Talk:Battle of Borodino/Archive 2

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimating Army Sizes
This section has citation requests, that will likely never be fulfilled and thus has NPOV issues. It also is confusing given the different numbers it lists, and does not add anything to the article. The size of armies in the battle box from Riehn is verified by the numbers given by Smith. Finally this sentence, "Still others (such as Richard Riehn) question Kutozov's judgement at deploying Russian troops." I don't understand at all, what does it mean? what other troops would Kutozov have deployed? I think the whole section needs to be cleaned up.-- Bryson { Talk } { Edits } 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced the old section with Opposing forces section, which simply gives the strength of forces present, and notes forces not committed to battle. -- Bryson { Talk } { Edits } 19:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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


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

I think we missed the point
Despite all the fussing about who won Borodino, and it was the French, and who lost the campaign, again it was the French, This article is about the Battle of Borodino which consists of exactly 1 long paragraph and is a seriously deficent article because of it. All this wasted time and energy while the article suffered for want of attention to its main focus, to bring into bright detail what happened when by whom. As for the outcome I'm for a French tactical victory, French stragtic defeat, its pretty incontestable. Now can we get to actually improving this article to something that we can be proud of? Tirronan 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing this victory as strategic defeat for the French is somewhat far fetched. They did take Moskow because of this battle. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would argue that taking Moscow with an intact Russian army was the greatest mistake Napoleon ever made. He had no way to force surrender and no way to stay in place.  The Russian army was able to sit across the southern line of retreat ensuring that the French had to recross the barren landscape they had already denuded of resources and therefore accepted the losses thereby.  Some 90,000 entered Moscow and few thousand crossed the Bersina alive. It really doesn't matter how you kill your enemy, starvation, cold, and disease, works as well as a musket ball. Tirronan (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, one could argue such a point. But to argue it, one has to disregard that Kutuzov's plan (protection of Moskow) failed. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok enough, I don't want to blog about borodino ok? I would like to make this a better article and this is irritating Tirronan (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Another joke of an article in Wikipedia
Has anyone looked at the casualty figures lately? If this article can't get the basic data right, what is the point in reading the rest? Is there any one who had ever suggested FRENCH LOOSING ONLY 6,600 TROOPS? Not even Napoleon I think. It seems I will have to get the Britannica subscription after all.--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6,600 is for killed only; however, the problem with casualties and wikipedia is that it's hard to agree which sources should be given the infobox, and which shouldn't. For battle of Borodino, the minimal possible casualties (ie. official French and Russian losses) are ~28 thousand for the French and ~45 thousand for the Russians (Don't have the book with me, so can't tell you more exact numbers). However, the infobox for some reason compares the minimal possible French losses to an estimate of Russian losses. Objectively, it should say "at least 28 thousand French" and "at least 45 thousand Russian"... Basically, don't trust wiki with casualties. And do get that Britannica subscription. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this, instead of BLOGGING on the talk page how about we just start expanding the article with verified facts and then perhaps we shall have less to complain about? Tirronan (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Upgrade of article
Re:"Napoleon had advanced from Vitebsk hoping to catch the Russian Army in the open were he could exterminate it." In actual fact he was hoping to catch the Russian Armies close to the border, and not "out in the open" (hard to hide 140,000 troops ;o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While that might have been the hope he certainly didn't chase the Russian army to the gates of Moscow by hanging out on the borders. If you have a suggestion on how you would like to see it let me know or better yet rewrite it with a verified source. Tirronan (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tirronan. I see you are a bit stressed, so I'm sorry if I added to that. Unfortunately I am up to my ears, and maybe over my head in Eastern Front (WW2), so just looking in on your work. I am happy you have decided to give this another go, but I was simply pointing out a well known fact that Napoleon's preparations and conduct of campaign plans called for trapping the Russian Western Armies at the borders (within 100km) and not chasing them to Moscow. This was not a 'hope'. Now, before you huff and puff at me, if you have taken the article on, and I have taken the time to provide additional information, can't you look in the sources you were going to use for the re-edit? I am after all trying to help. Look at anyone. Chandler, even Smith/von Pivka will do I think. I think even Wilson mentions it if you don't have French or Russian sources. In fact I think even the ancient Osprey booklet says this. --Mrg3105 (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Mrg, sorry if I seemed out of sorts, actually I was a bit ticked at the fellow in the section above blogging about how this is all crap and walking off contributing nothing. Sorry if you got the blow by there.  I agree the plan was to trap the Russian army near the border but I guess what I was trying to get to here was that in the scope of this article that ship had sailed months ago and Napoleon was still trying to get his decisive battle at the gates of Moscow.  Hard to tell when you have a writen forum here but I wasn't being snarky, far from it I really did mean to say that if you have a better idea then by all means please do put it down here or edit away.  I am far from the 2nd coming of Shakespear and all help is welcome. Tirronan (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking further about this perhaps something like this might work, Napoleon had been attempting to bring the Russian army to a battle of annilation since the opening of the campaign only to have the wide open Russians steps provide the Russian army all the room it would need to continue to evade entrapment. Kick it around a bit and let me know if you have something better but what I was trying to get to was the absolute need to destroy the Russian army by the French. Tirronan (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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


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


 * No worries Tirronan (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tirronan. Are you in Australia?

