Talk:Battle of Borodino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Borodino article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
1


Ummmm, why are we always quoting one author, namely Smith? On losses. Why don't we quote some russian authors and sources. their estimate is rather different. Also, on sizes of armies, I think the article underestimates both. I corrected casualties according to the russian source that I added to references. 74.98.216.68 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov, 28 August 2007.

I edited losses part by inserting for both sides estimates, for french - 28000-50000, and for russians 35000-58000. This is more fair than quoting one author only. 74.98.216.68 03:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

==For the russians the lowest reliable number would be 45 thousand casualties (based on russian military documents). For the french, such number is correctly stated as 28 thousand. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me some links to these kind of russian documents? Because I can give links in support of my numbers. 99.231.46.37 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Contents

[edit] expansion of the article

I'd like to expand this article however given the heat of the discussions I don't want to put my head in another meat grinder. I've finished expanding the Battle of Waterloo article and you would have to assume that I must have murdered small children in bed to get such reactions. I propose to put units where they were and keep as much opinion out of it as possible. Some of the heat I will confess that I just do not understand. I am an American so I might be missing some of the context. The battle is of interest as it was the set piece large battle of the entire campaign. However if this article is expanded it will hit the 32k limit pretty fast. I'd like to hear from those interested before I start on this. However if you have an axe to grind just opt out. I don't intend to be backed up to a wall for putting a unit where it was and outlining the outcome of the event as it actually happened. Tirronan 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gettysburg

"Even the lowest casualty figures are high enough to make the Battle of Borodino the bloodiest single-day battle in human history, surpassing the Battle of Cannae (approx. 65,000, 2nd Punic War). Though other battles may have ended with a higher number of casualties (Gettysburg, the Somme, Battle of the Bulge), none seems to have surpassed Borodino in only a single day (not even the first day of the Somme offensive)."

The above sentence from the article seems curious to me. Firstly the mention of Cannae's casualties for which only sketchy and hugely unreliable ancient sources exist seems dubious at best. Secondly, and of greater importance, the sentence about other battles ending with higher numbers of casualties oddly includes Gettysburg for which total casualties for all three days were comparable to those of the Russian army alone at Borodino. Wikipedia states 46,286 casualties were sustained between the two armies at Gettysburg. Bruce Catton in The Civil War states that Gettysburg cost "the two armies close to 50,000 casualties" and in The Civil War Day by Day EB Long cites 23,049 casualties for the Union and 20,451 for the Confederacy (the latter is stated to be the official figure). Even if we round these figures up to 50,000 they still fall well and truly short of the lowest estimate cited here for the single day of Borodino. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.181.7 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Quality of langauge

My guess is that much of this article was written by somebody who does not count English as their first language. Starting today I'm going to go through the article and re-write parts of the text that are slightly confused in structure etc. Any objections? Canislupisbarca (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By all means please proceed. Tirronan (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph on down from the Reyvesky Redoubt on is old and I will be replacing it later tonight. You might want to hold off on fixing that section on down. The Casulities secion will be replaced with something cited and less contraversial this evening. Tirronan (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estimating Army Sizes

This section has citation requests, that will likely never be fulfilled and thus has NPOV issues. It also is confusing given the different numbers it lists, and does not add anything to the article. The size of armies in the battle box from Riehn is verified by the numbers given by Smith. Finally this sentence, "Still others (such as Richard Riehn) question Kutozov's judgement at deploying Russian troops." I don't understand at all, what does it mean? what other troops would Kutozov have deployed? I think the whole section needs to be cleaned up.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I replaced the old section with Opposing forces section, which simply gives the strength of forces present, and notes forces not committed to battle. --Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 19:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At the battle, the French had 130.000 men, not 100.000, and they had 587 guns. The Russians had 640 Guns, and 120.000 men. This is taken from a reliable source, from the book of herman Lindquist, about napoleonic wars, theire battles, and Napoleon hiself. Greetings From Nikitn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Troitskiy gives different numbers for the Russian army. I don't have his book with me, so I can't give exact numbers and/or citation right now, but if I remember correctly, his calculations were that the Russians had about 150 thousand men, including militia that was poorly armed and trained. Regular Russian forces numbered about 115 thousand men. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think we missed the point

