The History of the Borodino Panorama: from Chistye Prudy to Fili

The history of the Borodino Panorama is linked to two Moscow addresses. Franz Roubaud’s canvas was first displayed in 1912 in a purpose-built pavilion on Chistoprudny Boulevard. The museum building at 38 Kutuzovsky Prospekt did not open until 1962. After the original exhibition closed, the painting remained out of public view for decades and had to be restored before going on display again.

The Borodino Panorama at Chistye Prudy was part of the programme marking the centenary of the War of 1812. Near the former village of Fili, the restored work became the centrepiece of a museum and memorial complex. This transformation can be traced through the official chronology, the guidebook to the original pavilion and photographs of the canvas’s return to public display.

Why was the panorama’s first building erected at Chistye Prudy?

To mark the centenary of the Battle of Borodino, a dedicated wooden pavilion was built on Chistoprudny Boulevard to house Roubaud’s panoramic canvas. It was designed by the military engineer Pavel Vorontsov-Velyaminov. The museum’s chronology records the ceremonial opening as 11 September 1912; contemporary sources also give 29 August — the same date in the Julian calendar then in use.

The panorama required a specially designed space. According to the 1916 guidebook, the canvas was 162 arshins (about 115 metres) long and about 15 metres high; an account by Viktor Sorokin gives a different figure for its length — 113 metres. A three-dimensional foreground was arranged in front of the painting: terrain, landscape features and ruined buildings blended into the painted landscape. The lighting helped conceal the boundary between physical objects and painted imagery. Visitors saw a battle scene surrounding them, rather than a rectangular painting on a wall.

Roubaud prepared for the work on the Borodino battlefield and consulted military historians. The museum’s publication of the 1916 guidebook names Lieutenant General Boris Kolyubakin as responsible for the historical details and the positioning of troops in the painting. The consultants helped check the depiction against sources on the battle, while the artist chose the viewpoint, composition and moment of the battle.

The venue for the first display was primarily connected with Moscow’s urban life during the centenary celebrations. The panorama was open to visitors near Chistye Prudy; the Council of War of 1812 met near Fili. By 1912, the reconstructed Kutuzov’s Hut already stood near the site of the meeting, but it was a separate memorial with its own history. It must not be confused with Roubaud’s first pavilion.

How was the decision to build the pavilion made?

The first pavilion was built as a temporary structure for the centenary. According to the study, a stone building was initially considered for the canvas, with the square by the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour among the proposed locations. The panorama was intended to become part of the planned Museum of 1812. In 1911, the organisers decided to build a wooden pavilion in time for the centenary and postpone the permanent stone structure. The painting’s first home was therefore intended to be temporary from the outset by those who commissioned it; the present museum in Fili is not a conversion of that building.

The state allocated 50,000 roubles for the pavilion’s construction. A commission at the headquarters of the Moscow Military District entrusted the design to Colonel Vorontsov-Velyaminov. He studied the wooden building housing the Sevastopol Panorama in St Petersburg and took Roubaud’s recommendations into account; the museum notes that the engineer was unable to obtain drawings of the St Petersburg building. Construction ran from April to August 1912. This tight schedule explains the choice of timber and the engineer’s crucial role: he had to do more than put a roof over the canvas, also arranging the lighting, visitor passageway and three-dimensional foreground.

The opening date formed part of the overall programme of centenary celebrations. According to the museum publication, Nicholas II arrived on Chistoprudny Boulevard on the evening of 29 August, Old Style, after visiting the centenary exhibition at the Historical Museum. Roubaud and Kolyubakin explained the scene to him. The source reproduces the memoirs of Moscow Governor Vladimir Dzhunkovsky; this is the testimony of someone who attended the official viewing, rather than an account of all visitors’ impressions. Two days after the ceremonial opening, the pavilion opened to the general public.

By then, Roubaud had experience of creating large circular paintings. The museum lists The Storming of the Aul of Akhulgo (1896) and The Defence of Sevastopol (1905) as his earlier panoramas. The artist was born in Odessa, studied in Munich and worked as a battle painter before receiving the commission for Borodino. Franz Roubaud’s Borodino panorama was his third work in this genre; the Moscow pavilion was built to Roubaud’s recommendations, while Vorontsov-Velyaminov was responsible for its design and construction.

