Talk:French invasion of Russia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2004

The literal translation is "war of the fatherland" . Same thing for the WWII version.

Correct. (Great) Patriotic War is just the standard English translation. --Kolt 08:44, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned those mythical partisans at the back of invading army are very disputable, especially against Napoleon. I have recently read "War and Peace" and I have few conclusions. I can share them with you. Partisans are mostly rhetoric propganda feature. What was real calles Guerilla warfare. Pure definition of the guerilla warfare says, that they are speciall troops trained to operate at the back of the front. During Napoleon invasion, there were no real guerilla warfare, but when Grand Arme retreated, small groups of cossacs assaulted troops looking for food in neighbourhood. Since it happenned during retreat, one cannot tell that it influenced Napoleon defeat. This however influence number of casualties. In relations to Hilers time, you probably know, that guerilla warfare was used on the bigger scale in 1942 and later. Cautious 21:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, Napoleon didn't attract Poles from Lithuania in the same way as Hitler didn't attract Ukrainian nationlists. Cautious 21:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

You probably noticed that the analogy is little bit misleading: Napoloeon wanted to make peace with Russia, Hitler wanted to conquer Russia. Napoleon didn't want to promise antything Poles to have free hands for peace with Russia, Hitler didn't want to offer anything to Ukrainians, since he wanted to rule himself all the East. And Napoloeon captured Moscow. If Hitler had captured Moscow, he probably would have been able to win a war! Cautious 21:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the term "partisan warfare" in the present context should be understood as "asymmetrical warfare" or plain "ambushing", rather than as guerilla movement in the modern sense. The analogy to the German invasion is however indeed based on some of the invaders' great miscalculations, as well as on geographical coincidences. Meanwhile, it seems to me that your invokation of parallels concerning independence-minded minorities on the Russian periphery is a bit far-fetched. While the Germans relied on broad territorial control, Napoleon did not: marching right through towards the enemy's major city was fair enough. While the Germans needed supply lines, Napoleon did not - at least, that's what he thought: the armies would trade or take what they needed along the way. Napoleon failed because the regular Russian army mercilessly wore him down and crushed him in the end, and not because the local peasants didn't like him.

--Kolt 20:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Unsorted text

The caption to one of the pictures says, about the Cossacks: "Seldom were they committed to execute a conventional charge in battle." It may be good if a professional historian could check on this. I am afraid this is an oversight.

=======

Here in Napoleon's invasion of Russia it's said Moscow burned from September 2 to 6. But in Moscow, September 14, 1812 and Napoleon, it's said it burned on September 14.

Coould be one or the other, but certainly not both... =)--euyyn 16:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

seems to be a mixup between russian and western calendar --Deelkar 16:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Idiocy - there is no such thing as Western calendar. Russia and most Protestant countries were using the same (Julian) calendar until 1750s (or even until 1920s in certain cases), while the Gregorian calendar (used by Catholic Europe) is the one that is now currently in use in Russia and elsewhere. http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-countries.html

Absolutely. September 14 New Style (September 2 Old Style). Cmapm 14:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

hey,

is he related to mini me

No, I don't think so. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 12:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed line

I removed this line because it is factually inaccurate. Source: Blundering to Glory (2nd edition) by Owen Connelly, whose class I am currently taking.*Kat* 08:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Russian army sought to avoid open battle, and turned to attrition warfare; under the scorched earth policy, Russian troops retreating before the French advance would burn crops and villages, thereby denying the enemy their use.

---

Not "scorched Earth"?

Article contains a sentence, "The widely held belief that the Russians used a scorched earth policy, whereby they burned the crops to keep the French from living off the land is false."

This is somewhat confusing, since no sources are provided to buttress this point, nor is any other explanatory information given. If the Russians did not practice a "scorched Earth" strategy, then what else did they do? And why did the belief that they did become widespread? Moreover, this point needs to be reconciled with the next section, which mentions that Moscow was likely put to the torch by the Russians themselves.

Also, other articles, such as the entry on Russian Winter, mention that the Russians did use such a "scorched Earth" approach. If indeed the Russians did not, then all such articles should be updated.

I added that in. My History professor, Owen Connelly, is a well recognized and much respected Napoleonic Wars historian. His book and lectures were my source for that edit. I believe that I cited his book at the bottom of the page. *Kat* 20:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

turning-point

"the turning-point of the Napoleonic Wars". A turning-point yes but was it THE turning-point? What about the Battle of Trafalgar? No hostile UK no money for continental armies to oppose Napoleon. PBS 6 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Of course Trafalgar and UK money were important elements in Napoleon's eventual downfall. But if, as you argue, they were equal in importance to the 1812 Russian debacle, how do you explain the gargantuan expansion of Napoleon's power as a result of victories in 1805, 1807, and 1809?

Kenmore (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From article history "Reverted. See talk. It was very important to France as well. If the UK had been knocked out of the war then Russia would not have had to break the continental system, and so no invasion."

Further most of the coalitions against Napoleon were given huge financial support by Britain. If the French had won the Battle of Trafalgar then that finance would not have been available for Sixth Coalition

This is not to deny that the losses in Russia were not a huge blow to Napoleon, but to call it "THE turning point" is pop history, as in most large wars it was one of several turning points. Trafalgar was at least as important as the Russian campaign in Napoleon's downfall. PBS 10:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Trafalgar has been hyped up tremendously in Britain and other English-speaking countries. In fact, the battle didn't change any of Napoleon's plans and didn't prevent him from annexing half of Europe in the following years. It was a turning point for Britain, but not for France.

Well it certainly stopped him from invading Britian. PBS

We may compare it with the Battle of Britain in 1940. While important for the history of the WWII and for the British national pride, it could by no means regarded as a turning point of the WWII, as most of the hostilities and annexations happened afterwards.