Despite all the fussing about who won Borodino, and it was the French, and who lost the campaign, again it was the French, This article is about the Battle of Borodino which consists of exactly 1 long paragraph and is a seriously deficent article because of it. All this wasted time and energy while the article suffered for want of attention to its main focus, to bring into bright detail what happened when by whom. As for the outcome I'm for a French tactical victory, French stragtic defeat, its pretty incontestable. Now can we get to actually improving this article to something that we can be proud of? Tirronan 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this victory as strategic defeat for the French is somewhat far fetched. They did take Moskow because of this battle. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that taking Moscow with an intact Russian army was the greatest mistake Napoleon ever made. He had no way to force surrender and no way to stay in place. The Russian army was able to sit across the southern line of retreat ensuring that the French had to recross the barren landscape they had already denuded of resources and therefore accepted the losses thereby. Some 90,000 entered Moscow and few thousand crossed the Bersina alive. It really doesn't matter how you kill your enemy, starvation, cold, and disease, works as well as a musket ball. Tirronan (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, one could argue such a point. But to argue it, one has to disregard that Kutuzov's plan (protection of Moskow) failed. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok enough, I don't want to blog about borodino ok? I would like to make this a better article and this is irritating Tirronan (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Created archive page and inserted archive box

I've moved the old arugments to the archive page I have created and they can be viewed there if you care to see 131 kb of 2 people bashing each other. I will begin to expand this article tonight, the involved parties are welcome to join in this if they can park the fighting outside of the edits. This is too important an article to have suffered from the lack of attention it deserved while you two had temper tantrums and scared off anyone, including me, from wanting to work on it. Frankly if you two can't behave better go find something else to do. Tirronan 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another joke of an article in Wikipedia

Has anyone looked at the casualty figures lately? If this article can't get the basic data right, what is the point in reading the rest? Is there any one who had ever suggested FRENCH LOOSING ONLY 6,600 TROOPS? Not even Napoleon I think. It seems I will have to get the Britannica subscription after all.--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

6,600 is for killed only; however, the problem with casualties and wikipedia is that it's hard to agree which sources should be given the infobox, and which shouldn't. For battle of Borodino, the minimal possible casualties (ie. official French and Russian losses) are ~28 thousand for the French and ~45 thousand for the Russians (Don't have the book with me, so can't tell you more exact numbers). However, the infobox for some reason compares the minimal possible French losses to an estimate of Russian losses. Objectively, it should say "at least 28 thousand French" and "at least 45 thousand Russian"... Basically, don't trust wiki with casualties. And do get that Britannica subscription. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
How about this, instead of BLOGGING on the talk page how about we just start expanding the article with verified facts and then perhaps we shall have less to complain about? Tirronan (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upgrade of article

Re:"Napoleon had advanced from Vitebsk hoping to catch the Russian Army in the open were he could exterminate it." In actual fact he was hoping to catch the Russian Armies close to the border, and not "out in the open" (hard to hide 140,000 troops ;o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

While that might have been the hope he certainly didn't chase the Russian army to the gates of Moscow by hanging out on the borders. If you have a suggestion on how you would like to see it let me know or better yet rewrite it with a verified source. Tirronan (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tirronan. I see you are a bit stressed, so I'm sorry if I added to that. Unfortunately I am up to my ears, and maybe over my head in Eastern Front (WW2), so just looking in on your work. I am happy you have decided to give this another go, but I was simply pointing out a well known fact that Napoleon's preparations and conduct of campaign plans called for trapping the Russian Western Armies at the borders (within 100km) and not chasing them to Moscow. This was not a 'hope'. Now, before you huff and puff at me, if you have taken the article on, and I have taken the time to provide additional information, can't you look in the sources you were going to use for the re-edit? I am after all trying to help. Look at anyone. Chandler, even Smith/von Pivka will do I think. I think even Wilson mentions it if you don't have French or Russian sources. In fact I think even the ancient Osprey booklet says this. --Mrg3105 (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mrg, sorry if I seemed out of sorts, actually I was a bit ticked at the fellow in the section above blogging about how this is all crap and walking off contributing nothing. Sorry if you got the blow by there. I agree the plan was to trap the Russian army near the border but I guess what I was trying to get to here was that in the scope of this article that ship had sailed months ago and Napoleon was still trying to get his decisive battle at the gates of Moscow. Hard to tell when you have a writen forum here but I wasn't being snarky, far from it I really did mean to say that if you have a better idea then by all means please do put it down here or edit away. I am far from the 2nd coming of Shakespear and all help is welcome. Tirronan (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thinking further about this perhaps something like this might work, Napoleon had been attempting to bring the Russian army to a battle of annilation since the opening of the campaign only to have the wide open Russians steps provide the Russian army all the room it would need to continue to evade entrapment. Kick it around a bit and let me know if you have something better but what I was trying to get to was the absolute need to destroy the Russian army by the French. Tirronan (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian flag

Don't forget to change the Russian flag from the modern one to the contemporate white with double eagle (I think).-- mrg3105mrg3105 04:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

