolored box north of it representing the Young Guard. The erratic arrows representing the movements of these forces indicate that the Young Guard hit Ozharovsky, then turned back to Krasnoi. Ozharovsky's troops' wild flight is also indicated.

Note that Ozharovsky's unit is isolated from Miloradovich, far to the right of the map, and isolated from the main Russian army, more towards the right/center.

Ozharovsky's force described

Of Ozharovsky's flying column, Riehn says the following on page 337:

"The pursuit was to take the Russian army on a parallel course. Only Platov was to stay direclty on the heels of the French. For this purpose, his Cossack corps was reinforced with some infantry. A flying column was formed under Ozharovsky to go to Yelnia."

Riehn, on page 345, describes Ozharovsky's flying column thusly:

"The column included 1 jaeger regiment, 1 hussar regiment, and 4 Cossack regiments, with 6 guns."

Definition of a flying column

Also, Riehn describes a "flying column" thusly in his glossary on page 410:

"Flying Column: Generally a raiding party of unspecified size, a flying column could run to several thousand men at most. Operating only on general directives, it did not have a fixed base of operations and was not responsible to any intermediate headquarters. i.e., the column was detached and therefore "flying".

I know from internet research that the average strength of such units was:

1 jaeger regiment: average strength = 600 to 1300 troops maximum

1 hussar regiment: average strength = 800 to 1600 troops maximum

1 Cossack regiment: average strenth = 300 to a maximum of 1000 troops

Thus, Ozharovsky's flying column, at most, was an isolated detachment numbering between 2600 to 7900 troops. The figure of 7900 is impossible, in my estimation, for Krasnoi, as all regiments on both sides were underpopulated due to attrition at this late stage in the campaign.

See these links for average strengths of regiments:

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Russian_army.htm

http://home.att.net/~superspy/russorg.htm

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bad, inaccurate sources: can't we dispose of them?

To keep the conversation in one place, I've replied to your question on my talk page. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 05:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krasnoi

After a careful personal analysis of the situation, I have decided that, by and large, your version of events is correct. I apologize for causing any hardships between us. I wish us only to be friends in the future, and I am certainly impressed by your mental faculties, as well as your interest in the period. You have my full blessing to do what you wish with the Krasnoi article, provided that the statement in the result box only read "Russian victory; disputed" since I essentially still dispute that this was a Russian victory. But like I said, mostly you were and are right. You are free to change anything else you like in the article, not like you need my permission or anything! Happy editing....and I hope this incident is completely behind us now. If you need my help in any way, just let me know. Thanks.UberCryxic 02:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw I don't have Riehn yet, but I will try and get him as soon as I can.UberCryxic 02:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just ordered the book now. Should keep me busy for next weekend.UberCryxic 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I too thank you for your warm comments. But I believe the case has been made more decisively on the side of Russian victory, even though I still have reservations. To tell you the truth - and I have no idea why I'm being this honest - I still think of it as a French victory because my impression and analysis of the battle from so many other sources suggests that as the case. But it took your persistence to make me realize that it could be otherwise, and I think with time I'll settle into a new state of mind about the battle. Really you should be the one to lead the ship now; I'll be there if you need help with copyediting or something technical. Maybe you can even take this to FA!UberCryxic 03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles de Gaulle

Hey, I don't mean to impose myself too much, but there is a dispute on the talk page of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier article and I thought I'd come to you since you have a knack for sorting through tough material. The dispute essentially centers on whether Rafales from the CDG conducted a patrolling mission in 2002 near the Indian-Pakistani border during the politically tense moments between those two nations. We would love to have the opinion of a non-involved contributor. If you can't do it, that's fine, but if you can I'd really appreciate it! Thank you.UberCryxic 20:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Vyazma edits

I'm sorry you aren't happy about my edits. Let me clear up about the footnotes first. Disposing of those was accidental, and I apologise. I hadn't realised anyone else was editing at the same time as me. It took a couple of hours for my edit and I just pasted the whole thing back in, apparently overwriting what you'd done in the meantime. Please just put that down to my inexperience - I'll make sure I don't do it to anyone else.

As for the rest, it was the word "discombobulated" which got me going. After that, I believe most of what I did consisted of splitting sentences and making the language slightly more direct. Oh, and putting the accent into "Eugène" throughout. If I became too enthusiastic about it, again I apologise. Maybe I should be a little more careful about treading other people's kittens into the mud.

Were there any special points where you thought I'd gone too far?