What does the 1916 guidebook tell us about the first display?

The guidebook shows that the original panorama was intended to be viewed in sequence. On entering, visitors were invited to approach the metal number 1 set into the floor and follow the marked viewing points. The account began with Raevsky’s Battery; the text then directed the viewer’s gaze towards Barclay de Tolly, Kutuzov near the village of Gorki, the Semyonovskoye flèches and other parts of the vast canvas.

The guidebook’s compiler, Colonel Vladimir Afanasyev, described the positions of the armies at noon on 26 August 1812 in the Old Style calendar, equivalent to 7 September in the New Style calendar. The chosen hour allowed several dramatic episodes of the Battle of Borodino to be brought together in a single panoramic view. The numbers did not turn the painting into a map offering an exhaustive reconstruction of the battle: they gave visitors a viewing sequence and explained whom the artist had placed in different parts of the composition.

The guidebook contains a detail important to the history of the panorama’s locations. The cover of the edition published by the headquarters of the Moscow Military District gives the address as ‘Chistoprudny Boulevard, Panorama Building’. This told visitors where to find the pavilion then in use. The museum notes that an album reproducing the panorama was sold there until 1917. The booklet confirms the address of the exhibition pavilion, rather than an early design for the present building.

The 1916 guidebook dates Roubaud’s initial study of the Borodino battlefield with Colonel Afanasyev and Prince Bagration to April 1910; in her 2012 essay, O. M. Serebrennikova dates the artist’s first visit to 1 April 1911, following the signing of the contract on 17 March that year. The dates differ; the sequence of visits requires separate verification against archival documents. Borodino Museum researcher Viktor Fyodorov provides information on the artist’s consultations with historians Boris Kolyubakin and Vladimir Afanasyev. They discussed troop positions, uniforms, weaponry and even the coat colours of cavalry horses. This work explains the panorama’s many recognisable details, but does not make the painting an indisputable record of every moment of the battle.

The study of the Borodino battlefield in the early 1910s, the creation of the canvas in 1912 and the 1916 guidebook belong to different stages. The field visits were undertaken to gather material, the work on the painting developed the composition, and the 1916 publication explained the finished work to visitors. If these stages are conflated, Afanasyev’s words can easily be mistaken for a direct record of the artist’s intentions. The guidebook tells visitors where to look and which names to recognise, but does not in itself reveal which details Roubaud changed between the sketch and the large canvas.

The 1916 text reflects the language of its time and its author’s views. Its lists of military units and assessments of the course of the battle can be read as evidence of how the panorama was explained to the public in the early 20th century. This source alone is insufficient to verify specific military conclusions; here, it primarily documents the viewing arrangements and the original address.

How were visitors encouraged to ‘read’ the circular painting?

The first numbered entry in the guidebook directed the viewer’s gaze towards the Raevsky Battery, one of the key strongpoints of the Russian position. The next shifted attention to Barclay de Tolly; the third to Kutuzov near Gorki. Only then did the text explore other areas: Semyonovskoye, the flèches and the French units. This gave visitors several points of reference for a painting more than a hundred metres long. The numbering revealed how the viewing experience itself was structured in the first pavilion.

Afanasyev continued his description through to the fourteenth point. In different parts of the circular composition, he drew attention to a commander, a regiment’s movements or the smoke of a distant battle. The painting thus brought together major actions and small, recognisable details. Roubaud arranged the episodes around the viewer: the direction of the viewer’s gaze shifted as they followed the sequence of points described by Afanasyev.

The guidebook should not be read as a stopwatch timing the battle. Afanasyev himself identifies noon as the main point in time represented by the disposition of the troops, but then refers to actions that took place earlier or beyond the visible scene. For example, when describing General Dokhturov, he mentions an attack at around eleven o’clock; when describing Kutuzov, he explains the movements of Uvarov and Platov. The author’s words connect the painted ‘snapshot’ with the course of the day. This is an editorial inference drawn from the structure of the guidebook, rather than a claim that Roubaud sought to show all the events taking place at precisely the same time.

The price of the 1916 booklet, stated on its title page, was five kopecks. Alongside it were printed the telephone number and address of the ‘Panorama building’. These details are of no use when buying a ticket today; their significance lies in the tangible evidence they provide of an institution in operation. The short printed publication complemented the enormous painting and made it understandable to visitors who might not have known the positions of the batteries or the names of all the military commanders.

