Talk:Battle of Borodino/Archive 3

Pyrrhic victory

It is unclear for me why my edit was reverted. The Aftermath section states:

"While Napoleon won the battle of Borodino, his victory ultimately cost him his army, as it allowed the French emperor to believe that the campaign was winnable, exhausting his forces as he pressed still further into Russia in his attempts to defeat the Russian army."

The Pyrrhic victory article states:

"A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with devastating cost to the victor; it carries the implication that another such will ultimately cause defeat."

In addition, for decades Russian and Soviet historiography presented the outcome as a Russian strategic victory.(Barry Hollingsworth. The Napoleonic Invasion of Russia and Recent Soviet Historical Writing. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Mar., 1966), pp. 38-52) Although such a claim was obviously a gross exaggeration, it is impossible to make such a claim based on nothing. Interestingly, this opinion is shared by some western scholars ("Some [battles], like Marengo and Borodino, were actually near defeats in which Napoleon displayed little of his accustomed tactical subtlety." ( A. M. Devine. Demythologizing the Battle of the Granicus. Phoenix, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 265-278))

In connection to that, the word "Pyrrhic" seems to be quite appropriate. Taking into account that the decision to withdraw was taken after the battle, "indecisive" can also be used as a result, although "pyrrhic victory" is more adequate. I'll re-introduce "pyrrhic" is no arguments will be be presented in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. Your change was reverted because this was a French Victory with about 1/2 of the Russian army destroyed and the only the fact that Napoleon didn't press the battle forward is the only reason the Russian army continued to exist that day. The French Army was about 95,000 strong on the day of the battle and remained about 95,000 strong up to the retreat. We get into nationalist feelings here where we have had all sorts of attempts to make this a draw or a Russian victory. The truth of the matter is and will forever remain, that the entire enterprise was doomed to failure from almost minute one. Had there been no Borodino, I still doubt that there would have been any change in outcome whatsoever. The battle was fought because there was a demand for it not because it was needed. We don't need any more playing about with the outcomes box.Tirronan (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This was definitely not a draw. The fact that Napoleon won is unquestionable. The dispute is about the word "pyrrhic". With regards to 1/2 of Russian army (which, btw is an exaggeration, because 120000/2=60000, not 45000. In actuality, only 1/3 of the army was lost), please, keep in mind that 1/4 of French army also had been destroyed, and, taking into account that it was much more difficult to obtain reinforcements for Napoleon than for Kutuzov, the outcome for the French was more severe. One way or the another, what you write is just your considerations whereas I provided the sources.
I am still waiting for reasonable arguments why the victory was not pyrrhic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pyrrhic" victory generally means victory where losses are intolerably high, it would be appropriate if it had forced Napoleon to start retreating soon, but causes of his retreat were elsewhere. Probably it would had went same way if Russians had decided not to give a battle before Moscow at all. I would call it "tactical victory", as it didn't change strategic situation either way. Its phyrric only if you apply standard, that every battle that doesn't end with complete destruction of hostile army, is automatically a failure, which could be somewhat justified compared to many other Napoleon's battles, but I dont think we can use this reasoning here.--Staberinde (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: ""Pyrrhic" victory generally means victory where losses are intolerably high, it would be appropriate if it had forced Napoleon to start retreating soon..." Not necessarily. Pyrrhus of Epirus himself did not retreat after the Battle of Asculum (279 BC).

Re: "Its phyrric only if you apply standard, that every battle that doesn't end with complete destruction of hostile army, is automatically a failure". Not necessarily. If you forced the opponent to retreat al low cost is definitely a victory even if his army is not destroyed.

Re: " Probably it would had went same way if Russians had decided not to give a battle before Moscow at all." No. That would mean that Napoleon had a free hand in Russia. In that case he would be able to go to St.Petersburg after capture of Moscow, etc. It is quite incorrect that by stepping on the territory of Russia every invader becomes automatically doomed.

Again, we have a battle when Napoleon lost 1/4 of his army and failed to destroy the army of his opponent. The battle demonstrated that the second similar battle with the same opponent (that got considerable reinforcement during the autumn and winter) would be a disaster (that eventually appeared to be correct). Consequently, the battle appeared to be even more pyrrhic than the eponymous Battle of Asculum was.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "No. That would mean that Napoleon had a free hand in Russia." Um, what? I don't really understand where would Russian army disappear enabling Napoleon to gain "free hand". No battle would logically mean no losses to either side giving strategical situation that was right before battle. I can't really see how removing 30-39k French and 40-45k Russians significantly changed Napoleon's chances to force Russia into peace before winter (which I would say were quite non-existent at that point).--Staberinde (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you didn't address my major point, namely, that Borodino was even more pyrrhic for Napoleon than Asculum was for Pyrrhus: whereas the latter was still able to launch another offensive campaign in Sicily after Asculum, the battle of Borodino started a continuous chain of Napoleon's defeats ended with Waterloo.

With regard to your last question, I cannot understan what is unclear for you: obviously the army, that had been already decisively beaten at Austerlitz, and that is constantly avoiding any decisive battle is equal to absence of any army. Without Borodino, nothing could prevent Napoleon from turning to St.Petersburg after capturing of Moscow, that would lead to deposition of Alexander. By contrast, the army that appeared to be capable not only to decimate, but, literally quadrimate the Grand Army (although at a very high cost), and that managed to survive after that (and to constantly get reinforcements), is quite a different thing. By doing that this army proved it was a force to be reckoned with, and that was a decisive factor that forced Napoleon to withdraw.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

None the less, this victory didn't stop the French army from continued operations, it was the nature of the operations and the operations of light cavalry, cossacks, and guerrilla warfare, as well as never having a handle on his logistics that spelled doom for the French, were you arguing that the Russians had a better grand strategic grasp now there you would be right. They lost about 140,000 men give or take before this battle started, they would retreat from Moscow with about 95,000. The important factor is that the Russian army continued to exist and that Napoleon didn't do the one thing that would have salvaged the situation... retreat. This need not go on there have been a lot of attempts to make this something other than what it is, a meaningless victory in a long drum roll of defeats that happened both before and after this battle. There was a French victory on the Berrisina (sp) as well, it didn't change much there either. For all the loss of life and the sturm and drang, this battle contributed some more losses to the French forces, but there were many weeks where this was only a middling loss to the French.Tirronan (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "None the less, this victory didn't stop the French army from continued operations..." Asculum also didn't stop Pyrrhus from continuing his operations.

Re: " There was a French victory on the Berrisina" Are you serious? If the battle of Berezina (where the only French success was that the part of the army managed to escape) was a French victory, then Borodino was the decisive Russian victory.

Please, respect your opponent and provide serious arguments (and sources).

Pyrrhic victory is a costly victory that makes the victor's position worse. That is exactly what happened at Borodino: Napoleon lost a quarter of his army and in exchange got an illusion of victory, the illusion that prevented him from immediate retreat (the only reasonable step, according to you). What other arguments are needed?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok enough, I know trolling when I see it and I'm done with the conversation.Tirronan (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Firstly, you didn't address my major point, namely, that Borodino was even more pyrrhic for Napoleon than Asculum was for Pyrrhus: whereas the latter was still able to launch another offensive campaign in Sicily after Asculum, the battle of Borodino started a continuous chain of Napoleon's defeats ended with Waterloo. Actually that chain started then Napoleon entered Russia. And it wasn't continuous chain of defeats either, Napoleon actually won quite a few battles in 6th coalition war, although not enough to overcome superior numbers of coalition, especially after Austria joined it.
Re:With regard to your last question, I cannot understan what is unclear for you: obviously the army, that had been already decisively beaten at Austerlitz, and that is constantly avoiding any decisive battle is equal to absence of any army. Barclay de Tolly and practically whole Russian strategy(where Borodino was exception, not a rule) during Napoleon's invasion disagrees with you. Napoleon never decisively lost a major battle during invasion, still invasion was enormous military fiasco for him.
Re:Without Borodino, nothing could prevent Napoleon from turning to St.Petersburg after capturing of Moscow, that would lead to deposition of Alexander. Russian army, logistical nightmare of making another long march in middle of Russia, and approaching winter, are in my opinion far too solid factors for calling them "nothing". But its all logical conclusion and therefore original search of mine, so if you find reliable source backing claim that without Borodino Napoleon could had taken Petersburg and end the war, then I will support adding "phyrric victory".--Staberinde (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Without Borodino, nothing could prevent Napoleon from turning to St.Petersburg after capturing of Moscow, that would lead to deposition of Alexander. I too would love to see a source in support of this outrageous claim. Albrecht (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

1, when your only interest in an article is the outcome box it says something, 2, when you disregard what is stated then come back with the same arguments, it smells like trolling, 3, when you start putting personal challenges in your statements it becomes trolling. I'm not interesting in debates on a talk page, nor am I interested in philosophical literary battles, I don't like trolling and I have better uses for my time. I see that you have engaged in such things before as well. Please take your arguments and your devices for continuing such elsewhere. You have not reached an agreement with the other editors or myself and until you do I am not interested in changing the outcome box. If you care to do some research and actually add to the battle with good sources that would be welcome I am not interested in opinions however. Best regards Tirronan (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Actually that chain [of defeats] started then Napoleon entered Russia." I definitely do not understand something. Do you imply that the battle of Borodino was a Napoleon's defeat?