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

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

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

Casualties
Either citations are going to be provided for this section shortly or I am yanking all of it. Its very contraversial without a bit of support. Its ok to be out there with statements but you have to back them up. Tirronan (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no real way to verify casualties. Napoleon grossly underestimated the GA casualties, and over-estimated Russian as usual. Russians were not to be outdone though. The most difficult bit is determining how many were there. In the case of French many regiments under-reported losses due to marching so as not to look too bad, while for the Russians many small contingents joined the Armies during the march, but were largely unrecorded. Many volunteers also joined. The often quoted Smith/vonPivka (neither his real names) tends to favour the French.-- mrg3105mrg3105 04:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This was probably done in an earlier time when such things were allowed. I've replaced it since there isn't a single citation in support.  The thing that really bothered me was the claim to greatest casualties in a day without exact figures. Whoever it was quoted Historians but then didn't cite him, very strange. Anyway I am about done and feel free to do whatever you think needs to be done. Tirronan (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Some comparative figures - George Nafziger, claimed in his Napoleon's Invasion of Russia (Novato CA: Presidio Press, 1988, p. 254) that French casualties were 30,000 and the Russians 43,924 dead, wounded, and missing (which came from Russian official records). Christopher Duffy in his Borodino and the War of 1812 gave the Russian historian Garnich's low figure of 38,500 and the later Soviet estimate of 44,000 Russian dead, wounded, and missing. Duffy quoted David Chandler's estimate of French casualties as not less than 30,000 (p. 138). In his Borodino/The Moskova: The Battle of the Redoubts (Paris: Histoire et Collections, 2000, p. 116), F.G. Hourtoulle (who may be considered partisan in his appreciation), gave French figures as 4-6,000 dead and 20,000 wounded. The author does, however, provide several enlightening pages of casualty figures for individual French units and details on how those figures were reported. RM Gillespie (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Riehn Gives them at 28,000 French and when the stragglers returned 44,000 Russian, so there is not a lot of delta there. Wounded/Killed makes little difference in this campaign where a wound was a death sentence regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirronan (talk • contribs) 16:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Any better sources? Let's see, the above include the world's preeminent Napoleonic historian, three of the best (and most detailed) modern historians, One of Russia's best and a Soviet historical consensus. Can you list a source to uphold your claim? 4.252.40.6 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I am in agreement, unless you can bring citable/reputable referrencing disputation to the fact you are just shouting opinion here and that I am in a agreement that 28k to 30k french total kia/wia and 44,000 russian kia/wia is where it has to stand. I appologise about not signing my work before and please always do so. Tirronan (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

French ~27,000-35,000 dead, wounded and captured[3] [4](inc. 47 generals, 480 officers)

Russian 39,000-45,000 dead, wounded and captured[5][6] (inc. 23 generals, 211 officers)

French - more then 2x generals and officers.... If you know, how much officers was in Napoleon's army, you can find real Napoleon's army casualities... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.112.70.84 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Order of battle Russian army
This link "Order of Battle of the Imperial Russian Armies: Battle of Borodino, September 7th, 1812" may prove useful (I came across it while looking for details on the various spellings of Dmitry Dokhturov). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Irritating to say the least
You know last time I checked replacing citable book sources to Russian websites for citation is a pretty poor editorial choice. Again we seem to have IP addresses feeling free to make any changes whatsoever. This was followed by another editor telling me that it was so obvious that he didn't have to make a citation.

Frankly I am tempted to simply revert back 6 months, at least that version had citations, a website is not a preferred option over a historians book.

I'll be taking a long look at this tomorrow. Cite to a reputable source or out it goes... Tirronan (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So you want me to provide a source that states that the battle of Borodino took place on Russian soil? What in god's name are you talking about?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Moshe, that isn't directed at you... check the revisions apparently someone out of Moscow decided to change out citations to a Russian website that better confromed to his views.

Copy of the peer review
so that we can all improve this article...Tirronan (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino
I've listed this article for peer review because… In it's time frame, the Battle of Borodino and the French Invasion of Russia probably rank up there with the Battle of Waterloo in importance. Despite more than a few requests, I've had very little interest in getting help with the article and I will confess that it is one of the harder battle histories to work on since so much disinformation and distorted history has been wrapped around this particular battle. I've been working pretty hard to bring this article up from the two fat paragraphs that it once was (two editors were fighting so hard it scared everyone including me off the page) and I have brought it up to class B. I'd like to see where I am at and where I need to work on this more to bring it up to GA or A.Tirronan (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tirronan (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting account of a famous battle. I'm quite familiar with Tolstoy's account of it, but otherwise I have no outside information. I'm able to comment on matters of prose and style, and I have reservations about the heavy reliance on just two sources, Riehn and Mikaberidze. I haven't read them, but I would be careful about being swayed overmuch by any particular author or extremely small set of authors. More research and less deference to those two would probably improve the article.

Heads and subheads
 * Wikipedia generally uses telegraphic heads. Instead of "The Battle of Shevardino Redoubt", "Battle of Shevardino Redoubt" would be preferred. Likewise "Position" instead of "The position".

Lead
 * When the article is more-or-less complete, I'd suggest re-writing the lead to be a true summary. It's now a kind of introduction but does not mention Shevardino Redoubt, Bagration's flèches, Raevsky redoubt, or the historiography, for example. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of the central ideas of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.


 * In some places in the lead, "Russian Army" appears with "Army" capped, while it other places the phrase appears as "Russian army". Probably "Russian Army" is better, but you should be consistent in any case.


 * "Russian losses, while heavier, could be replaced due to Russia's large population, since Napoleon's campaign took place on Russian soil." - Maybe just delete "since Napoleon's campaign took place on Russian soil" since this is already clear from context?


 * "instead of the forced pursuit that had marked other campaigns that he had conducted in the past" - Tighten to "instead of the forced pursuit that had marked his past campaigns"?


 * "The entirety of the Guard" - Should "Guard" be linked to Imperial Guard (Napoleon I)?


 * "By withdrawing, the Russian army preserved its combat strength, eventually allowing them to force Napoleon out of the country." - "Army" is singular. In this sentence, you correctly talk about "its" strength, but "them" should be "it" in the next phrase; i.e., "eventually allowing it to force".

Napoleon's invasion of Russia
 * The first paragraph of this section lacks a source. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph, as well as sources for any sets of statistics, direct quotes, or extraordinary or controversial claims. Ditto for unsourced paragraphs later in the article.


 * "Emperor Alexander I proclaimed a Patriotic War in response." - Why is Patriotic War in italics?


 * "as it was 925 km" - The primary units are usually spelled out; i.e., 925 kilometers.


 * "The central French force, under Napoleon's direct command, had crossed the Niemen with 286,000 men; however, by the time of the battle, it numbered 161,475 (most had died of starvation and disease)." - I'm sure you mean "most of those who died" rather than "most of the army" or "most of the 161,475". Better re-cast to make this utterly clear.


 * "Kutuzov established his defensive line in an eminently defensible area near the village of Borodino, the best defensive position until the Russians reached Moscow." - Three reps of "defensive" is too many for one sentence. Suggestion: "Kutuzov established his line near the village of Borodino, the best remaining defensive position west of Moscow."

The Battle of Shevardino Redoubt
 * "Historian Buturlin" - It's customary to give the full name on first use and then "Buturlin" by itself is fine on subsequent uses. Ditto for many other names in the article.


 * "Historian Buturlin reports that it was used as a observation point to determine the course of advance by the French forces." - Doesn't this need a citation to a work by Buturlin? If the source for this claim is Mikaberidze, then the sentence should say something like "According to historian Alexander Mikaberidze, (first name) Buturlin reports... ". Ditto for "Witner & Ratch" or any other sources, such as Yermolov, being cited indirectly; to say that Jones said something is not the same as saying that Smith said that Jones said something. It's much better to quote Jones directly.


 * "thus the Battle of Shevardion" - Typo.


 * "supported by Compan's Division" - Who is Compan? Should this be "Compans' "? First name? Title?


 * The final paragraph of this section needs a source or sources.

Opposing forces
 * "Stung by the defeats of Austerlitz, Eylau, and Friedland, reforms had been enacted by the Russians... " - Should the three battles be wikilinked? Also, the reforms were not stung. Suggestion: "Stung by the defeats of Austerlitz, Eylau, and Friedland, the Russians had enacted reforms... ".


 * "Starting in 1802 the Russian Regiment consisted of three Battalions with each Battalion having four Companies." - Lowercase generic nouns; i.e., "Starting in 1802, a Russian regiment consisted of three battalions, each made up of four companies."

''Estimates by historians"
 * Perhaps "Troop-strength estimates" would be a better head.


 * "Butrulin"- Misspelling?


 * First names for historians?


 * Perhaps citation 33 should be placed right after the subhead to make it instantly clear that the numbers all come from Mikaberidze.

Battle of Borodino


 * The Manual of Style advises against repeating the main words of the article title in the heads and subheads. This head repeats the article title exactly. Better would be "Central conflict" or something else that avoids repeating the title.


 * The Manual of Style advises against fancy quotes. Use blockquotes for quotations of four lines or more. MOS:QUOTE has details.


 * The first paragraph of this section has a source, but it appears at the end of the first sentence. What is the source for the rest of the material in the paragraph? For example, who says there were 19 12-pounder cannons?


 * "Toll and others would make attempts to cover up their mistakes in this deployment and later attempts by historians would compound the issue." - Who is Toll? I know you don't mean that the historians were in the fight, but the sentence seems to suggest that on a first reading. Maybe something like "Later, some historians would make excuses for the Russian errors" or whatever is the case.


 * "Indeed again Clausewitz complained about Toll's depositions being so narrow and deep that needless losses were incurred from artillery fire" - Mixing the time of the battle and the time of the criticism in the same paragraph is tricky. Readers will not necessarily know that Clausewitz was writing about the battle after the fact rather than participating in it unless you make this quite clear in the text. One way to handle this might be to relegate the historian's arguments to notes at the end of the article or to move them to the "Historiography" section.

Utiza
 * "The 3rd area of operations was around the village of Utiza. Poniatowski and the Polish contingent contested for the village of Utiza effecting its capture with his 1st attempt." - Generally, numbers from one to nine are spelled out; i.e., "third" and "first".

End of the battle
 * "Those compact squares made wonderful artillery targets and the heroism of the Russian Guard was all too evident that day." - In some places, the text of the article seems to parallel its source too closely. I say this without being able to see the source text, but "wonderful artillery targets" and "heroism of the Russian Guard was all too evident" are POV expressions that historians or other analysts might use but that an encyclopedia editor should avoid. In fact, this whole subsection, which passes judgment on both the French and Russian generals, depends on only two sources. Those judgments might be skewed or controversial. For example, does everyone agree with Riehn that "Only the misplacement of Russian forces by Kutuzov over both Bagration's and Barclay's protest prevented the ruin of the French army that day"?

Progression of the historiography
 * "As with all things in this battle, the end of the battle changed with both time and the succession of historians that came with the political scenario surrounding them." - "As with all things in this battle" seems hyperbolic and improbable.


 * "It should be noted that Kutuzov's abilities on the battlefield... ". - Who says it should be noted? That's the language of an academic paper but not an encyclopedia article. It would be better to make the claim directly and to supply the source of the claim.

Legacy
 * The battle was famously described by Count Leo Tolstoy in his novel War and Peace as "a continuous slaughter which could be of no avail either to the French or the Russians". - This direct quote needs an in-line citation to the source, including edition and page number.


 * The second paragraph needs a source or sources.