As any German strategist will tell you that fighting a war on two fronts is a bad idea for a continental power. But leaving that aside, Napoleon did not end up on Elba because of the successes of any one nation, it was concerted effort. In that effort the UK bankroll was at least as important any other contribution to his defeat and that is discounting the direct British contribution to the Spanish Ulcer. None of which would have happened if Napoleon's navy had been victorious at Trafalgar PBS 16:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Both battles were significant, as they prevented annexation of Britain by the aggressor. And both battles were futile, as they didn't affect any of the agressor's plans for annexation of other countries. The turning point of the WWII was the Battle of Moscow or perhaps Stalingrad, when the Nazis were severely defeated in the field of battle, not in the air or on sea. The same holds for Napoleon's invasion of Russia. --Ghirlandajo 11:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW. I do not know of one British historian who claims that the Battle of Britain was a turning point in World War II. As Churchill pointed out "Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat" and as his speech at the time acknowledged "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." PBS 16:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The Battle of Trafalgar was not nearly as important in Napoleon's downfall as was the 1812 Russian disaster. Kenmore (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this edit by Kenmore. You source that "Trafalgar was not nearly as important in Napoleon's downfall as was the 1812 Russian disaster". and BTW not one source, but please show that this is the opinion of most historians. BTW I am not arguing that Trafalgar was "the turning point" just like the Russian campaign it was a turning point. --PBS (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Phillip: there is no need to turn this issue into a silly game of who can pile-up more footnotes and references to "prove" their point. This is not a basketball game. Further, there is no need to cite sources here: it is a given that the French defeat in 1812 was the turning point in the Napoleonic Wars, and the direct cause of Napoleon's downfall. This truth is so self-evident that historians barely debate it. Almost any history book that deals with the Napoleonic epoch acknowledges as much.

Trafalgar was important in that it set limits on Napoleon's overseas expansion, but in no way did Trafalgar mark the beginning of Napoleon's downfall. Far from it. When Trafalgar was fought in 1805, Napoleon was winning his greatest career victories at Ulm and Austerlitz. Two years later, in 1807, Napoleon crushed the Allies at Friedland. Two years after that, in 1809, he routed the Austrians at Wagram. Thus, Napoleon's power in Europe steadily increased in the six year period following Trafalgar. Only after losing to the Russians in 1812 was Napoleon's power so seriously shaken that he fell victim to a pan-European coalition in 1813-14, and again in 1815. Thus, without the Russian debacle, there would have been no Leipzig or Waterloo (at least not for a long time).

The entire 1812 article is misbalanced, badly written and confusing. This is especially true of the introduction. Who's idea was it to define the war as something incidental to Polish history (unbelievable!), or as something noteworthy in terms of its relevance to Tolstoy's literature?

Generally, I agree with most of your contributions (not all, but most) and you've done some good work on other Wikipedia articles. If you want to cooperate in an effort to clean this article up, I would welcome it.

Best, Kenmore (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No hostile UK no money for continental armies to oppose Napoleon, not continental trading system no war with Russia. Please show with third party sources that it was the turning point. --PBS (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would question why we are having this discussion at all? From a long view there would seem to be no less than five "turning points" in the Napoleonic war cycle:

• Trafalger, Britian retains control of the seas, France is denigned overseas trade and colonies.
• The Spanish campaign, huge losses, unending distractions, constant drag that helps bring down the house of Bonaparte.
• Russian Invasion, 200,000 dead Frenchmen ireplaceable Cav losses, and the direct result causes the Wars of Liberation and the loss of most German help to the other side.
• Wars of Liberation, you know with 800,000 pissed off Germans welded to 300,000 ticked off Russians you get a lot accomplished and this was the end of the empire.
• 100 days, Europe spoke as one voice that the days of the Empire were over and the start of the Balance of Power had begun.

There is no editor on this site that I respect more than Phillip, and Kenmore I have yet to see a bad edit from you. This was a 15 year war cycle that by its very nature had to have multiple turning points, lets move on. Tirronan (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a given that Napoleon was at the peak of his power and influence when he invaded Russia in 1812. This is not something that needs to be footnoted. As for Trafalgar, my earlier post explains why it was not really a "turning point" in the Napoleonic Wars, even though it did set limits on Napoleon's power. The Spanish campaign (prior to 1812) was in no way a French setback, defeat, or "turning point" even though it was an ongoing irritant to Napoleon. The 1813 German War of Liberation was consequential to Napoleon's 1812 defeat in Russia; without 1812, there would have been no 1813. As for the "100 Days" in 1815, that campaign happened after Napoleon had been defeated and broken down by his crushing losses of 1812-14.

Regarding Phillip's "why we are having this discussion at all" remark, please note that almost no history textbooks adhere to his line of reasoning regarding the series of "turning points" that he lists above.

Kenmore (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually every single one of those comments were mine and mine alone and yes I don't think there was a single turning point in a 15 year arc, and each of the points had a contributory effect. There were more than enough troops in Spain to have solved most of the Russian losses had they not been otherwise employed, and a French Empire with a more global reach and resources wouldn't have helped the colition cause, and had the German nations not revolted this becomes a kind of interesting side note, suffice it to say that I disagree respectfully. Tirronan (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Image arrangement

I was merely trying to enhance the article with some images and undo the damage done by the OrphanBot. We have a common cause and enemy here Ghirl, let's not start an edit war.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Capital I?

An important event in many ways, but should the title say "Invasion" rather than "invasion"? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation of specific event

I was told that during one battle Napoleon observed the Russian army was marching on a sheet of ice, and so he ordered one of his cannons to fire upon the ice twice, thus caused the ice to crack and annihilated a good division of the Russian army. Can anyone confirm this as fact or fiction for me? I remember it also has something to do with the two cannon shots at the beginning of the 1812 Overture 24630 21:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenmore replies:

The incident you are thinking of is believed to have happened at the Battle of Austerlitz, in 1805, and not in 1812.

Supposedly, as Napoleon was routing the Austrians and Russians at Austerlitz, the defeated Russian left flank under Doctorov tried to escape by crossing the ice on a pond to their rear. It was their only alternative to being encircled and destroyed, and they were desperate. Napoleon supposedly ordered his cannon to open fire on the ice, with the result that thousands of Russians drowned.