Re: "Napoleon never decisively lost a major battle during invasion" What about Battle of Tarutino and Battle of Beresina?

Re: "if you find reliable source backing claim that without Borodino Napoleon could had taken Petersburg and end the war, then I will support adding "pyrrhic victory"." Can you provide a claim that without Asculum Pyrrhus could had taken Rome and end the war?

Re: "when you start putting personal challenges in your statements it becomes trolling." I concede it was incorrect. I apologize.

Re: "You have not reached an agreement with the other editors or myself and until you do I am not interested in changing the outcome box." Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you have some serious arguments and sources in support of the present outcome box, please, provide them. Note, I provided reliable sources that state that Borodino was hardly a pure Napoleon's victory. By contrast, you provided neither satisfactory arguments nor reliable sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One way or the another, we have to finish this dispute. The following reliable sources describe Borodino as Napoleon's pyrrhic victory:

1. "As a result, Wellington believed, Borodino had only been a Pyrrhic victory, despite its having left the road to Moscow open to Napoleon" (Andrew RobertsNapoleon and Wellington: the Battle of Waterloo and the great commanders who fought it. Simon and Schuster, 2001 ISBN 0743228324, 9780743228329, p. 254)
2. "This assessment proved to be exactly right, and Borodino was to be one of the most Pyrrhic of victories for Bonaparte." (Peter Neville, David Woodroffe. A Traveller's History of Russia. A Traveller's History Series. Interlink Books, 2006 ISBN1566566452, 9781566566452, p. 125)
3. "Involving more than a quarter of a million soldiers in total, the Battle of Borodino was a Pyrrhic victory for Napoleon—the largest and bloodiest battle..." (Martin W. Sandler, Dennis Reinhartz. Atlantic Ocean: The Illustrated History of the Ocean That Changed the World. Sterling Publishing Company, 2008 ISBN 1402747241, 9781402747243, p. 249)
4. "At Borodino, Napoleon won a pyrrhic victory and lost the Russian campaign." (Erik Durschmied. The weather factor: how nature has changed history. Arcade Publishing, 2001, ISBN 1559705582, 9781559705585, p. 114)
5. "Borodino was certainly won by the French, but it was a Pyrrhic victory." (Theodore Ayrault Dodge. Napoleon; a History of the Art of War: From the beginning of the Peninsular war to the end of the Russian campaign, with a detailed account of the Napoleonic wars. Volume 3 of Napoleon; a History of the Art of War, Great captains Houghton, Mifflin and company, 1907, p. 583)
6. "On September 7, with their commander shaking from fever and urinary pain, the French won another pyrrhic victory at Borodino, outside of Moscow..." (David Avrom Bell. The first total war: Napoleon's Europe and the birth of warfare as we know it. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007, ISBN

0618349650, 9780618349654, p. 295.)

1. "It was a Pyrrhic victory for Napoleon. He had lost many irreplaceable senior officers - fourteen leutenant generals and thirty-three major generals. Among wounded were Ney and Davout." (Alistair Horne. How Far from Austerlitz?: Napoleon 1805-1815. Macmillan, 1998. ISBN 0312187246, 9780312187248, p. 316)

I can provide more sources on that account, however, believe I already sustained the burden of proof. I restore "pyrrhic" and I expect noone to remove it without providing a really solid ground. Such a ground can be, for instance, several publications in first class peer reviewed journals that explicitly demonstrate the sources provided by me are outdated and wrong.
regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, out of a mass of scholarly literature that takes the contrary view, you were able to scrounge up a few cherry-picked examples from the bottom of the barrel. First, I should remind you of the difference between an author using the word for rhetorical or narrative purposes—as stylistic shorthand, or else to draw a conceptual relationship to later events (a catchprase, if you will, for unfamiliar readers)—and a trained military historian or historian of the Napoleonic Wars properly analyzing the events' strategic context and concluding that the battle causally brought on a later disaster. Your citations at any rate are laughably inadequate for many obvious reasons. The first can be stricken off immediately, because frankly we don't care what Wellington thinks. No. 2, 3, 4 do not appear to be scholars remotely connected to the field (Atlantic Ocean: The Illustrated History of the Ocean That Changed the World?! Come on!), and who I doubt devote more than a paragraph or two to Borodino. No. 5 is more than a century dated. Demanding "several publications in first class peer reviewed journals," is, in context, a preposterously snooty and unintentionally ironic manoeuvre. If a few David G. Chandlers call it "Pyrrhic," we'll talk. Albrecht (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see the discussion moved to the sources, so I hope we will come to to something reasonable. As soon as you mentioned David G. Chandler, let's see how he describes the Borodino's outcome. On the page 806 of his "The Campaigns of Napoleon, Volume 1" he writes:

"Although technically a victory, Borodino cannot be represented as the decisive battle so long desired by Napoleon. true, it finally opened the road to Moscow and made French occupation of the Kremlin practically a certainty, but the fact that Kutuzov was able to withdraw 90,000 troops from the battlefield in good order meant that the military power of Russia was far from destroyed. Moreover, the casualties of both sides had been horrific."

On the page 807 he continues:

"Although Napoleon typically tried to pass off the result as a notable achievement, he had good reason for bitter disappointment. ... In this latter respect, Borodino proved extremely barren. ... Borodino was empty triumph for the French cause;"

Yes, Chandler does not use the word "Pyrrhic" explicitly, however, everything he writes does not contradict to such a characterization of the battle's outcome.

In other words, we have several source ("cherry picked" by me, according to you. BTW, do you think the language you use is fully appropriate?) that state that the victory was "Pyrrhic" (two more sources, added by me to the article, David Avrom Bell. The first total war: Napoleon's Europe and the birth of warfare as we know it. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007, ISBN 0618349650, 9780618349654, p. 295, and Alistair Horne. How Far from Austerlitz?: Napoleon 1805-1815. Macmillan, 1998. ISBN 0312187246, 9780312187248, p. 316, that state the same, are hardly non-academic, outdated, fringe or tangentially related to the subject). Other source (Chandler) does not use such a language, however, it is clear from what he says that the word "Pyrrhic" is appropriate in this case. In connection to that, please, explain what other proof is needed?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Barren" means the French did not profit from the victory, a fact contested by no one. "Pyrrhic" means the 'victory' actually ruined a campaign that would/might otherwise have succeeded, which is absolutely false. That's the problem with people like you (and, arguably, some of the people you cite) who fail to realize that Napoleon was embarked on a hopeless campaign: each time he confronts the Russian Army he can either annihilate it completely or, by your account, score a mere "Pyrrhic" victory. No. His victories are still victories—unless they can be shown to contribute directly to the disastrous outcome.

A strict reading of Chandler would yield something like this in the Infobox:

French tactical victory;

• Retreat of the Russian Army;
  
• Strategically indecisive

I would have no problem with this. Albrecht (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re: "...each time he confronts the Russian Army he can either annihilate it completely or, by your account, score a mere "Pyrrhic" victory." That is exactly what Chandler writes on page 807: he quotes the Napoleon's own words, according to which the only satisfactory outcome was taking a large number of prisoners (i.e. annihilation of the Russian army).

Re: ""Pyrrhic" means the 'victory' actually ruined a campaign" That is what the sources quoted by me state. Again, if you believe the sources are unreliable or fringe, please prove that, otherwise "Pyrrhic" should stay.

I also have no problem with the Chandler's summary provided by you. It is much more adequate than just a "French victory". However, I still cannot understand why properly sourced "Pyrrhic" cannot stay, because noone have proven so far that it does not comply with WP:V.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "His victories are still victories—unless they can be shown to contribute directly to the disastrous outcome." What do you mean under directly? And what is the criterion according to which the sourced statements can be neglected or taken into account?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, your quote from Andrew Roberts, page 254 is inexact. Roberts states that Wellington wrote that he thought Borodino was a Pyrrhic victory; it makes a world of a difference from what you are stating. As for Soviet authors, they are compromised as soon as you pronounce the word Soviet. Want a Russian point of view? Then quote a non-Soviet Russian scholar who has done some real research on the matter and whose favorite novel was not "War and Peace". Try a true scholar like Oleg Sokolov. This is just in case you were wondering why your edits a were deleted. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "As for Soviet authors, they are compromised as soon as you pronounce the word Soviet." Firstly, please, provide reliable sources to support this your assertion. Concretely, the reliable, peer-reviewed source that explicitly stated that the Soviet authors writing about Borodino by default are unreliable. Secondly, among the sources you so arbitrarily removed there were no Soviet sources.

Re Roberts. How about David Avrom Bell, Alistair Horne, Theodore Ayrault Dodge and others?

Finally, you just removed the material from the article that was properly sourced. Let me remind you that this is a violation of WP:V.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. Re: Oleg Sokolov. If you have any doubt on the sources used by me, please go to WP:RSN. Otherwise try to refrain from claims that the sources used by you are written by "true scholars", whereas the sources used by your opponents are belletrictic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope nobody has a problem when i give some input. I think the problem here are the different definitions of pyrrhic. I guess its not even the failure of one of u. Many different historians have different definitions of pyrrhic. Some think extreme costs mean pyrrhic others think a victory which lowers the combat power of the victor to the same level of the loser. Other think a pyrrhic victory is a victory which turns the tide unnecessarily. With the premise that overall victory was possible before the battle. Example: France has good chances to win the war but starts a battle which ends as win but makes overall victory impossible.( here albrecht sounds reasonable napoleons victory was very uncertain from the very beginning) So i think u should get consense about pyrrhic first. Blablaaa (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, if we have reliable sources that state the victory was pyrrhic (and no reliable sources stating that it was not), what is the reason to reject such a conclusion? (The question is not rhetoric) --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with your characterization of Chandler's Borodino and believe you are misreading his view of the Russian campaign more generally. But if we are satisfied with his description (and I imagine others here would be as well), why not inscribe the Infobox result I've suggested above and footnote it to Chandler's long and brutally frank appraisal of the battle? After all, an eloquently damning verdict should please you better than the simple word "Pyrrhic."

Moreover, I believe you have made the case, for good or ill, that some scholars and/or contemporaries described Borodino as a Pyrrhic victory, and would not object to a statement to that effect in the body of the article (with some of the sources you have invoked here.) Albrecht (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "why not inscribe the Infobox result I've suggested above" Frankly, the language you used is more scholarly and neutral than poetic "Pyrrhic". The only my objection is that the French losses should be mentioned explicitly, something like that:

French tactical victory, but at the cost of high losses;

• Retreat of the Russian Army;
  
• Strategically indecisive

In addition, I propose to modify other Napoleon-related infoboxes accordingly.

Re: "and would not object to a statement to that effect in the body of the article" As you probably noticed, I attempted to introduce such a statement (which has been immediately reverted). I am waiting for the response from the editor who reverted me, and, if there will be no response in close future, I am intended to re-introduce this statement. Maybe, your wording ("some scholars") would be more appropriate. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. With regard to "eloquently damning verdict should please you better than the simple word "Pyrrhic."", I am not sure if I understand you correct. Do you mean that by accepting what the sources state you do me a favour? I thought our goal here is to create correct and neutral content, not to please each other...--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Its going to stay reverted, this is exactly the trolling that kept this article to one fat paragraph for years while folks argued the info box endlessly and no one would contribute for fear of getting involved with the argument, its stupid and childish but it goes on and on, how exactly does this promote a greater understanding of the subject? Oh and Riehn ISBN 0-471-54302-0 doesn't list it as Pyrrhic, there were missed opportunities by both sides to make this decisive but it didn't happen.Tirronan (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am going to take a moment to tone it down, Paul my issue isn't that the battle wasn't a bloody mess it is stated all over that it was a horrific battle. I know, if you go back far enough you will find that I wrote most of this article. My problem is that it isn't the best article that it can be, and it could stand a rewrite, it could most certainly use more good sources, but none of that is answered by an outcome box. I consider it one of the horrid wastes of time that Wikipedians engage in. We present a product that should enlighten the masses, not engage in this sort of stuff. I'm ex-military so I am going to state this, it didn't matter what happened so long as the Russian Army remained intact, it didn't matter how many battles the French won (and they won most of them), the Russians had a much better understanding of time/space and logistics then their French counterparts (Napoleon's genius wasn't much apparent here), and the inevitable grind of the denial of supply by the operations of Russian light cavalry formations and Cossacks means that they continued to lose a Borodino of losses every single month no matter what else happened. I didn't matter that the French won, and yes I wrote the statement you quoted, when they went forward instead of backwards the only thing they won was the right to starve and die. This was a war of logistics and it was logistics that extended it's grim hand and took its toll. Every military war college around the world uses this as the prime example of grim side of logistics (btw the Crimean campaign is the other one). Had the French really lost Borodino the probable result would have been fewer overall French losses, it was that bad. I'm not arguing that this wasn't a outright disaster of a battle (though I am in wonder that the French won with a head on assault), I would argue that in the long haul it mattered little to the campaign that saw thousands dying every week.Tirronan (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for toning down, Tirronan. By doing that you gave me an opportunity to tone down my own response (I failed to post it due to an edit conflict). I need some time to meditate about what you have written and I'll respond later. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As previously noted, your newfound devotion to the sanctity of reliable sources was not exactly evident during your campaign to strongarm the pages' editors into accepting a minority view. (The great mass of sources which contradicted your view did not appear to interest you, or were simply rewritten to fit your preconceived schema.) [toned down] More concretely, I am not inclined to accept the addition of a comment on French casualties in the Result line:

1. Many victories were historically purchased at the grim cost of high casualties. Borodino is not some isolated exception (for example, the Coalition losses at the Battle of Leipzig were a staggering 54,000, yet the Result simply states, Decisive coalition victory. Why don't I see you rushing to add all sorts of qualifiers or caveats to that statement?) It is neither expected nor assumed that victory necessarily = fewer losses, so the X but Y formula seems devoid both of content and reason for being.
2. The Russian casualties were also appallingly high, and singling out French losses seems odd and very suspect. As if, to our minds, the reader should naturally expect or presuppose low casualties from the French or Western European "professional/scientific" military apparatus and dramatically high losses from the faceless Russian/Eastern "hordes," both of which are ideological or cultural mystifications and a clear breach of neutrality.
3. The high French casualties are noted both in the Infobox itself, three inches away, and within the introductory paragraphs. We do not need to state them thrice in the same section.

It is not merely a question of what the sources say, but of which sources are appropriate for different areas of the article (Infobox v. text) and, moreover, which sources can be held as typical or representative of others in the field. Albrecht (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to propose a compromise here, Riehn, Elting, Chandler, and such are the heavy weights here where references are in English, since I don't speak the language I'd really love to know where the heavy weight Russian historians come down at but if we are all agreed that we can't make the info box say too much then I am proposing that we put it as a French victory, strategically indecisive and leave the tactical out and high casualty part to the actual numbers. I would have a hard time trying to say it was decisive given the losses the French army was suffering anyway. Tirronan (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I'd really love to know where the heavy weight Russian historians come down..." That is a quite reasonable idea, because, as a rule, it is quite natural to use the sources of local origin when we speak about the events that took place outside of the Anglophone world. I am able to read Russian and I saw that Russian Wikipedia describes the outcome as "indecisive". Of course, that hardly prove anything, but... What I know is that old Russian and Soviet sources described the battle as indecisive, whereas more recent sources present the outcome as the Napoleon's tactical victory. I'll try to make a brief summary of what the Russian sources tell on that account, although I need some time for that. However, let's leave the Russian sources beyond the scope for a while: Borodino became a part of the Russian national mythology, so it is hard for Russian (as well as French) scholars to be really neutral in that case. I propose to look at the British (or Anglophone) sources first.

You correctly noted: " Had the French really lost Borodino the probable result would have been fewer overall French losses, it was that bad. " However, that is exactly how the term "pyrrhic" is understood. Note, I already agreed that the word "pyrrhic" is too inflammatory and non-academic for the infobox, so I don't insist on it any more (and will not support it if anybody else will try to re-introduce it). However, we have to take into account the following: the victory at Borodino was very costly, it made the Napoleon position much worse, and many sources, including the popular ones describe the victory as "pyrrhic". Based on that, it is incorrect to say that the battle changed nothing, that Napoleon was defeated solely due to the combination of weather, partisan warfare and logistics. The battle itself contributed a lot into his defeat, and the losses he sustained appeared to be irrecoverable.

Re: "The Russian casualties were also appallingly high" It is natural to expect that the defeated side suffer significant losses, so to mention Russian losses explicitly would be redundant.

Re: "Many victories were historically purchased at the grim cost of high casualties." Correct. But in that case the heavy losses are compensated with something more valuable, e.g. by strategic or political gains. Summarising the Borodino, three different aspects of the battle's outcome can be outlined: (i) the battle was a French local (or tactical) victory; (ii) the battle didn't change a strategic balance; (iii) the French losses were intolerably high. These three factors are "independent variables", each of them cannot be derived from other two, and each of them was significant per se. Therefore, it is natural to expect them to be presented in the infobox. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "...if we are all agreed that we can't make the info box say too much..." I looked at the Battle of Berezina infobox and I found that the outcome is described as follows:

"Russian tactical victory; French force passage of the Berezina River, but suffer catastrophic losses."

In other words, both "tactical" and "losses" are there, although, commonsensually the outcome should be "Russian decisive victory" (Napoleon lost about a half of his army and the only his success was that he managed to escape).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, tactical is used, often enough and I don't think it is out of place but at some point you have to let the article speak. In large part the reason you see strange info boxes is that the Russian population is not all that willing to see the Russian Army lose at any time. But for instance the Battle of Jutland has indecisive and I strongly agree with it. The Battle of Wavre I have as a Prussian loss even though I consider it a Prussian victory. There are lots of battles with heavy losses and 99.9% of the articles don't point that out, I don't see that it should be the case here either. Being a Texan I would prefer that the Battle of Gettysburg said that we lost (barely) but it shall remain as a loss period. Again we are spending way too much time and effort on an info box and I've gone much further than I really wanted to in the way of a compromise. Now this has to be it. Tirronan (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I've gone much further than I really wanted to in the way of a compromise" Please, realise the following: by accepting one or another changes you are not doing me a favour. I believe we both are trying to find the most adequate description of the events, so if you will demonstrate me that your understanding is closer to what the sources say, I'll accept all your arguments. You have not fully convinced me so far, however. I looked through the infoboxes of other Napoleon related articles and I found that the words "tactical victory" and "losses" are present in some of them. In connection to that I conclude that sometimes (although not always) these words can be relevant to description of the battle's outcome. For instance, going back to the Berezina, that, I concede, was a Napoleon's success, (btw, I found that even Tarle, who lived and wrote during Stalin's time, described it as such), the words on successful passage of Napoleon troops is accompanied by the notion on heavy losses. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul, enough I have made my final change to the outcome box, I thought about it and realized that reducing a major battle to "tactical" just doesn't work however it is fair to say that it was a strategic loss and I have the sources to back that up (multiple). This is about my time and the effort that I have had to put into an info box, to say the least I am not happy about it. This is trivial but this just had to take up hours of my time and I am angry... I don't want any more of my time taken with this at all. There isn't a thing about this that really improved the article and I can't tell you how armchair quarterback this looks from the 10,000 ft view. I consider myself a much more serious person than this and I resent every second I have had to spend on it. If I have to spend more on it then it will be in front of an arbitration board and an appeal to Wikipedia about outright harassment to achieve your goals. Unless this has to do with IMPROVING the article I don't and will not take another second of my time on this endeavor and I strongly suggest that you move on to something more worth your time and effort.Tirronan (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, your edit obscured the issue: what does "retreat of the Russian Army; Strategic Loss " mean? Whose loss? Of course, both you and I understand that the battle was "strategically indecisive/strategical French loss", however, the reader may conclude it was Russian strategic loss. I am not sure that is was your intention.

One way or the another, you failed to explain me why the word "tactical" is acceptable in the infoboxes of other articles and is not acceptable here; you also presented no arguments in support for your claim that the losses should not be mentioned separately (taking into account that this battle was the most bloody single day battle of XIX century, and taking into account that other infoboxes do mention one or another side's losses explicitly). Frankly, I am ready to agree that you know this period of history better than I do. However, if you are so good specialist, explain your point of view and prove you are right. The references to the time you waste can hardly be an argument here. You are too emotional; maybe this would help you.

Re: " If I have to spend more on it then it will be in front of an arbitration board and an appeal to Wikipedia about outright harassment to achieve your goals." If you really care about your time, please, don't do that: I don't see how did I violate the spirit or the letter WP policy by doing what I did. Moreover, I would say, by writing that you harassed me (although I am not going to go to any ANI, because I assume your good faith).

Cheers. :-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. Your "strategic loss" (without specifying whose loss it was) looks like a Freudian slip, and may (although not necessarily is) be a sign of your bias. In addition, please, explain me what is the difference between "French strategic loss" and "Russian strategic victory" and what considerations your choice between these two was based on?

PPS. The material added by you has not been attributed properly to the source you used. Since the work you cite is the book, not article, per WP:BURDEN, the page number is needed. Please, do that in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

French strategic loss, 2 we are trolling again, what part of I don't want to engage in this didn't you understand? 3. forcing someone to particpate in this isn't at all nice. and you are minutes away from explaining this to admins, so I am going to say this exactly one more time, leave me alone.Tirronan (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Since no page number have been provided (despite my request) it is impossible to verify the "results" statement. I reverted it to what Chandler says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added the page numbers read to your hearts content and I've reverted it back but thank you anyway. Tirronan (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I replaced "retreat" with "strategic withdrawal" based on what the source says. Since the Riehn's book is relatively old (1990) and mildly revisionist, I am not sure we can use it as a major source. With regard to "French strategic loss", could you please provide a concrete quote your edit is based upon? I am asking because most sources do not describe it as a strategic loss, preferring to say it was strategically indecisive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know Chandler is older than Riehn, I'm curious 1st you wanted this to be a Pyrrhic victory then a tactical one, at least in my mind at least one would have a horrific battle that cost the winner the course of the war, the other would make this a minor victory with no cost long term. Now my sources are not good enough and this followed by twice referring to my bias (I've no idea what bias I am supposed to have I am neither French nor Russian) and setting yourself up as arbitrator of what is a good source after bringing forth a travel book as a basis for Pyrrhic victory? Why don't we waste more time arguing ad infinitum ever possible permutation that can be written in the English language about 4 lines at the top of the article? State what you are trying to get to and knock this endless rambling off, I repeat I don't have endless amounts of time for trivial crap or games in semantics. As a case in point I don't have much of an argument that the Russian army retreated or withdrew as they left under their own power unmolested by the French and further according to Riehn (dirty revisionist that he is) stated that the Russian army didn't think itself defeated on the whole. State simply what you want lets get to if I and the other editors can agree on it and find something else to do with your time. By the way really rewriting this article with your better sources would be an outstanding idea! God knows I am not God's gift to editing and 90% of this was done by me and frankly no one owns an article so if you care to take the time to write a article's worth of arguments lets try and be constructive and CONTRIBUTE.Tirronan (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"The battle itself ended with the disorganized Russian Army out of position and ripe for complete defeat. "

i am not sure these words are supported by all reliable sources. According to Chandler (p. 807) the battle was broken off by almost mutual consent of utterly exhausted combatants, and some Russian generals even planned to renew the battle next day. According to Connelly (p. 177-8), Russian withdrawal was orderly. IMO, this sentence should be modified to comply with what the sources say. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm where I can check, Chandler can't be that off the mark? Please do a through reread hell I make mistakes too, the part about the main French army is correct and they just cannonaded the Russians, but he had all the Guard minus a couple of battery's available to him and he lost the only chance he had of salvaging anything. This is critical to the truth, the greatest battle-master of the age blew it... again. 1. He sacrificed 180,000 men for this chance. 2. When the time came he didn't shove the Guard and everything that could move after them. 3. Then he moves forward knowing how bad his logistics train was. Paul I am not trying to make this out as less of a disaster than it was, but not everything in a battle can come out of the end of a gun, I have quotes from Wolzogen (Barclay's aide de camp) telling Kutuzov that the army was literally falling apart. Riehn also states that Barclay was very concerned about the state of the army at the end of the battle. The losses are not correct later either someone removed the cited numbers and replaced them with numbers and citations from a defunct Russian web site.

At the end of the day the French forces lost 33% and the Russians 50%, the French losses were made up shortly and were back to 90k men but there it stayed, while the Russian Army grew to 4x its size at the end of that day. Nor is this a mistake, Kutuzov might not have been a tactical genius but he damn sure knew that you don't buy French lives when you can have them for free. He gave Russian the battle it demanded but not again and the French paid dearly, this was the end of their empire. I by the way am an American I don't have any side that I care about here but I do want the absolute unblemished truth and nothing but. I think that you do also but lets work to make this a better article, this was off the mark by a good bit, the French never really pursued and the Russians took all the time they needed but by 4pm that Russian army was a wreck Riehn Page 254 if you care to get the exact quotes and on 253 it talks a bit about Barclay who was left in charge on the scene on 255 he goes into Napoleon's mistake pretty throughly. If Chandler made these kind of mistakes I don't think you better use him anymore.Tirronan (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the end of the battle section:

Napoleon went forward to see the situation from the former Russian front lines shortly after the redoubts had been taken. The Russians had moved to the next ridge-line in much disarray, however that disarray was not seen from that distance with the dust and haze raised by an army on the move. All he could see were masses of troops in the distance and thus nothing more was attempted. Neither the attack, which relied on brute force, nor the refusal to use the Guard to finish the day's work showed any brilliance on Napoleon's part. Only the misplacement of Russian forces by Kutuzov over both Bagration's and Barclay's protest prevented the ruin of the French army that day. Barclay communicated with Kutuzov in order to receive further instructions. According to Wolzogen (in an account dripping with sarcasm), the commander was found a half-hour away on the road to Moscow, encamped with an entourage of young nobles and grandly pronouncing he would drive Napoleon off the next day. Despite his bluster, Kutuzov knew from dispatches that his army had been too badly hurt to fight a continuing action the following day. He knew exactly what he was doing: by fighting the pitched battle, he could now retreat with the Russian army still intact, lead its recovery, and force the weakened French forces to move even further from their bases of supply. The dénouement became a textbook example of what a hold logistics placed upon an army far from its center of supply. On September 8, the Russian army moved away from the battlefield in twin columns to Semolino, allowing Napoleon to occupy Moscow and await a Russian surrender that would never come.

Now where this section could be expanded to explain both the section where the Cannonading was correct but that isn't the whole story, if you have Chandler lets see what he has to say about Eugene's forces (never much committed) and the Guard (never committed). I've ordered 2 more books 1 by a Russian Historian to get a better perspective, be aware however that I haven't found Riehn wrong on much so it will be interesting to see.Tirronan (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked for reviews on the source you used (Riehn) and found one written by Chandler himself. The review is positive, so I conclude your source is good in general. However, the Chandler's opinion on the battle should also be taken into account. I am not sure I understand what concrete Chandler's mistakes are you talking about, therefore it is not completely clear for me why his opinion should be rejected. (From other hand, your "At the end of the day the French forces lost 33% and the Russians 50%, the French losses were made up shortly and were back to 90k men but there it stayed, while the Russian Army grew to 4x its size at the end of that day." also look a little bit odd. Chandler gives minimum 30,000 for French and minimum 44,000 for Russian casualties. In addition, you forget two obvious things: firstly, by that time Russian population was smaller that that of France, so the story of vast Russian reserves is simply incorrect. Secondly, there was no conscription during this time in Russia, so no new well trained army could be created for few days, hence Kutusov's decision to save his army by sacrificing Moscow) One way or the another, Chandler's book is available on books.google.com [1]. By comparing the Chandler's text with my edits you can see that I adequately transmitted his opinion (p. 806-807): the Russian army had been withdrawn in good order, it was far from being disordered. Chandler also considers that, although Napoleon is being frequently criticised for rejecting the Davout's advice to commit the Old Guard, this decision was "probably correct" taking into account Napoleon's strategic situation. Based on that, I believe that, although it would be incorrect to revert your edits, you should modify your edits to bring the text in accordance with both Chandler's and Riehn's opinions. I will be busy during next three weeks, so I hardly will be able to participate in this discussion, however, I assume your good faith and I believe you will be able to resolve the issue by yourself. Good luck. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll check Chandler on this but you have the opinion of Barclay himself here as to the state of the army at the end of the Battle ( note this is not when they marched off) As you can see from the losses I have them at 28k for the French and 44k for the Russians (Battle losses are always shaky in my opinion), and you have to add 8k worth of displaced troops on the Russian side so I see no issue there. I've got two other books coming and I want their imput as well, I'll note Chandler's opinion on confirmation, (ie I have to read it myself to attribute it) as a dissenting view.Tirronan (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

On my comments, the French started the Battle of Borodino with 95k give or take a few thousand and the source you get it from, they lost 28-30k give or take a few thousand for the same reason. Within a week of the battle the army called in reserves and Victor's corp arrived bringing the effectvies on the French side back to around 95k. But due to continuing losses additional French reinforcements only kept the French forces at 95k or there abouts (I don't have my source close here). The Russians went to winter camp and its relative size grew 4x larger, better supplies and better resources. The French were at the wrong end of a much reduced supply line. Riehn's statement on the end of the battle was that the Russians were missing 52k (including straggler losses) had no reserve and were in much disarray. The French had Eugene and the Guard corps at the least. Kutuzov was receiving messages were to the same effect, and that he was spouting off for political effect, Wolzogen told Kutuzov this in no uncertain terms and was blown off. However Kutuzov didn't renew battle he moved off. In my opinion he did the right thing but I guess I don't understand why he never attempted to really destroy the French army on the retreat as he could have ended the French then and there. Its not that uncommon for historians to have a different opinion its just not all that normal for an army to take those kind of losses and be forced out and remain in pretty good condition. I've got a book coming from a Russian of some standing and a French fellow as well, that should allow me to get a handle on what is going on.Tirronan (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Tarle (a Soviet academician) argued that Kutusov's own goal was to force French out of Russia, not to defeat them. It was a reason of strong disagreement between Alexander and Kutusov. According to Tarle, during the pursuit of retreating Napoleon the Russian army suffered the same problems the Grand Army did, so the number of losses from cold, sickness and hunger was tremendous. That explains Kutusov's motives, which look pretty reasonable from this point of view. I fully understand that we cannot rely on Tarle too much, however, his hypothesis deserves mention. It is still unclear for me where four time increase of Kutusov's army could come from, because, again, there were no conscription in Russia during those times. Anyway, I propose to read more on that account and to return to this issue in August. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Riehn stated more than a few times that he was flat scared of Napoleon, given Kutuzov's deployment in Borodino perhaps with some reason. He was also getting old he died within a year I believe and never was on the field during the actual battle so perhaps he wasn't all that well either. I'm not sure that the Russians were suffering anywhere near what the French losses were, those guys managed to lose 30,000 troops in 1 week without a battle in summer. I don't have the book with me right now but I think it was 3 or 4 days actually! I believe that Russian total losses were in the range of about 200k throughout the campaign, the French lost 150k just getting to Borodino.Tirronan (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Outdent I ready Chandler's on this pretty throughly, he is a historian of weight and worth and he gives a very different look at the battle. He has Kutuzov directing the battle throughout while Riehn has him in his tent fairly early and completely off the battlefield. Then they have the states of the army as different then they have the willingness to continue with battle. For now at the least I feel like both sides of this have to be presented. Do any of the other editors have any additional input? If not then I am going to think about this for 2 days and rewrite and present both historians views. As I said I have 2 more historians incoming and perhaps more light will be shed on what happened.Tirronan (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant. Please, do that. I am not available during next two weeks so I will be unable to comment on your edits. I'll do that later (if it will be necessary). Let me also add that, by contrast to many editors with whom I sometimes interact on other WP pages, you are absolutely honest and sober editor whose genuine desire is to create a good and neutral content. It was a great pleasure to interact with you. Good luck ;-)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey I have ordered these two books take a look and see what you think? It is sheer hell getting good works on the Russian Campaign in English so I am hopeful that these may shed light on it. 2 "BATTLE OF BORODINO, THE: Napoleon Against Kutuzov (Campaign Chonicles)" Alexander Mikaberidze; Hardcover; $33.75 Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC 1 "BORODINO: THE MOSCOVA: The Battle for the Redoubts" F. G. Hourtoulle; Hardcover; $29.67

Cheers 71.170.12.171 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Amazon screwed up and sent me 2 copies of Alexander Mikaberidze's book, I'd prefer that if you can to get a hold of a copy and let me know what you think. I've hardly started but it sure looks awfully through.Tirronan (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A interesting history of a history

Well, the more I research the uglier this gets. I've alluded to issues with histories and find myself reluctant to put what I am finding on the page. Character assignation of historians just isn't ever going to be my thing and some of these fellows should be castigated for publishing what they did. I honest to God thought that Jutland and Waterloo had more sorry Nationalistic crap written than any human could bear and yet this appears to be much worse. At Jutland it was the Beatty/Jellico conflict that colors everything and paste that over with the German's declaring victory while in private admitting abject defeat. I was in my 30's before I began to realize that the Prussian's had played a major part in the Battle of Waterloo from 4pm on. Yet this is worse. in order we have:

1. The Russian command situation which demanded a set of parameters be met regardless of the state of the terrain or the state of the Russian army.

2. Barclay had been relieved primarily for continuing to retreat when the mood of the nation and of both armies demanded he attack. But secondarily for being an ethic Scott.

3. Kutuzov had to attack but the state of the terrain gave no position that couldn't be marched around.

4. Kutuzov had to win or give the appearance to win or lose his command in disgrace.

5. Kutuzov issues what amounts to a disinformation campaign during and after the battle which is pressed forward as truth by various parties as it fulfilled their interests and further now allowed the Russian Army to go back to the logistics deprivation/follow the ghost tactics that had already cost the French Army 150,000 troops.

6. The Russian Army loses about 52k troops, I have a list of 9 figures that are all over the place, give or take. 8k would return over the next few days bringing loses to about 44k (again lots of figures available but which is right?).

7. The Russian Army isn't in good shape at the end of the fight, however, no part of the Army understands the plight of the entire army and most important it doesn't consider itself defeated. This part is believable, you see much of the same thing from the Prussians at the Battle of Ligny and again the French don't pursue. There are parallels between the two Battles that are eerie. Kutuzov proclaims a victory and orders to the effect that the Russian Army will renew the battle on the next day. Reports filtering in to his headquarters are making it very clear that the Army has "shot its bolt" for now.

8. Their is lying for the right reason and lying for self promotion, in this case Kutuzov covered both and it was the right thing to do given the political realities of his and the Russian Army's situation. While Alexander didn't like him, and both Barclay and Bagration couldn't stand him (he did seem to drive those two into each others friendship which was amazing)he was the one man that could command the entirety of the Russian Armies without question at that time. His disinformation allowed an Army that didn't think it had been defeated to make a very orderly retreat and begin rebuilding a smooth process.

9. Ok so admittedly disinformation was the right tactic at this point but then it makes its way into the histories of the time unfettered and unchecked for veracity, and so we have distortion origin #1.

10. During the Soviet era this battle began to take on mythic proportions where a formula is now set in place that all histories are now supposed to adhere to. One of these being that Kutuzov is now ranked "two heads" above Napoleon (I've no idea what that means) while Barclay and Bagration are now Napoleon's equals on the Battlefield. Any historian not giving due according to the formula can expect rebuke. Please note that Kutuzov's contemporaries didn't think much of his abilities on the battlefield (The Runaway of Austerlitz being one of the name he had during that time) and were fairly outspoken about it.

11. After the Soviet era we start getting some of the best works available on the Battle from Russian historians, they still have not made their way into the western press unfortunately.

12. Western histories are mostly limited to French documents, bear in mind "to lie like a bulletin" was a common French saying at the time. Whatever can be laid at the feet of Kutuzov in disinformation may be also laid at the feet of Napoleon in equal measure and over a longer period of time. So we get how the French Army was defeated by the Russian Winter when in fact the vast majority of the losses took place before entering Moscow, most of them for lack of adaptability to a new theater of operations.

13. Personal disputes deeply color accounts, Wologzen hated Kutuzov and how much that effects what he wrote I know not. Again Saint Cyr and Ordinot, and Ney and Ordinot, dislike one another intensely.

I'm suggesting that you read the new history and Riehn as well as Chandler and I am going to refrain from making any changes for a couple of weeks.Tirronan (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Le Résultat, again

I agree that there is no great option for the result on this battle, but I think to avoid calling a result altogether amounts to offloading a major encyclopedic responsibility because the intellectual task happens to be difficult or tricky. The reference to project policies above is unwise in this context. This is a major battle in world history; people need a quick snapshot of what happened there. There should be something mentioned in the result, even something that highlights the strategic implications of the battle, which were obviously favorable to the Russians in the long-term. Personally I favor 'Tactical French victory', but obviously I'm willing to accept democratic consensus on something else.UBER ^(talk) 02:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There are some battles and a few wars that just flat don't fit in a result box, and this is one of them. I absolutely refused to get into a "who won" but some points to ponder.

Had the French lost, recovered the corps coming up to join the French Army and Napoleon quickly traveled back on his supply chain he would have been much better off. Within 6 weeks the French were down to 95,000 and the Russian Army had a comfortable lead in both troops and equipment. So we have a case where the Russian's won by losing... try sticking that in a results box. Rhein and Miberkazi both came down to 27,000 French losses for the 1 day battle and 35,000 for the 2 day battle. Devout lost 30,000 in one week of forced marches less than a month before. So if I was forced "gun to head" to put something in the result box it would be Tactical French victory, French Logistical catastrophic loss. Because that is exactly what happened. For all Napoleon's battlefield genius both Barclay and Kutuzov understood time, space, and logistics, over the long run far better than he ever did. Tirronan (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"So we have a case where the Russian's won by losing... try sticking that in a results box". I have. It's called a Pyrrhic victory - by hundreds of historians over two centuries - but not by you. And your opinion, seems to be the only one that matters, right? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the excerpt from the documentation above for the infobox is telling. If it's not inconclusive, a victory, or a decisive victory - and Borodino fits nicely into none of those categories - then leave it blank. Borodino is "a bit more complicated than that", and that's a matter for the article. Perhaps however we might rewrite the lead to bring the result more to prominence? At a rough stab, I suggest:

The Battle of Borodino (Russian: Бородинское сражение, Borodinskoe srazhenie; French: Bataille de la Moskova), fought on September 7, 1812,[7] was a major engagement in the Napoleonic Wars during the French invasion of Russia. The fighting involved around 250,000 troops and produced at least 70,000 casualties, making Borodino the single deadliest day of the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon's Grande Armée launched an attack against the Russian army, driving the latter back from their initial positions but failing to score a decisive victory. Both armies were exhausted after the battle and the Russians withdrew from the field the following day. Borodino represented the last Russian effort at stopping the French advance on Moscow, which fell a week later; but Napoleon's failure to score a decisive victory ensured that his army would continue deeper into Russia with no clear way of bringing Czar Alexander to peace, resulting ultimately in the retreat from Moscow and the defeat of the French invasion.

and move the displaced "The battle unfolded near the village of Borodino, west of the town of Mozhaysk." into the second para, something like "... in order to save Moscow, the Russians decided to make a final stand near the village of Borodino, west of the town of Mozhaysk." Pinkbeast (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory means that the winning side has significantly heavier losses in the battle, which was clearly not the case here.Charles (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And what is your source for that extremely narrow definition? All the world's historians are wrong in their use of the term "pyrrhic" when they apply it to this battle? Perhaps you should publish your original research in a peer-reviewed journal, it's quite a ground-breaking revelation you've made here. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How about we just agree to do something crazy, like follow the lead of the mainstream, established authorities on this battle?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Pyrrhic+victory&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&tbm=bks&q=Pyrrhic+victory+borodino

http://scholar.google.ru/scholar?q=Pyrrhic+victory+Borodino&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And the Russians didn't "win by losing", but won the campaign by losing the battle but not too badly. If they had been destroyed by pursuit, Napoleon would have been in a better position afterwards. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I invite comment on my proposed rewording above to make the consequences clear in the lead? It may have gotten lost in the usual "pyrrhic" argument. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings again PB. I'm responding in this case as a reader rather than an editor of this article. I understand your reasoning but other Wiki versions -and my 1960's history books were unequivocal -French tactical victory but strategic defeat. Pyrrhic victory if you like. Our discussion cannot change clear scholarly view. JRPG (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Other Wiki versions are not a source, and (as we can see above from various linked sources) the scholarly view is not at all clear, with different sources saying different things. (I don't, no, like "pyrrhic victory", because it means something else.)

Additionally, it is plain from the linked description of Template:Infobox military conflict that the intention is to try to avoid potted summaries of complex results in the infobox. This also seems sensible to me; anything we could fit into the infobox would be misleading, and the reader would have to read the article anyway to find out what happened.

In the meantime I am going to make the changes proposed above, since no-one has objected. They will, I hope, improve clarity on this point. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Put another way: what could we put in the infobox that would be short but accurate? I (and others) contend the answer is "nothing", because an accurate summary of the outcome of Borodino needs to describe something complex. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are intended to be a brief summary of a subject and contain only key facts. A result for this complex situation is always going to be opinion rather than fact in some degree and is better discussed in the body of the article. Leave it blank.Charles (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A bit late to be pretending you've actually engaged on the talk page and not just edit-warred, isn't it Charles? For the umpteenth time, why is it that you believe that your own personal opinion trumps the COUNTLESS SCHOLARLY SOURCES I have provided? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The obvious historic comparison which most people will know is Battle of the Coral Sea -a featured article -described as a Japanese tactical victory and a US strategic victory. Very similarly Operation_Pedestal Tactical Axis victory, Strategic Allied victory. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced by Operation Pedestal, nohow. The Axis sunk some ships, but not enough? It seems that the Axis objective was to wipe out the whole convoy. But, again - if it's too complex to put in the infobox, don't put it in the infobox. The French "tactical victory" was not what they would count as a victory; they dislodged the Russians at horrendous cost but left their army still coherent. The Russian "strategic victory" was a lucky coincidence - if the Russians had had a better tactical outcome it might well have been strategically worse if Napoleon was forced to fall back earlier. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of abusing talk-pages, re Pedestal, my father was on Malta when the Ohio arrived and the BBC published some of the material I wrote about it. Malta would have surrendered if Ohio & a supply ship hadn't arrived & it was known in advance that any losses were acceptable to keep the island. I do accept Pedestal wasn't a Pyrrhic victory as the Axis didn't suffer massive losses. Re Borodino, Russian losses weren't planned but delaying Russian surrender meant the French army was destroyed by the winter. Note the Spanish Armada which also involved a timing issue has a complex summary. The Armada wasn't defeated, it was delayed & couldn't stay in position to allow the invasion. Hope that helps! JRPG (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't much like these X tactical, Y strategic infoboxes - but even if one can live with that wording, I don't think Borodino would be a good fit for it. A "strategic victory" where you're defeated (not just immediately, but in terms of the objective - in this case, to save Moscow) and it turns out some time down the line that, for reasons you never anticipated, it worked out? That's as if the Axis had sunk every supply ship, taken Malta, and a conveniently-timed outbreak of some hideously contagious disease on the island was transmitted back to Europe and incapacitated everyone on their side. "Allied strategic victory" would be stretching the point.

I think Spanish Armada illustrates the point nicely. Even as a reader already familiar with the Armada, I look at the text in the infobox and go "Eh? I'm confused!". I'm quite certain someone actually trying to find out what the outcome was isn't at all aided by that mish-mosh in the infobox.

Also, if we put _something_ in we'll then have the spectre of "pyrrhic victory" looming over us again.Pinkbeast (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Lock

I've locked the article for one week. The editors involved in reverting each other on this article will have to come to a clear consensus as to what should go in the infobox. Perhaps an RfC is the only way to make it clear. Without such a consensus, if I see anyone reverting after the lock expires, that editor may be blocked without notice by me or any other administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; it takes two to tango, although I have not spuriously accused anyone of vandalism. I would abide by the result of an RfC. I am trying to address the issue by moving the outcome further up the article proper. Then again, it's easy for me to interpret my own actions as sensible. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

From "the King James version of Russian history", Geoffrey Hosking's Russia and the Russians (2012 edition): "Napoleon's hitherto successful strategy had been to seek battle with their main army, when his own tactical skill, together with numbers, superior maneuverability, and higher morale of his troops almost invariably brought him victory. It did so even against the Russians, when the generals at last stood their ground at Borodino in September 1812, but only at a very heavy cost in casualties, debilitating for an army so deep in enemy territory. Besides, even victory did not guarantee the success of the invasion. Kutuzov abandoned Moscow, as the defeat at Borodino compelled him to do, but he did not surrender..." (p. 251)

So, I would like to know, why the opinion of Charles and Pinkbeast are more worthy of adherence on this point, than perhaps the highest living authority on Russian history writing in the English language. Thankyou. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming to be more worthy. We can argue all day over a black or white outcome which does not exist. That is why there is a wider consensus at the military history project to leave the outcome blank in such cases.Charles (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not an argument. Just typing "there is a wider consensus at the military history project to leave the outcome blank in such cases" is not an argument for anything. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hosking does not use the words "pyrrhic victory" there, which you have favoured in the past; indeed, were we to write the infobox purely on the basis of that quote, we would describe Borodino as a "French victory" in the infobox - grossly misleading since in the long run it brought about disaster.

Focusing on the precise wording chosen by individual sources is unlikely to be productive, because of course they won't all choose the same words. The book I have nearest to hand is "Napoleon", Alan Forrest, 2011, who writes of Smolensk and Borodino: "Neither battle was conclusive; certainly neither was a great tactical Napoleonic triumph. The carnage was frightful, the losses shocking on both sides. Each time the Russians withdrew after the battle, and each time Napoleon was lured further into the Russian heartland."

All I'm saying is that anything that goes in the infobox should be concise - we should not be trying to squeeze the first paragraph of the article into there - and accurate. Borodino does not, I feel, admit of such a description. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Your source doesn't contradict mine. And I can easily find more (so can you, with Google, as you did above) - both with and without the "Pyrrhic" terminology. Shall I? Indeed, infoboxes may be misleading in some cases, but they're a part of Wikipedia, whether you like it or not. And yes, Borodino was a French victory - you won't find a high quality source that says otherwise. It was for such victories, that the phrase was coined "won/lost the battle, won/lost the war". I mean, seriously, how many sources will satisfy you? 5? 10? 20? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are certainly a part of Wikipedia, yes; but that does not seem a justification to put misleading text into them. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, and why is the text referring to the opinion of countless scholars "misleading"? More importantly, why should anyone care what you personally think is misleading, when your opinion is is contradicted by said scholars? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Folks, first with all due respect given, ZinedineZidane98 is on the way to a permanent ban because of his behavior in Wikipedia. While I can't and won't call this trolling, arguing with the gentleman seems to be giving him fuel to keep this up. I and a couple of others brought this article up from 2 fat paragraphs to GA. I would strongly suggest that we go to binding arbitration and reach a consensus so as to lock the results section down. Let us just put down our ideas and a recommendation and be done with this. I put up with this sort of nonsense over at the War of 1812 and the Battle of Jutland. I've done a lot of this in this article as well. For all this pointless arguing over a results box has again stopped this article from making its way to FA. Is this really what we want? How about we list ourselves as one of the editors of this article and post what each of us thinks the results box should be? I'll start, Tirronan French Tactile Victory / Russian Strategic Victory. I base the first because at the end of the day the French held the field and by the second day the Russians had to retreat. I base the second because the victory allowed Napoleon to believe he could win and marched on when he needed to retreat.

I would abide by the rest of an RFC or similar. I doubt my position is news to anyone, but I believe it should be left blank. The result is too complex to express in an infobox; instead it is better to (as I have done) try to explain it in the first paragraph of the article. It seems clear (above) that the documentation for the infobox discourages inserting complex results.

I feel also that "Russian Strategic Victory" is unsatisfactory because of the accidental nature of that victory. Yes, Borodino resulted in their ultimate victory, but it's not like anyone saw it that way at the time. It appeared to be a strategic defeat. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Both Barclay and Kutuzov were very aware of Napoleon's supply issues and for all of Kutuzov's proclamations followed Barclay's plan after Borodino. That being said I would be happy with either outcome and would abide by an RFC as well. So we have two choices and hopefully a few more will emerge.Tirronan (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

infobox

dead, wounded and captured?

surely casualties and captured is better terminology?

(Fdsdh1 (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC))

RFC redux; alternative proposal

I'm creating this section to put forward the objection and the alternative.

First of all, Template:Infobox military conflict does not favour the result parameter being used to explain more complex outcomes, and Borodino has a complex outcome. Nor do I; the nature of an infobox is that it is a small potted summary. Either the infobox here would fill up with a complex discussion, or it would have a result which is short, snappy, and misleading - like the one proposed.

Secondly, it's not clear that Borodino was a French victory. The French might be said to have two objectives - to dislodge the Russians (yes) and to destroy the Russian army (no). Furthermore, of these objectives, it transpired that their failure to achieve the second was what led to the failure of the entire campaign.

Thirdly, it was not a pyrrhic victory, no matter if some sources have regrettably misused the term. "A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat", but the French losses at Borodino were not the cause of their ultimate defeat. It would have done them no good to be stuck in a burned-out Moscow with an extra thirty thousand mouths to feed. Cold-bloodedly, also, they inflicted still greater losses on the smaller Russian army; the exchange was in their favour.

Fourthly, Template:Infobox military conflict does suggest setting the result parameter to a link to a section of the article which discusses the outcome in detail. I see no reason we should not do that. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

About #2: arguing that because the French didn't destroy the Russian army the battle wasn't a French victory is about as silly as arguing that the Battle of Waterloo wasn't a Coalition victory because they undoubtedly wanted to e.g. capture Napoleon in person, and they failed at that. Borodino was either a French victory or a French Pyrrhic victory; any other result would need some serious justification. Banedon (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. Napoleon destroyed opposing armies before (eg at Austerlitz) and the article makes it clear that it could have been a possibility here if the Imperial Guard was committed; and it is that failure to do so which caused the failure of the campaign. It seems clear that Kutuzov's main aim was to keep the Russian army intact, which he succeeded in doing.

I'm not arguing that the infobox should say "Russian victory". I don't think it should say anything at all about victory, because Borodino is a little more complicated than that. We might say, eg, "result=Russians retreat" - that is undeniably true, accurate, not misleading, does not leave a gap in the infobox, and provides a link to discussion of the complexities of the outcome. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, when the description of the results of battles in sources are unclear or contradictory (as is the case here), it's best to not try to force a simple "result" into this field of the infobox. Linking to the relevant section of the article works well and treats readers with respect. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to Battles of Annihilation, and as you can see on that page such battles are rare. In the vast majority of battles the defeated army is only defeated / scattered, and not destroyed. Failure to destroy the enemy army is hardly the sign of a "defeat" either. For example the Battle of Leipzig was unequivocally a coalition victory, yet they failed in their objective to destroy the French army.

Borodino was either a French victory or a French Pyrrhic victory. Like I said, any other result would need some serious justification (not to mention sources). Banedon (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That page says "For example, Borodino, while a victory, did not result in the desired destruction of the Russian army". Now, I know the v-word is in there, but it also makes it clear that the destruction of the Russian army was a desired and potentially achievable outcome (yes, WP pages are not sources).

I'm not trying to argue the French lost; I'm trying to argue that it's not desirable to try and explain the result in the infobox. If you say "either a French victory or a French Pyrrhic victory", aside from it not being a pyrrhic victory, _which_?

Does "Russians retreat" need serious justification? It is short, undeniably true, and reflects that the French were in possession of the field afterwards; and it can be a link to an explanation of why the consequences were complex - something I've already written the lead to try and make more clear. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"aside from it not being a pyrrhic victory". Why do you get to decide it's not a pyrrhic victory? Why you presume to have the authority to overrule countless scholars? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Exactly. Pinkbeast et al have had a year to produce sources - ANY sources - that state that it was anything other than a French victory of a French pyrrhic victory. We're still waiting.... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I (and other editors) have produced such sources. But you're dodging your own question here - if you decide it's _one_ of those, you've still got to pick one, and show that putting it in the infobox isn't misleading even though - according to you - it could be the other one. Your RFC was not on "any wording I like, and I'll decide which afterwards". Pinkbeast (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

First, the phrase (Pyrrhic victory) suggests that, in the immediate sense, the French seemed to win Borodino (the Russians withdrew from the field with horrific losses) and the French army marched into Moscow. But ultimately (and here is the Pyrrhic part), the French losses were incredible, and the immediate military achievement (a destroyed Moscow, an illusive Russian army, and a starving French one), was not worth the cost of Borodino. Second, if Gunther and Alex declare Borodino to be a Pyrrhic victory for France, I'd accept it as such. Furthermore, within the range of scholars who have studied this, the most respected military historians over time have described Borodino as not worth the cost. Even if he had taken Moscow intact, it would be questionable if it could be considered a victory in the larger sense: after Borodino, Napoleon's German allies began to sever their ties with him. He abandoned his entire army on the retreat. It was the beginning of his end. Pyrrhic indeed. When I teach the Napoleonic Wars, I use this battle as a prime example of "Pyrrhic victory." auntieruth (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I sha'n't engage in an extensive reiteration of the counterargument - that the losses were not the cause of the ultimate disaster. Rather, let's ask a different question - what about the infobox specifically? Given that Borodino's outcome is quite complicated, I feel it is better to rewrite the lead of the article to make it clear (which I have done) and to confine what is written in the infobox to undisputable facts - "Russians retreat", linking to the Aftermath section of the article (as suggested at the documentation for the infobox).

What do you think of that counter-proposal, please? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not a "counter-proposal", that's just you saying "I prefer it my way, sources be damned." Still waiting for any sources that support your argument that it wasn't a French victory or that it is "too complicated" to be described as a French pyrrhic victory.... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the info box could say Pyrrhic French victory. auntieruth (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The situation was too complex to sum up in two or three words. Staying in Moscow too long was the cause of the ultimate disaster rather than this battle. The term "pyrric victory", in English, means much heavier casualties for the victors in a battle, not in the wider strategic context. It may be used differently in other languages for all I know. The sloppy use of the term in various sources does not mean we have to use it here. There is no need to. Wikipedia does not always slavishly follow what sources say if there is a common sense reason not to do so. The length of the River Rhine was found to be wrong in all other available sources, as the result of a 19th century typo, but was corrected by Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: See, this is the crux of the issue. Pinkbeast and Charles believe that the sources are simply wrong, and that we should ignore them. The "common sense" reason Charles gives he, is a spectacularly specific "definition" of the term "Pyrrhic victory" - which apparently famous historians aren't aware of. It really is a ridiculous argument that they're making, which I must emphasize, yet again, that they are doing so without a single source to support their view/s! ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

When a source is outdated, Wikipedia should ignore it, yes. But unless something major has been discovered in between the time the sources quoted by Zinedine were written and today, I don't see why they should be ignored. Ultimately Wikipedia is reliant on sources, not the opinions of its editors. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That does tend to cause headscratching when a source appears to simply misuse a term. If lots of sources do, more headscratching. (First question, of course, is "am I confused about the meaning", but that's easily resolved - with umpteen sources, if I like). Pinkbeast (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose "Russian retreat". While it's unquestionably true, it is not a fair representation of the battle. It would be like giving the result of the Battle of Leipzig as "French retreat". That's 'true', too. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

However, there are better short, unquestionably true, not-misleading statements one can make about the Battle of the Nations. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.