Historiography
 * This whole subsection relies solely on one source, and that alone makes it suspect. A statement such as "Few events have suffered a more tortured history than that of the Battle of Borodino" sound more like poetic and academic hyperbole than indisputable fact. An improved section on the historiography would include the views of others as well as Mikaberidze.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I wanted to take a moment and thank you for the help. This hasn't been an easy article to write, nor as you have noted, are my sources all that wide, nor all that available.  To make matters worse, this battle actual facts have been treated with cavalier hand more often than not.  I'll see if I can get another book but its been a rare find at best to get a book on the battle itself.  While my sources may not expand in the near future, the rest of this can be attended to.Tirronan (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources and verification
Aftermath and legacy
 * I had to remove Andrew Roberts, who was quoted as stating that Borodino was a Pyrrhic victory for the French (first sentence of the section). Roberts does not make such a statement at all; he simply recounts that Wellington thought Borodino had been a Pyrrhic victory. In case there is any doubt about this, I will give the full quote, page 254: "As a result, Wellington believed, Borodino had only been a Pyrrhic victory, despite its having left the road to Moscow open to Napoleon."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.demian (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to revert that. The article states
 * "While Napoleon won the battle of Borodino, some scholars and contemporaries described Borodino as a Pyrrhic victory."
 * The statement that some contemporaries described that victory as "Pyrrhic" needs a source. This source is Roberts. In other words, by including Roberts I didn't mean that he described the battle as Pyrrhic, but that he noted that some contemporaries described it as such. What I did, I just cited a reliable secondary source instead of quoting a primary one. I see neither mistake nor inaccuracy here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul, given that this topic has been the topic of such a heated debate here, I strongly advise that there should be a clear distinction between what scholars and contemporaries say, each with their sources clearly stated. By amalgamating modern scholars and contemporaries, the article gives the wrong impression. I, for one, must have read 8-10 accounts of the battle by different reputable authors and I have never come across a single scholar who stated that it was a "Pyrrhic victory", which leads to the conclusion that such a view is not shared by many in the mainstream. If you wish to keep this statement in the article, and I know that you do, I will not object to it, as long as you keep things clear and distinguish between scholars and contemporaries.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The current article's version does not claim the view of the victory as Pyrrhic is a mainstream. It just states, literally, that some scholars and contemporaries charecterise it as such. Even if it is a minority views (although the fact that many scholars do not use this word explicitly does not mean that the battle does not fit a Pyrrhic victory definition: a fruiteless victory with devastating cost to the victor), these views should be included in the article unless they are not fringe. Do you imply this is a fringe POV?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that contemporaries' views and scholars' must be referenced distinctly. Otherwise, readers might get the wrong impression. Are you okay with separating contemporaries and scholars view and referencing them separately? Secondly, I will not re-enter the Pyrrhic victory debate, but I will rather add a couple of phrases myself about what my sources think about that.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm attempting to get this article ready for a GA review, as such it will come under a lot of inspection. I would ask that we take what steps we can to make sure that the citations are as accurate as possible and that they are not the "drive by" type.  Wellington's comments were just that comments not an attempt at analysis, also that the books quoted not be of a general review type but rather focused on the content, not a general book about battles, it weakens the argument.  Now would you both mind helping me with this article, the peer review outlines quite a bit and I can use the hand?Tirronan (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will have a look at some of the reputable French and Russian sources I have. This article is very good work and it deserves recognition.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul, Mikaberidze supports your view, I'd suggest that you check out Clausewitz and see what he says, in the world of Military History he is the 900 lbs Gorilla and he was actually there. He'd carry a lot of weight.Tirronan (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept the logic behind "French strategic loss." The Russian strategic objectives were to contest the French march upon Moscow, which (incorrectly, as it turned out) was expected to decide the outcome of the war. The French strategic objectives were to seize Moscow and impose peace on the Czar. While everyone knows this goal was not ultimately realized, we must still concede that in terms of what was actually at stake at the time, Borodino appears to be a French strategic success. If the Russians had won the day at Borodino, forcing Napoleon into a headlong retreat, would we be so eager to add "Russian strategic loss" in the Infobox? Or, if the French and Russians had fought a thousand skirmishes, with the Russians retreating precipitously each time, would we concede "strategic victories" to the Russians each and every time, for "preserving their army?"

Also, the "Pyrrhic victory" section could probably do with some more context. I suspect the point some scholars are making is that paradoxically, or "as it turned out," the French victory could be likened to a Pyrrhic victory given the structural deficits of the French invasion, etc., and all that later occurred. But in the military-theoretical use of the term, with respect to the Borodino&mdash;Moscow campaign itself, the victory would have been Pyrrhic only if Napoleon had sustained such losses as to prevent any further advance upon Moscow. Obviously this was not the case&mdash;the fact that seizing the city was ultimately not in Bonaparte's best interest is immaterial to the designation. If we push this logic of analyzing military campaigns in light of future outcomes and shifts in fortune, then the Invasion of Poland was a severe German defeat. I fear this will require quite a thorough rethinking of our existing MILHIST corpus. Albrecht (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I put that in not Paul. I am not wedded to the idea but lets throw a few idea's around.  In my context of understanding Pyrrhic would mean that it cost the winner his goal and it didn't all fine and good but... winning Borodino allowed Nappy to go sit in Moscow giving the Russian Army time to rebuild and strangle his supply line.  The one thing that no one can deign here is that it was loss of logistics that cost the French Army so dearly and his waiting for victory means that a Russian Army was now large enough to fight him off at Kaluga and force him right back down the Smolensk road through the denuded country side and it was game over.  Winning that battle cost him more troops than losing that battle.  To my thoughts, this is not a Pyrrhic victory as much as a meaningless one, and by taking his army further in victory cost himself everything.Tirronan (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Outdent, and Albrecht, you are needed to help me finish this up also please... with the GA review.Tirronan (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a section about Napoleon's decision not to commit the Guard, which was actually a major decision, worth discussing in some detail. I have mixed "feelings" about the Pyrrhic victory statement. What bothers me is that it does not seem to translate the fact that the actual state of the Russian army in the couple of weeks following the battle was that of extreme precariousness and fragility, while the French looked more solid, with fewer losses. The Russian had lost 50 percent of their most combat-worthy troops and a lot of cadres, which were particularly hard to replace in the Russian army. The French had lost heavily (heavy cavalry losses were irreplaceable) but were more capable to replace lost cadres and officers. Had the French made different decisions following the battle (stay less in Moscow, vigrorosly pursuit the Russian etc.), the odds of the campaign might have been very different indeed, with Napoleon ready to get his forces in winter quarters and retake the field in spring. He might have been convinced to go for a "total war" by liberating Russian peasantry. Despite this, for the sake of objectiveness, I've added Sokolov, who states expressly that it was a Pyrrhic victory, but I think some more nuanced and well sourced analysis of this is needed. I will have a look at what Tulard has to say. Pigeard and D. Smith are worth consulting too (I'll try to do this next week) and I think Hourtoulle is a must (I don't have the book though). --Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was fragile for a month or more but... No French light cavalry was competitive with their Russian counterparts and now the horses were shot or dead. Now the by the time that Napoleon leaves Moscow the French Army it can't compete with the Russian Army anymore, Riehn was very clear on the subject that the French Army never really recovered during it's rest at Moscow but was constantly losing troops due the Clausewitz's "friction" with the Russian Army close by pressing and raiding.  Napoleon wasn't going anywhere but home unless he could secure his supply train and he never really could.Tirronan (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding work
Here's what I see as being the outstanding work to be done on this article:
 * Content:
 * Separate contemporaries' views and scholars' view on the outcome of the battle into distinct paragraphs to avoid confusion and amalgams. I can then add to the contemporaries' view bit Marshal Gouvion St Cyr's analysis of the battle, which I thought was pretty interesting.
 * Add a couple (Zamoyski, Tulard or Pigeard) of other views on the outcome of the battle and what it meant strategically, in order to broaden the reader's understanding of these aspects. I can do this some time next week.
 * Belligerents: the Confederation of the Rhine (with its sovereign states: Wurttemberg, Saxony, Westphalia) provided troops for the battle. They need to be added alongside the French Empire and the Duchy of Warsaw (which actually was a part of Saxony, so, is it ok for it to appear separately?)
 * Commanders: Why Poniatowski? His action was secondary. Why not Davout, Eugene, Murat or Ney? Ney's role seemed to have been essential in this battle.
 * Titles of commanders: As several authors have worked on the article, someone needs unify the titles of the commanders. E.g.: Eugène needs to be called Viceroy Eugene, instead of Prince Eugene, Eugene de Beauharnais. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.demian (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Look into details of the content: just now, I've corrected some errors. I suspect more remain.