Turn about is fair play. You've seen my draft on the Battle of Lissa (1811). I'm still beating that into shape, but if you have any observations I'll be glad to hear them. Wildfire1961 02:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saltanovka

I don't know anything about the battle. Here's what the Great Soviet Encyclopedia says: "Saltanovka is a village south of Mogilev, which was the scene of a battle during the Patriotic War of 1812. On 8/20 July Mogilev was occupied by 26,000-strong French forces under Marshal Davout, with their vanguard advancing on Saltanovka. At the same time the 2nd army, led by Bagration, was retreating from Bobruisk towards Old Bychaw and Mogilev in order to join the 1st Army. After learning that the French occupied Mogilev, Bagration ordered the 7th infantry corps of General Nikolai Raevsky (15,000 troops) to oust the enemy from the town. On 10/22 July Raevsky's troops put to flight Davout's vanguard. On 11/23 July they attacked French positions near Saltanovka. When the action was well under way, Bagration understood that he had to deal with Davout's main force rather than with a vanguard and, believing the breakthrough was impossible, ordered the 2nd Army to withdraw to New Bychaw and Mstislavl, while their retreat was covered by Raevsky's corps. By the end of the day French forces still held Saltanovka and prepared to continue hostilities, but Russian forces crossed back behind the Dnieper on 12/24 Dnieper." P.S. Have you seen Battle of Vyazma on Main Page on Saturday? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On October 28, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Vyazma, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

The book "Battles of Russia" (Moscow, 2002) claims that Davout attempted to circumvent Raevsky's corps from the right, but his plan was frustrated by the tenacity of Paskevich's division. The action is known for its stern hand-to-hand fighting. Raevsky personally led the counterattack together with his 17-year-old son. After the battle, he reported that "many officers and simple soldiers, having sustained two wounds and bound them with bandages, returned to action, as if to a feast... On this day, everyone was a hero". By the way, we have a picture of the battle here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I discovered that the correspondence between Bagration and Alexander I in June-July 1812 is available online. And this is an introduction to the memoirs of Count Alexander Benckendorff: "In his encounter with Davout, Bagration displayed the best qualities of a strategian. He turned to his advantage the tactical failure in fighting his way through Mogilev. The energy displayed by Rayevsky when he attacked French forces at Saltanovka, disoriented Davout, who prepared for new and stronger attacks and expected them at Mogilev. Bagration took advantage of his inaction to retreat along the Dnieper to Mstislavl and then to Smolensk. The result was superior to the victory with taking of banners, cannons, and prisoners". Here is the list of Russian officers killed in the battle (it is inscribed with others on the walls of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow). And here is a picture of the chapel commemorating the place where the Saltanovka battle was fought. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I really can't say much. I believe it is a popular reference in Russian. It has 704 pages and is available in on-line shops (see here). I don't think it qualifies as an academic source. Its entry on Saltanovka is here.

There are some other sources available in Russian online. Here is the memoir of a certain General Giraud about the battle. Here is a memoir of a certain Brandt. This is the list of memoires and letters about the 1812 war available on www.hronos.ru. The largest depository of Russia-related military literature on the web is http://militera.lib.ru/, however. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

Have you noted that Abune responded to your query? This guy from Russian Wikipedia was inspired by your Vyazma article to start a counterpart in Russian Wikipedia. This link ("interwiki") actually connects articles on the same subject in the Wikipedia projects written in different languages. It is visible if you look to the left from the article. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Hi. I listed Battle of Krasnoi for peer review on WP:PR. Decided that some guys may want to suggest possible improvements to the article. I hope you don't mind. By the way, I noticed that someone started Battle of Schöngrabern. Battle of St-Dizier is very poor and I actually don't know what to make of it. If you have time and desire, you may want to take a look. Best regards, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, some guys already posted comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Krasnoi but I don't think you should take them too seriously if you plan to continue working on the text for the time being. Thanks for posting comments on Schöngrabern. As for St. Dizier, I don't really care about it and I don't see why you should. The stub is too pitiful and could benefit from adding some basic infomation, nothing more. I wish you good luck with the Krasnoi article and others. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Kenmore, I believe User:Kirill Lokshin is responsible for those ratings. I asked him to take a look. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Krasnoi

By density of citations I meant that there were portions of the article with very few, if any, citations. The later sections are quite good; but the first few sections, and the summary at the end, aren't heavily cited. (You might want to glance at the project citation guidelines as well; that has a few points worth noting.) In general, a footnote per sentence is not too dense (although I would hesitate to go with multiple footnotes per sentence, mostly as an issue of style); here, for example, pretty much every sentence after the lead (which is just a summary of the article) is footnoted.

And, yes, one-sentence paragraphs can be used to good effect; but having a series of them doesn't usually work, particularly when they're meant to present a continuous narrative.

In any case, keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golymin

I thought you might be interested to take a look at Battle of Golymin. The article was started today by User:Andrewshobley. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bennigsen

That is an interesting topic, but perhaps the only reason we can call it a "folly" is because we know what happened. At the time, Bennigsen's overall decision was not a bad idea. He saw an isolated French corps and hoped to destroy it. The execution wasn't stellar, obviously, but the idea in and of itself was fairly good.UberCryxic 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)