It is an open question as to whether this event really happened. It is a fact that Doctorov's troops did have their backs to the frozen pond, and that many of them surrendered to the victorious French. Whether some Russians tried to escape over the ice is another matter.

kenmore 9/28/06

Placing Military conflict infobox

Is it smth wrong with placing Military conflict infobox in this article? Ioakinf 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful. It does not add new info, clutters the article, creates images jams. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for delay with reply. Maybe it will be useful to place simple list of links to battles (it really unconvinient to read article without it)? Ioakinf 08:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think an infobox would be all-right. No logical reason not to have it.UberCryxic 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes provide a quick at-a-glance overview for the reader. The Gomm 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Title

Hey Mikkalai, Ghirla and I already discussed this. He proposed that I send this to the Russian Portal board. I did; I left this issue there for about a week or two and only Ghirla and I replied. Ghirla was fine with changing the name to "French invasion of Russia." I have changed it to "French invasion of Russia (1812)" because there were other moments when French troops invaded Russia (like in the Crimean War or during the Russian Civil War with the French Expeditionary Corps). Thanks.UberCryxic 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

New tag

Recently, a Polish-Russian Wars tag was added to this article. It's not quite certain that it belongs here, however. If you take a look at the other struggles in the list, the Poles and the Russians were pretty much the main protagonists in most if not all of them. Here, the situation is obviously different. The French and the Russians were the main two warring sides, even though Napoleon's army was composed of soldiers from all of Europe. Your thoughts?UberCryxic 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Template, not tag, you mean :) You are correct that it was primarily a French-Russian war, however Poles were a willing ally of Napoleon (see Duchy of Warsaw and Polish Legions of Napoleon); thus I think this war merits classification as a Polish-Russian war, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Poles were a willing ally, no doubt, but not an autonomous or independent entity. Or at least they had no autonomy or independence beyond what being an ally of France afforded, which wasn't much anyway because Napoleon had already made the strategic decision at Tilsit not to anger Russia too much, to bring her into his fold. The distinction being drawn here is one of willing and self-assuming Polish action versus willing and French-inspired Polish action. The list in the template is almost exclusively populated by the former kind. Putting this article there would just be an anomaly.UberCryxic 22:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Consider, however, that during a number of other conflicts with Russia (e.g. November Uprising, January Uprising), an independent Polish state did not exist either. Appleseed (Talk) 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In those conflicts, however, the Poles and the Russians were the main protagonists, which is essentially why I'm arguing that this conflict does not belong in that list.UberCryxic 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a redesigned version of the template or relocating it lower would be applicable: the goal is not to portray this as a primarily Polish-Russian conflict, but note that it fits in the series of Polish-Russian wars - and there is no doubt that if forms an important link between Kosciuszko Uprising and November Uprising.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, you seem to have found a new article to polonize. Please stop. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, could you please explain? Polish forces played an important role in this campaign. Appleseed (Talk) 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish and Italian too. It does not make it Polish-Italian-Spanish invasion of Russia, to be sure. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the Poles were the second most numerous nationality after the French. No one is proposing changing the article name, only adding a small template. On a side note, it would be nice if you could set aside your sarcasm and make a genuine effort to work through these issues. Appleseed (Talk) 18:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And Italians the third-most numerous, and Germans the fourth. The point is that the only independent political actor in the thing was the French Emperor. john k 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

French or Napoleon's?

Shouldn't this be Napoleon's inavsoon of Russia? The Grand Army was not only French, after all.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost everyone there was fighting for the French Empire though, regardless of their ethnicity or nationality. "Napoleon's invasion of Russia" is way too personalized. It sounds like Napoleon invaded Russia personally, just by himself, even though we all know that's not what it means.UberCryxic 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Appleseed (Talk) 21:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Czar or Emperor?

I personally don't care too much what we use to describe the leader of Imperial Russia, but I was under the impression that the most common term is "Czar." As such, this term is probably more appropriate.UberCryxic 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Term Tsar (in any case more appropriate than Czar) really is quite popular but unofficial, because the title Tzar was used officially only in reference to the Russian emperor's sovereignty over certain formerly independent states such as Poland and Georgia (see Tzar) So I think that for WIKI it's better to use more precize terms --Ioakinf 11:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Numbers must be wrong

In the text it says that Napoleon had an army of 800,000 and only 22,000 survived then the total deaths must be 778,000 and not the current 525,000 Awayhave 10:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not assume such things. Either or both of the numbers given may be wrong. Why are you assuming that the army and survivor totals are the ones that are correct? john k 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?, because it says Napoleon = 800k and if you scroll down it says only 22K survived so I assume if there was 800k and only 22k survived then 778k must have died. The numbers are in the text so that if the article is to make logical sense then my conculsion is the only alternative. Awayhave 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Awayhave - what makes you think that the 800k and the 22k numbers are right, and that the 525k number is wrong? Isn't it alternately possible that the 22k and 525k numbers are right, and the 800k is wrong, or that the 800k and the 525k numbers are right, and the 22k is wrong? Leave it as it is now until you can find a reliable source which gives these various numbers. As it stands now, you are claiming that one unsubstantiated figure in a wikipedia article proves that another unsubstantiated figure is wrong, when in fact there is no reason to say that it is this one which is correct. john k 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You have right and he have no source to prove. In a war their are POW, wounded, deserter (a lot)... but I think that he think that they are all deads. He is so funny.

Casualties

Which source supports the casualty figures for the overall campaign? Captainvp 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

IMO, this article ought to be at French invasion of Russia, unless there were two such invasions in the same year. The year in parentheses is not necessary for disambiguation and just makes the title too long. Hairy Dude 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Retreat from Moscow

The picture possibly depicts Russian retreat, not the French one as it features a Cossack and a Kalmyk.--Dojarca 11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's definitely the French retreat, as the figure on the white horse is Napoleon. Kelran24 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of soldiers in the Grande Armée

I'm not a big fan of the "Here's what five different historians think the number of troops was" approach that we're currently using. I think all we need is a single sentence saying that historians' estimates of the number of troops under Napoleon's command range from (lowest number) to (highest number) so we can avoid the whole laundry list. Funnyhat 05:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

needs more on the battles

All the battles of the invasion are crammed into three paragraphs in one section. This probably needs to be fleshed out. -Gomm 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs more of everything most of all citations

• The intro section is not up to snuff explaining why the invasion took place.
  

Could you write it and other will edit?-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Scorched earth tactics need to be settled.

There was not much in the way of scorched-earth tactics actually-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• you all are blogging not editing

Editing, just not here-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• There were battles before and after Borodino but you'd not know it

Strictly speaking this is about the Invasion, and not the Retreat.Before Borodino there were mostly rear-guard skirmishes with Murat's advance-guard (Sebastiani and Poniatowsky?) until Smolensk. Sebastiani (a brigade) got severely trounced by some cossacks at Mir

During the Retreat it was Maloyaroslavets or Malo-Yaroslavets, Vyazma, Krasny and Studenka also known as the Beresina crossing.
-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The vast majority of the French losses were on the way into Moscow not after you even included a graph on it and then ignored it.
  

