Military Review

Battle of Borodino: who won?

56
Battle of Borodino: who won?



The great battle took place on 26 August. In a new style - September 7. The official Day of Military Glory due to an error in the calculations celebrated 8-th. However, it makes sense to remember such a battle three times and four times.

Lermontov's “Borodino” is a miracle of Russian poetic heroics, we all remember its lines, but we often make mistakes in intonation, starting to recite: “Tell me, uncle, it’s not for nothing ...” After all, these are bitter lines! Lermontov and his hero mourn the fact that they had to retreat, that they had to give back to Moscow, that the heroic generation did not block the enemy’s way to the capital of the capital. Bitterness has been living in Russian hearts all summer 1812 of the year.

All summer 1812, Russia languished in anticipation of the general battle. Prince Bagration proposed to lay down his bones on the banks of the Vistula, not letting the enemy go to central Russia. This is in the spirit of the traditions of Peter the offensive war, in the spirit of the Suvorov school to which Bagration belonged. But the emperor approved another tactic, the main task was to save the army in case of loss of territories. Russia was not accustomed to defeat - and all the bitterness that came to hatred, society poured on the Minister of War, who commanded the 1 army, on Barclay.

The emperor, who did not trust the Russian commanders too much, was forced to push Kutuzov in order to restore the morale of the army and, last but not least, the capital’s rear.

Cunning Mikhail Illarionovich in all circles truly loved not many. But then there was no more authoritative and politically astute commander in the Russian army. It is believed that he did not add to the strategy of Barclay, that not the best way used the capabilities of the army in Borodino ... But history not rewrite. And the glory of 1812 of the year is in many respects connected for us with the image of a cautious but brave old man.

With the dream of a decisive battle, the army was retreating ever closer to Moscow. The warriors were ready to defend White-stone steadfastly and selflessly. The army was ready to join the militia. Kutuzov imperceptibly pacified the impulses of the patriots: he counted on a long campaign and even did not treat the Battle of Borodino as a “final, decisive battle”.

So, by the beginning of the battle, the 1 Army of Barclay de Tolly was deployed on the right flank of the 3 infantry, 3 cavalry corps and reserves (76 thousand people, 480 guns), the front was covered by the Kolocha River. The left flank was held by the smaller 2 Army of Bagration (34 thousands of people, 156 guns). There, the landscape was worse adapted for defense. Not surprisingly, Napoleon struck the main blow on the left flank.


Napoleon at the Borodino Heights. Artist Vereshchagin (1897)

From the first artillery salvo in the early morning of September 7, the French pressed on the left flank. Who was standing that morning on the Borodino field, on the hills, in the coppices? Pupils of the invincible Suvorov - Mikhail Kutuzov, Peter Bagration, Mikhail Miloradovich, Matvey Platov, Alexey Ermolov, Ivan Dorokhov. Generals accustomed to victories, eagles of the empire.

Perhaps the best commentator on World War 1812 of the year - Fedor Glinka. Officer, poet, theologian. On the great battle of Borodino, he wrote in detail and at the same time artistically. He caught the element of battle. This is how Glinka described one of the key watches of the Battle of Borodino:

“Imagine a chemist’s workplace, imagine how, from two vials, he merges two hostile moisture into one vessel. Merged together, they hiss, bubbling, whirling, until, both decomposed, clinging, evaporate, leaving almost no trace of themselves. So two forces, two armies, Russian and French, merged into one bowl of death, and, I dare use the expression: chemically decomposed, destroying one another. ”

We have lost the habit of such a writer's gaze. In it - vigilance without posturing.

The Russian land did not know such a tense battle. The most bloody battle ensued around the Semenov flushes, which are often called Bagration. Three fortifications were quickly built shortly before the battle. Artillery batteries settled there, and Bagration's troops defended around.

The battle near the fortifications lasted six hours, here Napoleon threw the main forces. The powerful blow of the troops of marshals Davout and Ney made the defenders flush flutter. The French seized the fortifications. But the Russian grenadier counterattack and cavalry led by Bagration followed. Flush repulsed! 35 thousands of French on this piece of land attacked like a hurricane. Bagration had 20 thousands.

Here a fierce counterattack was conducted by cavalrymen of General Dorokhov. Here General Bagration was fatally wounded. Here General Tuchkov died, picking up a banner from the hands of a wounded standard-bearer.

“As the forces of Bagration received reinforcements, they, with the greatest determination, went forward with the greatest determination to regain their lost positions. We have seen how the Russian masses maneuvered, like moving redoubts, humbled iron and cast down fire ... As long as they had any strength, these brave soldiers again began their attacks, ”the French general recalled, a participant in the battle.

In the battle for Bagration's flash, Napoleon lost about 30 thousands. As a result, the enemy took up fortifications, but did not break through the defense. The Russians retreated only at 400 steps.


Attack of 1 of General Uvarov's cavalry corps at Borodino. Artist desarno

The Russian army retreated to Gorki and began to prepare for a new battle. It seemed that the battle was going to continue. But in 12 hours of the night Kutuzov canceled preparations for a new battle. The commander-in-chief, who called the battle of Borodino victorious, decided to withdraw the army for Mozhaisk in order to compensate for the casualties and better prepare for new battles. To wait, waiting for mistakes from Napoleon, who lost communication ...

The French emperor did not feel himself a winner: he understood that the Russian army was not defeated, there were very few prisoners, there was no indiscriminate Russian retreat ...

Let us again turn to the notes of Fedor Glinka:

“The clock went away. Night more and more came into its own. The sun was setting in a red ball without rays. Some sourish, acetic odor spread in the air, perhaps because of a large decomposition of saltpeter and sulfur, and perhaps also from the evaporation of blood!

The smoke thickened and hung over the field. And on this night, half-artificial, half-natural, between the scattered French columns, still moving with drumbeat and music, still deploying their red banners, suddenly (and this was the last time) the ground rang under the hooves of the rushing cavalry. 20 000 sabers and broadswords crossed in different places of the field. Sparks fell like a fire, and faded away like the lives of thousands who died in the battle.

