Talk:Battle of Krasnoi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The best primary sources on Krasnoi...non-English

Listed below are, I am lead to believe, the very best sources of information regarding Krasnoi. They were written mostly in the 19th century, and they are in German, Russian and French.

These sources list everything that happened at Krasnoi...including the commanders' dispatches.

I plan to get my hands on these books sometime in the future. I can't read German, Russian or French, so I'll need to find some internet translation service.

No doubt these books will be difficult to get.

We'll get to the bottom of what really happened Nov. 15th through Nov. 18th.


BOGDANOVICH, M. GENERAL MAJOR, Geschichte des Feldzuges im Jahre 1812, C.W. Stern, Leipzig, 1863

MALIBRAN H. & CHELMINSKI, “L’Armee du Duche de Varsovie de 1807 a 1815, Paris, 1913

MARTINIEN, A. Tableaux par Corps et par Batailles des Officers Tues et Blesses Pendant les Guerres de l’Empire 1805 – 1815, Lavauselle, Paris 1890

BODART, GASON, Militr-Historisches Kriegslexikon 1618-1905, Wien und Leipzig, 1863

VAUDONCOURT, F. GUILLAUME, GENERAL BARON, Histoire des Campagnes d’Italie en 1813 et 1814, Booth and Egerton, London 1817

PREYSING-MOOS, MAXIMILIAN, GRAF VON, GENERALMAJOR, ‘Tagebuch 1812’, in Darstellungen aus der Bayerischen kriegs- und Heeresgeschichte, Munchen 1912

LUNSMANN, FRITZ, Die Westfalische Armee 1807-13, E. S. Mittler und Soh, Berlin 1935.



To: Ghirlandajo and others

Re: Battle of Krasnoi edits of 9/12/06

It is very difficult -- in fact even confusing -- to attempt to summarize the Battle of Krasnoi "succinctly" in terms of who won or lost. This is because it was a succession of individual skirmishes more than a single, all-encompassing battle with a single, discernible, easy to describe result.

Right now, the summary box for the article reads as if Napoleon in person was defeated at Krasnoi. Such was not the case...not at all. The Russian victory was over the individual corps of Eugene, Davout, and Ney. Napoleon himself remained at some distance from Eugene, Davout and Ney as they were being mauled by the Russians.

Further -- to simply define Krasnoi as nothing more than the Russian victories over Eugene, Davout, and Ney -- is also to skirt the truth, because on the fourth day of action (Nov. 17th) Napoleon did indeed lead his guardsmen in a general attack on Kutusov, the result being that Napoleon accomplished his goal of fighting the Russians off temporarily so that he could extract as much of his army from Krasnoi as possible. This temporary rear-guard activity of Napoleon's was an important part of the events of Nov. 14 - 18th.

Let me explain some more.

Many Western historians -- generally Francophiles or worshippers of Napoleon -- describe Krasnoi as a French victory over Kutusov, focusing only on the events of Nov. 17th.

The Russian historian Tarle, in fact, in his account of Krasnoi, dwells on the actions of Nov. 17th to the detriment of the rest of the battle (Nov. 14th - 18th). The great Napoleonic historian David Chandler ("The Campaigns of Napoleon") ignores all the action at Krasnoi except that of Nov. 17th (Napoleon's brief counterattack), and calls Krasnoi a French success.

All of these pro-French views, in my opinion, are misleading and erroneous because they totally ignore the disastrous defeats suffered by Eugene, Davout and Ney on the Nov. 15th, 16th, and 18th.

On the other hand, certain Russian accounts of Krasnoi I am familiar with summarize it as just Miloradovich's rough handling of Eugene, Davout and Ney...without paying Napoleon enough credit for his counterattack on Nov. 17th.

My aim is to explain Krasnoi in a way that takes into account all of the action, from Nov. 14th through Nov. 18th, and which emphasizes that the Russians very much got the better of the fighting even though Napoleon did save part of his army by counterattacking successfully on Nov. 17th.

Perhaps it would be best to summarize the "result" as follows: "Russian victory over the corps of Eugene, Davout, and Ney"...and to leave it at that? That way the "result" does not convey that fallacy that Napoleon personally was defeated.

The best historians of the war, in my opinion, tend to call Krasnoi a "partial Russian victory".

Right now, I regard the Krasnoi article as a work in progress. I would like to upgrade it in the future with references to excellent history books, fully accurate counts of casualties, artillery pieces lost, maps, etc.

Kenmore

Massive changes in store

I have already corrected some of the more blatant errors, but I will give this article a good shakeup in days to come. Frankly there is shoddy history going on here. The Battle of Krasnoi is almost universally recognized to have strictly occurred on November 17th. It is not a "five-day" battle; this is the first time in my life I've heard of such a designation. Speaking of firsts, I have also never seen a historian consider Krasnoi anything but a French victory. I have a provided a source for this and changed the result accordingly.UberCryxic 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

_______________________

Apparently your knowledge of this battle is limited to short, superficial summaries derived from elementary history books. Krasnoi amounts to much more than what many of these slanted, unreliable textbooks state.
Try Richard Riehn's full chapter on Krasnoi...Riehn gives a far more detailed, deeper level analysis of Krasnoi than does Chandler and others.
kenmore 9/19/06

More regarding Krasnoi sources

UberCryxic:

I would like to discuss this with you on a point-by-point basis, drawing upon all sources. I'm interested in seeing your response to what I show you.

If you convince me that I'm wrong, I will admit it and then glady work to support your version of events.

Many historians regard Krasnoi as a Russian victory, if only a highly unsatisfactory victory at that. Digby Smith and Richard Riehn in particular come to mind.

David Chandler's representation of Krasnoi, I am sorry to say, is misleading. Chandler juxtaposes different events that occured over a several day period in such a way as to imply, misleadingly, that all of those events occured on Nov. 17th when in fact they didn't.

As for the Guard's famous attack on Nov. 17th -- you will be shocked to learn that the Guard never even made contact with the Russians. It merely made a forceful, threatening manuever against the Russian center. This manuever can be regarded as a French success because it intimidated Kutusov into pulling back his left and right wings, thus enabling the French to resume their retreat unharried. Kutusov, however, did not pull his entire army away from Krasnoi: on the contrary, the Russian line remained in place, and it raked the French for the rest of the day with artillery fire.

Are you aware that fully half of the Middle Guard's 6,000 troops were cut down by the Russian guns?

Are you aware of the full succession of events that unfolded at Krasnoi, in chronological order on a day by day basis, from Nov. 14th to Nov. 18th, and how those events form a unified whole?

Contact me...I want to share my sources with you.

Kenmore 9/25/06 kenmore

Once again, I will try to be as diplomatic as I can be, but you have serious misconceptions about Krasnoi. The vast majority of the historical literature treats it only as the engagement on the 17th, not this "series of battles" of which you speak. I am hoping to avoid nationalist histories here - I certainly know what the Russians think of many of these battles (and what they have written about them in Wikipedia, some of which definitely need to be changed). Krasnoi is also almost universally regarded as a French victory. If you don't trust Chandler - a baffling statement if I ever heard one, since modern Napoleonic military literature has spawned from him - then maybe you'll trust Caulaincourt, who was with Napoleon as this was happening and is often used by historians of the campaign (in fact, I have no doubt he's being used by the historians we're using, so let's just cut to the heart of the matter and go with the primary source). In With Napoleon in Russia, Caulaincourt writes:
Notwithstanding these reflections, the Guard had been ordered to move back along the Smolensk road; strong batteries had been placed in position, and everything was prepared for a battle on the seventeenth [of November]. Caulaincourt does note Napoleon's precarious disposition:
"Right now," said the Emperor, "I could be made a fool of in several ways." But he wasn't, and Caulaincourt agrees with the historical literature (by which I mean the historical literature copied Caulaincourt) that in the final analysis, the French emerged pretty well off from what could have been a disaster.UberCryxic 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