Yes, you are right. If you wirite something I will look it up.-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The lack of citation is apalling

If you put in {fact} where you want them, I will try to provide-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The campaign hinged on logistics yet it is hardly mentioned let alone what steps were taken to try and avoid what happened
  

Well, none actually. Berthier did what he was asked to do, and more, but Napoleon never planned for more, adn its hard to rebuild logistic plans when the Campaignis in the progress.-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Grand Armee's habit of living off the land and ad hoc arrangements of resupply served it ill here yet this isn't gone into either.
  

There were problems with this. Firstly it was the first time such a vast Army moved as one. Secondly it moved on one road (just about). Thirdly many of the old hands either retired, or were promoted, so much of the French contingent was young and inexperienced. The Allied contingents by and large never had the "life off the land" concept at all. Besides that, this was RUSSIA, not Western Europe. Where in Germany the division will march through several villages or even a moderately large town in a day's march, in Russia they may only get to one in a week. Besides this, the campaign was during Summer, adn wheat ripens later in the more northern climate. The wheat was standing green, so the peasants were still on the Spring produce rations or winter storage (preserves and dried foods (no refrigeration), so there was not that much to loot in any case. By the time the Grande Armee had made it even 100miles into Russia the whole of the country knew about it due to fairly efficient courier service, so much of the provisions were hidden. The proof for this is the many stories of Russian peasants rescuing French troops and seemingly having plenty of food on hand in the winter.-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Napoleon's complete lack of understanding time/space/grand stratigic/logistics outside of the tactical relm is never worked out.
  

Oh, no. He understood all right. However his pride dictated that he was MEANT to defeat the Russian, and that they were going to fight him and not retreat. He could not take evasive tactics on a personal level.-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The repeated cutting of French supplies by Cossacks through out the campaign is ignored.
  

What is the source for that? Mostly it was done by a few partisan detachments formed from an officer and a dozen cossacks or hussars leading peasants. They made some noise, but were not as effective as the Russian sources claim. On the Retreat there was not much to interdict.-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about we stop arguing and blogging at one another and do something different like actually working on and editing the article with in line citation and referencing? I'll be starting on this soon and it would be nice not to have to do the entire thing alone for once. Tirronan (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Second war of Poland?

The suggestion that Napoleon considered this statement to be a political one is tenuous. The reference is to the Area of Campaign operations as is easily seen in the same day address to the Army:
22d, Imperial headquarters, Wilkowyski: (Proclamation to the Grand Army.) Soldiers! The second Polish war has begun; the first ended at Friedland and Tilsit. At Tilsit Russia pledged an eternal alliance with France, and war on England! To-day her oath is broken. She refuses all explanations of her strange conduct unless the French eagles recross the Rhine. Fate draws Russia on; her destiny must be accomplished! Does she then think us degenerate? Are we no longer the soldiers of Austerlitz? She places us between dishonour and war; can our choice be in doubt? Forward, then, across the Niemen, and let us carry the war on to her own soil! http://www.napoleonic-literature.com/Book_22/1812.htm

This was followed in July by:
14th. Deputies of the Polish Confederation, I have listened to your address with interest. The love of country is the highest virtue of civilized man. My position entails the harmonizing of many interests and the carrying out of many duties. Had I lived in the days of the first, the second, or the third partition of Poland, I would have armed my whole people to support you. I feel affection for your nation; during sixteen years your soldiers have fought by my side on the fields of Italy as on those of Spain.

If your efforts are united you may hope to compel your enemies to recognise your rights.

So no "resurrection of Polish state on territories of former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth".
--mrg3105mrg3105 02:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed this talk about a "Polish war" from the introduction and posted it as a reference in the "causes" section (see remarks about the Grand Duchy of Warsaw). That is where this remark belongs. It is preposterous to treat the 1812 epoch as if it is primarily a Polish concern...as if Russian historical concerns are of secondary importance. As Solzhenitsyn would say, this is not supposed to be the "Polish version of Russian history."

65.217.255.2 (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"A War of Logistics" section

I removed the following text from the "A war of logistics" section, on the grounds that it is original research and unencyclopedic:

A modern axiom of war is that amateurs will discuss tactics and professionals will discuss logistics. The invasion of Russia was a force majeure in the demonstration of what role logistics, or in this case the lack thereof, will play in a campaign where the land will not provide for the amount of troops deployed in a area of operations far exceeding the experience of the invading army.

As far as I am aware the quote is by Tom Clancy in Red Storm Rising (1986)

"The tactics ... no, amateurs discuss tactics, Alekseyev thought wryly. Professional soldiers study logistics."

It has been wrongly attributed to Napoleon by some people simply because it seems so fitting to his Russia campaign. I made some - admittedly superficial research - but no quote like that one appears in pre-1986 material that I could find. Apologies if this is a mistake. 217.64.242.186 (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The meme about tactics versus logistics may be a common quote, and it may even be relevant to the topic of Napoleon's invasion. But it's unsourced, and I suggest that it doesn't have an encyclopedic tone. If it was written as a quote with a citation, and if it was used in the context of an otherwise fact-explaining paragraph, then I wouldn't object to it.
2. It may be true that the results of France's invasion of Russia provide an extremely persuasive demonstration of (1) the importance of supplies to an army and (2) the value of fighting on familiar ground. But by making that statement, we are arguing a particular point of view and are thus presenting OR.
3. Also, "Force majeure" is a legal term, commonly described as "an act of God" that voids contracts. It doesn't seem to be correct in this context, especially because it was being used not to talk about the subject of the article, but rather to express an opinion about it.

I don't oppose the conclusions expressed in the sentences that I removed, and I think that the article as a whole looks very good; we just need verifiability. Bry9000 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the encyclopaedic tone is a more formal form of expression that does not promote any point of view. What is an "encyclopaedic tone" in your understanding?

The reference on logistics is so common among military professionals that it requires no source. It has become a matter of widely accepted fact. However I have inserted a reference.

Considering the truism that an "Army marches on its stomach" [1] is extant from several cultures and as far back as 5000 years ago, it seems to me that the OR is well past its due date, not the least because it was a maxim of Napoleon himself

The value of fighting on familiar ground is a logical statement, and not OR. No Army prefers to fight on unfamiliar ground as surely as no individual likes to drive in unfamiliar city without a map.

