This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Berezina article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an excerpt from Yevgeny Tarle's Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, 1812.Whoever is enthusiastic, may incorporate. mikka (t) 06:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe the Berezina battle should be listed as a "decisive Russian victory". The Russian successes at Berezina were limited; they were anything but decisive.
Consider:
1. The French first outmanuevered Chichagov, then built pontoon bridges across the river. This manuever frustrated Chicagov's object of preventing a French passage of the river.
2. The French moved a substantial portion of their combat force across the river (to the western bank), in spite of Russian attempts to prevent this from happening.
3. The French repelled Chichagov's attempt to disperse them once they crossed the river (on the western bank); Chichagov suffers heavy losses.
4. On the eastern bank of the river, Wittgenstein was at first too timid to attack the French rear guard in earnest.
5. When Wittgenstein finally attacked, he did force the surrender of Parteneaux's division, and he did bombard the French bridges, inflicting heavy losses on the French rear guard. By then, however, Napoleon had succeeded in moving his main force across the river (to the west).
6. Even though French losses were heinous, most of their losses were stragglers. The Russians, for their efforts, suffered very heavy casualties themselves. These losses immobilized Chicagov's and Wittgenstein's forces in the wake of the battle.
7. There was no Russian pursuit of the French army once it resumed its retreat on the western bank.
Overall, I would say this battle had mixed results. The Russians could claim some kind of victory, perhaps, but certainly it was nothing decisive.
Kenmore ( talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
But lower: Berezina 27-28 November 1812 Xx236 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The Battle of the Berezina was not really a Russian victory, let alone a "decisive" victory, as the article previously stated. Basically, the French outfought and outmanuevered Chicagov's troops on the west bank and forced their way across the river. On the east bank, the French received the worst of the combat against Wittgenstein's troops, but even here the French fought something of a successful rear guard action.
True, the French suffered horrendous losses as their bridges were being shelled toward the end of the engagement, but this does not change the fact that Napoleon successfully led the bulk of his combat forces across the river...a feat accomplished by dint of arms at the expense of the Russians.
Noteworthy also is the unusually large casualties suffered by the Russians: 13,000 to 20,000.
It would be more realistic to say that the battle had a mixed outcome: the Russians retained the field and inflicted heavy losses on Napoleon, but were themselves worsted when they attempted to stop the Grande Armee's retreat.
Kenmore ( talk) 13:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)\
Why are the only numbers for Russian casualties taken from a single French source??? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.148.108.227 (
talk)
13:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe whoever rewrote this article should just translate the French version, because that one is more unbiased than the English version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.108.227 ( talk) 13:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of glaring grammatical errors in the article; the most noticeable ones are the omissions of commas in spliced sentences.
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are need for the battle of Berezina. The listed coordinates in the article must be wrong, because the battle took place during the crossing of Napoleons army over the river. The position given by the coordinates are not by the river but by the road leading to Barysow... — 79.161.198.43 ( talk) 21:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the phrase "Retreat of the French army" from the battle Result section in the infobox several times in the past, but I see it keeps being added back. I think that this is the result of a slight misapprehension regarding the context of the battle. The retreat of the French army after the battle of Berezina was not the result of the battle, it was rather the consequence of the French successful forcing of the passage and also Napoleon's main strategic aim before the battle. I looked to cover this aspect by adding to the succint phrase "French strategic victory" the additional explanation "despite heavy losses, the French force the Berezina crossing". However, adding the phrase "retreat of the French army" is not only redundant (it's been explained that they forced the passage, so they had to be on the move and not static) but it is also misleading, since it seems to suggest an element of Russian victory, while there actually was none at all. Holding the battlefield at Berezina after being brushed aside by Napoleon was devoid of any military significance. For the Russians, Berezina was not only a huge missed opportunity to completely destroy the enemy, but it was quite a catastrophic setback, since it meant that Napoleon and his army were free to escape back to