______________

Again, Calaincourt is just a memoirist, much like Segur. Most historians don't regard him as a reliable source on the full scope of events in 1812.
kenmore 9/25/06

_________________

I should note in the interest of fairness that there is some disagreement and different periodization for Krasnoi, but that almost exclusively it is still treated as a French victory. The Atlas of World Military History (2000) treats Krasnoi as occurring from the 15th to the 17th and the Harper Encyclopedia of Military History (1993) from the 16th to 17th, but both unilaterially label it a French victory.UberCryxic 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

_________________________

Many basic, elementary textbooks are misinformed about Krasnoi. They merely state Napoleonic propaganda, and not the truth. See Richard Riehn's account for the facts.
kenmore 9/25/06

__________________________

And one final point as this debate progresses: obviously we both care about what the truth is, but Wikipedia does not make pretenses to what the truth is, per WP:V. We are only here to document what reputable sources say. That aside, I do think you are flagrantly misinformed, so I suppose this debate will bear some of that out.UberCryxic 20:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

________________________

I encourage you to do some serious research on Krasnoi...try to find sources that detail what exactly happened on an hour by hour basis on Nov. 17th, including the specific divisions involved, their commanders, what skirmishes took place, what ground was covered in the manuevers, etc. On this level of fact-finding, you will see that the truth about Krasnoi is much different than what's reported in many elementary textbooks which just gloss over the facts.
kenmore 9/25/06

___________________________

Questions for Ubercryxic

Questions:

1. Explain to me, in detail, what happened when Roguet’s Middle Guard made contact with Kutuzov’s forces. I maintain that no contact was made. Chandler does not explain how the Middle Guard engaged the Russians…he’s overgeneral.

In your explanation, be specific and show me specific sources.

2. Describe for me specifically the encounter between the 16,000 strong French columns and Kutusov…is this the same action as Roguet’s attack, or is different? I maintain that this attack never happened. It is not supported by Chandler.

3. Explain to me how you know that Kutuzov’s forces fled in disarray. Be specific, cite sources. I maintain that this never happened.

I have both Chandler and Calaincourt here at home. Neither of them say anything about Russians fleeing.

Kenmore


Ugh I'd be happy to do all those things for you, but you're forgetting something: this is not a tribunal. Neither you or I are on trial here. I don't understand why the burden of proof is squarely on me. I have given you the relevant sources and their arguments; they stand on their own merit and that should be enough.UberCryxic 22:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

_______________

I know from my own research that your sources are unreliable...they misrepresent the facts...they are just updates of French propaganda from the 19th century. Again, do deeper level reading on Krasnoi and you will see what I mean.
Professional historians know that many of these 19th century French sources are just cheerleading for Napoleon. See Curtis Cate for me on this.
As for my burden of proof, see my sources.

Kenmore 9/25/06

_____________________________


Kenmore responds:

No this is not a tribunal...this is an effort to pull historical sources together and to read them critically to find out what happened. You have not responded to my specific questions regarding the sources.

"Burden of proof"

I have substantiated all of my claims here on the discussion page; you haven't substantiated yours.

The internet "Napoleon Guide" is not a reliable source of information. As for Calaincourt, his account does not say what you claim it says.

Chandler is not a reliable source regarding Krasnoi because he glosses over the specific facts of the battle; his account is meant to be a very general summary of facts from the perspective of Napoleon. Worse still, Chandler's account is misleading because it juxtaposes facts in a misleading way.

Kenmore 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

General Remarks

The book you are talking about is a nice and handy tool for the period, but it is a strawman to presume I am gathering my arguments from there exclusively. Caulaincourt's With Napoleon in Russia, which as far as a modern historian is concerned is more reputable than pretty much anything written on this event during that period, states that Rouget conducted an attack and that this attack was successful (on the 16th). Now Caulaincourt was right there with the Grand Army, so what exactly is your problem? The article is fine as it is, though admittedly it could use more expansion detailing Ney's and Eugene's actions along with General Durosnel's epic fight.UberCryxic 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

___________________

Kenmore replies:

Calaincourt's account is just a memoir, and it is known to have whitewashed the events of 1812 to cover-up the French defeat. Calaincourt is not regarded as a reliable source of facts by professional historians. On the other hand, Calaincourt's memoir is regarded as an excellent source of information on Napoleon's personality in 1812.

_____________________________________________

Look, I apologize if I have incited your sensibilities in a negative way. It was not my intention at all. The last thing I want is for this situation to spiral out of control. I will again ignore most of your remarks, but I will address some of your points now, despite the fact that you are unfairly putting the burden of proof on me while completely ignoring yourself. Caulaincourt writes this:
His [Napoleon's] first intention was to put General Rapp in charge; and he even gave him his intstructions. Later, however, he changed his mind. He entrusted the direction of the expedition to General Roguet, who attack Ojarowski's forces two hours before daybreak on the sixteenth, killed or took prisoner most of his infantry, and drove him as far as Lukino. This successful and daring action forced the enemy to withdraw; but the Emperor, having gathered from prisoners that the whole Russian army was in the vicinity, decided to take the offensive, there being no other means of safeguarding the Viceroy and the corps that followed after him.
I hope this clears some of your misconceptions. It is no secret, of course, that all the accounts you and I are reading about Krasnoi are heavily based off this original memoir by Caulaincourt. I again apologize if this affair has upset you in any way.UberCryxic 02:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Kenmore replies:

I want you to just listen to me this once...read my words carefully and I will put your latest statements into perspective.

Please see #2 below...in bold.

The incident Calaincourt speaks of -- the decimation of Ozharovsky's regiment -- I have already acknowledged as happening...did you not see above where I addressed this?

You don't seem to understand that Calaincourt is referring to just one infantry encounter that took place between a small portion of the Russian army and one part of Napoleon's Guard.

The action Calaincourt speaks of did not involve the entire Russian army...it involved only a single regiment, part of the advance guard commanded by Ozharovsky.

For some reason, you seem to think that Ozharovsky's regiment -- which was decimated by the Guard on the night of Nov. 15th -- was the entire Russian army...it wasn't!

Positioned just south of Ozharovksy's slaughtered regiment was the rest of the Russian army.

The Russian army was lined-up in a semi circle around Krasnoi between Nov. 15th and 18th. It was organized thusly:


CLOSEST TO KRASNOI: OZHAROVSKY'S ADVANCE GUARD, including the regiment demolished by the Young Guard on the night/morning of Nov. 15th - 16th.


SOUTHWEST OF KRASNOI: 20,000 RUSSIANS UNDER TORMASOV (the survivors of Ozharovsky's devastated regiment fled here to safey...Tormasov was never attacked by the French)


SOUTH OF KRASNOI: 20,000 RUSSIANS UNDER GALITZIN (never attacked by the French, although the Middle Guard threatened them on Nov. 17th)


EAST OF KRASNOI: 20,000 RUSSIANS UNDER MILORADOVICH (these troops were constantly fighting with Eugene, Davout and Ney)


The skirmishes of Krasnoi consisted of the following, in order:


1. NOV. 15TH: The Poles of the Young Guard, under Claparade, drive Ozharovsky's Cossacks out of Krasnoi (you read about this in Fisher & Fremont Barnes..it is true.)


2. NIGHT/MORNING OF NOV. 15TH - 16TH: The Young Guard, under Roguet, attacks and destroys a regiment of Ozharovsky's infantry (THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO...IT IS WHAT CALAINCOURT REFERS TO..IT IS WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN FISHER & FREMONT-BARNES...BUT IT INVOLVED ONLY ONE RUSSIAN REGIMENT, NOT THE ENTIRE RUSSIAN ARMY.)

The Young Guard's destruction of the Russian regiment is described thusly by Curtis Cates in his "The War of the Two Emperors": "That night Napoleon, in the mistaken belief that he had only the vanguard of Kutusov's army to deal with, ordered General Roguet to lead his Young Guard divsion in a midnight assult on the closest Russian troops, who bivouac fires to the south were clearly visible across the snow. A fierce struggle ensured, with a lot of hand to hand fighting over knee deep snow in and around two burning villages. Losses on the French side were heavy, but their objective -- to "teach the Russians a lesson" -- was fully achieved."

I am not denying that this happened...not at all!

This incident however was not the entire battle...it was just one portion of it, as Ozharovsky's surivors took shelter among the rest of the Russian army


3. NOV. 16TH: Napoleon sends the grenadiers of his Old Guard east to link up with Eugene. The grenadiers are forced back to Krasnoi by successive waves of Russian cavalry.


4. NOV. 16TH: Fierce fighting between Eugene's corps and Miloradovich's troops.


5. NOV. 17TH: Fierce fighting between Davout's corps and Miloradovich's troops.


6. NOV. 17TH: Napoleon orders the Young Guard (sometimes called the Middle Guard) under Mortier to make a forceful demonstration against the Russian center under Galitzin. The Young Guard remains in front of Galitzin's troops all day absorbing artillery fire. IMPORTANT: WHEN KUTUSOV SEES THE YOUNG GUARD IN FRONT OF GALITZIN'S TROOPS, HE LOSES HIS NERVE, AND ORDERS TORMASOV AND MILORADOVICH TO DRAW CLOSER GALITZIN IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIM AGAINST A POSSIBLE ATTACK -- THUS, DAVOUT IS SPARED FURTHER ATTACK FROM MILORADOVICH, AND THE TORMASOV CAN NO LONGER THREATEN THE WESTERN ROAD LEADING OUT OF KRASNOI -- NOTE HOWEVER THAT THE ENTIRE RUSSIAN ARMY REMAINED ENTRENCHED SOUTH OF KRASNOI FIRING ARTILLERY SHOT ON THE FRENCH -- THERE WAS NO INFANTRY ENGAGEMENT, NO RETREAT OR FLIGHT OF THE RUSSIANS.


7. Nov. 17th: Napoleon gathers all his troops except Ney -- including Davout, Eugene and the Old and Young Guard -- and retreats from Krasnoi. PRO-FRENCH HISTORIANS REGARD THIS AS A FRENCH SUCCESS BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS MERELY WATCHED THE FRENCH FROM AFAR INSTEAD OF LAUNCHING AN ALL OUT ATTACK ON THEM.


8. Night/morning of Nov. 17th - 18th: Kutusov, seeing that Krasnoi is abandoned, occupies it with Tormasov and Galitzin's troops. Miloradovich remains to the east.


9. Nov. 18th: Ney, approaching from the east, runs into Miloradovich -- Miloradovich offers Ney an honorable surrender. Ney refuses. Ney's corps is then destroyed by the Russians. NEY BOLDLY ESCAPES INTO THE FOREST WITH THE REMAINED OF HIS CORPS -- ONLY 700 TO 1000 MEN.


10. Nov. 20th: Ney and his survivors hook up with Napoleon far to the west.

All-right then, here we go. I will give an account of what happened in mid-November at Krasnoi as I understand it. It is actually not that radically different from yours, but a few points must be emphasized and others clarified.
Napoleon left Smolensk on November 14th. The French still had something like 40,000 effectives at this point. The French had very little cavalry to conduct reconnaissance operations; a few Guard detachments managed to kill some wandering Cossacks, but little else. After the destruction of d’Hilliers, the only competent French force was the Imperial Guard.
The French approached Krasnoi and found the forces of Miloradovitch, Ostermann’s and Ojarowski’s divisions along with some cavalry, stationed to the left of the main road near the village of Merlino. Napoleon sent in the Young Guard and the Dutch division of the Old Guard under Mortier and they essentially kicked the crap out of the Russians, diplomatic language aside. The main point is that the French kept the road cleared. However, Napoleon dangerously underestimated the gravity of the situation. Once Miloradovitch withdrew, he assumed the previous action had only involved an isolated body of the Russian army, though as you point out the truth was far different: vast Russian forces were hovering in the wings, Kutuzov’s traditional strategy during the French retreat, and closing in for the kill.
Napoleon decided to remain at Krasnoi on the 16th because he realized the enemy had occupied several strategic positions. The road was now blocked off. He needed time to bring up other French forces and break through. But he also realized time was the last thing he had, so now we come to the central focus of this entire affair: Napoleon decided to launch a daring night attack. That is, he thought he could rescue the situation with the vanguard alone, confounding his previous intentions. Napoleon originally gave the mission to Rapp, but quickly switched his mind and assigned the mission to General Roguet.
Roguet attacked Ojarowski’s forces two hours before daybreak on the sixteenth. The crushing assault forced Ojarowski’s troops to fall back to Lukino. Here is where you have a terrible misunderstanding about the situation (either that or we’re speaking in different languages). Once Ojarowski is defeated, the Russians panic entirely and begin a hazy withdrawal. I am referring to the troops that are blocking the main road out of Krasnoi, about 35,000 or so. These Russian troops fell back several miles and were paralyzed for about 24 hours. They quite literally did not know what the hell was going on.
Eugene had been too slow in joining with Napoleon and now ran into a revived Miloradovitch (on the sixteenth). Napoleon decided to help Eugene by sending two battalions of light infantry from the Guard under General Durosnel along with two cannons. Durosnel’s forces bypassed some Cossack and other cavalry detachments and finally ran into Miloradovitch’s men. Durosnel had some fierce encounters with the Russians and ultimately had to retreat, but not before creating enough of a diversion to allow Eugene to rejoin Napoleon’s main force. At this point, Napoleon decided to prepare for a huge confrontation on the seventeenth, but he later changed his mind and the French fled westwards. Ney would finally join the main body on the 20th.
It seemed necessary to analyze only this particular theater because I agree with your other descriptions: Ney, Eugene, and Davout had a brutal time against the converging Russians. They all suffered atrocious casualties. But, however, the French were the ones who ultimately accomplished their objective, which was to escape. The Russian objective was to trap and destroy the French army, and here they failed. This is normally why Krasnoi is listed as a French victory.UberCryxic 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Content related issues

UberCryxic:

Listed below are my replies to your latest Krasnoi comments.

Overall, your description the battle is more or less in line with mine, the only differences being the scale, timing and importance of Ozharovsky's defeat, as well as the meaning of the Guard's counterattack against the Russians on Nov. 17th.

My chief disagreements with you are:

1. What is represented by Ozharovsky's defeat: was it a small scale, isolated skirmish or did it involve Kutusov's entire army (I say the former).

2. Where the Russians compelled to withdraw from Krasnoi at any point -- orderly withdrawal or disorderly flight (I say no)

Overall however I must say that I enjoyed your latest remarks and read them with great interest.

kenmore 9/30/06


UBERCRYXIC WROTE:

“After the destruction of d’Hilliers, the only competent French force was the Imperial Guard.”

Kenmore replies:

Two comments:

1. The “destruction” you allude to concerned a brigade commanded by General Augereau, who was one of d’Hilliers’s subordinates. On Nov. 9th, Augereau and his 1800 troops surrendered to the Russians at Lyakhovo, not far from Smolensk. This is regarded as an important event by historians because it meant that, for the first time in the war, the French were surrendering en masse...which is a sign of serious demoralization.

2. I agree that the Imperial Guard, by mid-November, was Napoleon’s only corps that was anywhere near its peak combat capabilities. Because the Guard were Europe’s most elite soldiers, they were probably as good as twice their number of Russians. At Krasnoi, Napoleon had 16,000 troops in his Guard.

UBERCRYXIC WROTE:

“The French approached Krasnoi and found the forces of Miloradovitch, Ostermann’s and Ojarowski’s divisions along with some cavalry, stationed to the left of the main road near the village of Merlino”

KENMORE REPLIES:

Two comments:

1. My impression is that only Miloradovich and Ostermann were stationed on the left of the road that led into Krasnoi, and that the sight of Napoleon’s Guardsmen in their bear skin caps was so intimidating that the Russians dared not attack.

