Talk:Battle of Eylau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The name of the town should be spelled "Preussisch Eylau", not "Preußisch Eylau", since ß is not a letter that occurs in English. In much the same way, the town today would be called "Bagrationovsk", not "Багратио́новск". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone want to do a battle box? I'm off to bed. Tannin 20:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

name of Marshal is Augereau not Agereau

"dreadful state of the Polish roads" - at the time they were German/Prussian roads, weren't they? Has Eylau actually ever been part of Poland? Now it is Russian, it would appear. - Lukas

Yes, all of East Prussia was a fief of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until it gained full independence in 1660. user:Jsc1973

Big MISTAKE!!![edit]

This was not Battle of Eylau this was Battle of Prussisch Eylau. Eylau is former name of Deutch Eylau which is now part of Poland and is called IŁAWA!!! The Preussisch Eylau is a diffrent place called Pruska Iława (in polish) and is now part of Russian Oblast District and was renamed after 1945 on Bagrationowsk after one of the Generals that was fighting in this battle and that has died in Battle of Borodino. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azglahal 11:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Many English books (or at least the ones I own) just call it 'Battle of Eylau'. Only one book I own calls it 'Battle of Preussich-Eylau'. I changed the intro and created a re-direct regarding the Battle of Preussich-Eylau. --Bryson 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the general name under which this battle is known is simply "Eylau". It's that way in Dutch, English, French, Italian, Spanish,... -- fdewaele, 3 February 2007, 18:56
Well yes this would be alright in my opinion, if english historiography use name Eylau (which is wrong). Try to see translation of the text on Deutsch Wikipedia (Schlacht bei Preußisch Eylau). It's not my personal idea I just want to help you a little bit becouse your text is translated in several languages (english is common language)and those translations don't have redirect: Battle of Preussisch Eylau (in italian for example). So... little mistake makes many huge mistakes on many wikipedias... Unfortunetly there is a second reason why your Article should be changed, try to see articles on english wiki 1. - Ilawa (Deutsch Eylau) and 2. - Bagrationowsk (Preussich Eylau). As I understand name Eylau is refering to both this towns? as well as your Battle of Eylau? If I were you (but I'm not) I would copy the article Battle of Eylau to Redirect Battle of Preussich Eylau and create redirect: Battle of Eylau. Belive me I have read a lot of books from many sources about this battles and one very big compendium 93 pages in polish called "Bitwa pod Pruską Iławą" (Bitwa pod Preussisch Eylau)writen by Tomasz Rogacki ISBN 83-11-09807-7, en: Battle of Preussich Eylau. It uses many Sources from all involved and not involved nations:
    • Bogdanovic M.J., Istoria carstvowanija Imperatora Aleksandra I i Rossiii w ego vremenji, S. Petersburg 1869.
    • Bourdeau E., Campagnes modernes, t. 2, Paris 1916.
    • Camon J., Napoleoński system prowadzenia wojny, Warszawa 1926.
    • Campagne des armes francaises en Prusie, en Saxe, en Polotne sous commendament de S.M. l’Empereur et roi 1806 – 1807.
    • Coignet J.R., Von Marengo bis Waterloo, Stuttgart 1910.
    • Correspodance de Napoleon I.
    • Dumas M., Precis des evenements militaries ou essays historiques sur les campagne de 1799 a 1815, Paris 1826.
    • Foucart P., Campagne de Pologne. Novembre – decembre 1806. Janvier 1807, t. 2, Paris 1882.
    • Geschichte des Krieges von Preussen und Russlands gegen Frankreich in den Jahren 1806 und 1807, Berlin 1835
    • Goltz C., Von Jena bis Pr. Eylau, Berlin 1907.
    • Grenier P., Etude sur 1807, Paris 1907.
    • Herbst S., Potrzeba Historii – Manewr Olsztyn – Jonkowo, Warszawa 1978.
    • Hildebrandt, Die Schlacht bei Pr. Eylau am 7 und 8 Februar 1807.
    • Hopfner E., Der Krieg von 1806 und 1807, t. 3, Berlin 1855.
    • Jany C., Geschichte der Koniglich – Preussischen Arme bis zum Jahre 1807, t. 3, Berlin 1927.
    • Jomini H., Zarys sztuki wojennej, Warszawa 1966.
    • Kircheisen F., Napoleon. Die Memoiren seinen Lebens.
    • Kukiel M., Wojny napoleońskie, Warszawa1927.
    • Lettow – Vorbeck P., Der Krieg von 1806 und 1807, t. 3, Berlin 1896.
    • Marbot J.B., Memoires du gen. Bon de Marbot. Genes – Austerlitz – Eylau, t. I, Paris 1891.
    • Michajłowski – Danilevski, Opisanije wtoroj wojny Impieratora Aleksandra I s Napoleonom w 1806 i 1807 godu, S. Petersburg 1846.
    • Napoleon et l’Empire Empire. 1 – 2, Paris 1969.
    • Napoleon, Meine ersten Siege, b.r.w.
    • Operations du III – eme Corps 1806/1807.
    • Pelet, Memorial du depot generale de la guerre, t. 8.
    • Savary J.A.M., Memoiren des Herzogs von Rovigo.
    • Schachtmayer F., Schlacht bei Preussisch Eylau und Gefecht bei Waltersdorf, Berlin 1857.
    • Schalchtfelder in Ostpreussen, b.r.w.
    • Thiers L.A., Historia Konsulatu i Cesarstwa, t. 4, Warszawa 1850.
    • Tiry J., Eylau – Friedland – Tillsit, Paris 1967.

I can only mention that I have created the article Battle of Pruska Iława in Polish and i have used from your article one information that marshal Ney said after battle "What a masacre! And for no outcome." You can use my images to make your article better, they are in public domain and I have exported them on Commons server (copy names of images on polish wiki and find them on commons). You should find more informations about this battle. It is one of very big importance. After this battle both armies were almost destroyed and soldiers faith in victory on both sides have disapired... This was the only reason why Napoleon was seeking on spring final victory to persuade Russia to peace table. After this Battle Napoleons soldiers were screaming Viva le Paix(Long live the Peace) instead of Viva l'Emperour(Long Live Imperor) as they usuall were doing. You must understand that every commander tried to find safe quaters for winter. In the time of Napoleonic Wars to lead an army in the middle of winter in -15 Degress was like Suicide that's why Benigsen has made huge strategical mistake trying to engage Napoleon in this time. If he would wait till spring when he was joined by reinforcments he would have some chances to win Battle of Friedland instead of this he has lost half of his men at Preussich Eylau. Yours Greatfully Azglahal 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) CYA.

I agree fully that the correct name is Battle of Preussich-Eylau, but there are other articles on wikipedia that use a 'common name' as the article name. But if you feel strongly about it – I have no objections to the article being re-named and Battle of Eylau being the re-direct.--Bryson 19:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Bryson I can't decide. I don't know British Historiography... But I now that you can't decide yourselve. You should go to libery and well... dig... dig hard. And after that you will know what to do. You are Englishman not I...yet :P. Best wishes Azglahal 19:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC) CYA Mate.
I do object. The name might be geographically correcter as Preussich-Eylau but English and French language history knows the battle as "Eylau". No sense in rewriting established history and giving the article a title by which it isn't generally known as. For instance, Waterloo was not fought at Waterloo proper but at Mont-Saint-Jean but the battle still officially goes by that name. The same counts here. Mentioning its correct geography in the first paragraphe as it currently is done should suffice. -- fdewaele, 4 February 2007, 13:00
fdewaele your answer is leading us nowhere. How you can know what is wrong and what is wright? Are you British Historian? I have seen your user website. We should let him decide altough he might be Canadian becouse he has some own photos from Halifax... It needs to be proper British decission. If the Atack on America has taken place in New York and Washington maybe whe should wirite in French that it has taken place in York and Washington? Becouse it's shorter etc. You know what? We should put ouer energy to make this article better... and we are wasting time on things that are clear like air. I only wanted to help if you think difrent I don't give .... Azglahal 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC) CYA and best wishes.
In (ancient) warfare, a battle's name is often given by the victors. Napoléon named this battle "Eylau" and claimed it to be a victory (although with little to show for) as the Russians disengaged after the battle. The name given to the battle by Napoléon has then been adopted in various other languages, including the English language. You'll find that English language Napoleonic literature will speak about "Eylau". BTW the fact that I'm not British doesn't mean I'm to hold my tongue. This is a general use encyclopedia and I have as much right to contribute as any other. If you really want a British source, just look at the Encyclopaedia Britannica. You'll find this battle under "Eylau". Also notable English language historians as Christopher Summerville and David Chandler have written about "Eylau". Eylau is simply the name under which this battle has passed into general use, regardless of its true geographical location. --fdewaele, 4 February 2007, 19:55.

it was really a huge russian victory —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


"Handfull of haired fugitives" ? that doesn't sound neutral or even serious .... TheMightyGeneral (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


The numbers are mixing dead, wounded and prisoners, making them totally inflated, not even Leipzig, a ten-times larger battle, was so bloody. It's almost the first day on the Somme. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Restrain from vandalizing the infobox. There are no 36,000 men dead, wounded and captured in the book by Asprey, there is no source for that number, and that is far not the only casualty figure for the Russians. Your edit is clearly disruptive. Asharidu (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
There is if you do the math, and now you're using it to source a smaller number which isn't true altogether, only God knows why. Anyway, have your way, but at least don't pretend it's right. Bertdrunk (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
There isn't if you check the page. Asprey cites Napoleon as saying "The enemy has retired... The results will be forty cannon and 12,000 prisoners. Enemy losses are calculated at 10,000 wounded and 4,000 dead". This is not to mention that Asprey says "almost all authorities" are skeptical about the numbers provided by Napoleon (who, as Asprey writes, "would go on claiming victory until blue in the face"); historians do not consider his statements a reliable source for casualties, and that is why you won't find those figures here in the "Result" paragraph. And again, if there are many different casualty estimates, we shouldn't give preference to one of them over the others. Asharidu (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


Though I am not a native speaker I find the language used partly inappropriate, employing formulations like "cut to pieces" and "burst through everything". Somebody should rephrase these kind of sentences to something more neutral and less enthusiastic. OG a.D. 86 (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)