their bases. Granted, these were only the debris of the Grande Armée, but, crucially they included great many officers and army cadres, who were vital and impossible to replace in a short time. Had these officers and cadres not been able to escape, they would't have been able to train the new recruits the next year and Napoleon would not have had an army with which to mount the campaign of 1813. Given the sorry state of the Russian army in late 1812 and early 1813, this was of utmost importance. I hope that putting things into context will help indicate that it is unnecessary and misleading to add such phrases as "retreat of the French army" into the Result section. -- Alexandru Demian ( talk) 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not see any meaningful argument here in favor of classifying this battle as a French victory. Given the disastrous state of the French army after the battle -- its effective collapse, Napoleon leaving the remnants of the army, etc. -- the thesis about a French victory is highly questionable. Nonetheless, with some stretch of imagination the battle could be considered a strategic victory for Napoleon. After all, he did escape the encirclement of his army and his own capture, which likely would have ended the Napoleonic Wars. Tactically, though, it was a Russian victory: the massive casualties incapacitated the French army as a fighting force in this campaign. After the battle, over the next couple of weeks that remained for them to be in the Russian territory, most of the French forces quickly degenerated into an ill-coordinated mob that was never more able to offer any coherent resistance to the Russians. Interested readers may consult the well-researched Russian-language Wikipedia page on the post-Berezina events: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%82_%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0 Brildanz1 ( talk) 05:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Following your logic, Alexandru Demian, Borodino should be considered a great Russian strategic victory over Napoleon, and the Wikipedia page about the battle of Borodino should be changed accordingly. Indeed, after Borodino, the Russian army "marched" away from the battlefield in good order, preserving its cadre of well-trained officers and men, and subsequently was able to continue the campaign -- victoriously. Napoleon's longtime strategic plan of destroying the main Russian army, something he had worked for since the beginning of the invasion, thus failed. After Berezina, on the other hand, Napoleon did not "march" into Poland, as you put it. He left the remnants of his army and fled (or shall we put this tactfully, 'rushed away'?) -- a week after the battle, on December 6, accompanied by merely 200 guards. What survived from the rest of the Grand Army were separate and poorly co-ordinated detachments, part of which indeed made it back across the border into Poland -- but not as a coherent fighting force. Indeed, some of these well-trained men later joined Napoleon's newly rebuilt army, but did so on their own or as parts of small separate units. That certainly speaks to their credit, and to Napoleon's capacities as a leader, but not to the result of Berezina being a French victory. Thousands more perished in December, were captured by the Russians, deserted and never rejoined the army, etc. Effectively, there was no Grand Army after Berezina. The entire thesis about this battle being a "French strategic victory" thus hinges on one argument alone -- Napoleon's own successful escape. With all due respect to his genius, a battle after which an army falls apart within days is not a victory. Tactically, it was a Russian victory -- although indeed by far not as complete as Kutuzov or Alexander I had hoped for. What now stands in the Wikipedia box is a generous concession to Napoleon-lovers. Notably, in the French language and cultural memory, the expression "C'est la bérézina" is a synonym for "this is a complete catastrophe." Not for nothing, I presume. Brildanz1 ( talk) 01:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody protect this article? Somebody, (called Demian) has made it his task in life to change the outcome of this battle on different wiki-pages. Allthoug almost all pages state the factual Russian victory, he keeps changing that on the english and french page. Gr, 145.18.110.36 ( talk) 10:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I found the time to check one of the sources supposedly used by an anonymous user to support the claim that Berezina was a Russian victory. I've checked Zamoisky. Now, I could not find the, 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March on Moscow from 1980 and it doesn't seem to exist on Amazon either. The only book with that name seems to be the one of 2004, of which I have a copy. In the 2004 book, there is actually absolutely no mention of the battle at pages 7-96, as claimed by the anonymous user. The section discussing the battle is at pages 470-480. Furthermore, this author ranks the battle as a French victory (p. 480), in line with mainstream specialised literature: "The crossing at the Berezina was, by any standards, a magnificent feat of arms. Napoleon had risen to the occasion and proved himself wothy of his reputation, extricating himself from what Clausewitz called <<one of the worst situations in which a general ever found himself>>. [...] But it was above all a triumph for Napoleonic France [...]". I'm now wondering what the other two sources quote might hide... Unless there is actually a 1980 book with the same title claiming a Russian victory at Berezina, I have to say that I'm at a loss here and, while I'm not one to suspect foul play quickly, the anonymous user will need to provide some rationale quickly to avoid deletion.-- Alexandru Demian ( talk) 07:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Somebody (more specific a certain Alexandru Demian) has made it his task in life to change and adjust this page in a more pro French way. I saw in the 'View History' section that he keeps undoing versions from different users, so that the outcome looks more positive for the French army. He even (quite childish) changes the logical order in the result, as if it was a clear French victory and only a minor Russian one. Almost all other wiki-pages state a Russian victory, so I would say that he already got a strange compromise by allowing him to add that the French partly won as well. (This last thing is although rather doubtful). Could somebody use his/her authority to protect this page? Greetings, 145.18.226.156 ( talk) 14:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It feels or even seems like you re only bluffing, and that makes it very doubtfull what sources you erased before. The whole meaning of wiki is to make neutral articles, not distributie your personal view (a French one in this case). Greetings, Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.236.177 ( talk) 11:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Look, I am not defending a pro-French POV, nor is it my intention to be daft. I work with credible sources here and I never use websites, which are usually garbage... I am only interested in accuracy and in combatting myths.
Napoleon lost the Russian campaign weeks before Berezina and his defeat in the 1812 campaign is undisputed. However, the Russian victory at Berezina seems to be stuff of Soviet-era propaganda, rather than serious research. Modern Russian scholars seem to have a different take on the matter, perhaps because the Party censorship has not had its share of cuts and edits, huh?... Btw, I am curious to know what leads you to claim that the British historian David Chandler holds a pro-French view?
Back to our discussion. On the earlier website you had inserted, there was no reference to Berezina - this is why I had erased it. There seems to be an article in Russian now - I'll have a look via google translate.
I do have several questions but maybe you already have the answer:
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Berezina article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an excerpt from Yevgeny Tarle's Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, 1812.Whoever is enthusiastic, may incorporate. mikka (t) 06:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe the Berezina battle should be listed as a "decisive Russian victory". The Russian successes at Berezina were limited; they were anything but decisive.
Consider:
1. The French first outmanuevered Chichagov, then built pontoon bridges across the river. This manuever frustrated Chicagov's object of preventing a French passage of the river.
2. The French moved a substantial portion of their combat force across the river (to the western bank), in spite of Russian attempts to prevent this from happening.
3. The French repelled Chichagov's attempt to disperse them once they crossed the river (on the western bank); Chichagov suffers heavy losses.
4. On the eastern bank of the river, Wittgenstein was at first too timid to attack the French rear guard in earnest.
5. When Wittgenstein finally attacked, he did force the surrender of Parteneaux's division, and he did bombard the French bridges, inflicting heavy losses on the French rear guard. By then, however, Napoleon had succeeded in moving his main force across the river (to the west).
6. Even though French losses were heinous, most of their losses were stragglers. The Russians, for their efforts, suffered very heavy casualties themselves. These losses immobilized Chicagov's and Wittgenstein's forces in the wake of the battle.
7. There was no Russian pursuit of the French army once it resumed its retreat on the western bank.
Overall, I would say this battle had mixed results. The Russians could claim some kind of victory, perhaps, but certainly it was nothing decisive.
Kenmore ( talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
But lower: Berezina 27-28 November 1812 Xx236 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The Battle of the Berezina was not really a Russian victory, let alone a "decisive" victory, as the article previously stated. Basically, the French outfought and outmanuevered Chicagov's troops on the west bank and forced their way across the river. On the east bank, the French received the worst of the combat against Wittgenstein's troops, but even here the French fought something of a successful rear guard action.
True, the French suffered horrendous losses as their bridges were being shelled toward the end of the engagement, but this does not change the fact that Napoleon successfully led the bulk of his combat forces across the river...a feat accomplished by dint of arms at the expense of the Russians.