"Force majeure" also refers to "A force majeure may also be the overpowering force itself, which prevents the fulfillment of a contract. In that instance, it is actually the Impossibility defense. In the military, force majeure has a slightly different meaning. It refers to an event, either external or internal, that happens to a vessel or aircraft that allows it to enter normally restricted areas without penalty."

--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 12:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, your logic is flawed on all of these points for the reasons I have stated above. Your use of the term "force majeure" in the second sentence is ridiculous. However, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, so I'll leave it alone. Bry9000 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No one here is talking about an edit war, I wrote that section and before I enter into a edit war I would leave it out. "Force majeure" can simply be deleted or rephrased. As to the points of the French army on unfamilier ground this is listed by Reihn and others as a major contributory factor. It can and will be sourced what ruffled my feathers was the assumtion of OR when it was a summation of the entire logistics section. When military sources talk about a failure of logistics this and the Crimeaina (sp) campiagn are to two most often cited with the Mexican/American war being brought up as a contrast. The intent of that section was to show that you can't march in 625,000 troops and walk out with perhaps 125,000 most of whom never saw a battle and still ended up dead. While Force majeure might be inappropriate the rest of the deletion and the claim of OR is at best a mistake or lack of understanding of the campaign. I've read your contributions and I am assuming you did this with the best of intentions but frankly you were a bit wide of the mark in this case. Be careful with OR remarks, it takes time for a guy with more than a full time job to sit down and cite but it is coming. It is just at the the moment I've been asked to help rewrite the battle of jutland and this is a major undertaking. --Tirronan (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your conciliatory tone, Tirronan. I didn't mean to ruffle your or anyone's feathers. I'll also concede that you and other editors here probably know a lot more than me about the topic of this article.

I do feel strongly that the use of the term "force majeure" is out of place here, though. I will attempt to rewrite it in good faith; please edit me as appropriate.

As I've stated above, I don't doubt that your conclusions regarding logistics are valid. But it also seems that the statement "X demonstrates that Y is important" is problematic in an encyclopedia, even when it is something as obvious as the importance of supply lines. Whether this is OR or something else, like verifiability, I'm not sure. Anyway, I accept your criticism. Bry9000 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not an English native speaker, I have some problems with the style of the whole section. For example:

1. "...had developed a proclivity for living off the land that had served it well in the densely populated and agriculturally rich central Europe well served by a road net.": repetition of "served well", "well served". Furthermore, a comma would be needed before "well served".
2. "Forced marches often forced troops...": repetition of "forced".
3. "... lack of food, and a thinly populated and much less agriculturally dense region lead to the death of horses and men through weakening them from lack of food": repetition of "lack of food" is totally unnecessary and almost pleonastic.
4. "...deep ruts in the mud would freeze solid killing already exhausted horses and breaking wagons": does not make sense unless a comma is inserted between "solid" and "killing".
5. "As the graph of Charles Joseph Minard, given below, shows the majority of the losses...": here a comma is needed between "shows" and "the majority".

I chose not to change the text myself because when I did it in other wikipedia pages, my modifications were often reverted.

Unreferenced text

As can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material and that Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed.

This whole section is unreferenced and wrong and I will split it up to explain what is propaganda myth and obviously wrong

This campaign is marked by Napoleon's failure to adapt his successful European strategies to the immense geography of Russia. His initial success, including capturing the former capital, did not destroy the enemy armies or force them to terms. Napoleon desperately needed to draw the Russian army into a decisive engagement where both armies would stand and fight. This almost happened at the Battle of Borodino; however, the Russian route of retreat was not shut off and the Russian army managed to retreat further into the vast Russian interior. This tactic of evading the French army and refusing Napoleon his final victory meant that the French army was drawn into a long autumn campaign in a barren frozen Russia. They were simply not prepared for such treacherous conditions and the severity of the weather took its toll on every part of Napoleon's army.Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• “This campaign is marked by Napoleon's failure to adapt his successful European strategies to the immense geography of Russia” This is POW, for many reasons: The distance between what Napoleon held in 1812 and when he started his retreat on the 19th of October 1812 is smaller than the total territory he had put beneath him before he started his Russian campaign, Napoleon knew the size of Russia before he invaded, and this is just propaganda that Russia is so big that no civilized person can live there And most importantly it has no source so it may be removedWheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• “Russian army managed to retreat further into the vast Russian interior” again the VAST more propaganda Russia and again where is the source for this blatant point of viewWheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• “This tactic of evading the French army and refusing Napoleon his final victory meant that the French army was drawn into a long autumn campaign in a barren frozen Russia” “They were simply not prepared for such treacherous conditions and the severity of the weather took its toll on every part of Napoleon's army “Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is 100% wrong and completely myth and propaganda as this American army report clearly says http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Chew/CHEW.asp However, in regard to the claims of "General Winter," it should be noted that the main body of Napoleon's Grande Armée, initially at least 378,000 strong, diminished by half during the first eight weeks of his invasion before the major battle of the campaign. This decrease was partly due to garrisoning supply centers, but disease, desertions, and casualties sustained in various minor actions caused thousands of losses. At Borodino on 7 September 1812 - the only major engagement fought in Russia-Napoleon could muster no more than 135,000 troops, and he lost at least 30,000 of them to gain a narrow and Pyrrhic victory almost 600 miles deep in hostile territory. The sequels were his uncontested and self-defeating occupation of Moscow and his humiliating retreat, which began on 19 October, before the first severe frosts later that month and the first snow on 5 NovemberWheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So not only is the paragraph unreferenced it is completely wrong and proven wrong by a reference Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So all in all the text is unreferenced and may be removed and most importantly it is WRONG as has been so thoroughly and absolutely proven Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy you stepped into it on this one... here is the entire paragraph:

This paper will not discuss either of those ill-fated campaigns in detail. However, in regard to the claims of "General Winter," it should be noted that the main body of Napoleon's Grande Armée, initially at least 378,000 strong,1 diminished by half during the first eight weeks of his invasion2 before the major battle of the campaign. This decrease was partly due to garrisoning supply centers, but disease, desertions, and casualties sustained in various minor actions caused thousands of losses.3 At Borodino on 7 September 1812 - the only major engagement fought in Russia-Napoleon could muster no more than 135,000 troops,4 and he lost at least 30,0005 of them to gain a narrow and Pyrrhic victory almost 600 miles deep in hostile territory. The sequels were his uncontested and self-defeating occupation of Moscow and his humiliating retreat, which began on 19 October, before the first severe frosts later that month6 and the first snow on 5 November.7