This slashing, renewed for a minute, was the last flash of a burned out fire extinguished with blood. This is the King of Neapolitan rushed with his cavalry to the Russian line. But the day was gone, and the battle subsided. The great question: “Who won?” Remained unresolved. ”


In the next chapter of his narrative, Glinka will answer this question: for the winter, the shamed remnants of the Great Army left Russia. Least of all they looked like winners. The answer to this question and history.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.pravmir.ru/v-odnoy-chashe-gibeli-1/
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. DimanC
    DimanC 13 September 2015 06: 22 New
    +10
    Well, damn it, as always - a simple layman wants to know who's face is full of here and now, and not from a strategic point of view. According to me, ours won, there simply couldn’t be another ...
    1. Hagakure
      Hagakure 13 September 2015 07: 00 New
      +14
      The Russian historian Mikhnevich reported such a recall of the emperor Napoleon about the battle:
      “Of all my battles, the worst is the one I gave near Moscow. The French in it proved themselves worthy to win, and the Russians gained the right to be invincible ... Of the fifty battles that I have given, the battle of Moscow showed [the French] the most valor and the least success.
      1. Vend
        Vend 13 September 2015 11: 36 New
        +14
        Quote: Hagakure
        The Russian historian Mikhnevich reported such a recall of the emperor Napoleon about the battle:
        “Of all my battles, the worst is the one I gave near Moscow. The French in it proved themselves worthy to win, and the Russians gained the right to be invincible ... Of the fifty battles that I have given, the battle of Moscow showed [the French] the most valor and the least success.

        On the grave of Napoleon Borodino marked as a victory for the French. However, history answered the question, who won? The Scythians did not give a single battle to Darius at all, but defeated his vast army. So in the 1812 war of the year, the Russians won. The capture of the French by Moscow, we marked the capture of Paris.
    2. anip
      anip 13 September 2015 08: 02 New
      +5
      Quote: DimanC
      Well, damn it, as always - a simple layman wants to know who's face is full of here and now, and not from a strategic point of view. According to me, ours won, there simply couldn’t be another ...

      That's right, you can lose the battle, and not one, but win the war. There, Hannibal, it seems, did not lose a single battle, but lost the war.
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 13 September 2015 08: 17 New
        +26
        Why look so far. Hitler’s generals also won one victory after another in 1941-1942, captured almost the entire European part of the USSR, reached Moscow and even allegedly examined the domes of its churches with their binoculars (what a powerful optics Zeiss needs laughing ) However, in the end, it was our troops who stormed Berlin and signed on the walls of the Reichstag.
        So in this case, it doesn’t matter who won the Battle of Borodino. It is important that as a result, our Cossacks watered their horses in the river. The Seine and in Paris appeared a bistro. And in Russia, from the French invasion, only ball-skiers and other equally disingenuous terms remained, as well as numerous graves of the troops of the next European Union, which was brought to Russia by the next world conqueror and again with the same predictable result.
        I have the honor.
        1. anip
          anip 13 September 2015 09: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Aleksandr72
          Hitler's generals

          Well, unlike Hannibal, they still not only won the battle, but also lost it.
          1. Aleksandr72
            Aleksandr72 13 September 2015 10: 31 New
            +11
            Are you sure that Hannibal did not lose a single battle? But what about the battle of Zam?
            The battle between the Romans and the Carthaginians took place at Zame - Naraggar October 19, 202 BC. e.
            Scipio commanded the Romans, the invincible Hannibal commanded the Carthaginians.
            The Roman army had 20-25 thousand foot soldiers and 6-8 thousand horsemen, the Carthaginian army totaled 35 thousand foot soldiers, 2-3 thousand horsemen and 80 elephants (their use is very doubtful). War elephants were a formidable force, but they were recently brought from Central and North-West Africa and still poorly trained.
            Thus, neither side had an advantage: the Romans had an advantage in the cavalry, and the Carthaginians had an advantage in the infantry. The balance of power is similar to that at the Battle of Cannes.
            The course of the battle and its result was about the same as at Cannes, only the sides switched places.
            At first, Hannibal, advancing in the center, pressed the Romans and the victory was already seemingly close. But at that moment the Roman cavalry, having defeated the Carthaginian cavalry, which was inferior to it in number and fighting efficiency, was affected by the transition to the side of Rome of the best African cavalry of the former ally of Carthage - the Numidians commanded by Massinissa returned and hit the flanks and rear of the Carthaginian army.
            The defeat of the Carthaginians under the command of the hitherto invincible Hannibal was complete.
            The Carthaginians lost 20 thousand people killed and 10 thousand prisoners, 133 banners and 11 elephants. Hannibal himself at the last moment managed to leave the battlefield and avoid death. The Romans lost about 5 thousand people killed. (Well, the loss figures are certainly quite relative, because they are traditionally indicated by Roman sources - the winners write the story!).
            The battle of Zam is considered a battle, losing which, Carthage finally lost in the Second Punic War.
            I have the honor.
      2. bandabas
        bandabas 14 September 2015 10: 27 New
        0
        Hannibal lost the war due to the cowardly and venal politicians of Carthage. De facto. Well, then Carthage got what he deserved.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 15 September 2015 15: 34 New
          0
          So he (Hannibal) lost the war before it even started. How can you start a war if you don’t have a strong rear at home? Just because papa ordered?
          By the way, NYA, Hannibal had other failures besides Zama
    3. serega.fedotov
      serega.fedotov 13 September 2015 09: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: DimanC
      Well, damn it, as always - a simple layman wants to know who's face is full of here and now, and not from a strategic point of view. According to me, ours won, there simply couldn’t be another ...

      When the Borodino battle took place, Napoleon was in FULL ENVIRONMENT; the 70 Polish corps covering the rear of the army of invaders was utterly defeated; no more than 000 Cossacks drove its remains into the DEPTH of Russia
      Many sources mention that Kutuzov was against the Battle of Borodino Yes, and major battles, because why put people when the war is already won!
      And the Tales of the Europeans (and ours) about the general “frost” are nothing more than an excuse for the losers — Napoleon began his retreat at the BEGINNING of OCTOBER, that is, the “Siberian frosts” had nothing to do with Napoleon's loss!
      1. serega.fedotov
        serega.fedotov 13 September 2015 13: 41 New
        +5
        I seem to have said inaccurately, Kutuzov didn’t have to WIN on the Borodino field — he created victory much earlier!
        Napoleon lost the backbone of his forces — Kutuzov was mainly a militia, Napoleon in fact lost his artillery, and spent most of his ammunition without the possibility of replenishing ammunition (the peasants will not take guns and guns, and the supply routes are closed tightly) —Kutuzov’s replenishment and with ammunition all right
        That is, Kutuzov won strategically — any actions of Napoleon would not have saved him from defeat, and such a situation was BEFORE the Battle of Borodino! Borodino only accelerated the defeat of the European coalition!
        So it turns out to argue who won the Battle of Borodino incorrectly!
        In my opinion, Borodino is too “protruded” and “torn out” of the 1812 war — although this is understandable, for Europe it is a chance to embellish its defeat a little- “they say we won, we won and then frost” Do not write to them that the Russians the generals were tactically and strategically a cut above Napoleon the conqueror of Europe, were able to surround him, and then, in a series of local skirmishes with small losses, destroy 600 army!
        And I repeat, Napoleon began the retreat, in fact a panic flight (and the beginning of the movement of a huge army in the midst of the autumn rascals can not be called otherwise) in October, that is, it was not mythical frost that defeated him, but a very real Russian soldier!
    4. igordok
      igordok 13 September 2015 09: 19 New
      +5
      Quote: DimanC
      Well, damn it, as always - a simple layman wants to know who's face is full of here and now, and not from a strategic point of view. According to me, ours won, there simply couldn’t be another ...

