Talk:Battle of Borodino

Sarevo?
In the article, the statement "On 18 August Kutuzov arrived at Sarevo to greet the army" is referenced to a Vietnamese book. The book is referenced many times in the article, so I assume it's an important work on the subject. However, I cannot find a location named "Sarevo" anywhere near Borodino. There is one well to the east of Moscow, but Kutozov could not have greeted the army there before the battle. So here is the question: was there a mistranslation somewhere here (Russian-->Viet-->English), or is this just wrong? IF wrong, can we find the correct location? If not, the location should be removed. -Arch dude (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. A correct spelling of this village is Tsaryovo-Zaymishche (direct transliteration gives "Tsarevo", the first "T" was lost, which resulted in "Sarevo". In general, if this source contains such a mistake, it makes sense to replace it with something more reliable. I'll try to check it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we know that the Vietnamese book is reliable? I don't read Vietnamese, but it strikes me as odd that an article on the Battle of Borodino would rely so heavily on Vietnamese-language sources. Kate Riley2019 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

68,000 casualties not 68,000 dead
The header to this article prominently states 68,000 dead, a blatantly erroneous number, presumably written by someone who didn't understand the meaning of casualties in battle (killed, wounded, and missing). This error is even clearly contradicted by the both the Casualties section of the article and the sidebar numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.75.108 (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Troop strength and casualty figures
I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution and just list the range of proposed troop numbers (and casualties), since so many respected and eminent scholars appear to disagree. From Chandler, Duffy, Soltyk, Adams, Zamoyski, Lieven, Lejeune, and of course Caulaincourt - none appear to give the exact same figures.

I like the approach of Dwyer, who simply says: "By the time the largest army in the world had reached the banks of the Moskva after more than ten weeks of marching, it had been reduced to between 103,000 and 135,000 men (depending on the sources), perhaps fewer given the tendency of commanders to inflate the numbers under their command. The French were, in fact, outnumbered, at least on paper, facing around 155,000 Russians. However, around 30,000 of those were militia who took no part in the fighting; they were used to carry away the wounded (a task that front-line troops would normally perform, often not to return), as well as forming a cordon behind the lines that prevented deserters, including officers, from fleeing..." - Dwyer, P. (2013). Citizen Emperor: Napoleon in Power 1799-1815. Yale University Press. (p. 383)

So I would propose using Dwyers very cautious estimates: 103,000-135,000 vs 125,000-155,000

Likewise with casualties:

"When the Russians were finally able to clear the battlefield in 1813, they buried or burnt 67,000 bodies and 36,000 horse carcasses.129 It was the highest loss in any European engagement in a single day’s fighting since Hannibal’s defeat of the Romans at Cannae in 216 CB, and it was not to be surpassed until the battle of the Somme..." (p. 385)

"Russian losses were devastating: anywhere between 40,000 and 50,000 men killed and wounded, that is, a third of their forces. The casualties of the Grande Armée were fewer – about 30,000–35,000 men killed and wounded, or about 22 percent of their forces – but just as devastating, especially given the distance from their supply sources." (p. 385-6)

Although, Zamoyski writes: "Calculations of Russian casualties vary from 38,500 to 58,000, but most recent estimates put the figure at around 45,000, including twenty-nine generals, six of them killed, among them Bagration, who died of his leg wound, Tuchkov and Kutaisov. But if Kutuzov’s assertion that he would only be able to muster 45,000 for battle the next day is true, then the losses must have been much higher. French casualties came to 28,000, including forty-eight generals, eleven of whom died." - Zamoyski, A. (2004). Moscow 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March. HarperCollins Publishers. (p. 287-8).

Given that the speculation resulting from Kutuzov's remarks is only hearsay, we can safely put that aside. Although if I'm being consistent, I must insist on adding the lower figure of 28,000 to the range that Dwyer lists.

So I would propose for casualty numbers: 28,000-35,000 vs 40,000-50,000.

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Moscow a trap, really?
In the lede we've got