Your proof then proceeds to talk about WW1 The allied expedition afterward, and WW2, operations all of which is more about arctic war operations and not about the 1812 campaign. Get yourself a copy of 1812 Napoleon's Russian Campaign, Richard K. Riehn, and read it please it goes into each area of the campaign with a listed table of organization reported by the combatants on either side. By comparing the tables you can actually calulate the losses by date. You will also find that this author isn't sparing of critism of either side and hammers commanders on both sides with well reasoned and supported argument. When you offer proof as irrefutable and upon reading such said article proceeds to barely mention this campaign you are on a bad start. Your entire argument is not valid. If you wish to go to arbitration then please proceed, I'll be happy to defend the position with cited fact. In the meantime until you can provide a proof that has more that marginal bearing on the subject I would sugest that you refrain from removing anything else on this article. Please read one or more histories on this campaign before proving that you don't know the subject. All you are proving to me is that you are mangling an article to the detriment of the understanding of the public about this subject. --Tirronan (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not need any proof to remove a section it is YOU who need proof to add it do you understand is that clear? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed" Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And NO the text does not marginally anything it is 100% correct and accurate it gives you all the information you wish to know about that current section why it is false and why it is 100% propaganda, Napoleon started hi retreat BEFORE to onset of winter BEFORE do you understand BEFORE? Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand trolling, and you are doing it. From this point on stay off my user page and I shall do the same. I will not communicate further with you and I am not interested in you doing more so with me. Any further bad faith edits will be reported as POV/Trolling to the admins. --Tirronan (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And I understand that you have no reference for your unreferenced text and you wish to talk about other things and hide the fact that you do not have a source not only do you not have a source I have proven that Napoleon started to retreat BEFORE winter started before yet you keep installing a text that is very pov and gives the illusion that he only lost because of the winter when in fact he started to retreat before the winter and it is you who posts on my talk page FIRST or have you forgotten that and it is you who refuses to discuss here and in fact it is you who is trolling Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And you need not worry for one single second not even for half a second I will also report your violations such as adding unreferenced text, refusing to discuss anything and completely ignoring to pure and absolute facts Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are unable to dispute the facts that you are installing information without a source when at the same time you demand sources for example in the battle of Borodino on the 17th of feb 2008, and then when I give a source that proves that your unreferenced text is 100% wrong you call me a troll, I find this very amusing, don't you? Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pov words

POV words, point of view is clearly explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Where it clearly says

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems

So clearly the words; "drenching" rain and baking heat are pov whilst rain and heat are neutral Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Said quote is from said source and as the quotation of the historian involved proves a bit of understatement on my part. Please desist from further harrasment of me when I am trying to expand the article. --Tirronan (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowed to use pov words, even if the text you copy it from says those exact words does not change the fact that you are not allowed to use pov words to rules clearly state what is allowed and what is not as can been seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , and if you feel that following the rules is harassment that is your problem and if you continue calling following the rules as harassment I will report you for Wikipedia violations of the rulesWheelcarboat22 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Major edit

Over the next few days I will be completely re-editing the article to ensure that it is historically correct and properly cited. Please refrain from editing when the inuse flag in up as having to rework a whole section for a minor edit is a bit of a pain. --Tirronan (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out that it is not allowed to directly copy texts for long stretches and that if you copy text you need to rewrite it otherwise it is a direct violation of Wikipedia rules which could get you blocked and violation of international copyright rules which could have economic consequences for Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please everybody Assume Good Faith, and stay calm. Just because an item is cited doesn't mean that its a copyvio.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tirronan: already there is evidence that you are overlooking and underemphasizing the role that the Russians played defeating Napoleon. That means it is not quite "historically correct."

Also, even though your Borodino rewrite is very good, you need to add a section at the bottom explaining how it led to a shift in the balance of power in the war, in favor of the Russians.Kenmore (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finished with the edits however I don't draw conclusions for the most part but rather state what happened and let the reader make his/her own dicisions. However with the Battle of Borodino it is curious however I honestly believe that had the battle not happened nothing whatsoever would have changed, mearly harrasing and cutting off supplies were quite enough to destroy the French amry, as a matter of fact the French lost more men before Vilna than they lost in Borodino. Logistics is a grim task master that shows no favorites, this was Napoleon's worst campaign in that he completely miscalculated what he was doing and the means he had at had to do so. When the French flanks caved in which was in fact due to excellent Russian operations, it only made things for the center worse. All this will come out in time but... I don't praise or damn either side in a history article. I simply state what happened and why, the rest is up to the reader. Tirronan (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So now it is heavy what happened to drenching?

So which is it heavy or drenching rain? And is it stifling or baking heat?

Obviously both cannot be true so which is it either you were lying the first time or you are lying now so which is it and if you are lying about that then we can also assume that you are lying about everything you have ever written and that it is all fake Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok its apparent that you will not leave me alone, I am asking you once again to cease communication to me about me or having anything to do with me. Apparently you don't want me editing this article though I have not a clue why. Not sure what your personal issue with me is but it needs to stay out of this article and the discussion pages. Enough is enough you have been asked and I am asking again that you stop harrasing me and threating me. --Tirronan (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And I am asking you to follow Wikipedia rules not install pov words and not copy texts directly from books for very long periods and I have told you that if you find following the rules such as not installing unreferenced text or installing pov words or copy texts for long stretches from books as harassment then that is your problem, and answer the question which is it heavy or drenching rain? Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are to wit some 500,000 words in the English language, I shall use any such that I need at any time to sumize my understanding of the source. If you need any addtional help in editing please check WP:Help --Tirronan (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent German edits

To Roksanna

Please do not use other Wikipedia articles in different languages as sources referencing to another Wikipedia article which anyone can edit in another language is not good, and can you please verify what the books in German say by scanning a translated version of them and uploading a link so that everyone can see what the translated books into English say Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that just because this is the English Language Wikepedia, this does not mean that all sources need to be in English - particularly in a subject like this where almost all of the primary sources will not be in the English Language - and there is a vast array of scholarly work done in languages like French, German and Russian. There is absolutely no need to scan translated versions of documents and post them to the web - and indeed this could well raise copyright issues. That said,foreign Language Wikipedias (or indeed the English Language one) do not count as a reliable source and should not be used as a reference.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't get too wound up about it one way or the other I will continue to rewrite the article one section at a time. If anyone has another source, preferably a printed acknowledged history, it would be a help. Please note that most of the Eastern Europe events are going to be French, Polish, German, or Russian. Indeed most of the modern works on the Battle of Waterloo got better because of old Prussian documents that came to light via Peter Hofschroer. --Tirronan (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think, German historicans should write their books in English? German sources are not as good are English sources? At least German troops took part in that war, English troops did not, so I guess German historicans have much to say. Otherwise, in German wikipedia English sources are generally accepted without that kind of arrogance. By the way, 253.000 from "other nations" is really a funny joke. All bigger or middle-size nations are already mentioned, only the smaller nations are not listed. So which of the remaining smaller nations took part with 253.000 men? Liechtenstein??? Don´t you see the nonsense in that article? --Roksanna (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually when I redid the numbers most of the other countries were Germanic with the exception of the Italians and Poles. Prussia, Austria, Saxony, and Wuttenberg, contributed almost 120,000 men between them. Interestingly the Austrians and Prussians got out almost completely intact. --Tirronan (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think around 180.000 "Germans" (including Swiss almost 200.000), the second biggest part after the French with the second biggest losses and therefore you cannot ignore German historicans and German sources. --Roksanna (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside (and I have absolutly no problem with using German etc. sources where necessary) how many of the Austrian troops were German speakers? Could this be part of the difference. There may be some double counting going on in several of the numbers - there were, for example, a good number of (20,000 out of 45,000) French Troops in Eugène's Army of Italy.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess around half of them were "Germans", the command language was German, so all of them spoke it anyway. But I´m afraid that the Croats here could be listed twice. By the way, many Italians were in French units (not the only the Italians from French Northwest of Italy, also soldiers from Northeastern Kingdom of Italy) and so I guess they are listed twice, too. The 180.000 "Germans" include Austrians, Prussians and Rhineans as well as Germans in French Army (Germans from left-Rhine parts of France). --Roksanna (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Article expansion

I've been expanding the article and I am asking for imput, is the expansion going the way you would like? --Tirronan (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is starting to get long - it may become unmanagable if the same expansion is carried out over the whole campaingn. In addition maps (if they could be found) would be helpful in explaing the movements of the various armies.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now there is the rub, I haven't found a good map of 1812 Russia yet though you would think it would be free use since it by nature would be out of copywrite. I share your concerns on the size issue as well. Let me think on this a few days and I'll see about condensing this, however that 1st set of operations does at least give the impression of what was really happening with the Grande Armee. Still I was astonished by the number of actions that early trying to trap the Russian Armies. --Tirronan (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning those early French operations, are you giving enough attention to the masterful way in which the Russians conducted their retreat? During that initial stage of the war, the Russians were marching just as much and at least as fast as the French, and their losses from attrition were far lower than those of the Grande Armee. That fact, plus the Russian success in eluding the French traps, was a huge strategic success for the Russians which had a heavy impact on how the war turned out. This really shouldn't be overlooked or underemphasized.Kenmore (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The West Point military atlases are the very best at chronicling the movements of the French army at all stages of the war. The maps are large and highly detailed. They are available online...I linked several of them to my Polotsk, Krasnoi and Vyazma articles.

The only problem with the West Point atlas concerns the bad narrative that accompanies the maps. For example, it describes Polotsk II as a "French victory". It makes virtually no mention of Krasnoi except to allude vaguely to a French success in holding off the Russians. Anyone who has read Rhein's excellent accounts of Polotsk and Krasnoi knows the truth was far different.

Kenmore (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

253.000 from other nations... bullshit and nonsense

Of course you can mention 253.000 from other nations. It means beside the 300.000 or 355.000 French were 253.000 from other nations, for example Poles, Italians, Germans and so on. But when you list detailed all those other nations seperately, then you have to substract them from those 253.000 men! Otherwise, if Germans, Poles, Italians, Swiss, Iberians and so on are already mentioned... where those remaining 253.000 come from? Andorra or Liechtenstein? Please do not write bullshit and nonsense, open your eyes and compare the main text with the tables, use your brain and remember school mathematics! Thanks --Roksanna (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Next point: The main text did mention 90.000 Poles who marched in (this could be correct) but the losses-table listed 95.000 Poles who died. Unimportant that many sources say almost (only) every third Pole survived and from the surving Poles Poniatowski formed a 18.000-20.000 men corps, but such simple mathematical impossibility everybody should see: 95.000 from 90.000 died??? --Roksanna (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Even in Russian or pro-russian sources I never read a number of more than 612.000 or 615.000 invading men, and traditionally Russian and German sources exaggerate a bit because they were the enemies of France, of course. So when no more than 608-615.000 men marched in (instead of 800.000 if the "253.000 from other nations" were counted twice), how you can have 778.000 casualties? --Roksanna (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, total losses were somewhere in range of 500,000 and even at that I remain utterly unconvinced that more of those were not deserters that crossed back over the border fairly unharmed by the event. Most of the Prussians returned, all of the Austrians returned, and any of the deserters close to the borders would have been walking back to their respective countries unnoticed. --Tirronan (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that Yorck and Schwarzenberg's ancillary armies are not normally counted among the 615,000. john k (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they are counted among those max. 615.000, they are a part of it. How you can count Macdonald without his Prussians? --Roksanna (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. that´s it. Around 600.000 marched in, around 100.000 marched out (only 30.000 under French flag), 100.000 more were POWs. Aproximately. --Roksanna (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. --Tirronan (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You cut the number of French from 450k --> 300k and then ask ooo where are the other casualties. Well they are in the 150k you cut Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reihn gives a pretty good break down of the numbers, Roksanna has German sources and they seem in concurance, if you have a better source we'd sure would like to see it. Tirronan (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Iberia

In the section French invasion of Russia#Causes of the war it currently states: "At the time of the invasion, Napoleon was at the height of his power with virtually all of continental Europe either under his direct control or held by countries defeated by his empire and under treaties favorable for France. No European power on the continent dared move against him"

What about Iberia? --PBS (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It was called the Spanish Ulcer for a reason and there were those around Napoleon that recommened a suspension of the Spanish campaign till the Russian campaign was completed. It was the 1st of many a bad decision by Napoleon. In reflection I think that as numbers increased and the size of the operations expanded much of the genius of Napoleon evaporated. Barclay de Tolley, and Kunetzov, both understood the grand stratigic better than Napoleon did. It has been published by more than a few Historians that later, Napoleon did in fact leave Spain when forced to when he would have profitted more to have taken them out early and save much that was lost in the retreat. Tirronan (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The point I am making is that the paragraph in this article "At the time of the invasion..." needs qualifying because it is inaccurate and misleading. --PBS (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dates?

Starting with the Capture of Moscow, the article is almost completely missing dates. Could someone fill in...? --Syzygy (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

figures dont add up

From the casualty section of the infobox:

558,000: (including appr. 200,000 POWs) 300,000 French, 80,000 Germans, 72,000 Poles, 50,000 Italians 61,000 other nations

As we can see there was 558,000 casualties in total? If that is so how come the figures below it add up to 563,000?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the issues is ever Russian that visits this page insists on changing numbers... 2nd even sources don't agree, 3rd even if they did agree and we again added citation (and it has been done before) it will be changed regardless of fact. Tirronan (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On some of the articles i have worked on the sources do not match up so i have added in the lowest and highest figures into the casualty box ala Operation Epsom (not a very good example considering the lowest and highest are about 60 people out but you catch my drift). That way you will be able to show the widest range possible that your sources state.

Secondly, you may wanna call the admins in, they can help with editwars and help clamp down on the vandalism.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

'French or Napoleon's?' revisited

I see above that a few years ago there was a query about the title of this article. Indeed the title isn't accurate, because the invasion was by Germans, Italians, Swiss and Poles as well as the French. It would be like calling the US-Brit-Canadian D-Day operation the 'American Invasion of Europe' because it was under US overall command. It would be more accurate to entitle this article 'The 1812 campaign against Russia' or 'Napoleon's march on Moscow'. Also, the word 'invasion' is misleading and should not be used because this wasn't a full-scale attack on the whole country like Operation Barbarossa, in fact it was one very long march of one enormous army on a very narrow front to one objective - Moscow. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the French Invasion of Russia is inaccurate, for the reason you have stated. Napoleon's invasion of Russia is equally unsatisfactory as it tends to suggest things were personal in some way. The most accurate name I stumbled across in Napoleonic literature is the French take on it, which is actually perfectly accurate: Campagne de Russie - Campaign of Russia (1812). It follows the same thought pattern as the name 'Campaign of France' during the second World War. --Alexandru.demian (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your idea. As a native speaker of English, I would rather translate that French phrase into 'The Russia Campaign'. But still, this is English language Wikipedia and we should stick to English language precedents, where it is usually referred to as 'the march on Moscow' or the '1812 campaign'. English sources also tend to use the word 'Napoleon' in the title because it is verifiable that he was personally in control of the campaign, it was his idea rather than France's. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's true that English-speaking literature usually uses the names you bring up. Nonetheless, I've just had a look and PhD Charles Esdaile, a pretty authoritative author in the field, does use the term Russian Campaign of 1812 in his book 'Napoleonic Wars: An International History'. So calling it that would not be in complete disagreement with English-speaking literature and would also provide quasi-perfect accuracy when compared to other titles suggested for the article. --Alexandru.demian (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to settle on 'Napoleon's Russian Campaign of 1812'. Esdaile's book is entitled 'Napoleonic Wars', so we already know its about Napoleon when he refers to the 'Russian Campaign of 1812'. A WP article is a self contained unit, so 'Napoleonic' or 'Napoleon's' needs to be in the title, otherwise its meaning would be unclear. To a native English reader, the 'Russian Campaign of 1812' could easily be interpreted as something about the Tsar's expeditions. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!--Alexandru.demian (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Let's wait for 2 or 3 more agreements.-Chumchum7 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Outdent,

Actually it was the French Empire's invasion of Russia as it was super-national in character however... I've seen proposals to change the War of 1812 to other names and change the name of the Battle of the Bulge to something else because someone thought it was more accurate... Naming conventions for old battles are mostly set in stone and I wouldn't go changing them for the most part without a lot of buy in.--Tirronan (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My main argument is the same as yours, that: "naming conventions for old battles are mostly set in stone". Honestly, I can't see the evidence online that this campaign is conventionally entitled the 'French invasion of Russia'. It seems more frequently the 'Russian Campaign of 1812' or 'Napoleon's march on Moscow' and variations on this theme using the words 'Napoleon', '1812' and 'Moscow' most often. I agree the naming convention is more important than the fact that the invasion was super-national in character (just like D-Day was in some sense an 'American invasion of France', but its WP title should remain 'D-Day' because of naming conventions). Maybe we should do the old 'Google test' by searching complete phrases, and seeing which is most popular (discounting film titles, games and existing WP entries) ? All ideas welcome. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Might get the Milhist group involved and see what they think. I've really got no issue with it one way or the other but I don't want groups up in arms about it either and both the French and Russian's seem to have a lot of sensitivity where this one is concerned. --Tirronan (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WP Russian calls it the 'Patriotic War of 1812' while French WP calls it the 'Russian Campaign of 1812'. Both are potentially confusing in English. The common denominator is coming out as '1812'. That needs to be in the title, at least. Anglophone sources tend to refer to the 'Napoleonic' wars, armies, campaigns, etc. But I don't think our much loved French friends get particularly offended by this Anglophone naming convention. This is why IMO 'Napoleon's Russian Campaign of 1812' works best, but am happy to work at consensus. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

On a lighter note we had a Russian editor that decided that we English speakers were far to liberal in our understandings of how battles should be named and went about trying to change the names of the Battle of the Bulge and others... the howls were remarkable and I was laughing till my sides hurt and I was gasping for breath. All this goes to say walk softly on this one. --Tirronan (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The current article name is a descriptive name, as as such it is an accurate description (no need for the year as the French don't invade Russia very often!). If we were to move it I'd go for "Russian Campaign" as that is in my experience the most common name. I would not qualify it further, but place a {{otheruses}} at the top of the page to a disambiguation page. If gets around the problem of who's campaign (Napoleon's, the French, or the European Union's) and any other usage of the term "Russian Campaign" would be qualified because it is not the common usage.-- PBS (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Napoleon's Russian Campaign"? I don't think there's any POV problem with identifying it with Napoleon; the whole series of wars is identified with Napoleon! And many of the troops came from places other than the French Empire - the Kingdom of Italy, the Confederation of the Rhine, and the Duchy of Warsaw provided many of the troops. john k (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)