2. I believe that Ozharvsky, at this precise moment, was in Krasnoi itself.

UBERCRYXIC WROTE:

“Mortier and they essentially kicked the crap out of the Russians, diplomatic language aside. The main point is that the French kept the road cleared.”

KENMORE REPLIES:

Two combats ensued, as I understand it, in the first hours of the Krasnoi encounter. They weren't dramatic:

1. Miloradovich was too intimidated by the Guardsmen to attack them, so he bombarded them from long range.

2. When the Guard got to Krasnoi, they attacked Ozharovsky’s Cossacks and send them reeling out of Krasnoi.

UBERCRYXIC WROTE:

“vast Russian forces were hovering in the wings, Kutuzov’s traditional strategy during the French retreat, and closing in for the kill.”

KENMORE REPLIES:

Kutusov was under the mistaken impression that Napoleon’s main army was far to the north of Krasnoi, and that at Krasnoi the Russians would encounter only a single isolated French corps. This is the only reason Kutusov was willing to fight.

Kutusov, 67 years old, ailing, half-blind and vulnerable to stress, didn’t want to face Napoleon under any circumstances.

The other generals in the Russian army – much more aggressive than Kutusov --- such as Bennigsen, Miloradovich, Ermlov and Toll – were very angry at Kutusov for not seeking a decisive battle, and they literally bullied Kutusov into going to Krasnoi.

Toll, Kutusov’s chief of staff, put together a plan for encircling what the Russians thought would be a lone French corps at Krasnoi.

Once Kutusov got to Krasnoi, he did everything he could to hold his generals back, and he looked for any excuse he could find to break off the combat.

On Nov. 17th, Kutusov – to his dismay – learned from a prisoner that Napoleon himself was at Krasnoi with the Guard. At that point Kutusov promptly cancelled Toll’s plan and ordered his generals to assume a defensive posture in the hills south of Krasnoi...exactly where they started the battle. No attack.

UBERCRYXIC WROTE:

“…on the 16th… now we come to the central focus of this entire affair: Napoleon decided to launch a daring night attack”

KENMORE REPLIES:

My understanding is that Napoleon’s famous, daring order for the Guard to attack – the move that won him the Battle of Krasnoi in some historians’ view – occurred just before daybreak on the morning of Nov. 17th.

Apparently this was a two pronged attack:

1. The Old Guard (Mortier) struck east in order to pull Miloradovich (Russian right wing) away from Davout.

2. The Young Guard (Roguet) struck south at Galitzin (Russian center).


The results the Guard’s Nov. 17th assault/manuevering were:

1. After light skirmishing between the Old Guard and Miloradovich, Miloradovich retreated slightly to the south (to link his forces with Galitizin’s) – probably per Kutusov’s order – and contented himself with just bombarding the Old Guard from afar.

2. Davout was saved…and was able to hurry his 7,500 troops into Krasnoi safely.

3. The Young Guard stationed itself directly in front of Galitzin (Russian center) in a threatening manner…it remains there for several hours, thus discouraging the Russians from attacking.

4. Galitzin’s artillery fire wipes out 3,000 of the 6,000 troopers in the Young Guard, but the Young Guard holds the line, never wavering or retreating.

5. Kutusov sees the attack of the Old and Young Guard, and this gives him the excuse he needs to put an end to Toll’s plan to encircle Krasnoi.

6. Kutusov orders Tormasov (Russian left wing), to stop cutting the road leading west out of Krasnoi, and to retreat closer to Galitizin’s position (Russian center).

7. Napoleon sees that the western road is now open, and orders a retreat from Krasnoi.


The two pronged attack started like this at 5:00AM, Nov. 17th:..

“Walking in front of his grenadiers, Napoleon led them out of Krasny back onto the Smolensk road and then turned them to face the Russian troops who had massed in a long formation to the south of the road. He was vastly outnumbered, but his bearing, standing calmly under fire as the Russian shells struck men all around him, seems to have impressed not only his own men but the enemy as well. Miloradovich moved back from the road, leaving it open for Davout to march through. And Kutuzov resisted the entreaties of Toll, Konovitsin, Bennigsen and Wilson…(who didn’t want to cancel the planned Russian attack)” (Zamoyski, pg. 422)


Napoleon personally participated in the attack:

“At dawn Mortier was ordered to head eastward to establish contact with Davout’s corpsmen…climbing out of his coupe, the emperor, armed with a birch-branch walking stick, placed himself at the head of his busbied grenadiers as they marched back (eastward, toward Miloradovich, Russian right wing) along the highroad toward Smolensk!” (Curtis Cates, pg. 360)


Kutusov wasn’t surprised, but decided to play it safe…

“The sudden backward movement may not have taken Kutusov by surprise, as so many rhapsodic French chroniclers have claimed. But it gave him the excuse he was looking for. Hastily he recalled the three infantry corps (Tormasov, Russian left wing) that had been sent westward to complete Napoleon’s encirclement, on the grounds that the French were preparing to attack the center of the Russian line (Galitzin, Russian center) south of Krasnoye, and that it urgently needed to be reinforced. This move, reopening the escape route to the west, was quite unnecessary, given the Russian’s crushing superiority in men and guns.” (Curtis Cates, pg. 360)


The Russians don’t retreat, but they pull away from Napoleon’s escape route….

“By then, Napoleon had already engaged Kutusov’s supposedly weak center under Galitzin. Also marching at 5:00AM (Nov. 17th), the emperor had anticipated the Russian’s thrust with his thrust at Uvarovo. By a stroke of luck Kutusov learned of Napoleon’s continuing presence (in Krasnoi) and at once ordered a halt of Tormasov’s enveloping movement (Russian left wing, assigned task of closing the west road out of Krasnoi). Miloradovich (Russian right wing), who might yet have made something of this affair, did not press either. As a result, Napoleon, who learned of Tormasov’s interrupted envelopment (Tormasov is ordered by Kutusov to leave the west road open), was able to continue his retreat.” (Riehn, pg. 353)


Strangely, the Russians didn’t take the offensive...

“The Russians (Galitzin, center, and Miloradovich, right wing) had only to march forward, without manuevers or even cannonfire, their sufficed; they would have crushed Napoleon and his feeble troop; but they did not dare assail him! The sight of the conquerer of Egypt and Europe cowed them!” (Segur, pg. 203)


The Russians opt only to bombard the Guard from afar...

“Kutuzov’s Russians (Galitzin, center, and Miloradovich, right wing), instead of closing in with their infantry, contented themselves with bombarding Mortier’s Young Guard soldiers with repeated rounds of cannon fire and grapeshot, which took a heavy toll of life. The remnants of Davout’s corps…the Young Guard….the Old Guard...were thus able to resume their retreat when logically they should have been annihilated.” (Curtis Cates, pg. 361)


Young Guard completes its mission, but is nearly destroyed...

“The Young Guard was virtually sacrificed in the process of covering the withdrawal. The Russians (Galitzin) kept out of musketshot and merely shelled them, but in the words of General Roguet, ‘they killed without vanquishing…for three hours these troops received death without making the slightest move to avoid it and without being able to return it.” (Zamoyski, pg. 424)


UBERCRYXIC WROTE:

“The crushing assault forced Ojarowski’s troops to fall back to Lukino. Here is where you have a terrible misunderstanding about the situation (either that or we’re speaking in different languages)”


KENMORE REPLIES:

I am certain that the Young Guard’s destruction of Ozharovsky’s was an isolated, small scale action, characterized by the following:


This combat did not take place on Nov. 17th (described above).

1. It occured on the evening/morning of Nov. 15th – 16th.

2. This action did not involve the entire Russian army, just a small portion of it.

3. The Russian force involved was the infantry of Ozharovsky…probably no more than a single regiment of about 1,000 to 2,000 troops.

