Talk:French invasion of Russia

Epidemic typhus

@AustralopithecusSurfer: The epidemic typhus caused by body lice was one of the main reasons for this sentence in the lead: "Napoleon lost half of the men because of the extreme weather conditions, disease and hunger". It was not arbitrarily added but in sync with the caption within the infobox: "Napoleon's soldiers enter Russia and have to fight * "against body lice causing epidemic typhus" * against heat, thirst and diphteria * against hunger and dysentery * against the Russian army at Smolensk * against Kutuzov at Borodino * against arsonists in Moscow * against the cold * against the Cossacks * against the freezing water of the Berezina. * Napoleon abandons his army * but Ney saves the remaining soldiers." My comment for the previous change was: " ‎As the old collage within the infobox showed the wrong interpretation that General Winter defeated Napoleon, the new collage shows the diseases, the heat and the cold". Now the multiple images template is out of sync. I suggest to take back your last change or find and add a better picture for epidemic typhus. The ugly louse might have killed 100.000 soldiers.Ruedi33a (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

New drawing added to get the template in sync. It shows the effect of epidemic typhus to French soldiers in 1813. Ruedi33a (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Collaborative Style Improvementedit]

ChatGPT helped me a lot to make the article prettier to read. Sentences became more logical and understandable by moving parts around : "Acknowledging the collaborative effort, this article underwent refinement for style enhancement with the assistance of ChatGPT, focusing on improving the language and structure without introducing new information. The goal was to ensure clarity and conciseness while maintaining factual accuracy in line with Wikipedia's guidelines."Taksen (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree 100%. In the several changes I looked at, I couldn't find a single one that didn't make the article uglier to read. Here's just one example. The original sentence:

Napoleon and the Grande Armée were used to living off the land, which had worked well in the densely populated and agriculturally rich central Europe with its dense network of roads.

ChatGPT's revision:

Napoleon and the Grande Armée were accustomed to utilizing the method of living off the land, which proved successful in the densely populated and agriculturally prosperous regions of central Europe, characterized by a well-connected network of roads.

If by "clarity and conciseness" you mean "sounds like it was written by a clueless piece of software trying to imitate a constipated business executive trying to imitate a constipated lawyer," you succeeded. By all other measures, the prose of the article is significantly worse. Please revert it to the version written by actual human beings. 2604:3D09:A984:A600:9571:6338:EC9A:DC8C (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering why the lede was so peacocky. Sentences like The once-formidable Grande Armée disintegrated into a disordered multitude, leaving the Russians with no alternative but to witness the crumbling state of the invaders are thorougly unencyclopedic. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That very sentence is what led me here to see if anyone else noticed. "leaving the Russians with no alternative but to witness the crumbling state of the invaders" - totally nonsensical! 70.107.79.187 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I've cast it away but I haven't the energy to do much more for this article. Maybe slapping a Template:Tone at the top of the article will suffice for now, but I'm unsure how to proceed. Thoughts? Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the same anonymous guy who started this topic. (Not trying to be a sock-puppet. Just too lazy to remember my Wikipedia account from 20 years ago.)

When I posted, I hoped that Taksen might realize his non-native intuitions about clear English prose were off-base and he might restore the much better writing of earlier editors. Well, that ain't gonna happen. It seems that Taksen has been banned from editing articles for violating WP:OWN and all-round disruptiveness. So he can't reverse his changes, even in the unlikely event he ever wanted to.

It's up to the rest of you how to proceed. Maybe the earlier editors whose writing got carpet-bombed will come back to recreate their years of work. Maybe someone will painstakingly go over the article sentence-by-sentence and replace each of Taksen's edits with its earlier, clearer version. That isn't going to be me.

I essentially ended up on this page by accident. I sometimes play Redactle, the game that gives you a random Wikipedia page with most of the words blanked out and you have to guess what the title is. The day Redactle gave me this page, I was running short of time because of an upcoming appointment and started cheating — googling for some of the short phrases that had been revealed. And Google was giving me nothing. Out of curiosity, after my appointment, I devoted a minute to finding out why Google hadn't been working. Then I devoted a few more minutes to figuring out why the (old) version of the article from Redactle was really easy to understand and the (current) version of the article looked like a dishonest student had replaced second other word with a badly chosen synonym and handed it in as his term paper.

TL;DR: I care a lot about clear writing. But my commitment to the topic of this specific article is close to zero.

I was actually pretty impressed with the writing in the earlier versions. The prose might not have been 100% perfect, but it was substantially better than in most Wikipedia articles.

You might be better off just reverting the whole thing to the way it was in October or November. Apparently, the editors of Rasputin (a previous victim of Taksen's attentions) ended up having to revert to the version from four years earlier. It's hard for me to imagine that the odds-and-ends of new information that have trickled into the article in the last half year would be more important than the serious damage to readability that Taksen has inflicted on it. But, like I said, I personally think clear writing is important and I'm kind of indifferent to Napoleon. If you're hanging out on this talk page, your priorities may well differ. Discuss amongst yourselves. 2604:3D09:A984:A600:8CD3:AE73:BCDC:A735 (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Denmarkedit]

Somehow Denmark was an ally of Napoleon:

• Battle of Lyngør
• After the French withdrawal from Germany, Napoleon's remaining ally, Denmark–Norway, became isolated and fell to the coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taksen (talk • contribs) 01:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Did Denmark even participate in this invasion? There's no mention of it in the body of the article. If they didn't participate but are still included in strength, why isn't Sweden added as an ally of Russia? It's at least mentioned in the article. Imonoz (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Too many images?edit]

Maybe we should remove some of the images in this article, there is as of now a compact wall of images on the right, from top to bottom, that even overflows into the references. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No one seems to care, going ahead with it. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, but the lead is still absurdly too big. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Denmark-Norway as belligerentedit]

@Imonoz The two sources provided clearly support the presence of a small corps from Denmark-Norway (under General Eswald, with 9,800 men and 2,000 horses). In this case, the references seems to be included in the infobox because the information does not appear in the body of the article, this follows MOS:INFOBOXREF. As a general rule, please do not remove content supported by sources. If you have reliable sources that say differently, start a discussion here instead. Thank you. Aeengath (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Also adding @Tinkaer1991 the editor that made the original addition. Aeengath (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Just to give my perspective.. Despite me sourcing the adition, i was unaware of the fact that the Danish contingent did not engage. I find it midleading to include Denmark-Norway if the troops did not participate in actual combat.

However, another solution would be to include Denmark-Norway but with a note confirming their limited involvement. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Tinkaer1991 Thanks for joining the discussion. It's true that the Danish contingent were not deployed in combat and were held back in reserve during the campaign, but they were still part of Napoleon's invading forces and were included in the Grande Armée's order of battle under Marshal Augereau's XI Corps. This formal designation confirms Denmark-Norway's status as an ally and belligerent in the conflict. If you think it's necessary to clarify their non-combatant role with a note, I'm not against it even though it is already mentioned in the body. Aeengath (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be for adding Denmark-Norway with a note Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

According to this source, the Danish division collected on the frontier of Holstein was there to protect the rear of the French army.[1] Aeengath (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tinkaer1991 : It's good that you're here. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who finds this misleading. Denmark-Norway has been added and removed for years (apparently) without much explanation, and I can't recall any previous discussion taking place whether it should be included to begin with. The source provided above by Aeengath is interesting, as it clearly states the Danish division in Holstein wasn't even designated for Russia; it was directed against the Swedes in case they would fall upon the rear of the French army (in what is today Germany). For this reason, and other reasons stated below—me and Aeengath are still in a disagreement however—I'd prefer to have Denmark-Norway removed from belligerents, but I'm also fine with a note; the more clarification the better. Imonoz (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath First off, neither source is particularly clear or reliable; they're in French (this is English Wikipedia), written in the 19th century and based upon the personal accounts of Christian Wilhelm von Faber du Faur and Eugene Labaume. Secondly, I did raise the question two days ago (see above), with no replies. It's sad to see that you've once again failed to add anything to the body per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, so the confusion remains. The two sources seemingly talks about the composition of the Grande Armée and not necessarily the troops which partook in the invasion. Hence my question to you, a French reader: Where was this Danish contingent stationed during the invasion, according to the two sources? Remember, you earlier removed the United Kingdom "since it did not engage directly in the land campaign in Russia", so surely this is of great importance to both me and you. According to Order of battle of the French invasion of Russia, the Danes remained in Holstein for the duration of the campaign – is this incorrect? You're taking a stance and should thus also give some answers. Imonoz (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-English references are acceptable as long as they are reliable see WP:NONENG. While the references in question come from WP:OLDSOURCES I don't think this alone justifies the removal of content. The sources do more than just discuss the composition of the Grande Armée they specifically list the formations of the Grande Armée raised for the Russian Campaign, plus Labaume was a historian[2], adding credibility to his account.