      Since the battlefield remained behind the enemy, with more or less equal losses, we formally lost the battle of Borodino. But Napoleon did not fulfill his plans, which can be counted as a victory.
      All his life, Napoleon believed that he won near Berezina, since the Russians did not fulfill their plan to catch Napoleon.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aleksander
        Aleksander 13 September 2015 11: 47 New
        +8
        Quote: igordok
        Napoleon believed throughout his life that under Berezina He won


        His people think differently - there is still a French proverb: “C'est la Bérézina » “This is Berezina.” The expression is harsh, indicating complete collapse yes
        1. igordok
          igordok 13 September 2015 13: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: Aleksander
          His people think differently - there is still a French proverb: "C'est la Bérézina" - "This is Berezina." Harsh expression denoting complete collapse

          I know. But people and geniuses think differently.
      3. Sarmat149
        Sarmat149 13 September 2015 12: 27 New
        +3
        The whole problem of winning the battle lies in the "civilizational" framework. For European civilization, it is fundamentally important for whom the battlefield remains. Our civilization ignores this aspect. We have our own value system by which we won. That's all. By the way, I personally don’t give a damn about the fact that somewhere in the world they think that Napoleon won Borodino.
      4. fuxila
        fuxila 13 September 2015 14: 51 New
        +4
        The battlefield did not remain behind the enemy - by the end of the battle the French returned to their original positions and the Russians were ready to continue the battle.
    5. TWR
      TWR 13 September 2015 10: 04 New
      -13
      Quote: DimanC
      According to me, ours won, there simply couldn’t be another ...

      And yours, which ones? Those who departed, leaving heavy weapons and wounded (!!!)? Or yours, are those the others?
    6. zennon
      zennon 13 September 2015 15: 49 New
      +4
      Quote: DimanC
      For me, ours won,

      Nobody won. Both sides did not achieve the desired results. Yes, it doesn’t matter. The final result is important. We could not take or kill Napoleon and therefore the war continued for almost 3 years, until June 18, 1815. Hundreds of thousands more were killed. the 200-year-old shaved men are firmly convinced that it was they who defeated Bonoparte, but we did not give up the country and, of course, are one of the winners.
    7. ee2100
      ee2100 21 September 2015 21: 30 New
      -1
      Read previous posts about different battles. All by concepts. Who left the battlefield - he lost. Kutuzov Borodino lost, but won the war. In general, this is not a war between Russia and France, but Alexander and Napoleon
  2. Igor39
    Igor39 13 September 2015 06: 30 New
    +12
    Napoleon entered with 450 thousand, then about 140 thousand arrived, 5 thousand officers and about 27 thousand lower ranks left for East Prussia, a clear victory smile
    1. Russian Uzbek
      Russian Uzbek 13 September 2015 08: 44 New
      +1
      and how many of them were French?
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 13 September 2015 09: 17 New
        +5
        It doesn’t matter, they fought against the armies of Europe under the command of Napoleon .. For, as he said, a flock of rams led by a lion will win, and a flock of lions led by a ram will be defeated ..
      2. avt
        avt 13 September 2015 09: 34 New
        +11
        Quote: Russian Uzbek
        and how many of them were French?

        Look and find the composition of Napoleon’s army - the secret is not great, and make sure that Russia fought with ALL EUROPE. Practically ALL COUNTRIES of the continental part, with the exception of Spain, the Guishpanese partisaned then against Napoleon and didn’t childishly, gathered almost all the first line units to the Eastern Front against Russia. Then, after a devastating campaign, some parts, like the German corps that went to St. Petersburg and almost completely surrendered when the Russian army crossed the western border, “suddenly” turned out to be against Napoleon ..... Well, just like the Romanians in the Patriotic War, but already 41-45.
    2. bistrov.
      bistrov. 13 September 2015 10: 32 New
      -4
      Your number is clearly overestimated. Yes, such figures flicker in some publications and there is even a figure of 675 thousand, but real historians talk about the number of troops of Napoleon's invasion of 235 thousand and then the 70 thousand reserve that approached. Of these, about half were French. The number of Russian troops in the two armies was 125 thousand. Then it becomes clear and the retreat of the Russian armies and the surrender of Moscow, they simply could not hold back the army that exceeded them by more than 2 times. Only the skillful tactics of Kutuzov allowed to defeat and destroy these superior forces of the enemy. Now imagine that it would be if Napolen's army totaled 450 thousand, or 675?
      1. avt
        avt 13 September 2015 14: 42 New
        +8
        Quote: bistrov.
        Your amount is clearly overpriced.

        In fact, at the beginning of 1812 the total number of Napoleon’s mobilized army amounted to 1 million 187 thousand people, of which the actual French part - 850 thousand, the rest - other European bastard who joined him after he defeated them.
      2. Days
        Days 13 September 2015 16: 14 New
        +2
        Napoleon bОmost of it was not lost in battles. Most likely there would be something very similar to what happened in reality. And I have very little idea of ​​the supply of fodder for 675 thousand, most likely with the invasion of such a quantity the army would run out of steam and decrease even faster, so that the same 100 thousand would come to Moscow.
        1. andj61
          andj61 13 September 2015 16: 40 New
          -1
          Quote: Dagen
          And I have very little idea of ​​the supply of fodder for 675 thousand, most likely with the invasion of such a quantity the army would run out of steam and decrease even faster, so that the same 100 thousand would come to Moscow.