 * Other issues:
 * Internal links: more of them are needed.
 * Layout: Do we need to have two sections talking about historiography? It looks a bit weird. I'd go for merging them in a way that would make sense. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up and moved the two history of history sections together and reworded a couple of places where needed.Tirronan (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review aftermath
Congratulations everyone. It seems I was a little late for the party.

Two points: -- PBS (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest a sentence somewhere in the invasion section or before that mentions that only about half the French army was French.
 * I in the "Aftermath and legacy" sections change "23,000 men crossed the Russian border alive" to a range unless that is a widely agreed figure and footnote the sentence.
 * I would like to comment on the "Result" section of the infobox. In my opinion, it is somewhat illogical. It states that the result was "French victory", however, it specifies that it was a French strategic loss. I do not see much logic in that, because the strategic loss implies that the victory was only tactical. Therefore, in my opinion it would be correct to write "tactical victory", or "indecisive victory", especially because many sources describe the result as "almost a draw". In addition, the claim that the battle was a French strategic loss is also hardly correct. Many sources note that the battle hadn't changed the strategic situation: the parties essentially returned to the status quo: both armies have been preserved and it has been demonstrated that neither party could destroy each other in a pitched battle. Therefore, I think that "French tactical victory. Withdrawal of Russian Army" would be more adequate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul, I don't want to deal with info boxes anymore, even I get to the point where I don't care, there is a lot of work to be done, so help me do it instead of this stupid waste of my time please. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a PhD doesn't have time to do more that endlessly write about info boxes in anything Russian.  Can't you contribute in a meaningful way for once?  Honestly?  I asked before and you talked about how you were oh so busy, but you had time to write pages about a info box, really?  Here is what I really and truly get upset about, this is what I started with [], do you want to know why something as historically important as this battle looked this bad?  Because a pair of users were arguing over the info box.  No one was willing to contribute because of the non stop arguments over the info box.  I and other users have worked pretty damn hard to get this article somewhere, help us, help me, a non Russian, bring this article to be the best.  No it isn't a pretty battle, no it doesn't really show anyone in their best light (except Barclay, he really did shine a bit) and yes its ugly in some ways, but you know its a very human story.  The Russian Army did all that a human could ask for and so much more, and it is here in this article.  There is real bravery, heroic action, on both sides, help me bring that out, don't trivialize a battle to make it politically correct in your view.  This article is much more than that, if you do truly care about things Russian, then help me make it the best, don't waste more of my time on a info box I am begging you.  I've changed it to tactical french victory and I never want to hear another fucking word about it as long as I live.Tirronan (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand that your reaction. Yes, you asked me to contribute, I checked the sources available for me and I found that I had not much to add to what you have already done. (Let me also point out that upon reading I had to partially reconsider my views on this battle.). I plan to look for other books, I have some concrete ideas, however, since the article is in a good shape even without my humble 2 cents I see no need to do that right now. Remember, WP has no deadline. However, the infobox looked illogical, and, taking into account that many readers start reading with an infoboxe and frequently limit themselves with an infobox and a lede, these two parts need more attention than other parts of the article. I personally couldn't understand why did you spend so much time and efforts to improve the article and missed quite illogical "French victory - French strategic loss" in the infobox: how a "victory" can cause "strategic loss"? Victory that causes strategic loss is a Pyrrhic victory, however, you disagree with such a characteristic of the Battle of Borodino (and I have to concede that most sources do not characterise it as Pyrrhic). In addition, I wouldn't say that the sources agree with that Rhenin's conclusion: for instance, Chandler characterise the battle as "barren". Therefore, it would be correct to write that the battle's result was a Napoleon's tactical victory, and to specify that it lead to a withdrawal of the Russian army.
 * In connection to that, I do not understand why do you accuse me in attempts to glorify Russians: I cannot say that replacement of "French victory" with "Tactical French victory" and simultaneous removal of "French strategic loss" glorifies Russians in greater extent than the previous version did.
 * I fixed the obvious technical mistake you made (you removed France from the belligerent list, I believe by accident). I also restored "Russian withdrawal", because it is an important outcome of the battle. I decided not to add the reference, because this statement is too obvious to be challenged, and, therefore, doesn't need a reference per policy. In addition, to many references in an infobox and a lede is not a good style.
 * Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take a moment an apologize for my outburst, it is just that I have worked very hard to bring this article up from a start class to a GA level and I consider it much more than an info box. That however does not excuse my outburst it was unprofessional. Part of what had me upset was what I perceive as trivializing a hard won victory. Regardless of what "side" you like, it was an impressive demonstration of arms to take a fortified position by main force, and that is no mean feat. Secondly, slapping tactical on the second largest battle of the Napoleonic age seems like an insult to both sides of the battle. Thirdly, strategic Russian withdraw is nothing but a fancy wording for a Russian retreat. They didn't leave the battlefield because they thought that in the long term it would be better, thought it was, but they did not have a choice, the Russian army was a wreck, saying anything else is a lie to the public. Forcing me to change the outcome box by endless blogging has really gotten me rather upset, you see I don't care who won or lost, I'm sorry I just don't. I do care passionately about relaying the truth, regardless of how ugly. The problem about Borodino is one that I have not found an answer to, how do we capture the fact that this was a battle that has two separate outcomes, that the French won is final, they won and won by a substantial margin, however it was a victory in a campaign where the farther that the French forces got the worse it became. The reason Pyrrhic doesn't work for me is in one three day period the French lost 33,000 troops to logistics, 150,000 by the battle, mostly not a shot was fired in anger. To make matters worse, every single loss to the French was made up in less than a week and Russian losses in a month. There is historian support for Pyrrhic, it but it is in the minority. Regardless by how much the French won by, it was meaningless, every single week imposed more losses on the French thanks to Russian operations against the Smolensk road supply trains. Had there been no battle neither I, nor any historian I have every read, thinks anything would have changed. So as I see it the real argument is how do we capture meaningless victory? I am asking everyone to be a bit creative and lets us get out of the box and to a meaningful way to capture what we have so far failed to do.Tirronan (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like meaningless victory vs. meaningful withdrawal sounds good ;)
 * Seriously, I think it is not that much important how we call it: Pyrrhic, tactical or non-decisive French victory vs strategic Russian victory, strategic Russian withdrawal etc. That was an unusual battle, like the entire campaign was, and that should be reflected in the infobox. No matter how it is worded, but there should be a paradox. This is important to indicate, so that readers see it and try to find an answer to this paradox in the article. The true explanation of the battle and its consequences needs much detail, which the infobox can't provide anyway, it seems. Grey  Hood   Talk  01:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian name: "Бородинская битва" or "Бородинское сражение"?
The Russian GA version of this article is called Бородинское сражение, the commemorative coins called it Бородинское сражение, and "Бородинское сражение" gets almost three times more google hits than "Бородинская битва" in a general search, with about 30% more hits in scholar and book searches. Is it OK to change the Russian as stated here? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent! This section of history isn't all that popular in English so I have been a bit alone in working on it.  Since I don't speak a word of Russian that hasn't been easy.  Please do change it.Tirronan (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. I'm not a historian at all; I just chanced across the page and saw the picture of the coin with different words to the Russian. It's depressing if it's true that this kind of event isn't popular in English.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese source
Why is there a Vietnamese-language source supporting 13 separate statements in the article? It's not in the list of references and I can't find any discussion about it. Is it really an appropriate source in an English-language article about European history?

Peter Isotalo 19:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Battle result
I have changed the result summary in "Tactical stalemate, French strategic victory" (and backed it up with a peer-reviewed source). I hope this didn't offend anyone who worked hard on this article, so I'll informally summarize my reasons for doing so: in military terminology "tactical" does not refer to the importance of the operations, but the level. Tactics are about the movement of troops on the battlefield while strategics handle the movements of troop concentrations in the theatre of war. The strategic aim of the French army at that point was to reach Moscow with the army, while the Russian strategic aim was to hold back the French. Since the Russian army as a whole retreated and the French army could advance. This constitutes a strategical victory for the French, even if it weakened their army beyond recovery. Tactically, on the other hand, both maintained the same positions and suffered comparable losses. This can not constitute a tactical victory for either side, since the balance in troops and positions on the battlefield (i.e. not the movement of the armies afterwards) remained unchanged when combat ceased. [this all as a small explanation for the need to change it, see the cited references for the reasons] --Tervan (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the result has been the subject of weeks of debate last year. A consensus - IMHO, a flawed one - had been reached. Although I agree with you when you say that it was a French strategic victory, I've had to revert while the community discusses.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand. The talk paga was a bit chaotic and hard to keep track of before. However, Wikipedia does require third-party sources, so if the current consensus can not be supported with decent references, I see no reason to keep it. These two peer-reviewed works by a well-known historian and a USMC Lt.-Gen. both clearly label the outcome as a tactical stalemate (and go in a lenghty discussion about the strategic implications): If the current "outcome" is to be kept, it needs citations. --Tervan (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Strategic victory" means that the battle brought some long-term advantage for Napoleon. Can you provide any source that explain what these advantages were? AFAIK, French strategic situation hadn't improved (at best) as a result of the Battle of Borodino, so it is senseless to speak about any strategic victory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article you cited does not have any sources for this very ambiguous definition of "strategic victory", in military terminology it is plain wrong. One needs to bear in mind that this term can both be used for 1) the outcome of a specific campaign/war 2) the impact of a specific battle on the strategic plan. Since we're discussing the outcome of a battle, we have to use the second definition. A modern term for this would be "operational" (and "operational victory"), but as explained by Lt.-Gen. Schmidle in my first source above, this term is not applicable to Napoleon since he was both political and military head. Even Beskrovny and Tarle, who support the claim of a Russian strategic victory, do so not based on its difference on the outcome of the war, but based on the claim that it allowed Kutuzov to "seize the initiative". (while at it, I don't use those two as sources to justify a "Russian strategical victory" based on )
 * At this point in the war, all sources seem to agree that the strategic plan of Napoleon was directed to capturing Moscow, while Kutuzov's plan was to block the French army's movement to Moscow. In this respect, after the Battle of Borodino, Kutuzov retreated (failing his strategic aim to block Napoleon's road) and the French reached Moscow (which was their strategic aim).
 * Conclusion: in modern military terminology, this would be classified as an "operational French victory". However, in the early 19th century and especially in Napoleon's case, there was no distinction between the strategic and operational level. The strategic level though, encompasses both the immediate strategic aims (the "means") and the winning of the war (the "goal"). While this battle may have prevented Napoleon from winning the war, he did accomplish his immediate strategic aims. I have provided citations supporting my opinion, but have yet to see any sources for the current listed "battle result". --Tervan (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. However, taking into account that some authors, including Alexander Mikaberidze, characterise the outcome as Napoleon's Pyrrhic victory, I am wondering how "strategic" victory can be simultaneously a "Pyrrhic" one?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really unique. Operation Mars is another prime example of how a victory can successfully reach its strategic goals but still be bad for the outcome of the war. We have to keep in mind that we have 20/20 hindsight, but the commanders during the war set the strategic aims according to what they thought would lead to victory. Another example is the Invasion of Crete, which fulfilled a strategic need (control of the island for added control of the Mediterranean) but in effect caused damage to the war itself. --Tervan (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you really have no own sources? Regarding losses the infobox is only a copy of the russian Wikipedia. They Russians have lost only 211 officers? Who will think that this is true?--Caedmon12 (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

An unqualified description of the result as a "French victory" CANNOT stand in the infobox. This creates a contradiction between the infobox and the text of the article itself. The article clearly reads that the battle was NOT an unqualified French victory. The article also mentions scholarly interpretations of the battle as a Pyrrhic French victory. "Inconclusive," or "French Pyrrhic victory," is indeed what the logic of the article suggests. If, on the other hand, Mr. Demian wants to claim that Borodino was a conclusive French victory, he will have to rewrite the article itself, not only stand his vigil guarding the infobox.

Thus, if the community of authors does not wish to undermine the quality of this article and endanger its 'good article' status, the current infobox will have to be changed. Despite the earlier discussion here about the insignificance of infoboxes, clearly an infobox is important. This is what the reader's eye first encounters. Please keep up the quality of the article and oppose childish attempts to glorify one or the other side -- French, in this case.'''Brildanz1 (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WIA
Bagration wasn't killed in action. He got wounded and died by his wounds later in Moscow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:70:8E82:E201:508C:6E04:8BCF:4209 (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Result
Who decided that this battle had no outcome? Hóseás (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a ridiculous measure unique to the English version Wikipedia. The Russian version (which has Good Article status) refers to the battle as a "tactical French victory", while the French, German, and Spanish versions all call it a "French Pyrrhic victory". As does every history book you're ever likely to read. Just type "pyrrhic victory borodino" into Google and Google Books, and see for yourself. 109.188.124.120 (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth I probably wrote 70% of the article. People arguing over the result box is both a waste of effort and a reason I took a wiki break for years. The single most appropriate phrase I can come up with is meaningless victory. There are battles and entire wars that simply do not fit into one line boxes. See the War of 1812 for an example. Here the problem is that the French lose 35,000 over the two day course of the battle. The French were in possession of the battlefield at the end of the day. The Russian army left the field because it was a wreck. Had the Russian army been in better shape it would have remained and fought. All these facts are pretty indisputable. Here is where it gets tricky. Exactly how much did the battle effect the rest of the war? Everything the French lost in the course of the battle was compensated by the addition of another corps. Alright how did it effect the Russian side of the war? Well not much actually the Russian army was back to full strength within 90 days. The net result of this battle, horrific as it was, was nothing. For all intents and purposes all the losses were quickly replaced. As long as the French remained deep within Russia and the Russian army existed to harass the French supply line, French losses continued unabated. More French troops only resulted in less supplies and increased losses. Where is the result MEANINGLESS VICTORY? I dearly wish that the line was French Tactical Victory/Strategically meaningless. For the French side it was just one more source of losses when in the overall view they were on the wrong side of a logistics battle they were losing at more than a two to one ratio. But that really doesn't go in a results box either. Save your time and breath on results boxes and read the article it is right and the result box is wrong.Tirronan (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is irrelevant - it's the opinion of the authorities on the matter, which count. They all call it a Pyrrhic victory and/or a tactical victory. Indeed, it's often give as the example, par excellence, of a Pyrrhic victory. And "for what it's worth", I grew up and am sitting right now, about 2km from the site of the battle. We are all taught in school about this battle, as it is one of the most famous in Russian history. You can look it up in any number of history books online, in any language. You don't get to change history yourself. 109.188.124.120 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is usual to gain talkpage consensus for a contested change before making the changes instead of continuing to edit war. It cannot be a pyrrhic victory unless there is a large difference in casualties in the battle. The estimates given here overlap. Winning a battle only to lose the campaign does not make it a pyrrhic victory either. Apart from this it is wikiproject policy to leave the line blank where the outcome is in dispute.--Charles (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Read above. Your opinion is irrelevant. Sources are what counts. 109.188.124.120 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So if no one can present sources saying it was NOT a Pyrrhic victory and/or tactical victory, why are random wikipedia users (Charles and Alex) deleting the sourced, historical, factual, and common sense information? 109.188.127.132 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the Russian IP and the Hungarian. This battle was a classic case of a pyrrihic victory. An "example parfait", if you will ;-) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't. It would be a pyrrhic victory if French casualties were so high they had put an end to the French offensive, but it seems that the major factor there was the failure to destroy the Russian army - from that point of view, it is hard to argue it was even a victory, because Napoleon may have finished in possession of the field, but without achieving his real objective.