At what point did you stop being an editor? Why didn't you just make the change yourself? Tirronan (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tirronan. I'm sorry for not participating, but I am in a much larger WWII project currently. However...having advised you not to forget to change the flag, I just realised that there is no correct flag for the article! The situation is that the flag used in Napoleonic was was not an official flag (there wasn't one) but the colours used in officer sashes, and often for celebrations and Imperial decorations. The other colours were black and orange (for "gunpowder and flames") which was in the cockade and of course the Order of St.George decoration. However few seem to realise that the Russian Imperial Army was commanded by its Commander in Chief, the Tsar (in this case Alexander I) who had a personal standard. When not in the field, the Army was commanded by the Field Commander in Chief (where the rank Field Marshal came from). So the Russian Army flag for the battle and the Napoleonic wars shouls be Alexander's personal standard or shtandart(lang-ru:штандарт).What that was will require some research and a new image, but it seems to me it was a two-headed Romanov eagle on white background in a square standard and not oblong. This was also the "white standard" in the regiments, equivalent to the Prussian Leibfahne or the British King's Colour as was the practice. I will see if I can't put one together for you, and will have to go around and change flags in all Napoleonic articles involving Russian Empire.-- mrg3105mrg3105 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries Tirronan (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tirronan. Are you in Australia?

In any case, the story is that the personal flag of the Tsar was a white one with either:His cypher in the corners as on the standards of the Guard regiments, and the seal of Moscow on the breast of the Eagle (new pattern 1803) or the same eagle device on plain white with the Tsar's cypher on the breast with red background. In eithr case the images will have to be made. At this stage I can't say which and will contact someone who may know better. I think I will also ask the question on the relevant Wikipedia pages (unless you want to).-- mrg3105mrg3105 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not I am an American, beats hell out of me why I am so attracted to the Napoleonic war era but I am so there it is. Always cracked me up when someone accused me of favoring one side or another in a Napoleonic ear article I've no national axe to grind one way or the other LOL. I think the Russian campaign always perked my interest because it was one of the campaigns where the strategic and the logistic were far more important than the grand tactics. The flag probably isn't that important one way or other but at least the current flag is closer to the time period. Tirronan (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You wouldn't think a flag would mean that much, but it does. I have been trying to prove to an Armenian guy that he can't use an Armenian flag for a Soviet (Armenian) Marshal even if the said Marshal (maybe) served as a junior NCO for a few months in the Armenian forces in his youth.
Australians usually say "no worries, mate!" :o)
The logistic side is definitely the more important here. I think I mentioned that Napoleon never prepared for a long campaign. He wanted a quick, close-to-border war, but Barclay denied him that. By Vilna the campaign was a draw. By Smolensk it was lost, but with a good face. By Borodino it could not be won even if the Russian Army was crushed.-- mrg3105mrg3105 04:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Imput requested

Ok folks I have been expanding the article for a bit and perhaps it is time to ask how do you think its going and perhaps you all might have some reputable sources yourselves and start to add to what I am doing. Tirronan (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

Either citations are going to be provided for this section shortly or I am yanking all of it. Its very contraversial without a bit of support. Its ok to be out there with statements but you have to back them up. Tirronan (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no real way to verify casualties. Napoleon grossly underestimated the GA casualties, and over-estimated Russian as usual. Russians were not to be outdone though. The most difficult bit is determining how many were there. In the case of French many regiments under-reported losses due to marching so as not to look too bad, while for the Russians many small contingents joined the Armies during the march, but were largely unrecorded. Many volunteers also joined. The often quoted Smith/vonPivka (neither his real names) tends to favour the French.-- mrg3105mrg3105 04:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This was probably done in an earlier time when such things were allowed. I've replaced it since there isn't a single citation in support. The thing that really bothered me was the claim to greatest casualties in a day without exact figures. Whoever it was quoted Historians but then didn't cite him, very strange. Anyway I am about done and feel free to do whatever you think needs to be done. Tirronan (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