4. Ozharovsky commanded the flying advance guard of the Russian army. It was no more than a small, fast moving force intended to skirmish with the enemy. It consisted of the following: 1 jaeger regiment from 24th Infantry Division, 1 hussar regiment from III Cavalry Corps, 4 Cossack regiments, and 6 artillery pieces.

5. Ozharovsky’s force was apparently isolated from the rest of the Russian army, and was vulnerable.

6. Ozharovksy’s force foolishly camped too close to the French in Krasnoi, thus drawing Napoleon’s attention.


As described by Denis Davidov…

“On the same night however, Count Ozharovsky was defeated near the village of Kutkov. It was merited punishment for the profitless pleasure of watching the enemy army march by, and then settling for the night one mile away from Krasnoi, practically on the stage of the actors! General Roguet, commander of the Young Guard, reached Kutkov during their sleep of the just and woke themup with heavy musket fire from every side.” (Davidov, pg. 143)


Ozharovsky led only a “detachment” of troops…

“One can imagine the panic and chaos which followed this unexpected wake-up call. All efforts by Ozharovsky and Colonel Vuitch to bring some semblance of order to this crowd were to no avail. Fortunately, Roguet did not have any cavalry at his disposal, which allowed Ozharovsky to fall back on Kutkov, gathering what was left of his detachment and restoring discipline at the cost of half of his men.” (Davidov, pg. 144)


Segur calls Ozharovsky’s force only an advance guard…

“Everything indicated that Kutuzov was advancing with the intention of seizing Krasnoi. Already during the night of Nov. 15th, Ozharovsky with an advance guard of the infantry had gone beyond the city and taken a position at Malievo, a village behind his left flank. Excited rather than depressed by this bad news, Napoleon called Rapp, his aide-de-camp, and ordered him to set out immediately. Then instantly recalling him, he said, “No, you are not to go. Let Roguet and his division march alone. You will stay, for I don’t want you to be killed here.” (Segur, pg. 200)


Ozharovsky’s isolated detachment was overwhelmed…

“The nocturnal attack on Chirkova and Malievo was successful. Roguet knew from the position of the Russians (Ozharovsky’s flying detachment) fires that they were occupying those villages, which were connected by a plateau and defended by a ravine. He disposed his troops in three columns of attack. Those on the left and right advanced stealthily as far as possible toward the enemy. Then, at a signal given by himself from the center, they were to charge with leveled bayonets, holding their fire.” (Segur, pg. 201)


The route of Ozharovsky continues….

“The two wings of the Young Guard attacked simultaneously. While the Russians, surprised and not knowing where to defend themselves, wavered between the left and the right, Roguet and his column bored down on the center and penetrated to the very middle of their camp. In utter confusion the soldiers had just the time to throw the greater part of their weapons, heavy and light, into a neighboring lake, and set fire to their shelters, but the flames, instead of saving them, only seemed to light up the scene of their destruction.” (Segur, pg. 201)


Tarle places Ozharovsky’s defeat on the 1st day of combat only…

“The first skirmish (Nov. 16th, , early a.m.) between the Russian General Ozharovsky and the Young Guard was not quite successful for the Russians. On the three days following (Nov. 16th, 17th, & 18th), Napoleon feigned offensive maneuvers, but actually his sole purpose was to avoid battle.” (Tarle, pg. 368)


Ozharovsky’s troops seek safety from Kutusov and Miloradovich……

“That night Napoleon, still assuming he had only the Russian advance guard to deal with, ordered General Roguet to lead his Young Guard division in a midnight assault on the closest Russian troops, whose bivouac fires to the south were clearly visible across the snow (Ozharavksy's infantry). A fierce struggle ensued, with a lot of hand-to-hand fighting over knee-deep snow in and around two burning villages. Losses on the French side were heavy, but their objective – to “teach the Russians a lesson” – was fully achieved. For the fear inspired among Ozharovsky’s retreating soliders by this unexpected attack seems to have convinced Miloradovich as well as Kutusov that Napoleon’s army was still formidably strong.” (Cates, pg. 359)

UBERCRYXIC WROTE:

“Once Ojarowski is defeated, the Russians panic entirely and begin a hazy withdrawal. I am referring to the troops that are blocking the main road out of Krasnoi, about 35,000 or so. These Russian troops fell back several miles and were paralyzed for about 24 hours. They quite literally did not know what the hell was going on. “

KENMORE REPLIES:

Based on my reading of the texts below, at no point did the Russian army make any kind of large scale retreat at Krasnoi.

The only semi-retreats by the Russians were:

1. Ozharovsky's defeat on Nov. 15th-16th...which involved a small force only and did not impact the rest of the Russian army, set up slightly to the south.

2. Miloradovich (right wing) falling into a defensive position on the eastern road to Krasnoi when he saw the Old Guard marching at him on Nov. 17th. Several hours later Miloradovich was on the attack again.

3. Tormasov (left wing) ordered by Kutusov to move off of the western road leading out of Krasnoi on Nov. 17th. This wasn't really a retreat, it was more of a repositioning of Tormasov's troops south of the road. They were still able to bombard the retreating French at the conclusion of the battle.


Here are my sources:

“With Napoleon In Russia”, Caulaincourt, William Morrow and Company, New York, ISBN 0486440133

“Napoleon In Russia: A Concise History of 1812”, Digby Smith, Pen & Sword Military, ISBN 1844150895

“The War of the Two Emperors”, Curtis Cates, Random House, New York, ISBN 0394536703

“Moscow 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March”, Adam Zamoyski, Harper Collins, ISBN 0061075582

“Napoleon 1812”, Nigel Nicolson, Harper & Row, ISBN 0060390433

“The Napoleonic Wars, The Rise and Fall of an Empire”, Gregory Fremont-Barnes & Todd Fisher, Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1841768316

“The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Source”, Digby Smith, Greenhill Books, ISBN 1853672769

“The Campaigns of Napoleon”, David Chandler, The MacMillan Company, ISBN 0025236601

“Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia 1812”, Eugene Tarle, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0374977585

“Napoleon’s Russian Campaign”, Philippe-Paul de Segur, Time-Life Books, ISBN 0837184436

“1812 Napoleon’s Russian Campaign”, Richard K. Riehn, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN 0471543020

“Napoleon In Russia”, Alan Palmer, Carrol & Graf Publishers, ISBN 0786712635

“In the Service of the Tsar Against Napoleon”, by Denis Davidov, Greenhill Books, ISBN 1853673730


Dispute

Specifically, these are my concerns:

-No doubt the truth about the events of Nov. 17th has been distorted by pro-French historians... Violates WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and who knows what else. In fact, that whole section needs massive citations.

Napoleon’s decision to withdraw before the arrival of Ney must have been a painful one, as Ney – one of France’s best’s marshals and the commander of 8,000 sorely needed combatants – was obviously being sacrificed to the wrath of the victorious Russians. What a bogus statement. Just plain unbelievable.

There are way too many other ridiculous statements for me to bother with.UberCryxic 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


MY STATEMENTS ARE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE SOURCES!

Uber:

Every last statement I've printed here has been backed up on the discussion page by me with references and quotes.

You don't seem to be familiar with the specifics of Krasnoi. Your texts are just overgeneral and misbalanced summaries of what happened.

REGARDING NAPOLEON'S ABANDONMENT OF NEY:

There is no denying that Ney was abandoned by Napoleon, and that the Russians then destroyed Ney's corps.

Ney had 8,000 combatants and 7,000 stragglers on the morning of Nov. 18th...by the end of the day he had no more than 1,000 survivors fleeing into the woods....clearly this is a decisive defeat of Ney.

Kenmore 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

More on Krasnoi content

UberCyrxic:

1. Regarding Nov. 17th: Please see my quotations above...you will see that General Roguet and General Segur, both witnesses at Krasnoi on the French side, admit that the Young Guard did not even come within musketshot of the Russians, and that the Young Guard was blasted by the Russian artillery without being able to return fire.