Like I said previously, I didn't make this original edit here, @Tinkaer1991 did, but to address your concern about the sources age, here are more recent ones:

(in French)

During the Russian campaign of 1812 and 1813, Denmark provided a contingent of 9,436 men under the orders of General Ewald
— Pigeard, 1993

(In English)

In April 1812, the French demanded the Danes furnish a division of ten thousand men. The levee was then divided into two smaller divisions and placed on both Holstein and Schleswig. The troops thus raised were to be attached to Napoleon’s XI Corps, under the command of Marshal Pierre Augereau
— Mc Intyre, 2021

This clearly identifies Denmark-Norway as belligerents on the side of the French Empire during the campaign. The UK was not directly involved apart from providing financial support (see Russian Army order of battle (1812)). Whether the Danes were in reserve or marched on Moscow is of no importance here; they were directly engaged with a full division that was part of the French Grande Armée raised for the invasion of Russia, this is now verified by multiple sources.14:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so now you have me confused; you earlier removed the United Kingdom from the infobox because it "did not engage directly in the land campaign in Russia" as stated in your edit summary (hence my subsequent edit), but you want Denmark included despite not even participating in the invasion of Russia; a small Danish corps remained in Holstein for that whole time as both the article (now) and the sources you provided confirms? So, in other words, you're suddenly fine with including nations that weren't even engaged "directly in the land campaign in Russia" but de facto remained quite far away from Russia?

"they were directly engaged as part of the French Grande Armée raised for the invasion of Russia" — I have no idea what you're even saying or how this, somehow, would be in lines with what you said earlier. You want Denmark included in the infobox no matter what, and that's obvious from your vague standpoint. I'm still against it; but with only you and me there can be no consensus and I will take your advice not to engage in edit warring against you. My initial request was for you (or whoever would revert my edit) to include Denmark's [non-existing] role in the invasion; you finally did, and now that it's clear they weren't participating at all, I'll settle with that for now. Thank you! Imonoz (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

To keep it simple: Denmark is considered a belligerent because it sent troops, supported by multiple sources, see French order of battle. The United Kingdom was not directly involved and therefore is not included. See Russian order of battle. Thank you for your cooperation in avoiding edit conflicts, and for engaging in constructive discussion, have a nice week-end! Aeengath (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! And just to be clear: It's YOU who's considering Denmark a belligerent in the invasion; Denmark didn't send any troops into Russia—this is neither claimed by your sources or the Order of battle—since Johann Ewald remained in Holstein; the United Kingdom wasn't directly involved and neither was Denmark. And you as well! Imonoz (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Despite not being deployed on Russian soil, the Danish contingent was part of Napoleon's invading army. This is clearly supported by multiple sources (see my previous posts). Since you're the one who want to remove sourced content from this article maybe start a WP:RFC?. Aeengath (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My argument was never whether Denmark was part of Napoleon's army of which bulk invaded Russia, but whether Denmark should be included despite not actually invading. You correctly stated: "not being deployed on Russian soil"—and that's my point! Imonoz (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Imonoz Ok so if only countries with units crossing into Russian territory should be considered belligerents, what was the status of Denmark-Norway, given that it contributed a division of 9,436 men raised by levy, included in the order of battle of Napoleon's campaign and tasked with protecting the rear of the French army? Aeengath (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath : Denmark–Norway was an ally to France that didn't directly participate in the invasion of Russia, but was tasked with protecting the German states and Denmark (the rear of the French army). Much like the United Kingdom and Sweden, the ones threatening that very rear, were allied to Russia but didn't directly participate in the invasion. It's my opinion that the infobox either include them all, or none. Imonoz (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, without sources supporting that statement, it is your pov. For some reason, you have chosen to ignore all the sources I have provided above that say the opposite. Calling Denmark-Norway an ally but stating they didn't directly participate in the invasion is contradictory when considering the military contribution of a Danish division included in Napoleon's order of battle. Military involvement like protecting the rear of the French army is direct participation in the campaign, regardless of specific territorial crossings. Aeengath (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel as if I'm ignoring your sources, but I can't recall a single instance where you've shown me a source claiming Denmark sent troops into Russia to directly participate in its invasion; from my understanding, the Danish division remained in Holstein directed against the Swedes. And yes—and once again—that is my POV, my argument for why Denmark shouldn't be included unless Russia's allies are too (who, likewise, weren't directly involved in Russia). That Sweden was an ally of Russia is already said and sourced in the body. I have my POV, you have yours—we disagree and I accept that, and I'm advising you to do the same. We're evidently unable to convince one another, hence why consensus is needed (as I've already mentioned above). Imonoz (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. It appears that you two haven't reached a conclusion. I propose this: That both Denmark-Norway and Grear Britain be added to the infobox, with specific notes explaining their respective involvement. Thoughts? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)