These casualties are idiotic. Over 70.000 men died at Borodino. I put some realistic casualties of 35.000 French and 44.000 Russians. All dead. This was taken from a book by Herman Lindqvist about the Napoleonic wars, the battles, and also Napoleon himself. Greetings From Nikitn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me stress this out. 70 000 men didn't die at Borodino. If they did, than it automatically means that another 210 thousand or so were wounded - for there were more wounded than dead in this battle, like in most other. Of course, such large numbers of casualties are utterly ridiculous (there were less men all in all) and have nothing to do with reality. The 70 thousand number INCLUDES THE WOUNDED. If Lindqvist indeed implies that 70 thousand men DIED at Borodino, he cannot be considered a reliable source on the matter. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure you cite to source when doing such things. Tirronan (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Some comparative figures - George Nafziger, claimed in his Napoleon's Invasion of Russia (Novato CA: Presidio Press, 1988, p. 254) that French casualties were 30,000 and the Russians 43,924 dead, wounded, and missing (which came from Russian official records). Christopher Duffy in his Borodino and the War of 1812 gave the Russian historian Garnich's low figure of 38,500 and the later Soviet estimate of 44,000 Russian dead, wounded, and missing. Duffy quoted David Chandler's estimate of French casualties as not less than 30,000 (p. 138). In his Borodino/The Moskova: The Battle of the Redoubts (Paris: Histoire et Collections, 2000, p. 116), F.G. Hourtoulle (who may be considered partisan in his appreciation), gave French figures as 4-6,000 dead and 20,000 wounded. The author does, however, provide several enlightening pages of casualty figures for individual French units and details on how those figures were reported. RM Gillespie (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Riehn Gives them at 28,000 French and when the stragglers returned 44,000 Russian, so there is not a lot of delta there. Wounded/Killed makes little difference in this campaign where a wound was a death sentence regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirronan (talk • contribs) 16:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nono, it is a total of dead FROM THE BATTLE OF BORODINO. Remember, why do you think this battle is called the bloodiest battle ever faught, in one day? Over 70.000 did die, as a result of the battle. KIA wasnt 70.000, but in the end, a huge number was reported. Also, do you have any better sources? In my opinion it was 44.000 dead russians as a minimum as a result, and minimum 35.000 dead french. Best regards, Nikitn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Any better sources? Let's see, the above include the world's preeminent Napoleonic historian, three of the best (and most detailed) modern historians, One of Russia's best and a Soviet historical consensus. Can you list a source to uphold your claim? 4.252.40.6 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that I am in agreement, unless you can bring citable/reputable referrencing disputation to the fact you are just shouting opinion here and that I am in a agreement that 28k to 30k french total kia/wia and 44,000 russian kia/wia is where it has to stand. I appologise about not signing my work before and please always do so. Tirronan (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, you gave me no sources whatsoever... Lol! Give some sources, not youre presonal assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

NIKIN, 1. Sign your comments 2. the sources are listed in the citations I wrote in the above and in the cited section you changted to your own personal liking! I know because I both a: wrote the section and b: cited it to the book that was cited, and c: it is listed above. So that you can grasp the subject at hand Riehn, Richard K. p. 261 and if you change that number without changing the citaion again I'll be complaining to the Admins about it. Tirronan (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents about casualties. The lowest possible numbers are the official numbers, compiled from military documents. For the French - ~28 thousand, for the Russians - ~45 thousand. Both the Russian and the (especially) the French casualties may be higher than the official counts. However, it is undeniable (judging from the way the battle developed) that the Russians took larger losses than the French. One of the factors was that Kutuzov was not a Napoleon. For instance, Kutuzov, despite having operational superiority in artillery, was not able to achieve tactical superiority in it (in part due to the death of the commander of the Russian artillery, general Kutaisov, early in the battle) on the left part of the Russian line (where most of the action took place). Also, it is undeniable that the total number of DEATHS in this battle is around 20 thousand, not around 70 thousand - because there are very few battles which ended in extermination or total destruction of the enemy force - Battle of Cannae, Battle of Kiev (over 80% killed or captured, largest battle of encirclement in written history) or Battle of Stalingrad come to mind - but not Borodino. At Borodino, neither side was able to achieve a decisive victory. While being a victory for the French both strategically and tactically, Borodino didn't end in a crushing defeat for the Russian army. Surely, the Russians were pushed several hundred meters (even kilometers) to the east, and their casualties exceeded those of the French, but the Russian army wasn't destroyed. At Borodino, there were more wounded than dead/missing. That alone proves that there couldn't be over 70 thousand deaths. Also, I'd like to deal with a point made on this talk page that being wounded in this campaign was like a death sentence. Surely, for Napoleon's army, such a simpification seems apt, but for the Russians it is not. The Russian losses from exposure during the winter of 1812 were compatible (but lower) to those of the French; however, for the Russians, most soldiers would be healed in hospitals and such and survive. That is one of the reasons why overall losses in this campaign were heavier for Napoleon than for Alexander (although, more Russians died than invaders - if we count civilians). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. However, as for the wounded at Borodino - many of the Russian wounded perished in the Moskow Fire. It is a rather macabre story, as the wounded were mostly left in the abandoned city which was set ablaze by the Russians, who also evacuated all firefighter's equipment (but not the multitude of banners, cannons and military supplies that fell into French hands). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of the French wounded ended up dead as well, if they didn't march they were killed by peasents, cossacks, Russian light Cav, or if they did and couldn't keep up with the head of the columns they starved to death. Tirronan (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)