 * The tension here seems to be between the fact that many sources do use that expression (which they do) and the fact that that's not actually what "pyrrhic victory" means (which it doesn't). I think it's best as-is, frankly. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of Historians that conclude that this was a pyrrhic victory. I am not sure that I agree but I'd just love to leave the results box empty the article is where the answers lie.Tirronan (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Tactical victory, failed strategic objective" would be better than "pyrrhic victory", even. But I agree leaving it blank is best. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is quite analogous to another great example of a Pyrrhic victory, that of the first battle in history of which we have any reliable and detailed information concerning tactics and outcome: The Battle of Kadesh (Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Alexander Mikaberidze: The Battle of Borodino. Napoleon against Kurtusov. Pen and Sword, Barnsley 2007 (p. 203) and Михневич Н. Отечественная война 1812 г. // История русской армии 1812-1864 гг.. — Санкт-Петербург: Полигон, 2003. — С. 3 and numerous good sources from Google Books: https://www.google.com/search?q=pyrrhic+victory+borodino&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Взятие Москвы Наполеоном в 1812-м году. А также формально выигранное им Бородинское сражение, в котором он практически лишился кавалерии, которая теоретически могла бы защитить его линии снабжения от партизан. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.54.148.8 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems 3 : 2 in favor of "Pyrrhic victory". But it's ridiculous that I should be forced to state this - even if 100 Wikipedians said A, if all the sources say B, then the Wikpedians own personal opinions are irrelevant! OBVIOUSLY! ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * From Template:Infobox military conflict "result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."Tttom1 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

WIA
Bagration wasn't killed in action. He got wounded and died by his wounds later in Moscow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:70:8E82:E201:508C:6E04:8BCF:4209 (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Result
Who decided that this battle had no outcome? Hóseás (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a ridiculous measure unique to the English version Wikipedia. The Russian version (which has Good Article status) refers to the battle as a "tactical French victory", while the French, German, and Spanish versions all call it a "French Pyrrhic victory". As does every history book you're ever likely to read. Just type "pyrrhic victory borodino" into Google and Google Books, and see for yourself. 109.188.124.120 (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth I probably wrote 70% of the article. People arguing over the result box is both a waste of effort and a reason I took a wiki break for years. The single most appropriate phrase I can come up with is meaningless victory. There are battles and entire wars that simply do not fit into one line boxes. See the War of 1812 for an example. Here the problem is that the French lose 35,000 over the two day course of the battle. The French were in possession of the battlefield at the end of the day. The Russian army left the field because it was a wreck. Had the Russian army been in better shape it would have remained and fought. All these facts are pretty indisputable. Here is where it gets tricky. Exactly how much did the battle effect the rest of the war? Everything the French lost in the course of the battle was compensated by the addition of another corps. Alright how did it effect the Russian side of the war? Well not much actually the Russian army was back to full strength within 90 days. The net result of this battle, horrific as it was, was nothing. For all intents and purposes all the losses were quickly replaced. As long as the French remained deep within Russia and the Russian army existed to harass the French supply line, French losses continued unabated. More French troops only resulted in less supplies and increased losses. Where is the result MEANINGLESS VICTORY? I dearly wish that the line was French Tactical Victory/Strategically meaningless. For the French side it was just one more source of losses when in the overall view they were on the wrong side of a logistics battle they were losing at more than a two to one ratio. But that really doesn't go in a results box either. Save your time and breath on results boxes and read the article it is right and the result box is wrong.Tirronan (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is irrelevant - it's the opinion of the authorities on the matter, which count. They all call it a Pyrrhic victory and/or a tactical victory. Indeed, it's often give as the example, par excellence, of a Pyrrhic victory. And "for what it's worth", I grew up and am sitting right now, about 2km from the site of the battle. We are all taught in school about this battle, as it is one of the most famous in Russian history. You can look it up in any number of history books online, in any language. You don't get to change history yourself. 109.188.124.120 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is usual to gain talkpage consensus for a contested change before making the changes instead of continuing to edit war. It cannot be a pyrrhic victory unless there is a large difference in casualties in the battle. The estimates given here overlap. Winning a battle only to lose the campaign does not make it a pyrrhic victory either. Apart from this it is wikiproject policy to leave the line blank where the outcome is in dispute.--Charles (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Read above. Your opinion is irrelevant. Sources are what counts. 109.188.124.120 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So if no one can present sources saying it was NOT a Pyrrhic victory and/or tactical victory, why are random wikipedia users (Charles and Alex) deleting the sourced, historical, factual, and common sense information? 109.188.127.132 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the Russian IP and the Hungarian. This battle was a classic case of a pyrrihic victory. An "example parfait", if you will ;-) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't. It would be a pyrrhic victory if French casualties were so high they had put an end to the French offensive, but it seems that the major factor there was the failure to destroy the Russian army - from that point of view, it is hard to argue it was even a victory, because Napoleon may have finished in possession of the field, but without achieving his real objective.


 * The tension here seems to be between the fact that many sources do use that expression (which they do) and the fact that that's not actually what "pyrrhic victory" means (which it doesn't). I think it's best as-is, frankly. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of Historians that conclude that this was a pyrrhic victory. I am not sure that I agree but I'd just love to leave the results box empty the article is where the answers lie.Tirronan (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Tactical victory, failed strategic objective" would be better than "pyrrhic victory", even. But I agree leaving it blank is best. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is quite analogous to another great example of a Pyrrhic victory, that of the first battle in history of which we have any reliable and detailed information concerning tactics and outcome: The Battle of Kadesh (Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Alexander Mikaberidze: The Battle of Borodino. Napoleon against Kurtusov. Pen and Sword, Barnsley 2007 (p. 203) and Михневич Н. Отечественная война 1812 г. // История русской армии 1812-1864 гг.. — Санкт-Петербург: Полигон, 2003. — С. 3 and numerous good sources from Google Books: https://www.google.com/search?q=pyrrhic+victory+borodino&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Взятие Москвы Наполеоном в 1812-м году. А также формально выигранное им Бородинское сражение, в котором он практически лишился кавалерии, которая теоретически могла бы защитить его линии снабжения от партизан. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.54.148.8 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems 3 : 2 in favor of "Pyrrhic victory". But it's ridiculous that I should be forced to state this - even if 100 Wikipedians said A, if all the sources say B, then the Wikpedians own personal opinions are irrelevant! OBVIOUSLY! ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * From Template:Infobox military conflict "result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."Tttom1 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)