Noteworthy also is the unusually large casualties suffered by the Russians: 13,000 to 20,000.
It would be more realistic to say that the battle had a mixed outcome: the Russians retained the field and inflicted heavy losses on Napoleon, but were themselves worsted when they attempted to stop the Grande Armee's retreat.
Kenmore ( talk) 13:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)\
Why are the only numbers for Russian casualties taken from a single French source??? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.148.108.227 (
talk)
13:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe whoever rewrote this article should just translate the French version, because that one is more unbiased than the English version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.108.227 ( talk) 13:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of glaring grammatical errors in the article; the most noticeable ones are the omissions of commas in spliced sentences.
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are need for the battle of Berezina. The listed coordinates in the article must be wrong, because the battle took place during the crossing of Napoleons army over the river. The position given by the coordinates are not by the river but by the road leading to Barysow... — 79.161.198.43 ( talk) 21:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the phrase "Retreat of the French army" from the battle Result section in the infobox several times in the past, but I see it keeps being added back. I think that this is the result of a slight misapprehension regarding the context of the battle. The retreat of the French army after the battle of Berezina was not the result of the battle, it was rather the consequence of the French successful forcing of the passage and also Napoleon's main strategic aim before the battle. I looked to cover this aspect by adding to the succint phrase "French strategic victory" the additional explanation "despite heavy losses, the French force the Berezina crossing". However, adding the phrase "retreat of the French army" is not only redundant (it's been explained that they forced the passage, so they had to be on the move and not static) but it is also misleading, since it seems to suggest an element of Russian victory, while there actually was none at all. Holding the battlefield at Berezina after being brushed aside by Napoleon was devoid of any military significance. For the Russians, Berezina was not only a huge missed opportunity to completely destroy the enemy, but it was quite a catastrophic setback, since it meant that Napoleon and his army were free to escape back to their bases. Granted, these were only the debris of the Grande Armée, but, crucially they included great many officers and army cadres, who were vital and impossible to replace in a short time. Had these officers and cadres not been able to escape, they would't have been able to train the new recruits the next year and Napoleon would not have had an army with which to mount the campaign of 1813. Given the sorry state of the Russian army in late 1812 and early 1813, this was of utmost importance. I hope that putting things into context will help indicate that it is unnecessary and misleading to add such phrases as "retreat of the French army" into the Result section. -- Alexandru Demian ( talk) 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not see any meaningful argument here in favor of classifying this battle as a French victory. Given the disastrous state of the French army after the battle -- its effective collapse, Napoleon leaving the remnants of the army, etc. -- the thesis about a French victory is highly questionable. Nonetheless, with some stretch of imagination the battle could be considered a strategic victory for Napoleon. After all, he did escape the encirclement of his army and his own capture, which likely would have ended the Napoleonic Wars. Tactically, though, it was a Russian victory: the massive casualties incapacitated the French army as a fighting force in this campaign. After the battle, over the next couple of weeks that remained for them to be in the Russian territory, most of the French forces quickly degenerated into an ill-coordinated mob that was never more able to offer any coherent resistance to the Russians. Interested readers may consult the well-researched Russian-language Wikipedia page on the post-Berezina events: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%82_%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0 Brildanz1 ( talk) 05:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Following your logic, Alexandru Demian, Borodino should be considered a great Russian strategic victory over Napoleon, and the Wikipedia page about the battle of Borodino should be changed accordingly. Indeed, after Borodino, the Russian army "marched" away from the battlefield in good order, preserving its cadre of well-trained officers and men, and subsequently was able to continue the campaign -- victoriously. Napoleon's longtime strategic plan of destroying the main Russian army, something he had worked for since the beginning of the invasion, thus failed. After Berezina, on the other hand, Napoleon did not "march" into Poland, as you put it. He left the remnants of his army and fled (or shall we put this tactfully, 'rushed