          Actually, I also noticed some oddities. When I was in school - in the 70s - in history textbooks it was a question of "the gigantic army of Napoleon, which included up to 300 soldiers from all over conquered Europe." After that, the army of Napoleon’s invasion increased all the time until it reached almost 000. I believe that in 700 years they will talk about a whole million.
          In reality, the army on horse-drawn vehicles will not be able to provide itself with forage if there are more than 30 horses on one road, no matter how far the foragers climb in search of this very forage. And to bring forage from Europe on carts is generally beyond comprehension: the horses carrying it would eat this forage.
          French foragers, by the way, paid for requisitioned food and fodder - mainly in rubles, partly in francs. Many historians claim that the money was fake. However, even such a requisite requisition put the peasants on the brink of starvation - in the conflict and war zone, it was not possible to buy anything for this money.
          1. Rastas
            Rastas 13 September 2015 22: 44 New
            +3
            Napoleon generally very hesitantly waged a war. To begin with, he did not have a clear plan of war at all (!!!). That is, the main thing is to start, and it will be visible there. The whole count on a general battle was, moreover, preferably at the border. But Barclay began to implement his strategy, and Napoleon simply did not understand what to do, this explains his long standing in Vitebsk and Smolensk, he was waiting for concessions from Alexander. But Borodino ended in a draw, no one won. But here is the paradox, militarily, both the French and us can be proud of this battle.
        2. avt
          avt 13 September 2015 17: 09 New
          +7
          Quote: Dagen
          Napoleon lost most of his life in battle.

          Like many armies up to the First World War, more of them died from dezenterii.
          Quote: Dagen
          And I hardly imagine the supply of fodder for 675 thousand, most likely when the invasion of such a quantity the army ran out of steam

          Firstly, before the invasion he had a large mortality of the horse population; Secondly, Napoleon initially, as he became commander of the revolution, made it a rule to “camp” on the occupied territory, that is, robbery was natural and even comme il faut. So the advanced part of his army there was a 90% invasion of the pasture. That is why Kutuzov’s decision was not to let him go to the South, where they literally could eat, but drive them to the old Smolenskaya, which they had devastated, where there was little to eat in provisions stores in Smolensk and all - further like to Berezina ,, medical fasting "
          Quote: andj61
          French foragers, by the way, paid for requisitioned food and fodder - mainly in rubles, partly in francs

          laughing laughing Yeah - also the statements were to whom and how much they paid, and if so they took it, on parole, then they would certainly come back to pay laughing
          Quote: andj61
          . Many historians claim that the money was fake.

          I don’t know what and to what numbers historians consider, but BEFORE the war, the Napoleonic office established the production of fake rubles and pounds - a medical fact and some kind of unknown secret for seven seals is not.
          Quote: andj61
          . However, even such a requisite requisition put the peasants on the brink of starvation - in the conflict and war zone, it was not possible to buy anything for this money.

          And what? Problems of the Indians once interested in the sheriff? wassat Or holy believe that Napoleon, as liberal
          Quote: andj61
          . Many historians

          Napoleon brought freedom from serfdom and European education to wild barbarians in Russia ??? wassat
  3. Aleksandr81
    Aleksandr81 13 September 2015 06: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: Igor39
    Napoleon entered with 450 thousand, then about 140 thousand arrived, 5 thousand officers and about 27 thousand lower ranks left for East Prussia, a clear victory

    and our losses?
    1. Slobber
      Slobber 13 September 2015 08: 07 New
      +3
      About 200 thousand, according to various sources. Not considering the burnt villages and towns, as well as the proned harvest.
      1. bistrov.
        bistrov. 13 September 2015 13: 20 New
        -5
        Again, a tenfold exaggeration of losses. All the data suggests that the losses of the Russian troops were within 20 thousand, otherwise there was simply nowhere to replenish such a decrease (well, compare yourself, the entire Russian army is 125 thousand, and here the loss of 200 thousand, this is what it was destroyed more than 1,5 times? Someone then smashed the enemy? Peasants, of course, could well fight with a club and a pitchfork, but shoot a cannon, a gun, know the military article and battle tactics? This was taught for 25 years!
    2. anip
      anip 13 September 2015 08: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: Aleksandr81
      and our losses?

      And here it is:
      http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2012/12/27_a_4908554.shtml
      casualties of the dead, wounded and sick only by the Russian regular army amounted to about 180 thousand people
      .
      In general, the loss of the militia most likely amounted to two-thirds of the total - about 130 thousand people.
      .
      If we consider the losses of the army and the militia, then they are about half as much as the losses of the Great Army, which left about 570-580 thousand people killed, died from illnesses and captured in Russia.
      .
      “From war, pestilence and hunger”, only the male part of the population of the Smolensk province decreased 100 thousand people.


      And here you can read:
      http://www.pravmir.ru/otechestvennaya-vojna-1812-goda-realnye-cifry/
    3. Aleksander
      Aleksander 13 September 2015 11: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Aleksandr81
      and our losses?


      The war was terrible and primarily for the population - during the invasion only in the Smolensk province died 100 000 civilians! And this is not counting the soldiers from this province.
      There are no common figures, but on the example of the Smolensk region alone, one can imagine the scale ....
      1. TWR
        TWR 13 September 2015 12: 14 New
        -10
        Quote: Aleksander
        during the invasion, only in the Smolensk province killed 100 civilians!

        Not 100 of thousands, but 167 of millions. And what? It’s not true anyway.
        They cannot count the number of Russian troops. Not dead and wounded, but just troops. The number of guns is more or less known, but they argue how many soldiers in the army were unarmed.
        And who counted, or was going to count, civilians? Slaves? Who and when was it interesting? And the first general census of the population of the Russian Empire took place only in 1897.
        So, stop "inventing facts." And scare us with "passions."
        1. Aleksander
          Aleksander 13 September 2015 12: 42 New
          +7
          Quote: TWR
          Not 100 of thousands, but 167 of millions. And what? It’s not true anyway.


          I don’t understand why it’s so easy to flaunt your ignorance Yes, and to be rude?

          Книга "Smolensk and the province in the 1812 year", 1912 year: "According to 1814 In the year of calculations from war, pestilence and famine, only the male part of the population of Smolensk province decreased 100 thousand people".

          I.P. Leslie “Smolensk noble militia 1812 of the year” [7, S. 90 - 91])

          In Smolensk province, the number of ravaged both sexes 576215 people.
          The number of houses burned:
          The peasants 30589 homes
          Cattle taken by the enemy:
          large 212046
          the sheep 278619
          Losses incurred: 42 623 994 rub.

          The ruin of the country was SCARY.
          1. TWR
            TWR 13 September 2015 12: 54 New
            -11
            Quote: Aleksander
            The book "Smolensk and the province in 1812", 1912

            You surprise me, Watson. Are you quite seriously confused to dig in the numbers of a certain Grachev, as the ultimate truth? Don't you know the meaning of the word "document"? Do you know the meaning of the phrase "empty scribble"?
            Kapets. Also me, he found "evidence." I’ll write 167 million on the fence, take a picture and lay out. There will be my "proof" against yours. One level "documents".
            Also, you have a poor mindfulness. It says that ONLY MALE POPULATION 100 thousand people were lost. And not only from the war, but also from HUNGER AND SEA (diseases). The usual thing in general is for the peasants of those years.
            So, do not "invent facts."
            By the way, prisoners were rarely allowed to go home. Mostly copied to peasants (those from simple). And the Poles, the Cossacks. Zaporizhzhya. Such peasant-Cossacks account for up to 200 thousand people.
            1. Aleksander
              Aleksander 13 September 2015 15: 44 New
              +4
              Quote: TWR
              Also me, he found "evidence." I’ll write 167 millions on the fence, take a picture and lay out.


              This is evidence contemporaries and eyewitnesses of events. By the way, you are the first to challenge them. yes In this case, imagine the other primary (but NOT yours infield) "evidence" of the opposite. request (200 years ago, naturally). Although...! You, probably,- "tramp" ?! belay
              Then, yes, Kantorovich was right - far from all of them return- passed without a trace .... lol
              1. TWR
                TWR 13 September 2015 16: 18 New
                -5
                Quote: Aleksander
                These are testimonies of contemporaries and eyewitnesses of events

                Such evidence is usually worth little. In science, this is called the "subjective factor."
                Quote: Aleksander
                In this case, imagine the other primary

                In my opinion, I clearly wrote to you at the very beginning that there is no such data and cannot be. Slaves in those days were not considered. It was not accepted. So, approximately, approximately.
                Even in your "source" are indicated EXAMPLE loss of adult male population. Moreover, FROM ALL FACTORS. No one considered children, old people and women.
                1. Aleksander
                  Aleksander 13 September 2015 16: 39 New
                  +4
                  Quote: TWR
                  Such evidence is usually worth little.


                  Your thoughts, respectively, are not worth it at all-NOTHING

                  Quote: TWR
                  In my opinion, I clearly wrote to you at the very beginning that there is no such data and cannot be.

                  Such documents — precious evidence of those years — other 200 years ago — did not exist in principle. And by the way, in fact, are you someone to have your words have at least some weight and authority? belay- [i] "You are a thinker. What is your last name, thinker? Spinoza? Jean-Jacques Rousseau? Marcus Aurelius?
                  [/ i] (C)
                  lol
                  Quote: TWR
                  So, approximately, approximately.

                  This is accurate data. Refute! Only with links to primary sources, reports, etc. Your minds are not interested, for it is nothing.
                  1. TWR
                    TWR 13 September 2015 16: 52 New
                    -5
                    Quote: Aleksander
                    Your thoughts, respectively, are not worth ANYTHING

                    Do not play down. Exactly as much as Grachev’s fabrications to which you refer.
                    Quote: Aleksander
                    the precious evidence of those years — other 200 years ago — did not exist in principle

                    What are those years? All these "testimonies" were "found" 100 years after that war. A penny to them. On the market day.
                    Quote: Aleksander
                    "You are a thinker. What is your last name, thinker? Spinoza? Jean-Jacques Rousseau? Marcus Aurelius?

                    Yeah. Not Homer, not Milton, and not Panikovsky. Doesn't look like you.
                    Quote: Aleksander
                    This is accurate data.

                    Are you talking about the fact that the first census in Russia was in 1897 in my comments? Read. Have you read Dead Souls? Read. And now just try, without breaking into the head, to brainwash. And understand what was written there.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. andj61
              andj61 13 September 2015 16: 48 New
              +3
              Quote: TWR
              Also, you have a poor mindfulness. It says that ONLY MEN'S POPULATION lost 100 thousand people. And not only from war, but also from HUNGER AND SEA (diseases). The usual thing in general is for the peasants of those years.
              So, do not "invent facts."

              That's right, I support! wassat
              If the peasant died from the hostilities - he must be considered a victim of the war, and if from the hunger that arose from the fact that the French took away food - then no!
              And since no one possesses exact numbers, and as you say, he cannot possess them - there were no victims at all - right?
              And to lose 100 men out of 000 in a year, that is 500%, is of course
              Quote: TWR
              The usual thing in general is for the peasants of those years.


              You are confused however, with your logic! request
              1. TWR
                TWR 13 September 2015 16: 57 New
                -3
                Quote: andj61
                If the peasant died from the hostilities - he must be considered a victim of the war, and if from the hunger that arose from the fact that the French took away food - then no!

                But what, hunger, it was only when the French took away food? Where did so many “Frenchmen” come from in Russia at all times? After all, hunger was a thing more or less regular. And these parasites in red pants, were they also "French"?
                Quote: andj61
                You are confused however, with your logic!

                Really?
                1. andj61
                  andj61 13 September 2015 17: 10 New
                  +2
                  Quote: TWR
                  But what, hunger, it was only when the French took away food? Where did so many “Frenchmen” come from in Russia at all times? After all, hunger was a thing more or less regular.

                  Famine in Russia was regular. As a rule, only hundreds of thousands of people did not die - if there were no epidemics naturally. And they did not starve, not in winter, but in spring, when stocks ran out, and fresh greens had not yet appeared.
                  And in the winter of 1812-1813 - the famine was already in November, and the famine was only exclusively in the area of ​​operations of the Napoleonic army. But this, as you know, and based on your own logic, is a completely coincidence! what
                  1. TWR
                    TWR 13 September 2015 18: 43 New
                    -4
                    Quote: andj61
                    And in the winter of 1812-1813 - the famine was already in November, and the famine was only exclusively in the area of ​​operations of the Napoleonic army. But this, as you know, and based on your own logic, is a completely coincidence!

                    No, well, what a storyteller !!! He knows exactly where the famine was, Yu where he was not. The authors of the collection 100 years ago do not know, but he does. Data from where, are you our dreamer? What gyrus did you get from?
          2. TWR
            TWR 13 September 2015 13: 14 New
            -7
            Quote: Aleksander
            In Smolensk province, the number of ruined both sexes is 576215 people.
            The number of houses burned:
            The peasants have 30589 houses
            Cattle taken by the enemy:
            major 212046
            sheep 278619
            Losses incurred: 42 623 994 rub.

            The ruin of the country was SCARY.

            Cleverly jumped. In fact, from the very beginning it was a question of losses among the civilian population of the Smolensk province (100 thousand people, according to your version). And where are the numbers about them? You disguised them as someone? Under the sheep or under the cattle? Or immediately reflected in monetary terms?
        2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Support
    Support 13 September 2015 08: 35 New
    0
    And here I read an alternative point of view. By the way, it was also not voiced from scratch - on the facts. It all depends on how the facts are interpreted. Of particular interest is the point of view on burnt Moscow.
  5. Russian Uzbek
    Russian Uzbek 13 September 2015 08: 40 New
    +5
    if you take Borodino specifically, then the French certainly won ...
    What were the goals before the battle?
    for the Russian army, the goal was one - DEFENSE OF THE CAPITAL, and it was NOT fulfilled! After the battle, the Russian army retreated not only from the battlefield, but was forced to leave Moscow ...
    another question is that for the French it was Pyrrhic victory which was the beginning of the end of the "Great Army" ...
    1. Aleksander
      Aleksander 13 September 2015 12: 28 New
      +4
      Quote: Russian Uzbek
      if you take Borodino specifically, then the French certainly won ... what were the goals before the battle? For the Russian army there was only one goal - PROTECTION OF THE CAPITAL, and it was NOT fulfilled!


      Allegedly, "losing" one side involves winning the other. BUT!
      Napoleon's goal was decisive battle and the defeat of the Russian army in it. On the basis of victory, a quick peace with Alexander I. The occupation of the vast Russian expanses was not part of his plans and did not match his capabilities. As a result of the Battle of Borodino, this goal became for him in general unattainable-the army suffered huge irreparable losses, there are no reserves, communications are broken, winter is on the nose, but the Russian army is still strong and is constantly strengthening every day. Any commander in such a situation would immediately retreat to Poland to preserve the army and an honorable peace, but the exorbitant ambitions of the gambler-adventurer won.
      The Battle of Borodino - Napoleon's unconditional loss
      1. TWR
        TWR 13 September 2015 14: 47 New
        -3
        Quote: Aleksander
        Allegedly, "losing" one side involves winning the other.

        Completely few interconnected things. One does not mean the other at all.
      2. Russian Uzbek
        Russian Uzbek 13 September 2015 14: 52 New
        -1
        "" decisive battle and the defeat of the Russian army in it ""
        Do you think that Napoleon did not achieve his goals?
        a decisive battle - it took place, the Russian army - was exhausted to such an extent that it could not block his path and quietly retreated, surrendering the capital without a fight!
        Napoleon was mistaken in another - he sat in Moscow and waited smugly when ambassadors with surrender were sent to him and at that time his army degraded and looted, and Kutuzov managed to create a NEW army during this time (the former sunk under Borodin), and then, after Borodin and Moscow was a battle near Maroyaroslavets, where Napoleon actually broke the ridge ...
        "" Any general in such a situation would immediately retreat to Poland ""
        the fact of the matter is that "immediately retreat" was impossible! then in the fall, "immediate retreat" turned into an uncontrollable flight! Napoleon knew about this, he himself said that his army exists only for the offensive
        the whole concept of Napoleon is erroneous: he believed that it was enough to go to Moscow and take it in order to defeat Russia, but the Russians, as always, didn’t start in a “civilized” way and instead of capitulating after losing the capital and defeating the army, organized guerrilla warfare, exhausting the enemy .. if Napoleon immediately went west after the defeat of Moscow, then he would leave and no one could stop him (the army is half-broken), but he spent a month in Moscow and waited for surrender ... he waited;)
        in Tolstoy everything is written in War and Peace
        1. Aleksander
          Aleksander 13 September 2015 16: 21 New
          +2
          Quote: Russian Uzbek
          "" decisive battle and the defeat of the Russian army in it "" do you think that Napoleon did not achieve his goals?


          Of course-NO! The defeat of the Russian was not absolutely. Accordingly, there wasn’t WORLD with Alexander, what was The main objective Napoleon ..
          Quote: Russian Uzbek
          Russian army - exhausted to such an extent

          Yes, the Russian army in HIS the country, with its continuous growing reserves and supplies, was worn outbut the French, who lost 15 thousand soldiers killed and burdened tens of thousands of wounded, which could not be evacuated, without supplies and supplies, and on the eve of winter, was "fresh", of course. yes
    2. Aleksander
      Aleksander 13 September 2015 12: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Russian Uzbek
      if you take Borodino specifically, then the French certainly won ... what were the goals before the battle? For the Russian army there was only one goal - PROTECTION OF THE CAPITAL, and it was NOT fulfilled!


      Allegedly, "losing" one side involves winning the other. BUT!
      Napoleon's goal was decisive battle and the defeat of the Russian army in it. On the basis of victory, a quick peace with Alexander I. The occupation of the vast Russian expanses was not part of his plans and did not match his capabilities. As a result of the Battle of Borodino, this goal became for him in general unattainable-the army suffered huge irreparable losses, there are no reserves, communications are broken, winter is on the nose, but the Russian army is still strong and is constantly strengthening every day. Any commander in such a situation would immediately retreat to Poland to preserve the army and an honorable peace, but the exorbitant ambitions of the gambler-adventurer won.
      The Battle of Borodino - Napoleon's unconditional loss
    3. avt
      avt 13 September 2015 18: 54 New
      +3
      Quote: Russian Uzbek
      for the Russian army, the goal was one - DEFENSE OF THE CAPITAL, and it was NOT fulfilled! After the battle, the Russian army retreated not only from the battlefield, but was forced to leave Moscow ...

      no In fact, Kutuzov clearly performed what Barclay was preparing BEFORE the war, well, with his brilliant performance, when he launched Napoleon along Staraya Smolenskaya. And Moscow was not originally going to defend. If they wanted to, they would have fought in Moscow itself, as before, they had defended Smolensk, repulsed ALL the assaults and surrendered the city. Moscow, with a network of monasteries covering dangerous directions and river crossings, is an ideal place for defense, well, naturally, taking into account the armaments of that time, they simply could not know then. So the current Garden Ring is an open earthen rampart, the Boulevard Ring is also a former fortification system, and there’s still China’s city and only then -Kreml. Yes, you can easily add gorodni - you won’t turn around, again the rivers - Yauza, Neglinka, and to sit under siege for at least a year, at least two without problems, it’s difficult to ring such a city. So giving Borodino from the principle of ,, War and Peace "- if everyone wants to - it is necessary to give the battle" Kutuzov brilliantly executed the MANEUVERABLE war strategy developed before it began and one hundred pounds his step to leave the Mother See was agreed with Sasha No. 1. Napoleon simply didn’t could take that after the capture of Moscow the war would not end, about which he actually broadcast the armies - you can quite find yourself. But ,, wild Muscovites ", these eastern barbarians did not understand and do not understand, right silt of warfare ' laughing By the way, Gishpanites with their partisans fell out of a civilized family of peoples who had laid down according to Napoleon. Others, like after the surrender, joined the Buonaparty to rob Russia, and then in Russia they started to rob the guardians and expel the Monster from Paris. That's how I I didn’t understand how after the Gishpaniya Bonya didn’t understand what he would fly into Russia specifically, he wasn’t seemingly stupid, but he didn’t figure out what if we had a war tomorrow, we would wait until winter and take the adversary to the pitchfork. " laughing As I immediately remembered ukrooligarh, who donated Taruta to Donbass for feeding, he himself declared that ,, Russians do not fight in winter " laughing laughing laughing
      1. avt
        avt 13 September 2015 19: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: avt
        . If they wanted to, they would give a fight in Moscow itself

        By the way - I forgot to mention an interesting fact - Miloradovich covered the withdrawal and he was hooked in Moscow by the vanguard of the Franks, so only one statement by Miloradovich - ,, Now I’ll turn around and I will give the fight in the city, "I naturally state in my own words laughing , well, this was enough for the Franks to turn on the rear and Miloradovich left without a serious fight and a tail behind him.
    4. denis02135
      denis02135 14 September 2015 13: 34 New
      +2
      Dear Russian Uzbek

      If you remember the story, the Russian capital is St. Petersburg, which capital city are you talking about. The loss of a large city, even a politically important one, is not something very critical. It's a shame that they lost, left a large number of wounded in Moscow, it’s true, but the result of the war speaks for itself.
  6. moskowit
    moskowit 13 September 2015 08: 47 New
    +10
    This is a rhetorical question, at the level of elementary school students learning history from "Stories of History." Naturally, the one who remained on the "battlefield" won. The fact is that the mentality of a Russian person is completely different from the European one. Why is the question of victory and the outcome of the Battle of Borodino already 200 years of interest? The heart of Russia, Moscow, was abandoned. The great Kutuzov made a roundabout maneuver and blocked the southern direction, having camped near Tarutino. Every schoolchild knows this. Well, the population of the empire in those days was 34 million people and the army was recruited by recruitment and in those conditions could not exceed 300 thousand people, they forget about it. Napoleon faced in Russia a completely different war, unlike the European one. Russians, that landowners, that peasants burned their estates and settlements, the war became popular. Read about the leaflets and actions of Rastopchin, about his calls for a "total" war. Well, if we ourselves burned Moscow, then everything becomes clear about the nature of the war.
    And take the "clean" European cities and countries. The whole of Europe rushed to plunder and “fight” the Scythians, and then, when it received a “snout” from the “barbarians”, it did not even think to defend its cities or burn them. We met with flowers, eat your copper ...
  7. samarin1969
    samarin1969 13 September 2015 08: 48 New
    +1
    The economic losses of the Russian Empire amounted to over 1 billion rubles (10 annual budget revenues of Russia in those years) ... the deaths of civilians at the hands of French punishers and winter are significant ... "Scythian tactics" were true, but had a very expensive price ...
  8. parusnik
    parusnik 13 September 2015 09: 20 New
    0
    Without the battle of Borodino, there would have been no capture of Paris ...
    1. Tornavus
      Tornavus 13 September 2015 17: 21 New
      -3
      mmm ... doubtful. The battle of Borodino was rather caused by political motives than by necessity. The army murmured. Well, we are such brave children and are forced to retreat! Yes, you have to lie with your bones ... and so on. In contrast to these "pale youths with a burning eye," Kutuzov understood that in a direct collision he had nothing to catch. Napoleon’s army surpassed the Russian army both quantitatively and qualitatively. But not everything is decided by a strict calculation. Morale fell and he was forced to give battle. In general, everything turned out as he expected. The army was enough to leave the battlefield behind, but the next day he would be shot down from there. So retreat was a logical step. And yet - even defending on a pre-prepared position, the Russian army suffered greater losses than the attacking French. And this despite the fact that Napoleon did not use all the available artillery.
      1. tokens2
        tokens2 13 September 2015 17: 44 New
        +1
        Tornavus
        Napoleon’s army surpassed the Russian army both quantitatively and qualitatively.

        Only quantitatively. Mass appeals in France of the male population were not identical to recruitment sets in Russia.
        With the expansion of recruitment kits, quality declined. And then ...
        Prince Bagration wrote to the emperor: “One cannot quite praise the courage and firmness with which a division, completely new, fought against the excessively superior enemy forces. One could even say that one cannot show an example of such courage in any army. ”

        we are talking about the Neverovsky division, which was no more than the "qualitative" attacks of the French cavalry.
        In general, the strategic trap into which Napoleon’s army entered Russia could take place for only one reason:
        Suvorov’s march-throws ... in retreat in a constant “square”. And this just speaks of the quality of the Russian army. And the endurance and training of soldiers for long transitions to the limit of strength. The mass army was not capable of this. Napoleon did not take this into account .
        The French cavalry could not cope with the "defeat in parts."
  9. Support
    Support 13 September 2015 10: 11 New
    +1
    I was interested in from school - why was Napoleon so eager for Moscow? After all, the capital of Russia was St. Petersburg. What did this Napoleon want in Moscow? Well, would we lose Moscow, and why? That burned and why? I never received an answer at that time. (1980s). Yes and now .....
    1. TWR
      TWR 13 September 2015 10: 58 New
      -3
      Quote: Prop
      why napoleon was so eager for Moscow

      He did not aspire to Moscow. He walked along the main road into the interior of Russia. And he expected when they would stop him. Those. from looking for a battle. General. But he was not there.
      The standard scheme of warfare in those days was this. General battle, and then negotiations for peace. No one waged total and protracted wars. Everyone and at all times perfectly understood that during a long war there are no winners, both sides will be losers.
      Then at Borodino there was something like a general battle. Napoleon won the battle and in Moscow began to wait for parliamentarians from the Russians. All according to the standard scheme. He didn’t even go to Peter, which was his main mistake. Parliamentarians did not wait. But he was not ready for a long war. So I lost.
      Baby in general mistakes. You look at them and think what the hell all the rest were, if Napoleon was considered a "brilliant commander."
      And Kutuzov, well done. Just moved away from the template and did not fight at all. He did not want to give battle near Borodino either. But forced. And so everything would have been generally defended. Minimum losses. And the old pieces of wood called Moscow do not count. I'm not kidding. Indeed, these old pieces of wood were worth a little.
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 13 September 2015 11: 03 New
      +1
      Moscow is the main transport hub of Russia / USSR / RF. Strategically key point. Peter is an impregnable fortress, even the mad Hitler did not dare to storm, and Napoleon was no more stupid than Hitler. You can take the fortress only by siege, which Hitler tried to do. And Napoleon stupidly had no people.
      1. TWR
        TWR 13 September 2015 11: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey77
        Moscow is the main transport hub of Russia / USSR / RF. Strategically key point.

        Beginning 19 in the yard. Which transport hub? Transport hubs were located on the shores of the seas. Where the main vehicles of that time went, ships.
        Quote: Andrey77
        Peter is an impregnable fortress, even the mad Hitler did not dare to storm, and Napoleon was no more stupid than Hitler.

        Peter was never a fortress. And to fight in cities in those days was no longer accepted. It was already too late for a siege war, but too early for a total war.
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 13 September 2015 12: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey77
        even crazy Hitler did not dare to storm

        Hitler also had concerns besides Leningrad. The war went in several directions. It is impossible to simultaneously create strike groups in all areas
    3. moskowit
      moskowit 13 September 2015 11: 35 New
      +1
      Moscow for the Russian people and peoples living on the territory of the Russian Empire has always been considered the center of Russian culture and autocracy. Finally, the center of ethnic Russianness. Around which the nations included in the Moscow kingdom united. What is St. Petersburg? Paradise, North Palmyra. Excuse me, fuck the Oryol, Kaluga, Tula, Tambov and so on peasant "Northern Palmyra". Not only did he not know what it was; he did not want to know.
      He "harrowed" his land, his family, his Orthodox parish. With his native priest, a drunkard, and with his traditional, what "obscurity" will say. That’s why the word "skier-skier" from the French language "dear friend" entered the Russian language, and therefore the Buonoparty moved to Moscow, because Moscow was the capital of the Russian spirit. He, what the poor fellow thought, would give freedom from the "fortress" and the people, "Throwing bonnets into the air," would immediately accept "democratic European truths." However, it did not work out. The "dumb" people, for some reason, began to plant bright representatives of European cosmopolitanism on braids and slingshots ...

      And do not hope, "united" Europe. And now it will be so !!!
  10. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 13 September 2015 10: 14 New
    +1
    Does the author of the article answer the question posed in the title, or ask it to us? If he asks us, then my opinion is that both sides can be considered the winners of the battle, and the French to a greater extent. The result is known. The French won the battle, but lost the war.
  11. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 13 September 2015 10: 23 New
    0
    Here is a very good selection of memoirs of the participants of the Borodino battle http://www.1812w.ru/sobyt/1800sob/borodino03.php
  12. srha
    srha 13 September 2015 12: 29 New
    +1
    Black and white assessments are not enough to understand the world.
    Napoleon managed to solve his main task in this battle - to open the way to Moscow.
    But Kutuzov managed to solve his main task in this battle, to preserve the army and its morale.
    It’s just that their tasks were different: Napoleon solved the tactical task - victory in the battle, and Kutuzov strategic. Then, later, the level of solved problems affected. Up to the strategic defeat of the French.
  13. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 13 September 2015 15: 02 New
    +1
    "The French have shown themselves worthy of being victorious, and the Russians have earned the right to be invincible."
    1. tokens2
      tokens2 13 September 2015 22: 45 New
      +1
      "The French have shown themselves worthy of being victorious, and the Russians have earned the right to be invincible."

      Well ... for the Cossacks Platov.
      Eyes and ears of the Russian army 1812.
      So to speak, there were "darkness and hordes" in the retreats.
      And avalanches on the offensive.
  14. 31rus
    31rus 13 September 2015 18: 33 New
    -1
    One title of the article is hostile, what do you want the author to do with this title? Such sad historians don’t understand what they want to say and show, or express your thoughts clearly or don’t write at all. Such people ask questions, did such victims be necessary during the blockade of Leningrad
  15. Tornavus
    Tornavus 13 September 2015 18: 38 New
    -1
    Quote: Lexi2
    Only quantitatively. Mass appeals in France of the male population were not identical to recruitment sets in Russia.
    With the expansion of recruitment kits, quality declined. And then ...

    Do not forget about the significant experience of military operations of the Napoleonic army.
    1. tokens2
      tokens2 13 September 2015 19: 15 New
      +3
      Do not forget about the significant experience of military operations of the Napoleonic army.

      1787–1791 Russian-Turkish war.
      1804–1813 Russian-Iranian war.
      1806-1807 Russia's participation in the IV anti-Napoleonic coalition.
      1806–1812 Russian-Turkish war.
      1808— 1809 Russian-Swedish war.
      Campaigns of Suvorov?
      If this! not experience in wars ...
      Turkey and Sweden did not express a decisive desire to fight, s. In alliance with Napoleon.
  16. tokens2
    tokens2 13 September 2015 18: 48 New
    +3
    What can be called a mouse that ate cheese? In a mousetrap?
    probably well-fed laughing
    just like with Napoleon. And with Borodino.
    Borodino actually buried the entire French cavalry.
    And this is in the conditions of boundless Russian open spaces ...
    I think the monogols would not trust Napoleon and the Tumen army.
  17. candidate
    candidate 13 September 2015 20: 17 New
    +1
    ... one could say there was a draw
    Question - Europe has become whose? ...
  18. Aleksander
    Aleksander 13 September 2015 22: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Tornavus
    . The army was enough to leave the battlefield behind, but the next day it would shot down from there. So retreat was a logical step. And yet - even defending on a pre-prepared position, the Russian army suffered big lossesthan the attacking French. And this despite the fact that Napoleon did not use all the available artillery.

    The key to “knocking down” is "WOULD"that is, no one knows, including you. Losses of the Russian army more? and I say less
  19. kvs207
    kvs207 13 September 2015 22: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: Russian Uzbek
    if you take Borodino specifically, then the French certainly won ...
    What were the goals before the battle?
    for the Russian army, the goal was one - DEFENSE OF THE CAPITAL, and it was NOT fulfilled! After the battle, the Russian army retreated not only from the battlefield, but was forced to leave Moscow ...

    It seems to me that under Borodino, the French did not fulfill the task, unlike the Russians, who did not flee to the battlefield.
    Task - Protection of the capital, was 100% completed. If anything, the capital was located in St. Petersburg)))
  20. kvs207
    kvs207 13 September 2015 22: 38 New
    +2
    I respect one of the most respected and respected Soviet historians, Eugene Tarle.
  21. Smoke
    Smoke 13 September 2015 22: 53 New
    +2
    Oh, what are the British fellow all the same .... still barking and arguing who won in Borodino, but this battle should not have taken place .... This war was not profitable either for Russia or even for France. Both countries only spent their resources and forces on the fun of Britain, which in fact is the winner in the Battle of Borodino.
    1. TWR
      TWR 13 September 2015 23: 17 New
      0
      Quote: Smoke
      Oh, what are all the same well done British .... still barking and arguing who won in Borodino

      Yes, you can’t argue here, the British actually won. Normally.