Talk:Battle of Friedland

Bennigsen's folly in crossing the Alle
This is a well written, fluent narrative that provides the reader with most of the salient facts as they unfolded in time and space at Friedland. The foundation has been laid for an eventual top-rated article.

However, one thing that I would have liked to see included is a discussion of Bennigsen's incredible strategic error of sending his troops westward across the Alle -- into a horseshoe-shaped stretch of land -- with the French to the Russians' front and the river to their backs.

Of course, when the Russians came under intense artillery fire and needed to maneuver backwards to maintain their formations, they were hemmed-in by the river. As a result, the French had them trapped.

Bennigsen's decision to put his army in this position is regarded as one of the most reckless, ill-considered moves made by any major commander in the Napoleonic Wars.

I have not read very much about Friedland, so I still don't know why Bennigsen made this mistake. I do think though that Benngisen's lack of judgment was an important part of this battle.

Bennigsen was a bold, intrepid commander who never lost his nerve regardless of the stress he faced. He had the character of a great leader; he was a towering personality. These were valuable traits for a general in his era. But the man lacked the intellectual depth necessary to command large bodies of troops in the field against opponents such as the French.

Kenmore 11:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Fisher, Lynn, Fremont, Chandler ... and not a single Russian source ?

Vandalism in the infobox
Someone who wages an edit war and changes the numbers in the infobox every month should bring it to the talk page instead of adding misleading information to the page. What you have added to the 'Strength' section contradicts the sources and the article and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Friedland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217023938/http://gustave.club.fr/bataille_de_friedland.htm to http://gustave.club.fr/bataille_de_friedland.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
I have reverted this change, see WP:ONUS. Of the claimed references cited.

This website is questionable at best. It claims the French strength was 71,000 men, and the Russians 76,000 men. Howver, the author contradicts without explanation his own references which appear at the bottom of the article. French Order of Battle for Friedland: 14 June 1807 gives a French strength of 75,000-80,000, and a Russian strength of 46,000. Napoleon Guide: Battle of Friedland gives a French strength of 80,000 and a Russian strength of 60,000 (although apparently saying 40,000 men were actually involved). The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France: 1789-1815 by Robert Harvey gives a French strength of 80,000 and a Russian strength of 60,000. So as those are the only works he cites, it is extremely unclear why he ignores that and cites figures apparently from thin air. So the website can be ignored. And if anything, the references he cites support the consensus infobox totals of 80,000 French versus 46,000-60,000 Russians.

French Order of Battle at Friedland 14 June 1807 gives the following For a total of 77,381.
 * Right side as Total under Ney: 12,200 infantry, 4,100 cavalry & 25 guns
 * Centre as Total: 18,305 infantry, 2,696 cavalry, reserves as 4,658 infantry, 2,159 cavalry
 * Centre left as 12,542 infantry, 3,257 cavalry
 * Left as 3,185 cavalry (very important caveat, this is wrong. Looking at the units detailed they are
 * 1st Divison: Général de division Dupas (6,857 men)
 * 2nd Dutch Horse Battery (160 men)
 * Brigade: Général de brigade Kozinski (4,063)
 * Cavalry Brigade: Général de brigade Sokolnicki (703)
 * Artillery: Général de Baltus de Pouilly (813)
 * 2nd Dragoon Division: Général de division Grouchy (1,633)
 * 9th Hussar Regiment (3)(250)

Russian Order of Battle at Friedland l4 June l807 gives the following For a total of 55,000, obviously excluding the detached units.
 * Left as 17,000 infantry, 3,550 cavalry
 * Right as 13,200 infantry, 8,800 cavalry
 * Reserves as 11,400 infantry, 1,050 cavalry
 * Detached from army as 2,200 infantry, 7,600 cavalry

These PDF orders of battle clearly do not support the new infobox figures.

This leaves the remaining claimed reference, Pigeard, Alain - „Dictionnaire de la Grande Armée”, Tallandier, Bibliothèque Napoléonienne, which is not available to view on Google Books. Per the complaint at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, this editor misrepresented David Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon in this change. They have frequently misrepresented references on other articles, so I am unwilling to allow this claimed reference to stand unless verified by an editor in good standing.

Since the new references I can verify don't support the new figures (and serve only to reinforce that the original figures were correct), I have reverted the change. Consensus is needed for these new figures. FDW777 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As documented above. While Kennedy Hickman ought to be reliable on this occasion the figures he presents are completely at odds with the references he cites. Therefore his entire article has to be considered worthless as a reference. FDW777 (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Also with regard to Nafziger's order of battle. As explained, when the figures are added up correctely they are 77,381 for the French (possibly excluding a few artillery I didn't add up), and 55,000 for the Russians. These figures correspond with the 80,000 French and 46,000-60,000 Russians that the infobox already says. So that only leaves Pigeard, which I am not willing to allow to stand unless it's verified by an editor in good standing. Also see WP:REDFLAG if the figures from this book are significantly at odds with the rest of published figures. FDW777 (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Just in case anyone thinks my need for a reference to be verified by an editor in good standing is unreasonable. Here was added a claim that the French strength was 60,000, with a claimed reference of Chandler, D. The Campaigns of Napoleon. This is confirmed as a fraudulent reference here and here by two different editors, who both confirm Chander definitely says 80,000 (or "almost 80,000), not 60,000. Similar behaviour can be demonstrated on other Napoleonic articles. Under those circumstances, it's fully justifiable to insist on independent verification. FDW777 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

B class assessment withdrawn
C class. All material in the battle section currently has no citations. Hence, it no longer meets B class criteria. Djmaschek (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Dispute on troop numbers
Last month there was a dispute on this article over the number of soldiers involved in the battle. I have been asked by to provide input but I should emphasise that I have not taken any sides in this case. My current understanding of the arguments presented so far are: Is that an accurate reflection of the arguments so far and are there any other sources that need to be considered at this time? From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Other language versions of Wikipedia quote different figures, so we should change our figures here to match.
 * 2) *This is an invalid argument. Wikipedia can't be its own source and that extends to other language versions of Wikipedia. We can consider the same evidence that those other Wikipedias considered and we may reach the same conclusions as them, or we may have access to alternative evidence and reach a different conclusion. There is no requirement to have matching figures between language versions of Wikipedia.
 * 3) Chandler (I presume David G. Chandler) provides figures of 80,000 for the French and 60,000 for the Russians.
 * 4) *From my understanding, I think Nuevousuario1011 accepts this as a valid source. They have a view that other sources with different figures should also be considered but I have not seen any claim that the Chandler source is invalid. Is that correct?
 * 5) Alain Pigeard provides figures of 56,000-66,000 for the French and 84,000 for the Russians.
 * 6) *I can't see any arguments against this source except that it disagrees with other sources and has been unable to access it. Due to prior actions in this dispute, there is an issue of trust between the editors. While it is a valid concern, I think it best that we set that aside for the moment and try to find a resolution. As the key issue with this source is one of access, does anyone watching this talk page have access to the source? I will also ask this question at the Military History Wikiproject. If we are able to get an uninolved editor to verify the source, we sidestep the issue of trust.
 * 7) Major Robert E Everson gives estimated Russian numbers as 61,000-76,000.
 * 8) *I have not seen anything to dispute this source so far but it would be useful if we could get another editor to verify it. While the author has not produced many written works, this particular one on Lannes has had three editions between 1994 and 2014. That suggests there has been some level of editorial scrutiny on the work, as a minimum.
 * 9) **An editor at Military History has pointed me to a thesis copy of the 1994 edition at archive.org. The relevant section states, "The Russians were the opponents of the French at the battles of Pultusk and Friedland. The estimates of Russian strength at Pultusk range between 40,000 to 45,000 men. The estimates of the Russian soldiers at the battle of Friedland range from 61,000 to 76,000 men. The number that actually fought west of Friedland is thought to be nearer 50,000. It is known that of the seven Russian divisions present at Friedland, only six fought west of Friedland."
 * So we have two different figures; Russians who were present in the theatre at Friedland and Russians who were west of the river and participated in the battle. My understanding is that only the artillery east of the river participated in battle, probably because the other units lacked sufficient range. The approximately 50,000 Russians that participated in battle aligns with the current estimate in the article of 46,000 to 60,000. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Nafziger appears to give a split of figures within the order of battle, which need to be totaled to produce the relevant figures. The total comes to 77,381 for the French and 55,000 for the Russians.
 * 2) *I am a little concerned that these lists appear to be primary material and interpretation has had to be applied by Wikpedia editors to "correct" some of the information. I would have expected secondary sources to have analysed the primary source material over the last 200 years and to have reached conclusions of their own. We should be very careful about trying to apply interpretation to primary material.
 * 3) Kennedy Hickman gives figures of 71,000 for the French and 76,000 for the Russians.
 * 4) *FDW777 points out that the listed sources do not support either figure. No explanation is provided by the author for the discrepancy with his source material.


 * That would seem to be not unreasonable. There are a couple of points I'd like to clarify or expand on, but I'll not say too much more just yet. FDW777 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes the point overall is to consider other sources, we have an estimation of 50,000 Russians attacking 20,000 French at the begining of the battle, (in time the French and Russians would both reinforce their lines). On the West of Friedland is probably who no more than 60,000 Russians were engaged, however the presence of more than 20,000 troops in the battlefield area (not theater but directly in the battlefield area) should be acounted for, because, at the end of the day the battle was on both sides of the Alle River.
 * We also have to account for the very posible fact of less French troops being literally engaged, or even arriving after the end of the battle.
 * The problem who we may have (if we follow a single source) is who we are treating a highly dinamic manouver battle as a pitched battle. There could be a range of 46,000 Russians, (according to one of the sources being used) to 60,000 Russians like it is right now, but we must also consider the lowest estimations for the French (56,000) and the Highest estimation for the Russians (84,000). Bevause right now we have the highest estimation of French troops but the lowest, and limited estimations for the Russian armies.
 * The thing is we could use the sources and estimate a range, for example 46,000-84,000 Russians, 56,000-80,000 Frenchs (like in every article were there are different estimations.
 * Last but not less, is who of course i take authors as valid sources, so i wouldn't dispute Chandler, (despite his work being not "in depth" work about the battle especially, but rather a review on tens of battles of Napoleon). But the other authors should also be taken into account. (Besides we are not supossed to establish why the authors have different numbers, but (like with Chandler) asume their estimations). Pigeard for example is an expert like Chandler about the era. Also the other source is very "in depth" with the battle itself. (That is from printed books of course). Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that where you say we are reflecting a single source, I see above that we have 4 sources above all stating a figure for the Russians of at most 76,000 but Pigeard alone goes for over 80,000. Your logic of not following the views of a single source works against your argument there. As a second point, your statement of "we are not supossed to establish why the authors have different numbers" is incorrect. As shown above at point 4, we have established that the original number proposed for Everson was describing Russians on both sides of the river and that a lower figure of 50,000 was given for those who participated in battle. If we can't establish what the figure given by a source represents, it is meaningless to include it in this article.
 * The quality of the sourcing does need to be considered. A figure given by an amateur historian with no publication history will carry less weight than that given by an expert whose whole career has been devoted to a subject. However, even an expert source cannot be relied on if we are unclear on what a particular figure represents.
 * Is Pigeard claiming that the figures represent the forces on either side of the river at a particular time? That may account for the low French numbers and the high Russian ones as the French units that arrived later may not be included in the count. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Over the reply, "Russians are at most 76,000", Is important, yet that number is not included, we have a minium of 46,000 and a maxium of 60,000. That brings the following question: Why we didn't include it already in the range the 76,000 if there is enough evidence (more than the one who claim the almost imposible low of 46,000 Russians)?
 * The next issue is the authors, Yes maybe we should check them, but as it is common, the numbers over battles are problematic to establish, as the authors take them from a source who was also taken from a primary source, (And many times there are revisionism, like in the Ancient Battles, where many historians said x quanty was impossible so it was y quantity). I probably expressed it in a short and confusing way, but what i mean is, all the sources should be taken into account and the scrutiny must be similar. But at the end of the day we are not here to put foward one source over another (It was that what they told me when i did it), we only must be sure of having a credible source, and then include them in the balance.
 * So point A) should be put the Russian strenght at (46,000-76,000) if we use the sources given by you so far.
 * Point B) should be who 80,000 French is only the highest estimate, because even taking the sources before it is "Almost 80,000 or 77,000 French)so the number 80,000 while so far it is an aproximation we should not ignore other sources who pointed a similar but lower estimate.
 * We must also remember who the numbers during the battle changed in a dramatic way making it harder to give an especific number.
 * Also about Pigeard what he said is who the entire Russian army begun to concentrate on the eastern bank of the river Alle in order to strike a crushing blow to Lannes corp before significant reinforces could arrive. (The Russian army under Benningsen was at 90,000 before Helisberg), Up to 84,000 troops were on amassed on the vicinity of Friedland when the crossing started.
 * The French reinforcements alongside Lannes troops bring the number to 56,000 soldiers, enough to hold the front, by that time the Russian forces were disperced on the western bank or in the villiage of Friedland itself, the majority of the Artillery remained at the eastern shore (firing from their positions), finally the French recived other 10,000 reinforcements and begun to push the Russians back.
 * The Russians send their Guard fowards and a bloody fight took place.
 * At the end of the day the French were in control of both sides of the Alle river and the remaining Russian troops were in a caothic flight.
 * So point C) must be who even if we excluded Pigeard and other similar sources, we still have enough sources to claim who the Russians had more than 60,000 troops, and likely the French had less than 80,000. So the range must be modified to include those estimations.
 * Point D) Pigeard's source have enough to be a credible one.
 * In Any case the number as it stand currently must be modified.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The number as it stands needs to be clarified as to what it represents. We also need to determine whether each number used represents the same thing or if the sources are talking about different situations. Once we understand the numbers used by the sources, it is down to consensus to decide which numbers and explanation is used. In the narrative, we should give both the total forces in the field and also the smaller figure of the forces actually engaged in battle. There may also be different figures given throughout the day to represent the changing forces on each side. For the infobox, it is for the consensus of editors to agree which figure is used, though a footnote to explain what the figure represents would be wise.
 * I have obtained copies of a couple of additional sources, which may be useful to this discussion. The first is the Summerville, Christopher source named in the article. I have yet to read it, so will add later any relevant information. The second source is Francis Loraine Petre, Napoleon's Campaign in Poland, 1806–1807. Below, I have provided some key numbers presented by Petre.
 * 3 am. French have 12,000 (9,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry). Specific numbers not given for the Russians but several units are named.
 * 9 am. French have 17,000 (9,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry). The Russians had 46,000 on the west bank (six divisions of infantry "and most of the cavalry").
 * Between 9 am. and 10 am. French have 33,500 (23,000 infantry and 10,500 cavalry).
 * 10 am. French have 40,000. Russians have 46,000.
 * 12 pm. Napoleon arrives on the field. Numbers not provided.
 * Sometime between 12 pm and 3pm, Oudinot provides Napoleon with an estimate of Russian strength at 80,000. Note, Petre doesn't say this is the Russian strength, only that Oudinot reported the figure as 80,000.
 * 4 pm. Arrival of Victor's Corps and the French Guard; numbers not stated.
 * Petre then provides an overall summary of numbers in the battle and considers the various primary and secondary sources available to him. He states there is close agreement of sources for the French side and that the numbers are approximately 80,000 in total. He notes that there is some disagreement but concludes that the Russians had 46,000 on the west bank, 6,000 on the east bank and a final 6,000 as detachments to other locations (including Allenburg) giving a total of 58,000. While Petre is not cited in our article at the moment, these numbers align with what we have at the moment in the infobox. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for your answer and intrest, Petre source seems to be a good one, but no more than some claiming otherwise. In the first place I want to point some issues with the article itself, we can all agree who there are at last a cited source who estimate the number over 60,000 right? We also have some (valid sources) who estimates over 60,000 yet to be included, like Pigeard right? Well the sources “accepted” so far list up to 76,000 or 77,000 Russians on the battlefield, and here comes the question. Why, and despite having a range where we claim more than a number, (46,000 to 60,000) we didn’t yet updated the number to a range in wich 76,000 or 77,000 is included (it will be valid to change it to a range of 46,000 to 76-77,000 especially because those are the lowest and higher estimations so far, (thus the other numbers included 60,000 are inside the range), so first I would seriously ask to move the estimations to that range, based on wich we already know, because this it seems is not up to dispute anymore. Besides to agree on what a number is, well, The number must be the troops who were present at the field, (Friedland was not only in one bank of the Alle river, the army was engaged all across the line, and the reserves were moved to the western bank as the battle turned on the French side, in order to hold off Dupont and Ney’s attacks on the center-left of the line, including Friedland itself, on the other hand, the French probably could had have 80,000 (Highest estimation) but at the same time here is were we should ask the following question, Were all of those troops engaged? The truth is no, many troops, included the guard were not committed into the battle, and yet we count them, Why? Because they were present on the battlefield map, just like the Russians, those troops like the Russians interfered with each other intentions directly on the battle. So regardless of the French number, the Russian number seems to be similar to the French one, (it is true who maybe no more than 50,000 Russians engaged on the attack on the western bank, where Lannes had 17,000 to 25,000 troops but once the French reinforcements arrived the Russians also begun to move troops forwards, (and even if not, the French moved towards them anyways). So I want to be clear with the point, is not who I am trying to establish a different criteria for the sides engaged, but apply the same for both, and so far there are like 17,000 Russians ignored in the current estimations, and a possible number of even more Frenchs than those who were actually present there. So the final point regarding what we discussed so far is who the Russian numbers must be expanded to 76,-77,000 at the end of the range, (as you may notice I am not asking a total debunking or removal of the lowest estimations, but the aggregation of more troops to the highest estimation ending.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * So regardless of the French number, the Russian number seems to be similar to the French one, absolutely not. The references are virtually unanimous that the French outnumbered the Russians, generally by around 20,000. This is why this version of the article is particularly objectionable, since it doesn't at any point inform the reader of this (unless they read the quotes in the footnotes). FDW777 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Also there is another sources who I want to point, because it seems who the Russian numbers estimations at Friedland faced the same problem who we are facing now since some time ago, And this is explored in the “New account of the battle of Friedland” (1839) by M Aime Derode. A book who was reviewed as an “excellent job” by many fellow historians, like future president Adolphe Thiers. In his work Derode claim the Russian numbers at 80,000, -Quote-“ 27,000 men of reserves massed behind The Russian guard was hidden by the depression of the ground of the pond On the other side of the Alle the 14th division placed along the main road of Schippenbeil and in columns by battalions formed the great reserve with a few squadrons On the other side of where the mill stream flowed, three infantry divisions formed the right wing of the Russians under Gortschakow with two-thirds of their cavalry about 120 squadrons and 12 Cossack regiments. This wing extended from the stream to the Alle crossing the Ziegelei brickyard and the wood of Domerauer In this position the Russian battle line made up of nearly 80,000 men seemed to form an arc, the two ends of which rested on the river Four flying bridges thrown over the stream of the mill connected these troops between them”-  He then proceeded to make an explanation about conflicting accounts. (We should keep in mind who one of the main problems was the lack of official Russian forces sources after the battle, something who as Sandhurst historian Matthew Bennett said was common from the Russians after they lost a battle) Now the sources are the Journal of Matthieu Dumas, (who is considered in the article as a source), Prussian observer Major Both, in his “Relation der Schlacht bei Friedland”. Berlin” And General and military theorist on the Russian service Antoine-Henri Jomini in his “Political and military life of Napoleon”.
 * The first source claim who the Russian side had 61,000 “soldiers”, but as the author Derode say, the claim by Matthieu Dumas is unlikely because it took the composition of the forces with a very low number for each unit, and ignored the “authorities” numbers (On the Battlefield Napoleon believed who he was facing around 75,000 Russians but Oudinot after watching the Russian deployment from Posthenan estimated 80,000 troops, thus Matthieu Dumas seems to disregard the Russian cavalry and reserves as he was unsure of how many were, and borrowed the figure of 61,000 from the main battle line of infantry.
 * The second source estimated around 75,000 Russian troops, (this is by the way more in line with the number given by some sources already discussed and accepted here)
 * The third source is probably the most credible, as Jomini was a Russian Marshall who wrote about victories and defeats for the higher authorities, and also was familiar with the Frenchs. Here we have in his work t 11 p 335 the mass of 64,400 infantry and 20,000 cavalry with an estimated of 85,000 troops in total, (this is more in line with other mainstream historians like Pigeard)

So here I am giving 3 sources who (all are more than 60,000) give 75,000 to 85,000 with another claiming to be 80,000. (there is a disputed source of just 61,000 but still higher than current estimations)
 * So right now we are missing from 15,000 to 25,000 Russian troops in the infobox.
 * Now why so many historians seemed to accept the seemingly incorrect number of 60,000, well it is fair to assume who Matthieu Dumas had a greater influence in the English speaking world, but also it is important who the historians give the number “60,000” (or less) not as a dispute of other claims, but just as their only source. It is also important to acknowledge who many historians as the time went by have the tendency of increasing the number of the winner and lower the number of the looser. (probably because the nature of accepting the rule of superiority on the field means victory, rather than a series of maneuvers who give the victory to the one who manage to concentrate enough power in a particular sector of the field during a key moment and defeat the enemy in detail on the battlefield itself, (who is a very “Napoleonic  trademark” by the ways). Some even came to say who the French had superiority at Austerlitz, (something who is not even backed by the Tsar of Russia, but there is a clear tendency to explain the defeat of a superior army in a simple numerical disadvantage, who will contradict the “superior army” being defeated, but that is hipotethical. The sources and claims however are not.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Damn it took a lot and sorry for my english,
 * Didn't knew who you were writing either, but at this stage it seems who you are not willing, to seriously discuss the sources and the strenght but rather to denied any change who contradict your reasons for not accepting a better update,Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Any thoughts about the information posted here months ago?, or do you know users who know about the era who could be intrested in it? I'm sorry to bother you again, but is a shame who the article remain so "blinded", because easier sources contradict more reliable ones. Regards!

Infobox "Result"
Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)