Russians have the right not to consider Borodino a defeat

122
12 failures by Napoleon Bonaparte. It would seem that modern historians have come to terms with the fact that the battle of Borodino ended in victory for Napoleon’s Great Army, although it would be more accurate to call it almost a victory. The Russian army did not leave its positions, albeit new each time, until the order of the commander-in-chief followed this.


The great Russian artist V.V. Vereshchagin did not accidentally portray "The End of the Battle of Borodino" from the French side




On the position and forces of the parties


Napoleon himself admitted that Borodino did not become for him the same victory as Austerlitz or Yen, Wagram or Friedland. No matter how to translate his famous words from French, for Russians they can only sound like this: “Of the fifty battles I have given, the most valor was shown in the battle of Moscow and the least success was achieved.”

In exactly the same way, no one else, but the great commander himself, admitted that under Borodino "the Russians gained the right to be invincible ..." However, for some reason it is among Russian historians that discussions continue about why we stubbornly do not want to consider the great battle a victory of the enemy.

So, the position chosen by Kutuzov at Borodin was criticized all the way to Leo Tolstoy. However, he, as a combat officer, had every right to do so. Meanwhile, the fact of the left Russian flank, which is practically open for direct impact, does not yet say anything by itself.

After all, the left flank initially covered, to everything else, the Shevardinsky redoubt - an advanced position for which the French had to pay a considerable price. Then, building something more substantial than flushes did not allow time. However, in order to break through the Russian front here, the French, in any case, had to overcome several successive lines, including a deep ravine, a height and the burning village of Semenovskoye.


The military cards Kutuzov worked with allow a slightly different assessment of the position under Borodin.


Another thing is that Kutuzova was actually much more worried about the right flank, and the Russian commander in chief considered the whole power of the corps put up by Napoleon against the positions of the 2 th Western Army a kind of bluff. Perhaps Kutuzov was really mistaken, hoping that Napoleon would operate bypassing his right wing in order to cut off the Russian army’s retreat to Moscow.

But if Napoleon takes such a maneuver already to the left, he can, for starters, hit the flank with the Tuchkov corps. This is a fairly strong connection, which was also supported in the second line by the nearly 10-thousandth Moscow militia, the chief of staff of the Kutuzov army Bennigsen for some reason returned from the ambush, exposing Ponyatovsky’s corps to the Polish Voltigeurs.

Kutuzov hoped to counterattack precisely because of the Kolochi River - on the flank of the French columns bypassing him on the right. This would be in the spirit of the then military art. And in the event of a French strike from the left, three Russian corps were not so difficult to move south, as happened during the battle.

The start of the battle fully confirmed the expectations of the Russian commander in chief - the French stormed Borodino and took the bridge across Kolocha. However, there was no serious development of operations here. Apparently, it was only when it finally became clear where Napoleon was delivering the main blow, and it was decided to march the cavalry of Uvarov and the Cossacks of Platov on the flank of the Napoleonic army.



However, it was still not a position, but the Russian army that occupied it managed to withstand Borodin. She was opposed by about 130 of thousands of selected French and allied forces with 587 guns. Only in the very first years after the war did data appear that Napoleon had much greater forces, almost up to 180 thousand, as under Wagram, but they were not confirmed.

The strength of the Great Army is practically not in doubt by anyone, but the debate about how many Russian soldiers were on the battlefield of Borodino does not stop today. Experts appeared who claimed that there were at least 160 thousands of Russians at the expense of unaccounted for militias and Cossacks.

We won’t talk much about what role such extra tens of thousands could play in the battle, we only note that the number of regular Russian regiments is hardly disputed. So, in the infantry, regular cavalry and artillery on the day of the Battle of Borodino, there were no more than 115 thousand people.

At the same time, the Russians had even more guns than the French - 640, and the superiority in large-caliber guns was especially significant. However, they, unlike the French, were almost unable to freely move around the battlefield. Nearly one and a half hundred reserve cannons and howitzers remained in reserve until the end of the day, incurring losses in the servants, which were constantly attracted to replace the dead comrades.

As we see, it is not necessary to talk about any decisive superiority in the forces of one or another side, although the Russians still could not put as many tried and tested soldiers into battle lines.

What price did Moscow give them


So, according to the results of the 12-hour battle, the French troops still managed to seize the positions of the Russian army in the center and on the left wing. However, this fact alone did not mean victory, especially since after the cessation of hostilities, the French army retreated to its original position.



Certainly, one cannot but admit that in the ranks of the Napoleonic troops after Borodin there was no question of a retreat. However, the emperor did not hurry to attack immediately. The losses of his army, perhaps, were still less than that of the Russians, about which a little lower, but also pretty much undermined the combat effectiveness of entire formations. It is believed that the very next morning Napoleon wanted to continue the battle and complete the rout of Kutuzov’s army.

It was the losses, taking into account the possibilities of getting reinforcements, that predetermined how the 1812 company of the year continued subsequently. Numerous skeptics who believe that Kutuzov fought a battle only to please public opinion and the mood of the army are hardly credible. And there is no doubt that he initially did not plan to surrender Moscow after the only battle, albeit so bloody.

Another thing is that Kutuzov did not expect to sit in the old capital, as in an impregnable fortress, realizing that Moscow was completely unprepared for this. Contrary to the optimism and fighting enthusiasm of her governor Rostopchin.

In the documents and memoirs of contemporaries there are many facts confirming that Kutuzov seriously hoped to distract Napoleon from the throne, immediately moving either to St. Petersburg, or to the south or southeast. It is unlikely that the Russian commander at the same time played his next performance in public. But he needed a very short analysis of such prospects in order to come to terms with the fact that he would have to withdraw the army through Moscow.



Speaking of losses, let's start with the French, who at first “prescribed” by domestic historians more than 50 of thousands of dead and wounded. And this seemed quite possible given the fact that Napoleon’s army lost a lot more generals and officers compared to the Russian. 49, including 8 killed, against 28, of which six were killed.

It should be noted that the calculation of the generals inevitably leads to an erroneous assessment of the total losses. The fact is that in the entire Russian army in the battle of Borodino, only 73 generals were involved, while the French only had 70 generals in the cavalry. At the same time, only one general was captured in each of the armies under Borodin - Bonami from the French, and Likhachev from the Russians, both with numerous wounds.

Quickly enough, it became clear that all references to documents with high figures of French losses were so doubtful that it was decided to refer to the combat schedules of units and formations of the Great Army. Before and after the battle at the walls of Moscow. They gave quite reasonable data about the French losses - a little more than 30 thousand people. There were no more 1000 prisoners, and the Russian guns managed to take only 13. Against 15 guns captured by the French, and this is actually quite a good indicator, given that our constantly defended.

The sum within the 30-thousandth losses does not quite correspond to the numerous and completely truthful information that historians have at their disposal regarding the composition of the French army that entered Moscow. Its number only slightly exceeded 100 thousand people, which means that those same marching battalions did not seem to come to Napoleon at all.

But they actually came, though a few days late. Pineau's pristine division from the Italian army of Prince Eugene Beauharnais, and several regiments from the flank guards, which seemed to be somewhat weakened, also pulled themselves up. Yes, Napoleon had to allocate several thousand people to protect communications, reconnaissance and monitoring the army of Kutuzov.

But even in this case, Napoleon had too little strength left to simply admit his losses at Borodino were less than 30 thousand. However, this, like the losses of the Russian army, is a topic for a series of much deeper historical research.

Our task is somewhat more ambitious, but somewhat more modest - to try to argue our thesis that the Russian army near Borodin did not suffer defeat. Here we just note - after a real defeat, even with such losses, so few others retreated so calmly, but at the same time secretly, promptly and orderly.

About Russian losses and ... prospects


It is much more difficult to judge Russian losses. Although, it would seem, very much is known for sure. But by no means everything.

For the Russian army, no one ever called the loss figure below 38,5 thousand people. This is already more than the French minimum. And it hardly makes any sense to prove that our losses were less. It’s a paradox, but under Borodin the well-known principle is that the attacker suffers losses more than the defender, almost did not work. It worked more precisely, but the Russians, after all, too often counterattacked.

In addition, on Borodin's day, a single spirit reigned throughout the army — to stand to death. And they stood, not moving from their place under the crossfire of French artillery, under the blows of iron men from the cavalry corps of Murat. In dense columns, and not always at heights or in shelters.