But elsewhere in the article we say (correctly I believe) that the Russians wanted to defend Moscow but couldn't. The ref is to Riehn 1990, p. 253. I don't who he is, but if he's an academic, academic historians are poor sources for non-hard-fact stuff sometimes, cos they have to put a novel spin on things -- that's what they do.Herostratus (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It is universally accepted by most professionals from renowned universities that the Battle of Borodino was a devastating pyrrhic victory for Napoleon and his Grande Armée as the conflict absolutely annihilated France's ability to wage any more wars and conqeusts, and later on, the ability to defend itself as a nation entirely. Thing is though, the Russian Empire had a superiority over Napoleon and his empire since they were able to replenish these losses without an issue; Napoleon could not. It is impossible to know the exact casualty count suffered for each side, as many of the casualties shown or talked about, including this Wikipedia article, are just speculations and are not verifiable. The reason for this being is that not only did the Battle of Borodino occur more than 200 years ago, but the battle itself was so brutal and catastrophic that a consensus of the death count simply could not be held. However, it is a well known fact amongst historians and professionals alike that both sides suffered enormous losses, and no side suffered more or less; that's a silly way of thinking.
 * Anyway, back to your question. Yes, Moscow was indeed used as a trap, as the Battle of Borodino completely devastated France and Napoleon's army. The Imperial Russian High Command knew very well as to what they had done to France and so they purposely lured the weakened and bludgeoned French forces into the city so that they could trap them and inflict even more horrendous casualties against the already semi-destroyed French army. It is estimated that more than 600,000 soldiers invaded the Russian Empire, with less than 100,000 surviving.
 * To be fair, you literally answered your own question. The academic historian you mentioned, who stated that the Imperial Russian Army wanted to defend Moscow, but couldn't, is indeed a poor source for "non-hard-fact stuff" (as you put it) since this is just his own speculation towards the conflict and it is not verifiable. However, Moscow being used as a trap is verifiable because it is a universally accepted fact. I hope I managed to help you and have a great day! СумиКозак (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is best to just discuss this first without the constant reverts. Mellk (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, back to your question. Yes, Moscow was indeed used as a trap, as the Battle of Borodino completely devastated France and Napoleon's army. The Imperial Russian High Command knew very well as to what they had done to France and so they purposely lured the weakened and bludgeoned French forces into the city so that they could trap them and inflict even more horrendous casualties against the already semi-destroyed French army. It is estimated that more than 600,000 soldiers invaded the Russian Empire, with less than 100,000 surviving.
 * To be fair, you literally answered your own question. The academic historian you mentioned, who stated that the Imperial Russian Army wanted to defend Moscow, but couldn't, is indeed a poor source for "non-hard-fact stuff" (as you put it) since this is just his own speculation towards the conflict and it is not verifiable. However, Moscow being used as a trap is verifiable because it is a universally accepted fact. I hope I managed to help you and have a great day! СумиКозак (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is best to just discuss this first without the constant reverts. Mellk (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you literally answered your own question. The academic historian you mentioned, who stated that the Imperial Russian Army wanted to defend Moscow, but couldn't, is indeed a poor source for "non-hard-fact stuff" (as you put it) since this is just his own speculation towards the conflict and it is not verifiable. However, Moscow being used as a trap is verifiable because it is a universally accepted fact. I hope I managed to help you and have a great day! СумиКозак (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is best to just discuss this first without the constant reverts. Mellk (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is best to just discuss this first without the constant reverts. Mellk (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox
The current stable version conforms to the template model at Template:Infobox military conflict, which directs readers to the Aftermath section.

The issue at stake here is not whether the "Edit is backed by extremely well known sources with an immense amount of credibility and reliability" which I don't for a moment doubt, but, rather, how to avoid cluttering up the infobox. There's plenty of room in the aftermath section to include every variation on a theme and that neat little "See Aftermath section" directs readers to it. Really simple solution. Technopat (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This is very fair and I completely agree with you, but my issue is that if I let others know that the result of the Battle of Borodino was inconclusive, they will not think that it is true since there will be no source(s) to back it up.
 * Not only did both sides suffer tremendous losses and failed to achieve any real goal, but the efforts committed by the Imperial Russian Army weakened the Grande Armée to such an extent that it made France militarily impuissant. Napoleon grinded so much meat just to capture the city that was purposely used to entrap and devastate his already annihilated army. That can hardly be considered a victory, no matter the view-point.
 * So in conclusion, whilst I am fully on board with resolving your issue, I also want to counter my issue as well. So whenever you have time, I would greatly appreciate if you were to come up with a good compromise to solve this issue entirely. Thanks! 209.202.201.250 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi again! Thanks for your reply. Just for the record, I actually agree with your analysis. The problem is how to adapt that to the function and limited scope of the infobox.


 * As you can read in the link to the template that I included above, the parameter for the result of a military conflict infobox


 * "... may use one of two standard terms: 'X victory' or 'Inconclusive'. The term used is for the 'immediate' outcome of the 'subject' conflict and should reflect what the sources say."


 * The key points there are "one of two standard terms" and "the 'immediate' outcome" of the specific conflict. It then goes on to refer to those "cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome":


 * "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as 'See the Aftermath section'). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the 'immediate' result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like 'decisive', 'marginal' or 'tactical', or contradictory statements like 'decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat'. Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."


 * So, the only viable solution I see is that of the current, stable version which directs readers to the Aftermath section. --Technopat (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's totally fair! Thank you for this and have a terrific day. Issue resolved. 209.202.201.250 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Great! I should, however, point out that this consensus has been reached with a quorum of two. Now that it's out here on the talk page, let's give it a while and see how other contributors view it... Regards, --Technopat (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)