2. Regarding abandoning Ney: You yourself have admitted that Napoleon's sole purpose in fighting at Krasnoi was to pull his army together and resuming retreating. Why, then, would Napoleon have resumed his retreat on Nov. 17th without waiting for Ney? Clearly Ney, with 8,000 combatants and 7,000 stragglers, was an important part of the Grande Armee.

Obviously, Napoleon abandoned Ney because he was forced to. On Nov. 17th the Young Guard was being blasted to pieces by the Russian artillery, and Tormasov was in a positiont to cut off the western road leading out of Krasnoi. Clearly, Napoleon retreated without waiting for Ney because he was forced to do so.

Ney was then destroyed by the Russians on Nov. 18th.

3. Please stop editing my content without my permission. I have read a great deal more about this battle than you have. If you have objections to what I've written, put your objections at the top of the article, where Grafikim has posted your material. Stop butchering my words.

4. Finally, on this discussion page, I have posted many quotes and addressed your concerns in detail on a point-by-point basis. It would be best if you answered what I've posted here, so that we can can resolve our differences regarding content.

The problem here is that Krasnoi has been deliberately misprepresented in many history books in a pro-French way. David Chandler's account hugely distorts the truth.

My Krasnoi article has been very carefully researched.

kenmore 10/1/06

Napoleon was actually uncertain about what to do throughout this episode. If you had done any "reading" at all you would have known that. The statement there implies that he just left Ney because he could. It's very poorly worded, as are several other comments. You can claim that you know a lot about this affair all you want. Frankly, I think you are wrong, but it is important to remember that no one in Wikipedia owns an article. This is not your article and it is not my article. We're supposed to be working together to improve this article, but unfortunately what's happening now is a lot of original research and POV. I would advise you to read those Wikipedia policy pages and familiarize yourself with how to write in an encyclopedic tone. Saying that that the truth about the 17th has been distorted by pro-French historians is absolutely silly because one could easily reply that you are characterizing their work in an unfair light to push your agenda. Again, I encourage you to read the policy pages for how to best phrase statements in Wikipedia articles.UberCryxic 03:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Pro-French historians have stated -- erroneously -- that the Guard attacked the main Russian army on Nov. 17th and defeated it. This is a distortion of the facts...even a bold faced lie...as we know that on Nov. 17th the Guard did not even come within musket range of the Russians.

Kenmore 10/2/06


The sources substantiate my claims

UberCryxic:

Everything I've written in the Krasnoi article is backed up by fact. See the points I made yesterday in the Krasnoi discussion (above).

Even the commander of the Young Guard, General Roguet, admits that it was blasted to pieces, helplessly -- by Galitzin's cannon (see above).

Soon, I will footnote all of the paragraphs in the Krasnoi article. Until then, I urge you to read what I posted in the discussion above.

Kenmore 03:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

My fundamental question about one part of our dispute here is: how are you going to "back up" the claim that pro-French historians have lied about this incident? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? There'd be a war within the historical community if anyone notable made that charge.UberCryxic 03:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

KENMORE REPLIES:

I have seen it written many times that French and pro-French historians routinely distort their versions of events that happened throughout Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. This is well known.

Regarding Napoleon's decision to send the Guard into action at 5:00AM on Nov. 17th, thus reversing his retreat, Curtis Cates writes the following on pg. 360:

This sudden backward movement (i.e., the Guard turning around and moving in the direction of the Russians) may not have taken Kutusov by surprise, as so many rhapsodic French chroniclers have claimed. But it gave him the excuse he was looking for. Hastily he recalled the three infantry corps that had been sent westward (i.e., Tormasov) to complete Napoleon's encirclement, on the grounds that the French were preparing to attack the "weak" center of the Russian line south of Krasnoye, and that it urgently needed to be reinforced. This move, reopening the escape route to the west, was quite unnecessary, given the Russians' crushing superiority in men and guns.

This episode -- Kutusov ordering Tormasov's three corps to fall back to their original position and leave the western road out of Krasnoi open -- is routinely distorted by pro-Napoleonic historians. This is very, very well known.

Kenmore 03:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore


That's irrelevant though. Many historians have also written that pro-Russian voices (not necessarily historians) have distorted the events of 1812 considerably. This gets us nowhere except in a back and forth exchange.UberCryxic 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


The evidence is available through the sources

First you ask for evidence that French historians are known to be distorters of the truth regarding Napoleon's defeat at the hands of the Russians in 1812.

So I gave you some evidence...from Curtis Cates, who is a first rate historian and an expert of 1812.

Next, you changed your position by claiming that the issue of French distortions of truth is "irrelevant".

Clearly your position in on this page is constantly changing relative to every fallacy of yours that I disprove. You are waffling.

Obviously you are getting your information from unreliable sources such as this: http://www.napoleonguide.com/ and http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_krasnoe.htm

You are not reading the deeper level, more scholarly works on 1812 that you'd need to be familiar with in order to understand everything that happened at Krasnoi. Kenmore 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Original research, neutrality, and so forth

A few points that everyone editing this article should keep firmly in mind:

  • No original research: we must report on what existing sources say, and cannot draw conclusions that are unsupported by them.
  • Neutral point of view: the article should represent all major viewpoints in proportion to how widely-held they are.

In particular, statements like "No doubt the truth about the events of Nov. 17th has been distorted by pro-French historians who claim that the Guard made contact with the Russians and defeated them in combat, forcing Kutusov to retreat from the field. This is hyperbole, sometimes even bold faced lying" seem to be a violation of both this policy and the one above (as well as being quite deficient in properly academic tone, though that's a minor concern).

Finally, remember to stay cool and work collaboratively towards producing the best article possible. Playing games with splitting the article into separate versions and so forth is quite inappropriate; please collaborate constructively with other editors, even if you disagree with them.

Thanks, and happy editing! Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

KENMORE REPLIES:

Kirill:

When I stated that many pro-French historians have distorted the truth about the events of Nov. 17th -- even to the point of declaring that Kutusov was defeated in combat and forced to retreat -- I am drawing upon established evidence.

Further, I have documented my sources...when I say that Kutusov did not in fact retreat, but that he remained in his original position on Nov. 17th, I am merely saying something that is backed up by what's stated in the majority of my sources.

Check UberCryxic's description of the events of Nov. 17th at the top of the article -- his sources say that Kutusov was surprised, defeated, and forced to flee in disarray -- whatever sources stated such words are indeed liars. This version of events is contradicted by Segur (a witness), Cates, Riehn, Palmer, Tarle, and countless others.

Does not Cates himself describe the pro-Napoleonic historians as "rhapsodic"? What does this tell you? Kenmore 03:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

I would recast your questions as:
  1. What do the sources say the facts are?
  2. What is the credibility of the sources being used.
In other words, if a particular viewpoint is widely argued by generally credible sources, we must (according to our neutral point of view policy) report that viewpoint—with attribution to the sources espousing it, of course—even if we think we can "prove" that those sources are incorrect in their view. Only when a particular source lacks credibility in general can we attempt to ignore it entirely.
On a more practical level, when there exist such fundamental disagreements, the safest thing is to discuss historiography explicitly. Much of the article should make clear that respectable historians have differing views (e.g. "Chandler argues that.... Riehn and Cates, meanwhile, hold that...") without trying to judge which of the competing versions is correct. Ideally, we'd also have secondary historiography (e.g. "X argues that Y's analysis of events is in error because...") that could be cited to reputable historians; I don't know if this is the case here.
(A final note: "bold faced lying" is a term that should rarely—if ever—appear in an encyclopedia. We may suggest that someone is incorrect, if we have the sources to back us up; but we should certainly not be in the business of accusing people of malfeasance—particularly if those people are still alive!) Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Substantiating claims

You're not supposed to be calling battles in anyone's favor (that is, you personally) or arguing on behalf of a particular party in any article.UberCryxic 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

But did you not do that yourself, claiming Krasnoi to be a French victory on the basis of mistaken, inaccurate sources (i.e., that Kutusov was attacked and defeated on Nov. 17th, and that his troops fled in disarray)?

I'm just reporting the facts about these encounters.

Kenmore 18:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

No, I clearly did not. I never made any statement to the effect of "I call the battles as I see them…and I regard Krasnoi as a [French] victory." Note how I never called the battle as it's related to this article. Rather, Fremont-Barnes and Chandler did (and implicitly Caulaincourt does as well). I merely reported what they said. I do think the Battle of Krasnoi is a French victory, but I do not believe it should be labeled that simply because I think it. I am not a notable historian, and neither are you. Misrepresentation of my arguments and strawmen will get us nowhere. I have and will continue to refer to the events of November 16th, when the French cleared the road that led out of Krasnoi. That's when the Russians panicked and fled (on this sector, not anywhere else). Not much notable happened on November 17th (again, this sector); we are agreed there.UberCryxic 19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the Russians did not retreat from Krasnoi at any point during the events of Nov. 15th through Nov. 18th.

Kutusov didn’t even arrived at Krasnoi until later on Nov. 16th. Only then did Tormasov’s advance guard under Rosen begin to occupy the western road leading out of Krasnoi, and it was not attacked that day.

On Nov. 16th the following occurred:

1. Kutusov was not yet on the battlefield…he was still too far south.

2. Miloradovich was positioned on the eastern road leading into Krasnoi.

3. Ozharovsky’s isolated infantry regiment was encamped within one mile of Krasnoi

4. Before daybreak, Ozharovsky’s isolated regiment of 1,000 to 2,000 was attacked and sent scattered by the Young Guard. This combat was not on any of the roads leading to or from Krasnoi.

5. After daybreak, Eugene came into contact with Miloradovich’s troops.

6. Miloradovich’s troops occupied the eastern road, blocking Eugene’s passage into Krasnoi.

7. Napoleon sends out 800 grenadiers from the Old Guard to try to open the passage for Eugene.

8. The Old Guard’s grenadiers are forced to turn around and retreat back into Krasnoi because of intensive Russian artillery fire and several waves of Russian cavalry attacks.

9. Russian Cossacks try unsuccessfully to bar the Old Guard’s retreat back into Krasnoi…this episode led the Cossack commander, Denis Davidov, to remark that the Old Guard “sailed through his Cossacks like a 100 gun ship.”

10. Miloradovich continues to batter Eugene on the eastern road. Eugene is facing annihilation.

11. Late in the day, Kutusov finally arrives at Krasnoi with the main Russian army.

12. Tormasov takes up position just south of the western road leading out of Krasnoi.

13. Tormasov’s small advance guard under Rosen sets itself up on the western road.

14. Eugene abandons his wagons and artillery and retreats with just his infantry north into the forest. Eugene has now lost 2,000 out of his original 6,000 troops.

15. Eugene, after moving far enough north, turns around an sneaks into Krasnoi behind Miloradovich’s troops.

16. At the end of the day, Kutusov’s army is set up to begin encircling Krasnoi.

Kenmore 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

First of all, don't be so melodramatic. This is not a Greek tragedy. It is not utter non-sense and you are confusing events. The night attack by the Guard destroyed a force that was nominally under Kutuzov but actually under Miloradovitch. After getting defeated, those troops are repositioned and actually run into Eugene's men, which they mostly crush (since Eugene's troops are completely out of it by now, as is most of the French army). Caulaincourt describes this very well. I believe the quotation is above.UberCryxic 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Caulaincourt on Krasnoi

Caulaincourt's narrative

Uber:

You have your facts mixed up.

Ozharovsky's troops were not the same as Miloradovich's troops...not at all.

Ozharovsky had an independent detachment. It operated separately from the 16,000 that Miloradovich had stationed on the eastern road leading into Krasnoi.

On the night/morning of Nov. 15th/16th, Miloradovich entrenched on hills well to the east of Napoleon's left flank (eastern flank) in Krasnoi. Ozharovsky's infantry are described by Segur as being "behind" Napoleon's left flank, which means they must have been northwest of Miloradovich.

I'm looking at a map right now of Krasnoi but I cannot find the villages that Ozharovsky is listed as being in: Davidov says it is Kutkov, Segur says it is Churkova and Malievo; Calaincourt doesn't say at all where Ozharovsky was.

But of one thing everyone can be certain: Ozharovsky's force was not with Miloradovich...they were in separate positions.

And Ozharovsky's defeated troops could not possibly have, in their flight, run into Eugene's corps. This is because Ozharovsky's force was too small and too seriously beaten up to make any kind of impression on Eugene.

Calaincourt does not say anything that confuses Ozharovsky's troops with Miloradovich's...nothing at all. Here is what Calaincourt says about the matter (page 217):

His first intention was to put General Rapp in charge; and he even gave him his instructions. Later, however, he changed his mind. He entrusted the direction of the expedition to General Roguet, who attacked Ozharovsky's forces two hours before daybreak and 16th, killed or took prisoner most of his infantry, and drove him as far as Lukino. This successful and daring action forced the enemy to withdraw; but the Emperor, having gathered from prisoners that the whole Russian army was in the vicinity, decided to take the offensive, there being no other means of safeguarding the Viceroy and the corps that followed him. The Emperor, who was in the plain with the troops, was uneasy about Prince Eugene's failure to arrive; his instructions had been to follow on behind us. But he had only been able to set out from Smolensk late on the 15th...and had made contact with Miloradovich's forces drawn up for battle on the 16th. Stragglers, thrown back on to his vanguard by this enemy force, had been the first to inform him of its existence.

Where does Calaincourt indicate that Ozharovsky's troops, after being routed by Roguet, turn around and attack Eugene?

Consider the following about Calaincourt's remarks...all of which demonstrate the impossibility of what you claim:

1. Calaincourt says that most of Ozharovsky's forces were captured or killed...how could they then fight Eugene?

2. Calaincourt says that Miloradovich's troops were drawn up for battle on the 16th...just hours after Ozharovsky was defeated...how then could Miloradovich's troops be the same as those commanded by Ozharovsky?

You are wrong...Ozharovsky's troops amounted to nothing more than a couple thousand troops at most...they were insignificant and they were isolated from the rest of the Russian forces.

Kenmore 01:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

UBER WROTE:

You are misreading Caulaincourt: Ojarowski's division was part of Miloradovitch's force that was cleared out of the westwards road by that night attack.

KENMORE REPLIES:

But Miloradovich was located far to the east of Krasnoi...on the eastern road LEADING INTO KRASNOI, AND NOT ON THE WESTERN ROAD LEADING OUT OF KRASNOI.

How then, could Miloradovich's troops be "cleared out of the westwards road by that night attack"??...particularly since NAPOLEON WAS ALREADY IN KRASNOI...WELL TO THE WEST OF MILORADOVICH?

Second Battle of Krasnoi

It seems that Napoleon fought the first one on the way in:

  • 14 August. 1 st Battle of Krasnoi (Krasnoe). France (Ney) vs. Russia (Neverovski). French victory.

Shall we rename the article or what? `'mikkanarxi 21:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai:
For now, I would hold off on renaming the current Krasnoi as "2nd Krasnoi". The first Krasnoi battle, in August, 1812, was a small rear guard action only, and it did not involve entire French and Russian armies. It was significant only because Murat, despite his overwhelming advantage in numbers, had to launch multiple, heavy attacks on Nevorovski's small rear guard before inducing the Russians to retreat.
We can address this in detail later...for now, I've got to finish the current Krasnoi article.
Kenmore 07:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

If you are suggesting that "B of K" in vast majority of cases, then it is reasonable to name the first one Battle of Krasnoi (August 1812). `'mikkanarxi 19:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct name of place

"Krasnoi" is most probably the genitive case of the name. What is the actual name of the place in Russian? `'mikkanarxi 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is currently "посёлок Красный, Смоленская область" (Krasny, Smolensk Oblast). I can't, however, confirm it was always called that, so a bit more research wouldn't hurt.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:NC, we should stick to historical names. Not Siege of St. Petersburg, but Siege of Leningrad, you know. The established historical name is Krasnoi. So what's the problem? --Ghirla -трёп- 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was saying in new articles anouncements: The title of the article is OK. The name of the place is suspicious. While the "Battle of Leningrad", the title of the article about the place is "St. P." `'mikkanarxi 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Same here. If you look at my edit closer you'll notice that I only changed the name where the reference was made to the actual place, not to the name of the battle. I am open to counter-arguments, however.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"посёлок Красный": It is perfectly expectable that at variuos times it was called "selo Krasnoye" and "derevnya Krasnaya" (both selo and derevnya are translated as village, but have different grammar properties: all these "Krasn-" mean "Red" and the suffix depends on the grammatical gender (3 of them in Russian)). I've seen all three versions (in non-russian) in context of this battle. `'mikkanarxi 00:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the historical name of "Krasnoi", even if its wrong, because that's how its been known for two centuries in western Europe and the English speaking world.

But I also think that Ezhiki's expertise in the translation of Russian names into English has a rightful place in the article...why not add a footnote to the title, and in the footnote Ezhiki can educate the reader about the English language bastardization of the orginal Russian "Krasny"?

Kenmore 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)knemore

There is no reason to propagate ignorance. It is not a "historical name", it is a "historical typo", rather understandable, too. Who the heck could have found the name of some minor village? And who cared? Not to say that I've seen three different versions: "Krasnaya", "Krasny" "Krasnoye", so hardly we have here an established "historical name". `'mikkanarxi 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Ezhiki

Ezhiki:

Why did you change the name of Krasnoi to "Krasny" in the battle article? I'm not sure that is the best thing to do, because throughout the west, this encounter is known as "Krasnoi".

For the perspective of writing style, using "Krasny" in the article when the title reads "Krasnoi" may be problematic.

Are you a Russian native?

Thanks.

Kenmore 21:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Hi, Kenmore! Yes, I am a Russian native. My edit was prompted by this announcement at Portal:Russia/New article announcements. The bottom line of that announcement was that while the battle is undoubtedly known as "the battle of Krasnoi" (so renaming the article is absolutely out of the question), the place itself is not known under that name outside the scope of the battle. Hence my changes. "Krasnoi" is a variation of "Krasny", most likely a distorted genitive. If we consider a (fictious) analogy—the battle of New York—then referring to "Krasny" as "Krasnoi" is kind of like referring to "New York" as "of New York"→the troops occupied of New York. The fact that this distortion made it into the historical name of the battle is unfortunate, but there really isn't anything that can be done about it. What can be done, however, is to refer to the actual place by its proper name.
Perhaps a short paragraph can be added to that effect to the article. I'll gladly hear out your counter-arguments, however. I admit I know very little about the terminology and the names used to describe this battle in the English-language works—if you have sources that consistently call the place (not the battle!) "Krasnoi", then I am most likely wrong and will gladly revert my changes dealing with the name. All in all, this issue seems to lie in the deepest trenches of the gray area of Wikipedia naming conventions :)
Please also see Talk:Battle of Krasnoi for further discussions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay...I understand what you mean now. I am wondering if perhaps it would be more professional to keep the name "Krasnoi" throughout the article, but to add a footnote to the title, and for you to explain in the footnote what you know about bastardization of Russian language names in English?
Also, the subheading titled "The Forces converage on Krasnoi" was very deliberately worded by me to use the word "on", instead of "at". Using the word "on" more accurately conveys to the reader that the two armies were moving toward the town as the action unfolded, and were not actually there when as it progressed. I changed the heading back to its original, using "on" instead of "at".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenmore (talk • contribs) .
Ironically, I am usually the one suggesting the use of footnotes in cases such as this one. This time the thought somehow escaped me, plus I wasn't exactly sure how the place is called in the sources you provided (I now see from your comments at Talk:Battle of Krasnoi that it's called "Krasnoi" as well). All in all, it's a fair proposal. Unless you don't mind implementing it yourself right now, count on me fixing it first thing tomorrow morning, if nobody beats me to it (I really have to leave now!). I wouldn't call this phenomenon "bastardization", but I'd mention the fact that the name is distorted, and, of course, leave the link in the infobox pointing to Krasny, Smolensk Oblast, not to non-existent Krasnoi. I'll also see if I can scrap enough information to put together a short stub about the place tomorrow.
Regarding "the forces converage on Krasnoi"—my apologies. Having been in process of copyediting, I did not quite grasp the meaning. Thanks for catching and fixing it back.
And finally, did I mention that overall you did a great job with this article? :) I hope there is more where it came from!
Anyhoo, if there is anything else I can do for you in general or for this article in particular, you are very welcome on my talk page. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing there is still no consensus in the discussion above, I'll wait a bit longer before making (or not making) the changes in question.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla...do you have anymore input on this?
I'd be happy to let you Russians decided what to call the town: "Krasnoi" or "Krasny". My feeling though is that it might be best to stick to "Krasnoi", so that the European and English speaking world will have an easy time finding this article via google search.
My chief aim, as an amateur historian, is to help to rectify the widespread misimpression in the West that Krasnoi was a French victory of the Imperial Guard over Kutusov on November 17th. I would very much like to see this myth disappear from Western history books.
This fallacy about Krasnoi has survived in the West because the battle hasn't received much attention from historians here. As a minor battle in the Napoleonic Wars, authors understandably don't focus too deeply on Krasnoi in their books...they settle for summarizing it, and erroneously so at that.
Fortunately Richard Riehn's 1991 study of the war serves the truth about Krasnoi. The same is true of Digby Smith's 2004 book. I am very enthusiastic about these authors for this, among other reasons.
I'll be adding more footnotes in upcoming days, just establish sources and to point out more instances in which Western authors have gotten their facts mixed up.
Kenmore 19:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Kutusov?

Wha...? `'mikkanarxi 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the spellings that's fairly often used in the English-language works, although it is not as common as more conventional "Kutuzov". Since we have the main article at the latter spelling, I suggest we fix the spelling in this article as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Partial" victory

Vast majority of victories in separate battles are partial, until the final victory which ends a war. Therefore this qualifer is pointless. Of course, it was unsatisfactory, lost opportunity, etc. But infoboxes are not supposed to be cluttered with various opinionated evaluations. There is so small place in an infobox that a single word bends a POV heavily. `'mikkanarxi 19:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you check other Wikipedia military history infoboxes -- for all wars and not just the Napoleonic era -- you'll see that the battle summaries are qualified by adjectives such as "partial", "inconclusive", etc. I think this is good from the standpoint of communicating a nuanced, balanced and historically accurate message to the reader. Often, simply summarizing who won or lost fails to state the fuller truth about the outcome of a battle.
I described Krasnoi as a "partial" Russian victory because it was a very limited engagement in terms of actual combat: both commanders chose to avoid a full battle. Napoleon wanted to quickly escape from Krasnoi without fighting...Kutusov wanted Napoleon to leave without the Russian army having to force the issue.
Krasnoi was very much like the Battle of Valmy in 1792, in that it was chiefly a long range artillery exchange and not a full scale engagement.
Kenmore 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Valmy was not classified as "Partial". I still disagree with opinionated classifications, with systemic bias to diminish Russian victories wherever possible. But I will not lose my sleep over this. "Partial" is restored in the table until someone else supports my disagreement. `'mikkanarxi 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to calling it a "Russian victory" as opposed to a "partial Russian victory". Kenmore 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Assessment

This article is definitely improving, but there's a lot more work needed, particularly with regards to the density of citations (which should be increased to cover gaps) and the prose (which is currently unreadably choppy, with one-sentence paragraphs and so forth). I would also suggest eventually taking this through the project peer review for more detailed commentary. Kirill Lokshin 13:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)