The French in this regard were much trickier and more entrepreneurial - they were not at all embarrassed to leave the fire. Moreover, this fire from the side of the Napoleonic artillery, actually less numerous than the Russian, was much more intense. There is documented information that our opponents spent near Borodin almost three times as many charges as the Russians.

Nowadays, a number of publications have published evidence that the Russian army could lose up to 60 thousand people. Among other things, the basis of such calculations are some handwritten lists of militias before and after the battle, unthinkable losses among the Cossacks of Platov, and other dubious data. Meanwhile, the overstatement of Russian losses is directly related to the overstatement of Kutuzov’s army.



Ascribing to it tens of thousands of militias and thousands of Cossacks over and over again, researchers of this kind are mistaken in the main - the Russians had not yet forgotten how to win in Suvorov - not by number, but by skill. But with the skill of the same Cossacks and militias, everything was, frankly, not too good. And in a regular battle, there was not so much benefit from them as from experienced soldiers.

That's why they were taken to the Main Army only in coordinated units and formations, like the same Moscow militia, which got into the second line behind the Tuchkov corps. By the way, doing such dubious calculations, it’s just right to record in the Great Army all the observers and marketeers accompanying it. Not to mention the doctors and cooks.

What remains in reserve?


The French did not force the Russians not only to escape, as it was near Austerlitz and Friedland, but even to any significant departure. And certainly there was no trace of persecution by the French.

They like to remind the Russians that Napoleon near Borodin never put his guard into action, but, contrary to the legend, the Russian guard also remained almost untouched by the evening of August 26 (September 7). Three regiments of the Life Guards, brilliantly repulsing the numerous attacks of the French heavy cavalry - Lithuanian, Izmailovsky and Finland quite calmly, not at all under the pressure of the enemy, took their positions in the second line, leaving the first behind the corpses of Osterman and Dohturov moved from the right wing.



Losses in the composition of these Russian guard regiments, according to documents, were significant, but there was no question of loss of combat effectiveness. Meanwhile, in the corps of Davout, Ney and Junot, as well as in the Italian army of Prince Eugene, a number of regiments had to be reduced to battalions by the evening of 26 August. Otherwise, the shock columns would be so small that they would not have survived the first attack if the battle resumed.

Well, as for the Preobrazhensky and Semenov guards regiments, they limited their participation in the battle to the fact that after the loss of flushes and the Kurgan battery, they supported the line of new army positions, which, after retreating a kilometer and a half, no more, was already almost in perfect order. The main thing is that she was ready to continue the battle.

As a result, the Russians could still oppose the 18-thousandth French guard with about 8-9 thousand of their chosen troops. In addition, Kutuzov still counted on the fact that the reinforcements promised by the Moscow governor Rostopchin would arrive in time for the Borodino field. Incidentally, Rostopchin claimed that they should include not only warriors, but also several thousand soldiers from regular regiments.

But perhaps the most important advantage that the Russians retained at the end of the battle was the advantage in artillery, especially with regard to ammunition. In addition, almost 150 Russian guns from the reserve saved their servants without significant losses, although several thousand gunners still had to go to the forefront to help comrades.



Napoleon had almost all of the artillery, with the exception of the guards, already in business, and the issue of the presence of nuclei, buckshot, bombs and especially gunpowder was extremely acute. It is hardly necessary to be surprised that the Russians won the evening artillery duel quite clearly, in fact, not allowing the French to take their starting positions for the attack the next day.

Talking that the French did not want to spend the night among the corpses is not the best justification for their departure to their original positions. Of course, there was some certainty in this that the Russians did not have the strength to attack, but the Napoleonic troops themselves were no longer too eager for battle.

Napoleon very much hoped that the march battalions would be pulled up to him the very next day, but they were late for a number of reasons. Among them, perhaps the most important, were the actions of the first Russian partisan detachments.

There is quite a lot of evidence, especially from the French side, that the French commander in fact experienced considerable relief when he learned that the Russians left their new positions in the early morning of 27 on August. It was this fact, and then the abandonment of Moscow, that seemed to convince Napoleon himself that his troops still won under Borodin, or, in the French manner, in the battle on the Moscow River.

Let not defeat, but, as they say, on points. We will remain in our opinion: the Russians under Borodin did not lose even on points. Moscow had to retreat and leave not at all because of defeat, but for completely different reasons.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

122 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    14 September 2019 06: 01
    An interesting article, thank you. However, in that war, apart from Borodin, there were also no less significant battles near Smolensk, Maloyaroslavets ..
    1. +11
      14 September 2019 13: 15
      Quote: 210ox
      An interesting article, thank you. However, in that war, apart from Borodin, there were also no less significant battles near Smolensk, Maloyaroslavets ..

      You still forgot to mention the legendary battle of Klyastitsy, where Wittgenstein’s corps completely defeated fellow two corps superior to it in number (MacDonald and Oudinot), which were sent to St. Petersburg . It was then that Western historians retroactively designed the company in 1812 as “Campaign to Moscow”, but, in fact, it was far from it! No.
      1. +2
        14 September 2019 14: 48
        The battle of Kobrin.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. 0
        18 September 2019 15: 05
        You still forgot to mention the legendary Battle of Klyastitsy, where Wittgenstein’s corps completely defeated the fellow two corps superior in size (MacDonald and Oudinot), which were sent to St. Petersburg.
        MacDonald’s 10th Corps did not participate in the Battle of Klyastitsy. The battles of the Russian 1st Separate Corps of Lieutenant General Count Wittgenstein with the 2nd Army Corps of the French Army under the command of Marshal Udino, which took place from July 30 to August 1 (July 18-20) at Yakubovo Manor, in the towns of Klyastitsy, Boyarschina and Golovshtitsa our troops lost 1195 people killed, 2502 wounded and 504 were missing. The French lost from 3000 to 4000 thousand people.
  2. +5
    14 September 2019 06: 51
    We will remain in our opinion: the Russians under Borodin did not lose even on points.

    I agree: the battle was equal, his goal (defeating the Russian army) -Napoleon did not achieve, suffered very serious losses, and this is in conditions thousands of kilometers from the bases. While the Russian army was replenished continuously.

    For Napoleon, a military victory became illusory, and a prolonged occupation — unreal — had neither strength nor means. T.O. the goals of war are unattainable.

    Borodino became the starting point for the end of the invasion of the "twelve languages"
    1. +8
      14 September 2019 07: 53
      Quote: Olgovich
      Borodino became the starting point for the end of the invasion of the "twelve languages"

      even at school we were told the words of a French general summing up the results of the Battle of Borodino: "the Russians did not lose, the French did not win." And after the Tarutino maneuver, the French army rolled back.
      1. 0
        14 September 2019 09: 16
        Quote: Pedrodepackes
        And after the Tarutin maneuver, the French army rolled back.

        But she gave a strong battle near Maloyaroslavets, which certainly can be considered a victory for the French. But it was already for sure, a bitter victory
        1. +2
          14 September 2019 09: 57
          Quote: svp67
          But she gave a strong battle near Maloyaroslavets, which certainly can be counted victory the french.

          What kind of "victory" is this if he forced was after him come back and go along the OLD Smolensk road?
          At the same time, he lost a bunch of precious time for retreat, rushing between Maloyaroslavets and this road?
          1. 0
            14 September 2019 12: 23
            Quote: Olgovich
            What kind of "victory" is this if he was forced to return after it and walk along the OLD Smolensk road?

            And the fact that:
            The city changed hands 8 times. Either the Russians of the French, or the Russians of the Russians with a bayonet fight knocked them out of their positions and drove them out of the city. By the end of the day, the city remained with the French, the artillery firefight subsided in the dark by 10 o’clock in the evening. The evening came, the French, having seized the city during the eighth assault, were waiting for the general battle
            The French won this battle. It's another matter that victories are Pyrrhic.
            Here Napoleon, raising his head, stopped this heated speech with the words: “Enough courage; we have done too much for glory; now is the time to think only about saving the remnants of the army! ”
            1. +7
              14 September 2019 12: 34
              Quote: svp67
              And the fact that:
              The city changed hands 8 times. Either the Russians of the French, or the Russians of the Russians with a bayonet fight knocked them out of their positions and drove them out of the city. By the end of the day, the city remained with the French, the artillery firefight subsided in the dark by 10 o’clock in the evening. The evening came, the French, having seized the city during the eighth assault, were waiting for the general battle
              The French won this battle.