At the end of the guidebook, Afanasyev gives his own estimates of army strengths and casualties. These should not be carried over uncritically into a modern historical account: a century later, researchers draw on a different body of documents and may arrive at different figures. For the history of the two Moscow addresses, this brochure is more reliable as evidence of where the guidebook was sold, how visitors viewed the painting and how the organisers explained the work to the public of their day.

What happened to the canvas after the pavilion closed?

The pavilion on Chistoprudny Boulevard closed to the public at the turn of 1917–1918. The canvas was dismantled and subsequently stored at various locations in Moscow. The photographic exhibition ‘A Century of History in Photographs’ dates the closure to 28 December 1917 and lists Neskuchny Garden and Donskoy Monastery among the subsequent locations. The painting was not on permanent display again until the museum on Kutuzovsky Prospekt opened in 1962.

After the closure on Chistoprudny Boulevard, the display was dismantled: the canvas was rolled onto a cylinder for transport, the wooden pavilion was taken down, and the three-dimensional foreground was lost. Displaying the painting in 1962 required a new building and a newly created three-dimensional composition in front of it. Thus, the ‘relocation of the panorama’ describes what happened to the canvas, but does not imply that the entire 1912 display was preserved.

Why was the panorama off display for so long?

The first pavilion was funded by sales of tickets and publications. The museum estimates that around 150,000 people visited during its five years of operation, but also notes that this revenue covered staff wages, building repairs, maintenance of the three-dimensional foreground and newspaper advertisements. Visitor numbers fell with the outbreak of the First World War. Thus, the painting’s fame did not guarantee a steady source of funding for the upkeep of the old wooden building.

Sources differ on the date of the pavilion’s closure. The photographic exhibition dates it to 28 December 1917, while the Military History Journal gives January 1918. The museum’s historical account dates the dismantling of the panorama to spring 1918. The journal reports that the canvas was rolled onto a wooden cylinder and the three-dimensional foreground was destroyed. Closing to visitors and taking down the canvas were separate actions; these publications do not establish exactly when each move took place.

After the canvas was taken down, the sequence of locations became more complicated. In an article in the Military History Journal, prepared to mark the museum’s anniversary, Neskuchny Garden, Donskoy Monastery, Miussky Cathedral and the Hermitage Garden are listed as storage locations. These were places where the painting was stored rolled up, rather than four new exhibition venues. The lack of a specially adapted hall and the repeated moves compromised conditions for preserving the large canvas.

In the summer of 1946, artists from the State Central Scientific Restoration Workshop, led by Pavel Korin, examined the canvas and decided to try to save it. An essay by O. M. Serebrennikova in the journal Nashe Nasledie dates the decision to restore the painting to 29 September 1948. A report by Svetlana Khokhryakova, following a conversation with the museum’s director, gives the same year. An article on Mos.ru states that in 1949 the canvas was moved to the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts for restoration. These accounts show that work to bring the painting back began long before the construction of the complex in Fili and continued in 1960–1962.

A further documented turning point came after the 1946 examination. Viktor Fyodorov cites the number and date of the order issued by the USSR’s Deputy Minister of Culture to restore the panorama: No. 601 of 30 November 1960. A commission was established to provide scholarly and methodological guidance; the archival list he quotes names 32 people, including historians, painters and restorers. The 1962 opening was based on a separate decision about how to bring the work back to public view. The 1960 order marked the start of a new phase of work following the 1946 examination and the post-war restoration.

Why was the new museum built near Fili?

The site of the former village of Fili, associated with the Council of War of 1812, was chosen for the panorama’s return. Here, on 13 September according to the Gregorian calendar, following the Battle of Borodino, military commanders discussed the fate of Moscow. Nearby stood the Kutuzov Hut, a memorial on the site of the lost hut where the Council of War had met. The museum’s historical chronology dates its reconstruction to 1887, to a design by Dmitry Strukov, while the museum’s 2024 technical report dates the wooden building currently on record to 1917, citing Bureau of Technical Inventory documents. This evidence is insufficient to establish that the entire surviving structure dates from the first reconstruction. The new location connected the artwork with the site of the Council of War at Fili.

The panorama museum opened on 18 October 1962 to mark the 150th anniversary of the War of 1812. Architects Alexander Korabelnikov, Alexander Kuzmin and Sergei Kuchanov worked on the building. The circular hall determined the building’s overall design: once again, the architecture was shaped by the dimensions of the canvas and the way it was viewed. Unlike the wooden anniversary pavilion of 1912, however, this was designed as a permanent museum with a collection of objects associated with the period.

Bringing the painting back required extensive work by painters and conservators. The museum exhibition on anniversaries of the War of 1812 links the 1962 opening to the completion of the canvas’s restoration by the M. B. Grekov Studio of Military Artists. Sketches of individual sections prepared by Ivan Yevstigneyev in 1961–1962 have survived. The photographic archive documents the delivery of the restored canvas to the building under construction on 11 July 1962 and work on the new three-dimensional foreground under the direction of Boris Belyayev.

The historical and memorial complex took shape gradually. The museum’s chronology dates the relocation of the obelisk from Dorogomilovskoye Cemetery to 1953, the unveiling of the bust of Kutuzov to 1958, and the reconstruction of the Triumphal Arch to 1968. However, the museum’s 2024 technical report lists 1940 for the obelisk and 1959 for the bust. The report does not explain whether these dates refer to the monuments’ creation, registration or placement beside the hut. Additional documents are needed to establish the precise dates of their relocation and installation; the ensemble developed in stages, and its components cannot all be dated to 1962.

What can visitors see in the architecture of the 1962 building?

The museum’s report on the building as at 1 February 2024 describes the central glass and aluminium ‘drum’, 23 metres high and 42 metres in diameter. Its circular form reflects the need to house and illuminate the panorama, but the building as a whole extends beyond the painting’s exhibition hall. According to the same report, the building includes collection storage, an archive, staff rooms and space for working with visitors.

The white-stone ring beneath the cylindrical structure bears the names of fifty heroes of the War of 1812. The façades feature two mosaics by Boris Talberg: ‘The People's Militia and the Fire of Moscow’ and ‘The Victory of the Russian Army and the Expulsion of Napoleon’. The museum's information also records 68 captured artillery barrels around the perimeter, transferred from the Moscow Kremlin Museums for the opening. The designers of the complex extended the story of the campaign beyond the panorama hall, onto the building itself and into the surrounding grounds.

This architectural language belongs to Soviet architecture of the 1960s. The circular glass structure, geometric building forms, mosaics and commemorative artefacts bring modern building materials together with a historical theme. As part of its 60th-anniversary programme, the museum specifically discussed the building as an example of Soviet modernism. The similarity between Moscow's two ‘panorama buildings’ is that both are designed around a circular painting; their materials, lifespans and exhibition contents differ.

The first display in 1912 formed part of the centenary celebrations, which required a dedicated building. The 1962 opening was timed to mark the 150th anniversary of the war. The exhibition on these anniversaries highlights the differences between the eras and their forms of public remembrance. This distinction is evident in practical terms: in 1912, visitors received a guidebook to a single painting in a wooden pavilion, while in 1962 they entered a permanent museum complex with other exhibits and monuments.

Has the canvas on display today remained unchanged since 1912?

The panorama as it stands today should be viewed as a work by Roubaud with a complex history of conservation and restoration. Prolonged storage after the closure of the first pavilion made restoration necessary before the 1962 opening. In 1967, a fire destroyed two-thirds of the canvas, according to museum director Vladimir Presnov's estimate; artists from the M. B. Grekov Studio restored the lost sections so that it could be displayed again. The date 1912 marks the work's creation; its present appearance was also shaped by restoration work carried out in the 20th century.

A 2021 report by Svetlana Khokhryakova puts the area of painting lost by the time of the post-war restoration at 142 square metres. A separate Mos.ru article states that the upper section of the canvas depicting the sky had deteriorated almost completely and was removed as beyond restoration. This detail is important when assessing the panorama today: viewers see a unified composition, but its material history encompasses losses, surviving sections and painted replacements from the mid-20th century.

The museum’s report on the restoration carried out in public view describes a fragment of Roubaud’s original painting, provisionally titled ‘Horsemen’, salvaged after the fire of 1967. Specialists examined traces on the surviving section to study earlier technical and artistic interventions; the restoration was completed in 2020. The existence of this fragment allows us to speak of the artist’s original paintwork having survived, without presenting the entire visible canvas as an untouched paint layer from 1912.

Why does restoration change our understanding of authenticity?

The current display combines Roubaud’s surviving paintwork, restored sections of the canvas and a new three-dimensional foreground. These components have different origins. The Military History Journal explicitly states that the foreground display in the first pavilion was lost after the painting was taken down. The photographic archive dates the creation of the new three-dimensional composition under Boris Belyaev’s direction to the summer of 1962. The present foreground therefore follows Roubaud’s artistic principle, but is not the same collection of objects that visitors saw in 1916.

Which restoration method was chosen for 1962?

In the early 1960s, specialists debated the very limits of acceptable restoration. According to a study by Viktor Fyodorov, published by the Borodino Museum, Pavel Sokolov-Skalya proposed painting a new panorama based on his own sketch. Another approach involved preserving Roubaud’s surviving paintwork and recreating the missing sections in his style. The commission rejected the proposal for a new painting; Ivan Evstigneev was entrusted with leading the restoration. The work is therefore still known as Roubaud’s panorama, although the contributions of mid-20th-century artists are also visible.

The rejected design survives in the Borodino Museum’s collection. Sokolov-Skalya painted the four sections of the sketch in the 1950s; the museum acquired them from the artist’s widow in December 1961. Fyodorov also studied an archival note by the artist that helps explain the arrangement of the scenes. The sheets show how different the circular painting might have been had the decision been made to paint it anew. However, this sketch was never transferred to the walls of the museum near Fili. It must not be presented either as an unknown section of Roubaud’s painting or as an exact depiction of the panorama that opened in 1962.

The difference is evident in a specific artistic choice. In Fyodorov’s account, Roubaud’s battle unfolds beneath a bright midday sky; in Sokolov-Skalya’s sketch, heavy clouds and smoke obscure the horizon, while the action at the Raevsky Battery is brought closer to the viewer. The researcher also notes a different emphasis on the Semyonov Heights. This is a comparison of two artists’ interpretations, based on the surviving sketch and a description of the full-scale canvas. It does not prove that the rejected scenes ever appeared in the panorama shown to the public.

The decision to retain Roubaud’s composition did not mean that no new painting was involved. Lost sections had to be recreated, and the museum’s exhibition on anniversaries of the war displays sketches of individual sections prepared by Evstigneev in 1961–1962. The same publication also mentions a surviving work by Roubaud himself, which entered the collection in 2020. Comparing the artist’s own sketch, Sokolov-Skalya’s proposal and the restorer’s working materials helps distinguish between the original vision, the rejected alternative and the restoration as carried out. Neither ‘copy’ nor ‘original’ alone can accurately describe this history.

Fyodorov cites a revealing example of research: after the four sections of the rejected sketch were photographed in 2013, museum staff established that their order around the circle was 1, 4, 3, 2. The earlier, incorrect numbering had made it difficult to describe the scene. In a circular painting, the order of the sections changes how the action is read, so photography and the attribution of works in the museum collection form part of the study of the work. However, this clarification concerns Sokolov-Skalya’s sketch; it cannot be applied to the sequence of Roubaud’s canvas or to the visitor’s route set out in the 1916 guidebook.

After opening in 1962, the museum continued to change the conditions in which the work was displayed. In 2012, it updated its permanent exhibition to mark the bicentenary of the war. A publication about restoration in public view reports that, from 2019, work was planned to take place in the museum hall without dismantling the canvas, while visitors were present. This was the plan described by the institution in 2021; that source provides no information on the project’s progress in October 2026.

What remains on the site of the Chistye Prudy pavilion?

The wooden pavilion itself has not survived. Moscow historian Viktor Sorokin, in an essay for the magazine ‘Nauka i Zhizn’ notes that it was built on the site of a former pond in the southern part of the Pashkov estate, at what later became 12a Chistoprudny Boulevard. A six-storey building was erected there in 1925–1927. Historical evidence allows us to identify the site of the first display, but the present-day façade can no longer tell us what the lost pavilion once looked like.

The state historical and cultural assessment identifies the present structure at 12A Chistoprudny Boulevard, Building 1, as the Kozhsindikat building, constructed in 1925–1927 with additional storeys added in 1948. The document names architect A. P. Golubev and engineer E. Izrailovich. This is a separate building on the site of the lost pavilion; Vorontsov-Velyaminov’s 1912 design has no connection with its architecture.

On the old brochure, the address is printed differently: ‘Chistoprudny Boulevard, Panorama building’. This indicated the visitors’ entrance at the time, while ‘12a’ helps locate the lost building in relation to later development on the site. The two ways of giving the address answer different questions. The first tells a Muscovite in 1916 where to go; the second helps a modern researcher understand where the now-lost building stood.

The panorama’s photographic archive documents construction in 1912 and 1962. Comparing these records is more reliable than trying to recall visual similarities. The old photographs show a freestanding anniversary pavilion; those from 1962 show the canvas being delivered and installed at a different location. Between the two came changes to the urban fabric around Chistye Prudy and a separate decision to establish a museum near Fili.

Which sources help distinguish between the two Moscow addresses?

The address ‘Chistoprudny Boulevard, Panorama building’ and the visiting arrangements are recorded in a 1916 guidebook. The photographic collection shows the construction of the first pavilion and the delivery of the restored canvas to the new building on 11 July 1962. The museum’s chronology dates the opening of this building to 18 October of the same year. Together, the documents confirm the change of exhibition venue and the long interval between displays.

The dates in the sources refer to different buildings and events. The museum traces its history back to its first opening in 1912; the present building on Kutuzovsky Prospekt was built in 1962. The photographic archive dates the pavilion’s closure to December 1917, the Military History Journal to January 1918, while the museum’s historical account dates the dismantling of the canvas to spring 1918. This date cannot be presented without qualification as the date when the painting was taken down. Evstigneev’s restoration sketches also provide evidence that missing areas were reconstructed, but do not establish the exact percentage of Roubaud’s original painting that survived.

How should we interpret the Borodino Panorama’s two addresses?

Chistye Prudy was the location of the first public display in 1912. The museum near Fili opened on Kutuzovsky Prospekt in 1962, after a gap of many years and the restoration of the canvas. The work was not on continuous display between the two. The first pavilion helped mark the centenary of the War of 1812 for visitors of the time; the new building made the work part of the memorial landscape that continued to take shape around Kutuzov’s Hut.

The Borodino battlefield is the third geographical reference point in this story. It was where the battle took place and where Roubaud gathered material in the early 1910s; the two buildings used for the Moscow display were elsewhere. A 1916 guidebook directed visitors to an address at Chistye Prudy. The museum near Fili was established close to the site of the Council of War held after the battle. These two Moscow addresses represent different ways of presenting the history of 1812.

You can see the current panorama building and the neighbouring Kutuzov Hut on the route of the ‘Poklon City’ tour from Poklonnaya Hill to Moscow City. The route passes through this memorial site; its description does not specify a visit to the museum’s indoor exhibition.

Sources

1. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: history of the museum
2. Panorama Museum: a 1916 guide to the ‘Borodino’ panorama
3. Panorama Museum: the museum and commemorations of 1812
4. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum. A century of history in photographs
5. Panorama Museum: the first stage of the ‘Open Restoration’ project
6. Panorama Museum: the space and time of Franz Roubaud
7. ‘A great, important undertaking...’ — the history of the first pavilion
8. ‘So be it...’ — the first showing of the panorama
9. ‘Master of panoramas’ — Franz Roubaud
10. Military History Journal: the Panorama Museum’s 50th anniversary
11. Panorama Museum: building information as of 1 February 2024
12. Viktor Sorokin: Chistoprudny Boulevard
13. Panorama Museum: Panorama Day — 2022
14. V. N. Fyodorov. P. P. Sokolov-Skalya’s Sketch for the ‘Borodino’ Panorama — Borodino Field Museum Reserve
15. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: about the museum and the dimensions of the canvas
16. Radius Tour Bureau: ‘Poklon City’ tour
17. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment of the Kozhsindikat Building at 12A Chistoprudny Boulevard
18. Svetlana Khokhryakova. The ‘Borodino Panorama’ will be restored in full view of visitors
19. Mos.ru: ‘The Battle of Borodino’ turns 110. How the Panorama Museum’s main exhibit is being restored (republication)
20. O. M. Serebrennikova. You Will Never See Battles Like These! The History of the Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum