Jump to content

Talk:French invasion of Russia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Opposing forces

I think that the article would be improved if the section Opposing forces were to be moved out into an order of battle article with a summary of the forces on this page. At the moment we have a lead a couple of sections then a huge list followed by the sections on the invasion proper. It seems to me scrappy. See the Battle of Waterloo and the section "Armies" for an example of an alternative solution. -- PBS (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

seems like a project worth doing, I'll get after it soon then.Tirronan (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Victory tag

Removing the Russian victory tag is very strange considering the result is listed as destruction of the French army. It's as if there were no well documented attacks on the French supply train and operational capability. The Russians fought dirty, but they won. 108.65.0.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

It was a logistics war, and running the other side out of food/water/ammo works as well or better than a battlefield defeat. In this campaign the French won most of the battles, and lost by a astounding measure. A victory is a victory no matter how it is achived. Frankly, it is much smarter to win by operations against a suppy line than by winning major battles. Nothing dirty about it, the US does it to this day.Tirronan (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently some anon IP address without the slightest bit of respect for anything but his own over blown and uneducated opinion decided for the entirety of the Wikipedia community that he knew best stuck it in and reverted me without so much as a single citation. No problem whatsoever! It comes when we decide that it isn't the opinion of the historians that we quote, or the citations we research... ON NO! It someone's overblown and ill informed opinion that matters and that alone... I get tired of this. I probably wrote 70% of the Goddamned article took a lot of research to do it as well but a computers and an opinion will do it every sorry time.Tirronan (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Next time it happens I am going to start tagging for vandalism and a few blocks and bans to make a point I guess.Tirronan (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not add facts and figures without a reliable sourced citation or change the victory box without gaining a consensus of opinion from the other editors.Tirronan (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard K. Riehn

In the notes, his name is sometimes spelled as Reihn. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is probably because I do the occasional typo.Tirronan (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

French invasion of Russia → Napoleon's Russian campaign –

The proposed name is completely neutral and largely used by historians [1] and respect WP:NPOV. While the current title is biased and factually wrong :

It gives the false impression that France led an aggressive war against Russia to conquer some territories, while Napoleon I responded to Alexander I's ultimatum about Poland.

Napoleon I didn't wanted to "invade" Russia, but to win a decisive battle to force Alexander I to negociate peace.

And by the way, the French were less than 50% in this so-called "French invasion". DITWIN GRIM (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, more sources prefer a different title than either the current or proposed one combined. In fact, this one gets the least hits. Hot Stop 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Ooops! What I wanted to mean was the current term "invasion" as opposed to "campaign". My apologies for the lack of clarity, fixed now.--Darius (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

all sorts of contradictory claims in this article-badly in need of some rewriting

The lead says 22,000 survived, the article body says Napolean returned with 110,000 troops - and that's just for starters. There are huge chunks of text that need citations. There are several statements that are highly disputable as far as historical importance. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Why Moscow?

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

  • Because Moscow was the largest city of Russia and one of the most important. It wasn't the political or administrative capital (and that's probably why Napoleon's strategy failed), but it was very important on a cultural level and perceived as the prime city of Russia. Napoleon went for it because his usual strategy was basically 'knock out the enemy's most important army and most important city, i.e. the biggest ones, and then dictate peace terms'. For whatever reason, he identified Moscow as the most important city. It was a blunder, of course. Russia didn't capitulate after Moscow's fall because 1/ St. Petersburg was quite capable of running the empire by itself, and 2/ the Russian army was still more-or-less intact and operational. Remove either one of those factors, and chances are Alexander would have capitulated. Napoleon miscalculated, that's all, and assumed that the strategies he'd employed against other European foes (notably the German states) would work equally well against Russia. They didn't. That's also the reason the Spanish campaign didn't work out for him, speaking in extremely broad terms, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.0.36 (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Occupying Moscow was never Napoleon's goal until the battle of Smolensk. Napoleon almost never cared about occupying the enemy's capital, let alone their "spiritual" capital. Rather, his goal was always to destroy the enemy's army. This was his goal for the first part of the campaign. He envisioned the march on Moscow from Smolensk as a method of forcing Kutusov to accept a major battle, that's all. However, once he occupied the capital, he thought that Alexander would be willing to surrender. This was a miscalculation. But Napoleon's "ultimate" goal was never to occupy Moscow. In every war he fought, his goal was destroy the enemy's ability to resist by crushing their army in a decisive battle. As for why he decided to attack Moscow instead of St. Petersburg, simply because Moscow was closer and would force the enemy to fight. Again, the purpose of this move was to force a major battle (which it did, the battle of Borodino). Napoleon planned a similar campaign in 1806. His original plan was to advance on Berlin. He knew that occupying Berlin would not, in and of itself, end the war, but he calculated (correctly) that his enemy would attempt to defend his capital, forcing a major battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.73.109 (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Critical Review of this Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although there are several things that seem unconvincing, it is a well-written article. It could have been an expert who wrote it. This is unlikely, however, because the author only used two. I would never only use two sources in order to write an article. The article, thus, is not well rounded, and it comes off in the article. It seems that the author emphasizes things such as the preparation and the initial invasion, but not the retreat. I would really like to know more about the minor battles after the retreat from Moscow, or more about the suffering of the soldiers. This sounds very bleak, but I think it would be very interesting to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.203.26 (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2006‎ (UTC)

french/soldiers

i have change french wuth a more generic "soldiers", becouse not all the dies were french. the 50% of the soldiers were italians, germans, swis, ecc...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro.pasi (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 June 2007‎ (UTC)

Remove Current Russian Flag

Is that really the russian flag of that day? if it isnt and we stay true in putting many of the current flags of thewre day next to commanders and belligerants then why this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 15:16, 31 August 2008‎ (UTC)

Weather

What study? Citation need.

Revisit phrase "only a major effect"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.36 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2011‎ (UTC)

Historical Assessment

In the past few days, as this page was on my watch list, I have noticed many edits of a certain section, specifically for the Historical Assessment section, constituting of one paragraph being added and then taken out and added again on the grounds of "Unrelated, poor historical description", "Germany wasn't fighting... Western Fronts", "Statements are disputable", etc. I can vouch for a Parronax on the grounds that his many previous edits on pages relating to France as historically accurate. The revisions (taking out the paragraph of which Parronax has contributed) were done by (from my point of view) unreliable sources, of which including someone with an IP address of 24.202.73.91. Being Russian, I know that this is not an IP belonging to anyone in Russia. I ask that people help with preventing this kind of vandalism (taking good information away) not only on this page, but on the whole of Wikipedia. Thank you.

--Arusmanov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


"In 1941, Hitler had to split his army in order to conquer Russia and in doing so, perhaps lost the war solely on that point. After Stalin found out what had happened, he orchestrated the Battle of Moscow which, along with the notoriously cold Russian winter, devastated the German troops and finally pushed them back. Hitler would now be fighting on two fronts."

Far too simplistic analysis, and, this whole passage is irrelevant. I invoke "Godwin's Law". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.10 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

The move today to "Russian campaign of 1812" is not as common in English (no matter that it is common in French and Portuguese I understand) therefore tech revert requested per WP:BRD. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Russian Campaign is common in English -- try a Google book search -- as is the French invasion of Russia. --- PBS (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Turning-point

See Talk:French invasion of Russia/Archive 1#turning-point.

It was a turning point but it was not the only one see the discussion in the archive -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"French pyrrhic victory" versus a "Decisive Russian victory"

this seems blindingly obvious, but apparently it's unclear for one user.

1. a decisive military victory = winning war/battle militarily.

2. the Russians didn't win any battles, and the French marched into Moscow

3. thus, it can not be described as a "decisive Russian victory".


I bothered to put in 7 sources who use the term "pyrrhic victory", but Google will help you find hundreds more.

it's pretty basic first-year history stuff - Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia (and Borodino in particular) is typically used as an example par excellence, of a "phyrric" victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.153.196 (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


The seven sources cited to support the idea of a "pyrrhic victory" failed WP:V. I checked out these citations one by one, and I found that:
1. Von Clausewitz´s commenter don't mention the word 'pyrrhic', less to say any reference to a French victory.
2. Five other authors (Bakunin, Wilde, Dodge, Rothenberg and Schrad) use the term 'pyrrhic' to describe the outcome of the battle of Borodino, NOT that of Napoleon's whole campaign. Here you have the quotations:
  • Bakunin: "He" (Kutuzov) "could not hope to win, but he turned Napoleon's triumph into a Pyrrhic victory, best described not in military accounts but by Leo Tolstoy in War and Peace. Fifty thousand Russians died; about forty thousand of Napoleon's soldiers were killed. The Russian withdrew again, and one week later, the Grande Armee entered Moscow."
  • Wilde: "Napoleon was now" (after Borodino) "able to march into Moscow on September 14th, but it was a pyrrhic victory, as the Russians had abandoned the city and burnt vast areas of it down. The Tsar wept at the news but stayed firm."
  • Dodge: "Borodino was certainly won by the French, but it was a Pyrrhic victory."
  • Rothenberg: "Borodino was a Pyrrhic victory, and Waterloo a failure."
  • Schrad: "Borodino was a pyrrhic victory for the French, who were too exhausted to pursue the withdrawing Russian army."
3. Of the seven cited sources, only Horward seems at first to support the idea of a pyrrhic outcome for the campaign, but this is a question of semantics; in one hand, he uses the phrase "classic Pyrrhic victory" in relation to Borodino and the capture of Moscow; in the other hand, Horward criticizes Napoleon's "uncharacteristic incompetence" (for staying in Moscow so long) and later praises him for conducting a "brilliant retreat against overwhelming odds." Horward surrendered to evidence, however, when he concludes that in the process "he lost over four hundred thousand men and hastened his own fall.", hardly the description of a 'victory'.
You should understand that this article deals with the entire Napoleonic invasion of Russia, not just with Borodino or the fall of Moscow. Even a random Google search of "French pyrrhic victory" in relation to the Russian campaign only produces Borodino. If you see instead to the big picture, the invasion was the turning point of the Napoleonic Wars, or in Horward's words, the campaign where Napoleon "lost over four hundred thousand men and hastened his own fall." (sorry for being repetitive)--Darius (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
So, by your own admission, three sources state that conquering Moscow was a pyrrhic victory (Howard, Bakunin, Wilde), while four others refer specifically to Borodino. How are you then justified in deleting ALL the sources, and claiming the invasion was a "decisive russian military victory"? Your own interpretation of events and sources are not relevant. 93.152.153.196 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Not my "own admission", but what cited sources say; and NONE of these authors support your claim that the campaign as a whole was a "French pyrrhic victory".--Darius (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon himself was rather frustrated that he won all the battles (his view) but lost the war. No question that the outcome was devastatingly decisive, and it seems to me the summary statement should reflect that, but perhaps it would be better to say the campaign was a decisive defeat of the French Army, or of Napoleon and the Grande Armée. Many of the battles were pyrrhic French victories, but I have a hard time viewing the campaign as such. Regardless, let us try to resolve it here before we change the text in the infobox, as the back and forth is bad form. The preferred process is bold edit, revert, discuss. 93.152.153.196 made a bold edit, DagosNavy reverted, the next step should be to leave the article alone and discuss till there is consensus. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

So, to continue the discussion, I must say it is not blindingly obvious to me how the campaign could be considered a French victory of any sort, pyrrhic or otherwise. Did not the campaign end with Napoleon racing back to Paris in a sled to quell political threats to his power? Was he not worried he would be captured in the process while trying to get through Germany? Was his power and prestige not greatly undermined by the failure of the campaign? Did the Russians not end up in Paris about a year later, with Napoleon abdicating his thrown? Would any of this have occurred without his massive commitment to defeat Czar Alexander and subjugate Russia to his will? Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Phyrric" is a concept that need always a explanation and doesn't fit in a infobox. Hóseás (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, one's personal opinions are not relevant. It's for historians and other reliable sources to judge. Gunbirddriver, you haven't added a source, you've only speculated on a subject that you clearly have a limited understanding of. Sources please! 93.152.158.123 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I truly do not understand how you could argue that the Russian campaign of 1812 was anything other than a disaster for the French, but to show that this is not merely my ill informed opinion, I could reference these sources:

  • Caulaincourt, Armand-Augustin-Louis With Napoleon in Russia translated by Jean Hanoteau New York, Morrow 1935.
  • Ségur, Philippe-Paul Defeat: Napoleon's Russian Campaign translated by David Townsend; Mark Danner New York: New York Review Books, 2008.
  • Brett-James, Antony 1812: Eyewitness accounts of Napoleon's Defeat in Russia New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966.
  • Tarle, E.V. How Mikhail Kutuzov defeated Napoleon London: Soviet War News, 1926

Caulaincourt starts out his memoir stating: "The events in Europe leading up to 1812 had so great an influence on those which followed later, by placing the balance of Europe's destiny into the hands of Russia, that I have felt it would be valuable to preserve the notes I made..." No allusion to a French victory here. Could he be mistaken, or perhaps he did not perceive the significance of the events he was surrounded by? Based on what Caulaincourt shared in his memoir, it is hard to make the case for a French victory. Is he wrong? Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If you actually read any history book, you will see that Napoleon invaded Russia, won militarily, conquered Moscow - but at an unacceptable cost - so then retreated. I am Russian, and this is what we are taught. I also studied history at a Russian university, where we were taught it was a "Pyrrhic" military victory for Napoleon. All serious works of history mention this. Whether it should be mentioned in the infobox at the start however, is up for debate I would say.
  • Абалихин Б. С. О стратегическом плане Наполеона на осень 1812 г. — Вопросы истории, 1985. — № 2. — С. 64 — 79.
  • Быкадоров И. Ф. Казаки в Отечественной войне 1812 года. — М.: Яуза, Эксмо, 2008
  • La Campagne de Russie - La Moskowa, Benoît Sommier et Bernard Chevallier, Le Rubicon Éditeur, 2013
  • Essai sur la guerre de partisans, Denis Davidoff, Traduction d’Héraclius de Polignac, Avant-propos du général Fortuné de Brack, Éditions Astrée, 2012, 140 p. (ISBN 979-10-91815-00-0)
  • 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March on Moscow, Adam Zamoyski, HarperCollins, 644 Pages. (ISBN 978-0007123742)
  • A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars, BG Vincent J. Esposito and C John R. Elting, Greenhill Books, ~400 pages. (ISBN 1-85367-346-3)
  • Baron Dufour (1769-1842)[ordonnateur en chef de la Garde impériale], Jacques Perot, éd., Guerre de Russie, 1812, Atlantica Séguier, 2007
  • Lentz, Thierry. Nouvelle histoire du premier empire: L'effondrement du système napoléonien, 1810-1814. — Paris: Fayard, 2004
  • Понасенков Е. Н. Правда о войне 1812 года. — М.: Рейтар, 2004
  • Cornaro, Ludwig von. Strategische Betrachtungen über den Krieg im Jahre 1812. — Wien: Verlag von L. W. Seidel und Sohn, 1870 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.124.249 (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Napoleon did not retreat from Moscow because the costs were too high. Think about this problem strategically. That is what Czar Alexander did, with Spain as his example. Caulaincourt was familiar with the Czar's thoughts on the matter from direct conversation with him beforehand. Caulaincourt attempted to pass this knowledge on to Napoleon, but Napoleon had too many ideas of his own to change his plans on the counsel of Caulaincourt. He found out for himself that the campaign would be different than the ones he had fought against Austria or Prussia. Too late, I am afraid. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Borodino is often cited as a phyrric victory, I've never heard of the entire campaign listed as such. As a campaign it ranks right up there with the most decisive defeats in all history. Given that the German wars of liberation started almost as soon as the French retreated over the boarder I fail to see what the argument was about. As for the comment that Napoleon didn't leave because the costs were too high... he left because in the time he'd spent there the main army in Moscow had never rose above 95,000, despite the inflow of reinforcements. Recent victories by the Russian Army proved that his time was up, when it was already far too late. Logistics plays no favorites and the Russian high command and Kutuzov/Barkley in particular had a far superior view on it than Napoleon did. Devout, no slouch as a battlefield general, killed 30,000 men, almost as many as Borodino, by force marching his men over a single week. Everything that worked for the French in central Europe worked against it in Russia. Walking into a campaign with 270,000 men and walking out with 23,000 men is as decisive as it gets folks.Tirronan (talk)
To clarify, I was countering the previous assertion, and I meant that he did not leave Moscow in mid October 1812 because of the losses suffered thus far in the campaign (what was described as "an unacceptable cost"). He left because defeating the Russian army and taking a major city did not get him what he wanted, the Czar's petition for peace. He could not win by staying there, and things would only get worse with each passing day. He still thought if he could engage the Russian army in a decisive battle he could save the campaign, and he attempted to do so as he moved out. He was unsuccessful in forcing the issue, and he had to leave. I believe we are in agreement, essentially. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Invasion of Twelve Languages".

So, the Russians have called this:

"the invasion of twelve languages" (Russian: нашествие двунадесяти языков)

But, does anyone know which are these twelve languages? It should be added to the article. I can name but French, German (for Prussia, Austria, and the other German states), Polish and Italian. We're missing... 8 languages? At least dialects (of German and Italian) are counted. --80.181.225.114 (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I do not know the origin of the Russian term (which I understand from the article has not been used any more in Russia for about a century), but for sure more than four languages were spoken in the Grande Armée. Napoleon had annexed Belgium and the Netherlands with its Dutch/Flemish-speakers, the Illyrian Provinces with its speakers of Croatian and Slowenian, as well as Catalonia. Natives from all these annexed territories were drafted in the French Army and participated in the invasion of Russia. This adds four more languages. Then there are the Spanish prisoners of war who were drafted into Joseph Napoleon's Regiment (France) and the Portuguese Legion (Napoleonic Wars), both participating in the invasion. This brings the number of languages up to ten. If you add the Mamelukes of the Imperial Guard from Egypt, you have an 11th language, Arabic. And if you add the Lithuanian units that joined the Grande Armée after it took Vilnius and Napoleon allowed the Lithuanians to establish a provisional government, there is a 12th language. Even more languages were spoken in other units that were part of the Grande Armée or Allies of Napoloen, but that did not take part in the invasion, such as the Danes and the Irish Legion. The Austrian Empire contributed an auxilary corps under Karl Philipp, Prince of Schwarzenberg, but it participated only in the beginning of the invasion. More than a dozen languages were spoken in the Austrian Empire, so if they are added the total number of languages spoken even exceeds twelve.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I always had an impression that "twelve" here just means "a lot of" and expresses the feelings of average peasant people many of which had never encountered any foreigners before. Vs1969 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Aborted edit under Historical assessment

I traced down an aborted edit by User:Blaue Max (notified). This edit adds a image and an unfinished paragraph of text ending in a colon.

The forces immediately facing Napoleon consisted of three armies comprising 175,250 Russians and 15,000 Cossacks, with 938 guns as follows:

This edit should be finished or removed, and perhaps the worth of the added image should be evaluated. — MaxEnt 23:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi!
I just moved an already existing picture and its text from one paragraph to an other. I'm not the author of the aformentioned sentence which has been erased since.Blaue Max (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

two maps of War of 1812 will be removed

Soon remove two maps of War of 1812. If anyone should be available for download to your computer.--Vladlen666 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

And exactly why are you removing these maps?Tirronan (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
They have been nominated for deletion on Commons.Nigel Ish (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Causes

In my view, the section on the causes of the invasion is in-extensive and does not clearly outline the major reasons for this particular conflict. Aardwolf A380 (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Semolino

Great Patriotic War as Alternate Name for Hitler's Invasion

Not to be pedantic, but would not the *response* of the Russian people to the fascist invasion be what is meant by the term Great Patriotic War? And perhaps that is too narrow -- the general fight to defeat the nazis and their allies is what is called The Great Patriotic War, no?--Jrm2007 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree - this struck me too! 83.251.170.27 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Historical Echoes - German Invasion: Many Errors in my opinion

Under 9.4.2, I think the first paragraph needs to be seriously rewritten. The parallels between Hitler's invasion and Napoleon's stated there are not really true. For example, although the Germans expected the war to end before the winter, nobody thought they would be fighting a two-front war if the campaign protracted. This is why Hitler made the Soviet Pact in 1939 - to knock out his Western front first, which he did in 1940 (a lesson he learned from WWI, not Napoleon necessarily), and then focused on the USSR in accordance with his "Lebensraum" ideas, as set out in his Mein Kampf (and held for a long time by Germans before him, as the German population's extent into the Baltic areas mentioned in this article shows).

There was no Western front (other than the fight with Britain which wasn't really considered a big threat). The U.S. wasn't at war with him at the time either. Hitler didn't really split his army to fight the USSR in 1941 - he moved about 3+ million troops, practically everything. And the last sentence of the first paragraph implies the Battle of Moscow started pushing the Germans back which, while it stopped them for the time being, wasn't the decisive clash that terminated the Germans' advance (this was the Battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943).

Perhaps it could be said that because of the German invasion in 1941, the war became a disastrous two-front war for Hitler (3 fronts with Italy + 250,000 troops in Norway), just as it had for Napoleon (without any German or French hindsight), contributing to both invaders' fall, although I think Napoleon's western front wasn't as actively pivotal other than draining troops and resources, so perhaps WWI is a better comparison.

Other than that it's a great article - very informative and well-written. What I've heard from a history class was that the date for Operation Barbarossa was picked to be similar to Napoleon's invasion because Hitler wanted to show he could do what a Frenchman couldn't, but it could be because it was the start of summer. Cornelius (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think people are often overly keen to draw parallels here, but it is worth remembering that the US was already providing significant aid to the Western Allies in 1941.
It's hard to say whether the German invasion stopped with the Battle of Moscow, with Stalingrad (or with Hitler's indecision before Stalingrad), or with Kursk. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Several source mention that on July 1942, at the Berghof, Hitler complained that
Just when our difficulties of the eastern winter campaign had reached their height, some imbecile pointed out that Napoleon, like ourselves, had started his Russian campaign on 22nd June. Thank God, I was able to counter that drivel with the authoritative statement of historians of repute that Napoleon's campaign did not, in fact, begin until 23rd June.
From Roberts, Andrew (6 August 2009). The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. Penguin Books Limited. p. obscured link. ISBN 978-0-14-193886-8.
However Andrew Roberts does make some interesting comparisons between the two campaigns, and the politics behind those who think that there are similarities and those who do not.
-- PBS (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on French invasion of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Victory?

Napoleon was able to invade russia, meaning that it was a french pyrrhic victory, or even a tactical one, though the russians could be considered the strategic victors. I made an edit previously explaining this, but someone reverted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesthe50th (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. We don't in general assess any kind of victory in a campaign by who managed to cross the border first. Was Barbarossa a "German victory"?
Pyrrhic victory makes even less sense, being a term applied to battles, not campaigns - as indeed does your actual edit describing it as a Russian tactical victory; how can a campaign be a tactical victory? Pinkbeast (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand now, and am sorry for the disturbanceCharlesthe50th, supporting monarchy to the ends of the earth. 18:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Historiography

So reading through the historiography section I noticed that major content has been removed, the historical context and its treatment through the ages have been removed. Multiple references have been removed for the single British historian. Now the fucking thing reads like a defense of the Russian Empire instead of a section on how historians treated the battle. Would someone care to explain this? Tirronan (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please ignore my comments above, apparently I can't read which article I am complaining about. sheesh. Tirronan (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Page move?

Where is the consensus discussion for this page move?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere, to quote the POTUS, the guy just moved it like a bitch.Ernio48 (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French invasion of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

How far east did the Tsar go?

Tsar Alexander I evacuated somewhere east of Moscow, while Kutuzov was encamped with the Russian army at Kaluga 150 kilometers southwest of Moscow.82.177.40.11 (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexander I did not need to hide in the east of Moscow, the capital of the Empire was in St. Petersburg and Napoleon's army could not enter it not having Moscow.АСмуров (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

German invasion

I have deleted the entire section on analogy to The German invasion. The section was an uncited, orginal research essay. Work permit (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Analogies are easily discoverable even not sophisticated in the policy readers. The problem is that these analogies are not considered by authoritative researchers or we are unaware of them. Meanwhile, Napoleon and Hitler did the same because of the situation in the south of Europe they probably simply did not have another solution. Of course this is only my opinion, but it is based on the comments of the literate military about the War of 1812 years and the comments of politicians and soldiers about the war of 1941-1945 years.

The difficult question is whether the situation in the South was self-important or was created to trigger the invasion.АСмуров (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The answer to this question in my opinion should be sought in the domestic policy of Russia and its results within the country.АСмуров (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits have tried to emulate the results box at Spanish Armada. This seems to make little sense. The text "Militarily indecisive" is properly cited for the Armada, with a cite describing it as strategically indecisive; the equivalent text here was "referenced" with a random quote which doesn't appear to be any kind of historian analysing the campaign in retrospect, and it is difficult to describe "the turning point in the Napoleonic Wars and the beginning of the end for the Emperor" as strategically indecisive.

The argument for describing it as a French defeat not a Russian victory, that the Russians didn't win in battle, seems equally spurious; I wasn't aware that victory only counts if it's achieved in the approved fashion. The French army was obliterated and its last remnants retreated, leaving the Russians in position to attack France and its vassals; if that's not a victory, what is? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly why is it that you two have to get into it on outcome boxes?Tirronan (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The outcome box said Decisive Russian Victory and I believe that it should stay that way.Tirronan (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
What about "militarily indecisive"? The addition of "French invasion failure" (which seems pointless if we say it's a decisive Russian victory...)? Pinkbeast (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I've done nothing to the outcome box since ZinedineZidane98 turned up so, er... Pinkbeast (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I think your three reverts were quite enough. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
He is allowed 3 reverts unless something has changed that I am unware of.Tirronan (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, saying "decisive Russian victory" obviously does not give an accurate summary of events - such a description is normally reserved for, well, decisive battlefield victories. Napoleon took Moscow, stayed there for a couple of months, then marched home... without losing a single battle. That's hardly a "decisive Russian victory". It certainly was a decisive failure on the part of Napoleon to conquer the Russian Empire, but that's not quite the same thing, is it? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Militarily, the war was a decisive Russian victory. That's because the Russians forced a war of attrition on the Grande Army. Napoleon tried to prevent the Russians from successfully implementing this strategy, but he failed. Meanwhile, the Russians achieved their strategically important goal of weakening the invader. That was especially evident at the Battle of Borodino, where the Russians forced the Grande Army to suffer enormous and irreplaceable losses. Later, during Napoleon's retreat, the Russian army pursued the strategy of destroying the Grande Army by harassing it at all points of its march, denying the French access to foraging areas, and by waging small scale battles against isolated French divisions and corps. The consequence is that the Russians annihilated the Grande Army. That's a decisive victory and nothing less.
Note also that the Grande Army did suffer a number of battlefield defeats in 1812. These defeats were incurred by Napoleon's subordinate commanders, such as Davout, Ney, Eugene, St. Cyr and Oudinot. Napoleon in person was never defeated in any battle in Russia, but that doesn't change the reality that much of the Grande Army was beaten on the field. See Digby Smith's excellent books about this war for more specific data.
Kenmore (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Probably best to let this one lie. The page reflects the outcome now. The fellow causing the ruckus for all his bragging alternates between bans and challenging bans. Enough said.Tirronan (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Alright, let's get this straight.Only a moron uses bullets when constant attacks on supplies will buy you the same thing at a much lower cost. Napoleon's army was under constant attack and the entire army was always rushing to stay ahead of the Russian forces. This was not a peaceful starvation stroll. At the Berezina the entire army was very close to being cut off and yes there was battle. So no I do not agree with you. I've nor did you consult with ANYONE before making this change... So either get a concensus or I will alert the Admins and let them do their thing. I am not going to put up with this kind of crap again.Tirronan (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ummm... I didn't make the initial change. And, why should I care if you don't agree with me? The facts are plain to see, the infobox interpretations/renditions however are not... as can be observed the the countless times it has been changed (only for Pinkbeast to click "undo"). You're not going to put up with this crap again are you? Oh dear, please no, not an angry anonymous username on Wikipedia being angry with me! Nooooooooo! (perhaps you don't recall, I was *eventually* proven to be correct the last time "this kind of crap" happened). Don't make me get all my sources out Tirronan! You'll just get embarrassed again! Grrrr! ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Kenmore 13:48, 30 March 2018 - "Napoleon in person was never defeated in any battle in Russia"

At the outset, I would like to see a reference to authoritative study evidence that Napoleon was in Russia and from Russia managed the troops! This kind of evidence in Russian I cannot find. We do not see in Russia celebrated a gifted Commander of Napoleon, the winner, but find enough serious literature story about meeting with Napoleon's double and possibly even the name of the Frenchman sent from the army for the similarities and imitation of the Commander.АСмуров (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2018 - "if that's not a victory, what is?"

Let us distinguish the victory in the battle of victory in war. Victory in battle-merit Commander, victory in war merit of politicians, because war is a continuation of the policy and the policy defines the strategy, not the other way around. We see that the ousted army of Napoleon from Russia the Russian army continued its westward movement, i.e. its policy objectives not yet achieved, hence the talk about winning the war prematurely. Thus it can only go on the completion of one of the periods of war. For whom, Russia or France, this period has been more successful? To answer this question without knowing the true reasons for the invasion of Napoleon's army in Russia cannot be, because it is probable that Napoleon carried out a pre-emptive strike and the price of delay would have been higher than the price losses on the way to Moscow and back. It is hard to imagine that Napoleon, who devoted all his life to war, did not understand the complexity of the campaign in Russia.АСмуров (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the outcome, it's hard to believe that Nap did understand the complexity of the campaign in Russia or the people he was dealing with (he made a similar blunder in Spain). In the case of Russia, he also seems to have been ignorant of elementary geography - distances, terrain, weather conditions etc. He invaded the country with an army of over 600,000 men and got back to France with a pitiful remnant. It was the worst defeat in terms of loss of life he ever suffered. The invasion was a tremendous fiasco for the French and a victory for the Russians. METRANGOLO1 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No maps!

This article could do with a general map of the whole campaign and some more detailed maps of the main parts of it. Minard's map is fine, but does not show the changing positions of the armies. The French version of this page is no better in this respect. Perhaps we could eliminate a few of the pictures and replace them with maps? I realise I may be asking for a great deal, but probably campaign maps exist in older books, no longer covered by copyright. I'll have a look next time I'm in a libraryMETRANGOLO1 (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to what you find. Here is another take on Minards map. But its not, as you say, a real campaign map that shows disposition of forces.---- Work permit (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits have removed this text from the article: As the graph of Charles Joseph Minard, given below, shows, the Grande Armée incurred the majority of its losses during the march to Moscow during the summer and autumn. Starvation, desertion, typhus and suicide would cost the French Army more men than all the battles of the Russian invasion combined.[1]

References

  1. ^ Typhus in Russia Archived August 20, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Montana University.

I don't see why. Both the graph and the given cite support the statement that the majority of French casualties were not in battle. Furthermore there are plenty of cites later in the article which could be used to further support it if that is felt to be necessary. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be put back in the article, I wrote and cited this after researching it.Tirronan (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The option of liberating the serfs

At the end of the "Historiography" section there's a brief paragraph about the possibility for N. of liberating the serfs to gain the upper hand. Now having entered Moscow, Napoleon was well aware of the option of issuing an edict liberating the serfs and trying to launch a general peasant/serf rebellion across the country. The Russian nobility knew of this option too. But Napoleon discarded it, even as a last resort move (it would have been hard to start a rebellion in the winter season anyway). At some point in his conversations with Las Cases on Saint Helena, he touches on this question and dismisses the idea: "I neither could nor would become a Jacquerie King". He loathed the idea of basing his rule on expanding revolutionary egalitarianism to slaves and serfs and the chaos he knew this could likely bring. 188.150.64.57 (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead section too long

For me, the lead section has the correct length now thanks to J-Man11 (talk · contribs). I suggest to delete {{lead too long}}. Ruedi33a (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep the place-names as they were at the time

You cannot change history, unless you're living in "1984" (or Putin's Russia). Is that what you're yearning for? Besides, be glad it was Vilna, Kovno, etc.: Napoleon didn't fight Lithuania, he fought the Russian Empire. Had it been different, the devastation would have been by far worse.

One cannot go around changing history, and remove terms used 1) at the time in discussion, and 1) by the cited authors. That's called Big Brother and looks like a mix between Stalin and Hitler - maybe not the Lithuanians' best friends, but what do I know?

It is more than legitimate and user-friendly to offer both the historical name at the time and the current name, with wikilink, even several times for all I care. But replacing everywhere any mention of the 1812 name present on all the maps used by the Grande Armée and by Kutuzov, as well as by the main source used here, Riehn, is stupid, not patriotic.

When you have a painting called "Le maréchal Ney à la redoute de Kowno" and you rename it "Ney at Kaunas", it's 1984 or Pyongyangistan, not just laughable, and has nothing to do with PC or anti-imperialism. Arminden (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossing the Russian border

The numbers mentioned in this section seem to come from Clausewitz, but is it really necessary to mention them? Other authors seem to have different ideas about the strength of the corps. It is clear and more helpful to mention what their destination was, Vitebsk, Minsk, or Smolensk where they gathered early August, etc. Taksen (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This article does not mention the number of volunteers (about 50,000) and the role of women (each battalion had at least 2-6) and sutlers. Taksen (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Which Pilona? The only Pilona I can find is Pilona, Poland (former Plohnen), some 200 km west of Kaunas, so no "Kovno/Pilona" possible. Arminden (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither the German, the Lithuanian nor the Russian Wikipedia mention Pilona. The Russian Wikipedia mention 67.000 soldiers crossed the Niemen south of Kovno, perhaps west? The problem comes apparently from this website [2] or this one.[3] Taksen (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Pilona is mentioned in Clausewitz:
"This mass crossed the Niemen at two points; 230,000 at Kowno, and 67,000 at Pilona, three miles above Kowno ..."
However, Clausewitz's account is at odds with the description of the crossing in Thiers' "Historical Works" vol.3 (p.723), which describes, in some detail, Napoleon's force crossing via three pontoon bridges at Poniemon, now Panemunė, Kaunas:
"General Haxo , after a careful reconnaissance had discovered , a league and a half above Kowno , towards a place named Poniemon ..."
Yorck von Wartenburg's "Napoleon as a General" is available here, identifying Pilona as the crossing point of a force under Eugène de Beauharnais. This article currently identifies "Piloy" (a red link) as the crossing point of Eugène. This gets less and less clear!
However, there is a Piliuona a short distance upstream of Kowno on the left bank of the river ...
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
So, in self-summary, it seems that Napoleon's main force crossed at Poniemon (Panemunė), while a smaller force under Eugène de Beauharnais crossed at Pilona (now Piliuona). I can't find a source that positively identifies Pilona as Piliuona though.
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Nice details, congratulations but it was the left-wing under Etienne Macdonald who crossed the Niemen at Tilsit and arrived in what is now the smallest city of Lithuania, Panemunė. Eugène hesitated two days to cross the Niemen at Pilona, perhaps after the cavalry under Emmanuel de Grouchy, marquis de Grouchy had crossed there.Taksen (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Piliuona is 30 km to the south of Napoleon's Hill where Napoleon, Davout and Ney probably crossed the river. (Map) (Some years ago I swam 2 km north, at the other side of the railway bridge. I wish I would have asked some people. What a pity.)Taksen (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The left wing under Macdonald crossed at Tilsit: that much is clear from Clausewitz. There appear to be two different places called Panemunė though. Thiers describes the setting up of three pontoon bridges at Poniemon near Kowno, which is Panemunė near Kaunas, not the other Panemunė a hundred miles downstream. The landscape described matches the topography of the area exactly. Clausewitz says "Napoleon ... crossed with his enormous masses by three bridges, but at one point," i.e. at Poniemon (Panemunė).
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
To further complicate matters, Thiers' account has Eugène crossing at Prenn (now Prienai) and advancing via Nowoi-Troki (perhaps Trakai) and Olkeniki (Valkininkai). Clausewitz says he crossed at Pilona, advancing via Novi-Trochi and Anuszyski. Yorck von Wartenburg has him crossing at Pilona and advancing to Kronyay. The confusion of languages, and ancient and modern names makes it very difficult to interpret these sources. My inclination is that Thiers is probably more trustworthy on these details, but I think it may take a little time and further reading to untangle the contradictions.
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Now, a first-hand account by Eugène Labaume of crossing the Niemen at "Pilony" in the presence of the Viceroy of Italy (i.e. Eugène). Albrecht Adam, it seems, was also present at Pilony. Here is a drone video of the Niemen at Piliuona, showing the lie of the land. The water level is presumably higher than in 1812, given the construction of the dam downstream, but the topography of the area is strikingly similar to the crossing point chosen by Napoleon, with higher land on the left bank commanding three sides of the bridgehead.
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
And Riehn has this to say:
"As if forgotten, Eugène had spent all this time standing in place at Pilony, on the left bank of the Niemen. He finally crossed near Prenn on June 30."
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
So, it seems that Labaume and Albrecht Adam are in good agreement that Eugène crossed at Pilony with his entire force, which means Prenn would appear to be an error. Labaume gives their onward route as "Krony" (Yorck von Wartenburg's "Kronyay", Kruonis today), "Zismori" (Ziezmariai), "Strasounoui" (Strosiunai), "Melangani" (Mijaugonys?), and "Ricontoui" (Rykantai), then a southerly diversion to "New-Troki" (Trakai), arriving there on 4 July. All this is in such good agreement with Albrecht Adam's account, and the other facts as they are known, that I'm firmly convinced Piliuona is "Pilona", "Piloy", "Pilony", "Piloni", etc. and Prenn is a red herring. Of course, this is all Original Research, and a good published source that confirms all the above would be a lovely thing to have.
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden:Does that answer your question? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

My non-expert opinion: this clarifies nothing, better to do away with the Piloni or whatever and leave just Kovno, or "Kovno area". I think now that Panemunė, Kaunas was meant, but if there's no source, it would be best to drop it, there's no significant gain anyway in knowing the exact location. Arminden (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, if one doesn't understand what happened search for location; it really helps.Taksen (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon's assessment of Russia and her army, political and military goals and objectives for the campaign

No military campaign begins without an assessment of the enemy, without current and subsequent goals and objectives for the troops. No prepared battle is without it. It is clear that it is labor-intensive to write about it for every battle, but at least for the beginning of the war it is necessary, because otherwise a complex and voluminous campaign turns into a logically unconnected description of the difficulties of marches, problems of feeding soldiers and horses, and individual battles.

Military experts have long noted that at the time of the invasion Napoleon had two war plans, but they did not take into account even the main possible options for the enemy, he did not have enough commanders necessary for the vastness of Russia, capable of independent decision-making and action, besides the opportunities of the era, the lack of telegraph and railroads, also denied him the chance to achieve a military defeat of Russia.

Few people know that in the south of Russia at the time there were hotbeds of plague, from August 1812 it began to run rampant in Odessa, and then reached Kiev and could not help but affect the course of the war.АСмуров (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Alexander, the 1812–1819 Ottoman plague epidemic wasn't a big problem until November. Then the French Army was already retreating from the Russian Empire. This article is about the French invasion, not about the Russian defence. It is too complicated to deal with both. You can add or check here: Order of battle of the French invasion of Russia.Taksen (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Campaign box

There is a discussion at Template talk:Campaignbox French invasion of Russia proposing a restructure of the campaign nav box. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Cold weather

The Memoirs of War Participant Prince N.B. Golitsyn contain important information about the date of occurrence of frosts, temperature, and the suddenness of their appearance.

"The battle of Vyazma took place on October 22nd in a beautiful warm weather with bright sunshine. We even regretted that such a favorable time would allow Napoleon to get away from Russian frosts. But on the night of that same day suddenly snow appears, a heavy snowstorm rises and all of a sudden, as if by some miracle, a frost of 18 degrees sets a hard winter, which, to the misfortune of the French army, did not cease after that".

It is quite clear that not only the Great, but the Russian army suffered from frosts, briefly noting the lack of warm clothing and hunger, he further reports the replacement of his troops with fresh ones, which I could not find confirmation of.АСмуров (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Map of the campaign

I've moved it to a more appropriatep lace, near the staart of the campaign. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Pilona and Prenn, Piliuona and Prienai, Pilony and Plensig.

I was about to suggest, jokingly, that while we now know that Eugène de Beauharnais cannot have crossed the Neman at Prenn, two reputable published sources say he did, so as good Wikipedians we should dutifully repeat that misinformation. @Taksen, you beat me to the punchline.

Riehn, presumably following Thiers, has Eugène crossing the Neman at Prenn, i.e. Prienai. Numerous other accounts, including a very detailed first-hand testimony from Labaume, and the published correspondence of Eugène and Napoleon, place the crossing point at "Pilony", which I've (tentatively) identified as Piliuona.

I'll fill out the precise references when I have more time, but my main sources are:

Correspondance de Napoléon Ier: 12 novembre 1811-30 juin 1812
Mémoires et correspondance politique et militaire du prince Eugène Volume 7
Eugène Labaume: A Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia

In summary, Napoleon writes to Berthier on 26 June, instructing him to have Eblé raise one of the pontoon bridges used in his initial crossing, and transport it by land to Piloni.

Berthier conveys these orders to Eugène, urging him to make haste to Piloni in order to cross on the night of the 27th - 28th, and to write to Napoleon at Jimoroui (Žiežmariai).

On the 28th, Berthier writes to Eugène from Wilna asking for news, and informing him that Eblé will raise the bridge as soon as the Army of Italy is across.

On the 29th, Labaume arrives at Pilony with the 4th corps and sees the pontoon bridge being constructed. Eugène writes to his wife Augusta that from his tent he can see the troops of the Army of Italy crossing the bridge into Russia.

Labaume and the entire Army of Italy cross the pontoon bridge at Pilony on the 30th and 1st. From Pilony they travel to Zismori (Jijmory, Jimoroui, today Žiežmariai) and then on to Melangani (Mijaugonys?) - a total distance of 9 leagues.

I think that's all pretty clear. There's certainly no reason to think that Eugène failed to cross at Pilony then moved south to Prenn.

The 29th of June was an extremely hot day; Eblé had to move one bridge and boats to Piloni with horses that probably dropped dead along the road; or did he come by boat? It looks like they crossed the river in small boats. Taksen (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The pontoon bridges were moved by land on their own carriages or trailers (fr:haquets). Napoleon gave the order on the morning of the 26th to raise one of the pontoon bridges from Kowno at noon and transport it on its haquets to Piloni on the 27th, expecting Eugène to arrive in Piloni that day (Order 18870 p 634). As we know from Labaume, Eugène reached Piloni on the 29th, and the crossing wasn't complete until the 1st.
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's a quick translation of Napoléon's order:
Cousin,
Give the order to General Eblé to begin at noon to raise one of the three pontoon bridges, to load it onto its trailers, and to dispatch it tomorrow morning, to be brought during the day of the 27th to the village of Piloni, where a bridge will be installed for the crossing of the Army of Italy. He will send with this bridge a senior officer of the bridge engineers who will take orders from the commanding officer of the artillery of the 4th corps concerning the installation of the bridge, which will take place as soon as the viceroy (i.e. Eugène) gives the order and is able to cross ...
Write to the viceroy to let him know that tomorrow morning a pontoon bridge will leave for Piloni; that he should send his marines and sappers to install said bridge, across which he will pass with the 4th and 6th corps and his cavalry. You will let him know that we occupy Jijmory (Žiežmariai) and are ten leagues from Vilna.
Napoléon.
PS Write to the viceroy that I strongly desire that his bridge be installed on the night of the 27th - 28th in order that he be in line during the day of the 28th.
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Великая_армия 2A00:1FA3:4200:78C0:1:1:3E76:4FA0 (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's another source that places the crossing at Pilony on the 29th and 30th, Pilony being "between Plensig and Kowno". Plensig must surely be Prenn.

Here's another:

Eugène's command, the 4th and 6th corps, crossed the Niemen at Pilony, a little above Kowno, one of the pontoon bridges from Kowno, where a permanent pile bridge was now being constructed, being used for the purpose, and was hence directed on Novi Troki, near Vilna.

Ségur also has Eugène crossing at Pilony: "L'armée d'Italie ne le traversa que le 29, devant Pilony."

There's still the problem that we lack a definitive source that positively identifies Pilony as modern Piliuona, but is there really any doubt?

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice sources! No doubt, Labaume mentions it took them two hours to walk to Kruonis, which is an 8 km distance. Taksen (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And finally, "Pilona", on a Polish map of 1932!
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Jean-de-Nivelle, hi and congrats! This Pilona is indeed next to a less steep section of the western river bank, at Dabinty on the opposite side one can also climb up the river bank more easily, the topographic map makes that clear, and if "a little above Kowno" means upstream (as opposed to further up north), which makes sense, then you have it. It's also a strategically smart place, as a downstream location would have meant the need for a second crossing, of that northern affluent, the Wilja. I would bet that Piloni or a variation thereof means something (in Polish? Lithuanian?), otherwise you wouldn't have so many; knowing the meaning might help understand the story of the place, for instance if it meant "ford" or "passage", but that's not this article's concern. I guess you want to bring up li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piliuona at least to a reasonable "stub" level :) Keep up the good work and have a happy year 2022! Arminden (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
In between, I made several additions to Napoleon's Hill. There was also a 4th bridge from Aleksotas to Kovno, but it seems that one wasn't used. Ney had to protect it until new orders?Taksen (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Napoleon's Order 18857 (23 Jun) p 625 specifies that a fourth pontoon bridge was to be kept in reserve on the heights behind Alexota, then deployed across the Niemen at Alexota after Kovno was taken. The crossing at Alexota being only 50 toises, a further pontoon bridge was then to be installed across the Viliya using the spare pontoons. Order 18876 of 30 Jun instructs Eblé to advance to Vilna with all the pontoon teams and equipment, beginning with that used by Eugène at Pilony, leaving a bridge built on piles across the Niemen at Kovno, and a raft bridge across the Viliya.
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Oudinot may have used the raft bridge. Do you think C.S. Forrester is a good source? He probably had a source. You did not add much, but if you think more details are necessary, let me know or add them yourself. Thanks for all your help, the section improved a lot; it has never been so clear to me since I started five years ago to study the invasion as one of my ancestors took part in it.Taksen (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to have made a small contribution. I quite enjoy the detective work involved, although I do feel it may be a little too close to Original Research for Wikipedia.
I wouldn't be comfortable with Forester as a source when there are so many factual sources available, but one thing the Prenn-Pilona question illustrates quite clearly is that even reputable sources can be mistaken, and details need to be cross-checked before being accepted as fact.
I read and think quite slowly and write still more so. This is a subject I know very little about: I don't have the time at present to do the necessary reading to expand my knowledge, so I don't feel well placed to make big contributions to the article. I do have a few small ideas, and I'll read through and clean up at some point, but there's urgent business to take care of over at Cary Grant!
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I would not worry about original research. The Lithuanian historian Gaidis started to write about Napoleon's Hill in 1984. In 2020 his article was translated and published again. Such sources were hardly available to the general public until the Internet appeared. You found the original sources in French, Gaidis didn't. I hope we can cooperate somewhere else.Taksen (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert

Srich32977, you are allowed to delete what is unreferenced. What you did looks arbitrary.Taksen (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC) I'm watching this clever lecture on YouTube: The Tsar Liberates Europe? Russia against Napoleon, 1807-1814. It will take some time to find the references in Lieven's book.Taksen (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Epidemic typhus

@AustralopithecusSurfer: The epidemic typhus caused by body lice was one of the main reasons for this sentence in the lead: "Napoleon lost half of the men because of the extreme weather conditions, disease and hunger". It was not arbitrarily added but in sync with the caption within the infobox: "Napoleon's soldiers enter Russia and have to fight * "against body lice causing epidemic typhus" * against heat, thirst and diphteria * against hunger and dysentery * against the Russian army at Smolensk * against Kutuzov at Borodino * against arsonists in Moscow * against the cold * against the Cossacks * against the freezing water of the Berezina. * Napoleon abandons his army * but Ney saves the remaining soldiers." My comment for the previous change was: " ‎As the old collage within the infobox showed the wrong interpretation that General Winter defeated Napoleon, the new collage shows the diseases, the heat and the cold". Now the multiple images template is out of sync. I suggest to take back your last change or find and add a better picture for epidemic typhus. The ugly louse might have killed 100.000 soldiers.Ruedi33a (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

New drawing added to get the template in sync. It shows the effect of epidemic typhus to French soldiers in 1813. Ruedi33a (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Collaborative Style Improvement

ChatGPT helped me a lot to make the article prettier to read. Sentences became more logical and understandable by moving parts around : "Acknowledging the collaborative effort, this article underwent refinement for style enhancement with the assistance of ChatGPT, focusing on improving the language and structure without introducing new information. The goal was to ensure clarity and conciseness while maintaining factual accuracy in line with Wikipedia's guidelines."Taksen (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree 100%. In the several changes I looked at, I couldn't find a single one that didn't make the article uglier to read. Here's just one example. The original sentence:
Napoleon and the Grande Armée were used to living off the land, which had worked well in the densely populated and agriculturally rich central Europe with its dense network of roads.
ChatGPT's revision:
Napoleon and the Grande Armée were accustomed to utilizing the method of living off the land, which proved successful in the densely populated and agriculturally prosperous regions of central Europe, characterized by a well-connected network of roads.
If by "clarity and conciseness" you mean "sounds like it was written by a clueless piece of software trying to imitate a constipated business executive trying to imitate a constipated lawyer," you succeeded. By all other measures, the prose of the article is significantly worse. Please revert it to the version written by actual human beings. 2604:3D09:A984:A600:9571:6338:EC9A:DC8C (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I was wondering why the lede was so peacocky. Sentences like The once-formidable Grande Armée disintegrated into a disordered multitude, leaving the Russians with no alternative but to witness the crumbling state of the invaders are thorougly unencyclopedic. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That very sentence is what led me here to see if anyone else noticed. "leaving the Russians with no alternative but to witness the crumbling state of the invaders" - totally nonsensical! 70.107.79.187 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I've cast it away but I haven't the energy to do much more for this article. Maybe slapping a Template:Tone at the top of the article will suffice for now, but I'm unsure how to proceed. Thoughts? Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I'm the same anonymous guy who started this topic. (Not trying to be a sock-puppet. Just too lazy to remember my Wikipedia account from 20 years ago.)
When I posted, I hoped that Taksen might realize his non-native intuitions about clear English prose were off-base and he might restore the much better writing of earlier editors. Well, that ain't gonna happen. It seems that Taksen has been banned from editing articles for violating WP:OWN and all-round disruptiveness. So he can't reverse his changes, even in the unlikely event he ever wanted to.
It's up to the rest of you how to proceed. Maybe the earlier editors whose writing got carpet-bombed will come back to recreate their years of work. Maybe someone will painstakingly go over the article sentence-by-sentence and replace each of Taksen's edits with its earlier, clearer version. That isn't going to be me.
I essentially ended up on this page by accident. I sometimes play Redactle, the game that gives you a random Wikipedia page with most of the words blanked out and you have to guess what the title is. The day Redactle gave me this page, I was running short of time because of an upcoming appointment and started cheating — googling for some of the short phrases that had been revealed. And Google was giving me nothing. Out of curiosity, after my appointment, I devoted a minute to finding out why Google hadn't been working. Then I devoted a few more minutes to figuring out why the (old) version of the article from Redactle was really easy to understand and the (current) version of the article looked like a dishonest student had replaced second other word with a badly chosen synonym and handed it in as his term paper.
TL;DR: I care a lot about clear writing. But my commitment to the topic of this specific article is close to zero.
I was actually pretty impressed with the writing in the earlier versions. The prose might not have been 100% perfect, but it was substantially better than in most Wikipedia articles.
You might be better off just reverting the whole thing to the way it was in October or November. Apparently, the editors of Rasputin (a previous victim of Taksen's attentions) ended up having to revert to the version from four years earlier. It's hard for me to imagine that the odds-and-ends of new information that have trickled into the article in the last half year would be more important than the serious damage to readability that Taksen has inflicted on it. But, like I said, I personally think clear writing is important and I'm kind of indifferent to Napoleon. If you're hanging out on this talk page, your priorities may well differ. Discuss amongst yourselves. 2604:3D09:A984:A600:8CD3:AE73:BCDC:A735 (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_invasion_of_Russia/Archive_2&oldid=1253531193"