Talk:Battle of Berezina

From Tarle

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)

Who won the battle?

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)

Battle of Berezina took place November 26-29, 1812

But lower: Berezina 27-28 November 1812 Xx236 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The result needs to be changed -- the Russians did not really win this battle

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)\

Russian sources give smaller figures Russian losses: 6,000 to 15,000. 93.74.76.29 (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2011 (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)

Added number casualties from Russian sources. 93.74.76.29 (talk) 06:28, 28 April 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)

Grammatical Sloppiness -- I smell a Russian

There are a number of glaring grammatical errors in the article; the most noticeable ones are the omissions of commas in spliced sentences.

Coordinate error

{{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)

Done. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved the point nearer to Studzionka, where the brigdes were. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Retreat of the French army

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)

But the French army has really receded, isn't it? To deny that French have retreated - means to mislead.

Also it is possible to tell that retreat of the Russian army after the battle of Borodino was not result of the battle, it was rather a consequence of the main strategic plan of Kutuzov. But battle of Borodino is considered "the French tactical victory". Similarly, battle at Berezina was the Russian tactical victory (retreat of the French army with heavy losses).

Undoubtedly, addition of the phrase "despite heavy losses, the French force the Berezina crossing", is unnecessary and redundant in the Result section. (Олег) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.76.29 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is because in the two battles the French had completely different objectives. At Borodino, their goal was to destroy Kutuzov's army and clear the road to Moscow, while Kutuzov's objective was to halt the retreat and give battle, hoping that he would be able to inflict crippling losses to the Grande Armee and thus stop its advance towards Moscow. Berezina is another story. Napoleon's goal was to retreat, to escape the Russian's encirclement, which he succeeded, even though he sustained heavy losses. Andynomite (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Napoleon's goal was to retreat" - I am glad that you agree that Napoleon has receded. Hence, result of the battle - "the French retreat". (Олег) 93.74.76.29 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The French did retreat, but that was not the result of the battle. Borodino is a different matter, it is only Soviet propaganda that had Kutuzov planning a strategic retreat; more recent, solid research (see Zamoyski and Lieven) shows beyond any doubt that Kutuzov still intended to fight after Borodino but had to bow before the reality that another battle would mean the end of the army. Berezina was not a tactical victory and the XIXth century Russian source that you're quoting there (6000 Russian losses) is in clear contradiction with pretty much every source I've seen on the battle, so I tend to think that it is a fringe POV. I also note that you've messed with the text of the article, adding information to the battle result without referencing it or adding information to text which has already been referenced to an author. This is not cricket and please refrain from doing it again.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary to speak here about "the Soviet propaganda", it is all the western propaganda. Kutuzov's plans have been described by historians even before occurrence of Soviet Union. I understand that you very much like France and Napoleon, but be objective: Napoleon has lost this battle and has been compelled to recede, having thrown guns and a transport. It is the fact. (Олег) 93.74.76.29 (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The French retreat was a cause of the battle, not its result. Napoleon would have retreated anyway, even if the clash at Berezina hadn't ocurred. Therefore, the French retreat cannot be considered a result of the battle. Andynomite (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)