              No, they didn’t win (my opinion): the goal of the battle for them was to break onto the Kaluga road, and not to take Maloyaroslavets: they did not need them at all.

              The goal has not been reached, ours are impregnable and the whole huge army of Napoleon had to turn 180 degrees and go back. And this despite the fact that there was still movement of part of the army along the same road .... towards Maloyaroslavets!
              1. +2
                14 September 2019 13: 02
                Quote: Olgovich
                The goal is not achieved, ours are impregnable

                Moving to another position ... 8 km
                1. +5
                  14 September 2019 15: 43
                  Quote: svp67
                  Moving to another position ... 8 km

                  Yes, located on the hills 1-4 miles from the city, closing down Kaluga road and Medyn.

                  The winner would go on it.

                  But Napoleon turned back, he could not master the second Borodino.
                  1. +2
                    14 September 2019 15: 56
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    But Napoleon turned back, he could not master the second Borodino.

                    And this was Kutuzov's ingenious calculation. He could afford a "second Borodino", but for Napoleon it was already like death, even if he won again
                    1. +2
                      14 September 2019 16: 00
                      Quote: svp67
                      And this was Kutuzov's ingenious calculation. He could afford a "second Borodino", but for Napoleon it was already like death, even if he won again

                      I completely agree: Kutuzov was ready for the second Borodino, and Napoleon, mindful of the first-no.
                      This is also the significance of Borodino.
        2. -2
          14 September 2019 10: 14
          Quote: svp67
          the battle of Maloyaroslavets, which certainly can be considered a victory for the French

          Well, there is also no definite conclusion, depending on which side to look at, only some guesses. If only by losses, then the French have less, but the Russians were in the minority.
        3. +6
          14 September 2019 16: 55
          No, it’s impossible: the French did not decide on a new general battle, because Napoleon, unlike modern historians and bloggers, understood that in the event of a new battle he would lose the whole army. To Kutuzov, it was a battle like a dog’s fifth leg: he preferred to squeeze out the enemy without excessive losses from the Russian army. Circumstances worked for us, in RUSSIAN. And they were used: this is the genius of Kutuzov.
      2. 0
        22 September 2019 17: 03
        Quote: Pedrodepackes
        "the Russians did not lose, the French did not win."
        Maybe so: Napoleon tried to win the battle, and Kutuzov to win the war?
    2. -3
      14 September 2019 08: 01
      Quote: Olgovich
      Those. the goals of war are unattainable.

      If the goal of the war was to conquer Russia, then he would attack the capital.
      1. +1
        14 September 2019 09: 18
        Quote: Boris55
        If the goal of the war was to conquer Russia, then he would attack the capital.

        Not so easy, he went the "richest" way in terms of food, and moreover, if he moved all his forces to St. Petersburg, then not only would he experience supply problems, but he would have a very real threat of attack on the extended flank , with the perspective of a complete environment.
        1. +3
          14 September 2019 09: 47
          Quote: svp67
          Not so easy, he walked the "richest" path in terms of food,

          Namely: Napoleon walked exclusively AVNATURNO, having practically no supplies except gunpowder and cores.
          Even medical vehicles and workshops were abandoned in Gomel (Kolenkur).
          If it were not for the huge reserves of OUR food seized in Dorogobuzh and Vyazma (which was a terrible omission of ours), he would not have gone further, Borodino would have simply not existed.
      2. +2
        14 September 2019 12: 55
        Quote: Boris55
        If the goal of the war was to conquer Russia, then he would attack the capital.

        Having a Russian army in the rear?
        1. +5
          14 September 2019 15: 03
          Napoleon sent three of his corps to the St. Petersburg direction: the 10th, under the leadership of Jacques MacDonald, which included about 32 thousand Prussians, Germans and Poles, the second, consisting of 2 thousand French, Swiss and Croats Nicolas Oudinot and the 35th , numbering 6 thousand Bavarians Laurent de Gouvion Saint Cyr.
        2. -5
          15 September 2019 07: 33
          Quote: Trouble
          Having a Russian army in the rear?

          What was she doing there? Why didn’t she defend the control center of the whole power and abandoned the king?

          Short. Peter was already under Western capital control. Moscow merchant was Russian. Napoleon's task was to smash the merchants and give Western capital complete control over Russia. Napoleon almost completed this task.
          1. 0
            18 September 2019 15: 30
            What was she doing there? Why didn’t she defend the control center of the whole power and abandoned the king?
            Because, Emperor Alexander I retreated with the 1st Western Army, which he commanded, to the Dries camp. July 6, after 24 days of command, the emperor leaves the army and leaves for Vitebsk through Polotsk. On July 9, the emperor appears in Smolensk and from July 11 to July 18 stays in Moscow. At the same time, Napoleon is in Vitebsk. On July 19, Alexander 1 left Moscow and headed to Petersburg without appointing the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies. The control center of the whole power was defended by the 1st separate building of Lieutenant General Count Wittgenstein and the Riga Corps of General Essen.
    3. +1
      14 September 2019 08: 06
      On football - a draw.

      From the strategic point of view - a gain. Although Bonaparte won, by no means Pyrrhic.
      1. +2
        14 September 2019 16: 57
        Quote: Ilya-spb
        On football - a draw.

        From the strategic point of view - a gain. Although Bonaparte won, by no means Pyrrhic.

        Losses are comparable to about forty thousand on each side. Napoleon has no victory.
    4. 0
      14 September 2019 08: 31
      Well, in such a way you can interpret the two-round confrontation between football teams .. one team counting on the first game to defeat 3-4 goals won, for example, only 3-2 and in the return it blows 0-2 in total, the second team wins well, judging by the logic of description events like 3-2 it was not a victory but a loss, the task of the first was not completed; the defeat wasn’t. this is the logic .. I think this very logic is inherent to the ladies rather than to historians
      1. 0
        14 September 2019 12: 10
        Quote: tiaman.76
        two-round confrontation of football teams ..

        in football rounds?
        Quote: tiaman.76
        that 3-2 it wasn’t a victory but a loss, the task of the first was not completed; the defeat wasn’t.

        This football is not only goals scored, but also team competitions, according to the example you gave, victory in the first match to the winning team yielded nothing, because the team is eliminated from the tournament by points and by the difference in goals scored. Normal logic.
        1. -3
          14 September 2019 14: 25
          that's exactly that elimination from the tournament on the sum of two matches and not one by one .. as in that war. losing at Borodino did not mean a loss in the war as subsequent events showed, so I don’t understand that hysterical fear of admitting a loss in that battle. it is a loss, a valiant loss, which may be more important than many victories, and you pancake shaking and shitting because of this one event
          1. 0
            14 September 2019 17: 33
            Quote: tiaman.76
            that's exactly what dropping out of a tournament by the sum of two matches

            how it all starts .... you, for starters, deal with football smile
    5. 0
      14 September 2019 11: 31
      Quote: Olgovich
      I agree: the battle was equal, his goal (defeat of the Russian army) -Napoleon did not reach

      Defeat, defeat is when the army flees or is no longer able to fight. And in the case of the Battle of Borodino, this was not the case. The Russian army withdrew did not abandon supplies and weapons, Napoleon's army could not even pursue, that is, there was no victory. As they say, "everyone remained in their own interests. Well, what happened next, everyone knows. The genius of a commander is not the ability to win, but the ability to avoid defeat."
  3. +2
    14 September 2019 07: 01
    Tell me, uncle, not for nothing
    Moscow, burned by fire,
    The Frenchman is given away?
    After all, there were fighting battles, Yes they say some more.
    No wonder the whole of Russia remembers
    About Borodin's day!
    M.Yu. Lermontov
  4. 0
    14 September 2019 07: 43
    In general, determining who won a particular battle is not history, it is propaganda for the "internal user". The main indicator of any battle is its influence on the outcome of the war. Russia won the war. This means that the Battle of Borodino (it does not matter - they began to advance or retreat after the military clash of the troops) is VICTORY! Why do we in our history textbooks talk a lot about Borodino and little about the European campaign of the Russian army? Yes, because those in power need examples for "self-sacrifice" - otherwise the end of power itself. I repeat - the Russians definitely won at Borodino, if the French won, then we would study the history of the defeat of the "Napoleonic European Union" in the battle on the Ob and the liberation of Siberia from the French)))
    1. +3
      14 September 2019 08: 34
      Well, judging by your reasoning, the Soviet troops won the battle of 1941 near Smolensk, otherwise then there would have been a battle for the Urals .. and it doesn’t matter who and where retreated after the Smolensk battle
      1. 0
        14 September 2019 13: 10
        For tiaman.76 There are defensive operations and there are offensive operations - near Smolensk in 1941 (as well as near Borodino in 1812) the military operation was defensive in nature. At Smolensk, the task assigned to the troops was to disrupt the German offensive, the so-called "blitzkrieg" was completed, despite heavy losses. The fascist blitzkrieg was thwarted. But this is from the point of view of military history, in ordinary social history the events of 1941 are interpreted in such a perspective in which it is beneficial to present the current government. I assess Borodino from the point of military history - this direction of historical science is most conservative and has a minimum of political distortions. And near Smolensk, and near Moscow and in all other battles, the country of the USSR won. Reflection of aggression always includes two MAIN factors - withdrawal (to the defensive lines) and offensive. If you fight only on the defensive, then sooner or later you will be defeated (defeated). The result of the war is our banner over Paris in 1813 and our banner over Berlin in 1945. It is these banners that confirm Victory - the end of the war, and not a successful offensive or defense.
        1. +1
          14 September 2019 14: 34
          all the same, if we talk about Smolensk in 1941 ... he didn’t break the blitzkrieg alone, but a combination of several factors, one of which was the defense of Kiev, which forced the Nazis to redirect the army’s tank group center to the south, and Borodino left all the same for them .. hmm with that .. well 5-4 in theirs .. then our 5-0 already played
          1. 0
            14 September 2019 16: 53
            For tiaman.76. It is impossible to compare different things in goals, tactics, weapons of war between them for more than 1 century. Only through the prism of politics (or populism) can one find a common ground in everything, but a common ground can be found only after the completion of an event. Borodino did not remain with the French. We discard military reflections (tactics, the number of weapons and people, the numbers of losses). If the French then defeated the Russian army completely, Napoleon would not be in Moscow, but in St. Petersburg. Napoleon needed Russia that was not destroyed and its territory (like Hitler), Napoleon needed the Russian Tsar as an ally in the further conquest of the world (a campaign in India).
            1. -1
              14 September 2019 17: 00
              Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
              Napoleon needed the Russian tsar as an ally in the further conquest of the world (a campaign in India).

              Well, you know ... I once read that Hitler also planned a campaign in Iran, and Stalin - in the UK. Agreed to miss the troops.
            2. -1
              14 September 2019 17: 51
              damn .. Sokolov is a stupid person for you or something ???? or are you morons ??? watch his programs or read books. Here is the person in this topic special with a capital letter .. and you grief patriots, on the contrary, just shit at our history trying to pervert it .. what a damn army after the victory, so to speak, continues to retreat ??? .. and in Mozhaisk, about 30 thousand wounded were left, what victorious army leaves one of the capitals? Moscow, in addition to the economic capital, could be said to be the soul of the country and not St. Petersburg .. who after victory in the abandoned city leaves most of the convoy and the rest of the wounded and sick and then makes such a maneuver that not only the enemy, but also their own reinforcements lose their traces ??? at least one such episode in the history of mankind show tell me a pancake !!!! ... you !!! you just smear all the heroism of the Russian soldier with your demagoguery !!! you got it !!!
              1. +2
                14 September 2019 18: 56
                For tiaman.76 Alexander, if you are a pro - "not a smart person" or "you morons" ??? I’ll answer your question: whether I’m smart or not smart is not for me to judge, but the fact that I don’t suffer from moronicism is for sure. I could have cited the same thing as a counterargument from a "clever Sokolov", but I will quote Goette's words: "Only pedants are looking for authority in everything." But I will not put forward a counterargument not against you, nor against Sokolov, unknown to me. I have always been not a supporter of someone to prove something, but a supporter of the fact that people would think and understand on their own ... Here is an example from my personal experience: in one of the hot spots of the USSR, our tank company was tasked with "breaking through" obstacles from the set KAMAZ loaded with stones and go to the area of ​​the checkpoint. During the breakthrough in which 8 tanks and 1 IMR participated, we lost 2 tanks and 1 IMR (IMR is an engineering barrage vehicle). The 1st tank had a turret with a gun turned across, the other tank and the IMR simply jammed the engines from the load. We left the "lost" equipment together with the crews in place, and the convoy moved forward. So from your point of view, we specifically lost to the nationalists (losses amounted to 3 out of 9 units of equipment -30%), but we had another main task - not to break through the barrier, but to create a checkpoint and prevent the penetration of weapons and gangs into the city, which would not allow the massacre of civilians. Which we did. So which of us is the winner - nationalists who disabled 30% of the equipment, or we - who did not allow the killing of civilians?
                1. +1
                  14 September 2019 19: 05
                  watch thematic programs about the history of our country, namely, the "era of Napoleonic wars" and you will at least see a little further than your own nose. but at the expense of "smart Sokolov" .. hmm, anyway, so this historian devoted most of his life to studying this era using by the way, like our Russian archival data and French, and in the original
                  1. +2
                    14 September 2019 21: 27
                    For tiaman.76 I suggest that you look not only beyond your nose and the scientist Sokolov))) You can study papers all your life what winter is (including beautifully talking about it based on the archives), but you still don’t understand what winter is, after sitting all your life in a warm and cozy office))) So the archives do not reflect the essence of any war until you take part in it ... In the history of wars, there is a lot that is embellished (everyone wants to be heroes) or not finished (no one wants to look like a loser or a criminal). And I will also advise you - before giving evaluative conclusions on someone like "stupid person", "not smart", etc. - learn more about a person, because by giving him an unsubstantiated assessment, you show not only the level of your communication culture, but also your level of knowledge and education ...
                    1. 0
                      17 September 2019 20: 16
                      Initially, the author asked the wrong vector in his article. He mixed white and hot
                      what. This is pure propaganda. No one disputes the importance of Borodin. Victory in a company is one thing, victory in a particular battle is another. Victory is for those who remain on the battlefield.
                      1. +1
                        17 September 2019 20: 49
                        On the battlefield, usually the dead remain. The rest continue to move ....
                      2. 0
                        18 September 2019 08: 37
                        Well, "for whom the battlefield is left."
                      3. +1
                        18 September 2019 09: 15
                        Until now, this field is on the territory of the Russian Federation, although at one time Hitler was its "owner", although both of these personalities were there for so long that they could not even sow it, not to mention that from this field "get profit")) )
                  2. 0
                    15 September 2019 22: 11
                    Sokolov O.V. ("Sire") has been studying this era for over 30 years. When I started to attend his underground classes as a boy, he was already an authority. It is difficult to argue with him already because very few people have worked with primary sources (synchronous documents) from foreign archives. For this you need to know languages. Even some of the official Russian documents are written in French. And without knowledge of French, all that remains is to rewrite the often fantastic facts from memoirs. What plans did Napoleon have for organizing the Battle of Borodino? Who gave what orders to whom? What was done and what was not? What losses were incurred? What positions were held by who at the end of the day? The answers to these questions are found only in the archives of the French army, where few of the historians have been.
                    By the way, I look forward to his promised book about 1812. I think a lot of interesting things await us.
                    1. 0
                      17 September 2019 10: 27
                      thanks .. said well! Yes
            3. +2
              15 September 2019 22: 13
              Not only to conquer the world, but to weaken Britain. Under Paul, a trip to India could have taken place. And we would still be proud to have liberated India from the British yoke.
    2. +1
      14 September 2019 11: 35
      Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
      The main indicator of any battle is its influence on the outcome of the war. The war was won by Russia.

      As in boxing, in two rounds your face was cleaned up, and in the third round you won by knockout, and the referee raised your hand. It's too late to wave your arms after the fight. Kutuzov's hand is raised, and Napoleon is sent to Elba.
      1. 0
        14 September 2019 14: 58
        Well, according to statistics, the score will be indicated at the time of the knockout, there it is indicated who led the rounds
        1. +1
          14 September 2019 16: 27
          Quote: tiaman.76
          Well, according to statistics, the account will be indicated at the time of knockout

          And who cares about the bill, I won, my victory.
          1. 0
            14 September 2019 17: 58
            here about the account here it’s just the question .. and who beat in the end even the granny knows in the dump
  5. -3
    14 September 2019 07: 50
    Quote: A. Podymov
    What price did Moscow give them

    The author, and at what cost in the Second World War we were given the victory over Koenigsberg? Can this be considered not our victory, but not the success of the Nazis?

    Why over Königsberg, and because, like Moscow, at that historical period, was not the capital of the empire, Königsberg was not the capital of the Third Reich.

    How much can you glorify this mediocrity (Napoleon)? Can you begin to glorify Hitler, or is it too early, not all veterans of that war left this World?
    Author, for all this husk of factics, where are you taking us?
    1. 0
      14 September 2019 16: 35
      Quote: Boris55
      The author, and at what cost in the Second World War we were given the victory over Koenigsberg?

      Warsaw cost us much more than Koenig.
  6. +5
    14 September 2019 07: 53
    Disputes about Borodin will not subside for a long time. For me personally, Borodino is one of the brightest pages of our military glory and a point of no return for Napoleon. But I've always been interested in the question of the commander's personality, the role of his character and the "style" of campaigning. After all, I wonder how the Patriotic War would have gone if the brilliant and ardent Suvorov were in the place of the cautious and wise Kutuzov? And would it come to her? Perhaps the sun of Austerlitz would not have risen for Napoleon?
    1. +1
      14 September 2019 09: 34
      It's not that difficult: "Nobody but Kutuzov", published a little over a week ago
      https://topwar.ru/161752-1812-j-nikto-krome-kutuzova.html
      1. +1
        14 September 2019 09: 46
        thanks, I will read hi
      2. 0
        14 September 2019 14: 37
        It's not that difficult: "Nobody but Kutuzov", published a little over a week ago
        I read, in an article only about the inevitability of Kutuzov's appointment, but not a word of an answer to my "alternative historical" interest
    2. +2
      14 September 2019 15: 15
      A.V. Suvorov, who didn’t want to retreat, would immediately go on the offensive.
      1. -1
        15 September 2019 16: 34
        Quote: ivan petrov_9
        A.V. Suvorov, who didn’t want to retreat, would immediately go on the offensive.

        Immediately to Paris?
        1. 0
          16 September 2019 01: 34
          In 1799, he was close to this.
  7. +1
    14 September 2019 08: 12
    Thank you, the article is interesting.
    But a huge comment to the author. Gorgeous illustrations are given, but without the names and authors of the paintings.
    1. +1
      14 September 2019 09: 36
      I apologize. Some of these paintings are too well known, and some authorship does not reveal - something like reconstructions. Modern, for example, with militias, with artillery and the Russian guard.

      But I will try to personally forward everything that I can to you
    2. +1
      16 September 2019 20: 22
      http://www.varvar.ru/arhiv/gallery/battle_art/averyanov/images/averyanov19.jpg
      https://wallpaperscave.ru/images/original/18/06-09/military-soldier-55957.jpg

      These are links to a couple of pictures ...
      One I could not attribute

      This is "Russian foot artillery of 1812". It was so replicated in boxes with soldiers that the author must be installed by buying some non-left source.

      With others it's easier.
      The classic S.V. Gerasimov "Kutuzov on the Borodino field" simply cannot be unfamiliar to you
      Then the work of the Greeks Alexander Averyanov "Taking the Rayevsky Battery" and Alexander Ananyev "The People's Militia of 1812", and finally, Alexander Yezhov, no longer a Greek man - "The Russian Guard at Borodino". Good luck and thanks!
  8. +7
    14 September 2019 08: 43
    The size of the Russian army at Borodino is 103 thousand. in regular units, 7 thousand. Cossacks, and up to 10 thousand. militias. Napoleonic-138 thousand. only regular, and 15-18 thousand non-combatants are not mentioned at all, like "historians", although they do not forget to add militias to the Russian army. The author would like to remind you that the loss figures are 30 thousand. This is based on Denier's calculations, but they are completely fake, perhaps so as not to scare your own army with wild losses. So, according to the official, 49 generals were killed and wounded, 1000 officers of which 269 were killed and 28 thousand private. But in fact, 480 officers were killed, and this was found out by the French historians themselves, and known by surname. And this is almost 80% more than in Denier's report. By the way, according to Clausewitz's data, Junot's corps before the battle of 9656, after the battle of 5700, almost 4000 losses. This is about 40% of the initial composition.
    And he did not belong to the parts that stormed the flushes. And the author, you write nonsense that if the Russians constantly counterattacked and suffered heavy losses, I want to remind you that before that the Napoleonic corps built in tight columns were shot by artillery and suffered heavy losses, and only then they were counterattacked by the Russians and got out of a bayonet battle positions and if the Russians were inferior in number and would have suffered heavy losses, they would never have been able to knock out the enemy with flushes and redoubts. Well, battalions can’t concession initially in numbers, in a bayonet battle, taking heavy losses and knocking out enemy units from their occupied positions.
    No matter how much you would like the author, the Russian army suffered really smaller losses. 23 generals against 49, 1487 officers, including 237 killed, against 1928 of which 480 were killed by the French and about 40 thousand soldiers against 50-60 thousand soldiers of Napoleon.
    We believe that on August 27th, 6 thousand units approached Napoleon, the Pinot division, and on August 30, the Delyabord division, 11 thousand. + Marching battalions, the total number of reserves on the way up to 40 thousand. And so we consider-138 thousand. + 40 thousand. = 178 thousand. 98-100 thousand came to Moscow. And where did they go for 125 km., Is the distance from Borodino to Moscow, 78-80 thousand soldiers? Let the mother and the euro did not convey to their children, do not drink from a puddle you become a kid. Well, such a difference could not get sick from diarrhea for 125 km. Let 3-4 thousand. died, 10-12 thousand. left to protect communications. But where did the rest evaporate, and this is more than 30 thousand (if it is persistent to follow Denier)? So that the figure of 58000 losses of the Napoleonic army knocked out on the obelisk on the Borodino field is close to the truth.
    And gentlemen, the newly-born historians-borosopisniks at last cease to spit at the graves of their ancestors, because someday patience will come to an end and you will be allowed to do something good for canned dog.
    They themselves came up with the formula "women still give birth" and they themselves are trying to adjust our history to fit it, like they ran only filling up the corpses of enemy soldiers.
    They got it.
    1. 0
      14 September 2019 09: 41
      I agree with you in many ways, although there are certain stretches in your calculations. I, too, are very confused by the mismatch of the composition of Napoleon’s army in Moscow, with what should be based on Borodin’s results. And Kutuzov therefore retreated because tens of thousands approached Napoleon, and almost nobody came to him ...
    2. +1
      14 September 2019 12: 49
      Oleg. Thank you, I have never considered such an interpretation.
      1. +2
        14 September 2019 17: 09
        Good evening. Here is some more information for consideration. I quoted above that the 8th building of Junot out of 9656 people, lost almost 4000, which is 41% of the personnel. If you apply this percentage to the whole army of Napoleon, you get 56560 people. total losses. It is clear that 18000 at Napoleon did not participate in the battle and did not suffer losses, but there were parts almost destroyed. The Bonami regiment had 4100 before the battle and 300 after. 30 line regiment of the French army before the battle 3078 people. and 268 remained in service after, losses of over 90%. Ney and Davout's corps suffered worse than Juno's corps. Since the flashes attacked 8 times, and then withstood the shelling of Russian artillery in the afternoon. In the Russian army, if we take the maximum losses of 1487 officers (although there are lower casualties, 1391 people of which 211 killed and 1180 wounded), then for every retired officer there are 30 retired soldiers, I take the highest number of Russian losses - 44000 soldiers , Cossacks and militias. Having accepted the same ratio for the Napoleonic army, we get 1928 * 30 = 57840 people.
        But, what happens, Napoleon has 80000 left, of which 18000 are untouched by the Old Guard, Kutuzov has 59-63tys. of which 9000 reserves in regular units. Napoleon has large reserves on his way, Kutuzov does not have them. The only way out is a retreat.
        So, even mathematical calculations give Napoleon’s losses over 50 thousand.
        1. +1
          15 September 2019 00: 28
          I apologize for my amateurism, but I would also like to add my penny ...
          So in order

          June 24 above Kovno began crossing
          1st, 2nd, 3rd Infantry Corps,
          guard and cavalry. This is 220 thousand


          On June 29 - 30, another group of the 4th and 6th infantry corps, cavalry under the command of the Viceroy of Italy Eugene Bogarne, moved near Prena south of Kovno Neman. Another 67 thousand

          On June 30, further south, near Grodno, the Neman crossed 4 corps of the 5th, 7th, 8th infantry and 4th cavalry corps under the general command of King Westphalia Jerome Bonaparte. It is ok 80 thousand

          To the north, near Tilsit Neman crossed the 10th corps of Marshal MacDonald 32 thousand

          In the southern direction from Warsaw through the Bug began the invasion of a separate Austrian corps of General Schwarzenberg 30 thousand


          7th Saxon Corps under the command of General Rainier 20 thousand

          5th Polish Corps under the command of Poniatowski 32 thousand

          Only about 480 thousand. Of these, about 60 thousand went to the north - MacDonald and Oudinot, and they got stuck there.
          Rainier, Schwarzenberg and the 17th division of Dombrowski to the south. Also about approx. 60 thousand.
          And 360 thousand went to Moscow. Of these, 30 thousand died in battle, 330 thousand remain.
          There wasn’t any famine in the French army, nor was the plague. Far to winter - July August, summer. There was no mass desertion either.
          And under Borodino, the French were 130 thousand (allegedly).
          Where did 200 thousand people from the French army go? !!
          And if there were much more Frenchmen at Borodino, really?
          And if we assume that the French army at the battle of Borodino was one and a half to two times larger than the Russian, but could not win and suffered much greater losses?
          Kmk, that would make a big difference.
          1. +1
            15 September 2019 06: 39
            Greetings. I also do not understand these figures, both under Borodino and in the future, I wrote about it above. The battle for Smolensk. 280 km from Borodino. Napoleon-185000, Barclay-130000, Napoleonic losses of 15000, but marching replenishment came! Does Borodino have 138000? Where you can lose over 280 km. 50000 and even more considering replenishment? Questions, questions.
            1. 0
              15 September 2019 06: 52
              30000 soldiers sealed up.
            2. +1
              15 September 2019 09: 58
              Napoleon’s losses in the battles for Smolensk and near Valutin’s mountains are 20, and the losses of Napoleon’s avant-garde in the battles for Dorogobuzh, Vyazma and Gzhatsk are added. In the abandoned cities there were French garrisons with a total number of about 000. The Pinot division, which Napoleon deployed to Vitebsk, did not participate in the battle of Borodino.
              1. +1
                15 September 2019 17: 17
                Yes thank you. Near Smolensk 15000, with Valutina Gora 8-9000 + 25000 in the garrison and losses in rearguard battles. The Pinot Division (6000) joined the Great Army the day after Borodino. But again, starting from the numbers before the battle of Smolensk, 185000 give the same 138000 before Shevardino, and the number of reserves that came up and the return of the recovered to the system are left out of the picture.
            3. 0
              15 September 2019 21: 50
              Greetings too.
              It seems to me that this is a great topic for the article, but of course you need to be deep in the subject. Alas, this is not about me, and I can’t write articles.
              But I think it would be great to develop precisely this topic, i.e. the number of troops near Borodino. Well and not only that, of course.
          2. 0
            15 September 2019 21: 20
            The 7th Saxon Corps of Rainier 20 thousand and the 5th Polish Ponyatovsky Corps 32 thousand included in 80 thousand groupings under the general command of King Westphalia Jerome Bonaparte. It turns out only 428 thousand people (according to Clausewitz - 439 thousand people). 308 thousand went to Moscow. Only about 130 thousand Frenchmen reached Borodino (Kutuzov M.I. Materials of the jubilee session of the military academies of the Red Army dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the birth of M.I. Kutuzov, Military Publishing, 1947, p. 88. ) Significant forces were allocated to protect the extended communications and ensure the flanks of the main forces advancing on Moscow (30-40 thousand) .Military and sanitary losses are added to this (hospitals in the abandoned cities were packed with wounded and sick people, of whom not less than 30 thousand ) From the main direction, 13 thousand Bavarians of Saint Cyr were sent to Polotsk, and the Pinot division (6 thousand) to Vitebsk. As you know, according to the laws of martial art, the advancing side must have at least a quarter superiority. Napoleon did not have this, but the skillful arrangement of guns allowed the former artilleryman, who became emperor, to level this discrepancy.
    3. 0
      19 September 2019 18: 07
      The beginning Napoleon’s army headquarters presented him with a list of army losses in the Battle of Borodino. This report has been preserved in the archives and recognized as the most reliable document. There is a figure of about 28 people. Based on the dialectical method, the historian Nechkina was able to increase the French casualties to 000. This, of course, amuses the Russian national consciousness, but an accurate understanding of the great deed of the participants in the battle of Borodino is not suitable. My numerical data is very approximate. Napoleon could not enter the guard while he saw the parts of the militias untouched by the battle, not knowing the combat effectiveness of these units. Wittgenstein, unlike Kutuzov, threw the militia into the first attack and the militia crushed the French infantry, and they did not surrender in captivity when they fell under the blow of the French cavalry, having used up cartridges.
      1. 0
        19 September 2019 21: 55
        I didn’t read Nechkin. All that I posted above is my opinion and my calculations.
        Above, I have already expressed my opinion on the Denier report. If he was so "wrong" in calculating the losses of the officers, then what to say about the rank and file? 269 ​​is not equal to 480! And this countdown is not credible. You can be 10-15% wrong, but not 80% wrong.
        How can one trust the report, where such an important aspect as the loss of officers is falsified?
        Yes, it warms the souls of patriots that our ancestors, being inferior to the enemy in number, were able to inflict such losses on him, but what warms the soul of such as you, that with such contemptuous humiliation he writes about patriots? And, to make it even clearer to those like you, I'll write directly, Denier lies in the report, like a gray gelding, just as Bonaparte himself later lied "from 80000 I rushed to 250000 Russians and completely broke ..."
  9. +5
    14 September 2019 09: 46
    In 1980 I came to Paris on a business trip. With the French, we began to create a new instrumental landing system. I came to the Arc de Triomphe. All the victories of Napoleon are listed there, but Borodino is not. Later I became interested in the history and pedigree of a kind. Found how my great-great-grandfather fought against the French in 1812, but in the troops of Count P.Kh. Finkelstein. He became a non-commissioned officer and received a rank of nobility for one feat. Already abroad, he was wounded along with the count and resigned. So, according to history, I wrote the story "The Forgotten Governor General". This is about Miloradovich. Miloradovich, after the withdrawal of our troops from Borodino, managed with Murat (they were well acquainted) to agree on a 2-day truce. Russian troops withdrew to new positions, 60 regiments from the reserve (which Miloradovich had been preparing even before the war) approached and a new army appeared in our country. Miloradovich in Russia was then considered the SAVIOR OF RUSSIA.
  10. +5
    14 September 2019 09: 57
    Tactically Napoleon, the French defeated: the battlefield for the Great Army, the Russian troops retreated. Strategically: the complete defeat of the French and Napoleon; the battle objectives were not achieved, the Russian army was not defeated and retreated in perfect order. Near Maloyaroslavets, Napoleon did not dare to give a general battle largely thanks to the ghost of Borodin. As a result, the defeat of the Great Army and the capture of Paris.
    1. 0
      14 September 2019 19: 07
      one hundred percent agree! Yes
    2. 0
      16 September 2019 09: 52
      But what about the capture of Moscow?
  11. 0
    14 September 2019 10: 16
    Set off an article.
  12. -5
    14 September 2019 10: 19
    A strange position, well then the capture of the Brest Fortress, should not be considered a defeat, the USSR still won.
    1. 0
      14 September 2019 11: 43
      Quote: energoteknolog
      A strange position, well then the capture of the Brest Fortress, should not be considered a defeat, the USSR still won.

      Do not count your chickens before they are hatched.
    2. +1
      14 September 2019 16: 47
      Defeat to defeat, if only such defeats as in the Brest Fortress would have been at least two times more in June 41, then most likely Hitler’s troops would not have reached Moscow, they would have been exhausted much earlier.
      1. +2
        14 September 2019 22: 00
        And what kind of "defeats" did the Germans suffer in the Brest Fortress? 1200 Germans were killed against 2000 Red Army soldiers, and this was during the defense! Plus 7000 prisoners. By the way, they took the fortress in a week. Total - losses amounted to 9 to 1. No, the Germans would not have fizzled out.
        1. -1
          14 September 2019 23: 16
          Well these are false numbers.
          Goebbels finger sucked.
          1. The comment was deleted.
  13. 0
    14 September 2019 11: 49
    Napoleon longed for war in the manner of that time: a general battle — the defeat of the enemy — victory in the war.
    And so he received the desired general battle.
    Which the following two sweets did not follow, serious historians do not even try to talk about any rout of the enemy, but the enemy won the victory in the war!
    I think if Napoleon himself described such a course of events before that, he would not have called it a victory, even with a high temperature.
  14. +2
    14 September 2019 13: 18
    Why is everyone so worried about Moscow - well, did Napoleon defeat the Russian army in the battle of Borodino (knocked out from previously occupied positions), well, took the city and so what - the Russian Empire surrendered, paid reparations, became a French colony?

    Discussing what’s more prestigious - winning a battle or war — is like asking the question whether the Red Army lost the battle for Stalingrad in the 1942 year (having surrendered 99% of the city's territory) or won the Battle of Stalingrad in the 1943 year (starving and chilling more German, Italian and Romanian soldiers than killing in hostilities).

    Not to mention the consequences of the wars for France after the 1815 year and Germany after the 1945 year, when they turned from independent players in the international arena into dependent countries (which the USA, Russia and China have).
  15. -1
    14 September 2019 15: 02
    The logic "who won the war, he won and all the battles" is simply magnificent. Well, how does it happen - Pyrrhus leaked the war to Rome, so he lost all his battles? The samurai merged Imjinskaya, so they lost all the battles on land? Karl the 12th merged the Northern, which means he also lost everywhere, there was not a single victory? it looks like the regiment of schizos in the psychiatric hospital arrived. Although why am I surprised ...
    and yes, there are no double interpretations in war. Borodino Napoleon won - as Pyrrhus won his battles against Rome, but did not win the war with Rome. People like to confuse these things, out of ignorance or stupidity. It is clear that rewriting history is a classic, they say, we are invincible and have never lost to anyone. But what about.
    1. +2
      14 September 2019 22: 59
      A battle won is a battle won right here and now. That is, in place and in battle. If the enemy remains undefeated on the battlefield, such a battle cannot be considered won.
      And if the enemy left the next day, for whatever reason, strategic or due to lack of forces at this stage, this should be attributed to the general course of the campaign, the war.
      Therefore, the conclusion is simple - there was a draw under Borodino. And in the war we won.
    2. 0
      14 September 2019 23: 26
      Comparison with Pierre is incorrect - he won his battles precisely.
      Is the defeat of the Romans at Cannes in doubt?
      1. +1
        15 September 2019 09: 26
        I apologize, confused Pyrrhus with Hannibal, but the essence is the same.
  16. -1
    14 September 2019 15: 32
    The debate about who won the biggest battle of the war of 1812 has not ceased for two centuries. The claim that the general battle on the Borodino field was victorious for the Russian troops is quite controversial in view of the fact that, despite the immense courage and stamina of the Russian army, Napoleon managed to win at the cost of huge losses. The initiative was in his hands all day, the French constantly attacked, and by the end of the day all their regiments and divisions had remained combat-ready. In the direction of the main attack, the French commander skillfully created superiority in all types of weapons, especially in concentrating the power of artillery fire, which was one of the reasons for the large losses among the Russian troops. General L.L. Bennigsen, in his Notes, draws the following disappointing conclusions: "We were driven back at all the points that were attacked," and Napoleon "took possession of all the heights and the batteries that stood on them." Principal A.P. Ermolov said: “the enemy won” (World War II and Russian society. 1812 - 1912. M., 1912, v. IV, p. 29), adjutant Vladimir Ivanovich Levenshtern (1777-1858) officer Fadeev wrote A.D. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "The enemy will certainly enter Moscow, because our army has completely died." Moreover, M.I. Kutuzov always said that "the general who retains the reserve is not defeated." In the battle of Borodino, Napoleon retained his reserve (guard), but at Kutuzov all reserves were involved in the matter. Be that as it may, the attitude of Alexander I to the battle of Borodino was complicated. This is also evidenced by the fact that in honor of him a commemorative medal was not made for the lower ranks of the army. That is, for Preisish-Eylau it was, but for Borodino - no. Although in their significance for the Russian state they are not comparable. Subsequently, Napoleon wrote: "The battle on the Moscow River was one of those (une de celles) battles, where maximum advantages were shown and minimum results were achieved." (Mitarevsky N. E. The enemy's invasion of Russia. M., 1878, p. 96.).
    1. 0
      14 September 2019 19: 15
      smart and sensible good
    2. 0
      14 September 2019 23: 38
      Napoleon managed to win at the cost of huge losses.

      He did not win it.
      the French constantly attacked

      Not always.
      and all their regiments and divisions by the end of the day retained combat readiness

      Absolutely baseless allegation.
      The initiative was in his hands all day

      Let's imagine a match. One of the teams holds the initiative in its hands, spends more time on half of the enemy, hits more on goal, the second plays on defense, on counterattacks. But now the match is over, and the score ... no one! And it doesn't matter what the athletes saved combat readiness strength. The match is over.
      Can this be considered a victory? Obviously not.
      1. 0
        15 September 2019 10: 19
        Still, a combat battle does not fit into the framework of a football match.
    3. 0
      15 September 2019 23: 13
      The claim that the general battle on the Borodino field was victorious for the Russian troops is quite controversial

      It is controversial only for undereducated historians. Napoleon himself admitted that under Borodino he did not win, and on the triumphal arch in Paris, where all the won battles of Napoleon are listed, Borodino is not.
      1. +1
        16 September 2019 17: 32
        But there is MOHILEW, SMOLENSKO, VALONTINA, POLOTZK, KRASNOÏ. The Versailles Gallery houses a painting by Louis-Francois Lejeune “The Battle of Moscow on September 7, 1812. Taking a big redoubt. "
        1. 0
          16 September 2019 20: 29
          But there is MOHILEW, SMOLENSKO, VALONTINA, POLOTZK, KRASNOÏ.

          So nobody argues with this. But here is no Borodinot! The French themselves, led by Napoleon, believe that they did not win at Borodino.
          Why do some wise men think differently?
          1. -2
            16 September 2019 22: 25
            Because the victorious side does not surrender the capital of the throne.
            1. +1
              17 September 2019 09: 08
              Because the victorious side does not surrender the capital of the throne.

              Firstly, it was not the capital that was commissioned. The capital was Petersburg.
              Secondly, it was not surrendered as a result of the battle. The troops remained at their borders after the battle. If the enemy burst into the city as a result of the battle, then yes, there is no doubt.
              Thirdly, Napoleon himself said: "The Russians at Borodino deserve to be undefeated."
              Fourth, the French, when they put the arch in honor of the victories of Napoleon, Borodino was not indicated there.
              Are you smarter than Napoleon and all French historians?
              1. +1
                17 September 2019 22: 20
                Not at all. "The First Throne" is the honorary and solemn title of the city of Moscow, which began to be used from the 18th century, after Peter I transferred in 1712 the capital of the Russian state from Moscow to St. Petersburg. It is used to emphasize the historical seniority of Moscow, as a city in which the throne of the Russian Tsar first appeared. The immediate results of the battle of Borodino were, in tactical terms, the advance of the French forward, their occupation of Russian positions, the abandonment of the battlefield by the Russian troops and the further retreat of the Russian army. Strategically, the Battle of Borodino, as a direct consequence, led to the refusal of the Russian command to try to give another battle under the walls of Moscow and to leave the throne without a fight. As Napoleon himself said: "The battle of Borodino was the most beautiful and most formidable, that the French showed themselves worthy of victory, and the Russians deserved to be invincible." Under the arches of the Arc de Triomphe separately on the shield - Moskowa - as an outstanding victory.
                1. 0
                  18 September 2019 08: 27
                  Under the arches of the Arc de Triomphe separately on the shield - Moskowa - as an outstanding victory.

                  You wrote correctly about the throne, but there is a fact: the capital of Russia was St. Petersburg. Everything else does not matter.
                  One can talk a lot about the immediate results, but quoting Napoleon, I think you agreed with him that the Russians deserved to be invincible.
                  Moscow really is on the Arc de Triomphe, but this is not a sign of victory in the Battle of Borodino, because it was not there. The cities captured by Napoleon are listed there.
                  Thus, the French show the difference between two facts: they did not win the victory at Borodino, they captured Moscow. That is the point of view of the French. Why some 200 years later try to prove the opposite to themselves and the French, I do not understand.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. 0
                    18 September 2019 17: 59
                    Quote: glory1974
                    Thus, the French show the difference between two facts: they did not win the victory at Borodino, they captured Moscow.

                    But I don’t understand how you can capture Moscow without winning the battle of Borodino. After all, Kutuzov personally formulated a criterion for assessing the outcome of the battle: “... if I am defeated, I will go to Moscow and there I will defend the Capital” / from a letter to Rostopchin dated September 3 - Aug 22. according to Art. style / (Moscow in 1812. Memoirs, letters and official documents from the collection of the written sources department of the State Historical Museum. M., 2012, p. 297).
              2. 0
                17 September 2019 22: 34
                Not at all. "The First Throne" is the honorary and solemn title of the city of Moscow, which began to be used from the 18th century, after Peter I transferred in 1712 the capital of the Russian state from Moscow to St. Petersburg. It is used to emphasize the historical seniority of Moscow, as a city in which the throne of the Russian Tsar first appeared. The immediate results of the battle of Borodino were, in tactical terms, the advance of the French forward, their occupation of Russian positions, the abandonment of the battlefield by the Russian troops and the further retreat of the Russian army. Strategically, the Battle of Borodino led to the refusal of the Russian command to try to give another battle under the walls of Moscow and to leave the throne without a fight. As Napoleon himself said: "The battle of Borodino was the most beautiful and most formidable, that the French showed themselves worthy of victory, and the Russians deserved to be invincible." Under the arches of the Arc de Triomphe separately on the shield - Moskowa - as an outstanding victory.
  17. +1
    14 September 2019 16: 18
    Quote: Nadir Shah
    The logic "who won the war, he won and all the battles" is simply magnificent.

    The logic is rather from the field of football: in the main time, neither side was able to achieve the result. They did not play extra time (the next day). The reasons for each side are different. But they didn’t.
    And the issue of surrendering Moscow was not resolved automatically either - it was discussed for a long time and persistently. What in the event of a real unconditional victory for the European Union would not do - in view of the senselessness of such a discussion.
  18. -1
    14 September 2019 22: 40
    Tell me, uncle, is it not for nothing? In Wikipedia about all the battles there is all the info. You just need to buy a cool smartphone. Does Dude have a movie about this? Throw off the link. (Your contemporary).
  19. +4
    14 September 2019 22: 44
    Quote: ivan petrov_9
    The claim that the general battle on the Borodino field was victorious for the Russian troops is quite controversial in view of the fact that, despite the immense courage and stamina of the Russian army, Napoleon managed to win at the cost of huge losses.

    There is no "controversy" in this statement. The military of all times and peoples have a clear understanding of what "victory" is. Victory is the fulfillment of all or at least the main objectives of the operation (in this particular case, the battle) What was the main goal of Napoleon at Borodino? Did Napoleon fulfill at least one of his main goals? The simple answer is no. Napoleon was unable to defeat the Russian army in this general battle. As a result of the battle at Borodino, Bonaparte did not force the Emperor of Ingushetia to accept peace on favorable terms for France. So what kind of "victory" are we talking about? And no matter how much the historians get out of the tsifiriya, it is obvious that the losses on both sides are comparable; there was no defeat. Regarding the retreat of Kutuzov and the associated universal lamentation, it is generally ridiculous! Retreat is just one type of maneuver in the troops with the aim of taking a more advantageous position from the previous one for the subsequent continuation of hostilities.
    1. -2
      15 September 2019 21: 35
      The main criterion in assessing victory in the battle was the burial of their fallen soldiers and their attitude to the wounded. As a result of the retreat of the Russian army, it was not necessary to talk about the burial with proper honors of the fallen soldiers, and due to 33,5 thousand wounded who were thrown to starvation in Mozhaisk and burned in Moscow fires, the irretrievable losses of the Russians increased to 61% of the army and amounted to about 80 thousand people.
      1. -1
        15 September 2019 23: 18
        The main criterion in assessing victory in the battle was the burial of their fallen soldiers and their attitude to the wounded.

        I can just imagine how the commander sets the task for the battle: "Bury all those who died in battle, bandage the wounded, and after that we declare victory." wassat
        The main criterion in a battle for defense is:
        1. Repel the advance of the enemy.
        2. Inflict defeat on him in personnel and equipment.
        3.Keep the occupied lines.
        4. Create the conditions for further action.
        All points of the Russian army were fulfilled. Therefore, the interpretation of who won at Borodino is unambiguous - the Russians won!
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. +3
      15 September 2019 21: 54
      And there is. Napoleon did not defeat the Russian army, the Russian army did not stop Napoleon. Both sides did not fulfill their tasks. The losses are huge (about 20 French and about 000 Russians). It seems that Kutuzov gave this fight to keep him behind. Well, I do not believe that the old clever, cunning Kutuzov could believe that he would defeat Napoleon in a field battle. And Moscow could not be surrendered without a fight. No one would understand. And so everything is beautiful: a general battle (as everyone wanted), a withdrawal of a bloodless army, preparation for new battles, while the enemy is decomposing.
      1. 0
        16 September 2019 17: 41
        If we turn to the documents coming from Kutuzov a few days before the battle of Borodino, then they all confirm two main points: firstly, that this battle was planned by Kutuzov in advance and undertaken on his own initiative, and secondly, that his main goal was not only to bleed the enemy, disable his best forces and halt the further offensive, but also not to allow Napoleon to Moscow. - Troitsky N.A. Soviet historiography of the war of 1812 (Traditions. Stereotypes. Lessons). - M., 1992.P. 84 ..
  20. 0
    14 September 2019 23: 30
    Quote: Beringovsky
    Comparison with Pierre is incorrect - he won his battles precisely.
    Is the defeat of the Romans at Cannes in doubt?

    Cannes was strong after his death. And he won, but the Romans were never defeated, and he was given a thorough rake. By your logic, he always had draws.
    1. +1
      15 September 2019 10: 32
      Yes, something is jammed, a bit. It happens.
      By your logic, he always had draws.

      Not all the time, but they were. For example, at Ausculus, where the Romans, although they were forced to retreat to the camp, were not defeated. And Pyrrhus's army suffered heavy losses. It seems there Pyrrhus said - Another such "victory" and I will not have an army. This is what is called "Pyrrhic Victory".
      but the Romans were never defeated

      There were. For example, under Heracles, they fled in a panic and Pyrrhus captured the Roman camp.
    2. 0
      16 September 2019 20: 26
      When Cannes, Hannibal actually was, and the king of Epirus, Pierre, about the Romans at all, might have no idea
  21. +1
    15 September 2019 08: 08
    So-so article. request
  22. 0
    15 September 2019 21: 48
    Quote: Boris55
    Napoleon's task was to smash the merchants and give Western capital complete control over Russia. Napoleon almost completed this task.

    Not at all like that. Napoleon in the service of French capital is already completely out of the realm of fantasy. I already wrote about the main cause of the war of 1812 in one of the previous posts in another thread.
  23. +2
    17 September 2019 17: 39
    Of course, the Russians have the right not to consider Borodino a defeat. And who is against the Russians?
    Therefore, gentlemen, give the Russians also the right not to consider 1941 a disaster.
    One must be very strange in order to credit Kutuzov and Alexander the 1st exactly
    for which they poured mud on Stalin.
  24. +2
    18 September 2019 09: 37
    "We had to retreat and leave Moscow not because of defeat, but for completely different reasons."
    This is for what?
  25. The comment was deleted.
    1. -1
      21 September 2019 04: 36
      Quote: East
      Military Genius!

      Yes, yes ... not to lose more than one battle, but to lose the whole company miserably. Just a "genius"

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"