away'?) -- a week after the battle, on December 6, accompanied by merely 200 guards. What survived from the rest of the Grand Army were separate and poorly co-ordinated detachments, part of which indeed made it back across the border into Poland -- but not as a coherent fighting force. Indeed, some of these well-trained men later joined Napoleon's newly rebuilt army, but did so on their own or as parts of small separate units. That certainly speaks to their credit, and to Napoleon's capacities as a leader, but not to the result of Berezina being a French victory. Thousands more perished in December, were captured by the Russians, deserted and never rejoined the army, etc. Effectively, there was no Grand Army after Berezina. The entire thesis about this battle being a "French strategic victory" thus hinges on one argument alone -- Napoleon's own successful escape. With all due respect to his genius, a battle after which an army falls apart within days is not a victory. Tactically, it was a Russian victory -- although indeed by far not as complete as Kutuzov or Alexander I had hoped for. What now stands in the Wikipedia box is a generous concession to Napoleon-lovers. Notably, in the French language and cultural memory, the expression "C'est la bérézina" is a synonym for "this is a complete catastrophe." Not for nothing, I presume. Brildanz1 ( talk) 01:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody protect this article? Somebody, (called Demian) has made it his task in life to change the outcome of this battle on different wiki-pages. Allthoug almost all pages state the factual Russian victory, he keeps changing that on the english and french page. Gr, 145.18.110.36 ( talk) 10:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I found the time to check one of the sources supposedly used by an anonymous user to support the claim that Berezina was a Russian victory. I've checked Zamoisky. Now, I could not find the, 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March on Moscow from 1980 and it doesn't seem to exist on Amazon either. The only book with that name seems to be the one of 2004, of which I have a copy. In the 2004 book, there is actually absolutely no mention of the battle at pages 7-96, as claimed by the anonymous user. The section discussing the battle is at pages 470-480. Furthermore, this author ranks the battle as a French victory (p. 480), in line with mainstream specialised literature: "The crossing at the Berezina was, by any standards, a magnificent feat of arms. Napoleon had risen to the occasion and proved himself wothy of his reputation, extricating himself from what Clausewitz called <<one of the worst situations in which a general ever found himself>>. [...] But it was above all a triumph for Napoleonic France [...]". I'm now wondering what the other two sources quote might hide... Unless there is actually a 1980 book with the same title claiming a Russian victory at Berezina, I have to say that I'm at a loss here and, while I'm not one to suspect foul play quickly, the anonymous user will need to provide some rationale quickly to avoid deletion.-- Alexandru Demian ( talk) 07:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Somebody (more specific a certain Alexandru Demian) has made it his task in life to change and adjust this page in a more pro French way. I saw in the 'View History' section that he keeps undoing versions from different users, so that the outcome looks more positive for the French army. He even (quite childish) changes the logical order in the result, as if it was a clear French victory and only a minor Russian one. Almost all other wiki-pages state a Russian victory, so I would say that he already got a strange compromise by allowing him to add that the French partly won as well. (This last thing is although rather doubtful). Could somebody use his/her authority to protect this page? Greetings, 145.18.226.156 ( talk) 14:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It feels or even seems like you re only bluffing, and that makes it very doubtfull what sources you erased before. The whole meaning of wiki is to make neutral articles, not distributie your personal view (a French one in this case). Greetings, Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.236.177 ( talk) 11:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Look, I am not defending a pro-French POV, nor is it my intention to be daft. I work with credible sources here and I never use websites, which are usually garbage... I am only interested in accuracy and in combatting myths.
Napoleon lost the Russian campaign weeks before Berezina and his defeat in the 1812 campaign is undisputed. However, the Russian victory at Berezina seems to be stuff of Soviet-era propaganda, rather than serious research. Modern Russian scholars seem to have a different take on the matter, perhaps because the Party censorship has not had its share of cuts and edits, huh?... Btw, I am curious to know what leads you to claim that the British historian David Chandler holds a pro-French view?
Back to our discussion. On the earlier website you had inserted, there was no reference to Berezina - this is why I had erased it. There seems to be an article in Russian now - I'll have a look via google translate.
I do have several questions but maybe you already have the answer: